If the whole world attacks the US, can the US survive?

Is that not the point I just made? So why have a large conventional force?

 

Conventional wars are still being fought, it's not obsolete.

The thread, I presume, concerns a conventional war waged against the United States by all the other World powers.
Once things go nuclear, I don't see a clear-cut victor.

Folks start saying...so and so could nuke America.

yes, but there would still be reataliation.

Which leaves the discussion to a conventional war scenario. Many of us are saying that an occupying force in America would have to deal with a protracted insurgency war.
An armed citizenry, many of whom with military experience...our veterans...and a large regular and reserve force...again with military training in insurgencies. Even our police have para-military training.

So to occupy the United States would be difficult.

I suppose the same holds true for Russia and China, I don't see an occupying force having an easy time with that either...

 

That's actually not true. The only two countries even close to having the launch systems and number of nuclear weapons to engage in MAD are Russia and the U.S. China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan etc. simply don't have this capability...though they could cause some damage.

 

Rubbish.

The UK Trident system alone is more than capable of hitting any target in the World. The UK's arsenal is sufficient to destroy any country.You really believe 350 warheads wouldn't destroy America? Wow!

It is also argued that using the UK's 250 warheads in quick succession could see a catastrophic change to the worlds climate system, therefor, there is a possibilty that the Uk could actually end the world in that respect... but that is very much debatable

But, lets forget the effects of those detonations and their immediate effects.

In the "worst case" scenario, If the UK launched its nukes at any other nuclear state, that state would (Probably/Possibly) retaliate in kind - Even if most of those the nukes didn't hit there intended targets. Therefore, the UK has just as much influence with regard to MAD as anyone else.

 

Oh, I do not have much faith in the potential abilities of those that live along the West Coast itself. However, once oyu move more then about 200 miles East from there, the character of the people changes very rapidly.

Sure, in Oregon you have all the weirdos who still like to pretend it is still the 1960's. But once you go past the Cascades, it then changes rapidly to farmland and ranges. The people in Pendleton and Burns are so different from those in Salem and Portland, they might almost be a different state.

And as you go further East, you get Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the rest. Over the last 50 years a lot of survivalist types bought property there (originally to help survive WWIII, now mostly used as vacation and hunting homes). I think once you pass the coastal mountain ranges alond the West coast, any invaders will be in for a very tough time.

The same goes on the East Coast. The coastal region has lots of big city types, that would throw up their hands at the first sign of trouble. But once you hit the Apalacians, then the character starts to make a big change. More guns, more individualism, more rugged terrain for partaisans to dissapear into.

For a good example of what it would look like, I can give anybody a peek into US Partaisan fighting. Simply look at the classic movie Red Dawn. That was based upon a small band of Partaisans outside of a small community in the Rocky Mountains. Now I know it is a movie, but it is also a fairly accurate depiction of a possible invasion (SPETSNAZ troops making a rapid insertion strike deep in the country and entering masquerading as a civilian airliner was taken directly form the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). And small bands starting out as rank amateurs but through a form of Combat Darwinism becoming more and more proficient as they learn harsh lessons.

Plus in the US you have a 236 year tradition of individualism, along with a strong national identity. And not an identity based on race, but heritage and citizenship. In many successfull anti-insurgent operations, you have things like race, tribe, religion, and region that can be used by the invaders to help break up the bonds between groups. Here, you would not have that to play off of. For the most part we embrace our differences, so trying to play Catholics against Protestents or Blacks against Asians would simply not work the same way. And because in many ways we are fiercely Republican in nature (the political concept, not the political party), even the attempt at forcing splits in the political makeup would likely fail. Most of even the most radical Leftists would likely work against the invaders, even if they were from a Communist country. They may share many of the same political beliefs, but they would still rebel when those concepts are being forced down their throats by foreign invaders.

And even more then 30 years after this song was written, I think it would still be valid if such a thing ever happened.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm4_rXQAyLM"]The Charlie Daniels Band - In America (2001) - YouTube[/ame]

 

You see, then you are not talking about a war, but a thermonuclear war.

And nobody would survive on either side. Most of the world would end up being reduced back to a pre-industrial revolution society at best.

One side would launch nukes, the other would respond, end of story.

Then there would be no invasion, because the other nations would be to busy trying to pick up the shattered remains of their own countries.

However, Russia only has 489 ICBMs. And that is not enough to "wipe out the US". Do tremendous damage, yes. But most of the country would be untouched other then fallout, simply because of the size.

