I firmly believe that the USA has the military might to win even if every country in the world were against us

Question

Do you agree?

USN vet

Answer 1

Yes but only if the military is allowed to do their jobs without the politicans in Washington sticking their noses in.

Answer 2

I wish I could but I can not agree. How can the US Military kickass and own if there are acres and acres of tanks, hummers and military transport trucks waiting to be repaired. There is a 3 year back-log on vehicle maintenance!! Many of our soldiers lack the proper bullet proof armors. Since the ceramic plates armor they are using is ancient (Vietnam) and very heavy, some take it off and become sitting ducks for any shrapnel in vital organs.

Umm...Kobaincito...
The USA has around 9,962 nuclear weapons
The Russian Federation has 16,000 nuclear weapons

Answer 3

Hahaha.

You're clueless.

The US Navy could beat every other Navy in the world at once, yes.

But we have fewer infantry in the US active forces than there are police in New York City.

Infantry are required to take ground and win wars. All the USA could do is pull back to CONUS and keep invasion forces at bay.

If the war went nuclear, the Russians still have 10 times what is needed to kill 90% of our population in an hour.

Answer 4

If the U.S. had 4x the population then implemented a nation wide draft, sure ... since we can not even put enough boots on the ground to contain a small country odds are we could not take on the world.

Plus Imagen the exponential number of suicide bombers there would be.

Answer 5

Only by using nukes.

As a country, we are less than 5% of the world's population.
So, purely on manpower, we lose hands down.

As far as naval and air forces, we're probably about 50%.
So, it would be an even fight, until planes and ships are gone.

But if you think the US should take over the world via force, and create a global empire, then that's your right to believe.

Answer 6

Have you just surfaced after an extended period under the ice and haven't had time to read the news?

The US isn't exactly number one in Iraq at the moment.

If they stopped all of their infighting and turned on the US it would make Vietnam look like the "Teddy Bear's Picnic"

Answer 7

Hey bud I'm in the Army and HOOAH and all that but 300 million Americans vs. 6.5 billion, um no. Nukes would destroy everything but as for military might we would just be out lasted.

Answer 8

The US does have a nuclear stockpile larger than all other nuclear weapons combined. It also has the largest stockpile of conventional weapons. It has the most foreign bases. But nuclear weapons have no strategic purpose, one explosion could kill millions and the fallout could pollute and poison even more. The collateral damage is incalculable, allies would be hurt. The US would be isolated and possibly hit back. The consequences to our atmosphere would be of apocalyptic proportions. It would be M.A.D.
Eisenhower believed that the threat of MAD was a worthy risk to take in order to further US hegemony. Do Americans believe it is worth it to threaten human existence in order to remain in power?

Answer 9

Yes, you are correct. I am ex military as well from the 60's. If allowed the U.S. could defeat the world but I wouldn't want to be around for the celebration.

Answer 10

As a soldier, I pray we might be able to stop fighting for a while. However, even if we have the might to do so I am not sure we would have the economy to launch such a stupendous endeavor.

Answer 11

Perhaps, but so what?

Yes, we have more nukes and other armament than the rest of the world put together, but at the expense of many social programs that would have helped more people than bombing others. The ends do not justify the means.

For instance, we kicked asth when we invaded Iraq because our guns and bombs were bigger than theirs. Big whoops - look at how our own asths are being kicked now. Having bigger conventional weapons means NOTHING in this totally changed world.