Conquer Club

If the US were to declare war to the entire world, in a crazy ass WWIII with a few allies like Mexico, Canada and Brazil, who would win?

I'd like to know how far ahead in the armament race the US are.

Comment!

nietzsche wrote:If the US were to declare war to the entire world, in a crazy ass WWIII with a few allies like Mexico, Canada and Brazil, who would win?
I'd like to know how far ahead in the armament race the US are.
Comment!

It wouldn't even be close.

It wouldn't really matter. There are enough crazy SOBs with nukes , bio agents and the like, that if we tried to bring on a real threat, they would just do a "suicide" and we would all die anyway.

Pfft. Playa's bluffin'. You don't have nukes.

I think a bit more than a million nukes are needed to end life on earth. If only a 1 million survived it would be ok, we would just need to f*ck a lot.

and not mind kids with webbed feet, and flipper hands......




In a conventional war the Chinese would win hands down. They have more boots on the ground, and they don't care about their body counts.

In a full nuclear war, humans would not survive three decades past the start of it.



JRock

Yeah I've got to agree with Johnny, the Chinese are too plentiful. A war between just the US and China is a toss up, but China and the rest of the world? No chance.

I feel like the US would beat the Chinese 1v1 (quality, not quantity) but the Russians, Europeans, etc, too? Nah.

Main prob would be the US couldn't join the war late.

nietzsche wrote:If the US were to declare war to the entire world, in a crazy ass WWIII with a few allies like Mexico, Canada and Brazil, who would win?

I'd like to know how far ahead in the armament race the US are.

Comment!

Before an accurate answer can be given, I think three questions must be answered:

1. Would this be what, in U.S. Army staff verbiage, is called "a War of National Survival" (i.e. are all political limits proscribing the use of NBCR weapons off)? If so I say the scenario stops there as the U.S. has the capability to initiate a guaranteed successful decapitating first-strike against the PRC, DPRK, Pakistan, India, France, the UK and Israel (or all 7 at once). As for the U.S.' capability to launch a successful first-strike against the RF ... my idle guess is yes, though I think there's another commenter in this thread who could make a more accurate judgment.

2. What is the strategic objective of this war? Nullification of foreign military and industrial threats or the capture and holding of territory? If the latter I say the scenario stops there as the U.S. does not have the capability to hold territory in any significant way without a radical restructuring of American civil and military society.

3. What would Brazil's contribution to the war effort be other than transvestite flamenco dancers?

That said, this is an unlikely hypothetical. Nations don't declare war on themselves and the U.S., for all intents and purposes, consists of every nation on the Earth; the fusion of every country on this planet beneath an invisible hand that has co-opted government at the highest levels in nominally independent nations. There are no Earth nations left for the U.S. to war against. Just a collection of meaningless flags and lines on a map.

Johnny Rockets wrote:In a conventional war the Chinese would win hands down. They have more boots on the ground, and they don't care about their body counts.

In keeping with its defensive orientation, the PLAAF has virtually no global lift capability and the PLAN virtually no amphibious capability. It would be very difficult to violate, or occupy, PRC territory but equally as difficult for the PRC to project power outside their immediate geographic sphere-of-influence (and even that could be problematic).

saxitoxin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:If the US were to declare war to the entire world, in a crazy ass WWIII with a few allies like Mexico, Canada and Brazil, who would win?

I'd like to know how far ahead in the armament race the US are.

Comment!

Before an accurate answer can be given, I think three questions must be answered:

1. Would this be what, in U.S. Army staff verbiage, is called "a War of National Survival" (i.e. are all political limits proscribing the use of NBCR weapons off)? If so I say the scenario stops there as the U.S. has the capability to initiate a guaranteed successful decapitating first-strike against the PRC, DPRK, Pakistan, India, France, the UK and Israel (or all 7 at once). As for the U.S.' capability to launch a successful first-strike against the RF ... my idle guess is yes, though I think there's another commenter in this thread who could make a more accurate judgment.

2. What is the strategic objective of this war? Nullification of foreign military and industrial threats or the capture and holding of territory? If the latter I say the scenario stops there as the U.S. does not have the capability to hold territory in any significant way without a radical restructuring of American civil and military society.

3. What would Brazil's contribution to the war effort be other than transvestite flamenco dancers?

That said, this is an unlikely hypothetical. Nations don't declare war on themselves and the U.S., for all intents and purposes, consists of every nation on the Earth; the fusion of every country on this planet beneath an invisible hand that has co-opted government at the highest levels in nominally independent nations. There are no Earth nations left for the U.S. to war against. Just a collection of meaningless flags and lines on a map.

