NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay. I am not trying to make fun of the USA here. If there was a war between America and everyone else, who would win?

Everything would be destroyed. The U.S. has enough firepower to destroy everybody else multiple times, but there would still be enough nuclear subs and suchlike to wipe out the U.S.

This scenario strikes a little too close to home for me though...

I think the Earth would be destroyed. But before the planet erupts into oblivion...America will kick ass and take names :D

No one. America, powerful as our military may be, couldn't stand up to that kind of sheer power, and in desperation we would probably fire off our nuclear weapons at population centers to distract and halt the world's forces.

I voted MYrth, but The World (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=america&word2=world) wins. :(

Does anyone else find it interesting that the number of sites on Googlefight for "world" is really close to the actual population of Earth?

If you take nukes out of the equation, and obviously heavily dependent on the scenario, my money is probably on the US. Primarily due to their aircraft carriers, but also due to the nightmare involved in coordinating the disparate elements of the other armed forces. If you could find a way in which the US's carrier air power would be worn away by ground based fighters, then i reckon you might be in with a chance.
Of course it really depends on who's attacking and defending.

I think this answers your question...
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php

Hmm, that was funny when I watched it before. Now it's just boring.

I voted MYrth, but The World (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=america&word2=world) wins. :(
Well, if it's the USA vs. Everyone Else, the US wins. (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=USA&word2=everyone+else)

Well, if it's the USA vs. Everyone Else, the US wins. (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=USA&word2=everyone+else)
Googlefight is teh rubbish.

America would probably win only because of the impossibility of all of the world's nations remaining united and the conflicts of interest between different regions. The cultural, political, and language barriers would also produce an ever-increasing fracture within the alliance against the US, ultimately resulting in it collapsing and likely turning in to another war between those powers.

Either way, a hell of a lot of people would die and a hell of a lot would be destroyed in the process. I don't think there would be a winner because so much would be lost before the war ended. Even if the US won it would be facing an annihilated economy and a devasted environment, not to mention the task of rebuilding it.

If you take nukes out of the equation, and obviously heavily dependent on the scenario, my money is probably on the US. Primarily due to their aircraft carriers, but also due to the nightmare involved in coordinating the disparate elements of the other armed forces. If you could find a way in which the US's carrier air power would be worn away by ground based fighters, then i reckon you might be in with a chance.
Of course it really depends on who's attacking and defending.

Simple. Send in a few swarms of anti-ship missiles at each carrier. Even with the advanced missile defences on each ship, they could only take down a couple of missiles at a time. Send 20+ at a ship and it's dead in the water. I thin all of the nations of the World should have enough missiles to go around.

Everyone else.

Googlefight is teh rubbish.
your right. it doesent even use google.

In conventional warfare, the USA (I'm asuming America=USA, you close minded yankees) would lose horribly

In WMD warfare, everyoen would lose

America would probably win only because of the impossibility of all of the world's nations remaining united and the conflicts of interest between different regions. The cultural, political, and language barriers would also produce an ever-increasing fracture within the alliance against the US, ultimately resulting in it collapsing and likely turning in to another war between those powers.

Either way, a hell of a lot of people would die and a hell of a lot would be destroyed in the process. I don't think there would be a winner because so much would be lost before the war ended. Even if the US won it would be facing an annihilated economy and a devasted environment, not to mention the task of rebuilding it.
It's not like the US could have a civil war...

How long would the USA really last with the world shutting off oil supplies?

The US Armed Forces, if I remember right, are meant to be capable of 3 or 4 conflicts at once. The whole world? Forget it.

Simple. Send in a few swarms of anti-ship missiles at each carrier. Even with the advanced missile defences on each ship, they could only take down a couple of missiles at a time. Send 20+ at a ship and it's dead in the water. I thin all of the nations of the World should have enough missiles to go around.
All the other countries in the world could make a really big aircraft carrier fleet if they combined, and they would have an even better escort to capital ship ratio than the USA

Discarding Nukes..... the world. America can't even take Iraq without a fight that seriously hurts public opinion. China, a country that dwarfs it, would just cackle.

