Countries that can destroy America if War breaks loose

[Boost6]

If nuclear war happens the whole world will be thrown into nuclear winter, even if it's just Pakistan and India.

No. There have been over 2000 nuclear tests done, i doubt those two shit holes can match that.

They should just kill each other off right now.

 

[jimbob27]

Your argument is stupid because we could have used nukes but we didnt.

They ran studies on the use of nukes in Vietnam which are now declassified, and they concluded using tactical nuclear weapons would be ineffective against small groups of troops who were widely dispersed and hidden in the jungle. it wouldn't have defeated them, it would mostly be a colossal waste of money, and may well have prompted Russia or China to arm the Vietcong with their own nukes to defend themselves.

 

[Simian Raticus]

Pretty much any country with nukes will ensure the entire world goes down with them. America could probably wreak the most havoc

FFS, this.

No amount of chest puffing and "we da best" changes the fact that there are several nations now that can lay waste to civilisation itself.

The fact that the US can do it more times over than anyone else isn't really relevant.

 

[Prex32]

FFS, this.

No amount of chest puffing and "we da best" changes the fact that there are several nations now that can lay waste to civilisation itself.

The fact that the US can do it more times over than anyone else isn't really relevant.

yup, some guys think they can still play their playstation in their basement and watch pron on the internet when nuclear war is on.

 

[xcvbn]

FFS, this.

No amount of chest puffing and "we da best" changes the fact that there are several nations now that can lay waste to civilisation itself.

The fact that the US can do it more times over than anyone else isn't really relevant.

Tbf I think Pakistan, NK, and India likely don't have the arsenal to destroy much more than a country or two, but that's still significant. Meanwhile Russia and USA have about 15,000 disclosed nukes and could probably take out all major cities on any continent plus make the entire thing inhabitable for years to come.

There are probably places on Earth that would manage to avoid the fallout but life wouldn't be normal for anyone- except maybe some Africans and islanders in the south pacific.

 

[Orgasmo]

In a conventional war, US will steamroll anyone. However, it's going to be extremely costly to fight China or Russia in or near their home turf, something of a Pyrrhic victory. When nuclear weapons are taken into consideration, there will be no winner.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

No. There have been over 2000 nuclear tests done, i doubt those two shit holes can match that.

They should just kill each other off right now.

It wouldn't take 2000 and that happened over decades spaced apart. A few hundred in a short period of time would throw enough into the upper atmosphere to cause major problems.

 

[Boost6]

It wouldn't take 2000 and that happened over decades spaced apart. A few hundred in a short period of time would throw enough into the upper atmosphere to cause major problems.

Not enough to cause major problems. Paks delivery is a joke, half wouldn't even go off.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

That's a weakness. If it causes you lose, it's a weakness. It's caused us to lose over and over again. If someone consistently beats you, they're better than you. Third world militaries consistently beat us. Therefor, their militaries are stronger than ours.

Our morals are a military weakness. It's a big enough weakness that third world militaries without that weakness consistently and over and over again beat our military.

You have to look at it cold and sociopathically. My opinion is consistent with real world results and is repeated over and over again. Your opinion is not consistent with any real world results. So, how can I be wrong?

What country actually beat us in battles? or k/d ratios? or contraband confiscated?

I spent 12 months in Kabul, we didn't even remotely lose a single skirmish the entire time I was there

Winning military is not congruent w/ winning politically my dude

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Dude, I'm a Special Forces officer working at US Army Special Operations Command. While I certainly don't know everything, I feel very qualified to speak on this topic.

You are discounting the volume of people there are in the world. Think back to our lessons in Korea. Think back to the lessons that the Nazis learned in Stalingrad. There are countless other examples of this as well: You can't discount sheer numbers. Technical superiority is great, and training can make your guys force multipliers. But when wave after wave of shit comes at you, then you are going to feel the pain. That's what made the kamikaze pilots so dangerous in WWII. That's what made vehicle-borne IED's so dangerous in Iraq. That's what made the Chinese so tough to defeat in Korea. Wave after wave of these things keeps coming at you, and you just can't kill them quick enough. Even with nukes, you can't kill them all quickly enough. Eventually, the swarm breaks through. We even saw this was a warm game done in 2002 that was theoretically designed to test us against the Iranians. Even with low tech, the bad guys sent speed boats packed with explosives and suicide helicopters, and in the games, they sank a huge portion of a fleet of warships.

On top of that, you need to think about supply lines. How are we going to get that many supplies to everywhere in the world all the time? It's logistically impossible. We can't project forces to reinforce efforts that quickly either. We also aren't designed to train a competent force that fights literally everyone in the world.

Honestly, this kind of bravado is a position of ignorance. It just can't be done. A reasonable leader should never fight more than one front at a time. You can sometimes get away with two fronts, but damn, that's taxing. Smart strategists don't divide their forces like that.

I didn't say the US is guaranteed a W, but realistically we could disable/cripple a lot of our largest threats making it virtually impossible to attack us on our own soil minus nukes. This means we can manufacture and supply our forces with almost complete impunity as well as train potential soldiers and so on.


As for the volume of the world -a large % of the world is no threat to us from a military standpoint in the 1st place. Technology alone (or lack there of) eliminates quite a few of them. That's why I mentioned taking out the biggest threats immediately, which I think in a no kid gloves situation is plausible when you consider how much larger our Air Force and Navy are than the next 10 largest combined.


At the end of the day I'm not taking this thread seriously as in -hey, this is a great idea- it's just a 'what if' for fun. Unless I'm missing something here.

 

[Bat Dad]

i bet 90% of the WR regs that love trump think the US would win bigly

 

[Scrody]

That's a weakness. If it causes you lose, it's a weakness. It's caused us to lose over and over again. If someone consistently beats you, they're better than you. Third world militaries consistently beat us. Therefor, their militaries are stronger than ours.

Our morals are a military weakness. It's a big enough weakness that third world militaries without that weakness consistently and over and over again beat our military.

You have to look at it cold and sociopathically. My opinion is consistent with real world results and is repeated over and over again. Your opinion is not consistent with any real world results. So, how can I be wrong?

You're confusing insurgents with military personnel. If you give the US legitimate targets with uniforms it's gonna be a bad time for them.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

That's a weakness. If it causes you lose, it's a weakness. It's caused us to lose over and over again. If someone consistently beats you, they're better than you. Third world militaries consistently beat us. Therefor, their militaries are stronger than ours.

Our morals are a military weakness. It's a big enough weakness that third world militaries without that weakness consistently and over and over again beat our military.

You have to look at it cold and sociopathically. My opinion is consistent with real world results and is repeated over and over again. Your opinion is not consistent with any real world results. So, how can I be wrong?

Those third world countries are the beneficiaries of circumstances lining up in a way that makes " defeating " them secondary on the energy expended/ reward scale. It would be analogous to a ground squirrel burrowing himself into a log in such a way that the grizzly bear eventually decides that continuing to dig at the log isnt worth it and turns his attention away.

The fact that we were the agressors in all those scenarios and there was no consequence or retaliatory strike from the people we attacked tells you all need to know about the balance of power in those situations.

Surviving a prison rape doesnt mean the rapist is now your bitch .

 

[PHATV]

Im fairly confident the US could fight a war vs the rest of the world.

Russia would be destroyed well before they had any chance of causing any damage to US soil.

So to answer your question.

0

I remember Stormin' Norman saying that. Being pressed on our capabilities and he said something like "Put it this way---were every country on the planet to align against us, there is absolutely no doubt we win that conflict 100/100 times". I remember thinking he certainly wasn't lacking in confidence when he said it. Now that was a while back, but still...

 

[ZBORNAJA]

Im fairly confident the US could fight a war vs the rest of the world.

Russia would be destroyed well before they had any chance of causing any damage to US soil.

So to answer your question.

0

Some strong shit you are smoking ..I think you are fairly delusional USA against whole world? hahaha...mama mia

So u will announce war on whole world and whole world will just wait, trade with you and you will take down country by country? .. Fair play and all that

 

[Armbars]

Some strong shit you are smoking ..I think you are fairly delusional USA against whole world? hahaha...mama mia

So u will announce war on whole world and whole world will just wait, trade with you and you will take down country by country? .. Fair play and all that

I'm not American neither do I live in America. I just find it hard to believe anyone even combined are capable of toppling them.

 

[P4p Islam]

it depends on what theyre objective is.

if you are asking who could invade the US and take it over, "red dawn" style....the answer is no one. the entire world could join forces, but none of them have the ability to project their power onto US shores, unless nukes are used.

there are lots of countries that could prevent us from doing the same to them, though.

and russia's military really isnt that impressive outside of their nukes.

Lol the American military isn't that impressive either. Take away our 8k nukes and we don't look too intimidating.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Lol the American military isn't that impressive either. Take away our 8k nukes and we don't look too intimidating.

compared to what? who?

 

[sub_thug]

I didn't say the US is guaranteed a W, but realistically we could disable/cripple a lot of our largest threats making it virtually impossible to attack us on our own soil minus nukes. This means we can manufacture and supply our forces with almost complete impunity as well as train potential soldiers and so on.


As for the volume of the world -a large % of the world is no threat to us from a military standpoint in the 1st place. Technology alone (or lack there of) eliminates quite a few of them. That's why I mentioned taking out the biggest threats immediately, which I think in a no kid gloves situation is plausible when you consider how much larger our Air Force and Navy are than the next 10 largest combined.


At the end of the day I'm not taking this thread seriously as in -hey, this is a great idea- it's just a 'what if' for fun. Unless I'm missing something here.

Nukes, cruise missiles, and other explosive ordnance are effective against cities or when enemy forces mass together. They are ineffective when they don't, and it is unlikely that they would mass in a way that creates an effective target for us.

You aren't thinking about force projection. In order for that technology to work against an opposing military, it has to get there. By definition, one of the few platforms that can reach across the globe is an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. See Point 1 about their effectiveness. If you aren't using those, you need to get ships, subs, and aircraft close enough to strike. And that means naval and air battles, and those are hard to win when you're on the wrong side of the numbers.

Speaking of numbers, the US population is roughly 321 million people. Our standing military is roughly 1.4 million people, including the Reserves and National Guard (both Army and Air Force). The world's population is roughly 7.3 BILLION people. Even if half of the US was conscripted into the military (which is way more than we could afford or reasonably do), we would only have a fighting force of 160 million, and most of them would be relatively untrained. So let's say that China and India each conscripted 1/4 of its people (both of them are nuclear powers btw). Combined, they would have a fighting force of over 500 million people. The Russians keep a standing force of approximately 3 million, and they have a population of 144 million. As you can see, the numbers start adding up really quickly. We just can't kill all those people quickly enough to make ourselves viable to attack the rest of the world. It just won't happen. One on one, we could take literally anyone. If we had to take on many countries, it would fail quickly.

To think that we could project all of our forces around the world while still protecting our own soil (and thus our ability to supply, train, and equip our troops) is just a lack of understanding of warfare. At the end of the day, it's no big deal. That's why we have career military personnel. It's our job to know all this stuff at a high level, and that is why the Joint Chiefs and Combatant Commanders are such important advisers to the President.

 

[Falsedawn]

List of countries: