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

The U.S. wouldn't have to defend every bit. If for some reason Canada did declare war on the U.S. (which would be incredibly unlikely for a variety of reasons) the U.S. would probably attack it immediately. This wouldn't be an invasion to occupy Canada, it would be surgical strikes designed to crush Canada's military and control it's government. Once Canada's military was destroyed the U.S. would push some sort of peace treaty on Canada then leave them more or less to their own devices...albeit without the ability to attack the U.S. I'd imagine for strategic reasons the U.S. could station some naval/air units within Canada. Also remember that Canada and the U.S. have a joint air defense system so it would be very easy for the U.S. to control the air space over Canada.

In order for any invading army from Europe/Asia to land in Canada/Greenland they would need hundreds if not thousands of ships to land. They would need a suitable harbor (maybe several) as well as an area near roads. Much of Canada is wilderness and very inhospitable during winter. Landing a huge mechanized Army there would be silly. There are probably a rather limited number of areas that could support a worthwhile invasion. The U.S. would have continuous air and sea patrols with emphasis on these suitable landing areas.

Any invasion force big enough to be land in North America would be easily detected and tracked before it even left home port. During that entire time the U.S., with its vastly superior Navy, would be doing everything in it's power to sink these ships. Long range bombers, subs, carrier aircraft, cruise missiles, mines etc. Once these ships got close to North American shores they would be beyond range of reasonable air cover from Asia/Europe while being at the backdoor of U.S. strike aircraft. The "World Navy" has only a handful of aircraft carriers that are of limited size and capability. They would be slaughtered by the much larger U.S. carrier battle groups backed up by U.S. land based aircraft. Finally, once this invasion force landed (we'll assume it can land safely) it would have to be continuously resupplied over the ocean. It would make the battle of the Atlantic look like a school yard brawl.

Finally, the invasion force would have almost no air support and would be subject to U.S. air attacks including AH-64s, AH-1s, A-10s, AC130s, B-1/2s, F-18s etc. Finally, the U.S. would likely have its own mechanized forces at play. The U.S. is the only country that routinely trains and operates in bridgade+ sized formations. The "world army", with a mix mash of various world military units with different equipment, tactics, and training, under constant air attack, and limited supplies, would probably be slaughtered.

Greenland would be interesting. The U.S. would still have a large advantage in air power and would be very close to home. Secondly, the U.S. has the U.S. Marine Corps, who are the undisputed masters of amphibious warfare today (Most countries only have a few BNs of Marines, the USMC has entire divisions). The U.S. is also the only country right now with a demonstrated capability of deploying and supporting large numbers of troops into hostile territory. Any European invasion force would also deal with the same air/naval problems.

 

But how are those 6.4 billion going to get over here? And once here, how are they going to be supplied?

Look at what those of us with military experience have been saying. The idea of the world conquering and occupying the US is as silly as the same idea against China or Russia (something several of us have said many times).

It the end it has nothing to do with "superiorty", but about logistics. You make this statement, but when looked at in regards to similar claims we make about the same thing of China and Russia, it just does not work.

So get off your high horse please. It is not about "superiority" but about logistics. The one thing every military expert considers all the time, and amateurs never think about at all.

 

Odds are, it would be a rehash of the old War Plan Red-Crimson.

Many people are aware that the US keeps and has kept war plans to try and predict all kinds of future conflicts. Once known as the Rainbow Plans because they were named after colors, these are all fascinating.

War Plan Black was for use against Germany. War Plan Orange was for use against Japan. Brown was for another insurrection in the Philippines. Red was for use against the UK, sub-plan Crimson was for use against Canada. War Plan Gold was for use afainst France. War Plan Green was for use against Mexico.

They even created combined plans, like War Plan Red-Orange for use against a combined UK-Japanese war (this was actually a possability at one time).

These were largely scrapped after WWI, but early in WWII (prior to the US being brought into the war) several of them were dusted off and re-examined. Two of the sub-plans under Red were Crimson for Canada, and Scarlet for Australia (which was combined with Garnet for New Zealand, Ruby for India was considered but discarded) in the event that the UK would fall to Germany.

