Assuming nukes are out of the question...

Only correct answers in this thread.

Americans couldn't even win a war against some jungle chinks armed with bamboo sticks, what chance do they have against the rest of the world?

The ultimate stalemate. The US doesn’t possibly have the manpower to occupy the world, and the rest of the world x5 couldn’t successfully invade North America, so the situation the world is in right now is basically that reality.

>Offensive
No.

>Defensive
Probably.

OP clearly stated conventional war. Regardless I think it can be assumed this would be a mostly defensive conflict for America.

Can the rest of the world produce a truly united front? With coordinated military action?

Vietnam couldn't and they mad US run

America would have a tough time with just Russia or China alone.

/thread

Speaking Conventionally, America has the capacity to essentially dominate the world in any capacity other than Land Battles.

In terms of Air and Sea Power, the US has only a few opposing nations that could give them a stand-up fight. That's largely to do with the large amount of versatile weapons at our disposal.

The problem comes with fighting on land, where the world outnumbers the US in warm bodies by a 20:1 ratio. And that's just EVERYBODY, not just limited to able fighters. The ratio might be worse under a more strict criteria.

The best chance the US would have would be if the world opponent was still divided, a loose confederation that can't put its full strength to bear because of too many conflicts of interest. With that in mind, a large chunk of the world would be out of the fight at the start, leaving the US able to pick off the most technologically advanced nations and take their might off the table. Even then that's far easier said than done, and would require absorbing a LOT of additional numbers from whatever nations they can conquer right off the bat.

> America will have a tough time with the only countries that have any chance

I seriously doubt it's possible to stage an invasion of the United States. Conversely, the US does not possess the power to fight an offensive war against the entire world without using nuclear weapons. The question is what would break first: the American will to fight the entirety of the fucking planet, or the will of the rest of the world to sit back in some kind of stalemate. Given that the hardships of war would be spread across several decently powerful nations, while the Americans are all on their lonesome, it's difficult to see how any kind of settlement could be in Americas favour. All the US can hope for is enough division among the other nations that makes peace possible

>20:1 ration
doesn't matter if they can't get their troops to our shores in the first place m8, thats where the navy and air force come in

I think the american economy would collapse pretty quickly if the entire world was against it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21

> This is an anti-ship ballistic missile that has a maximum range exceeding 1,450 kilometres (900 mi; 780 nmi), according to the U.S. National Air and Space Intelligence Center
> United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it" if it worked as theorized.

Whats your point user? Mine was that if America would have a hard time with two countries in particular, the "rest of the world combined" wouldn't fare any better.

>currently no defense against it
>literally a decade ago
user

You self-obsessed degenerates couldn't even win a war against jungle chinks

>conventional war
>wahhhhh it was unfair they were't playing by the rules!!
holy fuck this is how burgers actually thing

>You self-obsessed degenerates couldn't even win a war against jungle chinks
America won the Vietnam War, user.

I don't see how other countries would be able to fight a guerilla war on american soil, which is probably what an everyone vs america war would turn into, a defensive one.

Wew lad

user?

...

Oh yeah they won, which is why vietnam is, to this day, still a socialist country.

I don't care what Wikipedia says

This is 15 years old but it's still hilarious: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

> Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

> Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

> At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action.

> After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory.

>Oh yeah they won, which is why vietnam is, to this day, still a socialist country.
They didn't sign a treaty because they were winning

>i don't care about facts if it's shatters my fragile nationalistic ego
okay burger you can go back to your playpen now

>okay burger you can go back to your playpen now
Throw your hands up and walk away, then.

Just like you did in vietnam?

My fucking sides

Never been

>backpedalling this hard
i guess it's an american national pastime to backpedal tho

this has to be a European false-flagging, he's making us look too dumb

>Conventional
Easily.
>Unconventional
Not quite.

I don't even what you're talking about anymore

it never get old

Why do you care what Wikipedia says? It's a vary shallow reading of events to conclude that. It ignores why the war ended for both sides

typical american with zero reading comprehension and no attention span. don't worry you're allowed to go back to the sofa and watch the "world championships" for a sport only americans can play because americans can't compete internationally at any other sport they didn't invent, while eating from your bucket of cheetos dipped in your other bucket of grease.

i would literally be okay with the world being destroyed by nuclear holocaust if it meant that there were no american survivors

yes, this is it.

The war ended for both sides because one side (the amercans) lost and the other side (the north vietnamese, aka jungle chinks with wooden spears) won. It's not rocket science mate

The Vietnamese didn't go to the bargaining table because they were winning

Anyone who honestly believes that the United States wouldn't sweep the rest of the world is just ignorant.

Jesus you are obsessed

>no blue water navy
>meme air force
Yeah we could against the Chinese.

No. America would struggle to beat China or Australia by itself, let alone the whole world.

...

Oh so you were losing and tried to surrender, but they saw how easy it would be to beat you, so they continued to beat you?

Yeah keep going with the mental gymnastics burger

motherfucker are you dumb

>Oh so you were losing and tried to surrender, but they saw how easy it would be to beat you, so they continued to beat you?
The war was incredibly unpopular at that point so politicians were looking for an out. The Vietnamese were getting their shit pushed in with concentrated bombings of Northern supply routes, they wanted to go to the bargaining table. So if you want to call that victory, go ahead.

Oh, and we still actually won in the end :)

I'm sure we would first secure the Americas and then began to destroy all air power we can not regulate and afterward secure the oceans with superior air power. The world wouldn't last a week. Hell we could shut down for a week and the rest of the world would crash. We would win by default.

>china and australia
Good one lad, nice and subtle

Won the war. Lost the peace. America does that to much.

You would like a flat world, like the old Mediterranean Sea? Would you like dragons and great creatures at the edge? Are they guarding? What?

How long do you expect that air superiority to last though? Considering every other country on earth with some industrial capacity will be churning out planes, ships and munitions. If every capable nation decides to fully mobilise they could keep the war up much longer than the Americans. America will have no allies, no imports or exports and a populace that must sustain the burden of war singlehandedly, while also being servile enough to agree to the ludicrous idea of being at war with the rest of the world. Meanwhile every other nation continues to trade, the human and economic cost of the fighting is spread and the only enemy they have to think about is America

Depends on your definition of win. Certainly they could prevent the rest of the world from invading the US indefinitely

yes

>its another "Foreigner oversimplifys the Vietnam war to make the American military seem bad" episode

fuck off

>against CUM
canada topples easily
mexico turns into a bloodbath and needs purges to destroy the cartel system there or the CIA absorbs it

>against CASA
the highly condensed urban population topples, the natives give 0 fucks and our only big problem is the constant chimpout known as brazil

>against europe
france puts up a fight but loses
uk folds like paper
germany turns into an even bigger shitshow as its population eats itself alive to prove who loves the american invaders more
italy isnt worth invading, not due to it's army but because fuck italy (it will ally with us anyways after backstabbing the EU)
but eastern europe and the balkans turn into mini WW3's every single step we take. Especially poland and its astronomical amounts of paramilitary

>middle east
not worth invading but if we had to we may as well glass it with MOABS and just recolonize it
we would have trouble with african intervention in many places like egypt and saudi arabia as well as contention on supply lines. But otherwise we can just annex half of them from political pressure alone.

>Asia
FUCK THIS, we can make all those powers capitulate but it's impossible for us to occupy them except for russia, the stans, and SEA. But lets be real last time we went to nam our media betrayed us so it may not work again. Japan would be diploannexed as would south korea. Indonesia becomes nam on crack

>Africa
we could probably take it over from the corruption alone, turn it into the CIA's playground. The exceptions are Tauregs and actual not pants on head retarded states (of which there are very few). Occupying it? easy. Keeping it? Why the FUCK would you want to? Especially when Kano-nigs will constantly Boko-Haram your wife, kids, and dog.

We could win, but it would suck so miserably to do it that it would become our peloponesian war.

Against the rest of the fucking world? No. At best we survive badly maimed, and slowly force countries to come to terms. But I wouldn't put much stock in the comfortable notion that America is just too much land to conquer. Whoever said that behind every blade of grass crap wasn't thinking of a world war where we stand entirely alone against literally everyone.

this is your brain on patriotism

Why would you even bother writing this? It's complete shit from start to finish

Seething eurotrash like you actually make me proud to be an American. Like, I have my problems with this place, but you inspire real patriotism, and for that I thank you.

