Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Rules:

NO Nukes

Modern America replaces WW2 America geographically

Another country with the same capabilities as WW2 America appears in Africa on the side of the WW2 dudes

The WW2 dudes have all of their damages and stuff repaired, and Hitler is still around leading Nazi Germany

But ''we'' the rest of the world, have on disposal Islamic fundamentalists?

And the Chinese and Indians?

''We'' the rest of the world, win.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
But ''we'' the rest of the world, have on disposal Islamic fundamentalists?

And the Chinese and Indians?

''We'' the rest of the world, win.

This is the rest of the world AS OF WW2 vs MODERN America

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
But ''we'' the rest of the world, have on disposal Islamic fundamentalists?

And the Chinese and Indians?

''We'' the rest of the world, win.

Islamo-fundies didn't have the tech then that they do now.

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

Indians on elephants loose to tanks, jets and machine-guns.

Modern aircraft carriers FTW here, easy too.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
This is the rest of the world AS OF WW2 vs MODERN America

How do you mean?

China has been there all along intact, and so was India, plus we'd have Pakistan and Bangladesh still part of India.
And Islamic fundamentalists didn't appear on Sept 11th. They existed long ago, and as we know certain republics in the middle east were allied or sympathetic to Hitler.

We would also have Korea as one country too, Russia would be some weird psycho dictatorship.


Again, rest of the world, wins.

Originally posted by Robtard
Islamo-fundies didn't have the tech then that they do now.

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

Indians on elephants loose to tanks, jets and machine-guns.

Modern aircraft carriers FTW here, easy too.

What tech is that? A bomb?
What does Manchuran invasion prove? you're talking about America vs the rest of the world - then such has nothing to do with anything.

Chinese, Japanese (just because of Manchuria), Indian, German and Russian armies would be enough to squash America.
Chinese have people to waste. So do Indians.

(no offence to Chinese, I love you guys!)

I'd say that if we can't use nukes and that was agreed on, we'd go ape shit with vacuum bombs and design a new one to be ICBM capable. We'd build bigger vacuum bombs, as well.

The tech on subs has improved so much that no sub would make it within 200 miles of US soil. Aircraft would be taken out with the literally automatic missles. They even have missiles that can take out other missiles...but that won't even be a factor.

Against an F-22, even modern aircraft don't stand a chance. The missile systems in even antiquated fighter jets who lay waste to all other aircraft.

Quite literally, all opposing aircraft would be taken out long before there was any visual. It would seem almost like magic and they would accuse the US of having phantoms.

And, through diplomacy, we could convince many of the nations to quickly surrender. It would quickly turn into a war against very few nations, especially after the first day or two of fighting.





I'd say the same about Modern Russia versus the rest of 1940 world, too. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they used Nukes.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What tech is that? A bomb?
What does Manchuran invasion prove? you're talking about America vs the rest of the world - then such has nothing to do with anything.

Chinese, Japanese (just because of Manchuria), Indian, German and Russian armies would be enough to squash America.
Chinese have people to waste. So do Indians.

(no offence to Chinese, I love you guys!)

Cell phones, plane tickets, the internet etc.

The Chinese despite their billions couldn't stave off the 1940's Japanese army, yet you think they're going to hold against America with 21st century technology?

These countries probably couldn't squash America in the 40's. They're not doing it now when America has 70 years of a technological edge in this scenario.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How do you mean?

China has been there all along intact, and so was India, plus we'd have Pakistan and Bangladesh still part of India.
And Islamic fundamentalists didn't appear on Sept 11th. They existed long ago, and as we know certain republics in the middle east were allied or sympathetic to Hitler.

We would also have Korea as one country too, Russia would be some weird psycho dictatorship.


Again, rest of the world, wins.

I mean that in this scenario America gets modern technology while the world's stuck with WW2 tech.

Oh, and I really don't have any idea why some fundamentalists would make a win for the world. Korea would fail, and Russia wouldn't be able to get within a few hundred miles of US territory.

In this case it's quality vs quantity.

