USA vs the World

[mrstickball]

bdbdbd said:

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.

The problem is that even if you take out the US satellite systems, the US still has a very dominant force of AWACS arrays that few nations can effectively counter.

Any other nation that your going to compare against the USA has either inferior weaponry in most senses (sans EU), lower troop levels, or lacks the infrastructure to support a war. In the case of Finland, the reason the Finnish held the Russians off was logistical (Russians weren't prepared for Finnish partisan attacks) and due to training.

The problem is asking how the war would be fought: Are we asking if America could effectively attack and occupy country Y? If country Y was China, that would be nearly impossible due to the population, and how large the country is. If we're talking both countries fielding their ORBATs in neutral territory and duking it out, it would be an absolute slaughter by the Americans.

Oh, and for your Soviet Union-Finnish example: You may want to compare the results of the Winter War of 1939-1940 and the Continuation War of 1941-1944, and the disasterous outcome for the Finns during the Soviet offensive of 1944....The Fins lost. Hard. There are 2 great contrasts between a countries' capability for offense and defense. Finnland was incredible during the winter war, but lacked the tactics, training, and armament for an offensive conflict with the Soviets (all their gains early in the war were due to Germans neutering Soviet positions).

In modern warfare, it still comes down to logisitics, economy, tactics used by both armies, and what the battle is over. I'd really like to hear you give a pitch for why country X could beat America in a fight. Satellites are hardly a deciding factor in America winning against another country...We still have AWACS, Wild Weasles, B2's, and a lot of other nasty weaponry that would inhibit any countries capability for war. Just because we're going the unmanned route doesn't mean we don't have a strong army that towers over any other countries' ORBATs.