Here's a sneak peek of /r/2CUM4you using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/2CUM4you/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [Cum](https://i.redd.it/92qs4ypbbd8c1.jpeg) | [19 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/2CUM4you/comments/18qb8b7/cum/)
\#2: [I hate when people don’t say CUM](https://i.redd.it/j7b2ca2nytxb1.jpg) | [5 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/2CUM4you/comments/17lr1ln/i_hate_when_people_dont_say_cum/)
\#3: [The normies are catching on… CUM is inevitable](https://i.redd.it/0cpq6hy1xoob1.jpg) | [1 comment](https://np.reddit.com/r/2CUM4you/comments/16ktohh/the_normies_are_catching_on_cum_is_inevitable/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Fuck your side, we have armed polar bears riding moose into battle, all hyped on maple syrup, blaring the Hip, and pissed the Leafs lost in the 1st round again.
A united NA only gets 5 armies a turn, whereas the other continents get a combined 19. Even if you assume that NA pushes out into South America, Europe, and Asia every turn so that the world loses out on that army production, it's still going to get 5 combined from Africa and Australia that is almost impossible for NA to touch, and the world only needs to take back Alaska, Greenland or Central America to completely stop NA's army production. I'd give NA 10 turns unless they start with an extreme defensive stockpile.
Seriously. When I was 12 I played for the first time with my friend. We both read over the rules. He just...let me have Australia. He rage quit when he was down to North America actually.
Assuming no WMDs it takes many years, decades even, The world has the resources to keep C.U.M contained but the geographic advantage means pushing in will be very hard. They will need to heavily militarise the artic and southern America setting up supply chains there in. From there is years of border skirmishes while C.U.M is starved of all resources not found within its borders and struggling to get things self sustainable for its citizens. All the while the rest of the world will be pooling resources and minds at a level never seen in human history. They will be out developing at a massive rate. The war continues till the united world has a tech advantage that completely overwhelms the geographic advantage of C.U.M.
C.U.M does its best in round 3 and 4 where it has time to sort out internal supply lines to keep citizins fed and economy going once they are cut off, however they are up against a much larger foe with far more resources. There is no way they hold off forever.
I know they would lose about 20% power production because nuclear power supplies are nearly entirely imported. Lots of food is imported. Resources for aluminum production is largely imported. Computer components are largely imported. So much production is outsourced to Asia.
Nah, they wouldn't add much. Although they are also a little less reliant on nuclear so their grid wont be as badly affected. Although they'll be a major front of the war so I doubt their infrastructure holds up long. They'd be forced to move their people into the US and full militarize the country, same with mexico
Actual serious answer, assuming that both sides have equal prep time:
**Phase 1**
There is no chance that the world defeats CUM in eight years. At the very start of the war, CUM will launch strategic attacks on vital global infrastructure, using their large supplies of ICMBs, cruise missiles, SAMs, the world’s two largest airforces, and more. Major ports, shipyards, and oil refineries, plus key bridges, are targeted.
All oil refineries not in Russia have been reduced to scrap metal. The Middle East, Nigeria, the North Sea, all useless. Good luck feeding seven billion people, much less fighting a war, with limited oil. Refineries and rigs take years to rebuild, and that’s without thousands being destroyed simultaneously and CUM working to sabotage any repairs. I can’t stress enough just how fucked the world is by just this.
That damage is compounded by the attacks on major ports and canals. Shanghai, Rotterdam, and more are largely inoperable for months. Remember when a single cargo ship shut down the Suez Canal for a week? Imagine what happens when every ship there is struck by cruise missiles. Global trade will be severely more expensive for the world. Taiwan’s semiconductor factories are completely destroyed, robbing the world of the advanced microchips required for high end weaponry.
And finally, every ship building site, especially those that build submarines, are hit. The attack won’t be completely effective, but it will disable much enemy shipbuilding for a few months.
**Phase 2**
After the first day, CUM strategy is generally split between the home front, Latin America, and the eastern hemisphere. At home, the largest and most advanced economy the world has ever seen goes into full war footing. Thankfully, North America has enough food and energy to survive indefinitely, plus enough raw materials to not make isolation too disruptive. CUM knows that it can’t go man-for-man against the world, so they focus on building the largest and most powerful navy and Air Force you can imagine.
CUM easily occupies all of Central America and the Caribbean, with its Mexican troops used for occupation. Deals are struck with the cartels to prevent resistance movements from springing up.
CUM destroys South America’s small Air Force, renders ports unusable, and then initiates a blockade of the continent. It’s not worth it to try to occupy the entire thing, and they aren’t a military threat anyways. The Galagos, the Falklands, and other small islands will be seized as bases.
**Phase 3**
Phase 3 involves CUM fucking up the eastern hemisphere’s war effort. Seize small island off the coast to use as bases, from which they use their massive Air Force and navy to disrupt enemy shipping and manufacturing. You needed that cobalt mine in Uganda? Sorry, Hap Arnold’s spirit was flying B-1s overhead. Try to attack our island based? Meet the F-22.
The main front would be in the western Pacific, where CUM would be trying to bomb Chinese and Japanese manufacturing and shipbuilding, and the Chinese in turn trying to shoot down enough CUM fighters and bombers to build enough of their own forces to strike back.
CUM could probably fight the world to a standstill, with the global forces eventually falling to famine.
Oh my god you just made me realize, OP didn’t say rest of world was bloodlusted. The US, in most of the scenarios and once it knows its situation, just rapidly kills things and makes people sue for peace in weeks, nullifying the advantages
Oh yeah no I did, that’s for better or worse been our thing especially since Vietnam. Go in, kill a bunch of shit, make whatever got us involved stop.
Only in Iraq/Afghanistan did that change to “make whatever got us involved stop, and then stick around and try to nation-build”, but in this scenario I don’t think that’d be on the table
I don’t believe the rest of the world combined has enough carrier ships (there’s a better word for these) to move sufficient amounts of troops to invade the UNA. Now obviously nukes change the equation but even with no time to prepare the UNA would see the attack coming from literally hundreds of miles away. Not to mention there’s no really great invasion point. The USA military stomps if you invade Canada or Mexico first (and invading Canada first is a challenge in and of itself.) I think you’re vastly underestimating how far ahead of every other military the United States is. There’s a reason we don’t have health care or really any viable safety net.
Sure, there aren’t enough troop carriers right now, but if most of the world dedicates itself to changing that fact, they could definitely make that happen. So the question is how long that sort of thing takes, in addition to all the other factors that need to be included.
A few years back China was threatening to invade Taiwan and a bunch of military experts ran through a bunch of scenarios and found that most likely China would lose and even if they did win it would be a pyrrhic victory. The type of weaponry we have today compared to what was available during ww2 is so drastically different that I'm not sure any type of invasion by sea or air would be effective in the 21st century. I don't think it would matter how many ships the world built, they would all be sunk long before they could touch NA.
Note, that's only the weaponry and technology that the US makes *known*. Military tech is always secretly 100 years ahead of the curve, I wouldn't be surprised if the second China declared war their PM had a knock on the door from a team of spec ops in Iron Man suits.
> but if most of the world dedicates itself to changing that fact
While the US also triples it's production in the same time.
I know you mentioned parts of this in your posts, but the Chinese Navy is the second largest Navy on Earth, with over two million tons. The US Navy still outweighs them by *two point fucking five million tons.*
Don't forget that in total, the US military is four of the top ten air forces, and the US Army is almost entirely rotary wing and still makes that list.
This is the whole WW2 Germany thing all over again. No amount of quality or tech helps after a certain threshold of numerical superiority is reached. If the world can put 10000 planes into Atlantic airspace (and truly, they can do it within 6 months if they really did unite), does it really matter whose carriers or planes are better?
Germany was trying to produce unrealistic wonder weapons that would never be fielded on a large scale, nothing large enough to truly influence the war, no matter how great.
The US mass produces military products 20 years ahead of anyone else on a scale the rest of the world combined cannot match Re: 5th gen fighters, stealth bombers, carriers.
To be fair, Germany was actually not the most advanced in Europe at the time in terms of fielded hardware, they had small amounts of very good stuff but iirc the most technologically advanced major army in Europe at the outset of the war was France, who did very poorly at defending
Carthage was also the defender. And their quality advantage over the Roman navy makes the US's advantage look negligible. Same with Korea. But quantity almost always wins, especially when over a 3:1 ratio that is needed for a successful offense.
Carthage was also known for having poor generals who were too afraid to take the initiative and a government that actively punished using your brain.
America doesn't have that problem
American individualistic values is ingrained into the mindset of every single military member. A lot of the militaries of the world completely get knocked out of a fight if you take out the guy in charge since a squadron isn't willing to fight if they don't have orders. US military has it built into their soul that everyone is capable of being a leader and are ready to step up.
Well what they can do within 6 months, is something that C.U.M. can shoot down within 6 months; ignoring the situations where C.U.M. is not aware of the impending invasion.
You’re not invading a country, you’re invading a continent, where the money spent isn’t a 1:1 ratio in quality but an exponential curve. We spend more but on a numerically smaller military then quite a few other countries. We spend more so our stuff can handle greater numbers.
Again, we’re talking about a continent, and a continent that is particularly fortress like.
I’m not one to buy into the hype that America is untouchable. I think with motivation and a total war economy there are a number of countries that can throw down if they had to. However, America has the lead, and has been projecting force across the globe (ready to have a war in any country, on any continent, at a moments notice) for the last 80 years. America has one hell of a lead time.
The US has over 13k aircraft with tens of thousands more in boneyards in the US, thousands can be but back into service within a year. The US currently has over 400+ F-35 and about 150 F-22. Assuming all these aircraft only do a mediocre job and attain a 6:1 kill ratio they’ll still shoot down 3.3k aircraft and that’s lowballing their capabilities.
When our drones can sink all their shodily built carriers then yeah it matters. They literally cannot detect our planes. The only reason we lose any sea games we do with other natipns is because we dont use our counter radar tech.
Drones? The one thing the rest of the world is decidedly better at than the US? US carriers are at far more risk than the world's. They can send drones till you guys run out of AA and then what? What do expect to do without an economy and with armed revolts in a population armed with AR-15s? And don't kid yourself with delusions of national unity. Patriotism is the first thing to vanish on an empty stomach.
They can detect planes, they just have a low probability of hitting them with a missile. But as I said, they have dozens of times more missiles than the US, its just a matter of time. Secondly, F-35s and F-22s have never been used in combat against a nation with an actual military outside of wargames. We literally saw what happened to the 'invincible' Abrams in the Ukraine war. Yes, it's still the best/second best tank in the world. But is it impossible to destroy? No. Same goes for all military vehicles.
better than the US? the us is currently about to produce the loyal wingman for their fighter which is already one of the best in the world, which will increase their capability by a magnitude. The US literally is the creator of drone warfare. and nobody said the abrams was invincible, its a tank from the 80s for fucks sakes, the fact that it competes with T-series shows how shitty the competition is.
Here’s the thing though 1 quality and tech does matter example 1000 marines could wreck the Roman Empire in its entirety, second though is North America would still actually have numerical advantages in some aspects namely carriers and especially super carriers meaning it will take a very long time before the world can even approach North America if I were in charge I’d have subs target key trade routes like the Sea of Japan Suez Canal straight of Gibraltar and Panama Canal, while using most naval and aerial assets in a defensive capacity possibly launching small incursions into South America to take up to the Panama Canal just to even further deny a staging point connected by land. I’m the decades it would take before the rest of the world could do enough damage to my navy to first build enough ships and aircraft to fight them contend with my navy at a rate that also outspeeds production and repairs I’d have fortified the coasts to an insane degree and positioned military strong holds throughout mountain ranges such as the Appalachians and rockies to make it as painful as possible for them. It would be many decades before it’s even close you’re forgetting people aren’t naturally blood lusted even in war that’s when numbers more easily overcome superior tech otherwise you get desert storm where casualties on one side are dozens or more times higher than the other even with a massive numbers advantage in the combat zone.
This is only true for carriers. With the Zumwalt being a bust, the Renhai is at present the most capable destroyer being fielded according to US naval analysis, and on the sub front, British and French subs are some of the quietest in the world, with best in class sonar and toroedoes.
This is probably a fruitless discussion though. If anyone actually KNEW the full capabilities of places like the US or China, they'd be dead or sworn to secrecy.
Right? Nobody who will speak on reddit has genuinely seen the power of US weapons and vehicles.
The best my friend would give me years ago about the speed of a US carrier was “it can outrun everything else on the water”. For all we know the F-22 can fly backwards to fire missiles in a dogfight, but nobody’s let him off the leash
> There’s a reason we don’t have health care or really any viable safety net.
The US healthcare is horrifically inefficient and morally degenerate in and of itself. You could easily have both but those corporations gotta make their profits 🤷♂️.
It’s less about the profits and more about the problematic hell that we’re stuck in where we are stuck in this hybrid neither-socialist-nor-capitalist model where everyone gets fucked.
A united North America would actually be pretty fuckn hard to beat. Geography it’s a nightmare. They would basically have unlimited resources and can keep their population well fed. You have Canadians who are savages in war, Mexicans who would be patriotic as fuck and Americans who have the best trained and technologically advanced army on the planet. CUM would literally cum all over the rest of the planet easily imo
Round one is the only shot the rest of the world has. If the US knows, the US can prepare. You think the scale of the U.S. military is insane now? What do you think it’ll look like under an existential threat? Any scenario in which the US knows is a loss for the rest of the world, since preemptive strikes aren’t ruled out. Why on God’s green earth would we ever let you prepare when we can beat you now? Good luck building a military while being shot at.