This would be a curbstomp, based on a comparison of tech. Even with the Navy's penis reduction (F-14 Tomcat being replaced by the F-18E Super Hornet), it would dominate the Pacific theater.

what is the usa's military goal here? is to occupy the other countries... or just kill the shit out of them?


if our goal is to just kill everything and cripple the countries then we can win very easily with almost no losses. if our goal is to occupy the countries... then we're in trouble.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
what is the usa's military goal here? is to occupy the other countries... or just kill the shit out of them?


if our goal is to just kill everything and cripple the countries then we can win very easily with almost no losses. if our goal is to occupy the countries... then we're in trouble.

Hmm...sorry, I forgot to think of that.

Let's just say that their objective is to not destroy them completely nor occupy their land, but defeat their armies while causing as little unnecessary civilian deaths or collateral damage as possible.

I would say USA, pretty easily. The capabilities of the airforce and navy today are so much better then those of WWII it wouldn't even be close.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Hmm...sorry, I forgot to think of that.

Let's just say that their objective is to not destroy them completely nor occupy their land, but defeat their armies while causing as little unnecessary civilian deaths or collateral damage as possible.

if thats the case then we could be in trouble. it wouldnt be out of the question for the armies of many of the other countries to "dissolve" and become part of the civilian by day and result to guerrilla warfare by night similar to whats going on with the taliban now. all of our technology wont matter, then.

Of course there would be a guerilla warfare. And not only that, there would be a whole lot of sabotage, suicide bombings and missions.

Not to mention that anyone American or found to be American in any country outside USA would be immediately put to death.

It would not work. Never. You're talking about 2 billion people against however many people were in USA in 1930s/1940s.

And also the irony of a great deal of technology which developed after war was contributed by Nazis and Hitler's projects and such.

this is all only true if the americans arent allowed to harm civilians.

if we were, then we would kill every single man woman and child in the other countries and no one would be able to stop us. but the same is not true if the other countries tried to invade us.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And also the irony of a great deal of technology which developed after war was contributed by Nazis and Hitler's projects and such.

Jaden and I already had this debate. This is a false idea. The vast majority of technologies came from places other than the 3rd Reich. Proportionally, they actually developed significantly less than the US, before, during, and after WWII.



Edit - Sorry, I missed this:

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It would not work. Never. You're talking about 2 billion people against however many people were in USA in 1930s/1940s.

It's actually modern US against WWII world. That'd be 310+ million against the rest.

Modern military technology would decimate WWII tech. The world would be surrendering within months if not weeks.

Originally posted by dadudemon

It's actually modern US against WWII world. That'd be 310+ million against the rest.

Against 2 billion people?

And it is not full 310 mill + against 2 billion either, because children and elderly would not fight the war.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Against 2 billion people?

And it is not full 310 mill + against 2 billion either, because children and elderly would not fight the war.

Well so long as that 2 billion includes non-combatants it's a valid comparison, better than just numbers of soldiers even.

I suppose.

Seriously...modern day submarines for the win.

Originally posted by Robtard
Modern aircraft carriers FTW here, easy too.

USA would loose, getting overwhelmed. Sure, they would do a lot of damage, but, at the end, they can't win against billions.

good thing there arent billions of soldiers fighting against them.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
USA would loose, getting overwhelmed. Sure, they would do a lot of damage, but, at the end, they can't win against billions.

unless they are marching in from Canada or Mexico, no WW2 era troop transport will land in the Americas given modern tech

Hell one American B-2 bomber can take out hundreds of thousands of troops all on its own in one fly by.

The point is that aircraft carriers or not, America cannot bomb all places in the world constantly and with excellent precision.

At one point it will run out of resources, or bombing power and be overpowered and destroyed.

Rest of the world wins.

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.

Nobody had technology during WWII to take out a stealth bomber or Carrier.

Invading Canada and South America will provide enough steel and oil to fund operations into the middle east or China for more steel and oil.

I just don't see what a WWII era world can possibly do to win? If it was strictly fought on the ground then okay, but navies and air forces just completely make it a clean sweep by the US.

