Boxcar makes a huge point. Oil!!
Oil will be the deciding factor in a war like this. I guess Alaska and the South West would have to be well defended.
Take into account the staggering amount of firearms among civilians, and their apperant willingness to use them.
I still don’t think the US could defend itself by straight forward military action. A little espionage, a little whisper in the right ear and things go a different way.
I think there are two important issues that are being overlooked. The first is the loss of the intelligence assets America has in Australia and other countries. Duckster is making a lot of ominous noises about the importance of these bases in another thread although I’m not sure they would be that important. Nevertheless, they will go back to the home team.
The other issue is a little trickier. Psi Cop has already made the point that there will be many people rushing to aid the war effort but how man y of you would expect the converse to happen as well? I see massive discontent in America today and Timothy McVeigh was one of the discontented to do something about it. How many other groups and individuals would see this as a chance to topple the governme nt and start from scratch based on their own models? How many of these people would go so far as to collaborate with the enemy after being promised a piece of the action and a say in how things are done when the dust settles?
Personally, I don’t think A merica would last last long in a conventional war which is a moot point because it would turn nuclear within days I’m guessing. Both strategic and tactical and who could blame you? Not that this would save the US, but it would hurt the rest of us a lot more. And so after all the nukes have been used up, America would just be locked up in the 48 states and left to starve a la Iraq. No need for an even bloodier invasion of the homeland. It is only in this unlikely event that the Second Amendme nt could ever count in America’s favour. Invading America would be a snap compared to holding it. With all those guns, the situation would be similar to Afghanistan and it would be history’s greatest pain in the arse. However, since we’d just sit i t out, you guys would just continue to waste each other only now it would be for dwindling supplies of water, food and medicine rather than drugs and sneakers. Much the same way as it is done in Afghanistan.
I think a couple of years of this would have many people begging for an army of occupation. I know the Jack Chick Taliban would have me considering all my options.e
While, the rest of the world may well have more planes than the U.S. could muster, it’s my guess that neither Canada nor Mexico have sufficient airbases to station enough planes to pose much of a threat to the U.S. The ones which do exist would undoubtedly be primary targets for the U.S. in the early days of the war. Once these are destroyed, the U.S. would have total air superiority. Once that happens, enemy troops moving southward from Canada or northward from Mexico would have to endure massive bombing campaigns (nuclear or not, a bomber-load of 1,000lb iron bombs can still wreak havoc on a tank column). While we might have limited supplies (I’m not sure how much output we get from Texas oil fields, for example, nor how long the reserves might last), if we strike hard at critical points early, we can probably “relax” a bit in order to extend supplies.
I’ll don my “Chairman, JCS” hat again and fight out this mock war against Boxcar, addressing other posters as I do so.
Air Force: You may be able to fly in a large amount of aircraft, but you won’t have the airfields to operate them from, as Darwin’s Finch pointed out. This airfield shortage will be made all the greater by my bombers tearing apart the ones that are there. I draw the following data from the official Air Force Fact Sheet.
B-1B “Lancer”: 51 Active Aircraft (72 actual). Payload: “Three internal weapons bays can accommodate up to 84 Mk-82 general purpose bombs or Mk-62 naval mines, 30 CBU-87/89 cluster munitions or CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapons and up to 24 GBU-31 JDAM GPS guided bombs or Mk-84 general purpose bombs”
B-2 “Spirit”: 21 Active Aircraft. Stealth. Payload: ~40,000 pounds of conventional (for this scenario) weaponry.
B-52 “Stratofortress”: 85 Active Aircraft, 9 Reserve. Payload: A whole freaking lot. Specifically, ~70,000 pounds of mixed bombs and missiles.
If I calculate this correctly, there are about 6048 Mk-82 general purpose bombs plus 7,420,000 pounds of discretionary high explosives to drop per bomb run. I once heard a quote: “There are very few of life’s problems that cannot be solved with high explosives.” In this case, I believe it. Your Canadian and Mexican runways now belong exclusively to the history books. Reference this picture for an idea of what it would look like a few seconds before the runways ceased to exist. Multiply by 187.
