So I have been reading a thread regarding US vs. China. The overall consensus is the US would roll face so I'm steeping it up a notch, let's say you could choose 5 countries to form and alliance and attack the US, which 5 would you chose and what would the realistic outcome be including world economic status thereafter.
Actually you don't even need all that.
Just someone batshit crazy enough willing to die and a few million dollars.
So many things I won't even talk about cause it'll put you on a list.
Just as a for instance though its widely know North Korea's nuke program is designed only to explode over American air space thereby creating a massive EMP from which America would never recover in anyone's life time.
USA would lose if it attacked a shit tier country like mine, Ireland.
Occupation wouldn't only be impossible, you should see our history, but Europe wouldn't stand for it.
No need for alliances. Just burn the flag, tell everyone we have oil and wait
>implying you commie bastards could ever defeat the United States of kicking ass
I dont think people understand how much money is spent on the US military or how much practice they have...
It would be a close war if it were America vs the world.
I'm pretty sure if someone attacked US soil, our army would get plowed.
I think the most annoying part is how much people will bitch about it, and how everyone will say "nuke everything but north america"
The U.S gets fucking invaded from all angles, ultimately the Canadians sacrifice themselves 4 the queen and russia bombs everything including allies.
Los Angeles is burned to the ground also, but pornography somehow survives.
everyone steals the american cashses
I guess that explains planet of the apes.
Why do people still ask these questions, China has a fuck huge army with no way of transferring it to the US or defending it from air attacks. A huge number doesn't mean shit when your vehicles and aircraft are 60 year old copied Soviet designs. NATO would kick ass in Asia, the US, ROK and Japanese navies would sink the puddle pirate navy the Chinese have and Russia would sit by knowing that any move they make would be suicidal to them. The US and Chinese economies would be fucked, the world will be plunged into depression and then nerve gas will start coming out of chem trails causing me to move to bel air.
And you are.....ten? Do you know what is involved in landing an army and fighting on hostile territory. My neighbors are Russian and I already want to kill them.
Good luck driving tanks down any American street flying Russian colors.
Why? Because the military is so far spread across the world?
If the cause were truly great, like if another nation dared to invade, I'd enlist at a blink of an eye. Wouldn't you?
The 5 best countries couldn't beat the U.S in a war.
The U.S could fight the entire rest of the world and win.
The only scenario in which the U.S loses is if it comes to nukes, and the rest of the world loses too, so that won't happen
This is based on the US being the aggressor, how would these 5 succeed in invading?
care to go into detail why you picked these 5? how would the world economy change as a result.
spending =/= usable resources
I'm asking the question because I am curious. Also I didn't mandate that China or Russia have to be used.
I agree with this, negating the possibility of a draft/ enlistment, the sheer number of armed civilians/ public servants available for disposal would be incredible.
Ha china just got ttheir first nuclear aircraft carrier like 5 years ago. And if billy bob didn't sell them the technologies to laser target nukes, America would just roll through the front door.
>This is based on the US being the aggressor, how would these 5 succeed in invading?
There are more guns than there are people, do you have any idea how hard invading south central would be? What do you think the casualty rate for every block would be in Compton, the Bronx, Inglewood, Manhattan, Detroit, Chicago.
The civilians would bleed a military dry every step of the way.
>there are more guns than people
Owning a gun does not inherently bestow you the knowledge or experience to use it. A proper soldier could massacre a village, an idiot with a gun would kill a handful, before succumbing themselves.
excellent idea. use the niggers for cannon fodder.
not to mention the fact that theyd be excellent for guerrilla attacks. you ever see them in a fight? one nigger sucker punches, one nigger hits the dazed opponent from behind and the rest of the baboon troupe jump in and start stomping.
> gorilla guerrilla fighters
If all out war was waged, everyone would lose. Period.
The US will never fall to war period.
Against Russia, there would either be the US curb stomping the shit out of them, or an all our nuclear war with both sides losing. Same with China, except the US would obliterate them, and Russia would take the opportunity to strike at the US, which would then cause yet again an all out nuclear war.
The US makes up nearly 1/4th of the worlds GDP. The EU (the US's allies) makes up another 1/4th (actually a tad higher).
No force in the world has a chance of beating the US, at least not a 5 nation alliance.
The best case scenario is a nuclear draw.
Canada, Russia, China, Japan and Cuba.
