• Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

International If a War USA Vs The rest of the World happened, who would win it?

Sonny Qc

Titanium Belt
@Titanium
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
36,112
Reaction score
40,911
a Sherdogger argued this with me during last weekend fight card
@Doctor Lenovo

He said
-" The USA is not winning a war against the world. We would be comprehensively destroyed."

and

-" Absolutely not. We have a huge border with Canada and Mexico, that means the Russians, North Koreans, Chinese, and British could build bases, and use nuclear weapons to eradicate us. Plus, Israel has deep infiltration of the US Military intelligence. They would sell all our secrets.
I love the USA, but there is no way the USA wins a war versus the world. We would be destroyed in matter of days if not hours."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some good points, but here another take on this.

2018_Military_Expenditures_by_Country.png


The U.S spend more the the next 7 biggest spenders combined.



There are only 5 ways into the United States.
Two of those ways in are bordered by Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
You’re going up against the most formidable oceanic force ever to roam the globe.
The US Navy can project power anywhere on earth in just a few hours / days notice; this would be a firewall you simply could not penetrate, even with all of the rest of the globes forces combined.
That doesn’t even mention the use of the Coast Guard, who are no slackers.

The next way in is via airborne drops / landings with troops.
All right, again, good luck.
You’re going to get past NORAD with those planes, and then land them, and then do that hundreds or thousands of times to bring in enough troops?
Any invading air force will be shot down before it even can think about landing.
If by some miracle any do happen to get in, USCOM will track the forces, deploy counter-measures and they will be eliminated.

So that leaves you with two options: invasion by land through Mexico and Canada.

The US could quickly capture Mexico and create a choke point, either at the Guatemalan border, or, could further the choke-point with virtually no resistance through Central America, all the way to the Darien Gap. Nothing is getting through the Darien Gap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darién_Gap
220px-Map_of_Darien_Gap.svg.png


So that leaves invasion through the Northern border with Canada.
Resistance in Canada would be slightly stiffer than in Mexico and yes, there would be casualties.
However, faced with that long of a border, which is virtually indefensible, it is better to capture and hold the entire country than to allow enemy forces to assemble and invade through the north.

I believe that Canada would surrender and join the U.S pretty quickly.

The U.S have more than enough oil for now,
And if Canada surrender, Natural ressources would be okay too.

If the world can't invade the U.S,
How could they win this war?
Going with Nuclear weapons?
The U.S also got more of those than the rest of the world.
At best, it would end in a Tie, probably resulting by the destruction of the planet earth.
(not a great plan)

One of my favorite channel on Youtube also pick the USA to win this Hypothetical war.
They go in deeper on how the U.S would win
Enjoy




Discuss
 
Last edited:
are we invading or being invaded?

If we are invading we would mostly lose (unless you're talking about our immediate neighbors - Canada and Mexico for example).

If we are being invaded we will win.

This is assuming nukes aren't being used. If nukes are used then everybody loses... only the cockroaches win... I hate roaches...
 
I would say a stale mate after millions of people die and the U.S would probably end up losing territories like Alaska and Hawaii., so a net loss for the U.S overall I guess. I doubt Canada would just except occupation, if they were truly at war with the U.S.
 
are we invading or being invaded?

If we are invading we would mostly lose (unless you're talking about our immediate neighbors - Canada and Mexico for example).

If we are being invaded we will win.

This is assuming nukes aren't being used. If nukes are used then everybody loses... only the cockroaches win... I hate roaches...
If you have 15 minutes, watch the youtube link.
Pretty interesting stuff.

Agree that it would be almost impossible to invade the rest of the world, just cause' of man power.
(hell, invading Vietnam was a failure)
 
I would say a stale mate after millions of people die and the U.S would probably end up losing territories like Alaska and Hawaii., so a net loss for the U.S overall I guess. I doubt Canada would just except occupation, if they were truly at war with the U.S.
as a Canadian, I honestly can't see us going against the U.S to begin with.
Let's face it, our military is a joke anyway.
 
as a Canadian, I honestly can't see us going against the U.S to begin with.
Let's face it, our military is a joke to begin with.

