Started By
Message

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

Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:29 pm to
Posted by UpToPar
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
22282 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:29 pm to
quote:

Those that survive our air force and ground to air attack would then face those 300 million+ privately owned firearms and the military.


You are giving far too much credence to the armed civilians. This would be a war primarily fought from the air and in the water. By the time it got to shootouts the US would be fricked.
Posted by BurasTigah
I'm Bored...
Member since Dec 2005
3825 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:30 pm to
quote:

quote: Thats the thing though. Coming to attack our energy sector is a feat within itself. Add on top of that our full military blasting down your throats and the world has a hell of a task at hand.


Lol, as a person that has been employed in the generation side of the energy sector, we would be fricked. Only people with it would be factories and anything else necessary for war. Be too expensive for the average person. Our lives would be sent back in time. Say goodbye to smart phones and the internet. Everything would have to be sacrificed to keep the war machine going.
This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 11:30 pm
Posted by LSU fan 246
Member since Oct 2005
90567 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:30 pm to
quote:

What is the goal of this hypothetical,


I dont really know

quote:

They could easily force our lives to be miserable enough for us to change our government into something friendly to what they wanted without ever needing to set a boot in the country.



I dont think that was part of the hypothetical.

Just that everyone wanted to attack us and we go to a war. If it is just a fight to the death, I like our chances.

Plenty of countries would be "neutral", meaning that they really could do much to contribute to the war as it happens and once it's done.
Posted by Damn Good Dawg
Member since Feb 2011
47325 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:31 pm to
quote:

Buras

Well, that'd change things, but I figured it was a year to prepare and then they'd begin. Landing forces in Canada and Mexico would be an offensive action as well.
quote:

But the only way to truly stop it would be to invade Canada. I think the other countries would easily march through russia and enter North America through Alaska which, in my opinion, the US would concede. At that point all you are doing is moving the front lines into canada.


Still have to deal with US air defenses and air power in Alaska but I agree, Alaska would likely be lost. Still, it's one thing to actually invade Alaska. It's quite another to move that many people through that terrain.

And it'd be better to move the front lines to Canada and give more space to fall back. Canada and the Northwestern US outside of Washington and Oregon is sparsely populated and offers little strategic value other than land. I may be missing something.
quote:

Doubt we'd be able to shoot them all down or out of the water. With as many commercial airplanes and military airplanes as there are in the world, coupled with water craft, two armies of over a billion people could easily amass in canada and mexico.


No, of course we couldn't take down all of them. But we sure as shite could take out a substantial amount and I doubt they'd resolve themselves to an all out assault considering the staggering losses they'd incur to only land a portion of their forces.

It would not be an easy feat.
Posted by SmackoverHawg
Member since Oct 2011
28923 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:32 pm to
quote:

Doubt we'd be able to shoot them all down or out of the water. With as many commercial airplanes and military airplanes as there are in the world, coupled with water craft, two armies of over a billion people could easily amass in canada and mexico.

Imagine the resources wasted just to get them here. Then you'd have to feed, water, house and train them. Not to mention sanitation. shite, they'd be circling the drain before it started. They'd be like locusts in Mexico and Canada.
Posted by UpToPar
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
22282 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:34 pm to
quote:

And it'd be better to move the front lines to Canada and give more space to fall back. Canada and the Northwestern US outside of Washington and Oregon is sparsely populated and offers little strategic value other than land. I may be missing something.


The oilfields of the Dakotas, but other than that, I agree until you start getting into the midwest.
Posted by SmackoverHawg
Member since Oct 2011
28923 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:34 pm to
And if they're all over here, who's defending their supply lines and means of production? Our air force would shut that shite down.
Posted by Damn Good Dawg
Member since Feb 2011
47325 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:35 pm to
quote:

Say goodbye to smart phones and the internet. Everything would have to be sacrificed to keep the war machine going.


Which, considering the circumstances, would likely be dealt with
quote:

Imagine the resources wasted just to get them here. Then you'd have to feed, water, house and train them. Not to mention sanitation. shite, they'd be circling the drain before it started. They'd be like locusts in Mexico and Canada.


Didnt even factor this in but absolutely. Mexico and Canada are hardly resource rich enough to feed the troops off the land. And I'd LOVE to see a sustainable supply line be set up.

The world would first have to devastate our naval force and then the air force once they got closer
Posted by Damn Good Dawg
Member since Feb 2011
47325 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:35 pm to
quote:

The oilfields of the Dakotas, but other than that, I agree until you start getting into the midwest.


Friggin knew I forgot something
Posted by LaFlyer
Member since Oct 2012
1043 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:36 pm to
With a year of advance notice the Nuclear tipped weapons could be converted to conventional warheads and target lists drawn to match.
The entire fleet of needed mothballed aircraft at Davis-Monthan could be brought back online.
The same for all Navy ships and merchant marine.
The National Guard would be Federalized and expanded.
Inactive reserve former officers and nco's brought back into their respective service.
Inactive training barracks on all training installations activated and millions of soldiers trained in essential MOS's 11B, 11F, 12B(21B)
Strategic petroleum reserve filled
Invasion plans for Mexico and Canada planned and moved into location to provide "Lebensraum". Bases on foreign soil reinforced and expanded readied to invade Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Britain
Parts reserves, food, essentials, and medical positioned.
Coast Guard taken from Commerce Dept to Dept of Defense.
Veteran combat troops repositioned, replenished and rested from current countries engaged.
Also probably pull troops from Korea and Japan and allow them as non sustainable economies to be isolated and strangled without force.
All undocumented aliens deported or given immunity and chance of citizenship if they have skills critical to war effort or serve in armed forced.
UN dismantled
The true preemptive strike would be to unnationalize foreign oil reserves or to pull technology equipment and personnel home and end all financial aid to all belligerents.

The unknown quantity being the will of the people to fight and the ability of the depleted industrial complex to produce for a sustained operation.
It would be interesting, if it's a sustained scenario over three years the World maybe has a chance.
Under it's all USA



This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 11:43 pm
Posted by Topwater Trout
Red Stick
Member since Oct 2010
68699 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:36 pm to
quote:

Any boat the world can wrangle. Year to prepare, no worries getting there. The entire world besides us.


You're forgetting we know the date of the attack which means we would be sinking tons of ships prior to the world being able to build up armies on our borders
Posted by LSU fan 246
Member since Oct 2005
90567 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:36 pm to
quote:

Any boat the world can wrangle. Year to prepare, no worries getting there.



and once they are there, what do they do for the year? You think a country like Mexico can support a billion to two billion people?

Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
60339 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:36 pm to
quote:

The number of forces that would be lined up at the Mexican and Canadian borders would be staggering
There are a total of 32 mil. Canadians. That's every man, woman and child. Detroit alone could kick all of their asses.

And who's going to arm the Mexicans? Obama? Of course, since we already have Mexicans in every major city, that might be a problem. We'd have to euthanize them all in the year lead-up. Sorry, vatos.
Posted by UpToPar
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
22282 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:36 pm to
quote:

And if they're all over here, who's defending their supply lines and means of production? Our air force would shut that shite down.



I don't think our air force can adequately protect our mainland, shoot any forms of transportation of troops down entering canada and mexico AND go out and shoot down infrastructure in other countries. Maybe I am shorting our air force, but that seems like quite the task.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451055 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:37 pm to
quote:

By the time it got to shootouts the US would be fricked.



we, as America, cannot adequately hold backwater, poor countries like Iraq and Afghanistan
Posted by SmackoverHawg
Member since Oct 2011
28923 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:38 pm to
Best way is to let us continue our economic suicide and let us deplete our military much as Obama is doing. Then attack after we are too weak to resist. And of course after gun control.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451055 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:39 pm to
quote:

I don't think our air force can adequately protect our mainland, shoot any forms of transportation of troops down entering canada and mexico AND go out and shoot down infrastructure in other countries.

you'd be surprised

if the entire world attacked us, the only thing stopping the bombing of strategic targets would be our supply of bombs of which to do so
Posted by LSU fan 246
Member since Oct 2005
90567 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:39 pm to
quote:

Landing forces in Canada and Mexico would be an offensive action as well.


Didnt think of this.

Would this be allowed in this hypothetical?
Posted by TigerBait1127
Houston
Member since Jun 2005
47336 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:39 pm to
The world's air force and navy would be defeated in less than 12 hours.

Other countries would be on the defensive without us even needing to put boots on the ground

A land invasion from Canada and mexico is laughable with our technology.
This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 11:41 pm
Posted by Damn Good Dawg
Member since Feb 2011
47325 posts
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:40 pm to
quote:

Under it's all USA


Which is what I'd figure they'd do because in order to get any headway the coalition against the US would have to put on intense pressure and IMO would face staggering losses. Even if they won it's already guaranteed their casualty count from military losses alone would be far and above what the US would experience based off of population and what not but after a while the cost would be just so damn much
Jump to page
Page First 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 7 of 17Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram