Uh, I was talking about being “taken down” economically.
But since you’re talking about a military conflict, of course the US isn’t invulnerable, and it doesn’t take Red Dawn scenarios of Cubans invading Wyoming to do so. Oil embargo only on the US. The lunatic president would then have to decide: prioritize oil for our destroyers and jets, or for our economy? Besides, the US military strategy pretty much has its hands full with two major theater wars. There’s now way the US could effectively respond to being forced out of bases in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, all simultaneously.
Large coalitions are difficult to coordinate and manage. Read Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe for details on how difficult a job he had keeping the various allied factions working towards the same goal. You would also have the problem of redundancy where each army has it’s own command staff and its own supply chain among other things. This would serve to severely reduce the teeth to tail ratio.
Do you think those problems are more substantial than the challenge of projecting military forces to three different theaters, several thousand miles away, into hostile territory?
If I’m translating this properly, the US does something so horrific that the rest of the world unites to destroy it and you are asking if that would work…correct? Short term just using economics I think the US could be destroyed or at least brought to its knees…but the cost to the rest of the world would be equally grim. World wide recession/depression would be the best case scenario in the short term. Medium term, assuming the rest of the world’s economy survives they would retask their trade and logistics to compensate for no trade with the US (I kind of doubt the world economy would survive though so probably moot).
Militarily? Well, basically we all (well, those that survive) go back to the joys of hunting and gathering. There is no way the current world economy/civilization survive a full on attack by The World™ on the US. Not only are we talking about thousands of nukes, but the US could do unbelievable amounts of damage to trade and the economies of myriad nations before going down. The US Navy could and probably would go into unrestricted interdiction all over the world…nothing would move on the seas, at least until the logistics hubs around the world to support the Navy were destroyed. Same goes for the Air Force…IIRC, the US Air Force has more combat air craft than most of the rest of the world combined. The army and marines would probably have lesser roles, as I don’t see them being able to consolidate to do much unless there was some sort of advanced notice this was all going down…but I imagine that it won’t be too fun for Canada and Mexico in the short term before everyone goes back to stone tools. To me, there is zero way the world as we know it continues. Perhaps it reforms in a few centuries as we give it another try, but the meltdown would be epic.
One has but to consider what would happen today if China completely melted down. No war or anything, let’s just say that their economy completely melts down, the CCP is overthrown and the country goes into chaos. What effect would that have on the world markets? Well, China isn’t anywhere close to as heavily connected to the world trade system as the US. Chinese companies aren’t traded, by and large, on international markets and foreign capital into China is pretty small. None of that is the case with the US. Throw in nukes and just the conventional capabilities of the US and it’s a recipe for total world disaster of biblical proportions. Dogs and cats living together would be on the table…
Why does the United States have to do this to “win” the vague war?
For instance, North Vietnam never projected military forces outside of SE Asia, yet the United States withdrew and the north unified the country under communist rule. They won the war without ever once attacking the American homeland.
The US is relatively close to energy independence now. If there were a world-wide oil embargo against us, fracking and other forms of energy would ramp up so fast it would make your head spin.
I was not aware that we were involved in wars in Europe and Asia. Ignorance fought! Thanks!
To be frank, I think the OP is 80% incoherent and 20% weird. I’m boiling it down to, “What happens if crazy dude?”
I don’t know how to answer that, but if our relations went so seriously off the rails that the Europeans, Japanese, Qataris, Iraqis, South Koreans, and so on wanted to force the U.S. out of the bases in their countries, I think the U.S. would not be able to sustain a defense of all those bases. If the U.S. simply withdrew from all those bases, then I would think the issue would be over, since I can’t see a scenario in which the rest of the world would want to invade and defeat the United States on our homeland.
As I understand it, the U.S. currently produces about 9.5 million barrels per day, and imports about 8 million barrels per day. I have never measured the velocity of my head spinning, so how long specifically would it take for U.S. crude production to grow by about 80%?
Yes, but this page indicates that the US exports about 4.5Mbbl/day, so that would put net domestic consumption at around 12Mbbl/day, assuming I am looking at the right numbers. Seems to me a decade ago US consumption was much higher – like 20Mbbl/day – so I suspect it could drop quite a bit without tremendous suffering. Some suffering, yes, but not apocalyptic.
Plus there is the strategic reserve and I assume there is enough slack in the system that production can be ramped up a bit. Most likely you’d have a lot higher prices (say, what the Europeans pay for gas) which would cause people to cut back. Assuming every country stopped trading with us, it would probably be the least of our worries, but I agree it wouldn’t be apocalyptic in any way and the US could, in theory, produce enough energy itself to keep things going.
As already mentioned, your figure is gross imports, not net imports.
Even without the OP’s scenario, US oil production is growing.
Take a look at this chart, showing production in recent decades.
See that really sharp rise in recent years? That is exclusively the result of fracking. And what’s really interesting is that the technology has matured a LOT in just the last 3 years. Fracking can be done much more cheaply than just 3 years ago. Besides all that, if there were some compelling military issue, a lot of the opposition to off-shore drilling would disappear in a hurry. That drilling would ramp up, too, although that would take longer.
