re: If the entire world attacked the USA...

2013 data from Center for Strategic and International Studies,[6][74] otherwise where noted.


Rank

Country

Fighters

Bombers

Attack

Total

1 USA USAF US Navy 3,043 171 1,185 4,399

2 Russia Russian Air Force Russian Naval Aviation 1,264 195 1,267 2,726
3 China 1,130 118 370 1,618
4 India[75] 392 (not specified) 258 654
5 North Korea 899 60 211 1,170
6 Pakistan 600 150 200 950
7 United Kingdom (Royal Air Force) 401[citation needed] 50 209 660
8 Egypt 356 27 215 598
9 Israel 233 10 264 507
10 South Korea 64 60 345 469

United States versus the world in numbers and with signifigant advantage in technology as well. Also many of the belligerent nations operate US made aircraft with support by US contractors with US parts. Look for quick attrition merely by inability to service and supply.

quote:

---

You are glossing over the aspect of them even getting here and preparing for a war on our turf.

---

Not really. The premise is the "whole world" is attacking he US and they have a year to prepare, as do we

quote:

---

. getting all the necessary firearms and military equipment here to fight us is another.

---

A year is adequate time to put together a supply chain.

quote:

---

Also many of the belligerent nations operate US made aircraft with support by US contractors with US parts. Look for quick attrition merely by inability to service and supply.

---

Many of the world's nations wouldnt even be able to directly participate. I guess they could put some people and supplies on some merchant ships and ship them to Mexico and Canada or just try and make supplies for the participating countries.

quote:

---

The premise is the "whole world" is attacking he US and they have a year to prepare, as do we.

---

How would they get here?

They have to come to us

quote:

---

You are glossing over the aspect of them even getting here and preparing for a war on our turf.

Getting them to North America and sustaining them until war time would be a monumental task within itself.

---

I am assuming that we are letting those issues pass for the sake of discussion (I am).

quote:

---

Why? It's not as if the govt/military doesn't have everything they need already, give or take.

---

Do you remember the spike in firearm and ammunition prices after Sandy Hook? That was just because there was a fear that there MIGHT be gun control legislation.

As for the us having all the supplies they need, for a war of this magnitude, I think the us would attempt to stockpile as much firepower and ammo as possible creating a scarcity of available firearms and ammo to the general public.

quote:

---

Not really. The premise is the "whole world" is attacking he US and they have a year to prepare, as do we

---

Getting the amount of troops to Canada and Mexico that people are talking about is not really feasible. Getting adequate military supplies there to that equation is also a tough task. Then you have to house, feed, and take care of this billion plus person army.

quote:

---

A year is adequate time to put together a supply chain.

---

and a year that we have to prepare to disrupt this supply chain. After the war starts, it would be hard for merchant ships to get in and out of Canada/Mexico with us on their asses.

quote:

---

USMCTiger03
If the entire world attacked the USA...quote:Air and water have never won a war, they have provided support for infantry and armour on strategic and tactical basis, but it always comes down to ground forces to seize, hold, and annihilate.

In a defensive posture, Air and Navy can win (there's nothing to occupy), so there's that

---

I disagree on the argument of airpower as a winner of anything ever. Strategic bombing(non nuclear) has never in the history of war ever won. It could be argued that it is in fact a costly failure that drains resources of the nation doing the bombing in manpower and equipment,(developing the B29 during WWII was only second in cost to the Manhattan project) while actually hardening the resolve of the country being bombed. i.e. The Blitz and North Vietnam. The US and Britain bombed Germany night and day from Mid 1942 to 1945 with no end in sight until June of 1944 when the Allies attacked from the west and Russia continued advance from the east.

quote:

---

Getting the amount of troops to Canada and Mexico that people are talking about is not really feasible. Getting adequate military supplies there to that equation is also a tough task. Then you have to house, feed, and take care of this billion plus person army.

---

I think some folks are just dismissing the sheer numbers of men and hardware in the "rest of the world." Russia, China GBR, Germany alone could overwhelm the US.

It's insane to believe the US could withstand that kind of onslaught. They have the rest of the world to store materials and send wave after wave after wave. The US could put up a good fight, but it would come down to pockets of resistance and how much resolve the average citizen has.

This would be a giant stalemate, the world would be unable to successfully invade the US but the US could not conquer the world either. Most of the worlds population would have to stay home to defend their homeland from the US counter attacks and feed/supply their armies. For example if China sent ts entire armed force to mexico they would have to be able to import ~1 million tons of supplies and food A DAY this is no small feat. While that giant army is starving to death and running out of ammunition fighting the gringos we would be instigating a revolution at home they would be unable to defend. This is just one scenerio with one country. This would be a lose lose for both sides and would end with the world troops withdrawing unable to conquer the US.