USA vs rest of the world

[onfire 12]

Seeing that the United States of America for years far outspend every other nation in the world regarding their military, not only a huge share of their GDP but they are also the biggest economy and have alot of combat experience, I wonder what happened if:

-USA are at war against every other nation in the world

-No WMDs can be used

-US forces from bases around the world are back home, and the US have vastly expanded their oil production

-Only total surrender is accepted by either site, or total occupation of other countries (no puppets)

So, how do you think this scenario will play out? (Please no US bashing;) )

[Brisse 78]

Military expenditure (USD)

USA: 682 478 000 000

Rest of world: 1073 522 000 000

That's for 2012. The US have done some severe budget cuts since then. Rest of world have done the opposite, and increased spending, especially Russia.

[maturin 12]

$600 billion of spending for a unified, battle-proven military probably outweighs $1073 billion in literally hundreds of militaries with completely separate command structures and institutional structures, most of whom have fought no wars in living memory and have no capability to project force or even invade a neighbor.

[Tonci87 163]

Still, in a USA vs. everybody else scenario the USA would loose. The combined Armys of Europe, Russia and China.....Manpower alone could win this.

[Bee8190 10]

$600 billion of spending for a unified, battle-proven military probably outweighs $1073 billion in literally hundreds of militaries with completely separate command structures and institutional structures, most of whom have fought no wars in living memory and have no capability to project force or even invade a neighbor.

I wouldn't say that its budget/s being the ultimate deciding factor and could end up on not having enough oil or powder to fill shells with. Unconventional wars might be getting harder by a day also

[maturin 12]

I wouldn't say that its budget/s being the ultimate deciding factor and could end up on not having enough oil or powder to fill shells with.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. It's the institutional structure and its efficiency that matters.

Anyways, the whole scenario is pointless to even imagine unless you say something like:

You take all the world's militaries and put them on two perfect copies of Australian, cleared of civilians and separated by a hundred miles of water, with a year's worth of fuel and ammo. What happens?

[batto 17]

It's pointless without nukes.

[Nicholas 5]

I don't think any country, not just the USA, could survive if you placed them against the rest of the world.

[nodunit 397]

Are we talking from the point of a brainwashed populous that cares nothing for the rest of the world and has abandoned all morals for the glory of Artzto- I mean the Almighty United States or are we also considering interior conflicts? Because I'm pretty sure our own military would see this idea as an act of suicide and either not go to war or work on ousting key political figures, and chances are multiple guerilla groups would work on doing the same if not topple the government as a whole.

All that and we haven't even started dealing with Canada and all of South America, nevermind deploying our fleet to prevent an inevitable blockade or trade choking attempt among the nearby oceans.

Edited July 1, 2014 by NodUnit

[mistyronin 1181]

Seeing that the United States of America for years far outspend every other nation in the world regarding their military, not only a huge share of their GDP but they are also the biggest economy and have alot of combat experience.

So, how do you think this scenario will play out? (Please no US bashing;) )

Let's make it easier, was the US able to control Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan... Nope.

So if the US is unable to control a third world country like Afghanistan with the support of part of its population and allied with a lot of countries...

The maximum strength that the US have nowadays it their economy and their diplomacy.

[nodunit 397]

The US was able to steamroll Iraq in Gulf War 1, when it was conventional warfare against enemies in uniform with set equipment.

All of the above examples are unconventional and against guerilla's or militia's with no specific uniform...in essence you don't know who is the enemy until they do something.

For example say you're playing Arma in MP and you're in a match with several factions..you have blufor, redfor and some civilians.

Amongst the civilians are a few players working with one of the teams to conspire against the other, how do you know who these conspirators are?

Lets say a car is coming around 40mph towards one of your tanks which is on guard duty, say you're in the tank, do you shoot at the car and kill the driver...taking out what might be a threat or maybe someone who for whatever reason had an absent minded moment and wound up slamming the car into said tank without any explosion. In the game chances are you'd probably shoot that person, I would have as well..but it's not like that in reality.

Secondly there is the issue of looking at "war" on a military standpoint, politics plays a big role into it as well, anyone who knows some history on Vietnam and Afghanistan know that...there wasn't directly a goal, we didn't go there just to kill people it was far more paperwork related. So say we go on a warpath for...whatever reason, and we invade our first country...are we playing a political game to "liberate" them from their government and instill our own?

Or are we going on a blood frenzy and purposefully targetting civilians and military alike, decimating their schools and destroying their hospitals as well as airfields, shooting everyone as though they were guerilla's regardless of wearing a uniform or not? doing whatever we can to cause chaos in the country and force the government to either submit or simply carve a path of blood and entrails to their political structures, broadcasting it as propaganda in order to try and cause fear and hopefully break moral by saying that this will happen to everyone that opposes us if they do not surrender?

Edited July 1, 2014 by NodUnit

[Opticalsnare 12]

Throughout history many Empires have tried and failed at the cost of millions perhaps billions of lives. War is nothing but a weakness in our human nature.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Opticalsnare

[Beagle 684]

Wait, if I recall it right there was once an Empite that thought it could take on the whole world alone.

Greece failed

Persia failed

Rome failed

Ottoman failed

Spain failed

France failed

Great Brittain failed

Germany failed

USSR failed

The USA will fail soon.

[Nicholas 5]

Wait, if I recall it right there was once an Empite that thought it could take on the whole world alone.

Greece failed

Persia failed

Rome failed

Ottoman failed

Spain failed

France failed

Great Brittain failed

Germany failed

USSR failed

The USA will fail soon.

The largest difference is that the US has not been advancing and claiming land as their own.

[Beagle 684]

The largest difference is that the US has not been advancing and claiming land as their own.

The Roman empire did never give citizenship the the provinces they took nor did they made it a part of "Rome". They just occupied the provinces and took what they needed....often subsidized by the local lords and nobles they installed still allowed to act as puppets and used them as Officers of their Auxiliarii. The fall of the empire came when those nobles could smell the decay and revolted and the empire lost one province after another...Sounds familiar? Edited July 2, 2014 by Beagle

[Tonci87 163]

The largest difference is that the US has not been advancing and claiming land as their own.

Well they are kind of doing that through geopolitical means. Their "allies" often do what they are told to do.

[sander 14]

The Roman empire did never give citizenship the the provinces they took

Actually the Romans did do so continuously, though at varying pace and with to varying degrees (in various cases a subset rather than full rights) till the Constitutio Antoniniana granted these rights to the freeborn provincial populations. A province as a whole was an administrative division and not a community as such, generally subdivided into various communities which could be dealt with separatively with regard to extension of civic rights. Some entities received block grants before others and local elites tended to be coopted with preferential grants of such rights.

Regards,

Sander