In each of these revised War Plans, the US would immediately "go to war" against these nations. Their governments would be taken over, with the pretext that by invading them themselves, it would prevent Germany from trying to use control over them through the Commonwealth and Crown.

However, these plans pretty much left the structure of the nations intact. The new "occupation governments" would then be "forced" to declare themselves neutral in the war, and once the peace was restored would be returned to their own rule as members of the Commonwealth.

I imagine that if this scenario was to ever happen, the same plans would be dusted off again. A US invasion of Canada early on, and then Canada being forced to remain neutral until the end of hostilities.

And the reason why War Plan Ruby was discarded was that the US realized it had little hope of supporting or sending troops half way around the world to India. The nation was simply to big and to far away to consider trying to occupy it.

 

What European commander would attack the US with 3 medium sized conventional carriers at the most? 1 the current French carrier, 2 the Clemenceau that if not already scrapped will take 2 years to get back into service, 3 the Brazil carrier that would also need to be refitted to use European systems and aircraft, who would be stupid enough to attack with that. How many ships and troops would the US base in Greenland? Would it take Iceland?

As I said it would take 3 years for the world to make a plan and 5 years to put the plan into action. The US after taking Canada would have huge amounts of oil, gas and resources, so almost any embargo against the US isn't going to work. Unlike against say India, China or Europe. However I very much doubt the Canadians would just give in to the US after a few quick battles and a government change, so I wouldn't be senting armies into Canada, but units to help the Canadian freedom fighters, like the UK did in France. And I would like to see the US take Australia and New Zealand, without losing 3 times at money troops as they lose. And taking and holding Canada will not be as easy as you make out.

 

Plans are all well and good, but they are plans.

 

That's the lamest response I've ever heard. You're basically saying that "we'll never know what would happen so your wrong." The point of the discussion is to take what we DO KNOW and try and work it as realistically as possible. You've basically admitted that were right when you find yourself attacking a plan for being a plan....instead of offering a counter.

 

No I am saying it's one thing to have a plan, it's a whole other thing to put the plan into action. So any talk of invading Australia and New Zealand just isn't going to happen, and to say Canada would just give up is wrong. I mean the UK had a plan to attack the USSR.

 

The build up to such a war, would be preceded by a cold war and arms race.

Trying to compare what would happen with current equipment, compared to future equipment, is irrelevant.

The last cold war completely changed military strategy. Another would do the same, making current technology obsolete.

That arms race and its products, would be won by the powers with the most money and resource available to them. So, China, The EU and Russia would lead the way. As the US is the enemy to everyone else, their economy would be destroyed. Resources would be scarce.

In that respect, the US would be done very soon after the start of any military action.

Infact, if the US did something to annoy most other nations, and if sanctions were applied, any of the other "superpowers" could emerge as a new military leader and would, in theary, be able to defeat the US

The EU alone has just as much, if not more, ability to develop military equipment - They just don't have the want or need to do so to a greater extent than they already do. If it also spent approx 5% of GDP on its military, as the US does, then a combined EU force would be significantly larger than the US.

So if the US was secluded and its spending retarded, and the EU had global support and a greater budget, who would win? I know where my money would be...

 

Ah, so now your completely changing the rules of the game to better suit your point. In order for there to be a Cold War there generally needs to be two equal powers opposing each other. In the 20th century it was the Soviet bloc versus the U.S./NATO. If the rest of the world had 10-20 years of "coldwar" to build up for an attack on the U.S. then the U.S. would use politics to avoid the war. This world war would never happen because the U.S. would avoid it completely. This scenario is predicated on the idea that something crazy happens in the short-term that sparks the world to gang up on the U.S.

If you want to use your Coldwar scenario then the entire discussion becomes ridiculous and impossible to speculate about.

The Cold War also didn't change military strategy too much. WW2 pretty much made conventional warfare what it is today, with obvious influence from nuclear weapons, computers etc.

 

How have I changed the rules?

It is not ridiculous! it is the far from it! Assuming that there would be an immediate need to attack the US, without first having tensions, would be ridiculous.

You talk of the US using politics to get people on their side. In that case it wouldn't be the world vs the US, would it?






(Regardless, whatever the scenario, the World would win.)

 

Which is why your scenario isn't plausible.

 

There is a kind of power that most in here do not seem to be thinking about when talking about a future war with the US. And this is critical when you consider that most people are talking about something as little as 3-5 years of preperation. And it is not the military power. It is something much more basic.

Food power.

The United States is the largest food exporter in the world. To the tune of over $45 billion a year. Huge areas of Europe rely on that food because of the lack of enough farmland to support their own populations.

When you look at most food exports from Europe, it is not the daily staples that are exported, but specialty foods. Italian and French wine, Greek olives and oils, and things like this. Not the daily wheat and corn and rice that keeps the world fed.

http://faostat.fao.org/Portals/_Faostat/documents/pdf/map05.pdf

Now imagine this preperation for war. Do you think the US will be selling it's future enemies food? Not bloody likely. So before, during and after this war, the world will go hungry.

The US is also by far the largest donor nation to the UN food bank. What do you think will happen there? Well, all donations will likely stop, since the world will be at war against them.

So as the world prepares for it's invasion, it will be doing so very-very hungry.

 

Very good point. This would mean the EU, China, India and others putting trillions in to Africa to make up for the lose of US food production. Making it very hard to make a military to take on the US. However once Africa and other parts of the world have that, which would take at least 5 years, then the next 3 years will be spend building up a military to take on the US. That's why I think it would take 8 years. But it doesn't matter what anyone does to the US in terms of embargos you can't hurt it. Other than economics, like the reserve currency and world markets, but people would still make billion beting.

 

Not only Asia and Africa. Most of Europe is dependent on our food exports as well.

And no, they can't make it up. Not enough produceable farmland, to much population. And as the population in Europe increases, the productivity decreases.

And it is like this all over Europe. England has been importing beef and mutton for decades. And over 90% of it's fruit is imported, as well as 50% of it's vegitables.

No, if the US stops exporting it's food, the entire world will suffer. Because that food that is imported to the UK as a "luxury" will now be going to other areas of the world as a necessity. Entire economies will collapse. Because the huge qhantities that used to be sold fairly inexpensively will now be for sale to the highest bidder.

What you have been seeing with oil the last few years will then happen with food. Prices will go through the roof as poor countries that exported what they could to make money (like Kenya, the largest supplier of UK fruit) will suddenly have markets paying 2 or 3 times what the UK does.

And people talk about the trade imbalance with China. Yes, the US imports mostly cheap electronics from there. But it's largest export to China is food, to the total of over $15 billion in 2011. And it is questionable if there is enough surplus food in all of Europe to make up for the loss of US exports.

So you are thinking the third world, but that is a huge mistake. The entire world suffers and starves if the US stops exporting food. And there is nowhere near enough farmable land to make up for it's loss.

I have flown over Europe. A handfull of farms scattered here and there. The largest not more then a few miles square. Out here in the US that is a small farm. Most of our single farms and ranches go on for dozens of miles square. And the largest is King Ranch, measuring 3,340 square kilometers (1,289 square miles).

Heck, the state of California alone would be the world's number 4 exporter of food if it was it's own nation again. And that is just a single state.

So you think Asia and Africa would be hungry, think again. And look at how much produce in your own store come from the US. And if that goes, most of the other "luxury crops" will be tilled under and replaced with necessary crops.

 

Well one side of my family runs the 4 biggest farm in Cumbria, which is 19 square miles, the biggest in Cumbria is 25 miles squared, some in the UK are 40 miles squared. France, Germany and Spain have some bigger, then you have Russian farms which also huge, like in the US, Canada, Brazil and Australia.

