# What coalition could give the US a military asskicking? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2003, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980 "2003-03-29T05:26:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/1 "2003-03-29T05:26:19Z")
Tag team of Russia and China? Trio of France, Germany and Japan? Or are we the nigh invicible military Gods of the earth at this point in history? What team could take us on and win in a conventional military tussle? ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/2 "2003-03-29T05:38:46Z")
Hey…Iraq is giving us a run for our money right now. I shiver to think what a real military might do. Before you jump me. It’s not the troops I disparage. It’s the tactics. Suppose Rumsfield plotted a war and no one fought by his rules? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/3 "2003-03-29T05:43:41Z")
Define “conventional”. If Russia and China attacked the US, nukes would fly pretty fast. I think the US’s military is so strong that we’d wipe out the entire earth fighting against a similarly armed foe. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/4 "2003-03-29T05:45:52Z")
None of these forces could travel anywhere and give the U.S. an ‘ass-kicking’. They don’t have the logistics. Could the U.S. invade any of them successfully? Well, that depends on what you want to lose. Russia, China, France, and Japan could all probably manage to attack the U.S. Navy with a significant amount of success. They have subs that could sink some warships. Might even be able to get a carrier. In the end, I don’t think any of them could win, because the U.S. can gain air superiority over anyone, given enough time and losses. And once you have air superiority, the game’s over. At that point, you can prevent the enemy from manoevering, you can bomb their Naval assets at will, etc. And don’t forget, the U.S. spends more on the military than the rest of the planet combined. And the U.S.'s defense budget is geared around the projection of power. But in any war against the major powers, even a conventional one, the casualties would be horrendous. Lose a carrier, and 10,000 people die, along with a few billion dollars worth of ship and planes. Lots of smaller ships have thousands of sailors on them. Having to invade a country like China in rough terrain against 10 million soldiers would be disastrous. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/5 "2003-03-29T05:47:34Z")
They _might_ inflict some harm, and then be glassed over. Any questions? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Wrong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@Mr.Wrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Wrong)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/6 "2003-03-29T06:12:32Z")
> [@](#): > > _posted by Reeder_ > Hey…Iraq is giving us a run for our money right now. I shiver to think what a real military might do. Do you work for CNN? Considering we’re trying to win a war without actually _killing_ anyone (well,everyone), I’d say we’re doing pretty well. Stop shivering, if we wanted to end this quickly, we could, and nothing short of a Russian-style deterrant could stop us. ---
**Author:** ![Gest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9d8465/32.png) [@Gest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gest)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/7 "2003-03-29T13:38:47Z")
**Mr. Wrong** ’s view seems to be a commonly held one amongst our fellow armchair stategists but I don’t think it’s valid. Actually, I believe your country is only trying to win a war without anybody _knowing_ that you’ve killed anyone. Any Bush preference for non-lethality is a political one and not moral. All that matters is that the public (for whom the conduct of the war _is_ a moral issue) don’t see the civilans who’ve been killed. In any case, let’s suppose the aim really is a low death toll and that you are fighting with one arm tied behind your back; well it can’t be any other way! It’s just that this factor is your particular limitation and it is as much a limitation as any other. Laos doesn’t have access to satellite imaging, Chad doesn’t have a navy and the US can’t be seen to slaughter millions of innocents. It’s not because the administration are nice guys or anything, it’s because they want to be allowed back in '04. The US would be something completely different (and probably not as potent) if the reality was such as to allow it to conduct war as the Hawks would like it. But then what would Chad be with a blue water navy? Moot points. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/8 "2003-03-29T13:52:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zenster \* > \*\*They _might_ inflict some harm, and then be glassed over. > > Any questions? \*\* Yes. Does economics mean anything to you? No such thing would happen, because it would be plain and simply suicide for the US. Even an invasion, let alone a nuclear attack, on any other G7 country is committing economical seppuku. Fun. You won the war, but flushed your country down the drain in doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/9 "2003-03-29T13:53:20Z")
Good post, **Gest** , and welcome aboard. > [@](#): > > Or are we the nigh invicible military Gods of the earth at this point in history? The US (if it has any sense) shouldn’t dare to take on any of the existing nuclear powers. And they shouldn’t dare to take on the US. Everyone remember Mutually Assured Destruction? It’s just pointless dick waving to say anything like: > [@](#): > > NONE OF THE ABOVE > They might inflict some harm, and then be glassed over. > > Any questions? “Some harm” could mean the loss of dozens of cities and tens of millions of people. The US isn’t the master of the world, and would do well to remember it. ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/10 "2003-03-29T14:52:37Z")
What coalition could give the US a military asskicking? vietnam + cuba + somalia would do for a start ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/11 "2003-03-29T18:06:58Z")
Never get involved in a land war in Asia. ---
**Author:** ![Bob55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Bob55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob55)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/12 "2003-03-29T19:16:08Z")
Our own politicians can sometimes be the U.S. military’s greatest adversaries. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/13 "2003-03-29T19:25:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*Yes. Does economics mean anything to you? No such thing would happen, because it would be plain and simply suicide for the US. Even an invasion, let alone a nuclear attack, on any other G7 country is committing economical seppuku. Fun. You won the war, but flushed your country down the drain in doing so. \*\* My comment was intended as a humorous interpretation of the fact that no other country on earth has the ability to wage a successful aggressive military campaign against the United States. However, I _do_ maintain that we have a well designed and fully functional nuclear deterrent. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/14 "2003-03-29T19:31:41Z")