I'm going to iron out the loose ends to this hypothetical.

1. In essence, yes, this would be like Hitler in WWII. All must bow to the U.S.'s power. If we don't win, we lose. So basically, all out attacks in the most strategic way possible. I also believe to get an actual assessment of military strength/capabilities, lets take nukes out of the equation. This is a war by "conventional" means, i.e. bullets and bombs, no nukes or bio-hazards.

2. I would say the most logical would be nullification of all foreign military and industrial threat. Some years down the road the U.S. could come in with more troop force and slowly occupy territory, but as of right now it would be smarter to just destroy all possibilities of counter-attack.

3. Brazil would be our cheerleaders.

Ok, so taking what I said for #1, how do you guys think this would all play out?

saxitoxin wrote:

Johnny Rockets wrote:In a conventional war the Chinese would win hands down. They have more boots on the ground, and they don't care about their body counts.

In keeping with its defensive orientation, the PLAAF has virtually no global lift capability and the PLAN virtually no amphibious capability. It would be very difficult to violate, or occupy, PRC territory but equally as difficult for the PRC to project power outside their immediate geographic sphere-of-influence (and even that could be problematic).

Couldn't they dig until they reached the US?

maasman wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:If the US were to declare war to the entire world, in a crazy ass WWIII with a few allies like Mexico, Canada and Brazil, who would win?

I'd like to know how far ahead in the armament race the US are.

Comment!

Before an accurate answer can be given, I think three questions must be answered:

1. Would this be what, in U.S. Army staff verbiage, is called "a War of National Survival" (i.e. are all political limits proscribing the use of NBCR weapons off)? If so I say the scenario stops there as the U.S. has the capability to initiate a guaranteed successful decapitating first-strike against the PRC, DPRK, Pakistan, India, France, the UK and Israel (or all 7 at once). As for the U.S.' capability to launch a successful first-strike against the RF ... my idle guess is yes, though I think there's another commenter in this thread who could make a more accurate judgment.

I'm going to iron out the loose ends to this hypothetical.

1. In essence, yes, this would be like Hitler in WWII. All must bow to the U.S.'s power. If we don't win, we lose. So basically, all out attacks in the most strategic way possible. I also believe to get an actual assessment of military strength/capabilities, lets take nukes out of the equation. This is a war by "conventional" means, i.e. bullets and bombs, no nukes or bio-hazards.

Ok, so taking what I said for #1, how do you guys think this would all play out?

Brazil and maybe Mexico would most likely be overwhelmed by the rest of South America, which could serve as a landing base for whoever wants to head their operations there for a closer assault on the US. So whatever country that has weak power projection like China could simply land their troops in South America and head north.

The US would have too many seas too cover, although it's navy is superior... but against everyone else's maybe it wouldn't stand a chance if the enemy could somehow coordinate its plans very well.

As for our enemies, I'd think that nearly all the military forces of the sub-Saharan and perhaps a few of the North African and Middle Eastern countries would be too busy beating down their own people to get involved in such a war, but they could contribute funds.

Resources comes to mind. The US would have to undergo intense rationing with the loss of nearly all of its imports, so economic collapse would ensue (which would happen for a good bit in Europe and Asia, but they have better and quicker chances of recovering while North America would remain severely crippled from a worldwide embargo).

I'm missing more, but I think eventually the North American Federation would lose mostly due to economic reasons. The world could kick its feet back, and while recovering from the economic shock could unleash 100s of millions soldiers while the US would dash to conscript a huge portion of its population and train them, (or they'll be militias). The US could probably crank out an Armed Forces of about 150 million (male and female, ages 16-49) but the US has a ton of land to defend, and couldn't simply give ground while abandoning its industrial and agricultural bases and expect to win without them.


tl;dr?

There's a lot of factors to consider, but I'd still bet against the North American Federation. It would be too much land to defend for the NAF, and compared to the world they don't have the manpower and resources to successfully defend themselves--or at least continue a long-term war--on all sides by armies that would immensely outnumber their own. It's roughly 500 million people versus 5.5 billion.

The US and the West will eventually lose the actual war, which is demographics. In Europe the birthrates are way below replacement, in the US only a little better. There are a heck of alot more people that hate Western culture than like it, and they are multiplying while the West is dying off. They dont even need tanks to take over. All they need to do is what they are doing, having a bunch of babies and moving to western countries. In Europe it's already been happening for a while and the US will follow suit eventually. We are toast, what we see around us is the ending of a civilization.

