It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If every nation in the world allied and invaded the United States, would they succeed?

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
An attack by the rest of the world upon the USA would only result in the death of the entire planet.
Nukes would definitely be used against attacker countries if we were being attacked by everyone. There is no way that nukes would not be used in such a scenario.
And everyone would lose.


Mutually
Assured
Destruction

While it is a somewhat disturbing strategy, you gotta admit that it works very well.

America is only as strong as her leader's testicles, IMO. That unfortunately means we have ebbs and flows. Presently, a global invasion *might* be successful. If tried with a leader cut from the cloth of, say, Eisenhower... no chance in hell it would succeed.

Maybe but it's not the leader alone one may have to think about, there are people operating those Nukes that may not want to end it all, this was put to a test at least a couple of times due to computer glitch that almost caused WWIII but the guy who was to carry out the order refused to do so, remember this name Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petro a Russian that couldn't carry out that order even when pressured by the highest authorities thus saving the world.




posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

That was only when the war was turning sour for them. Had they won the supposed betrayers would have done their part.

Its when things fail that traitors emerge. When you are winning, everyone wants to be on your side.

As far as being surrounded, that is not a good strategy. You have to commit to set positions to launch an attack from, kind of like the middle east is now.

There is too much land to hit effective military targets. There are highways that can be used as airways, since by law they have to be able to land planes in emergency situations every couple of miles.

There are countless dormant manufacturing centers that can be started back up relatively quickly, there are countless nooks and crannies to hide missile batteries, artillery and armour as well as other such counter measures for advancing troops.

There is an endless supply of ammo and small arms as well as a large number of proficient users that have passed through the armed forces or other type of military training in one way or the other. Thats not even mentioning law enforcement which would be enlisted directly.

The US is like Russia. Either glass us, or dont bother.

I dont think the world could invade. Destroy maybe, invade hell no.


edit on 3 10 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
Maybe but it's not the leader alone one may have to think about, there are people operating those Nukes that may not want to end it all, this was put to a test at least a couple of times due to computer glitch that almost caused WWIII but the guy who was to carry out the order refused to do so, remember this name Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petro a Russian that couldn't carry out that order even when pressured by the highest authorities thus saving the world.


I've seen articles that indicate there are now "failsafes" that can swiftly bypass anyone unwilling to follow orders. There's also the legendary Dead Hand weapon in Russia, which I would be SHOCKED if the US didn't have something akin to it, which removes any human action requirement from the equation and toasts the Earth if the government is overrun.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

In a situation where there is strong unity yes, but if there are internal divisions then I could see a successful if bloody invasion remember those highway can be just as effective in landing foreign planes as would our own, again the it all depend if we were the last free State and conscious of that fact vs we were a Fascist /authoritarian state.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Spider879
Maybe but it's not the leader alone one may have to think about, there are people operating those Nukes that may not want to end it all, this was put to a test at least a couple of times due to computer glitch that almost caused WWIII but the guy who was to carry out the order refused to do so, remember this name Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petro a Russian that couldn't carry out that order even when pressured by the highest authorities thus saving the world.


I've seen articles that indicate there are now "failsafes" that can swiftly bypass anyone unwilling to follow orders. There's also the legendary Dead Hand weapon in Russia, which I would be SHOCKED if the US didn't have something akin to it, which removes any human action requirement from the equation and toasts the Earth if the government is overrun.

Point taken, not having a human factor is a changer.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras
It all comes down to Stalingrad, they didn't even need it, but Hitler demanded it.

His hubris cost him the war!!


Eh, it was likely a lost cause on the Eastern Front either way, so he'd get the same flak if he would have ignored the Caucus. Just a numbers game. A real problem was that he waffled between the city or the oilfields. Picking the latter first, and then changing his mind back to Stalingrad. You could make a reasonable (but not nearly as popular) case that the push along the Moscow-Leningrad fronts were the "downfall". At anyrate, most agree that a concentration of force somewhere would have been better than two prongs, that much is true. The whole reason for the entire front was to capture the Caucus. The push north was supposed to enable that, and perhaps knock out the Russians from the war (enabling the capture and administration of the Caucus).


You also have to look at the timing, which is something that gets overlooked a lot. Rarely are the campaigns worldwide linked chronologically. Benghazi and Tobruk had just fallen to the Axis. Rommel looked to be well on his way to pushing the British out of Egypt. The Japanese still looked unstoppable in the Pacific. The U-boat campaign was in full swing sinking tonnage far faster than the Allies could produce it.

Through Case Blue, Germany seizes the Caucus oil fields, the major rail terminus of Stalingrad, and the surrounding industrial areas critical to the Soviet war machine. This denies the oil to the Soviets and is a boon to the German offensive. T-34's (the new tanks making such an impact) were being produced in Stalingrad. Controlling the rail termini eases troop movement on the offensive, and denies the Soviets easy concentration of reinforcements near the front. Perhaps more significant, it cuts the ME supply line of Lend-Lease-- forcing Lend-Lease through the much riskier arctic convoy routes which submarines and aircraft were doing a number on.

The "He just had to have Stalingrad"-argument isn't really a fair evaluation of the Eastern Front, imo.



I'll tie it in to the actual topic now: Lengthy supply lines are difficult, and superior numbers and production are easier to maintain on short ones. Those shorter ones are of immense value to the defender.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: nito92

You're just taking into account resources as it pertains to the military. We have many more soldiers than just those in uniform, and we have more than those signed up for potential drafting. Especially in the south, there are guns on damn near every neighborhood in this country... We have really good guns, and we know how to use them. Nukes and military aside, we are a force to be reckoned with. Yeah, every country in the world together could give us a fight, but with everything we are working with, despite the numbers, it would still be tough to beat us with military might.

Hit our economy, and we're talking a completely different story. That is something that can bring us to our knees.

Of course, we are no match whatsoever to the wrath of God. If He brings His wrath, then even Mexico's military could take us out.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Sure, it's possible that every country could align, take over the USA. But it would only be a matter of time before they tear each other apart over who will control this captured country. That's mankind's nature.. To argue and fight.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: nito92
Has anyone considered that maybe the Canadian province of Newfoundland declared war on the USA?
Newfoundland declares war on the U.S.A.


President Barack Obama was in the Oval Office when his telephone rang.

"Hallo, President Obama " a heavily accented voice said. "This is Archie, up ere at the Harp Seal Pub in Badger's Cove , Newfoundland , Canada , eh? I am callin' to tells ya dat we are officially declaring war on ya!"

"Well Archie," Barack replied, "This is indeed important news !
How big is your army ?"

"Right now," said Archie, after a moments calculation "there is myself, me cousin Harold , me next-door-neighbor Mick, and the whole dart team from the pub. That makes eight!"

Barack paused. "I must tell you Archie that I have one million men in my army waiting to move on my command."

"Wow," said Archie. "I'll have ta call ya back!"

Sure enough, the next day, Archie called again. " Mr. Obama , the war is still on! We have managed to acquire some infantry equipment!"

"And what equipment would that be Archie?" Barack asked.

"Well sir, we have two combines, a bulldozer, and Harry 's farm tractor."

President Obama sighed. "I must tell you Archie, that I have 16,000 tanks and 14,000 armored personnel carriers. Also I've increased my army to one and a half million since we last spoke."

"Lord above", said Archie, "I'll be getting back to ya."

Sure enough, Archie rang again the next day.. " President Obama , the war is still on! We have managed to git ourselves airborne! We up an' modified Harrigan's ultra-light wit a couple of shotguns in the cockpit, and four boys from the Legion have joined us as well!"
Barack was silent for a minute then cleared his throat. "I must tell you Archie that I have 10,000 bombers and 20,000 fighter planes. My military complex is surrounded by laser-guided, surface-to-air missile sites. And since we last spoke, I've increased my army to TWO MILLION!"

"Jumpins," said Archie, "l'll have at call youse back."

Sure enough, Archie called again the next day. " President Obama ! I am sorry to have to tell you dat we have had to call off dis 'ere war."

"I'm sorry to hear that" said Barack . "Why the sudden change of heart?"

Well, sir," said Archie, "we've all sat ourselves down and had a long chat over a bunch of pints, and come to realize dat dere's no way we can feed two million prisoners.."

SORRY I COULDN"T RESIST!



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: brice

That was gold

Did you write that?

REALLY GOOD!!!!



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

This.

Plus, you know, there is no conventional way, short of pure freaking magic, star gates or divine intervention to deliver the "rest of the world's" troops to the United States.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   
America in a conventional non-nuclear vs all?

Still wins for a few reasons.

1. Geographic location, our northern and southern neighbors could do nothing until other nations arrived which comes to the next point

2. Force projection, the rest of the world combined extremely lacks in that department. Our subs would be trained on any and every carrier/transport ship leaving port.

3. Air superiority. Sure, Russia has some great anti-aircraft capabilities, but what good will they do while in Russia?

4. Naval imbalance, we um, yea.

5. 2nd amendment. The thing everyone forgets is the 150+ million gun owners that immediately become a defensive fighting force. Good luck.

That's my opinion on the matter anyway.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I guess I could agree with you, and in the end, I do side with the United States for sure, but, I just think people still dont realize how outnumbered they would be, 7 billion vs 400 million, no guerrilla could fight a 7 billion army, I think. Of course no expert here so bear with me.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

No, you're spot on. Let's break it down again: the biggest troop carrying ships in our arsenal can move roughly 1000 fighting men at a time. You'd need 10,000 boats to move 1,000,000 soldiers. There are no shipyards anywhere that can build that many ships without being immediately visible on google maps, 5-7 years before they were ready to deploy. Cargo ships? That would never work. Their bathrooms are designed for a crew of 14. Planes? You'd need 30,000 to land a million strong force of invaders, and -- like you said: an EAGER American behind every blade of glass, with an arsenal and a hard-on to shoot the invaders ASAP.

It's fantasy role-playing for people who suck at both fantasy and role-playing.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

number 4 was funny. LOL

You forgot our massive mothball fleets of ships , armor and aircraft. If we needed to, we could get them up and running in a wartime environment and even if most were outdated buckets, the sheer numbers would be insane.

Then there are civilian aircraft and ships. They could be armed with rudimentary armaments or used in suicide runs, as decoys.

This is crazy, but I still think a drawn out conventional war with the world would be a stalemate or slight victory.

The only clear victory over us would be nuclear in nature and that is if the fallout doesnt kill the other guys.


edit on 3 10 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: nito92
a reply to: Vector99

I guess I could agree with you, and in the end, I do side with the United States for sure, but, I just think people still dont realize how outnumbered they would be, 7 billion vs 400 million, no guerrilla could fight a 7 billion army, I think. Of course no expert here so bear with me.


How are you going to get the 7 billion people to the CONUS?



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Star-gates!



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: nito92
a reply to: Vector99

no guerrilla could fight a 7 billion army,

How exactly is that 7 billion man army getting to the US? More than half are an ocean away.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: RadioRobert

Star-gates!


Hey, as long as there's a plan...



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: RadioRobert

Star-gates!

I'm sure the world actually could count on North Korea's sub fleet. They say it can decimate the US in one shot




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join