How might the U.S. fare in war vs, the rest of the world?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Specifically, I mean CONVENTIONAL war against every single other nation on the map, as if starting today we had zero allies. Both Canada and Mexico would be enemy territory, for example, as would all of NATO save the U.S. Hypothetically, China and India could bring their raw troop numbers to bear with the advantage of European technology.

What would be the technological level of a combined World force? How badly would their armaments outnumber ours? How fast could they build weapons compared to the U.S.? Everything counts and may be brought to bear EXCEPTING nukes.

What kind of war are we talking about? Good question. Let’s consider three scenarios:

  1. DEFENDING OUR BORDERS - The rest of the world aims to invade and OCCUPY all U.S. territory worldwide, including the 50 states. Could we defend our borders against an all-out assault against the rest of the world?

  2. ANNEXING ADJACENT TERRITORY - Could the rest of the world stop the U.S. from invading and occupying Mexico or Canada?

  3. ANNEXING OVERSEAS TERRITORY - Could the rest of the world stop the U.S. from invading and occupying Angola or Australia or Bolivia (a land-locked nation)? (In a strategtic sense, I realize the answer depends heavily on where the place is).

For the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that all nations involved are sufficiently motivated, and there is minimal anti-war sentiment world-wide.

2

Well IMHO I think that the logistics of an invasion of the United States would be very difficult. Just sending enough troops from across the ocean with support to take over, oh lets say California would envolve a huge convoy. You would need enough ships for tanks, people, & support. Maintaining a steady supply line would be almost impossible, if you cannot support the troops there would be no way for them to keep fighting. The troops who fought in the D-Day landings had to maintain a supply line just across the channel, once they moved inland they had to extend their supply line to the limit, in some cases they had to halt offensive operations to regrouop.
An attack from Canada could involve a wide front but that would allow the US to counter attack from almost anywhere.
Mexico’s border could allow for a nice attack on good flat ground but the US is a huge amount of land to conquer, throw in a larger/higher tech army than Mexico’s and it doesn’t look good.

3

Forget Mexico’s army – I’m considering a joint NATO-Chinese-Russian-Israeli-you-name-it force. ALL of the Earth’s nations standing united with a huge mulit-national army, plus air support from around the world, at the Rio Grande. These nations are all totally willing to flush their domestic priorities and their economies down the toilet just to beat the U.S. What then?

4

Not looking at a quick answer, are you.

There are, of course, many, many variables in this kind of question.

I think one of the biggest things we’d have to consider is time. If we get a jump with quick air strikes into Canada and Mexico to deplete or destroy their own air forces (that is, if Mexico has one. lol)we could much more easily hold off their ground forces.

Our Pacific Fleet would have a lot of work cut out for it against the thinning Russian fleet and Chinese, however, it would end up abattle of attrition, I think. The Chinese diesel boat fleet is large, but not individually any sort of match for out nuclear powered Los Angeles and Seawolf classes. (Yes, I’m glossing over numbers)

The fight over the Atlantic, I think, is what would make-or-break US (lol). Currently, the Enterprise Group is in the Gulf, which means 2 things;
1) It is vulnerable to being caught up and trapped by European forces before they can make it out past Gibralter.
2) Assuming a good first-strike against European and Indian surface forces and aircraft, it could severly hamper France, Italy and Germany from assisting England and the nordic countries from closing the northern Atlantic by taking Iceland.

We have a lot of troops and armor units in southern Germany. I’m not certain where these might be most useful, or in what capacity. Considering our forces there are pretty much land-locked, knowing how difficult it would be to try to take more territory from the Germans, and how pointless it would be to advance into France or Austria … however, I always forget about the scale of things in Europe. With armor divisions in Germany that could concievably race the 250-300 miles through Belgium to Calais in France with the air support of Enterprise in the Med, they could severely disrupt Euro forces in the North Sea – Keeping England from fully expanding its fleet into the Atlantic.

All-in-all, the Enterprise group would likely get cut off and fall apart without supplies. Without them there, only the far-less-than-Cold-War-strength Russian Fleet might enable us to keep supply routes across the Atlantic.

