North America vs the World Coalition take two.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4SELCsRWGRA Here are the conditions:
The world has united in order to defeat the USA.
WoCoa wins by occupying North America, and loses by peace treaty.
The WoCoa has the benefit of already having a clear chain of command, which is composed of an independent military with full control of all armies currently outside North America. This military answers to a council composed of the BRIC leaders, EU leaders and a representative from Africa, South America and ASEAN+Australia. They have transcended politics and have no fears of backstabbery.
The US in turn has had 5 years while the WoCoa was being formed to buff up Mexico and Canada. All of North America is now effectively one country run by the US. In addition, the US gets to pull back all overseas soldiers and assets.
Nuclear weapons have ceased to exist, and everybody has forgotten how to make them. (this is a hypothetical conventional war, and nukes would ruin the whole thing).
The point of this thread is to determine which WoCoa strategy has the highest likelihood of success. Since some of you burgers are incapable of even considering US defeat, you will get to argue about what strategy will most effectively defend your homes.
Answers that do not help anyone, ever:
-Stating that the US is unconquerable without any layout of the impenetrable strategy.
-WoCoa wins because we are many.
-No nukes? Gaaay.
-WoCoa collapses because they're cucks.
-This would never happen.
If you do not like this thread or the conditions I set, you could always not post in it :^)
May the best generals win.
Anonymous
Team WoCoa:
Anonymous
Have fun eating cruise missiles from submarines you don't know the locations of.
Anonymous
Anonymous
So, in this scenario:
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27699867 >>27699820 You assume nobody else has subs with cruise missiles or the capacity to launch orbital weaponry. GG no re indeed
Anonymous
>The world has united in order to defeat the USA.
Anonymous
>>27699971 The US army could be used to annihilate South America and use their resources for the attrition war against the WoCoa. They would just end up in the biggest guerilla war in history, since Latin America isn't exactly fond of the US
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700000 Holy mother of quints. Fucking checked.
Anonymous
>>27699971 You are also forgetting carriers
Anonymous
If the American populance can be riled up against its own government and itself enough to drive the already paranoid political parties apart instead of uniting them, then internal turmoil could give the rest of the world an advantage.
Anonymous
>>27700040 Yes, it can be used there, but then again - supply lines. You either supply the troops in the south via a tiny stretch of land, or you do it via ships. And if it's the former - you actually need to guard those ships, which basically disperses your fleet and makes it easier for the world to win.
Anonymous
>>27700040 When given the option to work in a factory or die, the S Americans will comply. The US will happily let this war get brutal.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700050 I'm not. Last I checked - they were part of the navy.
Anonymous
>>27700059 Carrier Strike Groups are perfectly capable of defending themselves, without nukes there's nothing the WoCoa can do to stop them from operating with impunity. There's a fuckload of active defenses on them, so missiles will be only marginally effective at best.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27699497 >loses by peace treaty Nah it'll be total annihilation.
Anonymous
>>27700059 Why wouldn't the US just take supplies from south america? Global PR isn't exactly an issue anymore.
Besides, the WoCoa wouldn't be able to launch a land invasion for at the very least 5 years if not 10, which gives the US plenty of time
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700094 Well AA and the Airforce would be a huge obstacle so impunity isn't the word I would use
Anonymous
>>27700101 Well, in my little world, in order to take something, you need to:
1.) Capture it
2.) Bring it back to your home
Both of those need supply lines, hence the above points.
As for the WoCoa invasion - yes, they wouldn't invade NA itself (atleast I don't see a real possibility until the sea battle has been won), but they would fight to deny the SA resources (remember, they are already there by the start of the scenario).
>>27700094 MUH AMERICA, MUH INVINCIBLE CARRIERS
Plan on carrying tanks with carriers, huh?
Anonymous
>>27700141 I don't think you'd need to bring it back home necessarily, but now that I think of it SA could do scorched earth and really fuck with the US.
Oh, and remember that the navies of the world aren't all that powerful. You have the BRIC navies-Brazil and the major European navies to form the bulk, which the US Navy could more or less handle with half of their ships.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Where does NATO stand?
Toxi/k/ !h8BnTgJ/BA
>>27700141 >plan on carrying tanks with carriere, huh? Yes you stupid fuck thats why we have 10 of these
Anonymous
Are there Neutron bombs or any variation of the Geneva convention that needs to be up held?
Anonymous
>>27700094 You don't have to fight a carrier strike group to disable them. For one since there are no friendly ports left around the world, the US fleets are confined relatively close to US soil, so the WoCoa could simply place their ship building facilities in a location where the US fleet can't physically reach such as along the Indian ocean. Then as soon as the american fleets leave there ports. start bombing the ports with long range missiles. A fleet that cannot resupply is as good as dead.
Anonymous
>>27700246 Neutron Bombs are a type of Nuclear weapon dimwit.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>27700228 how are you planning on carrying an abrams with those, let alone put one on a foreign continent.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700220 Well, if you can capture the industry in place intact - then yes, you might try to utilise it on the spot. But to do that, you need all components to be produced in the same place (otherwise the beloved supply line problem) or you produce something very basic.
As they are - yes, the navies they currently have would not be sufficient. But since we have no nuclear weapons - it means that in order to destroy their shipyards, you'd actually need to either land an army or bring something with enough power to destroy it relatively close. And for example for some places, e.g. Indian ocean - it's hardly possible. You would have to go through checkpoints the world controls. Basically, the world has the ability to set-up bastions, which US can do to a much smaller extent (purely because of geography). And in case of an attrition war (which this is) - that does mean a lot.
I'm not even touching the issue of NA needing to separate it's fleets into two parts.
Anyways, as much as I think about it - I don't think the US has an actual way of winning, the force disparity is simply too large. But assuming they can mobilize the ship building industry and then do a series of good battles - they could hold out for a very long time.Maybe even try to grab something the world has bad access to - SA \ Oceania (since they will have the same problem supplying forces there).
As for the world - as i've said, if they manage to win the sea war - then, and only then, and after years of preparations can they land in the NA itself, and taking that over will also take a lot of time. Since they'll have to import every basic thing they need.
>>27700228 So remind me, how much tanks fit into one of these?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700302 Indeed, submarines are an issue, for both sides. I was demonstrating a method to deal with carrier fleets that is still valid in a war zone involving submarine warfare on both sides, it just complicates the action of both sides but the core principles are still the same.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700304 >I am literally to stupid to figure out that amphibious assault ships carry armored vehicles inside them Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700068 But so would the rest of the world. Maybe not to the same extent of the USA as they are on the offensive.
Anonymous
>>27700278 So Bio and Chemical war fair is A okay then.
Anonymous
Maybe im talkin out of turn here i didnt see the last thread. But there seems to be alot of how to deal with the US military, has anyone come up with the plan to deal wil the copious amounts of civvy gun owners? I mean you can bet of dealing with supply lines and armor, but the way i see it unless you dont give a damn about leveling whole residential blocks, an organized military wont hold much ground and if they do it wont be for long. And im not bein "fuck yea murica" but dat guerrilla shit seems to be the crutch for any military plan to take ground.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700373 Wasn't mentioned in the opening post, but remember BioChem weapons are double edged, both sides have them, and the world alliance has a lot larger population pool to survive a Bio war.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
So the US and friends only have to hold out util the other side sues for peace correct? If that's the case I really don't see the US losing. Eventually everyone else would just get tired of dashing themselves against US defenses to little long term effect wouldn't they?
Anonymous
>>27700383 I guess it depends on the ideologies involved but I can see China or Russia leveling residential blocks.
Anonymous
Well, 'scuse me in advance for being a fuckwit, I'm just riffing here...
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700421 Yea that would be the only way i see it happening. I mean, the whole point of the world against muh peoples is eratication right?
Anonymous
>>27700383 Well, this thing carries your 11 metric tons of solution.
Anonymous
First, I'm going to look at the effects of a long, drawn out conflict similar to the cold war, as we need to know the current situation of the war and the possible outlook of the future.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>318 million people versus 7 Billions >there is people actually discussing this >there is people actually saying the US would just occupy entire other continents >by itself >while before mentioned billions will try to prevent this
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700456 Sorry for the wall o'text, and just for the record, it would break my heart to see London or Pari or any of these other great cities of the world smoking.
Let's pray it never comes to that.
Anonymous
Extrapolating from the US bailout, it can be expected that the US will eventually be forced to nationalize and subsidize most of its industry, or they will not be able to continue the war effort. Dissent will be put down, but the people's reaction to this will vary wildly by their view on the war. If people see the war as defending themselves against extinction, they will be pressed to fight on regardless and more willing to stomache an oppressor from within than without. If they see the war as something they caused and have a possible way out (There won't be one that allows the US to continue their hegemony on the world and continue to have their citizens live a life of luxury compared to other places), then spirits would be at an all-time low.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
The alternative is that the US will be forced to go on the offensive and occupy other countries within a short timeframe to secure continued trade -- OPEC being the highest priority, with China being a secondary target. If these countries can be occupied and forced to enter trade relations with the US, US citizens can continue their way of life, which will serve to make them much more docile and supportive. I'm going to make the assumption that Israel is still allied to the US because without the US, they'll cease to exist. Assuming Israel doesn't die instantly on the outset of the war, the US would do well to use it as a staging ground for an offensive to secure Saudi Arabia and other oil rich middle eastern countries. China would be a much more difficult target, as the Philippines or Japan would need to be secured first to provide a staging ground before the Chinese military could be engaged. China is also an incredibly massive target in terms of land and people, and would require a force so large as to stretch the US thin even if the Chinese only put up a token resistance on their own; adding others to the mix and the fact that some Chinese equipment might be nearly as good or better than the US stuff (Even if its in much more limited quantities), and securing China is pretty much impossible to do in any reasonable timeframe or with the available manpower.
Anonymous
>>27700383 On one hand you're absolutely right, the guerrilla warfare potential of the US would be completely off the charts given five years to organize militias and give civilians old AT weapons and such. But on the other hand, after getting their asses handed to them for five or ten years by the Navy, and knowing exactly what they're up against, leveling residential blocks might be enough to break civilian morale, if not necessarily effectively create casualties among guerrilla fighters, who won't be anywhere useful to bomb and will just love using the bombed out ruins for cover.
Anonymous
>>27700460 >>27700473 Amigo, haven't you hear of the Greatest Generation? The civilian population sacrificed everything for the war effort.
People walked to work. Little kids no longer had bubble gum (true story-thats the origin of Orbit brand gum, incidentally). People dug up their lawns to make gardens. Well kept, pampered housewives went to work in factories.
Please don't let out current troubles confuse the issue, Americans are capable of the greatest unity in the face of terrible danger. And our human resources are our best resources.
Anonymous
>>27700507 >leveling residential blocks might be enough to break civilian morale I hear ya bud, again im not being "fuck yea 'murica" but i do think you are underestimating that part...or would the be overestimating...
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700511 >Americans are capable of the greatest unity in the face of terrible danger. Pretty much this. There's a sort of casual hate/disdain that for one another that you see on a daily basis, because as a culture Americans are fairly blunt and abrasive - but give them some else to really hate, and its on.
e.g. Japan in WWII, radical Islam, etc.
And on top of that, Americans are just stubborn in general, the more resistance they face, the more agitated they get. Kind of the opposite of breaking their spirit.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700460 We produce more oil than any nation in the world, add Canada to the mix and no one's running out any time soon.
Anonymous
>>27700459 Thats what im saying. if the goal of everyone against us, the goal would have to be extermination. Just from the sheer bullshit occupying forces would have to deal with, there wouldnt be anything left to capture and hold.
Anonymous
>>27700511 Different generation, different time. Compare what well off people had in the 30s and 40s to what the below-average citizen has now and you'll see just how much would go missing. No more fast food nights, no fancy satellite/cable TV, heck, people who have a fairly long commute might not be able to justify working when their paycheck goes right back into the fuel used to get there and there's no public transportation available. And it's not just the people that would suffer, but all the businesses who rely on mass consumption would suddenly find themselves closing their doors and unemploying a large chunk of the population.
Americans are capable of sacrificing, but they have to hate their enemy enough to want to do so. That's why I said a war for survival is probably the only way to get them to want to revert back to being poor dirt farmers who sit by candlelight every night because the power company has rolling blackouts started from shutting down their fossil fuel plants. I do believe Americans are fully capable of hating others harder than anyone else on the planet, but the question is, can they find a reason to do so?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700538 Well if I wanted to be all "freedom, fuck yeah!" we could look at how effective bombing cities have ever been at discouraging rural militias historically. I mean, Hanoi got flattened a dozen times over and the Veit Cong didn't really care too much. To the patriot groups spending time in the woods and hills, flattening LA would probably only get them more motivated. To the homeless residents of the ruin formerly known as LA, they'd either sue for surrender (and get nowhere) or join the resistance. Probably a mix of both.
So in that interpretation, bombing residential areas isn't just not useful, it's downright counterproductive.
Anonymous
>>27699497 The United States is in the same situation as Germany was in the World Wars. Surrounded on all sides by hostile states.
The logical solution for the U.S. is a rapid blitzkreig style assault. For them, fighting a long war is just another way to lose quicker.
Another factor to put into play is the effect of Einkreisungspolitik upon the American populace. It would grip the populace by the throat and hold them captive.
That being said, if the United States can not capture/destroy/neutralize the rest of the world's critical resources (be it human, geographic or industrial), it loses.
The world will be able to marshal more resources, more men and more material.
Brilliant generaling will only go so far. That can at best change the operation outlook but not the strategic.
Thats why the U.S. would be forced into a hyper-aggressive stance from the start.
Playing for time or trying to adopt attrition type tactics inevitable ends in defeat (assuming the willpower of the WoCoa holds out).
How can the WoCoa win?
Play for time. Time is the WoCoa's friend. Time to build up troops, time to build up infrastructure, time to mobilize resources.
Time is something they have in abundance. They should use it like a cudgel. Beat America over the head with it. Then strike with overwhelming force. That is the recipe for victory.
Anonymous
Okay, lets pretend people in here are not retarded for a moment.
Anonymous
>>27700605 >Surrounded on all sides by hostile states Without land borders to them.
Anonymous
>>27700609 >Meanwhile, all other countries still can trade with the rest of the world. Not over the sea they cant.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>27700609 It is winnable if the U.S. adopts a hyper-aggressive posture.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27699497 What is already known is the big coalition if they were to invade would have to deal with a highly armed populace. My state alone has the highest machine gun ownership in the Union at the moment and would fight a guerrilla war in tandem to the state militias/state guards.
You would probably see a large variety of hardware being used by American civilian fighters as you can see here during a big event known as the "Big Sandy Shoot"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCppmoZiXUY Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700609 >US pulled out of World Economy >World Economy collapses overnight Anonymous
>>27700641 Even if the US manages to bloack all seatrade everywhere forever at the same time, against a enemy who will be capable of shitting out everything faster the longer shit goes on, that still allows europe, russia, most of Asia, the middle east, and Africa to share resources, manpower and Industry in the scenario described in the OP.
>>27700659 And why do you think the US would have a easier time with that then billions of thirdworlders who are suddenly united under one goal with no quarrels or backstabbing each other, who to a part have been dronebombed by America for years, and basically grew up in a hostile shithole with people dying every day? Now with Support from all of Europe, which allone has double the population of the US, Russia, Asia, etc?.
While yu have San Franciscos population probably protesting against the killing of all those POCs and demanding a mexican president because all of Mexico is now part of you, probably beeing as usefull as ally as Italy was to Germany.
Oh, let me gues, the US will just occupy ALL of southamerica and turn it into their allies, while at the same time blocking all trade everywhere.
Because hey, Iraq is a top-tier military Ally now, after over a decade of shittons of resources for this one nation shit into it.
No wait, the US will be just so super agressive, killing any disenters, after having fought a war against the whole world wjhile conquering a continent. Now you rule about the survioving rest of a continent that has been bombed to shit, with probably all its Industry in ashes, with not enough educated workers left to use this Industry due to your super agression. Great Job. The world still has the rest of the world.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700609 The United States is home to every known material and natural resource on the planet. The reason we barely touch our natural resources is we can buy them already extracted and/or processed for cheaper elsewhere.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700552 Berlin was once leveled to the ground, to nothing but rubble, the same could be said of London.
Anonymous
>>27700456 if left alone, the world could outproduce the US and rape it with superior numbers
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700598 I know for a fact that if somebody was trying to whipe us out that we would be pretty pissed, especially if we have already been attacked. If they cause us to need to ration more then you would see people even angrier, however i do not think we would go full fucking 1700s like you are saying. We would revert to rationing for the war effort and working more but we would still keep radio and electricity.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700765 > Oh, let me gues, the US will just occupy ALL of southamerica and turn it into their allies, while at the same time blocking all trade everywhere. Not the same guy you were responding too but in a large scale war like this i don't think it would be a stretch for the US to kill off anybody who makes a move to fight back.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700000 Quoted for quints
Anonymous
>>27699497 I'm fairly sure North America would collapse in on itself, if it was cut off from the rest of the world.
People in N America are used to a very high standard of living, if that plummeted then people would put themselves and their children first and do whatever they could to end the conflict.
This would be exacerbated given how many privately owned guns their are in the US, and how generally intolerant Americans would be towards a state that insisted on a crippling war with the rest of the world.
Anonymous
>>27700964 Ha, no. Americans are more than willing to give for a war effort if an enemy declares war on us first/attacks us first. We don't pussyfoot when we have a real enemy that wants to conquer our mainland.
Anonymous
>>27699971 you imply the US would twiddle their thumbs while the world built super Carriers.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700875 >if left alone That's the key phrase there.
Anonymous
>>27701013 how would the US hit a naval yard in Turkey?
Anonymous
>>27701044 Probably midair refueling and navy strike group with a couple carriers. Or maybe cruise missiles or just regular missiles.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701044 Orbital kinetic strike bombardment.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>27701060 Refueling from where? Everything around is enemy territory for thousands of kilometers. Read the premise
Anonymous
>>27701096 An aircraft carrier, where it allows a longer range for a fuel aircraft.
Anonymous
>>27700995 Having the entire world engaged in war against the US would tend to suggest that the US is deeply unpopular.
Public opinion plays a huge role in US society and politics, it is unthinkable that US citizens would be happy with a government that was willing to wage war on the whole world.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701108 Ok, lets do it the hard way. Where will the darrier be stationed?
Anonymous
>>27701108 aha, so how is an aircraft carrier going to get all the way out there when its escorts ran out of fuel and had to return to port. or are you suggesting that the US operate a carrier without any support at all in enemy territory. that sounds like a sure fire way to lose a ship.
Anonymous
>>27701142 You do know that we could just keep the carriers defended with our submarines, quite frankly a World Coalition Navy is still way too small. The US Navy would just have to make a move to destroy any naval forces they come across and then they can act with impunity.
Anonymous
>>27701130 A study actually showed that the majority of the planet considers the US the biggest threat to world peace.
Anonymous
>>27699497 5 years would be enough for the USA to develop nukes again. It took the Manhattan project less than five years and back the the whole world had less computer processing power than a single pc does now.
With the americas isolated bioweapons also become viable. The us army plus navy is much more capable of defending airspace than the opposed forces due to quality, quantity, and a smaller area to defend.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701168 You forget that they'll be in range of World Coalition airforces. Having a Tu-160 group with Eurofighter escorts heading towards you would be no joke.
Anonymous
>>27701130 I did say that if we were attacked or were declared war against then there would be no confliction.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701168 Ah yes, we could protect the Carrier against a missile and fighter spam without all the air defense cruisers with their aegis defense systems around and just submarines!
Anonymous
>>27701190 The world's airforce outnumbers the US airforce.
At least 5000 would be combat ready on short notice, with a few more thousands in reserve. 1000 MiG 29s alone would pose a significant threat
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701190 That's actually a pretty funny point. So what if everyone forgot, the US could theoretically remake that tech from scratch like it did the first time.
Anonymous
>>27701206 The US has way more aircraft in total. With fixed wing and attack craft we have 5004 in total at the moment and in war time we could ramp production up quite a bit.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-States-of-America Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27699497 >how to spot a yuropoor Anonymous
>>27701262 Yeah but the world matches that in fixed wing aircraft, with roughly 3500 fighters and interceptors alone.
As for ramping up production, so could Germany and Japan. And China. And maybe Russia if they get some money
Anonymous
>>27701298 HAHAHAHA
that moment when you discover that Panama Has 13 merchant ships for every single US naval ship afloat.
Anonymous
Some observations.>Ground war
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701343 Also fun things like North Korea having the largest navy in the world, since they have shitloads of patrol boats doing exercises to keep the conscripts busy.
Anonymous
>>27701343 who needs 4000 merchant ships?
Anonymous
>>27699971 US bombers could still make anyone who opposed them suffer dearly for fighting us, though the B-52 would likely be restricted to actions in South America.
Anonymous
>>27699971 > And the world combined will chug out a lot more ships than the US can, they don't even have to be superior, just pure numbers. No it can't. The rest of the world, combined, doesn't have the warship building ability of Virginia. The rest of the world, combined had two carriers ready for battle vs 10 in the US Navy.
The imbalance between the USN and the rest of the world is gigantic. Japan and England, at least, would be effectively removed from the war and strangled to surrender by submarines. South Korea and Norway are too vulnerable. WorldCo would have to build their fleet in the black sea and ship them out to have anywhere they could protect, and the shipbuilding ability of the black sea is laughable.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701397 6000, and people that like making money off of international trade?
Anonymous
>>27701402 What are carriers, are they weapons or do they carry aircraft which are the actual threat? Why would the rest of the world, with access to the airfields that comes with, give a flying fuck about aircraft carriers?
Anonymous
>>27701439 Airfields don't project power further than the plane can fly.
Carrier project a plane from any point in the ocean if they so will it.
Anonymous
>>27699497 Let me sum up this thread for anyone coming in.
>OP literally just wants to hear people say: "US loses" >OP continues to shift goal posts when people show why the US wouldn't lose >shit posting Yuropoors continue to say dumb shit like "zerg rush until we win!" Just don't reply. Its a troll thread.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700000 Checked, its an honor
Anonymous
>>27701500 Carriers are not as valuable as they are made out to be, a carrier is nothing more than a floating airfield. Carriers only project power as far as they can safely sail, which in a hostile world is not very far.
Anonymous
>>27701549 >Carriers are not as valuable as they are made out to be, a carrier is nothing more than a floating airfield That's exactly why they're so damn valuable you numbskull. Hostile waters aren't a thing if you have air superiority. Which a carrier allows you to achieve. Anywhere.
The side with more carriers has a much better chance of establishing control of both land and sea via the air.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27699497 Way I see it, the world will win a war of attrition by a very narrow margin.
They'll have to come up from South America, both overland and by amphibious assault. Cuba would be a natural staging area for threatening Florida. They could also do an Anzio style landing on the Baja peninsula. Both of those would tie down defensive forces and relieve pressure on the main effort, which would be coming up through Central America. It's going to have to be a meatgrinder effort, there'll be nothing elegant about it.
I said it yesterday, I'll say it again- US loses about the time the global population passes the 4 billion mark.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701519 This thread is actually one of the most "anti-US" (even though its not) civil arguments i have even seen on 4chan. People here are just sandboxing and to me its going quite well, sure some points are frivilous but thats kinda the "outta nowhere!" fun in it.
Bravo /k/
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701358 Now go back and re-read the part where the US has control of the entire continent. Alaska would be receiving support from Canada.
Anonymous
>>27701549 Whoever has carriers is winning. Whoever doesn't is losing.
The winner is the one that's got troops on the enemy's land when the hands are called. If you don't have carriers, and your enemy does, that means their troops can get to your ground and your troops can't get to theirs.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701519 I have literally defended both sides to consider how each side could win. Secure South American resources and try to keep up with attrition for the US to win. The WoCoa needs to construct a navy capable of invading NA while defending the production sites.
>>27701402 Then maybe the WoCoa could increase their warship building ability, especially in the black sea? It's not like the arms factories had always been there in WW2
Anonymous
>>27701645 How is a plane going to sink a submarine? And you assume the carrier has enough planes to give you air superiority. The number of planes is the deciding factor.
Anonymous
>>27700964 We're self sufficient on food. Given the premise, we'd also be energy independent. There's probably some strategic minerals that we import, but we've got the everyday stuff covered. We also wouldn't be exporting food to the world, and the billions we spent on foreign aid would stop. I don't think the average American would see a significant impact to their quality of life. Consumer electronics would become more expensive. Other venues of discretionary spending would lose variety. That's about it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701708 Tell me, how will a carrier be a win condition in contested airspace? Sure it might be able to pull up anywhere, but as long as there's a hostile airfield nearby it's threatened.
Also, each loss of a super carrier will be a huge blow to whoever lost it, and an invasion force would be utterly fucked after.
So yes, carriers are very useful, but not enough to win on their own by being warzone gods
Anonymous
>>27701769 >what is P-3 Orion thats just one example
Anonymous
>>27701785 >I don't think the average American would see a significant impact to their quality of life. >you know, except for the occasional cruise missile strike and oh yeah, the state of total war? Anonymous
Once the US produces T-51B power armor and mister gutsys the world will lose within 6 months
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701833 Something which doesnt go on a aircraft carrier.
Anonymous
>>27701857 Real talk this thread is pretty much actual Fallout lore, though.
>Entire world hates US and Brazil >US takes over Mexico and Canada and hunkers down >entire world loses war of attrition as US starves the entire planet of oil >using the last of the oil the US develops miniaturized cold fusion and doesn't need oil >rest of the world eats shit until someone gets mad at getting their shit kicked in and presses the reset button Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700051 You seem to be forgetting that the only thing Americans hate more than their own government is foreigners
Anonymous
>>27700621 So North America is under US control. But what about South America? All scenarios here seem to revolve around a direct invasion of the US coast through a gauntlet of carriers and destroyers. What's stopping the Allies from building up forces in South America? The way I see it, the navy can't protect the mainland, block sea trade and enforce a blockade of South America at the same time. Especially not with the entire world churning out hypersonic missiles and ships.
Anonymous
>you and some other paratroopers land in Chicago >empty streets >blacked out Lincoln navigator sittin on 22s screeches by popping shots at your squad >EASSST SIDDDE BOIII WUUURRLDSTAAR
Anonymous
>>27701196 No, because when US citizens see places like Switzerland, India, Tibet and Belgium declare war on us, they will realize we must be doing something seriously fucked up. To the thinking man, it wouldn't be worth fighting for the something the entire rest of the world has united against. Especially when that thing starts utilizing the tactics espoused here - genocide, harsh authoritarian occupation of enemy countries, and unrestricted sinking of merchant and civilian vessels. As the war went on and things at home began to run out and become rationed, a sense of dread would set in. The world can only build up their forces, and at a rate the US could not hope to compete with. They have benefits of free trade and an insurmountable population advantage. I don't see a way they could starve the US into submission (resource submission, since the idiot jingoists here would probably take it to mean food).
Anonymous
>>27702043 Meant to say:
I don't see a way the US could avoid being starved into submission.
Anonymous
>>27701930 >What's stopping the Allies from building up forces in South America? The fact that for almost all practical purposes, Panama isn't a land border. It would still have to be a naval invasion, though admittedly with a nearby staging area. But it wouldn't be a significantly more effective invasion vector than, say, Cuba, assuming the US doesn't "liberate" Cuba day 1.
Honestly Alaska would be a good place to go through, taking a lot of ground quickly would be a good way to avoid chokepoints and bring numbers to bear, but that's also where the US's airpower advantage would become most extreme. Alaska, the NWT and British Columbia would become killing grounds for air strikes. There wouldn't be an unbombed road or an intact bridge.
I think an island hopping campaign in the Caribbean would be the most likely scenario in a world where South America is an enemy combatant.
>>27702043 Tibet isn't a country, or if it is, it's not in any state to declare war on anyone.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700460 While I agree with you I think you are forgetting a key point in that it is the entire North American continent v. the rest of the world. This solves the oil problem with both Canadian and Mexican oil reserves. While the rest of the globe certainly has more resources it is a far more complicated supply chain to move these resources and produce a useful product.
Now assuming the US takes Mexico and Canada and treats them instead of separate countries but instead colonies or protectorates where politics and trade are controlled the US side will be better off.
On another note something like 90%+ of all goods travel across the Ocean at some point. Assuming the US and its allies (I will call them the North American coalition or NAC) can gain control of the seas they can force most trade to take place overland which is horribly inefficient.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27702087 US's #1 export is food, dumbass. Other countries would literally be starving themselves trying that tactic.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700051 NA vs the world? There's no way in hell that American's would side with foreigners over the US. So you have a population which has more than one firearm per capita. If you invade, not only do you have to deal with a militant and hostile population. NA will become fortress america.
