Modern day USA vs the entire world during WW2

Started by Robtard6 pages

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
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!!)

Not every country had aircraft carriers in the WW2. Those that do would pose little threat to 21st century US tech.

Modern US subs could quickly and easily take out any and all ships trying to attack US soil long before they reach.

The US doesn't have to bomb everyone at the same time to defeat any and all WW2 military's.

This is about conventional warfare. After modern US obliterates every other WW2-era military, which it would do with ease, it would face resistance; that is another story, if occupying all other countries is the objective.

You're assuming Ameria would sit by and let the other countries just develope better weapons, after the WW is over. 70+ years of technology is huge, a single F-22 can obliterate a mass squadron of WW2 planes, it's not rocket science.

That isn't the scenario, this is WW2-era world and 21st Century America going to war. America would win due to 70+ years of technological advancement, and that fact that it's America, **** yeah.

One only has to look at the first gulf war for the result, it was early 90s technology vs 70s technology and it was a complete route.

Now, put 2009 technology against 1945 technology and it's like putting a NFL team vs a middle school team. Even with vas numerical superiority the "rest of the world" has a 0% chance of winning this.

Couple of these in the major cities and centers of [war] production, game over.

YouTube video

I'd like to see any country's WWII navy even get within 100 nautical miles of a modern US carrier battle group.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
I'd like to see any country's WWII navy even get within 100 nautical miles of a modern US carrier battle group.
I would love to see the Luftwaffe fight a single F-22 Raptor. Now that would be comedic gold.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I would love to see the Luftwaffe fight a single F-22 Raptor. Now that would be comedic gold.

lol Me-262 Fighter Pilot: I have jet engines, nothing can sto... OH SHI... 🙄

Originally posted by Robtard

The Billions of WW2 era Chinese couldn't repel the Japanese then.

The Chinaman is not the issue here, dude.

Modern aircraft carriers FTW here, easy too.
Indeed, surface to air missiles FTW.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
The Chinaman is not the issue here, dude.

Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I would love to see the Luftwaffe fight a single F-22 Raptor. Now that would be comedic gold.

Yes it would be highly amusing once the F-22 had fired all it's 8 missles and only 480 rounds (enough for 5 seconds of fire)

Too many things haven't been clarified with this argument. Does the US have the same global deployment it has now with the majority of it's carrier power overseas?

Same applies to airbases spread across the globe.

If the entire world was to storm/bomb those bases similtaneously then a huge chuck of the US's military power is removed straight away.

If you were to allow the rest of the world planning and cooperation for this fight then you could also have coordinated v1 and v2 chemical rocket attacks from Canada and Mexico into US soil.

Then there's the matter of resources. The US simply would have the raw materials and scale of production that the rest of the world would have combined.

I don't think it would be the an easy win for the US as some are suggesting.

Originally posted by jaden101
I don't think it would be the an easy win for the US as some are suggesting.

You're right, it'd be easier.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're right, it'd be easier.

You're gay. Noone likes you. Noone listens to you. Kindly go away, good sir. Much obliged.

What about the field of intel and counter-intel? I'm sure the US would stay ten steps ahead of their enemies.

But seriously, Dr Manhattan solves.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yes it would be highly amusing once the F-22 had fired all it's 8 missles and only 480 rounds (enough for 5 seconds of fire)

And? The speed between the Raptor and the Messerschmitt is just too great, hence it being amusing.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I would love to see the Luftwaffe fight a single F-22 Raptor. Now that would be comedic gold.

Oh don´t talk to soon🙂 A while back I played that Microsoft combat flight simulator game and got my ass kicked by a Sopwith camel from the 1st world war, I had some jet fighter and kept flying past to fast to engage the bloody thing. It was probably because I was a crap pilot mind, but it wasn´t easy🙂

Originally posted by jaden101
You're gay. Noone likes you. Noone listens to you. Kindly go away, good sir. Much obliged.

Oh, hai. You can understandings jokes? Mai two.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Modern day USA vs the entire world during WW2

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
youre reading too much into it dude.

I'm always analyzing things...you didn't know that?

Why does everyone equate advance technology with easy victory? If that were true,, why did we have a protracted conflict in Vietnam and continuing issues in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Why does everyone equate advance technology with easy victory? If that were true,, why did we have a protracted conflict in Vietnam and continuing issues in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Cause the goal was occupation and re-education, not obliteration.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Why does everyone equate advance technology with easy victory? If that were true,, why did we have a protracted conflict in Vietnam and continuing issues in Iraq and Afghanistan?

the OP has repeatedly stated that this is NOT an occupation, but rather conventional warfare between conventional armies.

Afghanistan lost that war in less than a day. Iraq lost that war in a matter of weeks.

I think everyone would agree that modern America would have trouble occupying medieval Afghanistan, let alone the entire world.

The goal is destruction of enemy armies with as little civilian death/collateral damage as possible, so no terror bombing unless if absolutely necessary.