Still, the numbers are telling. Despite our own shrinking military, we still have massive amounts our material and troops … and very good equipment. Unfortunately, I don’t think an “All Fronts War” could feasably be won by the U.S. alone. Though we might wear everyone down to the point where we’d get concessions and not total annihilation.

But what fun owould war be without nukes?

Just kidding.

5

So is diplomacy.

And so is…espionage.

Sun Tsu’s Art of War points out that it is folly to enter into a war without creating disention {SP?} in your enemies’ ranks.

A little propaganda by the CIA, & some deal-cutting by the State Department would bust up the Invading Coalition nicely.
Now…where to begin…?

Israel & the Arabs?

Ex-Colonial Europe vs. the former Colonial Subject States?

India vs. China?

A new Civil War in Russia?

The mind boggles with the vast array of possibilities to cast dust in our enemies’ eyes.

Strategy is as real as a knife in the ribs.

Or…in the back.

6

Well, the French have already surrendered and this is just a hypothetical question.

7

Leaving aside pointless digs at other nationalities (no offence meant, adam, but the snide comments I see so often here about the French just grate after a while)…

It’s a really tough question to answer, purely because it’s so obviously difficult to imagine the alliances involved, and public pressure to avoid futile, bloody wars would play an immense role in the US and in Western Europe.

Still, forced to make some WAGs, I’d say the US would lose in the end. Here’s what I could see happening:

Defending US borders

No immediate threat of a land invasion, but Central and South American forces massing on the southern border draw large numbers of Continental US troops south in readiness. Canadian forces attack and, despite vague technological parity, are quickly overwhelmed by US airpower and numbers. Of course, US forces have to patrol the northern border and some Canadian raider units penetrate into the northern states, causing terror among the local population and preventing the US from redeploying their northern forces elsewhere.

US forces in Europe are destroyed/captured after bloody battles. Sorry, but the quality and technology would be no match in the medium term when you consider the US would have no re-supply or maintenance facilities. British, French and German armour takes heavy casualties but soon grinds down the US troops in the West. Add in troops from the former WP countries and the US forces in Europe are stretched to breaking point fighting off attacks from all sides. Only one result there. (I’m assuming US airpower would go the same way, if not faster as British, German and Russian commando forces lay waste to airfields in Germany and the UK).

In terms of forces, then, the US has lost its European forces entirely. Western and Eastern European nations will have bloody noses but won’t be shattered by any stretch of the imagination.

China and Russia, with added manpower from India, mass a naval force to attack the US west coast, spearheaded by every submarine they can muster. Amphibious operations don’t start; none of the nations there have a great Pacific amphibious capability, and all know the lethality of the US Navy. US Navy forces in the Indian and Pacific Oceans score massive victories over all-comers, but are slowly and inevitably ground down by wave after wave of submarine and air attacks. I know a MiG-23 is no match for an Aegis-equipped task force, but throw enough of them and enough SSMs and you’ll be out of Standard missiles eventually. US forces in the Indian Ocean survive longer by playing a little cat and mouse, but are rendered ineffective in defending the US in their desire to stay alive.

Off the US west coast, US forces stop everything. The allied attackers suffer grievous losses at sea and in the air, but not without inflicting some damage. If the US loses one, maybe two aircraft carriers, the situation changes dramatically. Terror attacks on US cities and dockyards on the west coast hinder the US Navy’s ability to repair and regroup. Eventually, as Chinese/Russian subs and surface vessels sacrifice themselves to tie up the US Navy in the Pacific, land forces are landed in Alaska.

Alaska falls quickly: Canadian raiders draw troops east and the threat from the west occupies the others. The advance is slow (I’m sure it’s not easy to transport and land troops that far north) but inevitable. Russian airborne divisions leaprog ahead as Chinese foot infantry divisions negotiate the tricky terrain. This draws US forces northwards to engage through Canada, further stretching the regular Army and NG units and exposing them to guerilla attacks as they move through Canada.

At this point, Central and South American land forces attack en masse. US air and land forces win heavily to begin with, but every attack they repel takes strength away from the air forces supporting the Navy in the west. The US holds the southern border, but only by re-jigging its forces constantly.

The Russian and Chinese naval forces are (by this point) in tatters, and what’s left withdraw north to protect the transports landing in Alaska. Chinese divisions are shipped across en masse (foot infantry, no armour) and Russian armour slowly arrives later. Bloody stalemate ensues, as neither side has the ability to dislodge the other (allied numbers vs US technology).

In the east, European forces launch naval attacks to sap the US Navy’s Atlantic and Med forces. Bloody stalemate, again. Constant air and SSM attacks grind down carrier air groups and force the US surface vessels closer to home for resupply and replacements. US submarine forces stop anything getting through, but in doing so are prevented from reinforcing the Pacific (and anyway, South American forces have mined the Panama canal).

After that it becomes a war of attrition, which the US cannot win in the long term. Technological superiority disappears – and a Seawolf-class SSN, Nimitz-class carrier, F-117 or B-2 can’t be replaced quickly. As US NG forces and older equipment fill the gaps in the line, allied forces grow more confident. European attempts to finish off the US Navy in the Atlantic redouble. Heavily protected European convoys land troops in Canada for a slow trek down to the US border, and another assault. By this point the US is facing a land war on three fronts, a sea war on two coasts and diminishing technological superiority.

So there you have it.

8

Well. Hmmm. Discarding the savage and warlike Canadians, and all four of Mexico’s combat aircraft, everyone else has to figure out a way to get their troops in place. This means a gargantuan shipping effort. My strategy, as the US, would be to use my fleet of submarines (markedly superior to anything else out there) and satellite surveillance network to wreak bloody havoc on every ship I could possibly find. I guarantee you, modern technology and boats could make the battle of the Atlantic seem like a warm spring day, and Wolfpacks a trio of hamsters. No nation on earth could spare the troops, ships, and equipment that would inevitably festoon the ocean floor.

Additionally, we have another trump card: long-range strategic bombers. Even if you don’t let them have nukes, I think that it wouldn’t take long to convince the world’s industrial centers that you mean business. The only others in the world are Russian. They were inferior to ours when they were built, and they’ve been poorly maintained since. You call the odds.

As to cutting off and destroying a carrier battle group, good luck. You’re talking about more aircraft than the average national airforce, and probably more capital ships than the average national navy. We’ll have thirteen fixed-wing carriers when the Ronald Reagan is commissioned. To this, the rest of the world can muster two, both of them French, one of them officially destined for the wrecker’s yard. Once again, discounting the vast and powerful Central American and Canadian Air Forces, the rest of the world has no way to project power at the United States, while we can wield a large air arm anywhere we feel like it.

Additionally, I’m curious as to one thing: Do you consider chemical weapons to be conventional? That would be a quick and easy way to clear the borders, and keep them clear for a good long while. Chemical raids on major capitals could also go a long way towards convincing enemy populations that starting such a war was not a good idea. Such support would not be easy to get, and would likely be really hard to keep once the casualty lists start coming in.

Finally, divide and conquer, or at least defense by division, as has been suggested before. When your ‘domestic priorities’ include several carrier air groups bombing your capital, invasion plans might be re-thought. Nations can be forced out of the alliance one by one, using the big sticks of naval power and strategic bombing.

In the end, though, when one starts placing unreasonable and inexplicable restrictions on a scenario that stretches credibility past breaking to begin with, one’s arguments tend to be turn in meaningless, nationalistic wank-fests. Which, of course, I enjoy as much as the next meaningless nationalist.

9

Trucido touched upon the vital stuff, here. Can we all agree that we could defend our northern border against the Canadians, and our southern border against the Latin and South American countries? If that can be agreed on, the battlefield moves to the sea and air. Our satellite network could easily spot surface ships long before they could bring troops over to central America. From there, it’s simply a matter of intercepting them. As pointed out earlier, we have a potential 13 Carrier Battle Groups (CVBGs) for interception. Even if half are in for repairs at any given time, we still have three CVBGs per (bordering) ocean. I think the interception of troop ships would be easily accomplished. Assuming, of course, that any could get through our attack subs.