If Africa got it together with the same technology the west has in terms for farming, they could be the world's biggest food producer, mainly the south, with Zimbarwe at one point being called the bread basket of Africa, and the great farmers they have their in that region, the Boers. Plus south American is a growing food producer, with Brazil over taking the US in terms of beef production.

I don't buy foreign food, only British. I am saying the 3rd world would make up for the lose in US exports, and I know the EU, China and India would be hit the hardest by any stopage in US food exports.

 

Those are tiny compared to many in the US. And Russia is in Asia.

And Russia is still a net importer of food. Back in the 1980's there were famins there until the US started shipping them tons of wheat.

No, it can not. A third of that Continent (the size of the US) is covered by the Sahara Desert. And that part pretty much produces nothing. And while Southern Africa does produce a lot of food, it is still not enough to feed it's own continent, let alone the rest of the world.

And most of the rest is still to arid to support much more agriculture. I guess you could wipe out the savanahs, if you do not care about creating mass extinctions.

And Brazil overtake the US? That is questionable at best. The US still produces more then 2.4 million tons more beef then Brazil. And 6.1 million tons more beef then China. But both nations have pretty much peaked in their capabilities. Brazil only expands it's production by about 1.9% per year, the production in China is actually shrinking by about .6% per year. The US has shrunk it's production by about 4.9%, but that is because of the reduced imports by many nations because of Mad Cow disease.

But at current rates they will pass the US, in about 35 years.

Then why is the third world the largest importer of food world wide? And you expect us to believe that can be changed in a few years?

The UN and other organizations have been trying to change that for over half a century, and not had much luck. How are you going to change that?

And sorry, I seriously doubt that you read the label of everything you buy to see where it was produced. And even the foods you buy may be "made in the UK", that does not mean the ingredients that went into making them came from there.

Especially since the UK has no domestic production of a lot of food staples, like sugar.

 

A news report a few years ago said Brazil had over taken the US in terms of beef. So the could have been wrong.

A lot of the US is desert or mountains, so why is it the world's biggest food producing nation? Because of it's technology and government help, Africa and other parts of the world don't have this help. As they get it they make more food.

 

Cass, answered the question on the first page. How did this thread last this long? Nobody would win, even if the impossible happened and the world united together. The different countries would not make peace with enemies to destroy the US. Nobody has the determination needed to totally defeat even small countries. Even if this pipe dream were to happen a quote from Albert Einstein says it best. "I know not with what weapons WW III will be fought, but WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones".

On the bright side global warming will be solved.

 

The US actually has the most arable land of any country in the world (including Russia) with 1,650,062 sq/k.

Russia, while bigger than the U.S., has lots of frozen steppes and generally lacks in good farmland (for its size). The same holds true for Canada.

 

This is why I stress over and over the importance of research. Before I reply to such posts, I do a little research first. This way I do not end up looking like a fool.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=beef+production+by+country

http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=beef-and-veal-meat&graph=production

That is the first item on that list.

And if you look at the second item, it also talks about pork production (which China dominates). However, large percentages of the world's population do not eat Pork.

And the increase of Brazil is not sustainable. Remember, that in order to make these increases, they are tearing up large tracts of rainforest and replaceing it with unsustainable meadows that turn into worthless land that grows nothing within a few years.

Yes, a lot of the US is desert. But it is not the same type of desert as the Sahara or Gobi. You know what the Sahara looks like. Nothing grows there. Here is the US desert:



Yes, it is sparse. But not totally barren like that you find covering 1/3 of Africa. And the land is actually fairly fertile, it just lacks water. Cattle survive just fine out here, as do Oryx. And there are still lots of farms in areas like this in the US, they simply rely on canals to bring in water.

And most of the US is covered with the same rich topsoil, and plentiful water underground. This is thanks to the last Ice Age, which dumped billions of tons of topsoil onto the Continental US, and left huge amounts of underwater water just waiting to be brought to the surface.