It's not about military size, occupying a country of millions of people is extremely difficult now imagine doing that while you are at war with the rest of the world, it would be near impossible. If even a tenth of the population took up arms it wouldn't work.
 
It's not about military size, occupying a country of millions of people is extremely difficult now imagine doing that while you are at war with the rest of the world, it would be near impossible. If even a tenth of the population took up arms it wouldn't work.
after the first airstrikes on Toronto/Vancouver/Montreal
(1/3 of the Canadian population basicaly live there)
Canada would be begging on their knees.

I don't see Canada using Guerilla tactics and trying to go on a long conflict here sorry.
 
Last edited:
after the first airstrikes on Toronto/Vancouver/Montreal
(1/3 of the Canadian population basicaly live there)
Canada would be begging on their knees.

I don't see canada using Gorilla tactics and trying to go on a long conflict here sorry.

I would see Canada/U.S/Mexico borders being the main battleground for this war, Europe would probably rather send equipment, troops etc than have it fought in their countries. This is all assuming no nukes are being used.
 
Let's be honest, if it was a real war, nukes would be used and the entire world would be destroyed. That's why nuclear countries haven't tried to invade each other since World War II, but have stuck to proxy wars in less developed countries.
 
We could could take you fucking pansies with one hand tied behind our backs , fat burger munching cunts .
 
Let's be honest, if it was a real war, nukes would be used and the entire world would be destroyed. That's why nuclear countries haven't tried to invade each other since World War II, but have stuck to proxy wars in less developed countries.

This is true, it's all hypothetical and to be honest even if they agreed on terms to not use nukes, as soon as one side gained the upper hand they would probably revert to using nukes anyways. So in the end it would mean worldwide destruction.
 
The States would win in all out war.

If it was everyone against them, everyone else would have to coordinate in some impractical ways. The United States has technological military boons nobody even thinks about- they would really only have to worry about three countries, and could allocate minimal effort to suppress everyone else. Given that, it would be an easy task to take out the major threats early on.

The only way to take them down would be if most of the other (economically and in terms of militaristic prowess) countries could provide enough of a threat to divert the efforts of the States, and it's very unlikely they could.

Ironically the best way to destroy the USA is to lure it into destroying itself, which is exactly what is happening. If the USA ever got into another civil war the onlookers would not merely observe. They would destroy us while we destroyed each other.

It would still be a hard fight for whoever was trying to take us, and it would be messy all around for everyone, but it can be done. And the casualties would be heavily skewed towards women and children.

We haven't had a real, real full scale war in a long time. Everyone wants it until they get it.
 
Going with Nuclear weapons?
The U.S also got more of those than the rest of the world.
This doesn't matter. We don't have the capabilities to protect ourselves from nukes, just to retaliate after we've already been destroyed. The same is true for Russia as well, so even if we struck first, their retaliation would end us and probably the rest of the world.
 
This doesn't matter. We don't have the capabilities to protect ourselves from nukes, just to retaliate after we've already been destroyed. The same is true for Russia as well, so even if we struck first, their retaliation would end us and probably the rest of the world.

This...

And the US has less nuclear warheads than the rest of the world. Not that it really matters... There's more than enough to wipe out everyone twice or thrice over...
 
Also, it isn't the nineteenth century where the armies of the rest of the world gather at our border and have their criers yell "We now declare war with the United States."

No one would go to war with us without pulling off a first strike, and a first strike in the modern world is going to target our power grid, which is very vulnerable.

If other countries need help getting through our porous border, they can just ask the Mexican cartel for help, or they can just send saboteurs on visas and forget about the border.
 
All the USA has to do is pull our navy, let the Middle East go into war and choke off the oil supply to the rest of the world.

Then start disrupting food exports.

Then Canada, Mexico and the USA will sit back and watch the show as the rest of the world fights amongst each other.

That will take out half the population and have the world begging for our help.
 
Back
Top