Could America wage war against the entire planet and still win?
Let's suppose no side will use nukes.
>>66225500
We can't win against rice farmers.
bump, genuinely curious
>>66225500
If we were playing it defensive we'd have a better chance due to our location. Probably not though.
>>66226062
rice farmers are OP
>>66226176
Rice farmers backed up by commies, you mean?
>>66225500
why no nukes?
>>66226062
this
>>66226355
'cause then it's boring, in 1 hour the war and civilization is over.
>>66226062
Gtfo you commie sjw cuck
kill yourself or move to canada waste of space
>>66226062
We can win against rice farmers, it would just involve the extermination of an entire country. Once word of the massacres of women and children in places like My Lai got to the American public, the will of the people turned against the war.
>>66225500
probably. If we could knock out russia and china before anyone else could organize, we'd win. Out airpower alone (muh carriers) would be almost impossible to defeat. Add in a massive fleet of drones, and we're pretty much unstoppable.
But if russia and china could band together and hold strategic positions, we may be stopped.
If the United States was being attacked by the entire world, we would certainly win. We would lose hawaii and alaska, though.
>>66226122
Who has a blue water navy that can go toe to toe with the USN? Not one boot would touch american soil.
>>66225500
> no nukes
Play it defensive, rely on navy and air force to cut off offensive moves. If someone manages to establish a beachhead and consistent naval supply lines to it that's it, we're fucked, so in the early days we'd have to take over Canada and S. America down to Panama, which would very likely occupy the majority of our ground forces.
If we take heavy naval losses, we're fucked. If we take heavy air losses, we're fucked. If it turns into a ground war on our soil, we're fucked.
As far as going on the offensive goes the best bet would probably be to sabotage and bomb resource centers, supply lines and industry.
Best we could do is probably force a stalemate.
>>66225500
>Could America wage war against the entire Afghanistan and still win?
>Let's suppose no side will use nukes.
I think America needs to learn to walk before it can run, OP.
Is it possible for Moldovans to elect a politican that isn't corrupt?
These are the questions we must ask ourselves.
>>66225500
I think we'd be pretty fucked at our borders tbhonest
>>66226819
A United Europe would be a force to be reckoned with as well.
Not that it would ever happen, or that they would be our enemy, but hypothetically...
>>66225500
Yes we could win.
The superior air power, and unmatched naval force, combined with the fact the US has military bases all over the globe.
We can strike anywhere at any time. The wars that have been fought by the US the last half century are fake wars. The US has no interest in getting these wars done in a short time period. If it was a real war against America, the muscles would flex and destroy the opposing armies with no problem.
The F-35 being a shitty jet, is just a meme. The fighter pilots that have flown them, are in agreeance they are the best planes ever conceived.
And just to give you and idea of how far advanced out military tech is, the Sr-71 blackbird, the fastest plane ever made (supposedly) was made over 50 YEARS AGO. And was declassified 2 years ago. The budget for the military has gone way up since the 60's, I can't even imagine the tech we currently have, that would be used in a true world war.
That war would never happen though. The US would crash the economies of the other countries and send them into civil wars before we hit them with weapons.
The world has changed a lot since the 30's, the tactics of war would not be the same
You're short of a few points needed for the equation here.
What's the world's motivation to attack America?
Are we fighting an invasion or are we landing on Europe/Russia/China/Africa?
Did we know this was coming or did the world turn on us in 24 hours?
Are the Finns involved to the point they mobilize? (Then we're fucked)
Deploy the aircraft carriers around Americas. No fly zone over N. America. Carpet bomb Canadian cities. Trump's wall means we can wait to destroy Central/South America until the end. Isolate UK, Carpet bomb.
Up to that point I think we are ok. But then it gets hard. Can't isolate Europe from Russia. And I don't know how we handle China.
Obviously Africa is not an issue, nor Middle East.
Can we use ONE nuke? Israel.
Nope. You are outnumberd and out gunned.
Your infrastructure and sice are a burden and can be used against you easely.
It really depends if we are attacking or defending. I feel on defense we will always win
Does no nukes mean no EMPs?
>>66226822
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqWxgCZ1TQE
Explain this Johnson
>>66227531
>and out gunned
We have the largest Navy by far, the only capable blue water Navy, the first, second, and fourth largest air forces and the second largest armed forces on the planet. Unless you find a way for force projection into North America, you'll be fucking off across the pond.
There are a lot of powerful militaries out there, combined they would be scary. However most of those countries dont have a means of making it to US soil.
Most of their military power is for defense, not a projecting force.
Id be willing to bet theyd never make it past our Navy.
America has a bad reputation for fighting wars across the globe, but were probably the only country that actually can.
I feel like if we took our time, taking small country by small country, we could take on the world.
>>66227883
There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other eleven?
>>66225500
Defense? Abso-fucking-lutely
Offense? It'd be pretty hard, but if it's balls deep, scorched earth war, then I think we could, but not easily.
>>66228049
We good son. We have more than 100 guns for every 100 people in the US. We're armed to the teeth. I don't think a land invasion would be as easy as the nazis walking into france
>>66228267
You know who's going to inherit the Earth? Arms dealers. Because everyone else is too busy killing each other. That's the secret to survival. Never go to war. Especially with yourself.
>>66226822
fighters in afghanistan flood from neighboring countries that we can't attack like iran, saudi arabia and pakistan. we could still win the war in afghanistan, but the gloves are still on. you think we couldn't just slaughter every village who we even suspected of associating with jihadists?
Yes
mmm yes
btw I'm a girl
>>66225500
>mold
>nukes
>four sets of dubs
So zombies will rise from radioactive fungus, vote for some racist fuck, and when they conquer moldavia, they will destroy the proxy server you are using.
sounds great OP
>>66225500
No they can't even fight mujahidins without helicopters and drones
>>66225500
This was actually something that came up on /k/ theres even an article some analysts looked at and figured that the US would still have good chance to win in defense no problem.
http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a-military-expert-if-the-whole-world-could-conquer-the-united-states
>>66225500
We already have I'm pretty sure. Twice.
And the second time we won so hard the international community banned our tactics afterwards to keep it fair.
>>66225500
I am on this planet, so no. No way.
>>66228523
It was the same with Vietnam. The VC would simply use peaceful neighboring countries to move their forces and gear around. We werent able to enter those countries, let alone bomb the VC within them.
History repeats
>>66225500
>China
enough said
If almost every American were on board with this plan and working together toward it, yes, probably with proper planning and no one getting a heads up.
Though I think it would be important to absorb Canada before the beginning of actual war.
It would not be pretty.
Most human Americans would not have the stomach or moral perspective to be able to accept the means to which would secure such an end.
We would be forced to genocide most of the planet to be successful in the long run.
And were we to be unsuccessful, I cannot imagine any consideration being given back to us in return.
Without +99% of Americans being on board with it, domestic terrorism would be an almost guaranteed result.
Chemical and biological weapons would immediately come into play after the onset of an all out offensive against the most capable powers outside of ourselves.
America vs All means every nation would seek our destruction by any and every means they are capable of, though some may immediately beg to join us in the initial days just to avoid being a target.
But could you trust them?
Could you blame them for what they do in return?
I don't think so.
Defense wise, we could hold out forever.
Offense, no chance.
>>66226441
That sounds exciting to me.
>>66226062
DUDE
RICE
LMAO
Reminder that if the US was actually trying to destroy a country instead of turn it into an ally (like Vietnam, pretty much everything in the Middle East) they could and would win easily. Getting 'beat by rice farmers and sandniggers' is a meme.
Bomb factories, infrastructure, government institutions, ports, power plants. The military will scatter and flee into the wilderness, obviously.
Then just wait. They're no threat hiding in the jungle. Wait until they pop their head up trying to build and organize and drop some more ordinance on them.
>>66225500
If they go from A to Z, Afghanistan is right there near the top, so they won't get far.
If they go from Z to A Zimbabwe is probably screwed, but then they run into Vietnam.
Not looking good either way.
>>66225500
No. By the time they had their safe spaces and designated women roles allocated the war would almost be over. Asians are ruthless especially when their opponents are nothing more than pussified manlets.
>>66225500
Do a little maths and find out for yourself