That is, if America is the aggressor. It could probably stalemate everyone on the defensive for a little while, simply because it's one of the few countries left that maintains a reasonable navy.

I'm one of those people that those who major in statistics hate.

See, I voted for America, because I really like this country and I'm fairly irritated at the rest of world seemingly encouraging dislike and spite towards it, but I do think that the world would win against America. Although I'm not very well versed in my military technology/protocol, I find it somewhat odd and perhaps borderline arrogant that some people are even harboring the very idea that we could stand up to the world, militarily.

The situation changes with nukes - if anything, we'd "win" in a nuclear exchange simply because we've got so many more than the rest of the world many times over. However, the term "win" in this scenario is referring to numbers only, as there would be no one left to savor any such victory. Using conventional military means, America would simply lose. That's all there is to it.

Discarding Nukes..... the world. America can't even take Iraq without a fight that seriously hurts public opinion. China, a country that dwarfs it, would just cackle.

That is, if America is the aggressor. It could probably stalemate everyone on the defensive for a little while, simply because it's one of the few countries left that maintains a reasonable navy.
The navy would just be overrrun by massive amounts of other ships. Many natiosn have carriers, they can easily gang up on the US in a massive sea battle

It's not like the US could have a civil war...

Not likely; when the US is facing an external threat we tend to unite fairly strongly against the enemy until it is defeated.

Plus, the cultural, economic, and political differences in the US are nothing compared to those between, for example, Europe and the Middle East or Africa and Asia. And within these continents there are numerous conflicts between invidivual nations and cultures, many of which go back centuries or even thousands of years. The religion factor would also

The situation changes with nukes - if anything, we'd "win" in a nuclear exchange simply because we've got so many more than the rest of the world many times over. However, the term "win" in this scenario is referring to numbers only, as there would be no one left to savor any such victory. Using conventional military means, America would simply lose. That's all there is to it.

No you don't, Russia alone has just as many, if not more nukes, and then there are all the other nuclear-capable nations, not to metion ones that have the knowledge but no bombs, or the ones that are capable of developing ones within a few years. If those nations went into war, they;d re-start their programs

All the other countries in the world could make a really big aircraft carrier fleet if they combined, and they would have an even better escort to capital ship ratio than the USA
You'd be surprised. There are only a handful of full sized carriers in the world, there are a few more smaller v/stol carriers and some helicopter carriers, but altogether they don't really compare to the 12 of the USN. The missile spamming idea might work, but if you take into account air wings you still might be out gunned.

You'd be surprised. There are only a handful of full sized carriers in the world, there are a few more smaller v/stol carriers and some helicopter carriers, but altogether they don't really compare to the 12 of the USN. The missile spamming idea might work, but if you take into account air wings you still might be out gunned.
well of course the world will be outnumbered, but it woudl still be one heck of a sea battle

Nations operating aircraft carriers (since someone mentioned it, and as far as I'm aware)
USA
UK
France
Possibly Russia.

well of course the world will be outnumbered, but it woudl still be one heck of a sea battle

But even an American victory would be Pyrrhic, with such high losses they'd inevitably lose the war.

Nations operating aircraft carriers (since someone mentioned it, and as far as I'm aware)
USA
UK
France
Possibly Russia.
Russia has aircraft carriers
India
Italy
Spain
Brasil
Thailand

Plus, we're assuming that the entire world would want to attack the US; that is highly unlikely given the US's economic prominence.

Japan, India, China, Mexico, and Canada are all extremely dependent on the US or each other for their economic well being and would therefore be reluctant to engage the US because they would gain absolutely nothing from it and would lose a lot regardless of whether or not they suffered military damages.

But even an American victory would be Pyrrhic, with such high losses they'd inevitably lose the war.
well, they'd have naval superiority until the rest of the world out-produces them

If there was a war between America and everyone else, who would win?

The question reminds me of the old Spartan boast that they could fight off all the rest of Greece by themselves if they ever chose to. I'll bet on America just because that's where I'm from. :)

That said, I doubt the question will ever arise. ;)

Plus, we're assuming that the entire world would want to attack the US; that is highly unlikely given the US's economic prominence.

Japan, India, China, Mexico, and Canada are all extremely dependent on the US or each other for their economic well being and would therefore be reluctant to engage the US because they would gain absolutely nothing from it and would lose a lot regardless of whether or not they suffered military damages.
yeah, but that point is pointless in this thread, because it is assumed that the rest fo the world is at war with the USA

Nations operating aircraft carriers (since someone mentioned it, and as far as I'm aware)
USA
UK
France
Possibly Russia.
Looking at wikipedia it seems to be: USA, UK, France, Russia, Spain, Italy, India, Brazil, Thailand. But most of those countries have only one or two, and a lot are only small 'uns.

yeah, but that point is pointless in this thread, because it is assumed that the rest fo the world is at war with the USA

But if we're going to make that kind of assumption, we could also assume that the US would develop an insurmountable superweapon that defeats all enemies or a perfect missle system that shoots down any attempt at a missle strike.

It is specious to assume that the entire world would be capable of pulling off a coordinated feat like that without any problems or conflicts of interest.

Looking at wikipedia it seems to be: USA, UK, France, Russia, Spain, Italy, India, Brazil, Thailand. But most of those countries have only one or two, and a lot are only small 'uns.
and a lot more on the way, and not only for those countries, if there is an aircraft carrier battle, and the USA will rpbly win, with soem carriers surviving, the rest of the world jsut has to start building ships outside of the USA's airpower (Indian Ocean), or jsut in areas that are rididculously defended when it comes to airforces (Europe)

Conventional warfare: You're kidding, right? U.S. could easily be run over by China alone, let alone the entire world.

Nukes: First of all M.A.D. would stop that from happening. The U.S. would be very unlikely to launch them all simultaneously, as it would assure us all of a prompt death. If they used them tactically, retaliatory strikes would completely destroy North America. The U.S. is a much smaller target; it'll take a lot less firepower to completely level our metrapolitan areas.

But if we're going to make that kind of assumption, we could also assume that the US would develop an insurmountable superweapon that defeats all enemies or a perfect missle system that shoots down any attempt at a missle strike.

It is specious to assume that the entire world would be capable of pulling off a coordinated feat like that without any problems or conflicts of interest.
yeah it is, but the OP assumed it, and thsi si what this thread is about, if you dont like it, then dont post here

Conventional warfare: You're kidding, right? U.S. could easily be run over by China alone, let alone the entire world.

Nukes: First of all M.A.D. would stop that from happening. The U.S. would be very unlikely to launch them all simultaneously, as it would assure us all of a prompt death. If they used them tactically, retaliatory strikes would completely destroy North America. The U.S. is a much smaller target; it'll take a lot less firepower to completely level our metrapolitan areas.
China could not beat the USA in conventional warfare, at least not yet, but the rest of the world can

Europe becouse we are more stable and we have been destroyed many times.
Pre-antique civilation was destroyed,pre-rom antique was destroyed, Room was destroyed and christian dark age was destroyed by renessance and 17-century age of reason.
In addition we are smarter and more popular in the rest of the world than the world police USA ever will be.
USA got big egoes and big cannons.
Europe has diplomats and welfare and educational enlightment that works.

I wouldn't miss france if it blow up though.

I asume nukes would be used but sparely becouse a war of such a scale would largely be about politics and control not destruction.

Why? becouse USA doesn't directly control much.
But Europe and even China controls a lot directly.

I imagine USA ecomics will fail and they will try to gain rescourses by force
but it will be futile becouse they will end up owning the rest of the world
to maintain their weapons only.
USA will end up comunstic in pure desperation and just contine to degenerate.

Europe will not. It's history. USA is middle ages becouse it's new and young.
We are not and await a second renessance, an rebirth of and second age of reason. The Huge various russias will all be in EU and turkey and some parts of south africa too. China will make an trade pact with us
and the puny barbaric middle east devided and exploited by Europe and China.
Under our influence they will gain an arabic renessance instead of an dark age of stupid religion so they will be cooler and more loyal but boys.

USA will join with south american and africa. They will take indonesia, malaysia and japan.
USA will collapse in infighting and revolution.
USA will be the but boy of Europe that it was meant to be.

An golden Euroasian Union with no muslims and no usa.

it's just dream

The world would definately win. They have a huge advantage in numbers. I know alot of people have said that our advantage in technology would allow us to succeed in such a war. Think about it, though, our advantage in technology isn't even enough to lead to success in Iraq right now. Technology is obviously not that important compared to other factors.

Interestingly, I think the fact that the world could easily defeat America shows that, for the most part, other nations have been satisfied with what we have done throughout history. Obviously, we're currently ruinning that good will with the current administration, but even that hasn't been enough to make the other nations do anything significant against us. Hopefully, the next administration will help to reaffirm the good relations with Europe that we have historically enjoyed.

Ok, my bad on carriers. However, a carrier is not a godlike superweapon.
Competent use of the myriad ships available to Rest of the World could wipe the carriers out - though admittedly for heavy losses.

No individual nation could defeat the US in a conventional war, but the Rest of the World would walk it.

Nukes: First of all M.A.D. would stop that from happening. The U.S. would be very unlikely to launch them all simultaneously, as it would assure us all of a prompt death. If they used them tactically, retaliatory strikes would completely destroy North America. The U.S. is a much smaller target; it'll take a lot less firepower to completely level our metrapolitan areas.

Actually, I recall seeing something that documents the number of warheads necessary to kill 25% of the population in particular regions of the world; I'll see if I can find it.

Europe becouse we are more stable and we have been destroyed many times.
Pre-antique civilation was destroyed,pre-rom antique was destroyed, Room was destroyed and christian dark age was destroyed by renessance and 17-century age of reason.
In addition we are smarter and more popular in the rest of the world than the world police USA ever will be.
USA got big egoes and big cannons.
Europe has diplomats and welfare and educational enlightment that works.

I wouldn't miss france if it blow up though.

I asume nukes would be used but sparely becouse a war of such a scale would largely be about politics and control not destruction.

Why? becouse USA doesn't directly control much.
But Europe and even China controls a lot directly.

I imagine USA ecomics will fail and they will try to gain rescourses by force
but it will be futile becouse they will end up owning the rest of the world
to maintain their weapons only.
USA will end up comunstic in pure desperation and just contine to degenerate.

Europe will not. It's history. USA is middle ages becouse it's new and young.
We are not and await a second renessance, an rebirth of and second age of reason. The Huge various russias will all be in EU and turkey and some parts of south africa too. China will make an trade pact with us
and the puny barbaric middle east devided and exploited by Europe and China.
Under our influence they will gain an arabic renessance instead of an dark age of stupid religion so they will be cooler and more loyal but boys.

USA will join with south american and africa. They will take indonesia, malaysia and japan.
USA will collapse in infighting and revolution.
USA will be the but boy of Europe that it was meant to be.

An golden Euroasian Union with no muslims and no usa.

it's just dream

Um, yeah. That makes so much sense, I read it three times. Unfortunately I still can't tell if you're high, dreaming, or taking the piss.

yeah, but that point is pointless in this thread, because it is assumed that the rest fo the world is at war with the USA

China and Europe are more independent from USA now than ever and it is growing.
I think China and Europe are already inpedentent or equal.
Everone would side with them.

