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

a reply to: crazyewok

The point of the OP is that we are here to analyze the potential invasion of CONUS by the world. We have more than enough industrial capacity to meet our war needs, our hygiene, health and food. What gaps exist would be filled in a matter of months, months that endless fleets of our enemies would be having a first hand experience at the depths of the ocean as a disproportionate volume of the non Russia-China assets will be in range of our weapons and advanced targeting systems before we are in range of their.

I am pretending nukes are not even being factored here, thats why I have not mentioned them for the sake of this fun game we are playing called "The World vs. North America" . China has like two aircraft carriers, and much of the rest of the NAVY is not designated for cross ocean intercontinental operations. Russia has a more capable navy , as well as closing the gap in aviation. But without the means to get those jets to our lands, its really a mute point. Same thing goes for their tanks.

It would just be an endless volley of them sacrificing their forces to Neptune in the depths of the ocean.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Indeed, one has to think that they would build tons of carriers or figure something out before that event happened, bases around the world would help as well as taking off the american ones, like a 10-20 years preparation before the big war, of course, the USA intelligence would know as well and prepare, I know, brutal annihilation.

originally posted by: Misterlondon
Of course they would.. a handful of nations would be able to do it...

I am sure the OP is talking non nuclear. They would have no way to get here. We would blow them out of the sky or sink their ships. Anyone who did get here would die here as we have DOUBLE the guns than Russia and China's whole armies bought in just 8 years alone. That is just the count from the last 8 years lol.

The only way it could happen is if the dirtbags in D.C. let them in.

Since we aren't talking true realities (such as how many people truly in foreign countries would actually fight):

Quantity is not necessarily always a strength. Yes China can field 200 million men speaking strictly by the numbers. But do you realize the logistics of feeding an army that size? You're talking moving, at a minimum, 50,000 tons of food per day to just China's troops. Keep in mind, America's newest supercarrier weighs 100,000 tons. China, at a minimum, would have to move 350,000 tons of food to their troops here in the US every week, 3.5 carriers weight worth of sustenance. That would have to divert probably all of China's merchant marine force.

Quality trumps quantity most of the time. Yeah, such and such country might have ten times the tanks as the US, but if one of our tanks can destroy ten of theirs at night before they can get a target lock, the numbers don't matter as much.

Also, moving vehicles, armored and otherwise across either Ocean would not be an easy task. If you noticed, the US has by far the largest navy (ship count is not nearly as important as size, 30 patrol boats don't stand a chance against one USfrigate, I promise you). The ocean is big. And if we are assuming the US has all its assets stateside, we could destroy virtually every hostile ship that came within 500 miles of our coast.

America's industrial capacity is immense. It's not to say some other countries don't have large capacities as well, but again, we don't have to move our assets across vast oceans. If America moves to a state of total war, our military quality will outmatch virtually every numerically superior force. Not to mention the defensive side is always going to be at an advantage.


So grouping the advantage of the defensive side with America's technological military superiority, along with the massive logistics required to launch a Trans oceanal invasion force large enough to maintain a significant foothold tells me that While it may not be impossible, it would be Pyhrric victory foebthe rest of the world.

a reply to: nito92

Speaking as a 'furriner', I think it's kind of a silly question. The rest of the world has its own problems to worry about; why would we invade the US and take on a whole new set of problems?

a reply to: LS650

CLEARLY illustrating WHY we wouldn't invade Mexico.
WHAT would the world DO with the mad populace of America?

a reply to: nito92

Thing is any country could be overthrown by the population of its own country, no need for another. This is the reason all governments have their position of powers in operation to psychologically effect citizens to not act out towards them or else prison, fines and so forth. It does not take much.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

You are dreaming pal.
What are you going to do about the nastiest guerrillas the planet?
Who will have the BALLS to stand up to us on our home turf?

a reply to: nito92

That was a good OP. Love the Stats

a reply to: nito92

Ok i am going to speak on behalf of Australia . If we were to help invade how the hell are we going to get there . At 11,600 kilometers from Brisbane to LA we have a handful of useful navy ships that could get there without refueling . Quick count 6 and they are not designed to carry passengers . Ok so we put the army on Quantas . Firstly where are we going to land and realistically how many planes are going to get through . Short answer is none if they were to land anywhere close to the Us . Mexico city is to close so we land in Guatemala or Ecuador . Problem , we have 8 transport planes capable of delivering transport so i guess for the unlucky its is walk to the war . Australia decides not to join the war but promise to watch on CNN . And besides the AFL grand final is coming up and the Melboure cup is just around the corner . Also it a nice day for a barbie and a few coldies . But we promise to revisit our plans next week .

All empires fall in due time. Even if America lasts 1000 years, like Rome, it will collapse either from within or out.

Maybe they already are. Look at it this way. We import so much stuff that if the supply was cut off we would be in deep #. Most of our weapons are now even made over seas from what I have read. Look at how things are going now days. I wonder if maybe some people in our own government has not already sold us out. I have to wonder if we may lose the fight before we even know there is one.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

the USA justification to retaliate in kind. So now you are left with conventional weapons and means.

I mentioned the countries that I did as such for valid and good reasons. Cuba, has only had one major country it has been against, and that is the USA. Thus its spies only have to infiltrate and learn information from one country and is far better than the Soviet Union or any other country for that matter. Even the experts at the CIA would point that out, as they have been trying to capture them, with little to no success at all. And most of the valuable information needed is not classified at all, but simply pick up a news paper or look on the internet to find out about such.
China is a power player and one that could put a hurt on the USA in ways we are just beginning to suspect. They have a strong economic leverage on the USA, holding some 1.3 trillion dollars in our debt in their hands. Now they have been making incursions into other areas, and including territorial waters, contested islands. So they make a deal with the Japanese, add in a few other things, in exchange for the debt that it holds on the USA. Seems innocent, things are transferred to them and now they hold about 2 trillion of the USA debt. Then announce that they want full repayment of the debt, putting a strain on the economy of the USA, not just the interest, but full repayment.

Russia sits on a large and vast untapped natural resources, it could use, and would. Though neither China or Russia would be interested in going to war with the USA, as it would leave them vulnerable to the others attack, so they would not be willing to march men over, but shipping resources, that is another story. Course then there are the other countries, like Iran, that could make things hard, by putting a strangle hold on the Strait of Hormuz, especially if they can get Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to back their play, there is a good chance that they could do such, thus creating an oil shortage coming from the middle east, and putting more pressure on the USA and other countries. Russia holds a few resources it can use to blackmail Europe with, and ultimately start to set the stage.

Now we come to North Korea and Israel, along with the island nation of Taiwan. North Korea, with the backing of China and Russia launches an all out attack on South Korea, forcing the USA to divert military to support the South, along with NATO. China takes on Taiwan, forcing the USA into a 2 front battle, and finally several Islamic states start a hot war against Israel making the USA divert more attention there, to keep it busy. So if the USA if having to ship military to other parts of the world and losing manpower and resources, with no money to borrow from countries, how does it defend an attack from Mexico?

Think about it, many of the countries in Latin and South America are joined together in an alliance, and the USA is not popular down there, so it would not be unfeasible for them to move and provide manpower to do such. The government of Mexico is corrupt, and using prisoners to do a frontal assault, if not go into the USA to cause chaos is not unrealistic, and would be what I would do. So they get rid of the criminal population by sending them north, with the promise of a pardon for assisting in this, along with pay, and the ability to get revenge on the country that is responsible for them being put into prison in the first place. That is a win/win. And with the mass chaos going all out, as they would have military hardware, then all the armed forces would have to do, is simply start to make strategic strikes on key infrastructure and roll on in. By the time the USA could react, they would be firmly entrenched and the people behind the lines would be scrambling to get out of the line of fire.

What do you think people are going to do, stay and fight, or ensure the safety of their families first. So most people would first want to ensure the safety of their families before moving on to try to defend against an invasion. And if communications and other infrastructures are being taxed if not down, good chance that each and every day leads to a better chances of victory for those invading, especially if they can get the population that already is not happy with the federal government on their side. Know any groups that hate the government right now what would love to take it all down and reform such in their view point? I see a lot of them.

no need to take over nothing you people are doing a pretty good job yourself, taking down america that is.

@sdcigarpig 1.3 trillion debt?? i taught it was 17 trillion right as we speak. Correct me if i'am wrong...

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Now we come to North Korea and Israel, along with the island nation of Taiwan. North Korea, with the backing of China and Russia launches an all out attack on South Korea, forcing the USA to divert military to support the South, along with NATO. China takes on Taiwan, forcing the USA into a 2 front battle, and finally several Islamic states start a hot war against Israel making the USA divert more attention there, to keep it busy. So if the USA if having to ship military to other parts of the world and losing manpower and resources, with no money to borrow from countries, how does it defend an attack from Mexico?

The Texas Guard.

I'm not talking about Texas National Guard, but "The Texas Guard"; a private/state military that doesn't belong, nor answer to the DOD, but rather the governor.

I would seriously doubt that Mexico could handle them.

After that; there are 330 million people in this country, and over 100 million "guns", which would mean that 1 in 3 people are or could be armed to fight an invader...

How many militaries do you know of that could handle a ground force of 100 million? Or indeed, a quarter of that?
Not to mention the technological innovation a motivated America could field...could easily make the very best the Pentagon has look like last years cell phone.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Not at all.
What is your military history training?
It's worthless,NO one has sand boxed a war on US soil with any measure of accuracy on WHAT exactly we collectively KNOW and what we can actually do...
AGAIN are you as smart as Rand?
RAND said for all intents and purposes in Desert Shield we would take 50% casualties
Desert Storm DIDN'T produce HALF the number of my squadron: 149
I personally knew arabs are cut from an equal cloth, as soldiers their BEST is not worth American service UNLESS WE trained them and they ACTUALLY learned it.
I gave the entire conflict two weeks...I ain't perfect.

THE MASTERS of combat SIT in America by the thousands ,NO other country has OUR veteran experience and WE got there by adaptation ,improvisation and bulls##t AKA chaos...WE own it.
NOBODY KNOWS what exactly we will do. WE know wanna see it?
Too bad ,WE don't .
WE already HAVE and know how.
If ANY armed force wants to TURN over equipment to us (AND the criminals who will strip it down) We aren't afraid.

a reply to: tanka418

Skill mention skill.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: tanka418

Skill mention skill.

Skill...

Like all the retired military who have the latest and best skills to defend?

Or that the Texas Guard receives the same training as the US military?

Or, the army of engineers and scientists who already provide the worlds most advanced arms and systems?

The skills to positively defend the US and her people are possessed by those very people, in short; if left to our own devices, we the people will successfully defend our homeland. (period)

How do you defend against Mexico? You take and hold key parts of or all of the Sabinas and Burgos oil fields and the Baja Peninsula and Colorado River plain. The entire area north of the Tropic of Cancer is relatively desolate with few major population centers which you can largely ignore if they don't have a harbor. The new land border is only about 300 miles, which is quite a bit easier to concentrate on than the approximately 2000 miles it currently lays on. Any commercial harbors are going to be hit hard. Same with airfields. Panama canal would be severed.

Then there are only about 4 rail lines that you need to cut to greatly isolate yourself from the bulk of Mexico. Hitting rail yards and bridges is going to happen even faster than the harbors (but after the airfields). Getting troops by road from southern Mexico to the Newer-New Mexico border is going to be a giant pain in the rear, and you can interdict them fairly easily by road, and the terrain makes large-scale movements difficult and hiding movement impossible. Driving a bunch of tanks north is going to be a lot harder than it sounds even without active opposition (do you know what a supply train for a large armoured force looks like -- fuel, water, tracks, food, ammo, parts).

The same thing applies to Canada. It's largely empty. You take or destroy a few strategic points and ignore the rest of it.