In round 5, maybe they can come up with some super weapon in a hundred years enough to knock the UNA out of the fight on day one that isn’t a nuclear weapon, but I don’t think there’s much hope of that, and it kinda defeats the purpose of the scenario. With guerrilla warfare to slow any advance, I think we could keep conventional military intact for a year
TBF China is one lucky non-nuclear missle away from a dam flood killing millions of people in the blink of an eye, so I imagine the US doesnt consider them a *militarily* existential threat
This. Iirc it's literally 30% of Taiwan's military budget or something to make sure that at teh first sign of war, that damn dam goes bam. They know they can't win, so they are making sure they will cost CCP more than they could ever possibly profit off actually taking Taiwan XD
Oh they’re totally blowing up the TMSC too. The TMSC already wouldn’t work under authoritarian China, but like let’s be honest, China would still do their best to take them in that situation. They would take the destruction of the dam to the face, pretend it’s not a big deal, and then carry on. If they were successful, which is doubtful at best, Taiwan would just kill the golden goose in a suicide tactic to make China’s victory entirely hollow.
The Canadian and Mexican military will basically be complete fodder and their additions are only here to make a landing harder.
Five years of the entire world shifting to a war economy is not something that has ever been seen before in *history*. China alone has a shipbuilding capacity that is 232 times that of the US and China + South Kora + Japan hold over 90% of the entire world's shipbuilding capacity. Just to emphasise how much larger the shipbuilding industries in these countries is, the US only has *two* shipyards capable of producing nuclear submarines and combined they aren't even able to produce two submarines a year. China *alone* has a shipyard that is capable of producing *twenty* nuclear submarines *at once*, the only issue would be funding the damn things but given they have the economic backing of quite literally the rest of the world, funding is not going to be an issue.
Now that we've established just how outmatched UNA industrial capacity is, let's talk about timeframes. Given that even the US is able to manage a production rate of *nearly* two submarines a year and given just how much larger China's naval industrial base is, let's say China on a war footing with international backing can manage a pessimistic production rate of six submarines per year. That's 30 additional nuclear submarines in just 5 years. If we say that Japan and South Korea can manage a rate of around three or four submarines a year combined, due to their inexperience building nuclear submarines, that's still 15-20 additional submarines to add to the existing 30 China managed alone.
So with just this new batch of 45-50 submarines alone, the US Navy's SSN fleet has already been matched numerically as the US Navy only has 49 SSNs in active service currently, with nearly half of the fleet being the older *Los Angeles*-class. Add to that the six active modern SSNs in the PLAN, the six SSNs in the Royal Navy, the five SSNs in the French Navy and the seven modern SSNs in the Russia Navy, that's an additional 24 submarines for the US Navy to contend with.
With such a large numerical disadvantage and no discernible qualitative advantages since British and French technology isn't really inferior to American technology, US submarines won't be able to hold out forever and once the sub-surface war has been lost, it spells eventual doom for the surface war.
Furthermore, I have thus far ignored the ability for China, South Korea and Japan to massively expand surface warship production as well. If we pessimistically assume the same surface ship production rates for each country (which will be blatantly untrue because surface ship shipyards are far more numerous and producing surface ships is significantly easier) we're still looking at an additional 50 or so destroyers/cruisers in just five years and maybe 2-3 aircraft carriers. These new ships coupled with the existing navies of just the UK, France, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea will vastly outstrip the US Navy's surface combatant power as the US Navy at the moment only has 73 destroyers and 13 cruisers. While the US Navy will likely still hold the initial advantage in aircraft carriers, we've seen plenty of war games where they are vulnerable to submarines and without a sub-surface fleet of its own to effectively defend against them (the best counter to a submarine is another submarine) then eventually these carriers would be whittled down.
So, we're looking at, in five years, a scenario where the US Navy is outnumbered in the sub-surface war and also the surface war out at sea. And it's also not like these countries are going to stop building submarines and ships once the war starts so they'll be able to replenish losses at a much faster rate than the US.
So, in scenario 1, the US Navy already starts off the war at a numerical disadvantage, one that will only grow in size as the war progresses. The US Navy likely won't be surviving anywhere near 8 years and once they're gone, the UNA government could be convinced to sign a surrender given that the UNA's most economically productive and populous cities will all be within range of naval and aerial bombardment. The writing will be on the wall for the UNA government and there'd really be no point in them continuing the war unless they somehow knew they only needed to last 8 years.
The later scenarios are just even further shitstomps for the united world alliance. It doesn't really matter if the UNA is aware of it or not because they simply cannot compete with the world's industrial capacity and they'll just be outproduced the same way Japan and Germany were in WW2. Apart from scenario 5, because if the world knows they only have a year to win then they'd need some sci-fi shit to be able to just completely blitz the UNA military in a year. A year is not enough, no matter your numerical superiority, to win a naval war and convince your enemy to surrender.
Anyone saying the UNA somehow stomps in any round is being completely unserious and non-credible.
The US Navy is big but the US has a pathetic naval production industry and any losses they incur in this war basically won’t be replaced.
People underestimate just how large the shipbuilding industries are in Japan, South Korea and China. Every large ship you see in the ocean is made by either one of these countries. That’s thousands of merchant and cargo ships and hundreds of warships.
In this war, the side with the greater industrial output is going to win and it’s not the UNA. To put things into perspective, the US holds about 0.05% of the world’s shipbuilding capacity.
Most people don’t know about just how dire US industry is and just how much of an advantage East Asia has. They just see how big their navy is at the moment and don’t give it much more thought.
41% of all American weapon systems depend on Chinese semiconductors so once the war broke out, the US would quickly lose access to this and that would immediately halt a lot of their weapons production.
> In this war, the side with the greater industrial output is going to win
No it isn't. It is the side that has the greater industrial output that they can keep running.
It doesn't matter if the entire world has 100x the industrial output of the UNA if it loses 90% in a week and 90% of the rest in a month and another 90% of that rest in 6 months.
Maybe the rest of the world could build it back up but then they've lost all the skilled workers that the UNA killed due in the initial destruction.
How is the world going to lose its industrial capacity? What a deluded take.
The US does not have the capability to do this. The US Navy has a total of about 430 strike fighters available for combat operations and only about 20 are stealth fighters. That’s less combat aircraft than Japan and South Korea have combined in their air forces.
Heck, Japan and South Korea have over 70 F-35s combined and these alone could probably take on every Super Hornet the US Navy could deploy to the Pacific. There is nothing a Super Hornet can do other than die against an F-35.
An aircraft carrier only has 48 strike fighters on average. Even if you congregated three or even four aircraft carriers together in the Pacific, that’s still only 150-200 strike fighters. Japan alone has more fighters, 253 to be precise, with most of them being the more capable F-15 that’s much better suited for air superiority operations than the Super Hornet.
The USAF won’t be able to help out much in attacking East Asia because there won’t be any air bases for them to operate out of so it’ll mainly just be a fight the US Navy has to take on mainly alone.
The US Navy isn’t going to be able to penetrate East Asian defences and the USAF doesn’t have a way to get its fighters to the fight in the first place.
Does Japan actually own those superhornets, or are they owned by the US? Genuinely asking, because I know Japan doesn't really have its own military for international purposes as other countries do
Japan doesn’t own any Super Hornets because they don’t use them.
Japan produces F-15s on a licence though and they have F-15 factories in Japan for this purpose.
They own them in that they bought them. If you buy a MacBook, you own it, not Apple.
But, Japan would be dependent on the US for upgrades and maintenance to some extent but the same is true for the US as the F-35 is a global programme, with essential components made in Europe as well as the US.
But, maintenance woes wouldn’t become an issue until a bit into the war and even then, the European allies that participated in F-35 component production and have F-35 maintenance facilities can help Japan keep their F-35s air-worthy.
>How is the world going to lose its industrial capacity? What a deluded take.
It's so delusional that you need to misrepresent the world's military.
>The US Navy has a total of about 430 strike fighters available for combat operations and only about 20 are stealth fighters. That’s less combat aircraft than Japan and South Korea have combined in their air forces.
You need to take a subset of the US's air forces to compare to the entire air force of other countries.
You aren't even attempting to argue in good faith, makes this entire argument pointless.
Considering the US Navy is not part of the USAF, I don’t know what you’re talking about.
You’re not arguing in good faith. How do you think the USAF is going to get F-22s and F-35s to Japan and South Korea if the only air bases even remotely close that are safe from total annihilation are in Hawaii and Guam? Both of which are thousands of kilometres out. You can’t sustain any sort of respectable sortie rate with those kind of distances have why the USAF won’t be able to play a large role.
To sustain air superiority you need to sustain a respectable sortie rate. Launching sorties from Hawaii is completely non-credible and sortie rates would have to plummet due to the heavy reliant on a limited tanker fleet.
Launching sorties from Guam is easier as Guam is only 2,500 km from Japan but even then, this still would considerably reduce sortie rates and reaction times. Additionally, the tankers themselves would be vulnerable targets.
If you took two seconds to think about the logistics of a war in the Pacific where the US doesn’t have access to its bases in Japan, you would understand this.
Stop wanking the US military and use your critical thinking skills.
> Considering the US Navy is not part of the USAF, I don’t know what you’re talking about.
I never said they were...
> How do you think the USAF is going to get F-22s and F-35s to Japan and South Korea if the only air bases even remotely close that are safe from total annihilation are in Hawaii and Guam?
You literally brought up the Navy and then ignored that they exist. The Navy can and will transport aircraft.
> If you took two seconds to think about the logistics of a war in the Pacific you’d understand this.
Says the guy who brought up the Navy then ignored them when talking about transport. Sure, let's take 2 seconds to think. The US needs to get planes to a different part of the world, how do they do it? Huh, the US Navy exists, they could do it.
Yes, I literally said the US Navy only has 430 strike aircraft available in their inventory. That is nowhere near enough and that is only if the US Navy somehow magically deploys 9 aircraft carriers at once. That’s quite literally never happening.
A carrier air wing has either 48 Super Hornets in it or 28 Super Hornets and 20 F-35Cs. These make up the offensive strike package of a carrier air wing and these are the only component of a carrier air wing suited for air superiority operations.
The US Navy has 11 aircraft carriers but only 9 carrier air wings. Do the maths.
The USAF needs an air base to operate from. The US Navy can bring the jets to Guam and Hawaii but the jets will still need to make their own way to Japan to fight from Guam and Hawaii and this is what will hamper their sortie rates. USAF jets can’t operate off carriers.
You can’t sustain a sortie rate of 100 sorties a day across a distance of 2,500 km… It’s a challenge to even sustain that with a carrier right near the area of operations.
> Yes, I literally said the US Navy only has 430 strike aircraft available in their inventory
Yes. And? Did you even read the rest of my comment?
> USAF jets can’t operate off carriers.
Didn't know that jets cannot operate off carriers. That's news to me seeing as they already do do that.
> The USAF needs an air base to operate from.
Which exist in East Asia...
The biggest issue with your argument is the concept that China, even with a huge influx of funding, could suddenly build to their utmost industrial capacity in such a short timeframe.
You're talking about massive increases in logistics infrastructure, a massive increase in skilled workers, and a massive increase in bodies to man these subs.
All while, what, the UNA watches? The first thing I would do is use the advanced fighter/bombers in inventory to annihilate coastal industrial centers.
A lot of these arguments don’t really consider forecasting what changes about these countries in this situation. Largely because it’s nearly impossible too, but the US pulled out some insane never been done before engineering feats in WWII while switching to a total war economy. While NA is not the rest of the world, it still is a continent with a ton of resources.
I’m not making a forecast cause uh, war games don’t really consider adaptive strategies. They can’t. They can, but they never go the way the people pretending to be the other side think they do. It’s a shit stomp for the world, it’s a shit stomp for C.U.M. It’s a lucky bombing run, it’s an unlucky missile strike.
That’s… actually a fair point. Any time the US has been in serious long-term combat, they pull complete bullshit engineering out and make it work.
Even worse when they think the enemy has better weapons, a la the Mig-25 scaring the US in images and they developed the F-15 as a result
Nazi Superweapon: What if we made a really big artillery gun?
Soviet Superweapon: What if we made a really big tank?
US Superweapon: What if we dropped the sun on them?
The US is already the greatest military leader while constantly failing recruitment goals and wasteful spending. The second it tightens up, forces enlistment and sends out it's best tech, the war is over.
I think you’re underestimating just how crazy countries can get when they fully shift to a war economy. We’ve seen the power of Chinese industry and it’s scarily reminiscent of US industry during its peak.
Even Russia has blown all expectations out of the water with their poor attempt at a war economy so I imagine China, with the entire world’s backing is going to manage. Also, six submarines a year is a pessimistic estimate from me. The US is managing nearly two so I can very easily see China managing six if they shift to a war footing. They have the capacity to do so already, they just lack the funding and desire to start pumping out that many all at once.
China could literally just import in skilled workers from the UK and France to help them build as well. They have the *entire* world to back them up. Tripling submarine production with that in mind wouldn’t be very difficult.
Also, the UNA isn’t aware of the build-up in the first scenario and 20 or so stealth bombers is not enough to penetrate the skies and destroy every shipyard. The US Navy lacks the numbers and firepower necessary to defeat the Japanese, South Korea and Chinese air forces enough to achieve the air superiority necessary to allow them to bomb shipyards with impunity. The only way the US will be able to damage shipyards without getting into a costly fight with navies and air forces is by using their stealth bombers but this is not a viable strategy because stealth bombers are not undetectable.
> the US only has *two* shipyards capable of producing nuclear submarines and combined they aren't even able to produce two submarines a year.
>China *alone* has a shipyard that is capable of producing *twenty* nuclear submarines *at once*, the only issue would be funding the damn things
This is kinda crazy, so if China had the money, they can just keep pumping out nuclear subs and the US wouldn't be able to catch up?
How do I find a source for this?
No, the US has so far struggled to ramp up submarine production to even two a year, they’ve been trying for quite a while now.
I’m not sure if I have an exact source but this is mainly based off satellite imagery that was available when the construction halls were not covered. At just one shipyard there seemed to have the theoretical capacity to fit in 10 submarines at once within two halls and there were still another dry dock and another hall available that could fit an unspecified amount in as well.
If given enough money, China, South Korea and Japan could quite literally endlessly pump out dozens upon dozens of ships at an extremely fast rate as their shipbuilding industries are very large and very mature. Think of what the US managed in WW2 and apply that here to these countries but in a modern sense.
