USA vs the World

[bdbdbd]

mrstickball said:
Of course the US doesn't have the manpower to take on the world - it only has what? 4.5% of the entire population of the world?

Conventionally speaking, regardless of projecting power, the US could beat any one nation. It would take a combo of the next 3 largest militaries to beat the US.

There are a lot of factors that play into who would win what:

- Current military budget
- Current military technology
- Economy
- Infrastructure
- Manpower
- Potential manpower
- Availability of irregular guard

Some countries have a better payout on budget/technology than America, but are lacking in other areas. If the US had to go into 'war mode' like they did in WW2, they would absolutely decimate any one nation, or group of smaller nations, if it absolutely came down to it. It would require the EU + another major nation, or a group of 3 major singular nations (China, India, Russia, ect) to outweigh what the US could field in a war.

You know, you make some oversimplifications. The effect of military budget for example, is dependant on how it's used and for what price. Also, the advantage you get from technology is dependant on do the enemy have technology to counter it. Molotov cocktails were comparatively effective anti-tank weapon. But in the other hand V2 rockets were practically impossible destroy before reaching the target with the tech of the time (although, V2 wasn't even remotedly accurate).
US is pushing heavily on its satellite systems, but China and Russia have a cheap way of shooting down the satellites.
The manpower doesn't tell much, since humans die easilly to high-velocity projectiles.

So far the history has showed, that the power of military isn't the key factor who wins or loses. If it would be, UK would be a part of Spain, Germany never had beaten France and Soviet Union would have ran over Finland.