Numbers mean nothing. It's like arguing 1,000 ants could take out a human. Not really when one stomp would take out 200 of them.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The point is that aircraft carriers or not, America cannot bomb all places in the world constantly and with excellent precision.


no. it wont.

if you put all of the worlds actual military together that's less than a billion soldiers im sure, first off. you're assuming that somehow every person the world will be trained to fight and will be given equipment to fight and will have the vehicles to travel. this is completely unrealistic and will never happen.

second off- with our technology america can send missiles from our country into others without using a ship. we've perfected ICBM's something WW2 era world has no defense against. we can very easily cripple the factories and industry and economy of the majority of countries and without industry and economy you can not fight a war. its impossible.

thirdly- because of americas technological edge we have speed, power on our side, meaning we can hit a spot of the world where resistance is light and pull out before the bulk of the worlds armies arrive to help, and we can then hit another spot. we have planes capable of moving mach 4 that can move our troops around as well ships that are much more powerful and have much more range then WW2 era ships and planes.

fourthly- you're assuming that any place america attacks there will automatically be a billion people there to defend it. this is completely untrue. if its the entire world versus america then that means there's an entire planet of geography that has to be defended at all times. unless they want to abandon their own people the world has to spread its forces out across the planet. otherwise its screwed. with our spy satellites its childs play to find the least defended area of a country and blitz it, then pull out before the bulk of the world can retaliate. this also means that a surprise attack from the USA's enemies would be impossible ebcause large troop movements would be noticed by sattelities so that defense preperations are made days before the attack.

theres also the factor that WW2 era tech has no way of preventing an ICBM from being launched at military priority targets. use spy planes and satellites to keep tabs on important leaders and military tacticians, and bomb them with stealth bombers and ICBM's. with the military chain of command broken morale would be at an all time low, the worlds economies would be crippled, and whats left of their militaries would be broken. then its just chaos and anarchy. the world will basically destroy itself.

so yeah. america pretty much wins 10/10 times. as it should. the only pride we really have left is our ability to wage war, and open, total warfare, the kind used in WW2, is what we're best at.

EDIT- Ninja'd by KidRock.

Since OP only states that modern America replaces WWII America geographically, does that mean it still retains WWII America's rabid production of military weapons?

Edit: Regardless, modern america still wins. The only way any of the majority of the countries can get to it is by ship, and modern navy = ultra-rape to anything floating in the water back then. And concerning Canada and South America, their forces would be halted as soon as they got showered by MOABs. It would be the equivalent of what we did to Japan with nukes, only with multitudes of 18,700lb bombs instead of just two nukes, pretty much eradicating their armed forces. This is purely based on a defensive strategy of letting the enemies come to them, of course, but that's how I'd go about it, cuz I "turtle" in C&C.

Modern USA wins for all reasons previously stated (don't forget the spy satellites).

I think the main stumbling point is, what is the goal of the modern American army?

as seen from people using cold war and prior era tech, occupation of even small regions of the world would be impossible. Nations like China or Russia, even if they had no formal army, would likely be unoccupiable, just given geography.

Also, were the Americans to launch a full scale ground war, meeting the opposing armies head on, sure, they would likely be overwhelmed (provided it is America invading another part of the world and not the other nations attempting to invade America).

However, the jumps in military technology make conventional war between the Americans and the formal armies of the world at WW2 too mismatched for the world to really stand a chance. WW2 tactics don't incorporate issues like air superiority, their tanks and artillery are ancient by comparison, and as mentioned, they don't have any form of or defense from ICBM technology.

I think a better question might be, in what way could the world win a victory over the formal American military? So far, the best answer has been asymmetrical tactics akin to what the modern Jihadi movement uses, but those a) weren't really around prior to the Iran/Iraq war and b) have NEVER actually defeated a formal army, rather, they resisted an occupation. Asymmetrical warfare is great, at defense. It has no offensive capability, or rather, the little it does is not enough to make it a viable threat for the defeat of the American military. Also, the OP stated that this was only a battle of formal militaries.

If the USA were not worrying about civilian casualties or the eye of the media it would be an easy victory with minimal US civilian deaths. Just think about how long it would take WWII planes to make it to the American coast lines and look at how long it takes it for modern day jets to fly to other continents. You also have to consider Radar technology and satellites. Our missile shields would stave off any type of invasion or serious missile barrages. WWII was a war that was fought and won in the skies. Just compare the technologies. We have missiles that can span the globe. During WWII, bombers had to be directly above their targets. It doesn't matter which country has the technology in this scenario. Although, it does help that, in this scenario, America is separated by miles of water from the enemy.

The only way America would lose this scenario is if they had to worry about civilian casualties or the media.

Well, here's the thing. Most WWII figures don't account for Japan's first attack on the US (pre-Pearl Harbor). Months before Pearl Harbor, Japan launched balloons filled with plague infested fleas which resulted in up to 30,000 deaths in California if not more. Do you really think the US is that much more prepared for some of the extremely dirty attacks carried out by the Germans and Japanese? I think the US would eventually win but not before suffering catastrophic civilian casualties from chemical and biological weapons, not to mention how many fifth columnists the current political climate would produce who would side with Germany (there were enough originally if you'll recall the business plot, the Silver Shirts, and the German Bund). Many US business interests would play both sides or maybe even side with the axis powers. If you look at US foreign policy over the last thirty years with things like Rex 84, Operation Condor, and the MK experiments, it altogether possible that a modern US would actually ally with the axis powers or remain neutral while providing covert support.

has the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki happened, or have they not since we don't have any nukes?

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 is were aircraft carriers come in. Also, 1940's China was shit from a military standpoint, as I said, with all there billions of people, they couldn't repel the very small Japanese force that occupied them.

Only two countries would be able to attack American soil, Canada and Mexico, they don't have the means to do much damage given their 40's era tech and America's 21st century tech.

Brucellosis was first weaponized by the US in 1954 based on Japanese bioweapons research conducted by Shiro Ishi's Unit 731 during the early 40's. It's an extremely easy to manufacture and hardy disease.

An example of what I mean-German spies coordinate with existing hate groups. One neo-nazi shatters a lightbulb full of aerosol Brucellosis in the New York Subway System while another does the same thing on the tracks of a BART train in San Jose and another does the same in the subway under the capital mall.

Result: Millions of deaths and an epidemic in a relatively short amount of time.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Rules:

NO Nukes

Modern America replaces WW2 America geographically

Another country with the same capabilities as WW2 America appears in Africa on the side of the WW2 dudes

The WW2 dudes have all of their damages and stuff repaired, and Hitler is still around leading Nazi Germany

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?

I just can't fantasize the thinking here...

Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
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.

It's an artificial constraint in order to prevent the US from winning in ten minutes.

Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
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?

No, "future America" is an outside threat that unites them all against its sheer malevolence.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's an artificial constraint in order to prevent the US from winning in ten minutes.

Then that's foul! Why limit one camp just to help the other? Bias Bullshit.




You mean to tell me that "future America" is a malevolence greater than Nazism?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Brucellosis was first weaponized by the US in 1954 based on Japanese bioweapons research conducted by Shiro Ishi's Unit 731 during the early 40's. It's an extremely easy to manufacture and hardy disease.

An example of what I mean-German spies coordinate with existing hate groups. One neo-nazi shatters a lightbulb full of aerosol Brucellosis in the New York Subway System while another does the same thing on the tracks of a BART train in San Jose and another does the same in the subway under the capital mall.

Result: Millions of deaths and an epidemic in a relatively short amount of time.

interesting

how do you suppose this would bring a formal military defeat of the American army though?

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.

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.

Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
Then that's foul! Why limit one camp just to help the other? Bias Bullshit.




You mean to tell me that "future America" is a malevolence greater than Nazism?

youre reading too much into it dude.

Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
Then that's foul! Why limit one camp just to help the other? Bias Bullshit.

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.


Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
You mean to tell me that "future America" is a malevolence greater than Nazism?

Yes.

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

technically possible, but not necessarily

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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.

Originally posted by inimalist
technically possible, but not necessarily

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.

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.



Originally posted by inimalist
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

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.


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?


Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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?

Originally posted by Robtard
This is were aircraft carriers come in. Also, 1940's China was shit from a military standpoint, as I said, with all there billions of people, they couldn't repel the very small Japanese force that occupied them.

Only two countries would be able to attack American soil, Canada and Mexico, they don't have the means to do much damage given their 40's era tech and America's 21st century tech.

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!!)

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
America NOW cannot defeat Afghanis, yet USA would win against the whole world in an imaginary war where everyone declared a war against them.

The OP stated it was conventional warfare against formal armies

Afghanistan lost that war in hours

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!!)

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.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Aircraft carriers, although not advanced would be used by EVERY other country on the planet against USA. That is not a ''post WWII'' invention.
But AEGIS cruisers and viable jet fighters were. Having a aircraft carrier doesn't matter if you can't protect it.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
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.
Yup. Not difficult when you own the skies and the seas entirely.

That's cool. UK had the best nay in the 1880s. That navy would have been slaughtered by any navy in WW2. The same applies here.

Spain's irrelevant, and one aircraft carrier group could take out the respective navies of France and Japan. The US has 8.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
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.
Not a problem considering the US would have complete air superiority and tanks that could take out anything other nations send at them.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Also, it is stupid to assume world would just sit around with retarded weaponry and wait for US to attack.
And if they tried to attack the US, they would be slaughtered.

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

That would work if only that had the ability manufacture.




Originally posted by inimalist
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.

They don't. But, some were trying to argue the ground forces point of view. I simiply brought up the suits that already exist in crude forms.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
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!!)

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.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll


Spain's irrelevant, and one aircraft carrier group could take out the respective navies of France and Japan. The US has 8.


Really? I thought they had 12...

Ya, you're right. Didn't look it up.

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 production, game over.

lppFyLKDRck

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.



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 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.

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.

I can see one strategy to ending the war with few American casualties...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I can see one strategy to ending the war with few American casualties...

NEVER GIVE UP!!! NEVER SURRENDER!!!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
NEVER GIVE UP!!! NEVER SURRENDER!!!

I remember that!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
NEVER GIVE UP!!! NEVER SURRENDER!!!

...

Actually, that might cause MORE casualties.

I was thinking continued E-Bomb attacks until a lack of electricity, transport, and modern weapons functionality creates revolutionary unrest in aggressor states and nullifies them as a foreign threat.

Originally posted by inimalist

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

Not once we bring them McDonalds, Levis and porn. They'll bend over and welcome us in. /fact

On a more serious note, the 80's U.S.S.R. occupied Afghan, would have been a lot longer had the U.S. not been supplying and training the Afghani bastards. But your "the entire world" point stands.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not once we bring them McDonalds, Levis and porn. They'll bend over and welcome us in. /fact

On a more serious note, the 80's U.S.S.R. occupied Afghan, would have been a lot longer had the U.S. not been supplying and training the Afghani bastards. But your "the entire world" point stands.

The USSR occupied Afghanistan the same way the US occupied Vietnam...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The USSR occupied Afghanistan the same way the US occupied Vietnam...

Na, the the Russians were more successful, because they weren't worried about public relations with the rest of the world and basically did anything they wanted.If the U.S. hadn't interfered by proxy, they'd have been in there far longer.

U.S. could have defeated the Communist in Vietnam and set-up camp, selling the Veitnamese Coca-Cola and Pringles; it kicked itself in the balls though. Can't win a war when your citizens are gainst it, just a fact.

How exactly would the USA occupy the territory?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
How exactly would the USA occupy the territory?

That isn't the purpose of this scenario, it's coventional warfare. The modern U.S. war machine vs the combined war capabilities of the rest of the world as they had it during WWII.

So it's stealth subs vs U-boats. F-18, F14, F-35 Vs P-51, F14 ME262 and the Zero etc. etc. etc.

It is the point of the scenareo surely...in a war who would win. A war involves occupation of enemy territory...

P.s. the United States isn't doing to well in Afghanistan is it?

Originally posted by Robtard
On a more serious note, the 80's U.S.S.R. occupied Afghan, would have been a lot longer had the U.S. not been supplying and training the Afghani bastards. But your "the entire world" point stands.

maybe in Kabul

I agree, they had way more control of the country, but the transnational nature of the enemy (I mean moving freely between Pak and the other Stans) and the terrain just make "occupation" incredibly difficult.

my statement was hyperbole, but Soviet control certainly wasn't absolute, and it was a bloody war of attrition before the Americans were involved. Though, ya, the Muj didn't have much to counter gunships.

