One and all:
One of the most fascinating threads EVER to appear on the SDMB – I emailed a link to several pals at the time, something I never ordinarily do – was one that was posted a year or two ago called something like the “USA against the world. Who would win?” It covered much of this ground, often in remarkable detail.
I suggest someone dig it out and post a link.
Badtz Maru, you should turn that one into a novel. Maybe all the nukes could be shot down, as a way to work around the problem of a non-nuclear war. Mexico City or bust!–Always helpful, B
As for the OP, how can anyone invade the US? For a time the Russians (Soviets) were working on a giant, but fast, trans-Atlantic landing craft, anyone know about that?
Sure, the world would sink a lot of the navy–eventually. The navy would have to pull back to the protection of the mainland. The world would conquer our coveted overseas bases. The world would generally make our lives miserable. Then, though, the world has to try to invade the US. Good luck, world.
The air power that could be arrayed against any actual military threat near our borders is staggering. Recently mothballed ships and planes would all get called back into service. There are a couple battleships that might make nice coastal defense surprise for any invaders. All the retired military pilots, soldiers, and sailors could be called back into service. Not to mention conscription.
Finally, and most importantly, it is hard to imagine how difficult the civilian population could make an invasion for any force silly enough to try it.
Some of these responses remind me of the old ‘Ditka’ sketches on Saturday Night Live…
Brats-And-Beer Loving Chicago Bears Fan #1: “so… John Maddan versus Ditka… who wins?”
BABLCBF #2: “ah… Ditka… no problem.”
BABLCBF #1: “okay, so how about the whole AFC east against Ditka??”
BABLCBF #2: “not even close… Ditka.”
BABLCBF #1: “here’s a tough one… The entire free world against Ditka…”
BABLCBF #2: “Ya, dat’s a tough one… let me see… Ditka!”
etc…
Keep your knee-jerk “'USA ROCKS!” in check please… first of all we are talking conventional war here, not nuclear (which is a relief for you flag-wavers 'cuz if you include nuclear, then several nations could obliterate us RIGHT NOW, with a little luck)
It’s hard to even imagine a USA vs China/Russia war reaching a military conclusion (without nukes) as the destruction and loss would be so great as to almost guarantee a settlement of some sort. But that wouldn’t answer the OP, would it?
So… forget about your air superiority right now… the Luftwaffe had that in 1939 and golly, look at them now. In WWII the USA was able to drastically increase its industrial production to meet the needs of the war. I suspect a 2003 coalition against the US could also rise to the challenge of desperate wartime materiel production.
And let’s not forget that there are countries with (currently) greater land forces than the US (for example, the PLA), plus the willingness to take much larger casualties.
In Korea, the superior US air power and armor weren’t enough to gain the victory because the UN forces were hampered by a political decision to never strike north of the Yalu (in China). In the hypothetical situation of the OP, the American military would be similarly hampered by the ‘no nukes’ ground rule. (of course the ‘enemy’ would too) Whereas large numbers of expendable infantry on the other side would help keep the battle at least at a stalemate, IMO.
[sub]USA ROCKS![/sub]
Oh come on, you guys aren’t serious? The USA, against the rest of the rest of the world, would win???
It depends on how much you deep you want to go into this. Assuming that military spending stays the same, then the US could maybe take a few countries, which would probably be retaken later. The rest of the world probably wouldn’t be able to capture the US though - a draw.
But if you start taking economics into this… The US economy depends on the rest of the world far more than the world depends on the US… Once the world retools its economies for war, its productive capacity would far exceed that of the US. After that there’s only one outcome…
Thats assuming conventional war only. If you bring in nuclear capabilities then the world could totally destroy the US easily, and vice versa. Everyone would be wiped out, and i think that would count as a draw…
Yeah, that sums it up. But there will always be a need for fantasy threads like these for those who hate the US to vent in completely limp and harmless ways.
If anyone powerful enough really attacked America and took over portions of our territory, I bet we’d dig into the civilian populace, use guerilla tactics, and use any means at all possible to destroy the enemy: even suicide missions.
The difference is: we’d be fighting for laudable principles and ideals, instead of just defending the legacy of a ridiculously evil nutjob.
—Once the world retools its economies for war, its productive capacity would far exceed that of the US.—
Nah. While the rest of the world specializes in order to capture comparative advantage, there is every reason to think that we still hold absolute advantage in most productive fields. And we are hardly as open to world commerce as some think: it’s makes up less than 20% of our economy, last time I checked (which, I admit, may be outdated). We may take in more monetarily than we put out, but we mostly import either luxury goods or easy to replace goods, and export necessities and hard to replace technology and expertise.
