If the US decided to take on the world

[Lord Percy]

and for the joy of argument, let's say nukes don't exist...

How would things go?

The reason I ask this is because I've just had to check the Chinglish on someone's Masters thesis which was all about EU sanctions and the reasons for them, and paid a certain amount of special attention to the EU's sanctions preventing weapons trade with China. It suggested the sanctions aren't really beneficial any more as China is growing on its own anyway.

It got me thinking - if China ended up quite militarily powerful, it might be in the best interests of the EU to ally with them (and let's say Russia too), seeing as we at least all share the same land mass.

So, this being the theoretical case, if the US felt a bit left out, turned all 'Nazi-Germany' and decided to invade Eurasia, how do you think it would go down?

If you were in charge of the US, how would you go about it?

And how would things play out?

Just an interesting scenario that came into my head earlier while staring at yet another indecipherable joke of an attempt at writing long and meaningful sentences in Engrish.

Let's assume the invasion is of the old 'lebensraum' variety, where the sole aim of the US is to conquer the whole of Eurasia.

[CaNsA]

Substitute the nukes for bio-chemical weapons missiles bomb lasers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs


/thread





Not so stealth edit

[Rogerborg]

[wr6133]

I doubt the US wouldn't have the money to sustain a conventional world war very long. The costs of keeping a modern military in the field are staggering.

China has a huge army and likes to parade it's modern bits but the bulk is pretty out dated, so I'd wonder if they could bear the cost for longer.

It would just end up a messy grind until one side can no longer afford bullets and food. Or the death toll/hardship at home causes revolution (think Russia 1917).

Also your scenario of the US as the aggressor means their resources would be further stretched as they would need to leave significant forces in the occupied areas to supress any guerrilla revolt. Look at the cost and trouble they had doing that in Iraq.... relatively small area compared to a euro/asia conquest. On the other hand China in this scenario would be seen as a liberator (LOL) so could expect significant help from local populaces.

Also doesn't China hold enough US currency to effectively destroy the US economy at the first scent of any issues?

[Rogerborg]

[The Wobbly Orange]

Remember that the combined European militaries while even compared to population are smaller do maintain quite a sizeable reserve capability. Speaking just for the UK there are quite a lot of reserve forces. Probably 4 old destroyers in mothballs. Illustrious could come back into service and there are some Sea Harriers in various hangers that could be pressed into service. The submarine service would be able to be bolstered even more. Due to the nuclear reactors on board many of the older subs could be recommissioned. (All of this would of course be very expensive) Not to mention France likely has a similar situation. While the US maintains a high active military capacity they have a comparatively lower ability to surge in a real pinch when combined with Europe. With Europe and Russia closing down the Atlantic while China/Japan/Russia/Australia works in the pacific the US would find itself bottled up very quickly. Plus the Middle East would provide Oil quite willingly since the UK has very good relations with Saudi/Oman etc. Iran would be in like a shot. Even north Korea while lacking in expeditionary ability can provide lots of warm bodies. With assistance from China and Japan they could really bolster land armies. It would be safe to say Panama/Suez canals would be off limits to all US ships both commercial and Military severely hampering their ability to respond.


TLDR How would the US fare in a war against everyone else?

Very poorly indeed.
____________________
People tell me I am lovely. How wrong they are!

[Kickstart]

Hi

Ignoring weapons of mass destruction, the USA wouldn't stand a chance of invading any major power block in the short term. They are just too far away for an invasion with enough force to be useful to be successful. Same applies for other power blocks invading the USA.

Exception to this would be if Mexico or Canada were part of a power block opposing the USA.

Given enough time they could possibly soften up their targets, destroying enough of the opposing defensive forces to stand a chance. But it would be a long term affair, and in that situation the USA just doesn't have a large enough population to provide a large enough military compared to other large power blocks.

All the best

K
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[oldpink]

the USA has had wars with just about every country there is at one point
its part of there culture to be at war even with themself
____________________
I have become comfortably numb

Theory & hazard 24-may 2016, CBT 8th June 2016, MOD 1 2nd Aug 2016 Mod 2 2nd-Nov 2016 - Current bike CBR 600 RR

[Rogerborg]

[WD Forte]

Wouldn't the US have to go to China and ask to borrow the dosh to go to war with?
____________________
bikers smell of wee

[Lord Percy]

[Lord Percy]

I really want to change this thread now to make it at least slightly more considerable

How would Israel cope if all the surrounding states got sick of the mistreatment of people living in Gaza and Palestine, and decided to go and save their 'Muslim brothers'?

Would the US need to back them up?

Does Israel have nukes? Would they use them or would that risk too many knock-on effects in the near future?

[smegballs]

[wr6133]

[Kickstart]

[Lord Percy]

[Bru]

More than technology, it depends on the nations' stomach for casualties, I imagine. Every western soldier dead brings about a (media-exaggerated) national breast-beating and wailing. I reckon China would happily throw half a million into the hailstorm and the people would hail the glorious sacrifice for the mother nation.

[stinkwheel]

Just to give an idea of the relative numbers of people we are talking about. Every American could Kill 5 Chinese people and there would still be more people in China than America.
https://blogs.it.ox.ac.uk/listeningforimpact/files/2010/11/Screen-shot-2010-11-19-at-11.42.10.png
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.

[barrkel]

It's hard to unpick military standing after taking away nukes. Modern militaries geared for expeditionary operations assume air supremacy, because battles where air supremacy isn't assured simply aren't fought - for any given opponent, if air supremacy is in doubt, either the other side also has nukes, or they wait until the US takes out the air defense.

Without air supremacy, all aircraft carriers, destroyers etc. are sitting ducks. They have no defence against sustained ballistic attack, especially if they're not in a position to fool automated guidance / targeting systems. There's lots of fancy tech being developed, AEGIS, laser cannons, all sorts, but tested in practice against latest versions of things like the Exocet that nearly did in the British against Argentina? I don't think the tech will hold up, especially considering the attackers can land, refuel and rearm, while the defenders can't resupply. And the latest anti-ship ballistic missiles are very good: flying at mach 3, 5 metres above sea, 10G maneuvers, etc.

So I'm not sure how the US would actually go to battle with anyone, i.e. physically move enough troops and materiel into position.

Then there's battles vs wars. Battles can be won fairly easily if you have air supremacy and feet on the ground, but wars are a contest of wills. Whomever is willing to inflict the most brutal and permanent damage on the opponent even at cost to themselves, will generally win wars, especially where democracies are involved. Democracies don't like conscription, large numbers of young people dead, etc. That would rapidly change when home territory is at direct risk of being invaded, but if the war is between two democracies, peace is more stable. You need a mighty big casus belli to stir up enough will in the population. I don't know what that would look like, but the will to win would be dependent on its nature and motivating force.

The US wins its current battles because it can afford to lob a lot of very expensive bombs at anti-aircraft defenses, and it can move its big ships around with relative impunity because of the nature of the opposition it tackles. Take away the latter and the utility of the former is greatly limited. But its ability to win wars is questionable.
____________________
Bikes: S1000R, SH350; Exes: Vity 125, PS125, YBR125, ER6f, VFR800, Brutale 920, CB600F, SH300x4
Best road ever ridden: www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2MhNxUEYtQ

[Polarbear]

[RhynoCZ]

I don't know about the world but I can imagine what would happen here in CZE. We were under rule of the dritten Reich, then under rule of Stalin himself, nah what the hell, welcome 'muricans.

But on the serious note, there's no way much's gonna change without the nukes. Just look at what the WW1 was fought with and the WW2 ended with. It wouldn't be like having firearms killing native Americans, just for the sport.
____________________
'87 Honda XBR 500, '96 Kawasaki ZX7R P1, '90 Honda CB-1, '88 Kawasaki GPz550, MZ 150 ETZ
'95 Mercedes-Benz w202 C200 CGI, '98 Mercedes-Benz w210 E200 Kompressor

[BigShow]

Without nukes they'd lose, with nukes we'd all lose.

In the real world, I think they'd be crippled financially first.

[Im-a-Ridah]

Assuming no nukes for obvious reasons, it's a draw, at least for the first decade or so. What it comes down to, basically, is logistics. The US has the most military logistics by a long way, followed by a small number of countries like the UK, France, Russia, China with comparatively little, but not enough to invade the rest of the world. It's all well and good having millions of troops, but if you can't get them to the battle, then they don't matter. Any attack is going to need to overcome the USN subs, surface fleet and fighter/strike aircraft, and hence would have to be incredible in size, far beyond anything conceivable. Basing in Mexico or Canada is similarly problematic as you still have to ship the weapons past the US forces in the oceans. Ships are very weak against nuclear powered submarines, and cargo planes and ships are very weak against fighter aircraft. They can do a spectacular amount of damage to your offensive logistics with just a squadron or so of jets.

[BigShow]

[Rogerborg]