Now that I’m free of enemy airpower in my backyard, the next wave of 7.4 million pounds of explosives is going to be delivered to the Central and South American ports. You can still land troops on the ground, but hauling in supplies and oil will be impossible without the facilities. The next target for my bombers: YOUR ports. (Note: The three bombers I mentioned are all long-range with intercontinental bombing ability). Not even troop ships are coming over now. Finally I’ll go for your industrial centers, but the seaports have a higher priority. I don’t really care how much you can produce over on your side of the ocean – if you can’t get it over here, it’s useless. Side note: Bombing doesn’t have to be nuclear to cause heavy devestation. Cross reference the following terms… “World War II,” “General Harris,” and “Dresden, Germany.”
You mentioned that I’d have to guard both coasts entirely, which would spread me thin. Perhaps – but remember the NRO and their “birds” watching you. I’m going to see the supply convoys leaving. My Los Angeles class submarines (undetectable, for all practical purposes) are sinking whatever they can. The carriers are taking care of the rest. This is while your number of ports to ship to and ship from are steadily decreasing, remember.
A war of attrition actually means that I’m in luck here, as long as you aren’t getting your troops replenished as per my plans above. The attrition will be between your army and my civillians, and as callous as that sounds, I can afford to lose a lot more civillians while my army maneuvers with yours. As for dissenting groups joining the rest of the world, I doubt that will be much of a problem. Any hint of treason and their neighbors would have them swaying from the lynching tree. Besides, how many groups want to see total destruction of the United States? Governmental change and heavy reform, certainly. Utter destruction? I think they’d be among the first to volunteer for the army, personally.
Oil is a big problem. It can be assumed that I immediately lose the Alaska pipeline, seeing how it travels through Canada. I’ve probably lost Alaska as well. Not that it matters all that much – the oil is there, but not the extraction capability. What I’d do is immediately ground all civillian transportation and hoard my oil. We have several months’ reserves in the salt caverns on the Gulf of Mexico (people may remember the controvery over Clinton releasing some of that reserve). The carriers and subs are all nuclear powered, I don’t have to worry about them. The tanks and jets are what I have to provide for. Several months should be enough for me to dismantle the ports and significantly slow down your advance… then we’re both in the same boat. You aren’t getting oil except from the Alaskan and Central American oil fields, I’m only getting it from Texas. I’m not sure what would happen then.
-Psi Cop, Chairman, JCS (tongue-in-cheek)
A note about this…if, as the OP assumes, there is little anti-war sentiment, and that the rest of the world is sufficiently motivated in its endeavors, then I think it would be only “fair” to assume that the nation as a whole would rally to its defense, and would be likewise sufficiently motivated. So, no anti-gummit types to sabotage the war effort. Nor would there be any questions of allegiance regarding the variety of nationalities and cultures within our borders.
Various points–Your Attention, Please. [ol]
[li]Offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico would be easy to seize & hold.[/li]
[li]North Sea platforms less so. But they could be destroyed/disabled. Leaving much of industrial Europe in a serious oil shortage for several months.[/li]
[li]Incompatable equipment & ammo would cause a logistical nightmare for invading forces.[/li]
[li]Unconventional warfare–the Green Berets were created to organise, train, & support rebel groups. Many foreign nations have dissident groups. This is fertile ground. Remember–Germany “defeated” Czarist Russia by funding & assisting the Bolshiveks & Lenin. Germany’s situation was very similar to this scenario–the whole world was against it. It was a shrewd move.[/li]
[li]FAE explosive & Cluster Munitions make bombloads far more effective, as does laser targeting–i.e. “smart bombs”. So heavy bombers would not be ineffective, unlike the views of an earlier poster.[/li]
[li]Cheap, low accuracy cruise missiles could be possible. Something only a little more advanced or accurate the V-1 Buzz Bombs. Combined with FAE or Cluster Tech, as mentioned above, they could be formidable.[/li]
[li]Bioweapons. We have one of 2 stores of Smallpox virus. By nationalizing our Pharmaceutical industry, we could produce enough vaccine to protect our own population. Then, dose a bunch of POWs , & return them as a “goodwill gesture”. Populations that have no immune individuals will suffer a minimum 40% fatality rate. The odds swing swiftly to the US.[/li][/ol]
Actually, I believe that NBC weapons (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) weapons were disregarded for the purposes of this situation. Any weapon of mass destruction would make matters moot. Everyone loses.
Boxcar, what’s the next move of the Combined World Forces? <grin>.