We’d wipe Chinas ass into the ground. They have a bigger military, but sorry: you don’t go from the state I observed them in 1989 to superior to the U.S. in just a decade or so. What did I observe in 1989? An airforce that, due to a lack of fuel, had to practice flight missions by getting the pilots to hold little model airplanes in the air and pretend to take them off from a mock airfield and then “fly” them in formation for a mission. An airforce that by and large HAD NO RADAR and could not fight at night or in inclement weather. Multiply that by a hundred more men per U.S. soldier, and you still don’t have any sort of superiority.
Well sure. Instead look at Germany in early 1941. Now imagine you are Europe. Point? Not sure. What was yours?
The Axis of Evil: Bush, Rumsfeld and Chenny.
Sam Stone,
I don’t think the examples you give match the parameters of the fantasy scenario you put up. For example Germany in WW2 was fighting a two-front war where many of its best forces and leaders were fighting against the USSR. Iraq, IIRC, didn’t have significant numerical superiority in GW1. The bottom line is there are 8 infantry divisions in the US army; there are easily 8 well-equipped, well-trained mid-sized armies in the world. To win a single US division would have to beat an entire army like South Korea with hundreds of thousands of troops and thousands of tanks and even that wouldn’t be enough. It’s just too much…
Well, you wouldn’t fight them all AT ONCE…
I don’t believe the U.S. could take over the world. Not even close. Once you factor in having to subdue the population of each country, etc., the numbers just don’t add up. Can’t be done. The U.S. couldn’t even invade China successfully. Not without a friendly country on that continent that can be used as a staging area and logistical base, and probably not even then.
I thought the question was more of a wargames-type thing. Put all the other militaries together, unify their command, and put them up against the U.S. on some hypothetical field of battle.
But if we’re talking real world sans nukes, then I think it’s a stalemate - there’s no way the U.S. can be successfully invaded, and there’s no way the U.S. can invade major countries abroad.
You’d see the U.S. turn back into a maritime power, with a huge militia at home. The U.S. would eventually take over all of the Americas, and create Fortress America. Eventually, Islands would be attacked and taken over to expand the empire. Large naval bases would be established on these Islands, and positive control of the oceans to expand the sphere of dominance from Fortress America. The rest of the ‘war’ would be economic, just like the cold war was. Once some form of stasis is achieved militarily, then the side that grows economically the fastest would ‘win’.
Which brings up the biggest advantage the ‘rest of the world’ would have - control over the Middle East. There’s no way the U.S. could maintain any sort of control in the Middle East. Those forces would be swallowed up, and then the U.S. is dependent only on domestic energy sources. For the next few decades, that would be a significant disadvantage.
Of course! Don’t you guys realize?!? The US is the karate master, and the rest of the world are the ninjas! Everybody knows the ninjas always lose, because the karate master is smart enough to fight them one at a time! 
“Well, you wouldn’t fight them all AT ONCE…”
I thought that in your fantasy scenario you did. No oceans and US just fights a war with the rest of the world all at once. Anyway like you said it’s a pretty silly discussion. I think we both agree that no combination can invade the US and that the US can’t invade and occupy the very biggest powers like China.
One-on-one against China, considering the current power of each force, I’d agree that the USA would prevail… but I was referring in my example to a Russian/Chinese coalition. I don’t think things would be quite as simple then. Hell, throw in the Brits, Japanese, and all the Koreans too-- I think there is enough room in the OP to allow for just about any fantasy coalition…
My point was that even though the Germans had a materially superior air force early in the war (compare to the USA’s current air superiority), over time the allies’ (particularly the US) war production helped lead to air superiority over the Germans and the once-feared Luftwaffe became of relatively little concern.
In my unwavering faith to American scientific breakthroughs, I believe “the next few decades” would be enough time to wean ourselves off oil with alternative fuels.
As a matter of fact, I think we already would have by now if the US government wasn’t so kind to oilmen and auto makers:rolleyes:
According to this site:
http://www.eco.rug.nl/~Maddison/China_book/Chap_2_tables/Table2.2ab.pdf
The US accounted for 20.9% of world GDP in 1995. The rest of the world outproduces the US by a factor of 4. How on earth can you interpret that as absolute advantage in most productive fields? Thats a huge productive advantage, there really can only be one outcome when you have such a massive disparity in economic output.
I vote bear! Unless the shark has a laser beam on it’s head…
I think an Imperial Star Destroyer plus the USS Enterprise could beat the US.
Not disagreeing with you Sam, but have you seen the latest issue of Popular Mechanics with it’s story on the US military’s research into what the magazine calls a “battle island”? Basically, it’s a group of giant modular sections that can sail to any point on the globe and assemble itself into a military base. Apparently, the military’s looking at this since the Turks weren’t as willing to let us use their country as a staging area as we thought they’d be.
Oh, and Apos, the Blue Angels Flying Team trains in a manner similar to that of the Chinese pilots you described (admittedly they no doubt get more flying time in, but it’s not a totally useless method), and I seem to recall that German troops before WWII trained with broomsticks.