USA vs. the World, page 7

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The sad thing is, it shouldn't have to come to war. It's these warmongering idiot Neo Cons and their ridiculously stupid policies that endanger us.

You are the one who brought up the hypothetical issue of the world going to war against the US. Europe, Russian, and indeed most of the world hasn't made any moves of the sort, and here you are blaming people for a non existant war.

trent (and others have expressed a similar sentiment)
Against the EU alone the US would win if it happened today or in the near future. Years from now if countries like Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe were in the EU and had recovered economically the story may be different

There is only one coalition of countries that can plausibly be a problem for the US, and the is the former Soviet Republics with their Cold War era nuclear stockpile. But I don't belevie that these countries have force projection capabilities that the soviets once did. Just look at the problems russia is having in chechyna.

I mean, I see a lot of people discussin this like it woudl be fought with conventional armies destroying each other on the battle field. Any nation-state that tries to invade the US is going to be hit with the US nuclear arsenal. There is not invasion scenario that can be worked out, its simply a matter of starting a nuclear holocaust. Even after that, I suspect that the US military has better capabilities for fighting on a nuclear contaminated battle field, since that would involve tanks and bradleys, and the abrams are filtered and the bradleys were (at least originally) designed with just that scenario in mind, and, from what I understand, american 'battle wagons' are above and beyond old soviet battle wagons. Not to mention that the germans, for example, would have to be asking the Russians and Ukranians to nuke american bases inside of germany, which is simply too unlikley to merit consideration. And germany is hardly the only country that would have that problem.

Also, any situation invovling a large russian/old soviet conventional response has to keep something in mind. During the iraq war, the iraqis used soviet tactics and strategy for their tank battles, and were resoundingly defeated by remote and combined arms tactics from the US. Unless the russians have developed and entirely new army with new leadership and tactics in the past year, they will generally meet the same fate. And while the Nato allies probably use tactics similar to those of the americans, what is that going to matter anyway, when the americans have shoulder launched nuclear war heads and stealth cruise missiles, not to mention complete domination of space.

Also, while the brits invented VX gas after WWII, as far as I understand it only the US and Russians put much research into chemical and biological weapons. So the advantage there is also for the US, as chemical weapons will obviously be used. Whereas the 'global alliance' will have to somehow get russia to give them its chem/bio weapons and then use the british navy to get them to the US and then release them, the americans simply have to release them from their bases inside the member-states of this 'global alliance'.

I mean, the US has one of the most powerful armies on the planet. It has one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons on the planet. It has one of the most advanced nuclear missile defense shields on the planet. It has the largest space fleet on the planet. And probably has the largest chemical andmost virulent biological weapons stiockpile on the planet. Other countries have some things that compare, russian nukes, british ships, german tactics, indian manpower and chinese missiles, but none of them have that combination of advantages in such overwhelming numbers.

Of course, there won't be much left of the planet after this imaginary America verses the World war, and that is enough to make anyone on the 'world' side not participate.