-Psi Cop, Chairman, JCS (for this thread)
Hmmm, just a couple of points:
Chemical Weapons
The US wouldn’t be able to use chemical or biological weapons to douse the Canadian and Mexican borders because these weapons are uncontrollable. The wind could carry the chemicals or the bacteria hundreds of miles into US territory. The World forces, on the other hand could afford to use them since the US is so isolated.
Air Forces
I wouldnt have thought that the US airforce is all that much more technologically advanced than a combined British/Israeli force would be, with the Russian and Chinese air forces backing them up.
Smallpox
What makes you think the rest of the world doesnt have the smallpox vaccine as well? I dont think smallpox would be a major factor.
The op asked whether the US would be able to actually win this war not just defend itself indefinitely.
It would put up a valiant defence for maybe a year or two but there is no way it could actually win. Or even hold out for very long.
The population of the world is 4 billion, the population of the US is 260 million. The world would win through strength of numbers.
Any technological advantage the US may have at the moment would effectively be wiped out since the British, the Japanese, the Chinese etc would all pool their technologies together and instruct the rest of world about them.
World ground forces would land, in the south, probably in Brazil or Argentina. In the north, they would come in from Russia and make the jump to Alaska.
Actually, the world population is FAR greater than 4 billion (Is it 6 billion? 5?), and the US is closer to 280 million.
As for oil shortages: This would be VERY critical. However, all international flights would be cancelled, conceivably saving a bit of fuel. Further, heavy rationing would further conserve. Finally, each carrier battle group has enough fuel to be self-sustaining for quite a while. Ground forces would be the primary concern, fuel-wise.
As for overwhelming sheer numbers - It’s been said, numbers don’t matter if you can’t mobilize them to your target. Also, the US is arguably the most highly trained military in the world, and it’s quality over quantity, right?
I believe the US would be able to defend itself indefinitely. If we’re talking about a slow massing of troops in Canada and Mexico, then we’re also talking about the US Command raising the military preparedness level. This means the Mediterranean Fleet and the Indian Ocean fleet would have time for preemptive strikes or to get the hell away. It also gives our forces based around the world to either bunker down or get out as well, or make preemptive strikes of their own (I don’t see the preemptive strikes going all that well).
I do not think ANY sort of invasion of the US would meet any level of success. We have national guard troops and airforces, we have the coast guard to help prevent sabateurs and such, we have all our local police forces, we have armed citizens…every able-bodied citizen would be trained up as well as they could be in the time-frame necessary, bolstering US defenses even more.
One thing to note, though: The NRO’s spy satellites won’t be as effective as people are making them out to be. Sure, we’ll be able to spot a lot of critical stuff, but saying that they will be able to spot a lot of surface ships and such is just ridiculous. The ocean is a mighty big place, and ships are not all that big. Further, there is a very limited number of birds up there.
And I know they’ve been mentioned, but it is good to repeat it: The cluster munitions would devastate any infantry divisions, and the FAE devices are the most powerful conventional weapon the US has (It’s kinda like a small nuclear blast without the radiation).
And my last observation: We have Hollywood. During the years building up to any kind of invasion, we could put subtle messages in everything Hollywood produces that would give people a brain aneurism (sp?) at a certain point… 
Of course, Hollywood would be putting those messages into the clips that are sent to foreign nations… 
xanakis, troop ships couldn’t land. It’s what I’ve been basing all my strategy on-- preventing additional forces from reaching the Americas. I suspect we could do it. I’ll disregard your chemical and biological weapons points for the moment – I’m still working under the assumption that NBC weapons are not being applied in this scenario.
Air Force: Sure, a combined British/Israeli Air Force is probably close to ours (not equal, but close). But they don’t have trans-Atlantic range. As for carrier planes… we have more carriers than the rest of the world put together, and the only supercarriers. If we took out Canadian and Mexican airfields, the planes would be impotent. Able to defend from my bomber attacks, but unable to strike out a significant distance.
It is an interesting question as to what is a “win” here. Obviously the US could never occupy the rest of the world. Here are the winning scenarios as I see them:
The World Wins: The United States of America is conquered and occupied, any secret government is crushed, the populace quelled.
The United States Wins: We are able to hold our borders indefinetly without outside assistance -OR- we destroy the capability of the rest of the world to make war on us.
