USA vs the world, who would win - Page 39 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

jpsartre12 · #**571** (**permalink**) 07-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

We would lose so badly in an conventional scenario its not even funny. We dont have nearly enough equipment to fight every country in the world. We have a hard enough time with Afghanistan and Iraq, we can't basically take on Iran right now, and that's completely discounting countries like Israel, Britain, France, China, Russia, Australia, etc. Think of how hard Korea was and we were extremely built up from WWII. We didn't 'win' in Vietnam either even if we won almost every battle.

So that would mean we'd have to use nukes. And if we used nukes, the chinese, russians, french, british, israeli's would use nukes against us.

So the only results would be:
Lose a conventional war.
MAD a nuclear war (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Now if we could fight one country at a time (instead of all at once), we might do oK conventionally, but China and Russia would be VERY hard to beat in a conventional war.

IMO, it depends on where the battlefields lie. There's no chance of a US invasion by any foreign power conquering the US, but there's no way the US could win a war fought on the soil of all foreign nations. We just don't have the manpower for that type of war.
As for your comparison between Korea and Vietnam, that's apples to oranges. We fought both of those wars with political, not military constraints. Had we not wanted to draw China into the Korean Conflict lock,stock and barrel, there would be no NK today. The same holds true for Vietnam. We fought that war, essentially, only on South Vietmanese soil. Only Nixon had the balls to make excursions into NV.

Salivating Dog · #**572** (**permalink**) 07-19-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIIX

In case of a nuclear war, I think there wouldn't be any winner. Pure mutual self destruction - keep in mind that not only the US and russians have submarines loaded with nuclear bombs.

In case of an traditional war... it's much harder to tell. Sure, the US military is the biggest in the planet, but it's a lot smaller than the combined forces from the rest of the globe. However, the combined-rest-of-the-world doesn't have the mobility of the US army.

Conclusion? Nobody would begin the hostilities. However, commercial exchanges between the US and the rest of the world would cease. I don't think the US can win the economic battle on the long term.

North Korea has more subs than ANY other nation on earth. (globalfirepower.com)

jpsartre12 · #**573** (**permalink**) 07-21-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salivating Dog

North Korea has more subs than ANY other nation on earth. (globalfirepower.com)

With screen doors or without?

Retro Fit · #**574** (**permalink**) 08-05-2009

Everyone would lose.

CharlesDavenport · #**575** (**permalink**) 08-08-2009

If the world was highly motivated, we'd be toast. Good luck occupying us, though. I'm sure we'd find our roots at that point.

Salivating Dog · #**576** (**permalink**) 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

If the world was highly motivated, we'd be toast. Good luck occupying us, though. I'm sure we'd find our roots at that point.

They are already occupying us. They have bought our businesses, property, mines, etc.

And they pay off and give orders to our pols, so they can continue to do so.

ThorHammer · #**577** (**permalink**) 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salivating Dog

North Korea has more subs than ANY other nation on earth. (globalfirepower.com)

You're point?

Slartibartfas · #**578** (**permalink**) 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salivating Dog

They are already occupying us. They have bought our businesses, property, mines, etc.

And they pay off and give orders to our pols, so they can continue to do so.

If being occupied means enjoying one of the greatest wealth on earth, while living in a well working country under the rule of law, it sounds like a good deal.

Slartibartfas · #**579** (**permalink**) 08-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retro Fit

Everyone would lose.

In a war of that magnitude most certainly. Glad someone else shares my opinion.

Machjo · #**580** (**permalink**) 09-24-2009

USA vs the world. Who would win?

The world of course. Once it dumps its US dollars, the dollar would sink so low the US military couldn't afford bullets anymore.

Tautog · #**581** (**permalink**) 09-24-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machjo

USA vs the world. Who would win?

The world of course. Once it dumps its US dollars, the dollar would sink so low the US military couldn't afford bullets anymore.

But why would we need to buy bullets when we already have enough nukes to destroy the world hundreds of times over?

Machjo · #**582** (**permalink**) 09-24-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tautog

But why would we need to buy bullets when we already have enough nukes to destroy the world hundreds of times over?

Or maybe soldiers owed backpay will just sell them for extra cash.

daddio · #**583** (**permalink**) 09-24-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Machjo

USA vs the world. Who would win?

The world of course. Once it dumps its US dollars, the dollar would sink so low the US military couldn't afford bullets anymore.

the world gave its hard currency for bits of paper and we turned into enough stuff to waste them. we just say we're not paying it back and watch the world self destruct.

Mushroom · #**584** (**permalink**) 09-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddio

the world gave its hard currency for bits of paper and we turned into enough stuff to waste them. we just say we're not paying it back and watch the world self destruct.

Or better yet, enact on other nations the insane trade tarrifs they enforce on our exports onto their imports.

We can do without cheap Chinese clothes and baby furniture a lot longer then they can do without our exports of steel and other raw materials. Or without our money.

Many of the Middle Eastern nations say they hate the US, and it should be destroyed. But how long would they last without the huge amounts of food the US exports every year? The US is still the single largest exporter of food in the world.

We can do without their cheap furniture, their cars, their VCRs and flat screen televisions. We can actually be self-sufficient in oil with strict rationing. But how much of the world is self-sufficient in food? And how long would it take to build up production in other areas to take for the shortfall? And how many people then would die, without a shot being fired?

View Poll Results: Who would win between the USA and the rest of the world
The USA	23	15.23%
The rest of the world	53	35.10%
Stalemate	7	4.64%
Mutually Assured Destruction	68	45.03%
Voters: 151. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode