Apocalyptic WW3/global worst case scenario, could the USA put out all the fires?

[kcran567]

This is completely hypothetical, but given the current military situation if all hell breaks loose on a global scale could the US/UK and allies be able to realistically hold off the hordes? The sky is falling, dogs sleeping with cats...end of the world/final war stuff.
Trouble spots:

1. Syria is in meltdown as we speak.
2. Iran is threatening war against the USA along with...
3. North Korea
4. China wildcard to become the new premier global superpower challenging Japan, Taiwan, S Korea etc.
5. Rogue terrorists with nukes and other Mass Destruction weapons
6. terrorist and 3rd parties armed with advanced weapons (ie-think Afghanistan Taliban or false flag fighters sponsored by a state like Russia or China)
7.. Israel, the middle east, Saudi Arabia
8. Turkey vs. Greece
9. India and Pakistan

There are many other unmentioned skirmishes, active wars and wars that are ready to start. My take is that the west would collapse economically and be unable to sustain a long term global war. Western systems are extremely expensive. The USA has a defense budget larger than the rest of the world combined, yet we have systems that could be defeated if spread too thin against numbers (think Germany WW2, yet startlingly worse due to a thick layer graft, thievery and corporate corruption and overcharging for systems)

If N Korea erupts, and simultaneously Israel strikes Iran (which they have said they would do at any time) there could be wars of opportunity around the globe as the USA gets tangled up in several fronts.
--Could an enemy take advantage of the US being spread thin and could this be an intentional tactic that could be used defeat the US?
--What is the reliabilty of very complex systems going to be against simpler system in much higher numbers? Sure in highly controlled skirmishes such that the USA has had the
luxury of one war to fight, unlimited supply lines, and enemies unwilling to fight.
--What effect would nuclear strikes have on mainland America, would the USA cease to be relevant, or would the 300 or so scattered military bases around the globe do the job? Is it probable the USA will collapse from within like the Roman Empire did, and is in decline anyway, there just needs to be a tipping point to help it get started and our enemies know this that is why we are seeing strong rhetoric from N korea, Iran, etc..Imagine chaos and bloodshed and riots in the streets of America, Is that what the Billions of rounds of ammo bought by Homeland security are meant for?

I want to see what an end game scenario looks like and who comes out on top? Will a New World Order be and outcome? Bush and now last week Joe Biden called for one. Is a global war and economic collapse what will spur a New Order out of the chaos? I have my thoughts and they dont favor the USA constitutional republic being around much longer after the next big war.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Ifv things go bugnuts like you suggest, the job of the US will be to STAY OUT OF IT. Rest of the world wants to blow itself to hell, the only thing the US could o would be to bring evastation down upon itself. Best bet, if the black flag goes up, is to pullback and focus efforts on intericting strikes against the US. We had trouble enough with calming down the likes of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq; the world as a whole? Forget it.

 

[kcran567]

I totally agree with you that staying put would be wise, but is the US going to be pulled into these conflicts ie-attack on South Korea, The Israel/Iran situation and others? And what happens when US city gets nuked? These are unavoidable scenarios that would draw in a supposed superpower in decline.

 

[Orionblamblam]

is the US going to be pulled into these conflicts ie-attack on South Korea, The Israel/Iran situation and others? And what happens when US city gets nuked?

Shrug. If the world goes belly up in a hurry, it might be possible for the US to stay out of it, by simple inertia. Korea goes up, the US will certainly get caught up; but if the Norks go nuclear right off, the war will probably be over quickly. They make the mistake of thinking they're All That with An A-Bomb, they'll find their military vaporized. Then the South Koreans, the Japanese, whoever, can clean up the mess.

In contrast, look at Israel-Iran. Israel has been in many wars since '48, many fighting for their very existence... and not once did the US commit troops to their aid. An Israeli-Iranian war would be an odd thing, which the US could do little for except perhaps provide equipment. Israel is *not* going to conquer Iran. Iran is only going to conquer Israel if they go nuclear, in which case the Israelies will nuke 'em back. In that eventuality... what would there be to suck the US into?

 

[Jemiba]

Don't know, if the much more imminent danger aren't those streams of refugees, that to some extent would be
triggered by those military conflicts, but much more by the inability of a large number of states to ensure their
people a life with at least a kind of basic security, without the acute danger of starvation. We will see fences of
barbed wire through several buffer states in the future and we will have to pay for those fences and the military
forces to protect them. :-[

BTW, please start such discussion just here in The Bar, and NOT in the Forum Index !