>>27700383 Which brings up the next point, total warfare doesn't break civilian moral. It strengthens it.
The NA also has a abundance of natural resources, you name it we got it. Energy? Got it. Farmland to feed the population? Got it. Rare earth minerals? We closed down the mines but that wouldn't stop us from reopening them. We have everything we need, and we can rebuild factories to churn out arms.
What about the rest of the world? Europe desperately needs oil in order to survive. Russia can't feed itself despite having so much farmland. China is effectively an island and needs shipping routes to bring resources.
The USN can fuck with the rest of the world's economy sufficiently that taking advantage of their resources would be difficult. Remember that the world economy only works because the USN is there to protect shipping. NA can effectively eliminate global economic cooperation.
NA doesn't need to occupy the world, they just need it to come to the table for a cease fire. Starving hundreds of millions would be more than sufficient.
Anonymous
>US Launches literally thousands of rockets all across the globe >All with conventional payloads still >Some of them have no payload at all >Can't block a rain of arrows completely >Several major nations are crippled due to governments/production destruction >After that, Rolling Thunder 2 Electric Boogaloo
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701851 How is that different from the occasional Katrina or hazmat train derailment?
People living in Idaho or Nebraska aren't going to see a lot of total war. Coastal areas, sure. It'll be just like another Saturday night in Oakland or Richmond.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701343 Dude, you are absolutely retarded and have no idea how merchant flagging works. You register your ship in that nation so you don't have to deal with regulatory/tax/legal bullshit.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27702089 I feel like any attempt on the Gulf of Mexico by WoCoa would be incredibly difficult. The islands chains make a great barrier against the Atlantic so troops would have to land on South America and hop up. That would leave them highly vulnerable that close to US shores.
Also nothing is stopping the US from taking its knowledge of long range missiles and making the US version of those Chinese carrier killers and surround the coasts with those.
Anonymous
I like how everyone in this thread has completely overlooked the fact that any and all US technology - whether sold on contract, or integrated into foreign built platforms can be disabled by the NSA.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701206 Yeah, but those migs won't be able to do shit after ferrying across the Atlantic or Pacific.
Anonymous
>>27702425 METALLIC ARCHAEA
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>27702561 zoo(logy, not sex)fag here, whut? or is this some meme that I am unaware of
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>27702594 Yes. Metal Gear Solid V features a plot point regarding nuclear weapons that can be rendered inert remotely or if attempted to be used, through an engineered variety of extremophile metallic archaea. This is delivered to the player through a series of fairly long winded, dry monologues by a wheezy old man to the point where the technical terms repeated in those monologues have become a meme.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700765 I came back afterall this time only to find madfag the post.
>Mediocre Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700269 You know there is such a thing as UNREP, right? Ships devoted to supplying other ships in the middle of the ocean?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27699497 I'm still severely disappointed that there wasn't a sequel.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701918 I thought the US taking over Canada was after we kicked the Chicomms out of Alaska.
Anonymous
>>27700650 Since we are having this thread again.
http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a-military-expert-if-the-whole-world-could-conquer-the-united-states >But the question you are really asking, if I am correct, is: Are the world's combined forces enough to conquer the United States? Here the answer is no, for it is much harder to project force. It requires logistical resources that the rest of the world simply does not have. Anonymous
>>27705669 shitty article m8.
If the whole world with their current forces tried to invade the US, then they'd fail. The article completely ignores production capacity or that fact that the world could greatly increase their military spending
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700609 >and only two big enemies+Italy. You are a good man.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27707239 Most people are saying it would take 10 years for the rest of the world to build up a force strong enough to invade the U.S. It took the U.S. 5 years to develop the first nuke with the tech we have today we could do it much quicker and fuck the rest of the world before they finished. But then again they could do the same so it will probably be a stalemate until one side reinvents the nuke.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27699497 The defender wins. North America cedes ground grudgingly, fighting over every inch, but always avoiding a decisive battle of its main strength against the enemy's main strength.
The further WOCOA penetrates into NA, the greater their friction and the worse their situation.
Sooner or later the friction overcomes them, and NA begins counter-attacking with their reserves until WOCOA sues for peace.
Do you even Von Clausewitz? Get on my level.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
No nukes, no problem. North America simply has to distract the WoCoa while pumping more resources into the already in progress mission to deflect asteroids. Use the equipment militarily to shoot asteroids into enemy governments. Continue to do this more frequently and devastatingly until the WoCoa signs a peace treaty
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27699497 Hell March 3 is utter trash compared to the first two.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Is WoCoa doing anything to undermine the US during the first 5 years. This is important because if not the US could just ramp up the debt ceiling to ludicrous amounts in order to buy the capital necessary to transition from a service based economy to a manufacturing based economy. If the US could not become 100% self efficient in crucial areas like energy and basic consumer goods within 5 years, the eventual drop in public moral would lose the war.
Anonymous
I think a relentless North American joint propaganda and black ops campaign in South America would do wonders for the war effort. WoCoa might not have to deal with politics between nations but that rule doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of revolt from within WoCoa nations. Think about it;
ive seen footage
>>27708774 South America would be the first thing the North American Coalition would take really. Its nearby, of strategic value (denies enemy a foothold in the Americas) and already has a bunch of American bases. All NAC would have to do is bomb the capitals/strategic targets and send spec ops and CIA SAD/SOG to take out the heads of states and top brass and the government collapses.
If possible, it would be imperative to keep them aligned to the NAC as a puppet with their armed forces relatively intact in hopes that they can be used as a buffer before the necessary NAC forces can be dispatched if the WoCoa attempts to land in South America in order to make their way up north without having to directly land in NAC territory. If we're basing the war game on a "sudden" creation of NAC and WoCoa, the US wouldn't have to do much to topple the governments and keep them aligned due to the fact that many of the top brass and elites of the most powerful South American countries are to some extent pro US (Chile(ans) love America and their politicians/Armed Forces are overwhemingly pro US, as is some parts of Brazilian society and Colombian, which would be enough to hold the continent)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700000 Checked for the /k/ube's glory
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27708841 You could definitely try a huge propaganda campaign, but remember that this will be extremely difficult. Latin America is used to a United States that topples their governments and backs their brutal oppressors. It would kind of be like getting the Eastern Europeans to like Russia, which is next to impossible
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Somebody needs to make this movie. An epic triology of conventional modern warfare
Anonymous
>Not being a part of the crusade to form the united states of Earth.
Anonymous
>>27709568 That would be a lot of stars bru
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27709614 and even more freedom
Anonymous
>>27699497 We get Russia and China?
How arrogant are you to even assume the USA would stand a chance?
The North-American alliance would be outnumbered in the sky, at see and on land...
Imagine the WoCoa producing the currently vasty superior Russian fighter planes while the NA-Alliance sees every oil-refinery they own bombed within a week. How long would that stockpile last while having to defend against the combined Air Force of Russia, China, Israel, South Korea, Germany, which would be ever expanded by our insanely cheap workforces in India and China.
The USA will be begging to surrender within a few months.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27709691 Remember that the technology gap between the US and Russia/China is pretty big.
Most Chinese tanks are copied T-62s and half their airforce is made up of MiG-23s. Russia is better off but still relies mainly on T-72 variants and fighters from the 70s (MiG 29s and Su-27s etc). Don't even get me started on their navies
Anonymous
>>27709691 And I have no idea where you get your information on "vastly superior Russian fighters". The high end Russian jets number around 200-300, and sure they're better than the f-18s or old F-15s, but if the US started churning out F-22s and F-35s the WoCoa Airforce would get stopped in their tracks, unless they came up with better stuff than they have now
Anonymous
Quoted By:
The WoCoa would have to make a long range fighter that could be stationed far enough behind Russian and S American lines to be safe but still be able to fly to the U.S. do some damage and get home they would also probably make a naval variants.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701519 Have you even read the thread? People are actually arguing in a civil way, without calling eachothers names or shills.
This is what /k/ should be everyday. Go fuck yourself out of this thread.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27710402 Not only that, you would also see wartime production and research strike up.
Anonymous
>>27699566 I dont have a source but im pretty sure the US airforce literally has more fighters than the rest of the world
Anonymous
Question: How dependent is the Middle East on centralized water systems for irrigation, filtration, distribution, etc? Would it be feasible for the US to use tomahawk-spamming Ohios to destroy enough water/food related infrastructure to starve out the ME, or cause enough scarcity to cause regional infighting? Is the Fertile Crescent enough to sustain the area's large population if it became a strategic target (besides the obvious oil related ones)?
Anonymous
>>27714007 Slav
roughly 1000 MiG-29
450 MiG-31
500 Su-27
200 Su-30++
Chink
200 J-11
250 J-10
120 JH-7 (fighter bomber)
500 rusty pieces of crap
EU cucks
~800 tornadoes
444 eurofighters
a few hundred F-16s and F-18s
100 Dassault Rafales
and roughly 500 fighters ranging from shit tier gripens and MiG 23 to decent F-18s and F-15s.
According to global firepower, the US has 2200 fighters. Now, I'm not a mathematician but..
Anonymous
>>27714219 1. The Middle East is really well protected. Having to go through the Mediterranean will be no easy task. Cruise missiles can also be shot down.
2. How important is the middle east in terms of Military capacity? They're either mostly using inferior US tech or severely outdated Soviet tech.
The rich oil states are formidable and their oil is invaluable, but they have the means to defend themselves
/k/ontrarian !!ffUbDOTjoBo
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>27719011 Almost an even fight.
Anonymous
>>27714219 >>27717382 I wouldn't be worth the missiles when they could be directly targeted at oil tankers and pipelines. The world's navies at current capacity couldn't both attempt to break through an American naval defense and defend their sea lanes at the same time.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27719048 Hence why swapping the F-16's, F/A-18's and AV-8B's for F-35's is going to be huge.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27719011 I was just listing the WoCoa air to air capacity.
Drones can't do shit against aircraft
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27719145 If you read the thread then you'd know that the first part of the war would be a US aerial campaign and a WoCoa defensive operation.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27719011 now lets see who runs out of material to build new ones first.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27719048 U also have to add Canada's CF-18s and Mexico's like 5 F5s
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700000 QUINTS HAVE SPOKEN, THE US IS VICTORIOUS
Anonymous
>>27701095 This. Since nukes no longer exist, we can fill the minutemen with MOABs instead.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27720820 Again, the other ex-nuclear powers could do the same
Anonymous
guys who say that US would win are so fucking delusional I don't even.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27721235 >yuropoors who cant even make the 2% defense target for NATO think they can win Anonymous
>>27699497 So what is the US's goals? Maintain its sovereignty? Seems simple to do.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701401 You forget that the B-52 has an excellent standoff capability with the ALCM
Anonymous
>>27721392 Part of the problem with this scenario is that North America doesn't have a well-defined win condition. As written we don't even know if North America can force individual nations to surrender or cease hostilities.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700000 >those quints god bless the united states of America.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27721442 You know, take this to /tg/. It might pique their interest.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27700000 MURIKA STRONK!!!!!
QUINTS CHECKED AND SALUTED/
https://youtu.be/pQpTf2wuuno MURIKA, CUCKING YUROPOORS AND THE REST OF THE WORLD SINCE 1771
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27699971 THE US AIR FORCE will earn their keep as dedicated fast reaction, rapid transport, and logistics (think Berlin Airdrop).
>>27700040 like we would put up with their shit for .00000014th of a second in that situation. the pain train and the rape train would have a head-on collision in that situation.there would be no ROE's anywhere. shit would be like some heart of darkness meets wadden ss, meets 1878's and 80's indian wars, meets heads on stakes and african insanity.
that would be by the pauly shore, in the army now nasty girls.
>>27700456 AMEN
>>27700507 they would have totally screwed the pooch on that. its the kind of assbackwards highhanded eurpoean stupidity that would get tehm never ending guerrilla war with people who are pissed off, scared and angry. you dont dont give them a giant fucking target, thats retarded. and exactly the kind of shit yuropoors would do. god alone help them agaisnt a well trained irregular guerilla army.
>>27700598 we might have mcdonalds closing up shop, but we would be full on great guns for the war effort, with old abandoned big box stores turned into factories, the old mills and plants retooled, Farms would be growing multiple crops a year, people would glady carpool or even if they are smart start bus and transit corps.
then we have mexico, who would have its true time to shine, with crops, and biofuels for cars, and turning their southern border into a hellmouth of tanktraps, IED's and boobytraps. those crazy mad fuckers would turn cabo san lucas and Acapulco into Juarez in 2009.
>>27700605 >Surrounded on all sides by hostile states. i know the oceans aint too friendly with us, but mexico would glady genocide the brown people of their southern border free of charge senor.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27701952 thats pretty much how my homies in the blackstone rangers said it, except with old school Buick Rivieras and Grand National GNX's and guys on street bikes shooting shit up if Chicago was invaded.
and of course MUH ESCALADE NIGGA. 63RD AND COTTAGE GROVE BITCH.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27702425 jesus, i never thought i'd say this, but
NSA!, NSA! NSA! NSA!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27699497 That Abrams is so fucked.
>"sir we took out the hind!" >cheering happens "wait what about the other on-"
>AT-6.jpg Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
As much as I'd like to say America fuck yeah, we have to keep in mind the current generation isn't like the WW2 one. It's made of SJW's and liberals who would want to see America burn and wouldn't sacrifice for it.
Anonymous
>>27722036 If you're fighting the whole world, it's time to accept that you're the bad guy
Anonymous
>>27722201 In defense, the world started shit first when the US perfected it's laser defenses making it virtually immune to nuclear threat.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27722268 again, it's ok. You just have to accept that you, in fact, are now the bad guys)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
You would never be able to occupy.
Anonymous
>>27700605 This is a very good point. WoCoa would probably launch a massive sabotage / cruise missile campaign against infrastructure targets.
Blowing up powerplants, bridges, tunnels and damms. This would force the US to divert massive resources to fix the damage.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27722944 Noa could do the same thing to WoCoa and fuck up the trade and shipping with their submarines
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27699497 Canadian + mexican insurgents and resistance fighters.
America best get ready for assassinations, car bombings, and sabotage.
Anonymous
>>27701181 >world peace. How can we threaten something that'll never come to fruition?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27724152 When people say 'world peace' in this context, they're not talking about utopia. They're talking about Pax Romana.
People who live within the globalized first world have not known war for 70 years. Oh their nations fight wars against barbarians and little people at the edges of first world western influence, but the average citizen never sees war.
