Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And another thing - aircrafts travelling to bomb China? The distance is, first ridiculous, second it will have to fly over all other countries without stopping anywhere, not to mention getting shot down.Then there are people coming from South America, From Asia and From Europe at USA.
It does not stand a chance.
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.