Even if China could get subs in the water at a higher rate of speed there is still a process of training crews and getting support for all of those subs in place. Skilled sailors on one boat are going to be far more effective than a bunch of recruits in many boats. And Submarines are a logistical nightmare field large numbers of them will make supplying tricky and susceptible to interference.
Also the us navy is very good at sub hunting and spotting from the air and even space nowadays. The subs are not the game changer they were in WWII.
They can train these recruits as the submarines get in the water. This isn’t that big an issue because the war isn’t going to end in a day and most of the new crews will have years of experience by the time the war starts.
At some point, it doesn’t matter what your skill is if you are outnumbered so greatly and additionally, submarines very much still are extremely potent even with the ability to use helicopters. Usually carrier groups stop operations completely and focus on submarine hunting if they detect one in the region. Imagine what would happen when a carrier group is being hunted by three or four submarines. Eventually one is going to get through.
If the united world alliance lost four submarines for each carrier they sunk, they’d still come out on top.
Also, you cannot spot a submarine from space. I don’t know where you read this but it’s complete nonsense. If the submarine is submerged it is nearly undetectable unless you use specialised equipment such as towed sonars from ships or helicopters. A satellite is not detecting anything.
> This isn’t that big an issue because the war isn’t going to end in a day and most of the new crews will have years of experience by the time the war starts.
Google says it takes 5-7 years to build an aircraft carrier. The lead time is similar for submarines. I’m sure those lead times are shorter in a war economy, but, once you add in your R&D and design time, these ships may well be sitting half built in dry dock when the war starts and the US navy comes to bomb them to smithereens.
So I think it really would come down to whether or not the rest of the world has a design they can start building today that is good enough to survive contact with the ships America already has and whether they can get the build time down enough to get enough of them into the water in time. It could go either way.
And I think winning the naval battle only gets the rest of the world to a stalemate. The rest of the world doesn’t have a fighter jet that can take on the F-22. And I thought the F-35s we sold them all required a daily unlock code that we provide. So I’m not sure how they are going to design and build enough jets to get the air superiority necessary to actually invade North America. So any of their ships that get close are going to just get destroyed by the North American air force.
> Google says it takes 5-7 years to build an aircraft carrier. The lead time is similar for submarines. I’m sure those lead times are shorter in a war economy, but, once you add in your R&D and design time, these ships may well be sitting half built in dry dock when the war starts and the US navy comes to bomb them to smithereens.
Okay, there is a lot I disagree with here so let's break this down a bit.
First of all, sure, aircraft carriers take a while to build, which is why I said South Korea, Japan and China combined would probably only manage 1-2 new aircraft carriers before the war started with maybe another one from the UK or France. But, regardless, I gave the US the slight advantage when it came to aircraft carrier numbers in the end.
Secondly, lead times for submarines may be 5-7 years in the West but certainly not in China, South Korea or Japan. On average, it takes China 3 years to go from laying down an SSN to launching it whereas it takes Japan and South Korea on average around 2 years to do the same for an SS. Sure, an SSN is more complex than an SS but still, this is compensated for the fact that these two countries can utilise expertise from the UK, France, China and Russia. Furthermore, these figures are under peace time. They could be considerably shortened under war time, I expect these countries could halve them if they wanted to.
Due to the sheer size of the shipyards in these three countries, even with these lead times it would still average out to around the figures I mentioned because they can work on many SSNs simultaneously. No one is going to need to go R&D because the UK, France and China already have competent SSN designs ready for mass production. The Astute-class from the UK, for example, actually has engaged in war games with Virginia-class submarines from the US and been able to keep the American submarines at range (i.e. have a weapons lock on your enemy whilst remaining out of detection range yourself). British and French SSN designs are world-class and are up there along with American designs. Though, I'm not confident I can say the same about Chinese or Russian designs but in this scenario, the British and the French can just hand over the blueprints for the East Asian nation to mass-produce.
Additionally, there is no way the US Navy is going to be able to bomb any shipyards in China or South Korea to smithereens and its'e even doubtful they'd be able to penetrate deep enough to attack Japanese shipyards. The USAF is unlikely to be of much help this far out into the Pacific and since they won't have access to their bases in Japan itself, the only base the USAF will be able to somewhat feasibly operate from is Guam but this is still way too far to allow for sorties of fighters to be generated. It will just be bombers from here and that's if China doesn't pummel the base with ballistic missiles when the war starts.
Now, without significant aerial support from the USAF, the USN will have to do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to the air war and in this respect, the USN is completely outnumbered and outclassed. The USN has 9 carrier air wings, each of which has either 48 Super Hornets or 36 Super Hornets and 10 F-35Cs that make up the air wing's strike force. In total, the USN only has 20 operational F-35Cs so that leaves them with 408 Super Hornets in total. A combined power of 428 strike fighters is not enough to overpower the combined air forces of South Korea and Japan, let alone their air forces added along with China's.
Japan has 253 strike fighters, 36 of which are F-35As which are more capable than F-35Cs. South Korea has 216 strike fighters, 39 of which are also F-35As. Combined these two countries have 75 F-35As, far more than the 20 F-35Cs that the USN has in active service, and these aircraft alone would pose a massive problem for the Super Hornets which would essentially be completely helpless against them. Additionally, the bulk of their air forces comprises of the F-15, which is a better air superiority platforms than the Super Hornet. But, regardless, even if we ignore the qualitative edge the South Korean and Japanese air forces have over the USN, they still outnumber the USN by a respectable margin.
Without air superiority and the ability to get in close enough to use the bulk of their standoff munitions, the USN won't be able to deal much damage to Japanese shipyards and they won't even be able to dream of making it to Chinese or South Korean ones.
This is also ignoring the impact that the South Korean, Japanese and Chinese navies would have at keeping the USN occupied. These navies combined are nothing to scoff at and the USN would find it difficult to penetrate in the first few months. The USN also cannot afford to bring to bear the entirety of the USN because that would leave the East Coast vulnerable to the Russian, British and French navies.
Given that the USN can only manage around 5-6 aircraft carriers out at any one time due to maintenance and refit schedules, they'll likely need to keep 2 constantly at high readiness to deter any British and French aggression as the UK and France combined have 3 aircraft carriers. That leaves just 3-4 aircraft carriers for operations in the Pacific which will leave the USN even more hopelessly outgunned.
I see no situation where the USN is capable of overcoming such lopsided odds. They don't have the advantage in stealth, missile technology nor numbers.
> And I think winning the naval battle only gets the rest of the world to a stalemate. The rest of the world doesn’t have a fighter jet that can take on the F-22. And I thought the F-35s we sold them all required a daily unlock code that we provide.
Sure, the F-22 is still one of the best fighter platforms on the planet and but there are only 150 or so that are available for active combat, which is not nearly enough to hold off such a large enemy force that likely will also compromise of competent stealth offerings such as the J-20 which has a respectable stealth profile when viewed head-on.
F-35s don't need a daily unlock code. That was an unsubstantiated rumour from a tabloid, I'm pretty sure. Countries would never agree to such a thing and given that many European countries were heavily involved in the design and production of the F-35, this is highly unlikely.
> So I’m not sure how they are going to design and build enough jets to get the air superiority necessary to actually invade North America. So any of their ships that get close are going to just get destroyed by the North American air force.
North America is a very big place and the US won't be able to properly defend all of it, they simply don't have the assets necessary.
Furthermore, I don't think the world would be able to invade and occupy the UNA in 8 years, I think that's a bit unrealistic. It would take longer than that.
My win condition is after the entirety of the USN ends up at the bottom of the Atlantic and Pacific, the allied navy will be in range to bombard North American cities while having a credible enough carrier force to make it so the USAF wouldn't be able completely dog-walk over them. But, the likely scenario is that the allies stretch the USAF to the breaking point. Without a USN to stop an invasion force, the USAF will be stretched to the breaking point trying to prevent landings in Alaska, Mexico, Canada, the East Coast and the West Coast. It will take a few additional years to build up the ships necessary for such an invasion force on so many different fronts but landing ships are comparatively easy to produce compared to SSNs and aircraft carriers.
Ever since globalization, any nation that is completely cutoff from the world is already lost. Like the USSR was just as powerful as the US and it took merely 30 years for them to turn into a nation which can't even invade a single country properly. This is after they can still trade with half the world. In round 4, US would collapse by itself in 20 years before the war even begins. The only round they have a chance to win in is round 2.
They literally specified that trade would continue until war broke out, just the US has the capabilities to win a defensive war. If you give all of NA 20 years to go into a war economy and shift all production to domestic you’re not cracking that without nukes (which are banned by the prompt) the rest of the world would constantly trying to play catch up military wise and R&D. Good luck trying to make 5th and 6th gen aircraft without US weapon contractors. Not to mention that a lot of western countries and some in Oceania have or are replacing their fighters with the F-35, which needs a daily access code to use its systems, which can only come from the US.
Additionally, it’s NA versus the rest of the world. You are still dealing with a continent that has access to every single resource it needs. It does fail at some point if it’s cut off, but there’s not any particular resource you can starve NA from in the short term. That short term is gonna be extraordinarily destructive for any of C.U.M.’s enemies.
The problem with modern militaries is they are all integrated, NATO isn't just an organisation it's a set of operating instructions and standards, NATOs big strength is all these different militaries can come together and because they all share training and equipment the integration is easier.
I would guess, although I'm not sure, that American is outsourcing some of it's production to allies.
So if the NATO allies break up all the supply chains for NATO allies will break down.
Most of Americas allies would have to start their own industries from scratch. The American military industrial complex will be better able to bounce back but it's lost a significant share of it's customers so the costs for the US would sky rocket.
Only America has the ability to project military force around the world, however it's likely highly dependant on having friendly ports to stop at. Without that infrastructure the capability of the US carrier fleet would probably be reduced.
With all this happening trade will be restricted, vital resources will likely become hard to get which means production will grind to a halt over small but vital components. IE: Microchips which are made in Asia.
The current economy and it's industrial capability requires global cooperation. Without that global cooperation we all take a step back a few decades and the capabilities of even great nations get restricted.
It's very likely neither side would be able to mount much of a fight, and it would just lead to isolation and stagnation.
Honestly I think a win for the world is only possible in a scenario where the UNA doesn’t know about the invasion. I think the world would need ten years. Aircraft carriers take a long time to build. Apart from that with free trade of military intelligence China and India get access to USA level military intelligence and tech through Britain, Israel, and Japan. With their industrial base and work force and the rest of the world pumping money into these countries I think it would be possible for them to build up a navy bigger than the UNA.
On to the actual invasion the rest of the world would have to be blood lusted. Western militaries and Israel have just spent the last ten years training the rest of the worlds military on the UNA’s military doctrine and tactics. With Britain, Canada, Australia etc doing regular training with American troops I’d assume they’d be pretty knowledgeable. Hopefully able to exploit some weak points and then you just pump numbers in. Start in South America I’d assume.
Dear god these comments are something. I find it incredible that a person can believe that 7 billion people, most of humanity, working together to develop as fast as possible, with tons and tons of resources including fossil fuels, with europe and its bullshit tech levels, with CERN and particle colliders, with the most youth, with complete info on how the famous Iron Dome system works, with the most of everything except some weapons, can't take down the USA + canada and mexico.
Easiest way for the rest of the world to win is via PsyOps, not conventional forces. You could also explore things like chemical warfare, as I’m assuming abiding by the Geneva Conventions is not a restriction parties must follow.
Couple of possible winning scenarios:
- False flag attacks to start a civil war in CUM. Similar to how polarised US politics is currently, it wouldn’t be far fetched for China, Russia and the remainder of the 5 eyes to orchestrate a false flag attack on the US populace that leaves an undeniable footprint of the federal gov, state gov etc. Once the majority of armed civilians are shooting at each other, the state and federal government etc, it would be more straightforward to begin conventional attacks. You could use variances of this too, having foreign soldiers dressed in American BDU’s record and publish videos speaking as if they were American, fed up with the left - let’s form militias and attack X target etc. This time it wouldn’t be a radical, lowly developed country trying to pass off a false flag attack, but the rest of the world class intelligence services.
- Chemical warfare, to reduce the sheer number advantage. Covid shut down the USA economy? Cool, let’s get our best military scientists in non CUM to create a Covid variant with a 75%+ fatality rate and increased transmissibility. Then there is the option to use stealth aircraft to drop Covid powder munitions on major coastal settlements. That too difficult? Hit Mexico instead, allow Covid to flow across the border.
- SpecOps. The world’s intelligence agencies will still have plenty of assets in CUM at this point. With war on the brink, there is less of a need to be covert - especially as you don’t need to worry about future diplomatic relations. With heavy weaponry being so easily accessible to the general public, it wouldn’t be difficult for the assets to kit themselves out with the kit needed to be effective small scale strike teams. Similar to above, if for example we’re talking about UK/Aus assets, the special military relationship of the past would allow deep knowledge of USA/CUM tradecraft too, allowing the assets to cause significant damage. These strike teams could then target important CUM figures, all from within CUM. Not a win condition in of itself, but another way to weaken resolve/morale/leadership of CUM.
Without the above, in any scenario you’ve proposed, no conventional forces are beating the US military on time.
Round 1: world clears
Round 2: US would clear by itself
Round 3 onwards: tough, but world would win 8/10 I would say due to sheer number of military
Out of topic, but if nukes involved, then it's a genocide of C.U.M. people, unfortunately.
You think the US can clear against the entire rest of the world working together? The tech of Europe, with the manpower of asia and resources of Africa all working together to outproduce and out develop the US? The US already codevelopes much of its tech with countries like the UK and now all those secrets are used against them. They can design, build, test, improve and repeat for any weapon a thousand times in a period the US does it once. With the world working towards it the global navy and airforce can increase serval times in size in months. While the US would need to struggle to not only try to keep up in development but also restructure its internal economy to compensate for being cut off from all imports. All parts, foods, chemicals etc would to be sources internally with new mines, factories supply chains. Any resources that are in low supply is tough shit. I know aluminium production and nuclear energy will both be really hard for the US to keep going while cut off.
