Non-professional, layman's, non-assertive opinion:
Any war with the U.S. will always be a matter of sheer numbers vs. technological and tactical multipliers. And then it depends on your definition of
"victory." I mean, if we leave unconventional warfare off the table and assume absolute non-interference by any other states (or support by other
states exclusively against the U.S.,) China could, IN THEORY, in a war of unprecedented attrition, in which they would lose millions of lives, stage a
slow, painful, disastrous invasion via the arctic and Canada. That would never happen, though, because the economic and human costs would set the
whole world back decades or centuries.
If we're talking about full spectrum, combined arms warfare against the U.S. - could the WHOLE WORLD defeat the U.S. military? Almost certainly. I
mean, a combined Russian and European campaign of air strikes against the U.S. staged from Britain and Canada Japan, Alaska (once secured,) and
numerous islands and air bases, as well as a Chinese and Japanese effort in the Pacific, would force us to fight in two theaters (something we're no
longer optimized to do) against overwhelming numbers of enemy vehicles, soldiers, and munitions. Barring the use of nuclear or biological weapons, it
would still be a terrible war of attrition, though. The speed, efficiency, and more importantly, experience of U.S. forces from decades spent engaged
in leading edge combat around the world would mean a long, grueling campaign in which the attackers would lose a great deal regardless of eventual
Then they'd have to contend with an armed, fanatical, bitterly entrenched domestic insurgency combining remnants of the armed forces, average
citizens, first responders, police, etc. etc. Probably for decades... or longer. Pacifying the U.S. would likely become untenable, and eventually some
sort of new independent government would have to be allowed to form simply because the costs of the quagmire would be too high for the world to bear,
given the decimation of the global economy which would ensue following the collapse of the United States economy.
If nuclear weapons are on the table... then it's the end of the world as we know it, period. The world could "win," but it would be absolutely
disastrous. We have first and second strike capability, and even with preemptive crippling of some of our nuclear capability... we would still drag
the rest of the world down into hell with us, inescapably.
In short... could the U.S. fall to a combined international coalition of advanced military forces from, say, Russia, China, Japan, Canada, and Europe?
Yes. Would the victory taste as bitter as defeat though, for all of humanity? Absolutely. This is why the U.S. is perceived as the world's sole
"hyper" power today. For better or worse. And it's unlikely the resulting insurgency could ever be pacified.
edit on 3/11/2016 by AceWombat04 because: Typos
edit on 3/11/2016 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)