Canada hits them from the north, cube stations tactical assault forces. China and Japan send naval forces across and overwhelm from the east. Russia sends troops to Canada, beef up their forces a bit and hit up Castro like the old days.
It'll be a war of attrition. Fuck knows that the EU will be pissed, but id like to see them try to invade mother russia.
Considering how much trouble 'Murica is having with a bunch of cave dwelling sandniggers, I'd say any country would have a chance at winning.
Like that one training exercise that simulated a battle between US and another country, US has the advantage but because the other country's group used different tactics/etc. they were kicking the US's ass, but Uncle Sam couldn't have that so they changed every rule in the game until the US won like a fucking 10 year old server Admin.
Can't remember what the operation was called but I bet someone else does.
except it isn't really. point and click? boom your hand is gone and so is part of your face. With some minor training, yeah they could be proper fodder, but without it they're just meatshields. which isn't too bad of a use tbh. deplete their bullets, and whatnot.
hey, you see that square button right next to comma? you know it looks like this " . " That's a period. You don't have to type out the word period, if you're going to use periods. makes you look retarded, thus invalidating your point, whatever it may be.
>China and Japan send naval forces across and overwhelm from the east
I dont think you understand how large the us military is.
In a naval battle between USA vs China and Japan the USA would curb stomp them very easily. We have 3x the aircraft carrier groups and far more advanced tech.
>It'll be a war of attrition
You will learn the definition of war of attrition when you try to take Compton, the Bronx, Inglewood, Manhattan, Detroit, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, LA, etc etc.
I said it earlier there are more guns than people in the US, thats the real war of attrition. Dont forget youll have to fight in every single climate.
ANDROID / APPLE / NFL / XBOX / DORITOS
The actual answer is that the US can be nuked or bombed (conventionally) but it can't be invaded. The rest of the world combined simply doesn't have the sealift capacity (Ships to move personnel and equipment) necessary to stage an invasion. The little they do have would be like shooting fish in a barrel for the US. Navy as they tried to cross the oceans.
That's why I still think WWII was a fucking joke. Neither Hitler, Mussolini, nor Hirohito had any desires on the U.S.
Even a batshit crazy meth head like Hitler knew a land invasion of North America would be utter suicide. The rockies, the forests of the pacific northwest the urban landcape of the northern atlantic states. Shit you'd need a billion soldiers to even try to keep a handle on it.
How you gonna get those troops here? The sea isnt going to happen we have more naval power than the rest of the world combined.
Missiles? I guess lets Fallout this shit. Its also worth pointing out that there are multiple missile defense systems on both coasts so it wont be a high saturation rate, but again how will you get close enough?
At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth in their military chests; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in the trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. -Abraham Lincoln
china russia and any 3 of uk france germany japan india could probably do the trick, if they are able to fully mobilize their economy for war (US starts with a leg up since so much %GDP goes to military already)
although to be honest if any one of the nuclear powers is willing to just push the button, the war is basically a tie lol
Yeah that's what they call the festering pile of Moose shit.
It was fires, cottage cheese and a packet of mark down powdered brown gravy from the market with like a hundred pounds of salt poured on top.
Then all the Canada fags stood around watching me eat it and I was like what the fuck is wrong with you assholes?
It made me want to kill every Canadian I met for the rest of my life. What kind of sick fucks get off on selling salted human feces to the unwarry? Canadians simply don't deserve to live. Even a fucking Mexican wouldn't shit in a burrito and spice it up and feed it to you. A Mexican has way more pride than that but not a fucking Canadian evidently.
the shit is universal
They don't, but improper use leads to self inflicted injuries. I can't find any good videos, but shooting a finger is possible.
Not to mention, that proper gun maintenance is a must if you don't want your gun to literally explode in your hands.
TL;DR guns aren't magical death wands.
They most definitely are magical death wands. Explain to me why a rifle that will fire rounds faster than the speed of sounds reliably for thousands of rounds is?
Bodies pulling triggers is a resource that will fight you in every single kind of terrain they grew up in.
I hope that military power of your has the resources to fight over 3000 miles (5000km for you) while literally every. single. person has a weapon.
Are you retarded? Do you not comprehend how LA, a city of millions, all armed, would put up a very effective resistance to an army marching down their streets?
Detroit in the winter would Stalingrad all over again.
Come up to my home state in Vermont, the green mountain boys will destroy an occupying force because they are trained to do just that and have been for hundreds of years.
> Thinks you can actually airlift enough people and equipment to invade a small country like England, let alone the US.