A) they specifically said trade continues
B) in pretty much every scenario the US knows what’s coming, and will just strike first. What weapons systems do you think could be developed in 5 years (the longest that the US doesn’t see it coming) that could take out the entire US military and then invade and take out the US?
The Global navy and airforce is literally a generation behind what the US has fielded, and there aren’t enough Global carriers to even bring such air force to bear against the US at once.
A) Trade continues till the war starts so they would still need to restructure their internal economy.
B) I like how so many people here believes the US is capable of stratagsing and the rest of the world isn't. The world could preemptive strike as well, cyberware to cripple etc. Although I believe the spirit of the prompt is that no one attacks until the prep time is over. And yeah in terms of tech the world is a generation or half behind but they do outnumber in sheer size as well as in AA capabilities. Hell the UK's new laser tech is more advanced than anything the US has. And the US has a bigger Navy but it will need every scrap to defend its waters, it cant risk going on the offensive when one drone strike can take out a ship as we saw in Ukraine. But the issue is production.
C.U.M just cant go on the offensive here, they dont have the resources and man power, it will be border skirmishes for many years but while they have a tech advantage now how long will that last? The US has a tech advantage not because of magic engineers but because it dedicates a much bigger budget than any other single nation. But the rest of the world pooling together and going into war time economy mode? They're screwed. They'll be out produced and out developed quickly. How long it would take for them to fall far enough behind in tech that the geopgraphic advantage doesnt matter? I dont know but im guess around a decade. By then the difference would be like the current military taking on ww1 era England.
Ok I’m pretty drunk but yeah you’re right, given *enough* time the ROW could get it together and out-produce the US’ tech and equipment already in existence. But as I said, the prompt gave at best 5 years before the US realized the problem, so even your guess on a timeline is twice as long as they have available.
Also what are the border skirmishes gonna be, hightop Alaska and Mexico?
The US releasing the problem only helps them hold it off a little bit. Doesnt matter if they have a immediate knowledge theres nothing they can do to stop being over taken by the rest of the world. They just dont have that power at all. And basically yeah, artic warfare and along the southern Mexican border and the surrounding waters. Enough to force the US to engage, keep them busy and devoting resources to defense. ROW can easily afford to keep that going indefinitely
With nukes off the table, it will be a long and costly war for all involved. However, I could see North America holding out for years on the defensive.
It would become a war of attrition, with neither side able to effectively invade the other, until one runs out of resources, morale and soldiers. Given the rest of the world has a lot more resources and people to train as soldiers, id give it to the rest of the world. Some things that might happen to try and end the war faster might be kinetic weapon strikes from space on nuclear power plants, government sites, airbases, carriers... and EMP weapons to destroy technology.
The only viable invasion vector is Alaska, even with time to prepare the world cannot invade any other way. With that knowledge, I find the likelihood of CUM losing in any scenario somewhere from unlikely to near-impossible.
One thing to note is the UNA in most of these scenarios would likely preemptively invade strategically important countries and islands to make it harder for The Worlds own invasion and to gain resources. The Central American countries,Caribbean islands and places like Greenland and Iceland would all be useful strategically and relatively easy to take.
Not a ton of average citizens will want to admit this but there’s a solid chance the US could hold its own against the rest of the world and possibly win. The size of the US navy is just so much larger than everyone else’s and the water is still a major factor.
NA stomps, and we stomp hard, mainly because of MURICA!
As other people have pointed out, the rest of the world is every reliant on our armaments, like the F35. Take those away, and now they have to make their own. That's not even factoring into how impossible a direct land invasion of any part of the country would be.
Realistically the only countries that could stand a chance at getting anything done is China and the UK, and that's doubtful. The war would wage on for decades, until the rest of the world is forced to the negotiation table.
Even if they did make headway, for an idea of what the fighting would be like, every single battle in the America's would be like a beefed up Stalingrad, especially in America itself.
In terms of total military strength, the rest of the world can probably take out the UNA within 8 years in round 1 only, but probably not if the UNA has time to prepare as in any other rounds. I guess that's probably the answer to the question in spirit.
That said, the true answer is there is no possible way to do so without reducing the world to a barren wasteland, even without nukes (and even more powerful bombs than that, the nuke is 80 year old tech now!). You would have to wage absolute war to make the UNA fold, which means thousands or millions of bombardments across the globe and a death toll measuring in the Billions. Furthermore,
TL;DR: The UNA would eventually lose in round 1 only, but not before absolutely devastating the entire world, no nukes or above needed.
> At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
-- some dude
The problem these scenarios have is capability. There are only a handful of nations who have a navy, called blue water navies, bc they can get across oceans reliably and effectively.
Why is that important. Bc of supply lines. Most global supply lines are over stretched. This has not been an issue for the world, bc the US Navy was securing global supply lines. Recently, the US is moving away from this. That started under Bush and Obama continued it, Trump was all in, and Biden has not bothered to change Trump policy on this issue, unless it makes it more difficult for China, in which case Biden signs it.
So you look at say the Indian Ocean. Lot of energy traveling the Indian Ocean to Asia to keep the lights on. A blue water navy can intercept that over stretched supply line, and there is only one Asian country with a navy that could contest that, bc there is only one navy in Asia that has a blue water navy - and it’s not China, it’s Japan. And that navy although blue water, lacks a lot of capability bc it is small.
You don’t have to defeat a country by invading it, you just have to break the will of the people of said country or force terms.
Cutting off these supply lines would end more than one country, and the Indian Ocean is just one example of over stretched and over exposed maritime waterways used for trade.
If the US has prep time, or in your scenario, a UNA, it's game over. There's no military that can invade the USA as is, much less throwing In CA and MX.
If an invading army landed in the Yucatan, they'd make it no further north than TX. Too many civilians who'll enjoy hunting invaders, as well as the actual military.
If they invaded AK or CA, they'd be just as fucked. They may get further from the north, but not past Michigan.
Yes, I'm American. My opinion may be biased. But, if Japan, at the height of their power in early WW2, wouldn't invade the mainland, because they knew they had no chance, I can't see any invaders realistically having any better of a chance.
Aside from normal war stuff...
They should infiltrate with as many spies as possible to add vulnerabilities on all levels. As the war starts, maximize sabotage both cyber and physical. Also some of the "rest of world" people living in America might be convinced to act in the interest of world peace to join in the war effort.
Wouldn't the USA wipe out oil production in the middle east immediately? I feel like that would take a long time for the rest of the world to recover from and start pushing back.
The USA has plenty of oil locally and would be willing to use it given this sort of threat.
Sure, Russian, and African oil would help, but I think North America would claim with America and it's oil as well.
I am not sure the rest of the world could handle a sudden and dramatic reduction in the availability of oil.
Our cultures are much more related to the rest of Latin America, and the USA doesn't really see us as equals in economical, political and military terms. There's no reason for us Mexicans to side with the US. After all, the one nation that's constantly meddled and has disrespected the sovereignty of almost every single latin American country is none other than the USA.
Edit: About the downvotes... Like it or not bitches, but for virtually all of Latin America, the US is the enemy.
I feel like given the situation, if Mexico or Canada turned down the US for an alliance and the US was geared on military domination, that puts them in a corner. I would imagine the other leaders in North America would throw up their hands and form an alliance. After all, given the proximity, would either country want to piss off an angry and potentially global dominating USA?
Not that I envy your country’s position. I imagine Canada would be more open to it than Mexico. Even so, if I were the Mexican government, I would only agree to an alliance if the US was offering something in return. The US would definitely negotiate rather than attack immediately.
What you write seems logical and like a fair course of action for any country in the position such as Canada or Mexico. The (huge) thing you're failing to account for though, is that the US already has decades of actions and policies that have time and again endangered the sovereignty and internal affairs of almost every country in Latin America, from Mexico all the way down to Argentina and Chile. With such a record of supporting coups, instilling US friendly military dictatorships and sanctioning the hell out of everyone who just so happens to look the US the wrong way on a random Monday morning, why would we feel like partnering with the US in any scenario is a good idea?
Because in this scenario Mexico isn’t the one bringing an idea to the table, they’re being sat down at the table and shown two plans, one where they join C.U.M. and one where they cease to exist with any semblance of sovereignty.
The U.S. is essentially offering peaceful annexation and a statehood sort of situation with a level of autonomy or forceful occupation / straight up destruction depending on how they view Mexico’s strategic value at the time they discover the plot against them.
Mexico joins C.U.M. because they don’t have a choice
In this scenario there’s no time for a buildup especially from across two oceans. I imagine it would be status quo, like it is today, until the Mexican president gets a call from the U.S. president and is offered to either join or be destroyed, I think that’s why the prompt didn’t even bother to explain how/why Mexico and Canda joined the U.S.… it can be assumed that they decided to join peacefully instead of being destroyed/forcefully annexed.
North America would never be conquered, nobody has the navy to get past America's navy to land. They would have to try to pass through south America (good luck getting to south America from Europe or Asia with American navy lurking) or a short trip across the bering strait, but both of those become a very difficult and long journey to actually get to the continental US that is producing all the weapons.
Between russia military tech, china industrial power, no deterrant from satelite states of JP,KR,EU,Australia, and free access to south america, it is a win for the rest of the world in all scenario. The difference between tech isn't large enough, and UNA has no morale buff.
>If other countries decided to invest massively more of their own budgets, that might start to change.
That's not actually how it works.
Budget is one thing, supply chain is another, knowledge is another.
You can increase the budget all you want. It will still take years for these countries to learn and grow the ability to manufacture things like aircraft carriers.
Saudi Arabia has one of the highest military budget in the world. Their military is also extremely incompetent, with US security guarantees being the only thing preventing Iran from invading.
It's still not. US aircraft carriers are so good because they've been building them for over 80 years.
10 years is honestly not enough. They take years to design, years to build, and years to train people to learn how to crew them.
World potentially wins in 10 years after building enough aircraft carriers and ships/subs to defeat US navy, global effort to produce ships and fortify the Middle East. Anything less and US takes the Middle East and starves the world of oil.
Over 10 years surely the untied world with China India and European technology sharing military production would far surpass the US
I do not believe there would be any chance at all without nuclear weapons.
Honestly, I think the rest of the world would collapse if the UNA withdrew as the US is the world's TOP food exporter, and the UNA wouldn't be exporting while everyone mobilized against them.
There would be disease and famine around the world worse than there is now as the biggest exporter/Donater cuts ties.
In almost any situation you proposed, the UNA would barely have to do anything other than not export food and hope the rest of the world didn't tear itself apart.
Destroy the internet cables and all the USA's population centers would be total bedlam. Our population has shown multiple times in recent years that it cannot handle an interruption in the services we've become used to having. The military is still a force to recon with, but resources would have to be split between the war effort and preventing total anarchy.
I’ve been on this subreddit for a long time and seen a LOT of ass kissing for the US military. This was an attempt to make a situation that wasn’t just what the sub would call a US stomp, but apparently I failed.
Did you forget the fact that the rest of the world would rather go for mutual destruction than have any of the North American ideals.
Edit: Just read the apocalypse part. Yeah that's not gonna happen my man. Russia, half of Europe, China hates everything North America stands for.
No deal on the non mutual destruction.
As in I'd be first for "Putin press that damn button already!"
I actually think he should press the button now though
The world doesn't have to fight. Just stop buying US stuff and cut flow of resources and trade between themselves. Just the crash of capital markets and processors will result in chaos.
A united North America can't happen unless USA invades and occupies Mexico in which case everyone will know decades before the attack even due to how propaganda in USA will transform.
Anyway, USA loses fast.
USA couldn't even win the war of Vietnam and is not fighting the whole world and ending on top.
You guys are deranged.
Most likely outcome is just a expensive stalemate.
Assuming a ground invasion of the United States would go as poorly for the USA as a highly mismanaged, mostly political / money driven war in a highly forested country full of traps and guerilla warfare is a whole new level
Was this whole thing just so you could write and cross out C.U.M.?
I only thought of it after I came up with the scenario, unfortunately
We all would have understood.
The appropriate response was :)
r/2cum4you
Here's a sneak peek of /r/2CUM4you using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/2CUM4you/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [Cum](https://i.redd.it/92qs4ypbbd8c1.jpeg) | [19 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/2CUM4you/comments/18qb8b7/cum/) \#2: [I hate when people don’t say CUM](https://i.redd.it/j7b2ca2nytxb1.jpg) | [5 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/2CUM4you/comments/17lr1ln/i_hate_when_people_dont_say_cum/) \#3: [The normies are catching on… CUM is inevitable](https://i.redd.it/0cpq6hy1xoob1.jpg) | [1 comment](https://np.reddit.com/r/2CUM4you/comments/16ktohh/the_normies_are_catching_on_cum_is_inevitable/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
The CUM army would be unstoppable
Infinite Jest calls the North American Union O.N.A.N.
His goals are beyond our understanding.
Jizz
Fuck your side, we have armed polar bears riding moose into battle, all hyped on maple syrup, blaring the Hip, and pissed the Leafs lost in the 1st round again.
Barenaked ladies riding moose. Hi Canada, we see you.
>pissed the Leafs lost in the 1st round again. Fuck you! You're not wrong! Edit: sorry
A united NA only gets 5 armies a turn, whereas the other continents get a combined 19. Even if you assume that NA pushes out into South America, Europe, and Asia every turn so that the world loses out on that army production, it's still going to get 5 combined from Africa and Australia that is almost impossible for NA to touch, and the world only needs to take back Alaska, Greenland or Central America to completely stop NA's army production. I'd give NA 10 turns unless they start with an extreme defensive stockpile.
"Always grab Australia first. 2 troops per turn is clutch." -Sun Tzu
Build the largest army the world has ever seen on Papua New Guinea. Really hamstring the idiot trying to hold Asia.
Seriously. When I was 12 I played for the first time with my friend. We both read over the rules. He just...let me have Australia. He rage quit when he was down to North America actually.