Meanwhile, instead of using our long-range bombers to turn industrial centers into parking lots, we turn their shipyards and ports into kindling. If air defense is too strong at certain ports, we can use sub based missiles. They don’t always carry nuclear tipped missiles, after all. Before too long, no one would have the capability to cross the oceans to reach us. From there we just launch our long-range bombers out again and again. We wouldn’t dare invade anywhere else in fear of reducing our land-based forces at home… but we could certainly defend ourselves successfully.

-Psi Cop

10

These scenarios are all very interesting. We Canadians are paying great attention to them.

11

I know I just posted that horribly long bit above, but I have to call one more very important thing into question. The scenario posited in the OP would be accompanied by a total economic meltdown. The US is a huge part of the world economy, and the US dollar is an even bigger part. Virtually all of central/south America depends almost exclusively on the dollar as a stable medium of exchange. MOST US currency is in circulation outside our borders, if I remember correctly. We Amerikanski would only have to hold out for a few months while the world melted down. Sure, the nations of Europe and maybe the better-organized Asian states would survive, but they would be militarily crippled by the economic equivalent of having a red-hot poker jammed in their eye socket. Good luck fighting an offensive war across a vast ocean against a capable foe while you’re having bread riots back home.

12

It’d be one helluva war and could go either way. Others have already noted the hazards of simply getting a force into the US, but once there, then what?

For even a remote chance of success, the World would have to somehow keep strategic surprise long enough to build and amass armies in Canada and Mexico. Having armies and supplies already in place, before the US could close the seaborne supply routes, would be a top priority for anyone thinking of an assault as once hostilities broke out the US Navy and Air Force would pretty much slam the door on any significant reinforcements getting through. Hiding a build-up this large from the US would be well nigh impossible as it would probably take a decade to get sufficient troops and equipment in place. It’s doubtful the US would sit idle and let the build-up continue.

But, for the sake of argument, say the World was able to sneak four million troops with one year’s supplies into both Canada and Mexico.

As World Commander, I would begin operations with diversionary strikes threatening New York City from Canada and Los Angeles from Mexico. I think any US commander would come under great pressure to defend these two cities and would be forced by the political masters to weaken the line in other areas to do so.

With US Forces engaged on the coasts, I would then launch the main offensive driving through Texas from the south and down through the mid-west from Canada with the goal of splitting the continent in half, controlling the Mississippi River, and eliminating the food supply capability of the mid-western states. The terrain through this area should lend itself to quick armor strikes and, with enough follow-on personnel, we could extend control to take advantage of the natural defenses of the Appalachians to the east and the Rockies to the west.

This would be no cake walk, however. Urban areas would have to be terrorized into submission with whatever weapons were in the arsenal (disease, chemicals, starvation) and would be similar to an old fashioned siege, sapping the offensive power of the World forces. I can’t imagine how many troops it would take to dig out determined defenders in a modern major city. Further sapping offensive strength would be the continued harassment of rear areas and supply lines by the well armed American populace.

It’d get ugly fast.

13

Not that I necessarily have anything to add (yet), I thought this might be a useful aid in this discussion:

U.S. Armed Forces Order of Battle

Note that not all of the links appear to be functioning, but it does give some ideas as to the magnitude of current U.S. forces, both at home and abroad.

14

In Israel there was a joke in the 1950s, when its economic situation was poor and most Western countries enforced an embargo on arms sales to Israel:

Two Israelis were searching for a solution to its misery and one came with an idea to declare war on America: “They will win, and as they did in Europe and Japan, send their army to defend us and form the Marshall Plan to build our economy.” “An excellent idea,” replies the other guy, “but what will happen if, with our luck, we win?”

15

Boxcar, since you’ve taken the role as Supreme World Commander, mind if I temporarily take the mantle of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

In keeping with your scenario, you’ve launched your first strike with minimal preparedness on my side. Damn straight that I’m going to be defending New York and LA. But with the NRO watching from their “birds,” I’ve also seen your armor lines forming up to launch a strike into the central United States. So I won’t be caught totally by surprise.

Large portions of my army are tied up defending opposite ends of the country, but my domestic Air Force is intact – the Navy and long-range bombers are preventing anyone else from landing. Have fun dealing with air strike after air strike against your lines as you penetrate deeper into the US. You may have your supplies for a year, but if you can’t get them to the front, you have problems.

