Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
Re: Modern day USA vs the entire world during WW2
I would love to participate in this scenerio but I just can't figure certain things.
Like, as an example, why Modern day USA but no Nuke allowed? If this was back in WWII there shouldnt be a treaty banning nukes. So it's fair play to use nukes.
The other scenerio if Hitler is still around and leading the Nazis. Doesn't that put the UK, France, and USSR in contrast with Germany? Therefore, how can it be agaisnt the ENTIRE world?
Now what a country in Africa are we dealing with? As far as I know, Italy was invading the continent...wouldn't that African nation thus be AT war with the Axis? Therefore making him an ally of British, French, and Russians?
It might not bring about defeat. I never said it would. I said the US would win but it would suffer mass military and civilian casualties proportionate to the USSR in WWII. I also think there's a strong possibility that in winning the war, the stress and hardship and danger would turn the US itself into a fascist dictatorship by many politicians using a threat to their political advantage. Even without spies and saboteurs, any foreign power can hit the US with bioweapons using a specialized balloon or something else completely innocuous. A few fleas, a disease, and some specialized rubbers. You can kill hundreds of thousands for less than $10,000 at a fairly primitive level of technology.
__________________ Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do you think we will ever be saved?
In this land of dreams find myself sober...
Wonder when will it'll all be over...
Living in a void when the void grows colder...
Wonder when it'll all be over?
Will you be laughing when it's over?
Last edited by Darth Jello on Sep 22nd, 2009 at 06:06 PM
oh, totally, its why terrorism and asymmetrical warfare is so effective, and it is arguable that such might reduce the willingness of the Americans to keep fighting.
Its just, as effective as asymmetrical tactics are, they don't really have an offensive application. Maybe Hamas/Hezbollah and the Taliban could be considered as being the best examples of such uses, but their military victories are very modest. Hezbollah is said to have won the summer war with Israel simply because, after weeks of being bombed, the Lebanese hostage takers refused to release Israeli prisoners. I guess I have to accept that the Taliban, though in an interesting context, have used such tactics fairly effectively.
I agree with you though. Were America to try and conquer the world, they would almost certainly need to become fascist.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Modern day USA vs the entire world during WW2
In order to raise an interesting discussion. Everyone's first reaction would be "nuke 'em", which is boring, by taking away that option people have to actually think about it.
Yes.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
This assumes that the US has no way of getting an aircraft carrier near China. This is incorrect.
This also assumes that no stealth technology exists and that there are no aircraft that can make a 3000 mile trip. This is also incorrect.
This also assumes that any naval forces even stand a chance against submarines alone, much less smart munitions and ballistics. This is incorrect.
However, if those three points were not true, you'd be spot on correct.
You also assume that Mexico and Canada pose any threat beyond a few hours. They don't. In fact, they are virtually useless in this war, as they are the WWII iterations, and not the modern ones.
Even a massive underground attempt would horribly fail, due to improvements in seismic technologies. Not only could we tell where the underground passage was coming form, we could tell what type of materials they were digging through, the depth, their speed, the materials the seismic activity passed through and, thereby, calculate the time of arrival, and we could even tell what type of tools they were using to get the job done.
The refitting of ICBMs with Vacuum bombs, alone, would be the end of the war. The modern US ability to manufacture on a large scale is much greater than all of the WWII world. Outfitting ICBMs with vacuum bombs would be a quick operation. The rest of the world would be at the mercy o the US and our Vacuum bombs.
Reality, though: The rest of the world would be at the mercy of our naval and air combat abilities. We would fight the war almost completely from a distance.
You want ground combat? Our ability to wage war with even ground ballistics is far superior than anything seen in WWII. We have night vision, infrared vision, laser guided smart bombs from ground forces, tanks that are superior, such as the Abrams tank, to anything close to WWII era technology, and even keeping our troops warm and fed is far superior to what the world had in WWII. What about body armor? Etc.
And, we are working on Ironman type suits, now. A suit that could completely protect from multiple rounds in the same spot, and even survive some ballistics. They also are working on suits that increase strength via servos. If the US experiences another world war, the technologies that would get pushed through would greatly increase our ability to wage war, not only on the quickly becoming antiquated ground war, but our remote warring capabilities.
Don't forget, modern US military also has world satellites. It'd be really hard to attack us when we have the ability to check for infrared or other types of spectral activity.
As soon as war was declared on the US, all major forces in the world would experience surgical strikes within hours, greatly decreasing the ability of the world to actually wage war. That pretty much sums up how the war would go.
And your comparison to WWII US total population to WWII world population was what I was referring to, earlier. You said 50 million to 2 billion. I was just saying it wasn't the case. It is 310 million to 2 billion. Your argument about 310 million not actually being correct is your own error, not mine. I was just saying that it is modern US, not 1940 US. That's it.
And saying that we wouldn't have 310 million people involved in the war is correct. However, we do have US citizens monitoring the southern border, notifying the border enforcement at a much more efficient rate than could be done by the "military" personnel, alone. To say the entirety of the US population is exluded is probably incorrect. We could easily have many more people monitoring the borders. Millions...tens of millions. You saw how quickly the people of New York banded together shortly after 9/11. No reason to assume that the red neck patriots would do worse.
However, that's all useless. The US's ability in diplomacy would eliminate our Canadian and Mexican enemies. I'm quite sure that within a few hours of declaring war, we could diffuse the situation.
However, I don't think they would ever declare war on the US...at least in the last 100 years up until now.
And for anyone who is going to say that diplomacy and peace treaties don't count cause this is modern US versus the rest of the world, then you're failing to actually understand the art of war. Diplomacy is a very large portion of war, especially in the modern war scene. Leverage and appeasement are almost paramount.
Edit - I just realized something: We hvae military bases all over the world. We first have to reconcile how those would be handled. Would they kick them out or give them time? Or are we alowed to use those military bases in other countries? The larger military bases would be able to handle their respective regions, alone, without US main forces. The smaller ones would eventually be overrun with a significant protion being saved through diplomacy and rescue operations. However, some would be lost, due to numbers and proximity...even if we assume we have the ability to strike just about anywhere in the world within hours, there were some nations that are vindicitive enough to take out as many US military lives as possible, regardless of protecting an obviously hopeless war.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Sep 22nd, 2009 at 07:54 PM
Drug runners commonly dig tunnels between Canada and America. In theory, they could be located, however, the tech is rarely used. Police are more likely to bust the digging operation than use sonar to locate the drugs.
That is, at least, post-modern weaponry. We don't get to speculate on what they might invent, or else we could just as easily have Hitler invent the black hole bomb.
The current "next-gen" body armor is dragon scale, iirc. It can potentially stop a round from an AK-47 from some distance (they chew through Kevlar and modern armor like tissue paper).
the armor they have currently is enough to protect against WW2 era rounds, however
EDIT: apparently the "Dragon Skin" is experiencing more set backs than I knew, however, there are new glasses that are resistant to small explosions and fabric materials that are, essentially, bomb proof. Regardless, there is little doubt that anything not fired from a tank would be useless against modern soldiers.
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Sep 22nd, 2009 at 08:12 PM
But, this is war. Tactical considerations would be made with mainland invasion being one of them. Government and private technologies would be pointed in the right directions.
We do get to speculate what technologies would come from a third WW, as that's very much part of war. The technology improvements from WWI was huge, as far as the ability to take human life. The jump for WWII was exponential.
However, there's no sense in assuming the war would last years, giving us technology leaps. I was just putting out there that another WW would give us even better weapons and technologies throughout the war...if we assume it lasts longer than a few days.
oh, totally, just pointing out that there are not such sonar detectors just randomly placed throughout America, able to detect any subterranian activity.
I'd almost bet someone would need to hit them from underground first before such a thing happened.
wait... what WW2 nation would be able to strike America from underground?
ok, but then we get to do crazy speculation. Knowing they are totally outclassed militarily, the leaders of the WW2 era nations come together and design specific weapons systems to even the fight between America and them.
It just adds a dimension of the unfalsifiable, which is sort of unnecessary. Its not like the Americans need to invent anything here. Hell, we are already tying their hands with the removal of tactical nukes.
how quickly did Japan surrender after the nuke, right? Nations aren't lead by people who don't want to stay in power. A display of might which reduced Britain to ashes would probably be enough for most nations to say, "sure future America, we'll do what you want".
Like, how long would Obama continue to fight infinitely more powerful alien invaders if it meant he would be killed and lose power?
It does not matter how many people China has. It is irrelevant to my point. You can apply the same thing to Australia or any other far away place.
Aircraft carriers, although not advanced would be used by EVERY other country on the planet against USA. That is not a ''post WWII'' invention.
So, you're telling me that USA can, bomb all countries that are a threat at the time (which potentially all are), ie, being on the offensive, while at the same time being on the defensive from everyone else.
On the defensive from UK (which always had the best navy), on the defense from France and Spain and Japan from the sea, and on the defense from Mexico and Latin America from infantry. Not to mention that all other countries could and would land in South/Central America.
America NOW cannot defeat Afghanis, yet USA would win against the whole world in an imaginary war where everyone declared a war against them.
Also, it is stupid to assume world would just sit around with retarded weaponry and wait for US to attack.
The progression of weapons and technology development in this scenario would outdo anything we have seen so far. Germany alone was able to progress with ridiculous speed in terms of technology, weapons and science.
Eventually world would win. It's not rocket science (puuuun!!)
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Now I'm trying to remain impartial in this debate, but:
This is a conventional war. Iraq lost the conventional Gulf War in a few days, and their technology was beyond that of any WW2 country.
Oh, and I don't get the last point. US would also develop their technology during this war.
__________________ Introduce a little government. Upset the established gangs, and everything becomes order...
Democracy is the very definition of awesome.
The US is 70 years ahead. The US cannot effectively be attacked by land. The US has had 70 years to develop proper tactics for the weapons they have (see air superiority), the rest of the world will be doing it on the fly. The US has first strike capability that they cannot defend against in the slightest.
And of course the US will be developing technology of it's own.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
__________________ Introduce a little government. Upset the established gangs, and everything becomes order...
Democracy is the very definition of awesome.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 22nd, 2009 05:36 PM