Um, yeah. That makes so much sense, I read it three times. Unfortunately I still can't tell if you're high, dreaming, or taking the piss.

It sounds like that Time Cube guy...

China and Europe are more independent from USA now than ever and it is growing.

China is more dependent on the US today than it was at any time in its history, and is only getting more so. That's why it the concept of a worldwide alliance against the US is virtually impossible; India is also dependent on the US for the biggest chunk of its trade, and the rest is with China or Asian partners dependent on China.

If China and India go with the US or remain neutral, that eliminates 2.3 billion people and $12 trillion in GDP from the world side, meaning both sides are now almost equally matched in economic terms. The result would probably be an endless and bloody stalemate until one side clearly wins a strategic battle and tips the scale.

China and Europe are more independent from USA now than ever and it is growing.
I think China and Europe are already inpedentent or equal.
Everone would side with them.

That'll be why the USA is China's biggest export market. The exports which fuel the growing prosperity that keeps the ruling party in power...

It sounds like that Time Cube guy...
-1 x -1 = -1

Um, yeah. That makes so much sense, I read it three times. Unfortunately I still can't tell if you're high, dreaming, or taking the piss.
i think its all 3

What?
Naw I just let go and write down an cool story.
It's just ideas but if world is at war versus USA
why not?
Any better rationalisation?
However Europe is better really.
I would like an game or a book like that.
I maybe make one.

well we can be sure the world would win and loads of people will die but just imagine the uber battles like a counter attack to a U.S invasion of Mexico or a massive airborne invasion of Cuba!

What?
Naw I just let go and write down an cool story.
It's just ideas but if world is at war versus USA
why not?
Any better rationalisation?
However Europe is better really.
I would like an game or a book like that.
I maybe make one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Alert_2

Gosh-darn, they beat you to it.

And how is Europe better than America? I honestly think that we're equal. We both have our perks, and we both have our downsides. No one is really superior to anyone else. Being American doesn't make you less of a person than a European, and vice-versa.

And Europeans call me a bigot...

well we can be sure the world would win and loads of people will die but just imagine the uber battles like a counter attack to a U.S invasion of Mexico or a massive airborne invasion of Cuba!

That's probably what we would do; we would take over Canada, Central America, and the Carribean, entrench ourselves and just wait it out. We have the resources for a siege.

The US could do a lot of damage, even in a conventional war. We certainly has a big edge in tech. But where would we get the manpower to occupy Russia, China, and India? And that's just three large countries. There's a lot more than that in the world.

how many people live in the USA? i believe it isnt more than 300 million, and is probably closer to 260?

china numbers what is it, 1.5 billion people?

i hate to use world war 1 military strategic thinking, but china is a HUGE country, with an economy that is accelerating ridiculously last i heard. in a war situation between china and the USA alone, the sheer numerical difference is immense. the USA might win a strategic war, but on the ground the USA hasnt won a war, they are always defeated at a tactical level. their air force is incredible, and their navy is immense, and their great for pounding the shit out of an enemy country, but in the end an army has to be deployed, and im sorry guys, but the USA is really bad on the ground. yes they have superior technology, but they just arent any good at it. look at vietnam, korea, afghanistan and Iraq. 4 wars in almost 4 decades and not one of them could the usa "win" on the ground. now, admitted, the UK isnt much better, but our militaries intensive experience with anti-terrorism work in ireland places our military in much more suitable position for actually taking control of a location, see the Falklands war. the american military is a sledgehammer, which decimates the opposition, they just havent learnt to consolidate their victories yet, the day they do will be quite terrifying though. (i know i sound like im all "anti-america" but im not, i love the place, its just a look at some potential facts)

darkside

ps. i believe the uk has recently decommissioned their last "full-scale" aircraft carrier, and now operates smaller "assault-carriers" and lots of cruise missile capability on frigates, i think...

in a Conventional War maybe the Wrold there are alot more countries ot there with a lot better trained Military personnel they might not have the techonology but wars still go down to the boot and and the Bayonet

ps. i believe the uk has recently decommissioned their last "full-scale" aircraft carrier, and now operates smaller "assault-carriers" and lots of cruise missile capability on frigates, i think...
We decommisioned all the large carriers years ago because of the policy drawn up at the time of the Wilson government. The only reason we have even the tiny Invincible class is because someone labelled them as 'through- deck cruisers' as opposed to aircraft carriers. The theory was we'd only be needing an anti-submarine force to combat the Russians, and it was only by chance that Hermes hadn't yet been decomiisioned when the Falklands started otherwise that would have been a non-starter.
However there are a couple of full (ish) sized carriers in the works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVF

ps. i believe the uk has recently decommissioned their last "full-scale" aircraft carrier, and now operates smaller "assault-carriers" and lots of cruise missile capability on frigates, i think...

We have two aircraft carriers still in commission. They're the same class as the one recently decommissioned.
Currently in the design stage are our first "full-scale" carriers in decades, as in capable of having jet fighters take off without VTOL or a ski-jump.

America would win, because we finance half the world through foreign aid and we'd pull those strings to use all the tinpot dictators of the world to our advantage.

NOt to mention the UN, because we give them a free place to stay. And I seriously doubt the brits would go to war against us, as would the Taiwanese, Israelis, and a few others.

America's foreign aid is well under the UN recommended 0.7% of GDP.
That would mean that Europe gives more aid in most places than the US.
Good luck using that pull...
Anyway, the OP was assuming that all the world was at war with the US, what would happen. Not asking how likely such a war was.

Mole People

they're down there...somewhere. Just waiting for us to lower are guard. CURSE YOU MOLE SCUM:mp5: :sniper:

Assuming it was literally the RoW versus the US, it would be no contest.

America would have to quickly start fighting mexico and canada, in order to prevent a pooling of resources by the world to invade the US. This would tie it up however, and its airforce would be kept busy in these theatres. Also begin attrition.

The RoW has about an equal airforce; however, the naval factories would start up, and with all trade blocked to the US, the RoW would be able to build ships, planes, etc much more easily than the US.

The USN would slowly get whittled away, the airforce as well. Its army would occupy continental north america, and probably hunker down.

Slowly, the RoW would gain strong enough naval capabilities to overcome remaining USN forces, and keep a naval air campaign going, probably in mexico, supported by airfields in south america and non-continental US. RoW forces would pool in south america, and make a large push into mexico.

Mexico would come quickly, once the US had been attritioned long enough for the world to overcome its airforce and navy. Then, canada would be hit with amphibious invasion. From here, its a tough battle taking the US; The US would probably start splitting up when RoW forces had heavily invaded, and broker deals with the RoW.

Of course, this situation would never happen.

US vs the World. The World would win simply due to Numbers and resources.

Common sense says the world. Lets hope it never happens and we don't find out..

Mind you, I've seen some frankly scary graphs of comparative military spending. The US spends more than the rest of the world put together. What are they spending it all on? Somehow I doubt it's better pay for the soldiers.

An awful lot of research, procurement, bases, maintenance, pensions, soldiers pay, and waste - and of course the cost of operations.
Apart from that not much....

If the rest of the world ganged up on the USA, and presuming only conventional weapons are used, the USA simply would not have the resources to fight off everyone.

If nukes are used, everyone would lose.

Common sense says the world. Lets hope it never happens and we don't find out..

Mind you, I've seen some frankly scary graphs of comparative military spending. The US spends more than the rest of the world put together. What are they spending it all on? Somehow I doubt it's better pay for the soldiers.

Heck, I imagine those UFOs they have at area51 could chew up the rest of the world too.

If the rest of the world ganged up on the USA, and presuming only conventional weapons are used, the USA simply would not have the resources to fight off everyone.

If nukes are used, everyone would lose.

I've got a novel based on this very idea that the US is invaded (With permission of the president!) by 5 different countries. I might post it one of these days.

I've got a novel based on this very idea that the US is invaded (With permission of the president!) by 5 different countries. I might post it one of these days.

Invaded with permission of the President? Interesting. What's the scenario that makes it possible?

Invaded with permission of the President? Interesting. What's the scenario that makes it possible?

President Billary requesting UN help in "rebuilding" the country (Or something similar).

It all goes downhill from there. Takes place in the New england area-New Hampshire, Mass, etc.

Live free or die.

Unless you sing "America, Fuck Yeah!!" as the National Anthem, the rest of the world is going to win.

President Billary requesting UN help in "rebuilding" the country (Or something similar).

It all goes downhill from there. Takes place in the New england area-New Hampshire, Mass, etc.

Live free or die.


I like Pattons idea better ..live free and make the other poor dumb bastard die for his country ;)

You dont win a war by dying for your country...:D

I like Pattons idea better ..live free and make the other poor dumb bastard die for his country ;)

You dont win a war by dying for your country...:D

That kind of explains Operation Yellow Elephant's target audience :D

6.5 billion people waging war against 300 million.

6 500 000 000
300 000 000

65:3 odds. each american would have to kill 21 odd non US citizens. Even if you just count men against men, the odds are the same 32:1.5 ish.

A good example would be the finland/russian war, known as the winter war. Finnish soldiers killed as many as 200 russians for each Finn lost, and they still lost to Russia. Man, those Finns could shoot though...

Those are unbelievably long odds though, because that would have to be the AVERAGE kill per soldier. For every american that failed to reach that target number, another solder would have to take up the slack.

Its nonsensical thread. It should be blatantly apparent the US would lose, and really, we all would.

Air superiority? No. The US could not cycle their aircraft through landing/maintenance/reloads and attack phases fast enough to eliminate the on coming aircraft. They could not provide enough ground labour to keep the machines running 24/7 for the time needed to destroy all the enemy aircraft.

Likewise with the Navy. They just couldnt load enough shells onboard to sink all the boats capable of delivering soldiers to US soil. They couldnt fire fast enough to sink the ships. Each American ship sunk would lose a load of shells to Davey Jones.

Read those numbers again. If military forces are a percentage of population, those numbers hold true here too. Can one ship sink 20 others? How many refits would it need to do that?

Imagine 1 battle ship in New York. It leaves port to fight 20 ships leaving from London. Only one ship leaves from London at a time. No other ships are involved. They meet halfway, and the american Ship sinks the enemy. he proceeds onwards towards london. 3/4 of the way there he meets the next ship, duels, and wins. Hes getting low on ammo, but goes for a third kill.

He reaches 7/8s of the way, sinks the third ship and races home for a refit. At 1/2 way, an enemy ship is at 1/4 of the way to america. At 3/4 way home, the enemy is 1/2 way. When he reaches home and starts his refit, the enemy arrives at 3/4 ways overseas, and will attack when he is still in port, at a greater or lesser degree of functionality, depending on the fortunes of war.

If one ship cannot prevail over 20, then 100 may not prevail over 2000. If the same amount of energy is embodied in making a super aircraft carrier as 10 little ones, then the little ones must only sink 1 ship, the big one must sink all ten to win.

The american military mind knows this: its the basic tactic that was used against superior German Tanks in WWII. Just build more tanks faster than the enemy, and you will win. In the cause of America in WWII, it was about 4 tanks lost for every tiger killed, So they just produced 5 tanks for each Tiger.

No nation could sustain a war against the entire world.

Think about it, though, our advantage in technology isn't even enough to lead to success in Iraq right now.
Although Iraq was a landslide victory as far as defeating the Iraqi military went, it is just that it is pretty much impossible for any military, no matter how powerfull it is, to stop all of the things going on such as suicide bombings. Sot hat point is irrelevant if this hypothetical war simply involves both sides aiming to completely wipe out the other.