Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tack]

I don't think Nazis ever actually went to war with China. They ceased support, true, but never did a German soldier fire a shot at Chinese one during WW2.

They did have German advisors training and fighting with the Chinese.

"With" as in "against", not "alongside". Ninja
However if they also trained the Japanese (which I don't think they did), then that'd be a similar sort of approximation.

But yeah; as an Aussie it'd be interesting to see if we're tighter bound by ANZUS or the commonwealth, although the whole "New Zealand being kicked out of ANZUS" thing probably wouldn't help.

Ultimately, it would result in USA loss, since the rest of world simply has more land, which means more resources and also more people.

If it's "everyone against the USA" sure.
If it's "Cold war boiling over", I'm iffy. There's a reason tensions were so high. The soviets just couldn't keep the pressure on And maintain a stable economy (and didn't try).
But if they'd have attacked say during the Cuban missile crisis... it could've been quite bloody.
This is a specifically "soviets and Canada vs US" type dealie. Resources could probably come in via newfoundland/Quebec, and if an army lands on the doorstep of Pennsylvania then that's a big threat

[Loud Whispers]

STOP IMPLYING MY HISTORY-FU IS WEAK.

>

I know that Nazis helped China, the point was that even after Germany allied with Japan and ceased all support to China, they never, ever, actually took hostile action. Sure, yeah, China as part of Allies declared war on the Axis, but there was no fighting between Germany and China specifically.

Russia was in the way

It is, which is why I said it would proably devolve into some kind of modern attrition war (provided noone uses nukes, in which case it's a moot point anyway) where it would boil down to noone getting significant advantage, albeit with constant attacks on rear (special forces, terrorists, Tomahawks and shit) which would finally end up in complete isolation of America, Big Brother-esque internal security. Ultimately, it would result in USA loss, since the rest of world simply has more land, which means more resources and also more people.

An attrition war? On what fronts? Really assuming Mexico and Canada are successful on their own, when their chances are not that good without outside interference. This would be exceedingly difficult without the defeat of the USAF and USN

Also, a lot depends on how far we're willing to go. Nukes are out in any scenario that implies actual combat, but what about biological and chemical weapons? Russia invested (and supposedly invests) a lot into that and it would significantly impact the war - sure, the troops have NBC gear (but gas mask filters will wear out eventually) but majority of civilian population does not have any real way to protect themselves.

I suppose unleashing bioweapons in the populated areas of the USA would get the job done but it's potentially MAD

[Taricus]

An attrition war? On what fronts? Really assuming Mexico and Canada are successful on their own, when their chances are not that good without outside interference. This would be exceedingly difficult without the defeat of the USAF and USN

It wouldn't necessarily be a 'conventional' attrition war, but a lack of material imports would certainly mean that attrition from general use for the US would likely be crippling due to a lack of spare parts.

[Kot]

Russia was in the way

Yes, and? I mean, this one isin't about what would have been but what was, and what was, was that there was no fighting between Germany and China during WW2, so the claim that it was a fight between army which was trained by the people who now fought against them was wrong.

An attrition war? On what fronts? Really assuming Mexico and Canada are successful on their own, when their chances are not that good without outside interference. This would be exceedingly difficult without the defeat of the USAF and USN

Not that kind, the WWI one, not trenches. I meant it as a war where noone can really make any real gains - even considering that US conquers South America (that's a given, lack of safe supply routes) and Canada (less so, Canadians could easily guerilla the fuck out of Americans and then wait until the Russians and the rest gets there by Arctic), they would be ultimately locked on their own continent and finally outproduced and outfucked by Chinese, Russians and the rest of world.
Sure, America has the biggest economy in the world, but UE isin't that far behind. Throw in the Chinese and you already have about twice the GDP of America.
Sure, the USN would be a problem but in case of global war against US, the Navy would end up being more of pirates and convoy raiders rather than invasion forces so the fighting would be focused in Americas, and USAF isin't that much better in the same way that USN is - there are way more countries with competent air force than countries with competent navies.

[Culise]

Just out of idle curiosity, since I've seen it mentioned a couple times: just how is the USA supposed to magically conquer South America without a hitch?  In particular, why is Canada theorized to be so effective at guerilla warfare when all of their major population centers are within miles of the US border in largely flat terrain while South America so ineffective when it's a hemisphere away, requires naval supply open to the possibility of brown-water interdiction (due to terrain in general and the Darién Gap in particular, there is no overland route that extends all the way from North to South America), and even today still has active guerilla organizations that could form a locus of training and expertise (FARC and Shining Path, for two).  It seems like even with the statement generally being "inevitable defeat," we're still overestimating just how much in the way of actual boots on the ground the US could accomplish.  It's the USN and USAF that are the greatest threats, certainly, but as any foot soldier would point out, those in themselves don't secure land. 

[Kot]

Canada

Cold. Shitty. A lot of mountains, forests and places where noone lives. Army trained in cold and shit, while US is not. Modern equipment. Supply through  Arctic.

Warm. Shitty. A lot of mountains, rainforests and places where noone lives. Army is a fucking joke. Next to no equipment. No supply.
Sure, yeah, guerilla forces yes. The thing is that Canadians could hold their own in the rough terrain with their army at least until they get help from outside, while South Americans would be forced to use bunch of dudes with pointy sticks jumping out of trees to fight USA, while they would get no help due to USN murdering any tries to supply them (inb4 hue narco-subs hue).

[Culise]

Canada

Cold. Shitty. A lot of mountains, forests and places where noone lives. Army trained in cold and shit, while US is not. Modern equipment. Supply through  Arctic.

Warm. Shitty. A lot of mountains, rainforests and places where noone lives. Army is a fucking joke. Next to no equipment. No supply.
Sure, yeah, guerilla forces yes. The thing is that Canadians could hold their own in the rough terrain with their army at least until they get help from outside, while South Americans would be forced to use bunch of dudes with pointy sticks jumping out of trees to fight USA, while they would get no help due to USN murdering any tries to supply them (inb4 hue narco-subs hue).

South America combined is not "a bunch of dudes with pointy sticks jumping out of trees," and I'd love to see your citation for that.  The Canadian army, numerically, including reservists, ranks somewhere around not South America as a whole, but maybe just Argentina alone, and numbers are going to have a powerful weight in this kind of conflict.  Against the preponderance of force the US can apply in the early years of this hypothetical conflict, especially to its northern neighbor, any "stand-and-fight" mentality is going to result in that army of less than 50k soldiers and reservists melting away in the wind.  Quality-wise, they're far superior than any South American army, but those millions of South American soldiers and guerillas aren't just armed with sticks, and a bullet from an M964 FAL, M4 (which happens to be intended for US standard issue as well), or even an AK-47 will kill someone just as dead as a bullet from a Canadian C7.  The only way either Canada or all of the countries of South America are going to stay in the fight is through guerilla warfare, so don't denigrate it, and don't pretend one side's guerilla forces don't count while another side's do just because the latter's a First World country and the former aren't.  The US is certainly not going to have an easier time conquering an entire continent half a world away compared to a single country right next door. 

Also, how is supply getting over the Arctic in the amount required?  Last I checked, it's kinda covered in ice.  Cargo submarines were mentioned before by you, but these have never been a major part of any nation's naval arsenal due to their inefficiency.  Icebreakers, you mention, but these are basically target practice; break the lead ships and the entire fleet is stranded to be picked off at leisure.  By this general burst of logic, I could go "lol icebreakers" (by analogy to your "hue narco-subs") and say that supply can reach South America by circling Antarctica.  And lo, suddenly South America is magically as well-supplied as Canada.  Besides, in seriousness, there is much more coastline to cover for South America as a whole than there is for Canada, so that's not even such awful logic as one might think. 

[Kot]

South America combined is not "a bunch of dudes with pointy sticks jumping out of trees," and I'd love to see your citation for that.

Yeah, they're bunch of dudes with M3 Stuarts, with Cessnas for air force and river boats for navy. Sure, they can guerilla all they want in the forest, but without capabilities to hold out the US Army face to face for at least a while it's all matter of conquering the cities and letting the dudes with AK spears run around the forest until they die of old age. The only relatively modern army down here is... Brazil? I think? They have relatively modern tanks, like, Pattons and first generation Leopards, I am kinda sure.

The Canadian army, numerically, including reservists, ranks somewhere around not South America as a whole, but maybe just Argentina alone, and numbers are going to have a powerful weight in this kind of conflict.  Against the preponderance of force the US can apply in the early years of this hypothetical conflict, especially to its northern neighbor, any "stand-and-fight" mentality is going to result in that army of less than 50k soldiers and reservists melting away in the wind.  Quality-wise, they're far superior than any South American army, but those millions of South American soldiers and guerillas aren't just armed with sticks, and a bullet from an M964 FAL, M4 (which happens to be intended for US standard issue as well), or even an AK-47 will kill someone just as dead as a bullet from a Canadian C7.  The only way either Canada or all of the countries of South America are going to stay in the fight is through guerilla warfare, so don't denigrate it, and don't pretend one side's guerilla forces don't count while another side's do just because the latter's a First World country and the former aren't.  The US is certainly not going to have an easier time conquering an entire continent half a world away compared to a single country right next door. 

Yeah, but supply. South America would be pretty much stranded, Canada not.

Also, how is supply getting over the Arctic in the amount required?  Last I checked, it's kinda covered in ice.  Cargo submarines were mentioned before by you, but these have never been a major part of any nation's naval arsenal due to their inefficiency.  Icebreakers, you mention, but these are basically target practice; break the lead ships and the entire fleet is stranded to be picked off at leisure.  By this general burst of logic, I could go "lol icebreakers" (by analogy to your "hue narco-subs") and say that supply can reach South America by circling Antarctica.  And lo, suddenly South America is magically as well-supplied as Canada.  Besides, in seriousness, there is much more coastline to cover for South America as a whole than there is for Canada, so that's not even such awful logic as one might think. 

If you circle Antarctica you still have to get to South America and that's pretty huge distance you would have to cover while having USN on your ass. Canada has a natural cover in Hudson Bay. Also Brits with Battleships, bing bong. In general I'm just pulling shit out of my ass, and utilizing /k/ logic that whoever has better propaganda has better army. Canadians are cool and thus are much better. South Americans are slightly lighter-skinned African warlords.

Also, if enemy already got to get your lead ship, then you will die anyways, encased in ice or not.

[Taricus]

South america would be easier to supply that canada, if primarily due to just going around the dead zone the USN has via ship range.

And I'm pretty sure more than a few SA nations have modern military equipment like jets and the like. While naval-wise brazil likely has the only one that can operate any distance outside coastal waters they all have more than a few warships to contribute that happen to be somewhat modern at least.

[Kot]

The USN death zone is all around the globe unless you have a place where they would have to pass a narrow corridor and something that can stop a fleet.
Like Hudson Bay and Free World Other Than Ameirca (TM) fleet.

[Taricus]

I'm pretty sure the US navy still needs to refuel which does limit ship range. (Sure, the carriers are nuclear powered, but their escorts and support ships aren't.)

[Sergarr]

The USN death zone is all around the globe unless you have a place where they would have to pass a narrow corridor and something that can stop a fleet.
Like Hudson Bay and Free World Other Than Ameirca (TM) fleet.

Arctic counts, too - USA doesn't really have icebreakers to move their fleet over the icebergs. Though, since North Pole is kind of a death zone in itself...

[Strife26]

The USN death zone is all around the globe unless you have a place where they would have to pass a narrow corridor and something that can stop a fleet.
Like Hudson Bay and Free World Other Than Ameirca (TM) fleet.

Arctic counts, too - USA doesn't really have icebreakers to move their fleet over the icebergs. Though, since North Pole is kind of a death zone in itself...

Submarines can operate without significant degradation in polar regions, unlike the traditional surface and aerial countermeasures.

[smjjames]

The USN death zone is all around the globe unless you have a place where they would have to pass a narrow corridor and something that can stop a fleet.
Like Hudson Bay and Free World Other Than Ameirca (TM) fleet.

Arctic counts, too - USA doesn't really have icebreakers to move their fleet over the icebergs. Though, since North Pole is kind of a death zone in itself...

Submarines can operate without significant degradation in polar regions, unlike the traditional surface and aerial countermeasures.

You can't exactly break a path through the ice with a submarine.

I suppose one could could design a sub in a way so as to act like an icebreaker as well, but that'd probably compromise other things it needs.

Canada

Cold. Shitty. A lot of mountains, forests and places where noone lives. Army trained in cold and shit, while US is not. Modern equipment. Supply through  Arctic.

Warm. Shitty. A lot of mountains, rainforests and places where noone lives. Army is a fucking joke. Next to no equipment. No supply.
Sure, yeah, guerilla forces yes. The thing is that Canadians could hold their own in the rough terrain with their army at least until they get help from outside, while South Americans would be forced to use bunch of dudes with pointy sticks jumping out of trees to fight USA, while they would get no help due to USN murdering any tries to supply them (inb4 hue narco-subs hue).

You forget that we have Alaska, and winter in the northern parts of the continential US provides plenty of opportunity for training in cold conditions.

[Wolfhunter107]

No, but you can go under the ice, and if you need to surface, you can just go up through the ice