If the whole world attacks the US, can the US survive?

Look at Raytheon or a number of different military contractors. One of my friends just got on full time (with the help of his TS clearance) with a defense contractor in MA. The money is pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) good too.

 

Insurgents killing civilains aren't "Indirect" NATO "kills".

 

You realize none of us here (at least Mushroom, Herk, and myself) have claimed the U.S. would hold out indefinitely. We simply said it would be virtually impossible for the "world" to invade the U.S. in the short to intermediate term.

 

The US would lose. But put up a very good fight, like Finland vs the USSR.

 

So does that mean the US would go on the attack at first, then over time be pushed back and defeated?

The US could take Canada and Mexico quite quick, then just wait and use it's navy to inflicked heavy losses on the world navy.

 

All it would have to do is hold back, play defensive, and watch the coalition fall apart.

This scenario just begs the question, who would lead it? Russia? The UK? China? Germany? Somalia?

The biggest problem I see I have stated before. Nobody is going to be able to lead this mess. Much like the discussions of an EU Navy, you would never get the nations of the world to gang up and invade one of the largest nations of the planet.

Because then you have the issues of who invades where. Who is responsible for what. And since some places are naturally going to be of significantly higher casualties then others, nobody is going to want those. The "leader nation" will tell some smaller nation to invade a serious hot spot, and they are going to balk. Or they are going to do it, get their crank smashed in the door, and pull out of thos coalition.

This discussion is talking about the invasion of a nation that is almost 4 million square miles in area, with over 300 million people. And with a military that composes over 3 million uniformed soldiers. And according to most statistics, it is estimated that there are around 22 million veterans. And around 200 million firearms in the hands of individual citizens.

I say it can't be done. And it has nothing to do with anything but the simple logistics of trying to conquer a nation this size. It is just as impossible as trying to claim a sea invasion would be able to take out China.

They may be able to destabilize the government. Maybe even cause it to collapse. But "conquer" a nation of that size with that many people? Not a chance. No more then Hitler could take out the Soviet Union.

 

China would lead on the west coast and EU on the east coast, Russia would lead Alaska. Simple the greatest power leads. And it has worked before, with the Europeans take India and hugh parts of the world, they we really should have been able to do, or WW2 and the D-day landing, and the USSR on the eastern front. Yes it would take years to set it all up, but it would happen.

The EU military command is already set up and going ok.

 

Insurgents are not included in that figure.

 

Still waiting for the reference for that number. I looked, and found nothing even remotely like that.

 

Are you sure you looked? It clearly states:

Civilians killed as a result of U.S-led military actions
direct deaths: at least 6,215 - 9,007
indirect deaths in initial invasion: 3,200 - 20,000
direct & indirect deaths: 9,415 - 29,007


And just so we are clear on the differentiation between NATO and insurgent deaths:

Civilians killed as a result of insurgent actions
direct deaths: at least 7,276 - 8,826



Civilians killed as a result of the war
direct deaths: at least 14,411 - 17,208
indirect deaths in initial invasion: 3,200 - 20,000
direct & indirect deaths: 17,611 - 37,208
indirect deaths after initial invasion: N/A


The article cites mostly the UN, so I believe it to be quite relaiable. Other sources I have seen seem to tip in favour of the the higher-end estimates.

 

By the way....

You can be as pedantic as you like about my figures, but the fact remains, conventional or nuclear - war is war, death is death.

Lest we forget you accused me of not caring, not understanding and being totally indifferent to nuclear war, off the back of a ridiculous thread such as this one.

I am indifferent? Who's leaders are so indifferent that they feel the need to have an excessive arsenal that would certainly destroy the world?

just this weekend, I stood next to a WE.177 tactical nuclear bomb. I didnt feel indifferent.... but I also didn't feel scared by the prospect of its use. I felt humbled and honoured by it. Nuclear weapons helped prevent world war 3... just as they always probably will do. They stopped the West and USSR destroying millions of lives. That's what nuclear weapons mean to me and that's how I felt.

If you feel I am wrong to feel that way, then I really do not care. You were scared in the cold war? Well that may be, but your not dead.

 

Ahh, Wikipedia.

Of course, those are not just the reports from UNAMA you are aware. They also include figures from several other sources as well.

Of course, you are still off by a factor of 3, because you are including all of the figures, not just that that were killed in combat. By your figures, you also are including people who are killed when an insurgent blows up a bomb in a school or market.