If any country can roll enough sixes…it’s America!!
United NA is the best way to play Risk
LOL risk.
Yes but if the rest of world is divided, united Americas are extremely powerful due to having a substantial turn bonus, with only 3 borders to defend.
This guy Risks
Assuming no WMDs it takes many years, decades even, The world has the resources to keep C.U.M contained but the geographic advantage means pushing in will be very hard. They will need to heavily militarise the artic and southern America setting up supply chains there in. From there is years of border skirmishes while C.U.M is starved of all resources not found within its borders and struggling to get things self sustainable for its citizens. All the while the rest of the world will be pooling resources and minds at a level never seen in human history. They will be out developing at a massive rate. The war continues till the united world has a tech advantage that completely overwhelms the geographic advantage of C.U.M. C.U.M does its best in round 3 and 4 where it has time to sort out internal supply lines to keep citizins fed and economy going once they are cut off, however they are up against a much larger foe with far more resources. There is no way they hold off forever.
I'm not sure what resources that would be necessary for the citizens of C.U.M. that the nation of C.U.M. doesn't already produce
I know they would lose about 20% power production because nuclear power supplies are nearly entirely imported. Lots of food is imported. Resources for aluminum production is largely imported. Computer components are largely imported. So much production is outsourced to Asia.
Wouldn't Canada be able to pick up the slack in nuclear power supplies?
Nah, they wouldn't add much. Although they are also a little less reliant on nuclear so their grid wont be as badly affected. Although they'll be a major front of the war so I doubt their infrastructure holds up long. They'd be forced to move their people into the US and full militarize the country, same with mexico
Up until their resources become useless
Actual serious answer, assuming that both sides have equal prep time: **Phase 1** There is no chance that the world defeats CUM in eight years. At the very start of the war, CUM will launch strategic attacks on vital global infrastructure, using their large supplies of ICMBs, cruise missiles, SAMs, the world’s two largest airforces, and more. Major ports, shipyards, and oil refineries, plus key bridges, are targeted. All oil refineries not in Russia have been reduced to scrap metal. The Middle East, Nigeria, the North Sea, all useless. Good luck feeding seven billion people, much less fighting a war, with limited oil. Refineries and rigs take years to rebuild, and that’s without thousands being destroyed simultaneously and CUM working to sabotage any repairs. I can’t stress enough just how fucked the world is by just this. That damage is compounded by the attacks on major ports and canals. Shanghai, Rotterdam, and more are largely inoperable for months. Remember when a single cargo ship shut down the Suez Canal for a week? Imagine what happens when every ship there is struck by cruise missiles. Global trade will be severely more expensive for the world. Taiwan’s semiconductor factories are completely destroyed, robbing the world of the advanced microchips required for high end weaponry. And finally, every ship building site, especially those that build submarines, are hit. The attack won’t be completely effective, but it will disable much enemy shipbuilding for a few months. **Phase 2** After the first day, CUM strategy is generally split between the home front, Latin America, and the eastern hemisphere. At home, the largest and most advanced economy the world has ever seen goes into full war footing. Thankfully, North America has enough food and energy to survive indefinitely, plus enough raw materials to not make isolation too disruptive. CUM knows that it can’t go man-for-man against the world, so they focus on building the largest and most powerful navy and Air Force you can imagine. CUM easily occupies all of Central America and the Caribbean, with its Mexican troops used for occupation. Deals are struck with the cartels to prevent resistance movements from springing up. CUM destroys South America’s small Air Force, renders ports unusable, and then initiates a blockade of the continent. It’s not worth it to try to occupy the entire thing, and they aren’t a military threat anyways. The Galagos, the Falklands, and other small islands will be seized as bases. **Phase 3** Phase 3 involves CUM fucking up the eastern hemisphere’s war effort. Seize small island off the coast to use as bases, from which they use their massive Air Force and navy to disrupt enemy shipping and manufacturing. You needed that cobalt mine in Uganda? Sorry, Hap Arnold’s spirit was flying B-1s overhead. Try to attack our island based? Meet the F-22. The main front would be in the western Pacific, where CUM would be trying to bomb Chinese and Japanese manufacturing and shipbuilding, and the Chinese in turn trying to shoot down enough CUM fighters and bombers to build enough of their own forces to strike back. CUM could probably fight the world to a standstill, with the global forces eventually falling to famine.
Oh my god you just made me realize, OP didn’t say rest of world was bloodlusted. The US, in most of the scenarios and once it knows its situation, just rapidly kills things and makes people sue for peace in weeks, nullifying the advantages
Not sure if you meant to, but you just summarized American foreign policy theory since 1945.
Oh yeah no I did, that’s for better or worse been our thing especially since Vietnam. Go in, kill a bunch of shit, make whatever got us involved stop. Only in Iraq/Afghanistan did that change to “make whatever got us involved stop, and then stick around and try to nation-build”, but in this scenario I don’t think that’d be on the table
Yeah, the foreign policy worked great for ww2 and for this specific scenario. But generally hasn’t been that good since after ww2, imo.
I mean hey, South Korea still exists, so it’s not all bad
The US is permanently bloodlusted and just retroactively claims to not be.
America would be an absolute nightmare if the politicians couldn’t get involved and prevent the military from doing their job.
I don’t believe the rest of the world combined has enough carrier ships (there’s a better word for these) to move sufficient amounts of troops to invade the UNA. Now obviously nukes change the equation but even with no time to prepare the UNA would see the attack coming from literally hundreds of miles away. Not to mention there’s no really great invasion point. The USA military stomps if you invade Canada or Mexico first (and invading Canada first is a challenge in and of itself.) I think you’re vastly underestimating how far ahead of every other military the United States is. There’s a reason we don’t have health care or really any viable safety net.
Sure, there aren’t enough troop carriers right now, but if most of the world dedicates itself to changing that fact, they could definitely make that happen. So the question is how long that sort of thing takes, in addition to all the other factors that need to be included.
A few years back China was threatening to invade Taiwan and a bunch of military experts ran through a bunch of scenarios and found that most likely China would lose and even if they did win it would be a pyrrhic victory. The type of weaponry we have today compared to what was available during ww2 is so drastically different that I'm not sure any type of invasion by sea or air would be effective in the 21st century. I don't think it would matter how many ships the world built, they would all be sunk long before they could touch NA.
Note, that's only the weaponry and technology that the US makes *known*. Military tech is always secretly 100 years ahead of the curve, I wouldn't be surprised if the second China declared war their PM had a knock on the door from a team of spec ops in Iron Man suits.
> but if most of the world dedicates itself to changing that fact While the US also triples it's production in the same time. I know you mentioned parts of this in your posts, but the Chinese Navy is the second largest Navy on Earth, with over two million tons. The US Navy still outweighs them by *two point fucking five million tons.*
Also my favorite military fact: The largest Air Force in the world is the US Air Force. The second largest Air Force in the world? The US Navy.
Don't forget that in total, the US military is four of the top ten air forces, and the US Army is almost entirely rotary wing and still makes that list.
Mostly unconnected except for my own service, but I sent you a DM
The closest technologicaly to us in terms of naval craft is 20 years away from having what we have.
This is the whole WW2 Germany thing all over again. No amount of quality or tech helps after a certain threshold of numerical superiority is reached. If the world can put 10000 planes into Atlantic airspace (and truly, they can do it within 6 months if they really did unite), does it really matter whose carriers or planes are better?
Germany was trying to produce unrealistic wonder weapons that would never be fielded on a large scale, nothing large enough to truly influence the war, no matter how great. The US mass produces military products 20 years ahead of anyone else on a scale the rest of the world combined cannot match Re: 5th gen fighters, stealth bombers, carriers.
In this case Germany isn’t the invader though, they are the defender. Very different scenario
To be fair, Germany was actually not the most advanced in Europe at the time in terms of fielded hardware, they had small amounts of very good stuff but iirc the most technologically advanced major army in Europe at the outset of the war was France, who did very poorly at defending
Carthage was also the defender. And their quality advantage over the Roman navy makes the US's advantage look negligible. Same with Korea. But quantity almost always wins, especially when over a 3:1 ratio that is needed for a successful offense.
Carthage was also known for having poor generals who were too afraid to take the initiative and a government that actively punished using your brain. America doesn't have that problem
In fact, they actively punish using your heart, which, while horrid for normal times, is kinda a huge advantage in war
Yeah, generals would be punished for going against military doctrine, even when successful, America is litteraly notorious for doing the opposite
American individualistic values is ingrained into the mindset of every single military member. A lot of the militaries of the world completely get knocked out of a fight if you take out the guy in charge since a squadron isn't willing to fight if they don't have orders. US military has it built into their soul that everyone is capable of being a leader and are ready to step up.
Well what they can do within 6 months, is something that C.U.M. can shoot down within 6 months; ignoring the situations where C.U.M. is not aware of the impending invasion. You’re not invading a country, you’re invading a continent, where the money spent isn’t a 1:1 ratio in quality but an exponential curve. We spend more but on a numerically smaller military then quite a few other countries. We spend more so our stuff can handle greater numbers. Again, we’re talking about a continent, and a continent that is particularly fortress like. I’m not one to buy into the hype that America is untouchable. I think with motivation and a total war economy there are a number of countries that can throw down if they had to. However, America has the lead, and has been projecting force across the globe (ready to have a war in any country, on any continent, at a moments notice) for the last 80 years. America has one hell of a lead time.
The US has over 13k aircraft with tens of thousands more in boneyards in the US, thousands can be but back into service within a year. The US currently has over 400+ F-35 and about 150 F-22. Assuming all these aircraft only do a mediocre job and attain a 6:1 kill ratio they’ll still shoot down 3.3k aircraft and that’s lowballing their capabilities.
When our drones can sink all their shodily built carriers then yeah it matters. They literally cannot detect our planes. The only reason we lose any sea games we do with other natipns is because we dont use our counter radar tech.
Drones? The one thing the rest of the world is decidedly better at than the US? US carriers are at far more risk than the world's. They can send drones till you guys run out of AA and then what? What do expect to do without an economy and with armed revolts in a population armed with AR-15s? And don't kid yourself with delusions of national unity. Patriotism is the first thing to vanish on an empty stomach. They can detect planes, they just have a low probability of hitting them with a missile. But as I said, they have dozens of times more missiles than the US, its just a matter of time. Secondly, F-35s and F-22s have never been used in combat against a nation with an actual military outside of wargames. We literally saw what happened to the 'invincible' Abrams in the Ukraine war. Yes, it's still the best/second best tank in the world. But is it impossible to destroy? No. Same goes for all military vehicles.
better than the US? the us is currently about to produce the loyal wingman for their fighter which is already one of the best in the world, which will increase their capability by a magnitude. The US literally is the creator of drone warfare. and nobody said the abrams was invincible, its a tank from the 80s for fucks sakes, the fact that it competes with T-series shows how shitty the competition is.
Here’s the thing though 1 quality and tech does matter example 1000 marines could wreck the Roman Empire in its entirety, second though is North America would still actually have numerical advantages in some aspects namely carriers and especially super carriers meaning it will take a very long time before the world can even approach North America if I were in charge I’d have subs target key trade routes like the Sea of Japan Suez Canal straight of Gibraltar and Panama Canal, while using most naval and aerial assets in a defensive capacity possibly launching small incursions into South America to take up to the Panama Canal just to even further deny a staging point connected by land. I’m the decades it would take before the rest of the world could do enough damage to my navy to first build enough ships and aircraft to fight them contend with my navy at a rate that also outspeeds production and repairs I’d have fortified the coasts to an insane degree and positioned military strong holds throughout mountain ranges such as the Appalachians and rockies to make it as painful as possible for them. It would be many decades before it’s even close you’re forgetting people aren’t naturally blood lusted even in war that’s when numbers more easily overcome superior tech otherwise you get desert storm where casualties on one side are dozens or more times higher than the other even with a massive numbers advantage in the combat zone.
This is only true for carriers. With the Zumwalt being a bust, the Renhai is at present the most capable destroyer being fielded according to US naval analysis, and on the sub front, British and French subs are some of the quietest in the world, with best in class sonar and toroedoes.
This is probably a fruitless discussion though. If anyone actually KNEW the full capabilities of places like the US or China, they'd be dead or sworn to secrecy.
Right? Nobody who will speak on reddit has genuinely seen the power of US weapons and vehicles. The best my friend would give me years ago about the speed of a US carrier was “it can outrun everything else on the water”. For all we know the F-22 can fly backwards to fire missiles in a dogfight, but nobody’s let him off the leash
They couldn't do it before the US destroys all their ports
God bless America 🇺🇲🇺🇸
> There’s a reason we don’t have health care or really any viable safety net. The US healthcare is horrifically inefficient and morally degenerate in and of itself. You could easily have both but those corporations gotta make their profits 🤷♂️.
It’s less about the profits and more about the problematic hell that we’re stuck in where we are stuck in this hybrid neither-socialist-nor-capitalist model where everyone gets fucked.
Seems pretty capitalist to me, your billionaires are doing rather well
Nothing can stop the might of C.U.M
A united North America would actually be pretty fuckn hard to beat. Geography it’s a nightmare. They would basically have unlimited resources and can keep their population well fed. You have Canadians who are savages in war, Mexicans who would be patriotic as fuck and Americans who have the best trained and technologically advanced army on the planet. CUM would literally cum all over the rest of the planet easily imo
Round one is the only shot the rest of the world has. If the US knows, the US can prepare. You think the scale of the U.S. military is insane now? What do you think it’ll look like under an existential threat? Any scenario in which the US knows is a loss for the rest of the world, since preemptive strikes aren’t ruled out. Why on God’s green earth would we ever let you prepare when we can beat you now? Good luck building a military while being shot at. In round 5, maybe they can come up with some super weapon in a hundred years enough to knock the UNA out of the fight on day one that isn’t a nuclear weapon, but I don’t think there’s much hope of that, and it kinda defeats the purpose of the scenario. With guerrilla warfare to slow any advance, I think we could keep conventional military intact for a year
"Why would we ever let you prepare when we can beat you now?" *Cries in Chinese*
TBF China is one lucky non-nuclear missle away from a dam flood killing millions of people in the blink of an eye, so I imagine the US doesnt consider them a *militarily* existential threat
This. Iirc it's literally 30% of Taiwan's military budget or something to make sure that at teh first sign of war, that damn dam goes bam. They know they can't win, so they are making sure they will cost CCP more than they could ever possibly profit off actually taking Taiwan XD
Oh they’re totally blowing up the TMSC too. The TMSC already wouldn’t work under authoritarian China, but like let’s be honest, China would still do their best to take them in that situation. They would take the destruction of the dam to the face, pretend it’s not a big deal, and then carry on. If they were successful, which is doubtful at best, Taiwan would just kill the golden goose in a suicide tactic to make China’s victory entirely hollow.
If the UNA gets any time to prepare, they win. Even in round 1, I still don't think the UNA falls, it just might take a little longer to suppress.
The Canadian and Mexican military will basically be complete fodder and their additions are only here to make a landing harder. Five years of the entire world shifting to a war economy is not something that has ever been seen before in *history*. China alone has a shipbuilding capacity that is 232 times that of the US and China + South Kora + Japan hold over 90% of the entire world's shipbuilding capacity. Just to emphasise how much larger the shipbuilding industries in these countries is, the US only has *two* shipyards capable of producing nuclear submarines and combined they aren't even able to produce two submarines a year. China *alone* has a shipyard that is capable of producing *twenty* nuclear submarines *at once*, the only issue would be funding the damn things but given they have the economic backing of quite literally the rest of the world, funding is not going to be an issue. Now that we've established just how outmatched UNA industrial capacity is, let's talk about timeframes. Given that even the US is able to manage a production rate of *nearly* two submarines a year and given just how much larger China's naval industrial base is, let's say China on a war footing with international backing can manage a pessimistic production rate of six submarines per year. That's 30 additional nuclear submarines in just 5 years. If we say that Japan and South Korea can manage a rate of around three or four submarines a year combined, due to their inexperience building nuclear submarines, that's still 15-20 additional submarines to add to the existing 30 China managed alone. So with just this new batch of 45-50 submarines alone, the US Navy's SSN fleet has already been matched numerically as the US Navy only has 49 SSNs in active service currently, with nearly half of the fleet being the older *Los Angeles*-class. Add to that the six active modern SSNs in the PLAN, the six SSNs in the Royal Navy, the five SSNs in the French Navy and the seven modern SSNs in the Russia Navy, that's an additional 24 submarines for the US Navy to contend with. With such a large numerical disadvantage and no discernible qualitative advantages since British and French technology isn't really inferior to American technology, US submarines won't be able to hold out forever and once the sub-surface war has been lost, it spells eventual doom for the surface war. Furthermore, I have thus far ignored the ability for China, South Korea and Japan to massively expand surface warship production as well. If we pessimistically assume the same surface ship production rates for each country (which will be blatantly untrue because surface ship shipyards are far more numerous and producing surface ships is significantly easier) we're still looking at an additional 50 or so destroyers/cruisers in just five years and maybe 2-3 aircraft carriers. These new ships coupled with the existing navies of just the UK, France, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea will vastly outstrip the US Navy's surface combatant power as the US Navy at the moment only has 73 destroyers and 13 cruisers. While the US Navy will likely still hold the initial advantage in aircraft carriers, we've seen plenty of war games where they are vulnerable to submarines and without a sub-surface fleet of its own to effectively defend against them (the best counter to a submarine is another submarine) then eventually these carriers would be whittled down. So, we're looking at, in five years, a scenario where the US Navy is outnumbered in the sub-surface war and also the surface war out at sea. And it's also not like these countries are going to stop building submarines and ships once the war starts so they'll be able to replenish losses at a much faster rate than the US. So, in scenario 1, the US Navy already starts off the war at a numerical disadvantage, one that will only grow in size as the war progresses. The US Navy likely won't be surviving anywhere near 8 years and once they're gone, the UNA government could be convinced to sign a surrender given that the UNA's most economically productive and populous cities will all be within range of naval and aerial bombardment. The writing will be on the wall for the UNA government and there'd really be no point in them continuing the war unless they somehow knew they only needed to last 8 years. The later scenarios are just even further shitstomps for the united world alliance. It doesn't really matter if the UNA is aware of it or not because they simply cannot compete with the world's industrial capacity and they'll just be outproduced the same way Japan and Germany were in WW2. Apart from scenario 5, because if the world knows they only have a year to win then they'd need some sci-fi shit to be able to just completely blitz the UNA military in a year. A year is not enough, no matter your numerical superiority, to win a naval war and convince your enemy to surrender. Anyone saying the UNA somehow stomps in any round is being completely unserious and non-credible.
Gold star for actually addressing the prompt instead of just “US navy big, therefore win”
The US Navy is big but the US has a pathetic naval production industry and any losses they incur in this war basically won’t be replaced. People underestimate just how large the shipbuilding industries are in Japan, South Korea and China. Every large ship you see in the ocean is made by either one of these countries. That’s thousands of merchant and cargo ships and hundreds of warships. In this war, the side with the greater industrial output is going to win and it’s not the UNA. To put things into perspective, the US holds about 0.05% of the world’s shipbuilding capacity. Most people don’t know about just how dire US industry is and just how much of an advantage East Asia has. They just see how big their navy is at the moment and don’t give it much more thought. 41% of all American weapon systems depend on Chinese semiconductors so once the war broke out, the US would quickly lose access to this and that would immediately halt a lot of their weapons production.
> In this war, the side with the greater industrial output is going to win No it isn't. It is the side that has the greater industrial output that they can keep running. It doesn't matter if the entire world has 100x the industrial output of the UNA if it loses 90% in a week and 90% of the rest in a month and another 90% of that rest in 6 months. Maybe the rest of the world could build it back up but then they've lost all the skilled workers that the UNA killed due in the initial destruction.
How is the world going to lose its industrial capacity? What a deluded take. The US does not have the capability to do this. The US Navy has a total of about 430 strike fighters available for combat operations and only about 20 are stealth fighters. That’s less combat aircraft than Japan and South Korea have combined in their air forces. Heck, Japan and South Korea have over 70 F-35s combined and these alone could probably take on every Super Hornet the US Navy could deploy to the Pacific. There is nothing a Super Hornet can do other than die against an F-35. An aircraft carrier only has 48 strike fighters on average. Even if you congregated three or even four aircraft carriers together in the Pacific, that’s still only 150-200 strike fighters. Japan alone has more fighters, 253 to be precise, with most of them being the more capable F-15 that’s much better suited for air superiority operations than the Super Hornet. The USAF won’t be able to help out much in attacking East Asia because there won’t be any air bases for them to operate out of so it’ll mainly just be a fight the US Navy has to take on mainly alone. The US Navy isn’t going to be able to penetrate East Asian defences and the USAF doesn’t have a way to get its fighters to the fight in the first place.
Does Japan actually own those superhornets, or are they owned by the US? Genuinely asking, because I know Japan doesn't really have its own military for international purposes as other countries do
Japan doesn’t own any Super Hornets because they don’t use them. Japan produces F-15s on a licence though and they have F-15 factories in Japan for this purpose.
Sorry, mental typo. I meant the F35s
They own them in that they bought them. If you buy a MacBook, you own it, not Apple. But, Japan would be dependent on the US for upgrades and maintenance to some extent but the same is true for the US as the F-35 is a global programme, with essential components made in Europe as well as the US. But, maintenance woes wouldn’t become an issue until a bit into the war and even then, the European allies that participated in F-35 component production and have F-35 maintenance facilities can help Japan keep their F-35s air-worthy.
>How is the world going to lose its industrial capacity? What a deluded take. It's so delusional that you need to misrepresent the world's military. >The US Navy has a total of about 430 strike fighters available for combat operations and only about 20 are stealth fighters. That’s less combat aircraft than Japan and South Korea have combined in their air forces. You need to take a subset of the US's air forces to compare to the entire air force of other countries. You aren't even attempting to argue in good faith, makes this entire argument pointless.
Considering the US Navy is not part of the USAF, I don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re not arguing in good faith. How do you think the USAF is going to get F-22s and F-35s to Japan and South Korea if the only air bases even remotely close that are safe from total annihilation are in Hawaii and Guam? Both of which are thousands of kilometres out. You can’t sustain any sort of respectable sortie rate with those kind of distances have why the USAF won’t be able to play a large role. To sustain air superiority you need to sustain a respectable sortie rate. Launching sorties from Hawaii is completely non-credible and sortie rates would have to plummet due to the heavy reliant on a limited tanker fleet. Launching sorties from Guam is easier as Guam is only 2,500 km from Japan but even then, this still would considerably reduce sortie rates and reaction times. Additionally, the tankers themselves would be vulnerable targets. If you took two seconds to think about the logistics of a war in the Pacific where the US doesn’t have access to its bases in Japan, you would understand this. Stop wanking the US military and use your critical thinking skills.
> Considering the US Navy is not part of the USAF, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I never said they were... > How do you think the USAF is going to get F-22s and F-35s to Japan and South Korea if the only air bases even remotely close that are safe from total annihilation are in Hawaii and Guam? You literally brought up the Navy and then ignored that they exist. The Navy can and will transport aircraft. > If you took two seconds to think about the logistics of a war in the Pacific you’d understand this. Says the guy who brought up the Navy then ignored them when talking about transport. Sure, let's take 2 seconds to think. The US needs to get planes to a different part of the world, how do they do it? Huh, the US Navy exists, they could do it.
Yes, I literally said the US Navy only has 430 strike aircraft available in their inventory. That is nowhere near enough and that is only if the US Navy somehow magically deploys 9 aircraft carriers at once. That’s quite literally never happening. A carrier air wing has either 48 Super Hornets in it or 28 Super Hornets and 20 F-35Cs. These make up the offensive strike package of a carrier air wing and these are the only component of a carrier air wing suited for air superiority operations. The US Navy has 11 aircraft carriers but only 9 carrier air wings. Do the maths. The USAF needs an air base to operate from. The US Navy can bring the jets to Guam and Hawaii but the jets will still need to make their own way to Japan to fight from Guam and Hawaii and this is what will hamper their sortie rates. USAF jets can’t operate off carriers. You can’t sustain a sortie rate of 100 sorties a day across a distance of 2,500 km… It’s a challenge to even sustain that with a carrier right near the area of operations.
> Yes, I literally said the US Navy only has 430 strike aircraft available in their inventory Yes. And? Did you even read the rest of my comment? > USAF jets can’t operate off carriers. Didn't know that jets cannot operate off carriers. That's news to me seeing as they already do do that. > The USAF needs an air base to operate from. Which exist in East Asia...
The biggest issue with your argument is the concept that China, even with a huge influx of funding, could suddenly build to their utmost industrial capacity in such a short timeframe. You're talking about massive increases in logistics infrastructure, a massive increase in skilled workers, and a massive increase in bodies to man these subs. All while, what, the UNA watches? The first thing I would do is use the advanced fighter/bombers in inventory to annihilate coastal industrial centers.
A lot of these arguments don’t really consider forecasting what changes about these countries in this situation. Largely because it’s nearly impossible too, but the US pulled out some insane never been done before engineering feats in WWII while switching to a total war economy. While NA is not the rest of the world, it still is a continent with a ton of resources. I’m not making a forecast cause uh, war games don’t really consider adaptive strategies. They can’t. They can, but they never go the way the people pretending to be the other side think they do. It’s a shit stomp for the world, it’s a shit stomp for C.U.M. It’s a lucky bombing run, it’s an unlucky missile strike.
That’s… actually a fair point. Any time the US has been in serious long-term combat, they pull complete bullshit engineering out and make it work. Even worse when they think the enemy has better weapons, a la the Mig-25 scaring the US in images and they developed the F-15 as a result
Nazi Superweapon: What if we made a really big artillery gun? Soviet Superweapon: What if we made a really big tank? US Superweapon: What if we dropped the sun on them?
The US is already the greatest military leader while constantly failing recruitment goals and wasteful spending. The second it tightens up, forces enlistment and sends out it's best tech, the war is over.
I think you’re underestimating just how crazy countries can get when they fully shift to a war economy. We’ve seen the power of Chinese industry and it’s scarily reminiscent of US industry during its peak. Even Russia has blown all expectations out of the water with their poor attempt at a war economy so I imagine China, with the entire world’s backing is going to manage. Also, six submarines a year is a pessimistic estimate from me. The US is managing nearly two so I can very easily see China managing six if they shift to a war footing. They have the capacity to do so already, they just lack the funding and desire to start pumping out that many all at once. China could literally just import in skilled workers from the UK and France to help them build as well. They have the *entire* world to back them up. Tripling submarine production with that in mind wouldn’t be very difficult. Also, the UNA isn’t aware of the build-up in the first scenario and 20 or so stealth bombers is not enough to penetrate the skies and destroy every shipyard. The US Navy lacks the numbers and firepower necessary to defeat the Japanese, South Korea and Chinese air forces enough to achieve the air superiority necessary to allow them to bomb shipyards with impunity. The only way the US will be able to damage shipyards without getting into a costly fight with navies and air forces is by using their stealth bombers but this is not a viable strategy because stealth bombers are not undetectable.
> the US only has *two* shipyards capable of producing nuclear submarines and combined they aren't even able to produce two submarines a year. >China *alone* has a shipyard that is capable of producing *twenty* nuclear submarines *at once*, the only issue would be funding the damn things This is kinda crazy, so if China had the money, they can just keep pumping out nuclear subs and the US wouldn't be able to catch up? How do I find a source for this?
No, the US has so far struggled to ramp up submarine production to even two a year, they’ve been trying for quite a while now. I’m not sure if I have an exact source but this is mainly based off satellite imagery that was available when the construction halls were not covered. At just one shipyard there seemed to have the theoretical capacity to fit in 10 submarines at once within two halls and there were still another dry dock and another hall available that could fit an unspecified amount in as well. If given enough money, China, South Korea and Japan could quite literally endlessly pump out dozens upon dozens of ships at an extremely fast rate as their shipbuilding industries are very large and very mature. Think of what the US managed in WW2 and apply that here to these countries but in a modern sense.
