If all countries worked together, could the US be defeated and invaded within one year?

You really have no sense of scale, do you? First, there are 19 carriers in service in the world, 10 of which are ours, and that's before we take into account our air force and land-to-ship capabilities which drastically increase our advantage on the sea. The chances of any foreign power touching our coasts is almost non-existent, the best they could hope for is to land and invasion force in South America or maybe Canada and then invade from there, at which point they have to defend their naval supply lines or else their entire army is fucked. Then, once they get into America, they will be fighting the world's most powerful military along with the world's most armed citizenry. The idea of anyone managing to successfully do that while they don't have air or naval superiority is laughable.

No.

>If all countries worked together, could the US be defeated and invaded within one year?

Separate peaces allowed? If so, not likely.

No separate peaces? Possible, with extreme bloodshed.

You guys do realize that the United States is quite literally the biggest arms and defense manufacturer in the world? Raytheon, Lockheed, GD, Boeing, Northrop, etc... literally all American. It's actually kind of scary.

Where do you think these imaginary enemy armies are going to get their weapons and jets/tanks from? Kek

Literally no one stands a chance.

>just two borders
US-Canada border is the longest border in the world fyi
US-Mexico is massive too

And neither Canada nor Latin America have the militaries capable of invading the USA.

>every country in the world teams up with canada/latin america like OP stated
What about now?

They'd have to supply their militaries through the seas and skies that they don't control.

The bulk of power would come from the EU, China, and Russia

The latter two could go through Alaska and Canada could attack creating two fronts

We wouldn't defend Alaska. We would let the guerilla movements within the state tie down enemy forces while the main military focuses on defending the other 49 states.

No, probably not. One year wouldn't even be enough to complete mobilization.

>This is every Americans wet dream
>And subject of 90% of its discussions

I'm fairly certain the USA employs a 2:1 ratio on military spending compared to the rest of the world combined, but I may be wrong.

On paper, that means that the USA has every fighting chance. But in reality, not so much.

It is impossible that every inch of American territory could be defended against the rest of the world combined - an user above mentioned scale and that 10 aircraft carriers belong to the US. Now picture the entirety of the US coastline. Just how watertight a defence, assuming a 0% casualty rate, do you think that is?

The same with the ground forces, just how watertight a defence can you operate at the borders?

And this is where the cracks show - if the US army entered a big field and duked it out with the rest of the world combined, it'd be a close fight. But we're talking about an invasion. Every mile of US territory denied to them is a blow - every state lost is how much factories, critical infrastructure, air bases etc? The US is on home soil and cannot defend every inch of it, that reality means that the US army is being constantly weakened industrially, and with a significant manpower disadvantage to boot which means that they can't just grind the invaders down.

>But muh well regulated militia! The patriots would rise up and drive them out xD
Well, fine, lets say you got a half-decent guerilla force out of a bunch of random guys with guns (which is unlikely, but stranger things have happened)

You can't hold territory or engage in pitch battles with regulars. You need to hold territory and engage in pitch battles to reverse the strategic defensive dynamic that means that the USA will inevitably lose. Good guerillas are useful, but they're never the decisive factor outside of specific guerilla wars.

>Just how watertight a defence, assuming a 0% casualty rate, do you think that is?
>The same with the ground forces, just how watertight a defence can you operate at the borders?
You do realize that just because a small force might break through the defenses, that doesn't mean anything, right? They would run out of supplies very quickly without a constant naval and air supply route going to them, and since they don't have naval or air superiority that's not going to happen.

You're also assuming that we won't be bombing them back. If they decide to risk an engagement with our navy, their navy will likely be sunk, leaving us free to bomb away at their infrastructure without worrying about retaliation.

The answers is no, you can't invade the usa in one years. But if you go for more than one, the answers is yes. The USA do not have the capacity too go against the rest of mankind.
>Muh patriot
A lot of country have a very better record in counter-guerrila than the USA.

Thats the thing though, lets talk about a naval engagement - the USA, if it has any hope of winning such a battle, must concentrate its navy. The panama canal is denied to it either way. Moreover, concentration means leaving either the pacific coast or atlantic coast undefended.

A large enough navy can simply deny naval superiority to the US. This does not even require a large portion of an invaders navy, and could even take place if the US concentrated its fleet - just a concentration of power large enough that the invading navy could severely damage the US fleet would be enough to ward it off - after all, if the US navy is removed, the war is certainly lost.

You hit on something though, I think the only way it'd be possible for the USA to win would be to go on the offensive from day one and hope for a bit of luck. OP specifies that the US is being invaded, however.

OP here, would the military bases around the world be albe to hold their ground (i assume they would be overrun) and would the US military be able to hit industrial bases around the world (would the carriers be able to operate or would they be destroyed)?

>Our Navy could not stop the entire worlds, don't be ridiculous

The US Navy is extremely large and qualitatively superior to all over navies. The next largest navy is China, which doesn't yet have the support and logistics ships necessary for large scale blue water deployments. Russia is next, but their recent naval deployment to the Mediterranean was kind of embarrassing, with multiple ships breaking down.

So while the world combined might have the numbers on paper to challenge US naval supremacy, in reality most of those ships are 50 year old garbage without the logistics to actually deploy beyond their territorial waters. Combine that with the stupidly massive airpower advantage that the US enjoys (with the absolutely crucial aerial refueling fleet), and there is no way any combined world force would be able to stage a successful amphibious invasion of the United States. Their navies would struggle to make it to the US coastline, where they would be soundly stomped by the US navy, and the two largest air forces in the world, the US navy and the US air force.

i.imgur.com/awVKTLr.jpg (US Navy ships)

i.imgur.com/8olisgf.jpg (US Navy aircraft)

i.imgur.com/N4znNAi.jpg (US Air Force )

Clearly if the limitation of 1 year is removed, the situation changes. But in OP's original scenario, everyone fights with the gear they have, and under those conditions the US cannot be successfully invaded.
(images too large for Veeky Forums)

The military wouldn't have to hold out indefinitely, just long enough for the USA's concentrated naval force to go to where the invasion is and cut off all supplies. The opposing force's navy will have to be at the invasion ground by necessity, otherwise the USA will have complete air superiority and the invasion won't stand a chance in hell of surviving. So wherever the invasion happens, that's where the USA navy goes, and that's where the battle between the navies happens, and since the USA navy has more carriers, bigger and superior carrers capable of carrying better quality and quantity of aircraft, and this is all happening close to American shores giving the USA the ability to fire on enemy ships with land based aircraft and coastal defenses, the USA would win this naval battle and the invasion force would be cut off.

This is all assuming that we're using current military forces. If the entire world was given 20 years to prepare for the battle, then it would be one of the bloodiest most pyrrhic wars in history but the rest of the world would almost certainly end up winning eventually.

Missed a few hundred more fighters. WHOOPSIE. Easy to do that when you have SO MANY.

i.imgur.com/JwlOrPu.jpg

How do they plan on getting past the navy, to say nothing of the coast guard?

Within one year? no, too many fucking carrier groups.

I'd say it could be done 3 to 5 years.

are there infographs like that for other militaries?

It would be easy, the world would just send in a crack team of 12 Vietnamese rice farmers and the US would surrender.

I don't know about invade, but they would easily be defeated in one day as long as you had some black-ops 9/11 style operation that targeted Yellowstone instead of some buildings.

Literally the easiest super power to bring down.

Well memed, reddit

Thank you, that means a lot to me.

The US navy is fucking massive compared to other countries, I seriously think they could.

>an user above mentioned scale and that 10 aircraft carriers belong to the US
though the navy is not just composed of the carriers

we can probably defend many shores without one

>If all countries worked together, could the US be defeated and invaded within one year?

You seriously under-estimate the extent to which the USA is OP. And removing nukes from the equation actually benefits the US in this scenario because nukes are basically the only way you could feasibly defeat the us military.

It wouldn't need to sink every single enemy boat, just sink enough to make an invasion impossible.

wouldn't know

we have long since stopped knowing attacks on our soil, which is why 9/11 is such a big deal. So whether the citizens sober up quickly or capitulate I wouldn't know.

There was no formal engagement between us and China and Russia so no one will know how we measure up. Usually it's said China outnumbers us but their tech is shit (guess India should also be included), Russia's soldiers are said to be tough and the whole Russian winter thing but they don't got numbers or tech on us.

also depends on strategy if the commanders are a bunch of retards we're fucked, if not maybe we will have a chance