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

quote:

---

Not to mention the shite that no one knows about. We probably be zapping their arse from space. We haven't been up there fricking around just for phones and shite.

---

I always assume the shite we don't know about far eclipses the shite we do.

Add that to the list.

quote:

---

USMCTiger03

---

quote:

---

Your thinking is about 40 years outdated. In Desert Storm we achieved air superiority and reduced the 4th largest army in the world, 10th largest armor, etc., to stinking ash. Air superiority is everything in this age, ESPECIALLY in a defensive posture where you're not relying on boots on the ground to have to occupy hostile territory

---

The bombing started in January against a non existent airforce and an army of ill equipped and trained, stationary forces with no ability to see was unable to even get Saddam's regime to broach the subject of withdrawal.
A feat that the ground forces accomplished in just a matter of days. The thinking that airpower can win a war is in fact dated and obsolete, Billy Mitchell in the 20's argued it and Hap Arnold and Bomber Harris practiced it during the 40's and failed Lyndon Johnston tried it in the 60's and failed. The ability to occupy and destroy is in fact the only way any war has ever been won. Control of the air is essential, control of the seas as well. But both outside of nuclear projection are incapable of winning. During the air assault on Germany's oil production during World War II, production was at it's highest in the last year of the war, with no sign of any surrender until Russian T34's rolled through Berlin.
The airpower victory principle in England and European states was a result of the carnage of infantry charging against entrenched positions with Maxim machine guns. Post war thought was that it was a more humane way of waging warfare. It has been proven incorrect in battlefields across the world since that time.

The Battle of Trafalgar was in fact a decisive naval battle, but the only reason invasion forces didn't attempt landing was not by death by cannon but by an unexpected English Channel storm that destroyed most of the fleet. Midway was an incredible and decisive action as well it ended Japan's ability to attack the west coast and put the island hopping campaign offensive into play. The battles at Guadalcanal, Iwo, Saipan, Philipines, and all the other land campaigns were by your opinion unnecessary, but air and naval forces from Pearl would of never been able to defeat the Japanese. Even with the costs to lives and resources caused by strategic bombing and even dropping the nukes, there was still debate and dissent to surrender(although ill founded)the emperor stepped in and saved the Japanese people more holocaust because of the inevitable invasion that he was told rightly was forthcoming. He didn't know our nuclear stores were used up at the moment with little man and fat boy's detonations. The ability of which would of never been possible without airfields secured by land forces.

I see no way the US would win. There is just too many miles for the military to cover - once on our turf, the enemy could just flood the country and accept unbelievable losses. There are roughly 7.2 billion people in the world. The US makes up around 300 million of it. So the globe could send 4 billion able-bodied people to attack us in coordination. Mexico and the Caribbean and Canada and Russia as staging grounds.

We would give up Alaska quickly and Canada would become the major base - it avoids our Navy and forces us to stretch our ground forces across a huge land mass. Enter the US via the least populated areas and begin dissecting the country piece by piece...with 4 BILLION ground soldiers. Come in through Montana and start chipping away at the country.

I do think eventually the US would say, "we are hunkering down and you can occupy X, Y and Z. But, you are not taking the north east and DC." We could save part of the country but I see no way we can protect the entire land mass.

quote:

---

LaFlyer

---

Fair enough, but Japan's real strength was naval. Yes, the land battles were necessary, but I and others still believe Midway was the breaking point, or beginning of the end, if you will.

But yes, if you want to actually conquer a country with permanent occupation, boots are the only way, but we're not attempting that in this scenario.

Outside of the GOM, I don't think any country would get within 200 miles of our shores with an attack force capable of taking over anything larger than a strip mall.

quote:

---

The US has some of the smallest borders in the world for a country our size.

---

This is an oxymoron. We wouldn't worry about the sea invasion but the land invasion, especially from Canada is a ton of mileage for us to cover. We don't have the numbers to cover it all.

quote:

---

. There are roughly 7.2 billion people in the world. The US makes up around 300 million of it. So the globe could send 4 billion able-bodied people to attack us in coordination. Mexico and the Caribbean and Canada and Russia as staging grounds.

---

You don't understand.. these billions of people are not going to be the ones coming.. how are they all going to get here at once? and they are the ones attacking and we have home field advantage.

And numbers don't mean everything here at all. A lot of the world is made up by India, seriously peaceful people. There would still have to be some sort of want on their end to attack. Just because their country joined up does not mean anything for the masses. We aren't the ones attacking here, we are simply defending. Our people would have more incline to sign up to defend.

quote:

---

blueboy

If the entire world attacked the USA...quote:LaFlyerFair enough, but Japan's real strength was naval. Yes, the land battles were necessary, but I and others still believe Midway was the breaking point, or beginning of the end, if you will. But yes, if you want to actually conquer a country with permanent occupation, boots are the only way, but we're not attempting that in this scenario.

---

I agree with your assessment on Japan and also that Midway was the beginning of the end, although a protracted and bloody one. It still amazes me that merely six months after Pearl Harbor, US Forces inflicted such a devastating loss to Japan who had a veteran force with superior air assets. Also I agree on an open battlefield with armour and infantry in concentration the Japanese failed miserably. The Russians bloodied them so bad in the east that Russia felt secure enough to move its forces and best general to join the fight against Germany.
In a jungle or defensive setting the Japanese soldier was a whole different animal.

I won't be persuaded on the airpower argument though, US forces work as a triumvirate if you will in land battles. Air Force A10's(retired now) work directly with the M1A1 Abrams and helicopter forces to destroy armour. When a war is won with non nuclear air delivered ordinance, I will change my stance.

7 billion vs 400 million? I could tell you who would win Risk in this situation.