The USA has the world's strongest military, the world's largest economy, and third in population. If the whole world were to unite against the USA and wage World War III against the USA, who would emerge victorious?

You have to keep in mind that a good portion of the rest of the world is comprised of undeveloped nations. Their "armies" are little more than skinny guys with sticks.

Many of the world's armies are a threat only regionally and, therefore, could be dealt with regionally. Certainly countries like Russia would pose a much greater threat, as they could find their way to our shores. A country like Pakistan, though, wouldn't.

In short, we'd kick their asses...

Steve

Depends... is the US being invaded, or is the US attacking the rest of the world.

Are Nukes on the table?

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

Good questions, Donkey_Left.

And what would it mean to "win"? If you're talking about a "total war" then either everyone dies or it depends on who strikes first.
Possibility 1) The non-US side strikes first: China, Russia and others nuke the crap out of the US mainland. US retalitates with surviving groundbased nukes (if any) and submarines based nukes and pretty much dooms the entire planet to cold, glowing oblivion.
Possibility 2) The US strikes first and just blows the crap out of every other nuclear power on the planet. A few non-US nukes survive (how many Russian "boomer" subs are still out there?) and vaporize New York, Washington and maybe LA. Basically the same story only this time a portion of the US population survivies to enjoy the excitement of nuclear winter.
Basically, if its a total war with nukes everyone dies and no one wins.

And naturally all the other little nations either get vaporized, radiated or are left to freeze to death in the sunless, post-apocolyptic days of doom.

If its an "invasion" thing, then either its a very bloody stalemate or the US loses since they can't possibly occupy the rest of the globe.

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.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

usa would win

cause we rock!!!!!!!!

Christ!!

I was reading those other posts and I almost forgot!

THanks for reminding me!

sorry these kind of threads always make me think of the skit form SNL of DA BEARS

"ditka vs a tornado, who would win?"

LOL. nobody would win. But it wouldn't happen, either. The US wouldn't be stupid enough to attack the rest of the world.

Now, if the US needs to defend itself against attacks from the rest of the globe - it could take the actions it is currently taking. using the vote to make the US seem less 'anti world' is a good forst step.

Naw if the rest of the world was attacking us we would simply pick out one country to muke, probably one of the other nuclear countries, and turn it into glass as a message to the rest. We couldn't hit all of them, but knowing we would use the weapons would you want to take the chance that you would be next? Lest face it if the entire world attacked us that would be our only option anyway, that or loose.

__________________

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

hmmm. and if you DID nuke someone, what then? do you think we'd all lie quivering in our beds ... or do you think there would be a backlash?

My guess is that such an action would make the US so hated that there could be no recovery - and your arsenal would not be enough to defend you from the consequences.

like the terrorists of today, the rest of the world would just have to get smarter in how we deal with the US.

Frankly this is a stupid topic deserving a stupid answer, so I obliged. But OK lets keep the stupidity going. If the entire world decided they needed fight against us I say the chances that we were already so hated that there could be no recivery is pretty good, so no loss there. The arsenal, and remember we could make more fairly quickly, may not be enough to defend us fromt eh consequences, but it would certainly make the rest of the world consider those consequences before they decided to retaliate. Fianlly, after a confrontation between the US and the rest of the world, there would be no more rest of the world to get smarter and no more US to be dealt with so I would say the last paragraph is pretty pointless. That my firend is the whole point of having nukes, why do you think Iraq and NK want them now?

__________________

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

I wasn't thinking of military/violent retaliation - but more economic and political retaliation.

while all of us would suffer if we imposed economic and trade sanctions against the US - it may be seen as an option. certainly there would be diplomatic consequences.

OK - the US HAS money, it could be self sufficent, but it is now in such a huge state of debt, and it has become relatively deskilled compared to some other nations. many of those currently living and working in the US who have high level skills (eg in science and technology) originate elsewhere. If the crunch came could you trust them? or would you be better letting them leave?

None of us - anywhere - would benefit from the isolation of the US from the world stage - whether it originates from within or without - but it may not be unthinkable in some circumstances.

And that I think is far more likely than a global nuclear holocaust - although I think also not at all likely.

as to why NK and Iran want nukes - well ... I have said before - if you included me in the axis of evil, and then went and invaded someone who you also defined as a member of the AofE - I'd be trying to get nukes by hook or by crook. It may be the only chance that I had to deter you from attacking me.

But yes - the thread title is stupid - and so deserves stupid answers.

What you do not seem to understand is if the entire world got together to try and torpedo the US economy whether you inteded it to be military or not really wouldn't matter.

__________________

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

so are you saying that if the US was kicked out of the UN (OK - lets not get into the why it can't happen argument) and the UN imposed economic sanctions against the US, there would be a military response from the US?