ROFL. As to the land borders, neither Canada or Mexico has an army that could make it 20 miles across the border before they were destroyed. If they were willing to let their country be used as a staging ground for someone else's military, you're back to the sealift problem.
dude... im from fucking texas... the farthest thing from canada and poutine is absolutely delicious.
idk how they make it but my mom used to make it for shits and giggles back in the day and it was amazing... fries, brown gravy and like swiss or provolone melted on top? dayum nigga
well, i mean for one, tanks. tanks could go over thousands of miles of ppl with guns.
I'm not saying guns aren't powerful. But good intentions don't make your gun work the way you want it to.
Usa wins any and all conventional ground war by huge means. The only way we/d get invaded and lose is if a simultaneuous attack from all sides happened. Not possible since any landing fleet is toast 400 miles out. Best geography on the planet for a country.
Are these your imaginary flying tanks?? Because in a real war, those tanks would have to get here via ships and they'd be on the ocean floor before coming within 100 miles of the US
Do you know the sizes of Canada's and Mexico's army? i'm pretty sure they could go more than 20 miles. As for the sealift problem Russia -> Alaska. Take Alaska, and Invasion by land is possible.
Did you miss the part about not being able to take care of a couple terrorist groups for more than 10 years?
I guess having Uncle Sam's cock in your face conveniently blocked that part of the screen.
America couldn't stand the thought of being shown in a bad light from that 1 simulation, so instead of completing it and maybe fucking learning something from it, they just completely shat on it because everyone needs to know how great america is, and that they can never lose.
Vietnam was a loss, again against a force with vastly inferior tech.
So what if America has nukes? They can't fucking use them or else everyone is fucked, themselves included.
Dummy, Its not a hop and skip from Alaska.
A whole convoy of tanks moving 4+ thousand miles? 70% of them will be broken by then and does everyone forget how many tanks the USA has? And anti armor weapons?
War is not like fucking risk, moving gear like that will be a nightmare.
No, they couldn't. I think the problem is that you don't realize the extent of the US military. The US spends more per year on it's military than every other country combined. As for Alaska, again, are you planning to roll the tanks across the Bering Straight?? They'd still have to carried across by ship and they'd still be sunk.
Here's a pop quiz for you - By all objective measures, the US Air Force is the most powerful in the world. Who has the world's 2nd most powerful air force??
Yeah uhm OK. This is kinda embarassing but I actually took the time to look at your posts. In no particular order you are from Texas. Ok you've probably heard the steers and queers remark a few times and cows can't operate a keyboard mmmkay?
You like Poutine. I'll just leave that there.
Then you made a post about military simulation which I dunno yawns I guess. Everyone from Texas is fucking mentally handicapped so it'd be like arguing with a pigeon playing a game of chess. They'd strut and shit on the board and declare themselves a winner.
he asked what could go over thousands of miles full of people with guns.
The answer is tanks. Also, planes. How to get them there is another story, but it is still a valid answer.
you do know that's pretty much what i'm arguing, too? except magical tanks, magical guns.
this is classic europoor logic. look at every engagement america has fought in in the middle east. look at the casualties on both sides in the vietnam war. we didnt achieve our objective because it was achievable. however we absolutely beat the shit out of them whenever they engaged us. the fact of the matter is, you cant fight people who hide behind civilians in this day and age. were they to stand up and fight us as an actual army, they would have gotten their asses handed to them just like desert storm.
We spend only 8% of our GDP on our military and it protects our own country, as well as acting like the UN's pitbull. If we spent Myanmaar-tier amounts on our military (like 22%) then we'd be the only civilization left on the planet.
The loss in Vietnam was political, not military. There's a difference between being able to obliterate a country, and invading it and holding it while minimizing civilian losses.
The question posed by the OP wasn't about America invading other countries but about America being invaded. The answer is simply, that with the current militaries of the world, it can't be.
You guys just changing the subject, don't you?
>how about A?!?
well there's B.
>B?? but how are you going to C?!@?
D. D works just fine.
>D?!@%?# Do you know how retarded that is? First of all how would you E? second of all, they have a bigger F!!
Seriously, you guys can't accept that USA is not impregnable
Our GDP is also higher than that of the next 8 countries combined under us. It's like teasing a homeless person that they don't have as much property insurance as a trillionaire. Pleb countries.
he who laughs last laughs longest
ok then please explain to me how one simulation can provide a definite representation of an entity that comprised millions of people.
thats like a scientist holding one experimental trial and acting like he found the answer
Well this is one of those posts where you are clearly retarded or just trolling. And if you are just trolling you are probably retarded because it isn't even a good troll.