You’ve also got other problems – there are a few million Americans waiting to volunteer for the army. If you think you’re having trouble with urban resistance, wait until they’re trained, equipped, and supported by the military. You may be able to enter the country, but you’re not going to be able to meet up in the center and hold territory at the same time. No reinforcements means that I’m going to win eventually. It’ll be bloody, but my Air Force will be able to keep the American bloodshed down by smashing your supply lines as they extend into the center of the country.

-Psi Cop

16

You’re forgetting that the United States no longer has any industrial capability to speak of. In WWII we could single-handedly outproduce Japan and Germany. Today most of the things we use are produced in Asian factories. The scenario you described would turn into a sort of reverse-WWII: the US has a superiorly trained and equipped army which could win some stunning innitial victories, but in the end we would just be outproduced and bombed back to the stone age if we tried to take on the world in a conventional war.

17

But…

I have no cites on this, but at the beginning of WWII I believe we had far fewer factories than we do now. Any automotive factory could fairly quickly be turned into making war machinery, just as they were in 1942. What effect the current hi tech robotic lines would have on this I don’t know, but I suspect it would be far easier to turn (say) the Saturn plant in KY into a tank assembly line than the old Studebaker plants. So far as being outproduced, the jury’s still out. It can be fairly said that the US outproduced Germany, a great boon in winning the war, but no one pretends that the Israelis have won most of their stunning victories based on the weight of their firepower, but with superior weaponry and tactics.
This being said, I believe it would be a stalemate. The US has an edge in technology and its applications, and is basically self sufficient. **Don’t Forget Food![\b] The total economic collapse and worldwide famine that would result would no doubt be the greatest catastrophe in human history.

18

Psi Cop,the Air Force doesn’t bother me as much as the Navy does. If I pre-position forces, you can bet that every aircraft I can spare is going to be in the western hemisphere to counter your forces. I won’t win the air battle, but I don’t have too. The more aircraft I tie down in the interior, the fewer that are going after my supply routes.

Long range bombers will be little more than nuisance attacks. Without nukes, they don’t have the striking power to really do serious damage to my industrial base if they can even penetrate my home defenses.

The Navy is the most dangerous weapon you’ll have, but could you really do more than defend against amphibious attacks and hit my seaborne supply lines? Remember, I’ll have all the ports in North and South America to work with. Covering the entire coast line of the two continents will spread you pretty thin. Also, any counterstrike you launch, say carrier raids on Japan or England, would merely sap your strength to defend the home waters.

The guerillas in my rear areas are also a big PITA. Properly coordinated, they would bleed a lot of my offensive punch as I have to fortify every airfield, HQ, Commo center and supply line from their attacks. Since this is a battle to the death, I’ll just be executing hostages every time an attack takes place. If I win, no one will complain and if I lose that will be the least of my worries.

The US is in a tough spot. We may have some 25% of the industrial capacity, but that means the rest of the world has 75%. To ultimately win, the US Commander has to make sure that in EVERY battle the World Forces are spending more troops and equipment then the US is.

In battle, the World Force Commander has things a bit easier because of the huge numerical and industrial advantage. The World only has to attrit US forces at a rate at least equal to his own to win. The biggest difficulty would be in sustaining the supply lines long enough to do so.

Ooops, forgot this. What are all those fancy-smancy airplanes and tanks of yours going to do without oil? Even with a decade’s notice, I don’t think the US could increase capacity enough to make up for the lack of Middle-East crude rolling in.

19

Thanks for the opinions, everyone. Keep 'em coming. I find the military knowledge on this board nothing short of fascinating.

So far, I tend to agree most with Boxcar. The U.S. is damn tough, but not inpregnable if the hypothetical situation is allowed to venture into absurdity.

So what about the U.S. attempting to annex territory, as laid out in the O.P.?

20

Wow, that’s news to me. I live in Michigan. I must be hallucinating about all of these factories I see every day on the drive to work. Gosh, they must actually be libraries or trendy new restaurants that are just disguised to look lke factories. How clever of their owners! :rolleyes: