Question A topic for discussion

[Deebs]

Was just reading the XenForo forums about the "Demise of the EU" and the following is a quote from a post made by an American:

The US has the largest, most powerful military on the planet. For good or ill, we have the military capability (albeit not the strength of character or stomach) to defeat the entire rest of the world combined. And we have paid dearly for that capability.

Original quote here: The Demise Of European Countries | XenForo Community

Now, surely this is just plain wrong?

If we add China, Russia, France, UK, Japan, Italy, India etc as a combined force it must be on equal or greater terms than the USA?

Remember Russia, France and the UK have a Blue-Water capability.

Discuss.

 

[old.user4556]

It's in our nature to destroy ourselves.

 

[Deebs]

It's in our nature to destroy ourselves.

I am not disputing that Big G, just the fact that he states the US can take on every other military force combined and beat them

 

[Tom]

I'd like to see how long the USA's military superiority would last without oil imports.

 

[Tuthmes]

It's measured by cost/technology, which is a valid point. Also the problem is that nobody really knows what China is up to.

 

[old.user4556]

Also the problem is that nobody really knows what China is up to.

I mentioned this in another thread, but Gaff has an interesting counter argument for this. (Gaff, fill in here?)

 

[Lamp]

They couldn't beat the Vietcong...

 

[Deebs]

I'd like to see how long the USA's military superiority would last without oil imports.

That's an interesting point, stop all imports and force them to fight for their fuel. Obviously the nuclear powered vessels would be ok but not much else... How many days reserve does the US hold in storage?

It's measured by cost/technology, which is a valid point. Also the problem is that nobody really knows what China is up to.

I disagree, it's measured in size and firepower, then technology. Let's be fair, some of the US military is high tech but they are not the only ones with that capability. You are right about China though, they have surely cloned everything the US has or is trying.

 

[Tuthmes]

They couldn't beat the Vietcong...

Nor the Taliban thus far. One more year before the American forces return?

 

[Deebs]

Nor the Taliban thus far. One more year before the American forces return?

To be fair I do not think that any country has ever beaten a terrorist organisation. Take Britain, did we actually win against the IRA? Personally I think we didn't.

 

[Tuthmes]

I disagree, it's measured in size and firepower, then technology. Let's be fair, some of the US military is high tech but they are not the only ones with that capability. You are right about China though, they have surely cloned everything the US has or is trying.

I would disagree aswell, but then again the US owns the GPS.

 

[Deebs]

I would disagree aswell, but then again the US owns the GPS.

Not everything requires GPS to locate and destroy a target

 

[caLLous]

Wasn't there a European system in development simply because the Americans own the GPS?

Ah yes, Galileo - not going to be ready for a while yet though.

 

[Mabs]

To be fair I do not think that any country has ever beaten a terrorist organisation. Take Britain, did we actually win against the IRA? Personally I think we didn't.

awfully sticky question that though

did we beat them ? no
could we ? yes

we could of nuked the south of ireland 5 or 6 times.

this is what amuses me about these people, the IRA / Al Quaeda etc all go "oh we beat the UK/US/NATO". No, we just dont believe in escalation of conflict unlike them. we wont do anything to win.

as to the original. not a hope
if the US went up against China, it would lose. And even if it didnt , by some miracle, it would lose against Mexico or anyother tiny little country shortly after (this is exlcuding nukes etc, conventional only)
i think it would also lose against the EU if it tried to take em.

 

[dysfunction]

If this was purely based on nuclear weapons then the rest of the world has more than the USA does.

The problem might be getting them within range of the USA...

If we chose not to go nuclear then I would still say with the USA vs The Rest of the World the US would come off second best...

 

[Deebs]

Wasn't there a European system in development simply because the Americans own the GPS?

Galileo but not operational until around 2018.

 

[DaGaffer]

America could win a war against pretty much anybody right now; whether they could win against everybody is another question. Obviously only if they immediately went nuclear because they simply wouldn't have the bodies to fight an all-fronts conventional war; its not a matter of technology its simply lines of supply, America could no more hold onto Russia or China than the Germans or Japanese did. And if they want nuclear, its not exactly a "win" if your own cities are smouldering wrecks is it? (Russia alone still has more than enough nukes to devastate the US).

More to the point, America can't attack certain countries without effectively wiping out its own economy, China being the obvious one.

Wait another 20 years and the Americans won't be able to win a conventional war either; China won't have caught up in the technology race, but they'll be close enough for sheer numbers to fill in the gaps. Its one of the key reasons why the US is so keen on robots and UAVs; the economics of a NATO v. Warsaw Pact war were pretty even (Russians had a numerical advantage, but NATO quality offset it pretty well), but US v. a nearly-as-advanced China doesn't stack up; Americans couldn't afford to sustain combat losses against the Chinese for more than a few days in an all out war because replacement costs and worse, leadtimes, for $250M fighters and even $10M tanks are too high and too long.

The real question is why would America and China fight? There's little or no reason, whereas the Chinese have the longest border in the world with a country with massive natural resources and a massively declining population. Russia is the country that worries most about China.

 

[dysfunction]

I believe the USA has fuel reserves to last them about 90 years so cutting off their oil wouldnt make a difference!

 

[Edmond]

Is this thread due to Shay pissing you off again Deebs?

 

[Tuthmes]

China has about 4 time the amount of people then the USA does. Technology wise one could almost say China is ahead.

 

[DaGaffer]

China has about 4 time the amount of people then the USA does. Technology wise one could almost say China is ahead.

Not militarily. Not yet.

 

[Embattle]

Well if measured in monetary terms then sure, they spend more than the next 10 countries combined. If you use the same theory when it comes to healthcare then you'll find the US spends the highest amount as a percentage as GDP but is actually worse than many when it comes to the outcomes of healthcare, in fact the outcomes show they don't do any better than the UK overall so it is never as easy to say more money equals better.

The real problem with such statements is they try to simplify extremely complicated issues. You would have to at least look at the type of war whether it be air, land, sea or some combination and location etc etc etc.

 

[Zenith.UK]

I would disagree aswell, but then again the US owns the GPS.

Russia has GLONASS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China has Compass navigation system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Europe has Galileo (satellite navigation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... all BECAUSE the US owns GPS.

 

[Tuthmes]

Russia has GLONASS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China has Compass navigation system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Europe has Galileo (satellite navigation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... all BECAUSE the US owns GPS.

The European and Chinese versions arent complete yet.

 

[Tom]

I believe the USA has fuel reserves to last them about 90 years so cutting off their oil wouldnt make a difference!

The US military won't be doing anything if everyone in the US can't drive, can't eat, can't heat their homes, can't go to work, can't make anything.

 

[ford prefect]

I believe the USA has fuel reserves to last them about 90 years so cutting off their oil wouldnt make a difference!

The last time I read up on the subject it was a 160 day fuel reserve. The Strategic Petrolium Reserve typically holds a 56 day supply, with the ability to hold a 160 day supply under Presidential order. If you add the US's oil producing capacity and the limit of their daily output to the equation and civilian reduction in use under an emergency, I would guestimate that they would effectively be without fuel in under 18 months.

I believe you can find the exact figures for production and SPR in the WorldFact book.

 

[Raven]

To be fair I do not think that any country has ever beaten a terrorist organisation. Take Britain, did we actually win against the IRA? Personally I think we didn't.

The Taliban are not a terrorist organisation, they are a guerilla army fighting on their own (very difficult) turf.

 

[Raven]

Besides, technically speaking. America has not won a war in a very long time and certainly never won a war on its own. I am not sure I would count Iraq as a victory, much of the place is the same as it was. Obviously the modern world being what it is, they will always have their allies, which they rely heavily on in all conflicts. On their own? I doubt they would last very long at all really, not in a hypothetical world vs them war.

 

[ford prefect]

As a theoretical exercise, if you were going to war with the US, you would have to consider ground troops and guerrilla warfare. If you make the logical assumption that most serious military assets are outside major cities, making large scale bombing or weapons of mass destruction ineffective. On the plus side, landing troops on the continental US via the sea would be a breeze. The US relies heavily on technology - going to war with everyone, simply wouldn't be practical - the physical man power simply isn't there.

 

[Tuthmes]

Besides, technically speaking. America has not won a war in a very long time and certainly never won a war on its own.

Hah. I never thought of that actually.