Guys, the OP specifically asked about a _conventional_ war. Bringing in the fact that nukes would be used is a distraction. What he’s asking is whether the U.S. could beat the armed forces of every other nation, or nations combined. It’s really an unanswerable question, because so much depends on the nature of the conflict, where it would happen, etc. If you could take an earth as smooth as a billiard ball, with no oceans, and put the U.S. military on one side and the rest of the world’s military on the other, and then you blew a whistle and told them to go at it, the U.S. would win. But if you took that same world military and entrenched it in the mountains in Asia, and forced the U.S. to travel across oceans to fight it, it’s a whole 'nuther story. The problem the U.S. would have invading another country is that it can’t land forces fast enough to keep from being overrun. If the U.S. tried to invade China, and subsequently got hit on its flanks by a million North Koreans and its ships were being targeted by Japanese missiles and subs, and the Russian navy joined in the fun, and the French sent their carrier to tie down the U.S. Navy by surrendering to it, etc…, then the U.S. would have a real problem. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/15 "2003-03-29T20:10:51Z")
You really think the US military–regardless of what the politicians think–is not trying to limit civilian casualties as much as it is trying to win the war? If so, why bother with super precise, smaller weapons? That is the new technological thrust of weapons development in the US, smaller boom even more precise. We could just MOAB and 5,000 lb. penetrate everything. Come arrest us. Which brings me to the OP. I don’t know that major powers can go to war against each other any more without nuclear weapons being used. Once that happens, and the major cities are destroyed, it’s not a question of winning. Perhaps “asskicking” is more appropriate because that is what nuclear weapons would inflict upon all the major participants in the war. Throw in “major radioactive” asskicking. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/16 "2003-03-29T21:05:42Z")
“If you could take an earth as smooth as a billiard ball, with no oceans, and put the U.S. military on one side and the rest of the world’s military on the other, and then you blew a whistle and told them to go at it, the U.S. would win.” Actually I doubt this. The Rest of the world would have a massive quantitative superiority which would more than balance American qualitative superiority. Half a million US troops simply won’t last against 5 million or more troops no matter how good their equipment and training. And the Europeans have fairly well-equipped and well-trained armies. And finally the Russians probably have a few tricks up their sleeves like GPS jamming technology which could offset much of the American technological advantage. Anyway this kind of fantasy scenario is irrelevant. In any remotely realistic scenario no combination of countries will be able to invade the US. The US Navy **is** stronger than the rest of of the world combined; it’s not even close. However on the flip side there are several countries which I don’t think the US has the ability to successfuly invade and occupy. Especially China. Their air-defences would be a lot more tougher than Iraq’s. Even if the US achieved air-superiority and somehow defeated the massive PLA regular army, they would resort to guerilla tactics like Iraq except that their forces will be much larger, better equipped and better led. It would be impossible to conquer and hold the whole country with the current-size US army. Actually I doubt the US could successfully occupy even a mid-sized country like Iran which was truly determined to fight. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/17 "2003-03-29T21:27:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gorsnak \* > \*\*Never get involved in a land war in Asia. \*\* And never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line. (Or something like that, been a _long_ time since I’ve seen _The Princess Bride_.) ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/18 "2003-03-29T22:23:16Z")
The OP is akin to the “Shark vs. a Grizzly Bear” question; it is so hypothetical as to be meaningless. As Sam implied above, you have to say whether you mean the US invading someone, or vice versa, or some kind of neutral ground. Moreover, as has been also pointed out, it has a lot to do with WHY the war is being fought, for both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2003, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/19 "2003-03-29T23:57:01Z")
I agree that this is pretty silly, but… [quote] “If you could take an earth as smooth as a billiard ball, with no oceans, and put the U.S. military on one side and the rest of the world’s military on the other, and then you blew a whistle and told them to go at it, the U.S. would win.” Actually I doubt this. The Rest of the world would have a massive quantitative superiority which would more than balance American qualitative superiority. Half a million US troops simply won’t last against 5 million or more troops no matter how good their equipment and training. [quote] Historically, the U.S. has almost always fought against vast numerical superiority. In WWII, American fighters shot down axis fighters at a 10:1 ratio. U.S. casualties in WWII were only a fraction of German and Japanese casualties. The same thing happened in North Korea and Vietnam. The U.S. maintained at least 10:1 ratios of casualties. This isn’t just due to superior technology - Korea was largely fought by infanty with M1 Carbines, and in WWII the U.S. had inferior equipment to the Germans and Japanese for a good portion of the conflict. The Gulf War was a turkey shoot. The ratio of coalition to Iraqi losses was greater than 100:1. That was not just due to air superiority, but also tactical superiority in tank battles, etc. Even in the current conflict, Marines who have been ambushed, and other confrontations between relatively well equipped foes have been disproportionate. One action the other day had a some Americans ambushed by something like 1000 Iraqis. Several Americans were wounded, and over 300 Iraqis were killed. Numerical superiority just isn’t that important when compared to better equipment, better training, and better doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2003, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980/20 "2003-03-30T00:11:59Z")
I think the rest of the world combined could drive us back all the way into North America, and keep us contained, if we avoided the use of nuclear weapons. It would be a long, hard fight, though, and would financially destroy the rest of the world. I’m fairly certain that the USA would then put all of North America under it’s control, for security, and no future attack against us would every succeed. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-coalition-could-give-the-us-a-military-asskicking/164980.md?page=2)