*faints*

maasman wrote:1. In essence, yes, this would be like Hitler in WWII. All must bow to the U.S.'s power. If we don't win, we lose. So basically, all out attacks in the most strategic way possible. I also believe to get an actual assessment of military strength/capabilities, lets take nukes out of the equation. This is a war by "conventional" means, i.e. bullets and bombs, no nukes or bio-hazards.

Well, Hitler didn't just throw everything he had in every direction all at once. Brilliant levels of diplomacy existed to politically neutralize opponents short of full force commitment.

Germany's effective sphere of influence included Rumania, Bulgaria, Finland, and OKW's order of battle included those countries armies even though those nations - for the most part - never suffered occupation but neither were ever fully independent and equal partners a la Italy and Japan.

In Dr. Luttwak's book "Coup d'Etat: A Practical Handbook" he argues that an effective action will rely on neutralization versus combat. In a coup against the U.S. government, the politically-reliable U.S. 82nd Airborne Division can be neutralized from interference at little cost not by attacking it but by co-opting some junior officers in the aircraft maintenance section at Pope Air Force Base. I think the same can be held true for a truly global war of planetary conquest. The conquest will take place on the political battlefield and, I would argue, it already has and the U.S. won (to the chagrin of people of my general Weltanschauung).

Joe McCarthy wrote:The US and the West will eventually lose the actual war, which is demographics. In Europe the birthrates are way below replacement, in the US only a little better. There are a heck of alot more people that hate Western culture than like it, and they are multiplying while the West is dying off. They dont even need tanks to take over. All they need to do is what they are doing, having a bunch of babies and moving to western countries. In Europe it's already been happening for a while and the US will follow suit eventually. We are toast, what we see around us is the ending of a civilization.

WHO ARE YOU GET OUT OF MY FORUM

2dimes wrote:*faints*

*Saxi gives 2dimes M2M*

nietzsche wrote:If the US were to declare war to the entire world, in a crazy ass WWIII with a few allies like Mexico, Canada and Brazil, who would win?

I'd like to know how far ahead in the armament race the US are.

Comment!

The ease of the US to "declare war" on the entire world and win is staggering. Even more staggering is the number of nations that would actually fall for the "con." You would be surprised at how undefended the United Nations is.

One the elite forces enter the United Nations and force the delegates to sign all sorts of legislation, the UN hugging nations of the world would be forced to accept their subordinance to the United States under UN Treaty obligations. (The smart ones would tell the UN to "go f*ck yourself" but we would have all of Europe for sure!)

*coughs stale second hand breath*

Dude, you're supposed to check for breathing before you do that.

Did anyone else see the Stache' on that guy?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

maasman wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:If the US were to declare war to the entire world, in a crazy ass WWIII with a few allies like Mexico, Canada and Brazil, who would win?

I'd like to know how far ahead in the armament race the US are.

Comment!

Before an accurate answer can be given, I think three questions must be answered:

1. Would this be what, in U.S. Army staff verbiage, is called "a War of National Survival" (i.e. are all political limits proscribing the use of NBCR weapons off)? If so I say the scenario stops there as the U.S. has the capability to initiate a guaranteed successful decapitating first-strike against the PRC, DPRK, Pakistan, India, France, the UK and Israel (or all 7 at once). As for the U.S.' capability to launch a successful first-strike against the RF ... my idle guess is yes, though I think there's another commenter in this thread who could make a more accurate judgment.

I'm going to iron out the loose ends to this hypothetical.

1. In essence, yes, this would be like Hitler in WWII. All must bow to the U.S.'s power. If we don't win, we lose. So basically, all out attacks in the most strategic way possible. I also believe to get an actual assessment of military strength/capabilities, lets take nukes out of the equation. This is a war by "conventional" means, i.e. bullets and bombs, no nukes or bio-hazards.

Ok, so taking what I said for #1, how do you guys think this would all play out?

Brazil and maybe Mexico would most likely be overwhelmed by the rest of South America, which could serve as a landing base for whoever wants to head their operations there for a closer assault on the US. So whatever country that has weak power projection like China could simply land their troops in South America and head north.

The US would have too many seas too cover, although it's navy is superior... but against everyone else's maybe it wouldn't stand a chance if the enemy could somehow coordinate its plans very well.

As for our enemies, I'd think that nearly all the military forces of the sub-Saharan and perhaps a few of the North African and Middle Eastern countries would be too busy beating down their own people to get involved in such a war, but they could contribute funds.

Resources comes to mind. The US would have to undergo intense rationing with the loss of nearly all of its imports, so economic collapse would ensue (which would happen for a good bit in Europe and Asia, but they have better and quicker chances of recovering while North America would remain severely crippled from a worldwide embargo).

I'm missing more, but I think eventually the North American Federation would lose mostly due to economic reasons. The world could kick its feet back, and while recovering from the economic shock could unleash 100s of millions soldiers while the US would dash to conscript a huge portion of its population and train them, (or they'll be militias). The US could probably crank out an Armed Forces of about 150 million (male and female, ages 16-49) but the US has a ton of land to defend, and couldn't simply give ground while abandoning its industrial and agricultural bases and expect to win without them.


tl;dr?

There's a lot of factors to consider, but I'd still bet against the North American Federation. It would be too much land to defend for the NAF, and compared to the world they don't have the manpower and resources to successfully defend themselves--or at least continue a long-term war--on all sides by armies that would immensely outnumber their own. It's roughly 500 million people versus 5.5 billion.

I disagree. The world could have 50 billion people and, I think, the U.S. would still win a war in which you lined up the world's armies on one line and those of the U.S. on the other. The technological high-ground owned by the U.S. is breathtaking to the point of having no historical precedent.

While, virtually without exception, the world's military forces are relegated to buying off-the-shelf weapons systems, the global warfighting technology of the U.S. is fifty years beyond the most advanced platforms in the public eye.

I hate to say it but, if a situation existed where the U.S. truly felt the need to pull aside its kimono, the absolute and unchecked terror it could inflict on a battlefield of numerically superior adversaries would be unlike anything ever seen. Occupying territory would be a different matter, however.

The U.S.' most potent fear is a popular liberation action, against which its technology is useless.

Joe McCarthy wrote:The US and the West will eventually lose the actual war, which is demographics. In Europe the birthrates are way below replacement, in the US only a little better. There are a heck of alot more people that hate Western culture than like it, and they are multiplying while the West is dying off. They dont even need tanks to take over. All they need to do is what they are doing, having a bunch of babies and moving to western countries. In Europe it's already been happening for a while and the US will follow suit eventually. We are toast, what we see around us is the ending of a civilization.

Yeah, all those people who are migrating from "eastern" to "western" places, are totally doing it because they hate the lifestyle of the places they're moving to, and are actually just planning to change them into something exactly like the places they moved away from in the first place. It makes so much sense, I can't believe it's only total nutters who claim things like this.

saxitoxin wrote: The technological high-ground owned by the U.S. is breathtaking to the point of having no historical precedent.

While, virtually without exception, the world's military forces are relegated to buying off-the-shelf weapons systems, the global warfighting technology of the U.S. is fifty years beyond the most advanced platforms in the public eye.

I'm thinking there must be a possibility of this. They decommission the SR-71, NASA trys to use them for research, can't afford it.

That thing is decades old. The difference between a total crap car built today versus an excellent car built in 1968 is vast. There was no computer whatsoever even in the radio of a car back then. The metalurgy is totally different and ceramics were a plant pot/ future cooking technology.

So we are to believe the US&A has not built better planes that are kept under wraps in the several decades where consumer crap has changed so much. OK.

2dimes wrote:

saxitoxin wrote: The technological high-ground owned by the U.S. is breathtaking to the point of having no historical precedent.

While, virtually without exception, the world's military forces are relegated to buying off-the-shelf weapons systems, the global warfighting technology of the U.S. is fifty years beyond the most advanced platforms in the public eye.

I'm thinking there must be a possibility of this. They decommission the SR-71, NASA trys to use them for research, can't afford it.

That thing is decades old. The difference between a total crap car built today versus an excellent car built in 1968 is vast. There was no computer whatsoever even in the radio of a car back then. The metalurgy is totally different and ceramics were a plant pot/ future cooking technology.

So we are to believe the US&A has not built better planes that are kept under wraps in the several decades where consumer crap has changed so much. OK.

Indeed.

Further, in public pronouncements the 2010 backbone of U.S. strategic bombing - the B-52 - is in aircraft built when ol' Saxi was 14 years old (1952)? And these are the same aircraft that will continue to fill this role for another 20 years, when ol' Saxi is 94?

The U.S. is a weird cat, loudly telling everyone it has a 3-inch dick but "just knows how to use it really well." However, it always refuses to undress in the shower room and murders all its girlfriends after copulation. We know the American dick is bigger than 3-inches, we just don't know if it's 6, 8 or 12 inches. I have cause to suspect it's 12-inches. I think there's another commenter here who can speak to that with more authority.