Anonymous
>>27699497 Overall WoCoa Strategy
- play for time
-defend South America at all costs
-sabotage and cruise missile campaign in the US
-offer Mexico/Canada assistance (support guerillas)
-secure trade routes (eg. close off Mediterranran for subs)
-build up forces
-wait for the mexicans/canadians to uprise
Basically contain any US moves.
Anonymous
>>27724545 Overall NAC Strategy
-Use Navy carrier strike groups and subs to BTFO Japan, UK, and any other island nations.
-Target key infrastructure in said countries with massive bombing campaign
-USAF commences to annihilate any attempts on the carrier groups
-Use this combination to deny port access to any WoCoa forces
-Also deny oversea trade
-Secure SA to prevent an easy landhold for the WoCoa
-No navy=No invasion
Anonymous
So it seems for the most part any ground battles will be fought in S America and most of the fighting will be done by the WoCoa's and U.S.'s naval forces
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Also what is with all these people thinking Mexico and Canada will turn on the U.S. they will be destroyed to their on our side if anyone is is going to start backstabbing each other it will be WoCoa with the arabs and Israelis, Poland vs Russia, or N Korea and S Korea
Anonymous
>>27724668 -Use Navy carrier strike groups and subs to BTFO Japan, UK, and any other island nations.
How many strike groups and who is going to defend the US in the meantime. Who is commited in SA?
Are you really thinking that the US could close the Channel against the whole of Europe or the Sea of Japan against Japan, China and Russia?
-Target key infrastructure in said countries with massive bombing campaign
How massive? Only strategic bombers have the range necessary. Using carrier based planes requires to put the carriers at risk.
-USAF commences to annihilate any attempts on the carrier groups
With what planes? Please specify.
-Use this combination to deny port access to any WoCoa forces
This makes no sense. What ports do you mean?
-Secure SA to prevent an easy landhold for the WoCoa
How excatly is this going to work out? Naval forces would need to be split on both sides of the continent.
A invasion by land is kinda impossible due to the terrain in central America. Also supply lines.
-No navy=No invasion
obviously
>>27724749 I would guess the fighting would start already in central America. That most fighting will be done with naval forces is a given in this scenario. Air forces would be factor too.
As would be special operations.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27724788 How many strike groups and who is going to defend the US in the meantime. Who is commited in SA?
>Not a naval expert but the NAC outnumber every naval force on the globe, pic related >Even if only the Atlantic could be used aggressively this would bleed the UK dry Are you really thinking that the US could close the Channel against the whole of Europe or the Sea of Japan against Japan, China and Russia?
>Yes exactly that, pic related How massive? Only strategic bombers have the range necessary. Using carrier based planes requires to put the carriers at risk.
>Carriers are with the strike groups, thats how they defend themselves against land based fields. >The logistics to get the entire WoCoa airpower/naval power to one point would take months With what planes? Please specify.
>FA/18, 16, 35, 22 Etc etc This makes no sense. What ports do you mean?
>With no navy, the WoCoa can not defend its ports to build up naval strength, if those are blockaded by subs/other ships the WoCoa loses How excatly is this going to work out? Naval forces would need to be split on both sides of the continent.
A invasion by land is kinda impossible due to the terrain in central America. Also supply lines.
>wut? >Implying the WoCoa could supply anything to SA while also fighting the Navy of the NAC Anonymous
>>27699497 Team USA here, first thing Im goona do is call a state of emergency and call up all NG, AR, and IRR we have, and ask for additional volunteers. Then im going to turn all the car and truck and whatever factories into guns and weapons. In going to build a shit tonne of drones, and use those and my air force to bomb anyone I can reach, preferably on their oil lines. My submarines will have orders to sink anything not Murican, and my planes are going to be given a green light to kill anything as well.
Next we are going to secure the oceans. International shipping is no longer possible. Once that is done we are going into South America. This isn't hearts and minds though, this is "give us your shit or we kill everyone." We start with panama (im assuming Mexico and canada are cool and on our side) Once SA is taken over we build fortress America, using the cartels to run SA, and prepare for the invasion of Africa.
The cartels get to invade africa, with US air support. They flip whoever they can and kill who they can't, while forced drafting all over SA keeps their numbers up. Oil production now goes directly to our interests. Team rest of world will try to stop this but will get fucked by air power and the fact that thier supply lines will go through the middle east.
The CIA is given open reign to conduct the blackest of ops, staring shit anywhere possible, especially the muslim world. Navy seals are allowed to conduct any island ops their hearts desire, like killing groups of people and blaming it on governments or rebels. Assassinations are encouraged, and electronic warfare cripples power grids worldwide. (I am assuming no EMP's)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27727389 From bases built in Africa we can bomb europe into submission, and let the cartels run Africa. Then we pull a switcheroo and land in japan, setting up airbases there. We bomb every chinese factory we can, and release biological agents on their dense cities. We kill every man, woman, and child in China, making them an example to anyone else.
If the rest of the world doesn't surrender by now, then we simply sit in japan and africa and make sure that no factories anywhere exist that aren't making US military hardware. I think we can get Australia to come to our side, and set up bases and mining ops there. They are isolated enough that they have little to fear from the rest of the world, and a lack of shipping for the last few years has probably helped kill their spirit. We let them kill all the aboos and call it even
Anonymous
>On October 12th, 2019, most, but not all the worlds countries are united against the UAR. UAR, stands for the United American Republic. >What was the United States has undergone a name change after the annexation of Mexico and Canada, in 2016 and 2017. >The world can feel the coming war, but no one expects the December attacks. >a massive joint operation between Britain, Russia and France. Now United, with many other countries under the name, Unified European Empire With their tech tech industries now working together, they are able to hide a significant amount of bombers from the UARs radar systems (impossible, I know, I need a plot device) >the European bombers unleash there massive payloads of explosives on New York City. >the bombers were destroyed within a few hours of there initial bombing run, but the damage was done, a million people dead, half a city turned to rubble and ash within hours. >a nation no longer clouded by politics and disagreement, wants revenge. >Massive increases into an already immense military, swell its ranks to,those unseen in history. >Both sides are cranking out equipment like never before. The UAR has a significant head start over the GLOCO, but it won't last long. >The USS JFK, the USS Nimitz and the USS George Washington sent towards Europe in January of 2020, there only mission is to see Paris and London and Moscow burn >despite the modernization of the European militaries in recent years, they don't compare with the UAR's bleeding edge fighters and bombers. >the American people got what they wanted, although the JFK was sunk by a Russian sub, all three of the UEE's Capitol cities were levered.
Anonymous
>>27699497 Honestly, how would the rest of the world get by when they can no longer ship anything over seas?
Americans may be soft and dependent on a cushy lifestyle but they would toughen up quickly when it's really necessary and they are more or less self sufficient in this scenario, quality of life would drop but everyone would survive
How would having to ship everything over land work for the rest of the world? I would imagine it would make things very tough for a lot of the countries and really drop their ability to feed themselves and get the war machine turning
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27702192 >After that, Rolling Thunder 2 Electric Boogaloo oh my god, YES
Anonymous
>>27719011 You can subtract the 234 F-16s, 7 F-35s, and 86 F/A-18s from Europe due to NSA shenanigans
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27730010 oh dear me no, no Ameritech for us? How ever will we survive without the weapons we were given by the gods?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27727389 >the cartels stoped reading here
This website is 18+
Anonymous
>>27729379 >when they can no longer ship anything over seas Why do you think this will be possible?