-Psi Cop, Chairman, JCS (I’m having fun here)
Monster, if you’re trying to watch the entire ocean, of course it’s going to be futile. You can, however, watch the ports of departure. If you notice a large number of ships gone missing between one pass and the next, it sort of implies something, right? By the way, it’s good to see someone else taking the position of the US winning the war <grin>. Want to be co-Chairman of the JCS? <whistle>.
-Psi Cop, Chairman, JCS (Still having lots of fun)
NATO does have some pretty good aircraft (e.g., Eurofighter 2000, Mirage), but I doubt they have them in anywhere near the quantity that the U.S. does. The bulk of the Chinese and Russian air forces are composed of aging MiGs; easily no match for even older U.S. models. The Israeli Air Force, as far as I know, pretty much just buys from the U.S. and modifies them accordingly. But, again, the quantity is no-where near that of the U.S.
Training doctrines are also radically different; the Israel Air Force, as I understand it, isn’t really trained at beyond-visual-range combat because of their situation (small country, strict rules of engagement, surrounded by hostiles, etc.).
Plus, the U.S. has a definite edge in stealth technology and avionics, especially with AWACS and J-STARS in the air (the Russians, at least, do have AWACS equivalents, but I’m not sure how they compare).
**
I dunno…Viet Nam pretty much “won” by defending itself indefinitely (well, for longer than the U.S., et al., were willing to fight them, anyway).
**
Given that old Soviet doctrine (and Chinese, too, I believe) pretty much centered around the “human wave” philosophy, and given that NATO was established specifically to battle it out with the Soviets, I would think that the U.S. would have to have taken that account in developing its doctrines. The whole idea behind the “technical edge” is to inflict maximum casualties with minimum losses.
**
Again, the Japanese Defense Force is largely made up of U.S. aircraft (F-15s and F-4s, for example), better suitable for defense than attack (they aren’t allowed to keep any forces beyond those necessary for self-defense currently). China is likewise dependent on Russian technology. The “cutting edge” for Russian air superiority is the Su-37, and this plane, in capable hands, could pose a real threat to just about any U.S. fighter. But numbers (and airbase space in the western hemisphere) are limited.
For the most part, there are three major players in the fighter aircraft market: the U.S., Russia, and NATO. Just about every plane out there will be from one of these three groups. We already know all about NATO’s technology, and our own, of course, so the only “unknown” (and currently, it’s not much of one) is what Russia has in the works. Technology-wise, we already have NATO and everyone we’ve sold planes to covered.
Remember, I noted that for World forces to have any chance of success, they would have to have almost a decade to build up a force on the North American continent in such a way that the US wouldn’t be suspicious until itt was too late. This would include getting the airbases and such in place prior to battle.
American bombers are good, but not unbeatable.
B2 – Good airplane, hard for my defenses to find with current technology, but new technology involving multiple radar sites may be able to find Stealth aircraft. (The Radar Game) Additionally, there have been reports that the aircraft is a bit of a hanger queen. (Stop the B2). It’s possible the airplanes would fall apart once they actually were flown with any regularity.
B1 – Looks good on paper, but there has to be a reason those things weren’t flown over Iraq when dang near everything else in the inventory was.
B52 – AKA the BUFF for “Big Ugly Fat F-----” Won’t survive long in high intensity air combat against modern air defenses.
If I can’t destroy these aircraft in the air I’ll go after their support. Airbases are vulnerable to commando type attacks and even if I don’t destroy the aircraft I can hit the technical types who keep the aircraft flying.
Although the Air Force claims an intercontinental range on these aircraft, that doesn’t translate to an intercontinental combat radius. They might be able to make one-way trips to hit all of my cities but they are not going to make it home without aerial refueling and those big KC-10’s loaded with gas burn real pretty. I’ll try to find the bombers but I’ll also work to take out the tankers.
The satellites are difficult to foil but can be deceived. I’ll know when they are due overhead and plan accordingly.
I think you too easily discount the ability of the other Navies combined to take on the US. The Brit and Soviet boats are every bit as quiet as the US ones are and some of the new diesel-electric boats in use by China, India, Iran, Australia and other nations are even quieter.
Quiter than an American nuke boat and sneaking up on your fleet. What happens to that irreplaceable aircraft carrier then?