And the mountains really do not cover most of the US. We only have 2 major and 1 minor ranges. The Cascades (only a couple of hundred miles wide), the Rocky Mountains (wider, but with valleys and plateaus everywhere), and the Apalacian (low and rolling, no real impediment to farming). And the Rockey Mountains are prime farm and grazing land. This covers places like Idaho and Colorado, which are both prime producers. The valleys are excellent farm land, and the mountains grazing land.

If you go to Idaho, you will find "free range" grazing everywhere. The ranchers just let their livestock roam wherever they want (the land is owned mostly by the Government), and in the fall they get together and do massive round-ups and sort out which cows belong to who.

And the Basque have lived and thrived there for over a century. When some Basque settlers arrived there in the late 1800's, they realized how much Idaho resembled their homeland back in Spain, and settled there. If you drive in the mountains much it is routine to see heards of sheep wandering the countryside.

So yes, much of the US is "desert". But not in the way you are thinking. Most just needs to get water brought to it and it flouishes. You could dump all of the great lakes onto the Saharah, and it will still grow next to nothing. Just like the Gobi, that is a sand desert that has no neutreints in the ground and can grow nothing.

 

The great plains area is also unique in that it has thousands of rivers going every where over such a large territory. All of this territory is part of the same country and hasn't been anywhere near as developed or squabbled over as Europe.

 

Another big difference is that the far northern nations like Canada and Russia lack the capability of year round farming. They have a very productive spring to fall season, then a winter of pretty much nothing.

Most of the US enjoys year round agriculture. In the fall most do a harvest, then plant a winter crop. Drive down the I-5 in the California Central Valley, and at almost any time you see fields in various stages of growth. The milder climate does not restrict agriculture because of weather to the degree that many other nations are.

And even in the Northern states this is less of an issue. States like Idaho have even taken their "harsh" weather (harsh for many in the US) and turned it to an advantage. Because in the winter they get cycles of snow and thaw, they chose to grow root crops like potatoes and sugar beets. And even though the farmland of that state only covers the bottom half of the state, it is the top producer in potatoes, and #2 in sugar beets.

And in the summer those same fields produce corn, wheat, and other crops.

antileft, you may be related to large farm owners, but I grew up in farming area. I lived for many years in a subdivision that the year before was a giant corn and cattle farm. And about half of the kids I went to school with still lived on family farms. I remember many of the houses in the subdivision (1-2 acre lots) still had horses, cows, chickens, and produce growing in the back yards (this was the 1970's, and that was big back then). And behind us for the 3 miles until you hit the foothills it was all farms. I used to play with some of the neighbor kids when they got a calf in the spring. All during the spring and summer we would play with the calf, ride the calf, and in the fall they would butcher and eat the calf.

And the canals ran everywhere. the New York Canal literally ran through my back yard. And for over 100 years it (and the smaller canals it feeds into) have irrigated the farm land in around Boise, Idaho.



And ironically, this canal was not originally designed for the farmers. The original intent was to bring water to areas for gold mining (the Idaho Gold Rush lasted from 1860-1870 until most of the miners left to join the Alaska and Yukon Gold Rushes). But the mines all went bust or moved away, and the farmers stayed. So for over 100 years they have thrived from the canal system originally designed for mining.

 

I live in the UK and can not recall buying any American food anytime recently.

Brazillian beef and New Zealand lamb is about the only 2 "staples" I can think of that we regularly from outside the EU.

Also (speaking as someone who comes from a farming family), there is a lot, LOT, of underused agricultural capacity available to us. Its just cheaper to buy elsewhere.

I think we would be Ok.

 

http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/issue/uk.html

But although the UK has a thriving farming sector – it exported £12Bn of food and drink in 2007 – Britain is not self-sufficient in food production; it imports 40% of the total food consumed and the proportion is rising. Therefore, as a food-trading nation, Britain relies on both imports and thriving export markets to feed itself and drive economic growth.

Ther eis always unused farmland. But is it enough to make England self-sufficient? I doubt it.