You are seriously overestimating the USN naval power.
>>27729190 >The USS JFK, the USS Nimitz and the USS George Washington sent towards Europe in January of 2020, there only mission is to see Paris and London and Moscow burn Without Nukes a carrier has hardly enough firepower to completely level a city the size of London. Do a lot of damage surely but not without losses.
Also good luck reaching Moscow with carrier aircraft.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27727389 How exactly are the cartels supposed to destroy the entirety of African armies, let alone control 1 billion people? Also you do realize countries like Egypt, South Africa and Algeria etc have pretty powerful(comparatively) militaries, with attack helicopters, tanks and jets, right? Not to mention the fact that Africans have 10000x more experience in warfare than the cartels.
The cartels would shit themselves when exposed to the horrors of war in Africa. Shit plan/10 buddy.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27729379 I have no clue what I'm on about - the post
Anonymous
>>27699497 >the US supplies a majority of the world's technology, including critical military ones like guidance systems, and ensures that critical components are manufactured only in the US and exported to allies. >the US sits on the third largest oil reserve on the planet and uses almost none of it in anticipation of attack >the US has the entire country planned out to provide efficient movement of supplies and troops to all points in the country in case of invasion >the US is bordered by frigid conditions to the north, inhospital desert and mountains to the south, and oceans on both sides >the US spends about 3% of it's GDP on defense, and this is enough to slightly exceed the next 15 top spenders on the planet. >individual states in the US produce more product (food, technology, man power, et c) than entire countries. California has a larger economy than the entirety of France. >the USN outnumbers the combined world's military fleets nearly 10 to 1 in terms of power projection and sheer capability to deliver troops and munitions globally. >ignoring nuclear assets, the US is 2nd only to Russia in the numbers of conventional munitions globally. Russia and the US combined control over 70% of the world's conventional air assets (cluster bombs, air to ground missiles, et c) >the US has the largest professional military on the planet. other countries with larger militaries must use conscripts and paramilitary units like police to supplement numbers. >the US supplies 80% of NATO's military power, mostly through training and direct assistance programs. >the US supplies 60% of the world's staple foods like corn, rice, beans, and meat (chicken, pork, beef). the US alone is able to feed 9 billion people if no food was wasted. >the US can be entirely self sufficient and import nothing and it is primarily an export economy and major imports are consumer goods, not materiel. good luck rest of the world.
Anonymous
>>27731736 wanting to add: the US controls over 90% of all satellite communication. this includes GPS, among conventional telescopes and stuff. unless other countries use no satellites, they might find it tough to coordinate things.
Anonymous
>>27731758 Yes, lets use satellite communications to coordinate our war efforts! No one cant spy that thing!
Do you even know how troops/artillery communicate in the field?
Anonymous
>>27731736 >>27731758 The Navy has a functional railgun.
They intend to put the things in destroyers and it will accelerate a projectile that weighs 100lbs up to about 7000 mph and will be able to hit targets 200 miles away with the precision of a missile, and deliver more explosive force than a JDAM through sheer kinetic energy.
There are also weaponized laser systems and various SOSUS and PAVPAW arrays for detection and electronic warfare.
Anonymous
>>27731766 What is encryption?
Anonymous
>>27731758 Satellites will be the first thing to go for both sides.
Recon by satellite will only be able to be used for a short duration until shot down.
Anonymous
>>27731766 VHF and UHF, i was a 13F hauling around that POS PRC-117 everywhere. the problem isn't coordinating a company commander with his battery or a section or squad. it's between the FOB and HQ, or the company commander with the brigade or theater commander, or with politicians in their respective countries for organized strategies.
do YOU know how comms work in a theater?
Anonymous
>wanting to fight the US >on US soil
Anonymous
>>27731777 this assume the rest of the planet is running an awful lot of sorties on comm satellites - small targets that move very fast at a very high altitude. the US controls most of space (once again, comms satellites), so unless you have an actual plan better then "lol shot them down" you aren't going to gain much from destroying a few dozen.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>there would be a fast food chain behind every chain of grass
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27731774 there is no 100% proof encryption
>>27731778 Well, since I have commanded a platoon that builds that comm.network in the field. So, yes I kind a DO know how they work.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27731770 All those things are experimental and can't be fielded efficiently.
>The Navy has a functional railgun. It can't sustain the damage taken from firing a shell, and it is extremely expensive to operate.
But sure, it is technically functional.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27731736 It has been established that the US is a very powerful country. Good job.
I'd like to hear you outline the rest of the world's capabilities, which you'd probably list as "eurocucks, sand niggers, chinks and vatniks", given that Americans know almost fuck all about the rest of the planet and what it can do.
Anonymous
>>27731782 Why is it such a ridiculous notion?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzGmVUFDomc I draw a wild Frank Drebin. You still wanna buy a fucking vowel or what?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
The world coalition could use banks and wealthy individuals to finance politicians who would propose/pass laws that are in their favor such as "gun control" and reducing US military spending. They could also work to fund organizations which have the same goals and work to have mass media attempt to sway public opinion on such issues in a way that would be beneficial to them.
Anonymous
>>27699497 Money money money, USA privatizes military and buys out/hires every single small rebel faction across the world to cause insurrections and chaos throughout the Coalition, supplying them with biochem weaponry and man power and officiating them as legal (in North America) companies. During the insuing chaos, America begins rolling in troups through western Africa with the aid of these newly formed PMC's providing intel and diversions, and get a strong foot hold in the European theater.
For the eastern front, a more subdued operation is carried out to push the people of China to their limits, starting with many pest insects being released in the farming territories to eat up and destroy their food production. A swarm of locusts spread throughout and plague rats take up residence in the basements and cellars of many.
Mass terror tactics are used to cripple and manipulate the fears of the World Coalitions populace and everything ends up well on its way to a new dark age.
Anonymous
>>27731964 The EU offers to pay the PMCs more. And Russia launches every "destroyed" biochem weapon in their arsenal at North America in response to the locust attack.
Check, and mate
Anonymous
>>27731694 You are incorrect. A carrier can destroy a city.
Anonymous
>>27731997 >EU offers to pay PMCs more good god this thread is hilarious
Anonymous
This kind of hilarious. The entire world relies on the US. If the US completely pulls out of the international game, Europe will go bankrupt within a year. China, having there main consumer market for their cheap goods gone, will also go bankrupt. Russia would continue to barely stay afloat. The United States is the world mate, we own it all.
Anonymous
>>27731874 Because none of the world has the ability to reach its shores
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27731694 >without nukes The US would be spending every waking hour remanufacturing the technology the debuted, the war wouldn't start with them but it would end with them
Anonymous
Quoted By:
There's not a single country/continent in the world that could survive a total war between itself and the rest of the world. If you seriously think USA would win this, you are officially retarded
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27732149 Well if you read the thread, you'd realize the WoCoa's first objective is to build an adequate navy.
>>27732077 How?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>27732082 >EU GDP: 18.5 trillion >US GDP: 17.3 trillion I'm sorry what?
>>27732091 >Thinking the US is not dependent on the world >Is probably not thinking in the first place Anonymous
Quoted By:
Kind of funny how you can see the time zones affect opinions. One moment we're all having a reasonable discussion, outlining which course of action will most likely have the highest chance of success for either side, and 6 hours later; USA! USA! USA! We are strongest there issss!!!1!
Anonymous
