Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Egan_BW]

South america is a bit harder, but for North, pretty much yeah?

[Sheb]

So, a DMZ on the Panama canal?

[martinuzz]

Filling up the Panama canal with concrete sounds more likely

[Rolepgeek]

United States pumps money into SpaceX, takes over Mars, becomes Martian invaders 120 years later

[Shadowlord]

United States pumps money into SpaceX, takes over Mars, becomes Martian invaders 120 years later

President of Saints/Ultor Media Group becomes President of USA, Ultor settles Mars, then space asshole.

[Kot]

US against WHOLE world? Barring nukes, I do not think so. First, they would be flooded by men and materiel, whole world against US implies constant terrorist attacks supported by developed countries, constant attacks from inside and outside. At best I can see USA getting into a sort of atrittion war with no major gains, which it would be doomed to lose eventually. Not to mention that a lot of US Armed Forces would findthemselves cut off behind enemy lines.
And the "gun behind every blade of grass" is a double edged sword since US is not a fully unitary so people might want to stick with the rest of the world instead.

[Shadowlord]

"the entire world fights USA, including best allies and defenseless nations, for no explained reason, but I'm sure some Americans will rebel against their country"

Why? Nobody in this scenario has a motivation for their uncharacteristic (and for some, self-destructive*) actions, and without that it's impossible to predict how anyone will behave.

* or for all because of globalization - international trade etc.

[Sheb]

"the entire world fights USA, including best allies and defenseless nations, for no explained reason, but I'm sure some Americans will rebel against their country"

Why? Nobody in this scenario has a motivation for their uncharacteristic (and for some, self-destructive*) actions, and without that it's impossible to predict how anyone will behave.

* or for all because of globalization - international trade etc.

Foreign nationals living in the US?

[misko27]

And presumably if every nation is at war with the US, any military bases the US had on dependant nations would've likely been closed years prior to the war (Which in the case of israel, is improbable but we're discussing the war itself, not the cause.) in preparation for it to avoid equipment and manpower losses.

This presumably is not a safe assumption. I, for one, have been operating from "World War three starts completely unexpectedly, as if at precisely 12 GMT, the entire world became possessed of the notion of killing America" because that assumption is no less realistic than "Mighty pacifist Costa Rica decides America needs to be taken down a peg". If the build-up takes years then it's an entirely different question. I assumed the former because we actually know to a limited extent what military forces the world and the US can bring to bear today, whereas what they could bring to bear in the future is more hypothetical and harder to answer.

Foreign nationals living in the US?

Why would they act suicidally? I mean that makes even less sense then Canada invading, somehow. Maybe they don't want to strap a bomb to their chest and run into traffic or be executed by firing squad or abducted by the FBI in the middle of the night or whatever! But perhaps I am being too reasonable here.

I think the scenario is more interesting if not literally every non-American human being on earth is filled with inexplicable bloodlust, but each to their own I guess. Either way, though, I think defining the terms of the scenario is important. It's already such an unrealistic scenario that basic assumptions like "people would rather be alive than dead" are not safe unless actively defined as such.

[Kot]

Why would they act suicidally? I mean that makes even less sense then Canada invading, somehow. Maybe they don't want to strap a bomb to their chest and run into traffic or be executed by firing squad or abducted by the FBI in the middle of the night or whatever! But perhaps I am being too reasonable here.[/quote]
Suicidally? Why? If they would succeed they would live, and be set for life since they helped International Peace Mission take down the evil regime of USA, and USA seems to be pretty okay country to run guerilla ops in, since there is a lot of uninhabited secluded space and so on.  And strapping bombs to themselves is already IS/whateverterroristorganization thing, except this time they would be allies with huge industrial powers that have equipment and will to train them, so you would have fanatical muslims doings special operations. Hard to defend against that, TBH.

I think the scenario is more interesting if not literally every non-American human being on earth is filled with inexplicable bloodlust, but each to their own I guess. Either way, though, I think defining the terms of the scenario is important. It's already such an unrealistic scenario that basic assumptions like "people would rather be alive than dead" are not safe unless actively defined as such.

If the question is - can USA defend against any realistic threat to it? - then the answer is yes.
If the question is - can USA defend against literally rest of the world? - then the answer is no.

[Strife26]

If the entire population of the rest of the world decided to assault the United States using human wave tactics, would the US win?

Probably, but only because human wave tactics are obsolete.

[Amperzand]

Like super obsolete, holy shit.

[martinuzz]

If the entire world declared war on the US, the loss of income for McDonalds alone will bankrupt the US within days.

[Rolepgeek]

More interesting scenario might be if the US decided to try and take over the entire world, by any means at it's disposal. In said scenario, the rest of the world is not necessarily aware of this yet, and is not necessarily obsessed with destroying United States of America.

How do we go about it, and how long does it take until we either win or are destroyed?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't think Trump intends to actually take over the world, though he certainly seems like the type to fantasize about that sort of thing.

If the US were actually going to take over the world, it would start by solidification of our island territory and generous buyout offers for other island nations. I totally believe we'd get takers if we tried something like that. You'd then want to move on to even further hyperpower solidification regarding our economics by getting in a Reverse Cold War and being BFFs with China. Then use the US Navy to aggressively wage trade wars against nations that don't accept increasing American transnational influence. The first major territorial gains would be from Mexico. Help destabilize the nation until federal authority collapses entirely, and invade to restore order. Never leave. Pull a Crimean-style referendum to annex increasing parts of the Mexican Occupation Zone until America consumes all the good parts. Also, use the Panama Canal to justify reacquiring the entire nation, stage a terrorist attack or something. We already provide Costa Rica's sovereign protection, use that to occupy.

At some point in all this, you want to start making moves against Canada. Not hostile moves, but as American power becomes overwhelming in the world our ability to sway the Canadian political system would increase rapidly. With the take over the world goal in mind and dedication, in the end they'll come willingly. Once all of North America is under American control, which would take the better part of a century but is far from impossible, we're truly unstoppable. I'll stop there, but that's the idea of how it'd happen. Salami the world into ever-increasing spheres of American control. In say, two to three centuries, it's all done. Sooner if some perfect negation of nuclear weapons can be placed solely in US hands.

If you ever think American foreign policy is a bastard, be glad we try to think of ourselves as liberators instead of conquering overlords...