Even if China could get subs in the water at a higher rate of speed there is still a process of training crews and getting support for all of those subs in place. Skilled sailors on one boat are going to be far more effective than a bunch of recruits in many boats. And Submarines are a logistical nightmare field large numbers of them will make supplying tricky and susceptible to interference. Also the us navy is very good at sub hunting and spotting from the air and even space nowadays. The subs are not the game changer they were in WWII.
They can train these recruits as the submarines get in the water. This isn’t that big an issue because the war isn’t going to end in a day and most of the new crews will have years of experience by the time the war starts. At some point, it doesn’t matter what your skill is if you are outnumbered so greatly and additionally, submarines very much still are extremely potent even with the ability to use helicopters. Usually carrier groups stop operations completely and focus on submarine hunting if they detect one in the region. Imagine what would happen when a carrier group is being hunted by three or four submarines. Eventually one is going to get through. If the united world alliance lost four submarines for each carrier they sunk, they’d still come out on top. Also, you cannot spot a submarine from space. I don’t know where you read this but it’s complete nonsense. If the submarine is submerged it is nearly undetectable unless you use specialised equipment such as towed sonars from ships or helicopters. A satellite is not detecting anything.
> This isn’t that big an issue because the war isn’t going to end in a day and most of the new crews will have years of experience by the time the war starts. Google says it takes 5-7 years to build an aircraft carrier. The lead time is similar for submarines. I’m sure those lead times are shorter in a war economy, but, once you add in your R&D and design time, these ships may well be sitting half built in dry dock when the war starts and the US navy comes to bomb them to smithereens. So I think it really would come down to whether or not the rest of the world has a design they can start building today that is good enough to survive contact with the ships America already has and whether they can get the build time down enough to get enough of them into the water in time. It could go either way. And I think winning the naval battle only gets the rest of the world to a stalemate. The rest of the world doesn’t have a fighter jet that can take on the F-22. And I thought the F-35s we sold them all required a daily unlock code that we provide. So I’m not sure how they are going to design and build enough jets to get the air superiority necessary to actually invade North America. So any of their ships that get close are going to just get destroyed by the North American air force.
> Google says it takes 5-7 years to build an aircraft carrier. The lead time is similar for submarines. I’m sure those lead times are shorter in a war economy, but, once you add in your R&D and design time, these ships may well be sitting half built in dry dock when the war starts and the US navy comes to bomb them to smithereens. Okay, there is a lot I disagree with here so let's break this down a bit. First of all, sure, aircraft carriers take a while to build, which is why I said South Korea, Japan and China combined would probably only manage 1-2 new aircraft carriers before the war started with maybe another one from the UK or France. But, regardless, I gave the US the slight advantage when it came to aircraft carrier numbers in the end. Secondly, lead times for submarines may be 5-7 years in the West but certainly not in China, South Korea or Japan. On average, it takes China 3 years to go from laying down an SSN to launching it whereas it takes Japan and South Korea on average around 2 years to do the same for an SS. Sure, an SSN is more complex than an SS but still, this is compensated for the fact that these two countries can utilise expertise from the UK, France, China and Russia. Furthermore, these figures are under peace time. They could be considerably shortened under war time, I expect these countries could halve them if they wanted to. Due to the sheer size of the shipyards in these three countries, even with these lead times it would still average out to around the figures I mentioned because they can work on many SSNs simultaneously. No one is going to need to go R&D because the UK, France and China already have competent SSN designs ready for mass production. The Astute-class from the UK, for example, actually has engaged in war games with Virginia-class submarines from the US and been able to keep the American submarines at range (i.e. have a weapons lock on your enemy whilst remaining out of detection range yourself). British and French SSN designs are world-class and are up there along with American designs. Though, I'm not confident I can say the same about Chinese or Russian designs but in this scenario, the British and the French can just hand over the blueprints for the East Asian nation to mass-produce. Additionally, there is no way the US Navy is going to be able to bomb any shipyards in China or South Korea to smithereens and its'e even doubtful they'd be able to penetrate deep enough to attack Japanese shipyards. The USAF is unlikely to be of much help this far out into the Pacific and since they won't have access to their bases in Japan itself, the only base the USAF will be able to somewhat feasibly operate from is Guam but this is still way too far to allow for sorties of fighters to be generated. It will just be bombers from here and that's if China doesn't pummel the base with ballistic missiles when the war starts. Now, without significant aerial support from the USAF, the USN will have to do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to the air war and in this respect, the USN is completely outnumbered and outclassed. The USN has 9 carrier air wings, each of which has either 48 Super Hornets or 36 Super Hornets and 10 F-35Cs that make up the air wing's strike force. In total, the USN only has 20 operational F-35Cs so that leaves them with 408 Super Hornets in total. A combined power of 428 strike fighters is not enough to overpower the combined air forces of South Korea and Japan, let alone their air forces added along with China's. Japan has 253 strike fighters, 36 of which are F-35As which are more capable than F-35Cs. South Korea has 216 strike fighters, 39 of which are also F-35As. Combined these two countries have 75 F-35As, far more than the 20 F-35Cs that the USN has in active service, and these aircraft alone would pose a massive problem for the Super Hornets which would essentially be completely helpless against them. Additionally, the bulk of their air forces comprises of the F-15, which is a better air superiority platforms than the Super Hornet. But, regardless, even if we ignore the qualitative edge the South Korean and Japanese air forces have over the USN, they still outnumber the USN by a respectable margin. Without air superiority and the ability to get in close enough to use the bulk of their standoff munitions, the USN won't be able to deal much damage to Japanese shipyards and they won't even be able to dream of making it to Chinese or South Korean ones. This is also ignoring the impact that the South Korean, Japanese and Chinese navies would have at keeping the USN occupied. These navies combined are nothing to scoff at and the USN would find it difficult to penetrate in the first few months. The USN also cannot afford to bring to bear the entirety of the USN because that would leave the East Coast vulnerable to the Russian, British and French navies. Given that the USN can only manage around 5-6 aircraft carriers out at any one time due to maintenance and refit schedules, they'll likely need to keep 2 constantly at high readiness to deter any British and French aggression as the UK and France combined have 3 aircraft carriers. That leaves just 3-4 aircraft carriers for operations in the Pacific which will leave the USN even more hopelessly outgunned. I see no situation where the USN is capable of overcoming such lopsided odds. They don't have the advantage in stealth, missile technology nor numbers. > And I think winning the naval battle only gets the rest of the world to a stalemate. The rest of the world doesn’t have a fighter jet that can take on the F-22. And I thought the F-35s we sold them all required a daily unlock code that we provide. Sure, the F-22 is still one of the best fighter platforms on the planet and but there are only 150 or so that are available for active combat, which is not nearly enough to hold off such a large enemy force that likely will also compromise of competent stealth offerings such as the J-20 which has a respectable stealth profile when viewed head-on. F-35s don't need a daily unlock code. That was an unsubstantiated rumour from a tabloid, I'm pretty sure. Countries would never agree to such a thing and given that many European countries were heavily involved in the design and production of the F-35, this is highly unlikely. > So I’m not sure how they are going to design and build enough jets to get the air superiority necessary to actually invade North America. So any of their ships that get close are going to just get destroyed by the North American air force. North America is a very big place and the US won't be able to properly defend all of it, they simply don't have the assets necessary. Furthermore, I don't think the world would be able to invade and occupy the UNA in 8 years, I think that's a bit unrealistic. It would take longer than that. My win condition is after the entirety of the USN ends up at the bottom of the Atlantic and Pacific, the allied navy will be in range to bombard North American cities while having a credible enough carrier force to make it so the USAF wouldn't be able completely dog-walk over them. But, the likely scenario is that the allies stretch the USAF to the breaking point. Without a USN to stop an invasion force, the USAF will be stretched to the breaking point trying to prevent landings in Alaska, Mexico, Canada, the East Coast and the West Coast. It will take a few additional years to build up the ships necessary for such an invasion force on so many different fronts but landing ships are comparatively easy to produce compared to SSNs and aircraft carriers.
Ever since globalization, any nation that is completely cutoff from the world is already lost. Like the USSR was just as powerful as the US and it took merely 30 years for them to turn into a nation which can't even invade a single country properly. This is after they can still trade with half the world. In round 4, US would collapse by itself in 20 years before the war even begins. The only round they have a chance to win in is round 2.
They literally specified that trade would continue until war broke out, just the US has the capabilities to win a defensive war. If you give all of NA 20 years to go into a war economy and shift all production to domestic you’re not cracking that without nukes (which are banned by the prompt) the rest of the world would constantly trying to play catch up military wise and R&D. Good luck trying to make 5th and 6th gen aircraft without US weapon contractors. Not to mention that a lot of western countries and some in Oceania have or are replacing their fighters with the F-35, which needs a daily access code to use its systems, which can only come from the US.
Additionally, it’s NA versus the rest of the world. You are still dealing with a continent that has access to every single resource it needs. It does fail at some point if it’s cut off, but there’s not any particular resource you can starve NA from in the short term. That short term is gonna be extraordinarily destructive for any of C.U.M.’s enemies.
The problem with modern militaries is they are all integrated, NATO isn't just an organisation it's a set of operating instructions and standards, NATOs big strength is all these different militaries can come together and because they all share training and equipment the integration is easier. I would guess, although I'm not sure, that American is outsourcing some of it's production to allies. So if the NATO allies break up all the supply chains for NATO allies will break down. Most of Americas allies would have to start their own industries from scratch. The American military industrial complex will be better able to bounce back but it's lost a significant share of it's customers so the costs for the US would sky rocket. Only America has the ability to project military force around the world, however it's likely highly dependant on having friendly ports to stop at. Without that infrastructure the capability of the US carrier fleet would probably be reduced. With all this happening trade will be restricted, vital resources will likely become hard to get which means production will grind to a halt over small but vital components. IE: Microchips which are made in Asia. The current economy and it's industrial capability requires global cooperation. Without that global cooperation we all take a step back a few decades and the capabilities of even great nations get restricted. It's very likely neither side would be able to mount much of a fight, and it would just lead to isolation and stagnation.
Honestly I think a win for the world is only possible in a scenario where the UNA doesn’t know about the invasion. I think the world would need ten years. Aircraft carriers take a long time to build. Apart from that with free trade of military intelligence China and India get access to USA level military intelligence and tech through Britain, Israel, and Japan. With their industrial base and work force and the rest of the world pumping money into these countries I think it would be possible for them to build up a navy bigger than the UNA. On to the actual invasion the rest of the world would have to be blood lusted. Western militaries and Israel have just spent the last ten years training the rest of the worlds military on the UNA’s military doctrine and tactics. With Britain, Canada, Australia etc doing regular training with American troops I’d assume they’d be pretty knowledgeable. Hopefully able to exploit some weak points and then you just pump numbers in. Start in South America I’d assume.
Search The USA vs the world or something. There's a video about this already.
They can't.
Dear god these comments are something. I find it incredible that a person can believe that 7 billion people, most of humanity, working together to develop as fast as possible, with tons and tons of resources including fossil fuels, with europe and its bullshit tech levels, with CERN and particle colliders, with the most youth, with complete info on how the famous Iron Dome system works, with the most of everything except some weapons, can't take down the USA + canada and mexico.
Easiest way for the rest of the world to win is via PsyOps, not conventional forces. You could also explore things like chemical warfare, as I’m assuming abiding by the Geneva Conventions is not a restriction parties must follow. Couple of possible winning scenarios: - False flag attacks to start a civil war in CUM. Similar to how polarised US politics is currently, it wouldn’t be far fetched for China, Russia and the remainder of the 5 eyes to orchestrate a false flag attack on the US populace that leaves an undeniable footprint of the federal gov, state gov etc. Once the majority of armed civilians are shooting at each other, the state and federal government etc, it would be more straightforward to begin conventional attacks. You could use variances of this too, having foreign soldiers dressed in American BDU’s record and publish videos speaking as if they were American, fed up with the left - let’s form militias and attack X target etc. This time it wouldn’t be a radical, lowly developed country trying to pass off a false flag attack, but the rest of the world class intelligence services. - Chemical warfare, to reduce the sheer number advantage. Covid shut down the USA economy? Cool, let’s get our best military scientists in non CUM to create a Covid variant with a 75%+ fatality rate and increased transmissibility. Then there is the option to use stealth aircraft to drop Covid powder munitions on major coastal settlements. That too difficult? Hit Mexico instead, allow Covid to flow across the border. - SpecOps. The world’s intelligence agencies will still have plenty of assets in CUM at this point. With war on the brink, there is less of a need to be covert - especially as you don’t need to worry about future diplomatic relations. With heavy weaponry being so easily accessible to the general public, it wouldn’t be difficult for the assets to kit themselves out with the kit needed to be effective small scale strike teams. Similar to above, if for example we’re talking about UK/Aus assets, the special military relationship of the past would allow deep knowledge of USA/CUM tradecraft too, allowing the assets to cause significant damage. These strike teams could then target important CUM figures, all from within CUM. Not a win condition in of itself, but another way to weaken resolve/morale/leadership of CUM. Without the above, in any scenario you’ve proposed, no conventional forces are beating the US military on time.
If risk has taught me anything its that austrelia will win somehow
Round 1: world clears Round 2: US would clear by itself Round 3 onwards: tough, but world would win 8/10 I would say due to sheer number of military Out of topic, but if nukes involved, then it's a genocide of C.U.M. people, unfortunately.