The more I think about it the less a problem supply becomes for me, too. I should be able to find at least food and the ammunition I will need for small arms when I capture urban areas.
How are you going to kick me out of the interior of the country? Despite Air Force arguments otherwise, bombing has yet to win a war. Winning means having some poor bastard infantry type standing on a piece of land when all is said and done. You might make his life miserable from the air, but as long as he is there, he wins.
Your supply situation will be getting a bit rough. Remember, I’ve cut your east-west supply lines and have control of the major north-sourth corridor of commerce, the Mississippi. Despite whatever airpower you might have, I wouldn’t relish flying a transport across their to get men and supplies to either coast. Easy pickings for my fighters. Ships won’t work either, I own the Panama Canal and it’s a long way under my aircover to get around South America or Africa.
Any troops sent towards the interior weakens forces along the coast and allows me room to use amphibious type assaults where I may be able to win local naval superiority.
I think for both sides this war would quickly devolve to be fought like the War Between the States or WW1 as major systems (tanks, aircraft, shipping) are destroyed faster then they can be replaced. The World will eventually win because of the greater industrial base and more lives to waste.
Boxcar, Grand Supreme Poobah, World Forces, Commanding
(Took me tooo long to get all this straight and some half dozen posts went-up. I’ll follow with more in a minute.)
Yes I think the population of the world is more like 6 billion.
In relation to quantity: Maybe the US has a lot of aircraft but it doesnt have a number equal to the total amount of aircraft in all the air forces in the world. So the world wins on quantity.
In relation to stealth technology: Didn’t the Serbs shoot down a stealth during the NATO action in Yugoslavia?
In relation to the US defending itself: It could do this for a while but if you’ve got 6 billion people really pissed at you for some reason, you’re in trouble. The World outnumbers the US 24:1. So for every US citizen you’ll have 24 World citizens.
In relation to ports: How long is the coastline of the whole of South America? The US would find it difficult maintain a constant watch on this. The sheer scale involved.
In relation to the enemy: The World would have all the NATO technology that the US has. They wouldn’t be sitting ducks, waiting for you to pick off their airstrips. Do you think that the British don’t know how to build long range bombers or fighters? If they needed to, they would build them. The only reason they don’t do it so much at the moment is because they don’t need to - they leave all that to the Americans. But they are fully aware of how to build them if they wanted to.
Likewise, the world could build as many carriers as it needed to.
Im sorry, I’m sympathetic to your patriotic overtones but, really, the US would stand no chance.
Even in a nuclear war - we’d all destroy each other. There would be no “winner”.
Continuing –
Monster104, the only way I see the World even having a chance at a win is to achieve surprise at a strategic level where US Forces, though built-up in anticipation of an attack don’t really expect it and are either unprepared or out of position. If the US even suspected an attack was coming it would have to strike immediately before World forces could gain a foothold in the Hemisphere. Without pre-positioned supplies and troops on the continent the World forces cannot hope to gain control of the US in any reasonable length of time.
Darwin’s Finch, I couldn’t find any numbers on air force numbers (only a half-hearted search, though) but agree that the World could be in a tough spot. Even with the deterioration of Soviet Forces, I’d guess World and US forces to be about equal in quantity and quality. The biggest problem for the World forces, as you noted, would be the lack of radar control to assist World pilots. They would be operating in forward areas without the ground control Soviet Doctrine required. The US with its superior command and control system would be able to pick and choose its air battles. On the other hand, since the US has already let the Chinese take apart and study one of its newer intelligence aircraft, the World may be able to counter parts of this advantage wih subterfuge.
As for sheer numbers, well someone has noted that “Quantity has a quality all its own.” 24 to 1 are pretty long odds, even if your guy is sitting in a technologically advanced tank. 1 Abrams vs 24 T62s is going to be a loser every time.
The B-2 might be a “hanger queen,” but it’s stealth for a reason. You don’t fly stealth planes in broad daylight, nor do you fly them around randomly for potential enemies to get a radar profile (even stealth has some tiny radar return) on it. I’ll trust the military and assume that it has the capability to reach it’s target, drop bombs, and return safely. By the way, yes a stealth was shot down in Serbia, an F-117 Nighthawk. However, it was shot down in broad daylight, I believe. Until we find a way of making planes invisible to the naked eye too, this is not how they should be used.