EDIT: omfg proofreading...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It is the point of the scenareo surely...in a war who would win. A war involves occupation of enemy territory...

P.s. the United States isn't doing to well in Afghanistan is it?

In the bigger picture yes, this was more of a military vs military scenario.

Depends. If we go by death per death, then the US is kicking much ass.

If we go by 'how close is the US in crushing the Islamo-fascist/Freedom-fighters (depends who you ask, again) and setting up a stable democracy', then the US is doing poorly.

unmanned war machines, bunker busters, jet power, Advanced global tracking and positioning. smart bombs MODERN TANKS...,you people are just oblivious if you think America would fall in this scenario. Yeah, Guerilla warfare would be a big issue, but with our missile defense systems and everything, an attack on American soil would only come from Canada or south America. War is what we are it is all we are and all we know. The world would be Americas biatch.

I'm not pissing red white and blue, i'm just saying, any modern, super powerful nation would be able to topple the world if it was facing an army outfitted with primitive weaponry. Look, ONE bomb was enough to make the world tremble. Today, we gots even bigger bombs. Granted, Japan was on the cusp of nuclear technology. They were most likely mere weeks or even days away from splitting that atom. They still need a delivery system. BAck then the only delivery system for bombs was using big ass airplanes to fly directly above desired target. There most likely wouldn't even be a war. The world would cower and say, yeah, ok you rule and we follow.

IIRC, Japan was severely behind with the atomic bomb, they lacked heavy-water, among other materials. They were definitely trying their best though and intended on dropping an A-bomb (or more) on US soil.

Read up on Dr. Yoshio Nishina, if it interest you.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It is the point of the scenareo surely...in a war who would win. A war involves occupation of enemy territory...

P.s. the United States isn't doing to well in Afghanistan is it?


Dude, you don't know what you're talking about...really. The war in Iraq is a smokescreen. It is a media driven war. War is hell. People die, bad things happen and the faces of undeveloped babies lie stricken across a demolished city but that's how war is fought and won. There is no honor in war, it is kill or be killed. Every move America made in Iraq was being covered by the media. What do you think the whole, "we have to win their hearts and minds" campaign was about? The administration knew that this was not a war that could be fought on the battlefield. It was a war that was going to be fought and won through the media. You let the military go in there and do what needs to be done and it will get done within hours. That's why the actual war only lasted a few hours. The rest of the bullcrap was a policing action. America wasn't fighting a war by occupying Iraq. The militaries essentially drove around so they could be shot at and they also built some sand piles.

Do not give those fascist islamists credit they don't deserve. They were killing sitting ducks. Our government has been killing our soldiers as long as they've allowed this to go on. A soldier is trained to fight, not to drive around and build random stuff. Anyone can strap a bomb on themselves and pull a trigger. It takes precise skill to be able to snipe suicide bombers before they are able to detonate themselves.

Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, Japan was severely behind with the atomic bomb, they lacked heavy-water, among other materials. They were definitely trying their best though and intended on dropping an A-bomb (or more) on US soil.

Read up on Dr. Yoshio Nishina, if it interest you.


It's been a while since i've dipped my mind back into that era. I have had a desire to experience it again. I will reference the name, thanks.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I still feel like you're all severely underestimating good old fashioned primitive germ warfare and how destructive it really is.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I still feel like you're all severely underestimating good old fashioned primitive germ warfare and how destructive it really is.

That's useless, though, when the entire planet is defeated in a few days.

No, no it really isn't...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
No, no it really isn't...

This is pre-crisis Japan.

We can only go by feats.

The Japanese never hit American soil with "germ warfare."

Yes they did. Again, plague infested fleas. It happened.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yes they did. Again, plague infested fleas. It happened.

I know they dropped Cholera/Flea bombs on multiple Chinese villages as test; for the purpose of eventually attacking the U.S. with them,, but are you absolutely certain they ever actually made it as far as hitting U.S. soil?

I've read that they also tested 'fire-balloons', basically an incendiary device attached to a high-flying balloon controlled by a timer. The purpose was that the winds would carry the balloons to the heavily forested West Coast, then the timer would go off and the balloon would fall in flames igniting America's timberlands.

Edit: Unit 731.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yes they did. Again, plague infested fleas. It happened.

I searched and I couldn't find.



And...Robtard beat me to the punch...by a few hours. lol


Edit - And, modern US would have a history of many of the things the 3rd Reich and Unit 731 did. Therefore, it'd be infinitely more difficult to accomplish those tasks when Unit 731's bunker/base is dstroyed by a bunker buster.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Edit - And, modern US would have a history of many of the things the 3rd Reich and Unit 731 did. Therefore, it'd be infinitely more difficult to accomplish those tasks when Unit 731's bunker/base is dstroyed by a bunker buster.

Going on the grounds that modern U.S. doesn't, it'd be a short matter of time before they did, spy satellites, high-altitude reconnaissance, Jason Bourne et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Like a said, a few MOABS in places of war production, each viable enemy Germany, England, Africa-America, Japan, Australia, Italy, they'd be set back months trying to rebuild their war-machine, all the while they'd be losing troops and armaments.

LOL this is funny

So according to most people, this is a spite, just like how the USA vs Roman Empire thread was a spite.

Although this IS more reasonable, and world would probably win in pure ground war if they were all connected in lands surrounding USA.

entire world of WW2. here in reasoning. people now have so much carelessness. (if that is even a word) about what they do.

back in WW2 the people had more reasoning on what they wanted done.
more courage in it self. im not saying that the technolgy we have today isnt good enough to destroy back then. its that if we were to try to kill them now it would be to easy. all you would have to do is sit in a bomb shelter. with a few snipers. and a assload of ammo. that would cover it. but hand to hand combat or close combat, as i should say WW2 would woop our asses. thats just plain and simple. they have more reason to fight and more willingness to. i mean look at how many men just randomly signed up for the army durring WW2 thats more than our army has now!

Shiro Ishii and many of the 731 scientists were given immunity and the plague outbreak was never "officially" linked to 731 main program or the chinese bioweapons program. however, there is documentation describing such a plan having been carried out in 1940 along with further plans to spray San Francisco with air born pathogens (probably bruscelosis or anthrax) and of Japanese Saboteurs sneaking in on submarines and poisoning American reservoirs.

Originally posted by mikeydude
entire world of WW2. here in reasoning. people now have so much carelessness. (if that is even a word) about what they do.

back in WW2 the people had more reasoning on what they wanted done.
more courage in it self. im not saying that the technolgy we have today isnt good enough to destroy back then. its that if we were to try to kill them now it would be to easy. all you would have to do is sit in a bomb shelter. with a few snipers. and a assload of ammo. that would cover it. but hand to hand combat or close combat, as i should say WW2 would woop our asses. thats just plain and simple. they have more reason to fight and more willingness to. i mean look at how many men just randomly signed up for the army durring WW2 thats more than our army has now!


I don't know man. I think that brainwashing tactics have improved since WWII not to mention conditioning and hand to hand training. I'm sure that if a foreign country attacked America during the midst of a World War there would be an out pouring of volunteers to join the military. Look at how many Americans willingly signed up directly after 9-11.

I agree with you that desire and purpose is a huge contributing factor in any type of confrontation but from what i've been told by relatives whom served in WWII and from countless interviews on WWII documentaries it seems the main drive for soldiers was to get back home or simply survive...,not to save the world. I imagine that this is generally the case for individuals fighting in a war.

In this hypothetical scenario of the USA VS the world during WWII. I think that modern day America would have much more to fight for.

I still can't think of anything practical enough that gives "the world" the advantage in this scenario. Not only is modern war tech light years ahead of anything that was known during WWII it is so complicated that it would probably take years to re-verse engineer. Let's say someone gets their hands on a downed Stealth bomber or they capture a modern tank. They may be able to improve armor designs but as far as the targeting equipment...,they would be completely in the dark. I imagine that it would take their scientists years to properly figure out operate and reproduce the same technology.

I still see this war ending within months before the world would kneel under Modern day America.

This is an awesome question and I am sure most of us have thought of it or something similar ourselves, but USA would win and easily. Our air force would fly over all the major cities of the world really fast and not use nukes but just torch them. Even in the 50's our air force would do a descent job...but we wouldn't win then but now no question plus our navy could do terrible things too.

The first key to victory is the capability of long range, very precise and destructive fire power. And the second, but very similar, key is the advancement in technologies that have given the United States, and the rest of the modern world, monumental advancements in the areas of reconnaissance (ie. night vision, infrared vision, satellites, etc.). I think that even a modern UK or China would have a chance at defeating a union of WW2 forces, if they had a couple more aircraft carriers and the protection required for them. Even at their current levels they would be a force, though. The US, I imagine, just has far too much in the way of tech. There have been some pretty major advances in the last 50 years. Imagine Nazi Germany with the tech today. Actually don't think about that, but I think you all get the point.

crylaugh


priceless.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I remember that!

It would come down to war of attrition and the Modern Day USA would eventually lose resources because one nation cannot fuel itself forever in times of war. The entire world would also have milllions upon millions upon millions more troops than the Modern Day USA, and the tech. wasn't all that bad, granted the Modern Day USA could just carpet bomb the hell out of the rest of the world for awhile, but they'd eventually run out of funding and bombs, and there'd be plenty more to replace the dead.

The entire World in ww2 era would win.

and everyone seems to forget the V2 rocket. The WW2 era armies would have long-ranged capabilites as well, and they'd outnumber the Modern USA army like 10000 to 1.

Originally posted by ChakraStrings
It would come down to war of attrition and the Modern Day USA would eventually lose resources because one nation cannot fuel itself forever in times of war. The entire world would also have milllions upon millions upon millions more troops than the Modern Day USA, and the tech. wasn't all that bad, granted the Modern Day USA could just carpet bomb the hell out of the rest of the world for awhile, but they'd eventually run out of funding and bombs, and there'd be plenty more to replace the dead.

The entire World in ww2 era would win.

and everyone seems to forget the V2 rocket. The WW2 era armies would have long-ranged capabilites as well, and they'd outnumber the Modern USA army like 10000 to 1.

The V-2 had a 300 some kilometer range. That's not even enough to hit the coast. That's not even enough to land in a place that America could see it.

If the Nazis or Japanese ever did somehow take a beach-head on the US, I wonder how successful they'd be. The US is so massive and everyone has guns, there's no way either one could secure a major American city like they did to Paris, Manila and Manchuria.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If the Nazis or Japanese ever did somehow take a beach-head on the US, I wonder how successful they'd be. The US is so massive and everyone has guns, there's no way either one could secure a major American city like they did to Paris, Manila and Manchuria.

I highly doubt they'd even make it that far.

Already, thousands of US citizens "watch" the border cameras just for fun.

During a war, the "watching" would probably increase. In WWII, they had all sorts of volunteers.











Also, if middle class Americans can create paintball motion sensing "weapons", why not high caliber automatic sentries?

The United States could essentially do what they did with Japan to the rest of the world - terrify them with a showcase of our mightiest weaponry. A single nuke even in the middle of an open area would put the fear of a thousand nation's gods into them. Even a display with our superior aircraft above a populated city would dishearten them. Surrender would be swift for most of the world. Just because they're 'at war' with America, it doesn't mean they throw out the rationality of their leaders and the people.

Even if they made the likely ground push from Canada and Mexico, they're in for a rude awakening. Other than the fact that entire battlelines could be wiped immediately by our superior airforce and artillery, they'd have to deal with might of America's armoured regiments. An M1A2 could take anything a King Tiger or T-34 could dish out on the chin. Infantry commanders and high ranking officials could be taken out by special operation forces using our vastly superior sniping capabilities. This goes on forever.

As soon "War" is declared by all nations, America will be locked down completely. It's not impossible for a World spy to infiltrate American government, but it's highly improbable. Say the World manages to inflict a wound on the US...the war for them will end shortly. As Sun Tsu would say, never pursue an army defending it's home, as it will fight to the death. If something catastrophic were to befall America, then the World will feel the noxious embrace of her nuclear arms.