Tons of info has been published online about North Koreas nuclear program as a means to create a massive EMP blast over the U.S.
I'm not going to debate it with you as your are obviously a fuck head and your dad should have pulled out. But if anyone is interested there is this new internet thing called Google and you can look it up.
Im sorry you cnat accept that war isnt like a fucking sim game
>I move my tanks here and it does X amount of Damage!
Fuck off, you dont know shit.
>Mah tanks in your cities!
How did they get there?
>Puh Puh Puh B to Puh PuH point C...Blaaarrgghgh whatever why is this so hard.
The usa is not impregnable but you dont realize how hard that is going to be and holding it for a meaningful amount of time is impossible.
So go ahead get a few miles in the border then rejected like you on every date you trick a girl into.
Oh really? What would be your proposal? Should we have just made a million concentration camps and a million gas chambers?
Because clearly the people didn't fucking want us there fighting over their offshore oil fields you ignorant goat fucker.
No, you are the one that keeps throwing out imaginary unworkable things like Magic tanks that appear out of nowhere. The US is not impregnable, you can fire missiles and sneak a few bombers over it and do some serious damage. It IS unable to be invaded successfully.
My proposal?? I don't think we ever should have set foot in Vietnam or Iraq either. But those were both political decisions (bad ones in my opinion) not military.
Again, this is besides the point, the original question was about which 5 countries combined could successfully invade America. The answer is the entire world combined couldn't do it at this time.
>Just as a for instance though its widely know North Korea's nuke program is designed only to explode over American air space thereby creating a massive EMP from which America would never recover in anyone's life time.
No I'm not as I've said before, the question was:
What could go over thousands of miles of people with guns.
Logistically, it would be a nightmare to get the tanks there in the first place, but it's not impossible. It might be an impractical solution, but not an implausible or unworkable one.
Not really getting many answers to my question. Canada would be a good country to use because of the size of the land border it shares with the US, that gives it the advantage of being able to attack via land over a large area. With regards to Russia and utilizing the Bering Straight, yes technically it can be utilized as a means of transferring ground forces to North America without having to cross an entire ocean but it bottle necks any force hoping to utilize it. I feel like the US Navy could easily close negate that as a point of attack.
Fine, last one.
You put out a specific case in which a tank got wrecked by, what I assume were, molotov cocktails. I was referring to THAT SPECIFIC CASE WHICH YOU POSTED, that said tank, could've done some damage, but didn't really try. It seemed, to me, that in that particular case, the tank was more of an intimidation tactic.
insinuated that doing damage and winning a war were equivalent.
How you even arrived at that conclusion is beyond me.
Again, you miss the point. It wouldn't be a nightmare to get enough tanks there to go the thousands of miles, it would be impossible under current military capabilities. That makes your answer as valid as saying "Lots of people with bigger guns!" True but completely irrelevant since it can't be done.
Realistically Canada would be fighting on the side of the states. The only time they haven't was in iraq or whatever that 'weapons of mass destruction' thing after 9/11 with bush when they never found the weapons.
Of course if they DID go to war the USA would invade.. no way canada would. They would capture toronto and ottawa, some places out west and further east, then get royally fucked by a hardy guerrilla militants and the fucking cold ass winter. You'd also get diserters on both sides as its like cousins fighting cousins, so canada would make sure to not invade so they come off more sympathetic.
>including world economic status thereafter.
goes to shit
>pinnacle of entertainment is now britbong garbage tier comedy
>hostile forces invade Japan, Kuwait, Korea
>sand nigger dictator monopolizes oil trade
>China is now the target of the world's jealous rage
The answer to your question was, it can't be done. Not with any 5 countries, not with every other country combined. The geographic situation of the US (two large ocean borders, defensible southern border, strong ally to the north whom we would back to prevent anyone from invading their country long before it got to our mutual border) and the sheer size of the US military - particularly, the US Navy
So lets think about this
Some of the big problems being raised are the sheer number of people and what would happen if you armed them
but lets take out the middle man
nukes from every direction, targeting all the major US cities
targeting every city with a population over 100,000
you suddenly have a lot less troops
deployed all their nuclear weapons at the US then it would be a lot easier to invade