I think the US Military can defeat any army on the globe. However, even though the USA posess 25% of the world's combat power, the current US Military cannot project that power all over the world at the same time.

In WW2, the USA did spend 50% of its GDP on the war effort and also put 10% of its population in uniform without breaking the bank. Today, that would equal $6 trillon a year and 30 million people in uniform, a military 20 times the current size of the US Military. The GDP would also grow by a third or 4 trillion dollars because of the increased military production.

An expanded US Military of 200 combat divisions, an additional 800 independent brigades, regiments, and combat groups, an air force of 10,000 combat aircraft, a navy of 6000 ships, and a Marine Corps of six Marine Air Ground Task Forces would definitely overwhelm the entire world if nukes aren't used.

If Nukes enter the picture, then the war becomes a case of mutually assured destruction because the the rest of the world will aim their nuclear weapons against the USA and the USA would retailiate with nuclear counterattack. OTOH if the USA develops a multi-layered defense system against nuclear weapons (space based antiballistic weapons, antiballistic missiles, ground based laser weapons, early warning radar, elaborate civil defense network, heightened anti-terrorism security) then the USA can then use nuclear weapons as a first-strike option without impunity.

I think the USA can fight and win against the entire world.

However, there is one problem the USA has. The question is does the American People have the will to fight and win a global military confrontation like the WW2 generation?

I for one, would lie quivering UNDER my bed.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Agree on Daisym and Gort. What a stupid thread. And no, no way could you `take on the world and win´ -as some yank so eagerly stated on a similar thread.

You roll on the numbers on screen, this many units, on this many men, we would take on that Nation and then that one. THen this and eat the one on the way.. Just not possible.
Even if you would find military hardware to bring all those numbers to arms, vast majority of them would not be on the standads of a decent fighing unit. Not every soldier of the states would have the tools and training of a marine, you know..
And even if you could transport those task forces in a particular place( or places if your military tactics would be substandard), they would be harrassed quite a bit. Who would make the beachhead? How would they advance, what hardware would be used in a particular scene?

And now you say that I am just an overly-confident, `patriotic´ Finn, and that your troops could take our Nation on a whim.
First you'd need to get here. From where? THere are precious few places where to invade, and possible landfall would result with staggering losses for the invader. But let's play along, shall we? So, you hit my home, start a campaign. How large would the U.S. task force to take over Finland be? And how large would other Task forces to take Norway and Sweden be? Because your forces would be caught in a long, exhausting battles. We would present 450 000 men with clear knowledge why to fight, we would defend, we'd know the battle conditions and would use our rough terrain in our full advantage. Same of course goes in all the nations suffering the invasion from the U.S. task forces. the U.S would have to supply, and replace the constent losses, and would have to secure the routes somehow, while fighting in a multiple fronts in various nations in various battle-conditions.
Compleatly impossible, but let's play along.
You'd have to concentrate all your strength just to get the Nordic Nations, no doubt about that. And then what? Every Finnish man is a soldier. Even if you'd be able to conquer, your troops stationed here would keep on dying in an unpleasent pace. How many of your large forces would be tied up just to hold the gained foothold? How much would be the constant need of replacements?
After the exhausting Northern campaign, other nations would be up in arms and ready to fight. How on earth would your generals manage the constant battles, needs to replace and resupply and keep the morale from diving is beyond me, and keep in mind that there are quite more men in the opposing side, and they would fight for their own.
In a fact, you could not take one European Nation and hope to have fresh forces to continue. China and Russia, oh I will not even go there.

THat all is just to play with your idea, I left out economics involved with that fantacy. Why? Because in such event U.S. economy would swandive and your nation would fall. Unfortunate is that most, if not all nations would follow suite.
Keep that kinds of thoughts in mind. You do have a large military, but full war is something which result in the fall of your homenation.

Uh-didn't Norway and Sweden fall to the Nazis in WW2 while the USA emerged the world's top power with 50% of the world's GDP and military power?

You are assuming that we would invade other nations. If this hypothetical situation were to arrise we would force everyone to try and come to us, which we would be able to effectively halt. Our naval power is greater than the rest of the world's combined so invading forces would suffer unsustainable losses if they attempted to cross the ocean. This isn't blind patriotism, the buildup of our vast naval was done just to assure that we could control the world if it came down to it.

(it's very late here, and I have a dreadful head-ache, but I'll do mi best)

Nope. Norway was taken for they were not prepared and their military was not up to the task. Poor funding mainly. Mind you, the matter was the same with all the Nordic nations then. Britain tried to send a task force, but failied miserably. During the early stages of war it seemed that Britains fleets were mainly used to haul battered units to safety.
But even as Germany set a puppet regime resistance was stiff and brutal in Norway throughout the war.
Sweden had the luxury to be between the two others under relentless attacks, thus they were able to produce and aquire military hardware to buildup their forces. Not that they needed it. Sweden made a deal with Germany staying out from the war and selling ore to germans. They were not exatly gallant, but did provide a path for red cross and diplomacy to function in Europe. And one must remember that Jewish refugees were able to use Sweden as a way out.
U.S. fared well due to the fact that they did not suffer war as so many other nations did. (for example Poland suffered constant battles over their territory)

THat would be only path to consider this scenario. `other nations´ would have no desire to invade, and if `they´ did, a major build-up would be required to transport and supply troops and machinery.

So you think that the invasion would come from South via Mexico, or from North through Canadian holdings.

Hmh. I highly doubt there would be a romantic scene where line-ships would dance their deadly ballet like it was two hundred years ago,
and I do think that while your Navy would be able to repell any initial assault, I don't think your Navy in its greatness is able to control the world.

The whole idea is utter bullshit. How do you define "winning"? Killing everyone else or turning every other country into a nuclear hell? Or even better occupy the rest of the world to bring them freedom and democracy ... like it's going so well in Iraq these days? Those wet dreams about global domination and superior firepower are just ridiculous.

Yet there are quite a few who think so regardless.
Let's try to keep it civil, I actually am eager to learn more from their thouhts.

Actually, this whole premise of a shooting war kinda immediately eliminates one the US's primary weapons: economics. A major defense strategy for the United States, as easily seen with Europe, India and even China, is that they have made it economically disadvantageous to permit the erruption of hostilities.
Whether from the perspective of supply or demand or overseas employment (or simply from the fact that declaring war immediately nullifies unpaid debts), initiating open warfare with the US is an economically painful avenue for most powerful nations.

Even in a "US v. the World" shooting war, I suspect one of the first tactics of the US would be to offer political and economic incentives to various individual nations to "switch sides" (or at least declare nuetrality). Given the need various other nations currently have for US jobs, marketplaces, and food I doubt the US would be alone for very long.

Yeah ... and the main problem is that some of those idiots are (or have been) in the White House and the Pentagon. "Brilliant minds" like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld come to my mind.

Yeah ... but this works in two directions. How long do you think the US economy would survive without foreign money to pay for the current account deficit? The global economy is way to much complex to even think about such economic warfare. That would cause nothing but a crisis that would make 1929 look like a children's birthday party.

OK I'll humor you, no the titled of this idiotic thread is USA v the world, not the UN or a couple of countries, but the whole world.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

And that Mal is why this is such a stupid thread. Neither the world or even some of the various countries of the world is going to essentially cut off its nose to spite its face. If someone ruins the US economy the world econiomy goes down with it.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

You shouldn't forget that it's the same way for many developed nations in the world. No one wanna keep a huge army cuz it's too expensive. No nation in the world could resist to all the rest of the world if the rest of the world is starting to have a coherent military development. US economy, without the world is a little economy cuz today all your buisness is based in the world and with the world. I think that 5.700.000.000 guys could continu to have a normal economy without 300 000 000.
A last thing is that you have the south america which is a start for an invasion...
But, then, don't think to this kind of things... i don't know why would the world invading US today

About the nukes... there is no way too. It's not like in the WW2, US isn't the only country in the world to have nukes in huge number, and the possibility to produce more... the problem is that no one would launch the first.
An other time, i couldn't see the rest of the world attacking US excepting if you have a new Hitler...