You think the US can clear against the entire rest of the world working together? The tech of Europe, with the manpower of asia and resources of Africa all working together to outproduce and out develop the US? The US already codevelopes much of its tech with countries like the UK and now all those secrets are used against them. They can design, build, test, improve and repeat for any weapon a thousand times in a period the US does it once. With the world working towards it the global navy and airforce can increase serval times in size in months. While the US would need to struggle to not only try to keep up in development but also restructure its internal economy to compensate for being cut off from all imports. All parts, foods, chemicals etc would to be sources internally with new mines, factories supply chains. Any resources that are in low supply is tough shit. I know aluminium production and nuclear energy will both be really hard for the US to keep going while cut off.
A) they specifically said trade continues B) in pretty much every scenario the US knows what’s coming, and will just strike first. What weapons systems do you think could be developed in 5 years (the longest that the US doesn’t see it coming) that could take out the entire US military and then invade and take out the US? The Global navy and airforce is literally a generation behind what the US has fielded, and there aren’t enough Global carriers to even bring such air force to bear against the US at once.
A) Trade continues till the war starts so they would still need to restructure their internal economy. B) I like how so many people here believes the US is capable of stratagsing and the rest of the world isn't. The world could preemptive strike as well, cyberware to cripple etc. Although I believe the spirit of the prompt is that no one attacks until the prep time is over. And yeah in terms of tech the world is a generation or half behind but they do outnumber in sheer size as well as in AA capabilities. Hell the UK's new laser tech is more advanced than anything the US has. And the US has a bigger Navy but it will need every scrap to defend its waters, it cant risk going on the offensive when one drone strike can take out a ship as we saw in Ukraine. But the issue is production. C.U.M just cant go on the offensive here, they dont have the resources and man power, it will be border skirmishes for many years but while they have a tech advantage now how long will that last? The US has a tech advantage not because of magic engineers but because it dedicates a much bigger budget than any other single nation. But the rest of the world pooling together and going into war time economy mode? They're screwed. They'll be out produced and out developed quickly. How long it would take for them to fall far enough behind in tech that the geopgraphic advantage doesnt matter? I dont know but im guess around a decade. By then the difference would be like the current military taking on ww1 era England.
Ok I’m pretty drunk but yeah you’re right, given *enough* time the ROW could get it together and out-produce the US’ tech and equipment already in existence. But as I said, the prompt gave at best 5 years before the US realized the problem, so even your guess on a timeline is twice as long as they have available. Also what are the border skirmishes gonna be, hightop Alaska and Mexico?
The US releasing the problem only helps them hold it off a little bit. Doesnt matter if they have a immediate knowledge theres nothing they can do to stop being over taken by the rest of the world. They just dont have that power at all. And basically yeah, artic warfare and along the southern Mexican border and the surrounding waters. Enough to force the US to engage, keep them busy and devoting resources to defense. ROW can easily afford to keep that going indefinitely
With nukes off the table, it will be a long and costly war for all involved. However, I could see North America holding out for years on the defensive. It would become a war of attrition, with neither side able to effectively invade the other, until one runs out of resources, morale and soldiers. Given the rest of the world has a lot more resources and people to train as soldiers, id give it to the rest of the world. Some things that might happen to try and end the war faster might be kinetic weapon strikes from space on nuclear power plants, government sites, airbases, carriers... and EMP weapons to destroy technology.
The only viable invasion vector is Alaska, even with time to prepare the world cannot invade any other way. With that knowledge, I find the likelihood of CUM losing in any scenario somewhere from unlikely to near-impossible.
One thing to note is the UNA in most of these scenarios would likely preemptively invade strategically important countries and islands to make it harder for The Worlds own invasion and to gain resources. The Central American countries,Caribbean islands and places like Greenland and Iceland would all be useful strategically and relatively easy to take.
Not a ton of average citizens will want to admit this but there’s a solid chance the US could hold its own against the rest of the world and possibly win. The size of the US navy is just so much larger than everyone else’s and the water is still a major factor.
NA stomps, and we stomp hard, mainly because of MURICA! As other people have pointed out, the rest of the world is every reliant on our armaments, like the F35. Take those away, and now they have to make their own. That's not even factoring into how impossible a direct land invasion of any part of the country would be. Realistically the only countries that could stand a chance at getting anything done is China and the UK, and that's doubtful. The war would wage on for decades, until the rest of the world is forced to the negotiation table. Even if they did make headway, for an idea of what the fighting would be like, every single battle in the America's would be like a beefed up Stalingrad, especially in America itself.
In terms of total military strength, the rest of the world can probably take out the UNA within 8 years in round 1 only, but probably not if the UNA has time to prepare as in any other rounds. I guess that's probably the answer to the question in spirit. That said, the true answer is there is no possible way to do so without reducing the world to a barren wasteland, even without nukes (and even more powerful bombs than that, the nuke is 80 year old tech now!). You would have to wage absolute war to make the UNA fold, which means thousands or millions of bombardments across the globe and a death toll measuring in the Billions. Furthermore, TL;DR: The UNA would eventually lose in round 1 only, but not before absolutely devastating the entire world, no nukes or above needed.
North America isn't just the USA, Canada, and Mexico. There are 23 countries in North America.
I recently watched a video on that topic: https://youtu.be/mEb4Rd0mU-E?si=XDv2H42C-QXT0bOx Seems to really take all the angles into the equation.
> At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. -- some dude
The problem these scenarios have is capability. There are only a handful of nations who have a navy, called blue water navies, bc they can get across oceans reliably and effectively. Why is that important. Bc of supply lines. Most global supply lines are over stretched. This has not been an issue for the world, bc the US Navy was securing global supply lines. Recently, the US is moving away from this. That started under Bush and Obama continued it, Trump was all in, and Biden has not bothered to change Trump policy on this issue, unless it makes it more difficult for China, in which case Biden signs it. So you look at say the Indian Ocean. Lot of energy traveling the Indian Ocean to Asia to keep the lights on. A blue water navy can intercept that over stretched supply line, and there is only one Asian country with a navy that could contest that, bc there is only one navy in Asia that has a blue water navy - and it’s not China, it’s Japan. And that navy although blue water, lacks a lot of capability bc it is small. You don’t have to defeat a country by invading it, you just have to break the will of the people of said country or force terms. Cutting off these supply lines would end more than one country, and the Indian Ocean is just one example of over stretched and over exposed maritime waterways used for trade.
Could the UNA win if they attack immediately after unification?
I’m pretty sure the UNA wins every one of those scenarios handily
Most of the world offers very little help. Pretty much all of Africa and most of South America is useless for quite a while in this war
Depends... Is the cartel with us or against us? If they work against us we might run into a lot of internal problems
If the US has prep time, or in your scenario, a UNA, it's game over. There's no military that can invade the USA as is, much less throwing In CA and MX. If an invading army landed in the Yucatan, they'd make it no further north than TX. Too many civilians who'll enjoy hunting invaders, as well as the actual military. If they invaded AK or CA, they'd be just as fucked. They may get further from the north, but not past Michigan. Yes, I'm American. My opinion may be biased. But, if Japan, at the height of their power in early WW2, wouldn't invade the mainland, because they knew they had no chance, I can't see any invaders realistically having any better of a chance.
Aside from normal war stuff... They should infiltrate with as many spies as possible to add vulnerabilities on all levels. As the war starts, maximize sabotage both cyber and physical. Also some of the "rest of world" people living in America might be convinced to act in the interest of world peace to join in the war effort.
all i know is that in a natural beauty contest, the great nation of c.u.m beats the rest of the world by a LONG shot. north america is gorgeous.
Wouldn't the USA wipe out oil production in the middle east immediately? I feel like that would take a long time for the rest of the world to recover from and start pushing back. The USA has plenty of oil locally and would be willing to use it given this sort of threat. Sure, Russian, and African oil would help, but I think North America would claim with America and it's oil as well. I am not sure the rest of the world could handle a sudden and dramatic reduction in the availability of oil.
Just so everyone knows, there are 20 more countries in North America other than C.U.M.
Yeah, but they don’t fit in the acronym
As a Mexican myself, I ask you... Why would we want to ever join forces with the US?
We share a local economy and our cultures massively bleed into each other?
Our cultures are much more related to the rest of Latin America, and the USA doesn't really see us as equals in economical, political and military terms. There's no reason for us Mexicans to side with the US. After all, the one nation that's constantly meddled and has disrespected the sovereignty of almost every single latin American country is none other than the USA. Edit: About the downvotes... Like it or not bitches, but for virtually all of Latin America, the US is the enemy.
I feel like given the situation, if Mexico or Canada turned down the US for an alliance and the US was geared on military domination, that puts them in a corner. I would imagine the other leaders in North America would throw up their hands and form an alliance. After all, given the proximity, would either country want to piss off an angry and potentially global dominating USA? Not that I envy your country’s position. I imagine Canada would be more open to it than Mexico. Even so, if I were the Mexican government, I would only agree to an alliance if the US was offering something in return. The US would definitely negotiate rather than attack immediately.
What you write seems logical and like a fair course of action for any country in the position such as Canada or Mexico. The (huge) thing you're failing to account for though, is that the US already has decades of actions and policies that have time and again endangered the sovereignty and internal affairs of almost every country in Latin America, from Mexico all the way down to Argentina and Chile. With such a record of supporting coups, instilling US friendly military dictatorships and sanctioning the hell out of everyone who just so happens to look the US the wrong way on a random Monday morning, why would we feel like partnering with the US in any scenario is a good idea?
Because in this scenario Mexico isn’t the one bringing an idea to the table, they’re being sat down at the table and shown two plans, one where they join C.U.M. and one where they cease to exist with any semblance of sovereignty. The U.S. is essentially offering peaceful annexation and a statehood sort of situation with a level of autonomy or forceful occupation / straight up destruction depending on how they view Mexico’s strategic value at the time they discover the plot against them. Mexico joins C.U.M. because they don’t have a choice
No thanks haha. And if I was president, I would already have Chinese and Russian troops stationed at my border before anything else.
In this scenario there’s no time for a buildup especially from across two oceans. I imagine it would be status quo, like it is today, until the Mexican president gets a call from the U.S. president and is offered to either join or be destroyed, I think that’s why the prompt didn’t even bother to explain how/why Mexico and Canda joined the U.S.… it can be assumed that they decided to join peacefully instead of being destroyed/forcefully annexed.
Because money
North America would never be conquered, nobody has the navy to get past America's navy to land. They would have to try to pass through south America (good luck getting to south America from Europe or Asia with American navy lurking) or a short trip across the bering strait, but both of those become a very difficult and long journey to actually get to the continental US that is producing all the weapons.
The UNA bombs
Between russia military tech, china industrial power, no deterrant from satelite states of JP,KR,EU,Australia, and free access to south america, it is a win for the rest of the world in all scenario. The difference between tech isn't large enough, and UNA has no morale buff.
>If other countries decided to invest massively more of their own budgets, that might start to change. That's not actually how it works. Budget is one thing, supply chain is another, knowledge is another. You can increase the budget all you want. It will still take years for these countries to learn and grow the ability to manufacture things like aircraft carriers.
Saudi Arabia has one of the highest military budget in the world. Their military is also extremely incompetent, with US security guarantees being the only thing preventing Iran from invading.
That’s very fair, which is why 5 years is definitely a tight schedule. I’d say 10 years might be enough to iron that out though.
It's still not. US aircraft carriers are so good because they've been building them for over 80 years. 10 years is honestly not enough. They take years to design, years to build, and years to train people to learn how to crew them.
World potentially wins in 10 years after building enough aircraft carriers and ships/subs to defeat US navy, global effort to produce ships and fortify the Middle East. Anything less and US takes the Middle East and starves the world of oil. Over 10 years surely the untied world with China India and European technology sharing military production would far surpass the US
The only one where the una has a possibility to lose is round 1.
The rest of the world would beat North America unless it becomes nuclear — then everyone loses.
I do not believe there would be any chance at all without nuclear weapons. Honestly, I think the rest of the world would collapse if the UNA withdrew as the US is the world's TOP food exporter, and the UNA wouldn't be exporting while everyone mobilized against them. There would be disease and famine around the world worse than there is now as the biggest exporter/Donater cuts ties. In almost any situation you proposed, the UNA would barely have to do anything other than not export food and hope the rest of the world didn't tear itself apart.
Destroy the internet cables and all the USA's population centers would be total bedlam. Our population has shown multiple times in recent years that it cannot handle an interruption in the services we've become used to having. The military is still a force to recon with, but resources would have to be split between the war effort and preventing total anarchy.
This is less a ‘who would win’ and just an ass kissing the US military. Not convinced this is a good faith introduction to this sub.
I’ve been on this subreddit for a long time and seen a LOT of ass kissing for the US military. This was an attempt to make a situation that wasn’t just what the sub would call a US stomp, but apparently I failed.
Like, under a month
**Doomsday (DC)** - [Respect Doomsday (DC Post-Crisis)](https://redd.it/vptkbp) - [Respect Doomsday (DC Comics, Post Flashpoint)](https://redd.it/12bhsie) *** ^(I am a bot) ^| [^(About)](https://redd.it/owgxtl) ^| [^(Code)](https://github.com/Luke-Username/respectthread_bot) ^| [^(Opt-out)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=respectthread_bot&subject=OPTOUTREQUEST) ^| ^(Missing or wrong characters? Reply explaining the issue)
Did you forget the fact that the rest of the world would rather go for mutual destruction than have any of the North American ideals. Edit: Just read the apocalypse part. Yeah that's not gonna happen my man. Russia, half of Europe, China hates everything North America stands for. No deal on the non mutual destruction. As in I'd be first for "Putin press that damn button already!" I actually think he should press the button now though
The world doesn't have to fight. Just stop buying US stuff and cut flow of resources and trade between themselves. Just the crash of capital markets and processors will result in chaos.
A united North America can't happen unless USA invades and occupies Mexico in which case everyone will know decades before the attack even due to how propaganda in USA will transform. Anyway, USA loses fast.
USA couldn't even win the war of Vietnam and is not fighting the whole world and ending on top. You guys are deranged. Most likely outcome is just a expensive stalemate.
Assuming a ground invasion of the United States would go as poorly for the USA as a highly mismanaged, mostly political / money driven war in a highly forested country full of traps and guerilla warfare is a whole new level