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

1. Syria is in meltdown as we speak.

it happens. especially in that neighborhood recently

2. Iran is threatening war against the USA along with...
3. North Korea

nothing new

4. China wildcard to become the new premier global superpower challenging Japan, Taiwan, S Korea etc.

"pivoting" there as we speak

5. Rogue terrorists with nukes and other Mass Destruction weapons

been working on that for years now.

6. terrorist and 3rd parties armed with advanced weapons (ie-think Afghanistan Taliban or false flag fighters sponsored by a state like Russia or China)

Those are called proxy wars, not new.

7.. Israel, the middle east, Saudi Arabia

Isreal is no push over conventionally and if you push them too far they have the bomb.

8. Turkey vs. Greece

continue to hate each other, one is in debt up its eyes.

9. India and Pakistan

no change since the 1970s

There are many other unmentioned skirmishes, active wars and wars that are ready to start.

correct, also sun rises in the east, and earth is round.

My take is that the west would collapse economically and be unable to sustain a long term global war.

they will go into debt, or "speed up" the war rather than lose it, they will drop A-bombs to win it (historical precedent)

Western systems are extremely expensive. The USA has a defense budget larger than the rest of the world combined,

yep

yet we have systems that could be defeated if spread too thin against numbers

true. "too thin" though is kind of arbitrary measure though, Like pointing out if you get "too cold" you will die. Its true, but you also have to get really cold for that to happen.

Those numbers can also be "neutralized" Everyone has bottle necks, 1,000 tanks are overwhelming until you strike their fuel depots and mine the roads. greater numbers mean greater logistics, thus greater logistical problems.

(think Germany WW2, yet startlingly worse due to a thick layer graft, thievery and corporate corruption and overcharging for systems)

You think the US didn't have war profiteers? again its nothing new.

If N Korea erupts, and simultaneously Israel strikes Iran (which they have said they would do at any time) there could be wars of opportunity around the globe as the USA gets tangled up in several fronts.

not necessarily.

--Could an enemy take advantage of the US being spread thin and could this be an intentional tactic that could be used defeat the US?

If the whole world could get coordinated enough to attack the US/Canada I assume we would lose, but they would first have to get coordinated. even if they did, lets say in some crazy alternate universe where 1/3 of the world was communist and they were all dedicated to the destruction of the US and its allies (at least on paper). it would simply be a return to 1980s-- in other words, we have seen worse.

--What is the reliabilty of very complex systems going to be against simpler system in much higher numbers? Sure in highly controlled skirmishes such that the USA has had the luxury of one war to fight, unlimited supply lines, and enemies unwilling to fight.

they have been putting up fights, and dying in droves.

the real question is just how many numbers do you have to have to make attrition warfare work for the OPFOR? (hint its A LOT) Not only that but attrition warfare isn't what it used to be. Once upon a time you lined up your arty and let rip, no they have sensors that find that arty and send gps guided bombs and munitions at them. So you need a lot, a lot. Guided munitions and ISR has made attrition warfare damn tough.

--What effect would nuclear strikes have on mainland America, would the USA cease to be relevant, or would the 300 or so scattered military bases around the globe do the job?

2 words: Nuclear Triad.

The US would not "cease to be relevant" they will Nuke you back though. it depends on the damage. but as grim as it sounds you can lose a city or two, and not have a massive effect on the US population-- the remaining people vowing to wipe you off the earth no doubt. Thats not a "tough sell" to the homefront.

again not a new question this stuff has been analyzed since the 1950s

Is it probable the USA will collapse from within like the Roman Empire did,

anything is possible

and is in decline anyway, there just needs to be a tipping point to help it get started and our enemies know this that is why we are seeing strong rhetoric from N korea, Iran, etc..Imagine chaos and bloodshed and riots in the streets of America,

actually giving us "an ass to kick" has not lead to riots in the streets but bloodshed in enemy streets. sometimes those things that break others are motivation for some. No one knows exactly why people react differently in the same scenarios but it happens everyday. The same thing that sends one man crying in a corner is the same thing that galvanizes another man to show true courage. Churchill seemed to be one of those fellows that was never told he was supposed to be crying in a corner, instead of putting up such a damn fight. people can be extremely stubborn.

Is that what the Billions of rounds of ammo bought by Homeland security are meant for?

I'm pretty sure lots of law enforcement (I know the coast guard) falls under HLS so they practice like everyone else.( I'm not a black helicopter/conspiracy type though) If you want to think that homeland security is planning on slaughtering its own citizens thats your problem (you also thought the US was going to terror attack Canada over the F-35, so I;m guessing you think they will)

I want to see what an end game scenario looks like and who comes out on top?

well the USA hates to lose, I have read strategies from back in the cold war that had the US not just nuking russia but other countries that might try to take advantage of the weakened US 10 to 20 years down the road. So if the US gets knocked down a peg or two, it will probably ensure everyone else gets knocked down to similar levels.

"I win or we share an ambulance"

Will a New World Order be and outcome? Bush and now last week Joe Biden called for one.

oh boy! you can just call for a new world order like a pizza?

Is a global war and economic collapse what will spur a New Order out of the chaos?

I have my thoughts and they dont favor the USA constitutional republic being around much longer after the next big war.

The bottom line is there are scenarios where "it all falls down" and the USA collapses, its just not easy to do. Wars can also invigorate economies, lets keep in mind here KCran that things weren't looking hot at all throughout the 1930s for the US, how did that work out?
The US Civil is still the most brutal we have ever fought, and although it wasn't perfect, we emerged a more free nation, believe it or not.

Wars are great agents of change.


ITs always been like this. The names have changed and the scenarios have adjusted. Its always been dangerous, there is always a new dictator rising as another is being ousted.

The US has planned two front wars for decades now (thats why we have a big two ocean navy), SK could probably handle NK alone, it would just be more costly without outside help.

Iran can be bombed.

Let me put it like this. and kind of add to what scott has said. The US is capable of dealing serious pain to countries without having to set foot on or occupy those countries. Invading Iran would probably look and feel similiar to Iraq, but blockading embargoing and launching weapons on important targets (bridges, power plants, etc.) Nation building sucks but the first 30 days of a conflict? Forget about it! the US is golden when there are tanks and planes and ships to hunt, its insurgents in populations that get tricky. nation building sucks.

You can also do the "germany first strategy" where you pick one country to dedicate the majority of effort against while the "second theater" still gets plenty done. in the mean time you spool up the factories, recruit, train, and go, it can take years as we have seen but they can't all be 100 hour beach parties.

Is TT implying that the US/UK/Nato/Allies could take Iran and North Korea at the same time!? YES. Quote me on that. Throw in syria as well. We could take all three at once.

if faced with overwhelming threats the US will pick and choose where and how it intervenes just like it does now. Triage isn't ideal but we are talking extreme measures here.

Nuclear threat is nothing new. we have em so do they.

the US and its allies are back to back world war champs, we have face multiple countries coming after us all at the same time on multiple fronts. Yes there are wars now, but the deaths in those wars compared to WWII are not even close. the sheer scale of world war has not been approached since WWII.

It doesn't mean that its impossible, that it could never happen again, just that we have "been there done that" and no its not pleasant, but you can accomplish enormous tasks.

 

[kcran567]

Sorry about posting, thought i was in the bar. Any way to move it there? Thanks for some interesting comments.

Topic moved

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Thanks for some interesting comments.

regarding numerical superiority:

If you look at the order of battle the axis had its serious, but at the same time those numbers were never on the same front. They were constantly divided among many fronts. Even if NK and Iran allied and attacked the US they are both very part and would not be able to launch joint attacks. No aircraft carriers barely any navies to link up. So they would both be "compartmentalized" and then beat the hell up.

The US has not gone total war in 70 years, the draft hasn't happened in 40 years, the US hasn't had to go "all in" in sometime. When it does, it has incredible amounts of manpower, an industrial base, and protection from two oceans to keep those things safe. In other words even with attrition the US is hard to out-produce.

A lot of countries have militaries that are big, a lof them have militaries that are good, not many have them good and big which is what the US has.

 

[topspeed3]

I'd add the scenario when oil runs out and we are all on substitutes..how would that affect ?

:

 

[Justo Miranda]

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve"
Isoroku Yamamoto.1941