Stopped reading it at
>purges to destroy the cartel system there

When I realized you didn't know shit about anything, had a room-temperature IQ and had never read a book in your entire life.

You know that this mean nothing, right?

It would be very painful

Pretty much this. Even without nukes, America can't defeat the world but neither can the world defeat it.

Yeah but the US dollar is the world currency standard. If the US economy collapses, so does the world economy.

Yes, though it depends upon the exact scenario.
Conquering the rest of the world? Maybe, but that would take generations. If it's supposed to do that in one single war, then fuck no.
In a defensive war? Yes, absolutely.

How would the scenario even play out?

>move carriers
>get missile spammed
No more carriers

>we'll just use satellites
>get missile spammed
>get laser spammed
>get EM disruption spammed
No more satellites

Further more

>try to missile spam the Chinese
>run out of missiles
>try to make missiles
>can't cause China locks US out of rare earth metals needed in all critical the modern day military hardwares
No factory in US either. China has shit ton of factories/ships

>try land war in China
kek

No, America would have a sever amount of trouble if we invaded a country like Iran today, much less tried to fight the rest of the world

It's a stupid scenario. Blue states would side with "the rest of the world". This would be the end of the "United" States.

>rest of the world
Why would they side with Russia?
and franky why would the rest of the world side with them

If it's America wanting to conquer the world, no.
If it's the world wanting to conquer America, they have good odds ; It depends in which scenario the "whole world" would want to conquer America. If it was an absolutly total destructive war, no matter the costs, yes. If it is, let's say, an intervention of the International Community for X reason (Ex : The USA became a failed state ridden with civil wars and NATO + Russia + China is afraid that they might go nuclear) then I don't know.

Trips of truth.

>This question gets asked every week.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>and franky why would the rest of the world side with them
Are you fucking retarded? 90% of people outside the US absolutely hate the American Republican party. They're where most of your bad image comes from.
American libs don't like Russia and plenty of them aren't fond of China or MENA governments but if the US invaded the entire world it would forge new alliances, no doubt.

Offensive? No
Defensive? Yes
That moment when I'm not even American but they could literally fight off the world. What the actual fuck. Why do they spend so much on their military?

A rifle behind every blade of grass

I feel like in a protracted war, China would get fucked by a lack trade.

The only scenario where US doesn't lose is where the rest of the world invades and occupies US which leads to guerilla warfare and the rest of the world decides to just leave.
In any other scenario US stands no chance of winning.
a) Morale
While there is a lot American patriots, you gotta realise how divided United States really are. Whenever US goes to war, the anti-war movements lose their shit. And conscription? Kek.
What do you think all the college anti-Trump ANTIFA movements would do, huh? Fight for their country?

b) Manpower
Chinks and Poo's have 7 times larger population than US and are waaaay less divided. They could just drown US army in blood.

c) economy
While US has a strong economy they still massively rely on international trade and import, mainly from China. American economy would collapse if the whole world embargoed them. Of course the rest of the world would feel it too, however it wouldnt be as devastating as new blocks would soon form with China being the dominant force.

If the Americans aim was to help the south win the war and the south lost, then in what way did the US 'win'
>inb4 muh k/d

Population of America: 323.1 million
Population of the rest of the world: >7.6 billion.

If you think the seppos could win, you're just a dumb cunt.

I really really don't understand how it's not pants on head obvious to everyone that if the USA was forced to fight the rest of a united world, especially nukes aside, it would win within hours. War crimes which would be disallowed by Americans themselves are the only thing that would prolongue it, if not risk it altogether.

It's not a close fight. Like at all.

I don't think it's this big a win.
While US has pretty much unrivaled airforce and navy, it would have alot of trouble in land warfare.
Also 'within hours' is definitely a stretch

>americans
>able fighters

>"Can a chimp become a doctor?"
Your question has such an obvious answer. One country vs the WORLD? Without nukes? Come on man.