If you are doing that, you might as well count the Jews killed in concentration camps after June 1944 as being killed by Allied soldiers.

 

These were decomissioned almost 15 years ago. So undoubtedly you saw a mockup or training model in a museum.

I guarded live warheads in a storage bunker while the ships that carry them were getting resupplied before returning to their patrols.

You saw something that would not blow up no matter what. There is a vast difference between what you saw and what I saw.

About 6 years ago I was able to see the Davy Crocket, and did not have that feeling either. Of course, I knew that was simply a mock-up and not a real atomic warhead.

 

I stood next a decommissioned one, where as you stood next to a live one. . I don't see how that relates at all?

The thing is what it is and was what it was. If it were live, I would have felt exactly the same... albeit,my opinions would (apparently) have more credability on an internet forum.

Well done you.

 

War is War and death is death, regardless of who kills or how.

 

Can you link the article. The Taliban kills civilains in droves, those numbers seem way to low. Also, what's the difference between a direct and indirect "death".

 

Yes the US would survive.

Most people don't realize how ridiculously strong out military is. Our military is so far ahead of other countries it isn't even comparable.

 

(Silence)


Really? You guys are that in love with US superiority that you think we have a hope in hell against all the world? Really? This stinks of bad cinematography. China on it's own could fight us to a standstill, we'd turn the world black with nukes and it would all be over. I'm going to say the numbers because I don't think you guys get it. 6.4 billion, vs 300 million, that means each american, every single one, would need to kill 21 enemy soldiers. Think about it. Just try since I expect most of the posts here have come after watching too many reruns of 300.

Occupation? Not a problem, the world could assign a soldier to watch each surviving citizen, and I say each surviving citizen because I expect most people would have died in the initial bombings, and the starvation as internal food production and distribution went to hell. America WOULD NOT WIN. We would be outproduced, out manned, our economy and industry would collapse. So much of the production in US is from foreign imports. It would be a loss. The best scenario is that everyone would die, in a draw. America WOULD NOT WIN. I state again, WOULD NOT WIN.

We have enough problems with occupying one little country in the middle east, with help, i might add, from several other countries. Wake up.

 

Yes at the start first year or two as the world gets it together. But when the world has got in together, there is no way the US could win.

The English speaking world has a chance or NATO, but the US on it's own has no chance.

 

It's not 300 million vs 6.4 billion, how is the world going to move that many people to the US to fight?

 

I don't know, stack the deck in mexico and canada, stop shipping/importing goods and let us choke as the economy collapses. Just sit back and bomb **** out of us. Even if they only get twice as many people over, they can support that army for years and years, it's the entire world backing it. Can the US defend the entire canadian border if say, 15 million soldiers were spread across it? Think about how much trouble we have with just mexico. How bout staging bases in The carribean? How do we defend Hawaii and Alaska, they're rather exposed out there. How many US bases overseas are going to just vanish when the countries turn hostile? How many troops do we lose there?

It's an inherently unwinnable situation. The US would lose, it's as simple as that.

 

So how are we going to land troops in Canada and Mexico, with the US fleet in the way?

 

No one here is suggesting the U.S. could hold out indefinitely against the rest of the world. What they're suggesting is that U.S. military strength, combined with geographic isolation would make it extremely difficult for anyone to mount any type of successful invasion against the U.S. Trying to do so would cost millions and millions of lives. Trying to occupy the U.S. would be just as costly.

I don't think you have much understanding of military operations. It's not a numbers game. The world could never build, equip, and supply a 300 million man occupation force to watch every American. Those soldiers have to sleep, go on liberty, be retrained etc. etc. That number is completely unrealistic. It also doesn't take into account how those 300 million soldiers would GET to the U.S. That's the entire premise behind this argument. The World couldn't get across the ocean with enough troops to defeat/occupy the U.S. I don't know how the war would go, but I DO know that for at least the first 5 years, no one would be able to invade the U.S.

 

If Mexico and Canada didn't side with the U.S. they would be invaded. The U.S. would turn North America into an island fortress. No other country in the world has even close to the naval power of the U.S. They most certainly don't have the amphibious assault capabilities to send millions of troops across the biggest oceans in the world while U.S. carrier groups/subs hunt them.

 

Wouuld it not be hard for the US to defend every bit of Canada. What about Greenland?