U.S. Military vs The rest of the World

5crew said:
10 Intelligent men beats 10,000++ average men. In intellect.
But in brute strength, 10 trained fighters won't win 100 average men.

You can "carpet bomb" half the world with your advanced tech; 3.5 billion of the rest of the world.
300m Americans is still NOT going to Win the remaining 3.5b of world population. Fist fight, gun fight, whatever fight.

It's always about the numbers.
GPA, GDP, Bank Account, how many chicks you banged before 25yrs old, the number of times your weird uncle touched you.
Click to expand...


not true

psy ops, air force that dwrfs the combined aircraft of every other advanced country, missile and rocket technology that is far more advanced that anything china or Russia have. the ting is this once our air force, navy, and marine fighter pilots have shot down every Russian and Chinese fighter with beyond visiual kill missiles the rest of there conventional forces are helpless. be cause they'd then have to feal with a field artillery and naval bombardment that no military can with stand.

game set match

200w.gif
 
bubbleboyjones said:
It's gonna be a stalemate.

The rest of the world doesn't have the military ability for expeditionary warfare besides the U.S. as the U.S. will be be control much of the oceans since it takes years to build ever an aircraft carrier.

U.S. would fuck up any hostile forces in North America quickly since the rest of the world wouldn't be able to supply their forces in time against a top tier armed forces. U.S.'s priority will be securing oil reserves in North and South America in order to feed the war machine. No one wins this as the U.S. won't invade the Europe, Asia, Africa...etc. Too far of a reach.
Click to expand...
I think that eventually economics wins out.

In WW II, the Germans had the superior tanks, aircraft, etc. That led them to great early success. But in the end, they just did not have more money than the USSR, USA, and the UK did.

Same in the American Civil War. The South did great at first with superior leadership. But in the end, the Union just out-moneyed them.

Unless the US conquers the world within like a year.. I mean, the rest of the world just outproduces us.
 
US knocks out every country except Russia. Trump tells Russia where exactly he's going to strike so they can move away like those 2 times in Syria.
 
fallable said:
So are asking if the US military could kill every person on earth?
Click to expand...


no not every person just conventional military vs conventional military. you see unlike world war 2 when the us military was able to start up our factories and industrial machine to crank out 10 Sherman tanks to 1 German tiger tank. the factories in Russia china and the European powers would all be reduced to smoldering cinders with advanced tomahawk's our submarine force would sink any resupply, our satellite based weapons would kill the satellites of other countries the more I think about the more lopsided it becomes after the Russian and Chinese air force gets trounced.
 
Jack Handy jr said:
...add the other Branches into it and we could rule the world thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you need to lay off the coffee and caffeinated drinks. Have you been in the U.S. military? We sucked in WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Unless you are talking Third World countries, Russia, China, and a few others pretty much have the same arsenal the U.S. has. I would not want to fuck with Russian or Chinese ground troops. For every American killed in WWII, Russia (Soviet Union) lost 20, and they kept on fighting and winning. Same for the crazy Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Koreans when it comes to ground war.

Not nuclear, the only real advantage the U.S. has is through the Air Force. Stealth. B-2 bomber. Maybe Navy submarines armed with unconventional warheads.
 
Jack Handy jr said:
not true

psy ops, air force that dwrfs the combined aircraft of every other advanced country, missile and rocket technology that is far more advanced that anything china or Russia have. the ting is this once our air force, navy, and marine fighter pilots have shot down every Russian and Chinese fighter with beyond visiual kill missiles the rest of there conventional forces are helpless. be cause they'd then have to feal with a field artillery and naval bombardment that no military can with stand.

game set match

200w.gif
Click to expand...

Yeah, good that you think and believe what you do. :)
 
Jack Handy jr said:
Okay how though our Air force alone could beat every other nations air power.. add in Marine, and Navy Pilots? so yeah countries that could put up a fight like China and Russia would have a massive manpower advantage but what good is all that mechanized infantry and armor if you have non stop cluster munitions and anti armor weapons shredding column after column after column throw the Field Artillery assets of the Army and the Marines it would worse than the battle of 10 downing where saddams armor and bmp's had no aircover and were almost laughably destroyed
Click to expand...
What use is an advantage in spending if you the best military strategists are on the other team?
Sorry bro, I like USA but you would get embarrassed early.
You should start a thread about USA vs rest of the world in NFL or something.
 
superpunch said:
I think that eventually economics wins out.

In WW II, the Germans had the superior tanks, aircraft, etc. That led them to great early success. But in the end, they just did not have more money than the USSR, USA, and the UK did.

Same in the American Civil War. The South did great at first with superior leadership. But in the end, the Union just out-moneyed them.

Unless the US conquers the world within like a year.. I mean, the rest of the world just outproduces us.
Click to expand...


Naval superiority controls trade....it's been this way throughout history. Majority of the world trade is done via shipping. U.S. has a ridiculously powerful navy. If U.S. has dominance on the ocean the U.S. world trade will collapse.
 
So if this is USA vs EU, BRIC, all Africa, rest of Latin Speaking world, then I think we are screwed. The Russians, and the EU can put out close enough tech, coupled with canon fodder from China, and India, no way USA comes out.

All the light skinned women are going to be sex slaves.
 
The world smashes America with ease.

There are a lot more factors to winning wars than just having a large military.

Supply lines, resources, infrastructure, geographical advantages, people etc.

The American military has been bogged down by vastly inferior forces countless times already.
 
MadSquabbles500 said:
So if this is USA vs EU, BRIC, all Africa, rest of Latin Speaking world, then I think we are screwed. The Russians, and the EU can put out close enough tech, coupled with canon fodder from China, and India, no way USA comes out.

All the light skinned women are going to be sex slaves.
Click to expand...

negative ghostrider
 
Stupid question that I dont even want to consider.
 
Cid said:
The world smashes America with ease.

There are a lot more factors to winning wars than just having a large military.

Supply lines, resources, infrastructure, geographical advantages, people etc.

The American military has been bogged down by vastly inferior forces countless times already.
Click to expand...

Who has "bogged down" the US military besides Great Britain and the Confederate States in the 1800s? Since 1865, every war the US has been in has been completely one sided from a military standpoint.
 
superpunch said:
I think that eventually economics wins out.

In WW II, the Germans had the superior tanks, aircraft, etc. That led them to great early success. But in the end, they just did not have more money than the USSR, USA, and the UK did.

Same in the American Civil War. The South did great at first with superior leadership. But in the end, the Union just out-moneyed them.

Unless the US conquers the world within like a year.. I mean, the rest of the world just outproduces us.
Click to expand...

This guy gets it, in a war of attrition the US loses badly. Wartime production being at all time highs, every nation on earth engaging in trade and commerce, streamlining production, every nation except the US that is.

In an offensive scenario, the world is just too large a landmass to conquer and too expensive to outright destroy, attacked from every side, with the entire world using unrestricted warfare against them. In a defensive battle, they get outproduced by 6.5 billion people with unlimited resources. You still have to conquer Mexico and Canada first as they share a border and can engage in guerilla warfare tactics. Meanwhile you're getting attack from all sides by an endless horde of soldiers, ships, planes, bombers and missiles.

And the armed populace is only a minor benefit, in general Americans are not used to war and strife on their homeland, there would be infighting as well once areas lose power/water, etc.

The US has 13,000 aircraft, but only 2000 fighters, its mostly helicopters, transport aircraft and trainer aircraft.

The rest of the world probably has a similar number, now imagine if the following nations decided to group up, streamline all their production, share all their technology and resources and produce aircraft non-stop:

- China
- UK
- Russia
- Japan
- India
- France
- Germany
- Brazil
- Canada

The North American continent doesn't stop at the US border, it goes all the way north to Alaska and the Yukon Territories in Canada, it stretches all the way South to Mexico which is also connected to the entire South American continent. So its not like troops have to land at the US coastline for troops to get in. You really think the US military can guard the entire coastline for the North American continent?

I'm sorry, but as someone else already stated in the thread, patriotism is a good thing but there's quite a bit of delusion here.
 
The US couldn't even hold Afghanistan
 
MrFeeny said:
Who has "bogged down" the US military besides Great Britain and the Confederate States in the 1800s? Since 1865, every war the US has been in has been completely one sided from a military standpoint.
Click to expand...

All the countries who you've tried to occupy land in.

The Chinese smashed the vastly superior forces in the Korean war with sheer numbers alone. That war was basically won. The failed attempt to occupy Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Not to mention the doughboys got torn to shreds in the initial stages of both world wars

I could go on but this is a really stupid argument and is only going to attract nationalistic morons who spout the same bullshit again and again and won't address a single point raised.
 
Neph said:
The US couldn't even hold Afghanistan
Click to expand...
Well, that's a couldn't or didn't question. Unless you're gonna be a dishonest retard, the answer is didn't.

We spend all this money on things like tanks, aircraft, etc. which are force multipliers. Then we respect human rights, which, apparently, are force dividers more than all the money we spend on multipliers. Allow the US military to not give a fuck.. and it almost, doesn't but almost does, conquers the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,695
Messages
55,435,401
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top