Huge areas of the West Coast and East Coast would be devistated, I have no doubt of that. But most of the interior is simply to scattered and thinly populated to even bother messing with.

And they would not be anywhere near foolish enough to launch more then a small number of missiles. Because they have much more immediate worries then the US. A Russia with a depleted nuclear stockpile would suddenly find itself surrounded by nations that do not like it that are still nuclear powers (like China).

I find even the serious consideration of some in here that constantly talk about nuclear warfare as totally insane. Nobody is going to "nuke" the US, because of the response. The concept of MAD has kept the world from launching nukes for over half a century now.

And very few are crazy enough to even consider trying to break that for any reason. Thank god.

 

Thankfully, every nation that admits to possessing nuclear weapons also has a "No first use" policy in place. The US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, everybody. About the only "wild card" in this I can think of is Israel.

But since they do not admit to even possessing nuclear weapons, this largely does not matter either. Even when being invaded by overwhelming odds, they still have not used them, so I pretty much consider them to have one as well, even if not admitted to.

And MAD applies for nations of any size. It really does not matter if the enemy has 10 or 1,000 nukes pointed at you. Even 10 nukes would do so much destruction to just about any nation that the fear of even that small of a retaliation is a serious consideration.

Sure, the US and USSR are what most people think of when discussing MAD. But both of these are giant nations, with widely dispursed populations and industrial centers. But even these 2 nations do not want to consider what even 10 nukes would do to them.

And think of the destruction if 10 nukes were aimed at other nations, like the UK, Germany or France. 10 nukes in these smaller nations would be like 100 launched against the 2 larger nations.

Even if it was a 1 for 1 exchange, no nation wants to have nukes launched at them. Period. After all, what is to be gained by their use?

Certainly nothing military. Nukes are not military weapons. They are political weapons. These are not used (or stockpiled) with the concept of their use against the military of other nations. They are held and used to threaten the civilians of other nations. "You nuke Moscow, we nuke Los Angeles". As a military target, neither of these cities are important. But their threatened destruction is a massive threat to the people and government of the nations.

 

Mutual assured destruction from any serious military threat.


The rest of the world can get us to spend ourselves to death...and they are doing it a very good job of it.

 

Because every single battle through the world for the last 67 years have all been conventional battles.

Nukes are a deterrence, nothing more. Nothing less. Their only use is to let the other side know that if they use them, they will be repaid in kind. Because of this, nobody uses them.

After all, why do you think that the authorization for their use rests entirely in the hands of the Civilian government, not the military itself? Most of the military actually detest the things. But we are the ones entrusted with their safekeeping, in the hopes that they will never be used.

I would be perfectly happy if we could someday reduce the numbers to no more then 100 per nation, and eventually 0.

I would like to point out here, that this discussion is just like every other one I have ever seen in a debate board. You have dozens of civilians talking about the use of Nuclear Weapons in a war. And at the same time, you have the actual people who are in or were in the military shaking their heads and saying that they would never be used.

If we were such war-mongers and eager for destruction, would we not be the ones advocating their use? And saying that if we were attacked conventionally, we would respond with nukes? But once again, none of us are saying that. Very much the opposite, we are saying that we would never use them. Period.

However, there is one scenario that I could consider that would end up having the entire world band together and attack the US with the intent of totally destroying the nation. And even traditional allies like the UK and Israel would likely join in. And that is if the US used even a small part of it's nuclear stockpile as a first strike weapon. If that happened, I could see even Canada closing it's borders and making preperations to house large European contingents in preperation for an invasion of the US. We would be the parriah nation of the world, and everybody would be trying to strike at us before they became the next target.

 

No, not from any kind of "military threat". All the way back in 1958, President Eisenhower first delcared that the US would only use it's nuclear weapons in a defensive capability. And even this builds upon the earlier policy decisions of President Truman.

In 1960, this was finally codified in the first US SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan). And this has been the official stance of the US for all classes of "Special Weapons" before and since. And this has never changed to this day.

 

No one would benfit from a nuclear war........obviously!

Though it has always puzzled me why the US has even to this day such a large nuclear arsenal........when you consider that each modern day nuclear weapon is many times that more powerful than the ones used in ww2.

Plus the effect of a nuclear weapon would not just take out one city, the resulting radiation would make the land for many miles inhabitable for decades (probably).
So in reality whats the point of completely destroying a nation...if the so called agressor nation were to survive to some extent, what sort of life would they have, and the worlds resources would be destroyed and contaminated.
What would the poeple eat??

A question to our American friends, why are the people on your Western coast a bit fairy like?

 

That''s not true. The UK's policy is to use nuke's, due to the disparity of its geographical and populous size compared to other nations, if there is a significant conventional threat to its security - that is our deterrent to defend our sovereignty. It makes sense.

The US only has a No First Use policy against non nuclear states - If Russia invaded, the US would not rule out nuclear force.

Not nessecarily. Imagine if 10 nukes hit New York, Washington and your other large cities. The cities would burn for years. They could not be extinguised. The economical system would be destroyed.

We could also look at it from another angle. Square leg was an exercise undertaken by the MOD. It suggest's that the "short term" destruction of the UK would require 140 or so nuclear detonations . That's short term, rememeber. A similarly sized attack in the US, possibly in Russia as well, would almost certainly, in reality, make the geography in those countries inhabitable.

They are a military weapon, then! They are intended to defend and destroy. there is a reason the UK has 250 nukes. That's how many we need to deter ANYONE. No single military in the world would launch a conventional military attack against the UK mainland.. therefore nukes ARE a military weapon.

In small states, who do not have nuclear power. See "cold war", as a demonstration of how conventional force is used if 2 nations have a beef which other and whom both possess nukes. Answer - It isnt! Except for in little proxy wars.

Not true. if Russia or China invade the UK the UK has not ruled out using nukes first - regardless of whether or not the other side has nukes. My understanding is that the US's stance is the same, if they were ever invaded by a nuclear power.

See above

 

As nukes exist, and MAD, and because it has stated it would use nukes first in the event of invasion, it has always puzzled me why the US has, even to this day, got such a large conventional military arsenal?

....to spread democracy, perhaps?

 

Someone mentioned US debt, and I dont think this will have any significance in case of war. US will simply declare it void and any property belonging to opposing faction in the US would be confiscated.

First thing US army would do is to secure access to foreign oil. Without it, they would not last in the long-term.

 

By that basis, russia would also survive as the biggest land mass on earth. But this silly topic asked this: the whole world. And only americans believe they are arrogant enough to take on the planets nations.

Although why this question was asked to begin with, only the original OP knows.

 

Could we wreck havoc with a sniper rifle? There are lots and lots of very good long distance shooters and plenty of 50 caliber rifles in this country.

Besides, would Europe attack us with our own military, the military that ensures they don't have to spend their treasury on a large military?

 

This topic i assume is going by the basis, the whole world suddenly went beserk. And china, europe etc.. start pouring their vast wealth into expanding their military complexes. Pumping out nuclear bombs to line up along side russia and the rest of the world to destroy the great satan.

Although have to ask the original op why any of this would happen. But if it did, no one would survive it. Not even the over optimistic americans on this forum.

 

Show me how the UK could launch all 250 nuclear weapons it possess at the U.S. before it was wiped off the face of the earth. The tridents only have a fraction of that 250 and there are only a couple of them at see at any one time.

 

I don't think the rest of the world has the will to come after the U.S. All the major military hurdles aside, I doubt you'd get dozens of European countries, China, Russia, South America etc. etc. to all agree to the same thing. Especially in a war that would cost millions of lives.

 

Neither would the usa.

America is a coward when confrontged with equal threats. Usa uses tough words sure, but never does anything. If the usa was this brave, you would have fought russia years ago.

 

Would you expect the U.S. to sit by doing nothing during this time? It takes years and years to mobilize your military, especially today with technology. All the cutting edge fighters/bombers/missiles/tanks take decades to develop. The U.S. would completely and utterly own the ocean for at least the first few years which would severely impact trade. 11 carrier battle groups as well as subs (in rotation) preying on every cargo ship would be devastating. The U.S. (with Canada) also has significant natural resources and industry.

In a long term conflict of 10+ years of course the world would eventually win. However, the two large oceans and large military advantage of the U.S. would make it virtually impossible to invade.

 

When has the U.S. been cowardly versus "equal" odds?

 

My 'military' what are you on about?

Another post by yourself filled with fantasy usa nationalism. Now trying to explain how the usa take on the 'world' in such a silly topic.

But from reading this, if it ever did happen, the usa would be destroyed if they are lost in their own arrogance to take on the combined might with a world gone MAD.

 

by not fighting russia. But it is healthy. And the reason both sides didn't destroy each other.

Although it was not brave either. A healthy dose of cowardise.

 

Japan thought we were cowards too. Didn't serve them very well for thinking that.