I’m afraid I can’t address anything on the B-1B, Boxcar. Maybe they didn’t fly it because the B-52s can carry almost 50% more payload, and it wasn’t worth it.
As for the BUFF, perhaps it wouldn’t survive long with modern air defenses, but what happens if I use the B-2 (and F-117 for shorter ranges) for a first strike to take out radar and weapons sites? Clear path for the big guy…
I’m not certain your Commando attacks would work, actually. On a wartime footing, you can guess that my bases would be guarded up to wazoo. There is also the additional benifit of these being long-range bombers. I can move them to bases deep inside my controlled territory. Given enhanced base security, I’m probably safe.
Do you care to share how satellites can be fooled? You could always put a big tarp over your port I suppose… but our birds have many different detection methods. Everything from visual to heat. That’s another way to detect ships, by the way. Calculate how long a satellite won’t be able to watch a port entrance, and when another one comes into range, search for heat traces in the waters all around the port. That’ll reveal a ship trying to leave the area.
On subs… perhaps you have your quiet boats, but my carrier groups aren’t using passive sonar. You can bet everything you’ve got that I’ve got ASW copters with active sonar ranging out a hundred miles from the ship, easy. Not to mention the destroyer screen. Surface ships don’t have to try and stay quiet… we can “ping” all we want, where a sub can’t.
Sure, but you’ve overlooked one part. I’ve got the citizens also standing on that piece of land. Who aren’t happy with you. If you get a large group together, say hello to Mr. Cluster Bomb. If you split them up, my well armed populace will start to have some fun picking you off.
About sending troops to the interior, by the way… part of my strategy is to keep anyone from landing on the coast. Lone troop ships that slip through to land in San Francisco will be torn apart by the populace, again.
Also, note that while I may not have access to the Panama, neither do you. You do have access to a system of shattered locks, created a few seconds after my bombing raid.
xanakis, I’m afraid that you’re overlooking one thing when you say that the rest of the world could produce long range bombers and carriers. The cost of a B-1B style bomber is over 200 million dollars. A supercarrier is over 4.5 billion dollars, and takes many years to build. This war would be over within half a year at most. By then, either I will have succeeded in destroying all shipping capability, or will have run out of supplies to run a full-scale war.
Boxcar, once again that numerical superiority doesn’t matter all that much. Those 24 tanks to my one won’t matter much if they’re sitting on the shores of France, unable to find transportation over.
-Psi Cop, Chairman, JCS (I’ve always loved the title “Grand Poobah,” by the way)
Besides keeping landing craft off our shores, Psi Cop, we can probably stall any invasions from the north or south by taking the war to them early on. If not, the Rio Grande to the south is an excellent natural barrier which any ground troops have to cross in order to quickly get into Texas, and we can easily take out any bridges if necessary. The Colorado River is also a possible water route in (between SoCal and Arizona), but I’m sure that can be blockaded to prevent entry. Southern Arizona, as well as Southern New Mexico is pretty mountainous - I’m not sure how quickly troops would be able to move through there. Plus, it’s desert, and I’m not sure how many troops world-wide are actually trained in desert warfare, but I believe that will likely limit the available pool of initial attackers.
SoCal would be the most likely entry point for any invasion from the south. But, given the relatively small size of that border, we should be able to sew it up pretty tight if we go defensive. Plus, I would hazard a guess that Mexico just doesn’t have the infrastructure to support a large influx of troops from around the globe. A few strategic bombing runs and we can probably take Mexico out of the game , perhaps giving us a significant buffer between Central America and our own borders.
The major front would likely be along the Canadian border. Aside from its length, we have the additional disadvantage that it’s currently unguarded. However, the West is very mountainous, so Minnesota and North Dakota are the only likely entry points for the Midwest, and northern New England from the East (unless, of course, they try to come in across the Lakes).
The Rainy River serves as a good natural barrier along most of the northern Minnesota border, so we can probably keep the Canadians, et al., out of Minnesota from Ontario. The New England forests may also act as a suitable natural barrier to hinder troop movements along the eastern front.
The North Dakota-Manitoba/Saskatchewan border would present the biggest problem in terms of defense. We would likely have to concentrate large numbers of troops there in order to stall, or drive back, an attack.
