Surprise, Surprise, America Would Dominate The Rest Of The Globe In A World War


I’d be willing to bet that most red-blooded American men have either thought about or debated with friends on whether the United States could take on the rest of the world in a full-scale war. The folks over at Business Insider recently did a detailed analysis of this very scenario, and the outlook isn’t too far from what many of you may have come up with on your own. A few of the highlights of their breakdown:


The U.S. Navy is the world’s largest, and it’s not even close. With huge numbers of state-of-the-art ships, any other navy would be hard-pressed to get anywhere near American waters. Even if they did, the Coast Guard would make short work of them by the time they got within striking distance of the coastlines. Sorry world, the ocean belongs to America.


The United States’ arsenal of planes and helicopters is larger than those of the next seven nations combined, and consists of the world’s most advanced plane designs, targeting systems, and armaments, as well as the best pilots on the planet. Based on this assessment, it doesn’t seem like an enemy fighter or bomber would be able to successfully penetrate our airspace.

“The world’s only operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22, would conduct constant air patrols across the land borders of the US to prevent any incursion by enemy bombers. The Army’s Patriot missile launchers would help stop enemy jets or missiles and Stinger/Avenger missile crews would shoot down any low-flying planes or helicopters.”

Sounds convincing to me. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to find myself duking it out with an F-22 Goddamn Raptor.


In the unlikely event that battles took place on American soil, elite teams of paratroopers, infantry, and special ops could be transported to the battlefield at breakneck speeds. Enemy forces would also have to deal with a few hundred-million citizens cashing in on their Second Amendment rights.

Personally, the land invasion scenario is the most interesting to me. The United States has a killer road system for easy transport, a gun ownership rate north of one third ( Washington Post) , a lot of pissed-off rednecks, inhospitable terrain in the West, and countless Chipotle and Subway locations to keep the citizenry well-fed.

If this sort of invasion actually happened, I sure as hell hope Vegas isn’t bombed or otherwise destroyed. That would make it awfully hard for me to put all my money on the U.S. winning it all.

[via Business Insider]

    1. Jimmy Buffett12

      When you spend more on your military than the next 20 countries combined or whatever it is, you better be able to kick some serious ass. America does not disappoint.

      8 years ago at 3:07 pm
      1. Whittaker0311

        Being a service member myself I enjoy the pat on the back but we would get fucked hard in a global faceoff. Considering the numbers it’s like saying that Mike Tyson in his prime could take 200 crackheads in a fight to the death. For a good minute there would be some salting but sorry Mike you’re fucked. Ever seen 300?

        8 years ago at 10:56 pm
      2. A_Sig_I_Am

        With all due respect to your service, I think your comparison of a well trained grown ass man against lesser trained grown ass men is off. The US vs the world isn’t Mike Tyson vs 200 men around his size. It’s like prime Cain Valasquez vs oompa loompas. Sure, if they could combine all their powers Captain Planet style, then they might have a chance, but that’s not how it works. The only other country who spends triple digit billions on defense is China, and even then, they spend 25% of what we do. We spend more on defense than the next 15 countries combined. Somewhere around the Canada/Algeria budget is what’s going to be the difference? I doubt it.

        8 years ago at 6:41 pm
  1. Keep It Buttery

    This is an understatement, but the names of the Air Force’s planes, helicopters, etc. are freaking tight.

    8 years ago at 2:51 pm
  2. ChristianPKP

    So this article isn’t entirely true…we have a large portion of our logistical support deployed/OCONUS. We can only fight as far and as hard as our supply lines. We may have 5000+ Abrams Tanks, but they’re out of fuel and in 8 hrs. And Russia and China have near-peer capabilities in multiple warfighting functions. Don’t get me wrong, we can fuck up a lot of shit, but we rely heavily on NATO and UN support. I would feel better briefing a GO on enemy movements if I knew I had English or Australian or German maneuver assets to interdict or advance on the ‘evil-doers’. Basically, we can maneuver freely on the battlespace so long as we maintain air and indirect fire superiority. That means planes and artillery for those Call of Duty masters that think they know strategic or operational strategy 🙂

    8 years ago at 3:31 pm
    1. MyLifeBeLikeOorah

      Not to mention the Army can’t fire from 500 yards which makes them a liability.

      8 years ago at 4:03 pm
      1. ChristianPKP

        Do you mean we cannot engage w mortars less than 500 yards or that we don’t like to drop ordinance danger-close (like 600 meters) because we can and do both. We can drop a hellfire on ISIS nutsacks and pick which testicle dies first. Our motarman can hang rounds that close and we can always engage w a Javelin, although admittedly, I don’t know its arming distance by heart when firing top kill. Or perhaps you meant something else, either way, I was just in San Diego and I’m extremely jealous of Camp Pendleton’s beach front property.

        8 years ago at 6:09 pm
      2. MyLifeBeLikeOorah

        We qual from the 500, that’s all I was stating. The army times recently did an article on how poor the Army’s marksmanship has become, and it’s always been a joke Marines have made. I just left 29 Palms and I would’ve done anything to have gone to Pendleton instead of the stumps.

        8 years ago at 6:13 pm
    2. CatsAreFrat

      I’m an Abrams Tanker. They break all the fucking time. It’s a love/hate relationship. But when that main gun goes off it makes it all worth it.

      8 years ago at 7:34 pm
      1. ChristianPKP

        Even the Russian T-90Ss would lose in an open tank on tank battle. Y’all make the world a safer place 120mms at a time. See first, shoot first. Please keep banging away with the main gun. My favorite is knocking down a door w a 120 HE. Magnificent. Overkill? That’s subjective. Death before Dismount!

        8 years ago at 11:55 pm
    1. BloodyBunghole

      When my balls feel like that, it usually means they need to be shaved again.

      8 years ago at 4:16 pm
  3. Bud the Wiser

    Sorry world we just like to show off our freedom boner every now and again

    8 years ago at 3:55 pm
  4. BloodyBunghole

    I get the whole “Rah, Rah, Rah, USA, USA!” mentality… BUT…

    Saying we can beat any other country is VERY different that saying we can beat EVERY country simultaneously.

    We were technologically superior to the Vietnamese in every conceivable way… but no one claims we one that one (except maybe Trump… he was so good at Vietnam it’ll make your head spin!)

    Hitler lost because he fought a war on two fronts. Napoleon lost because he fought a war on two fronts. Let’s not go crazy and think we can fight a 195-front war…

    8 years ago at 4:15 pm
      1. thaisticktony

        Well Germany had allies and lost on two fronts and we had them and won on two fronts so ipso facto we are better.

        8 years ago at 8:47 am
      2. Hultinator

        Come on dude, we went in when the rest of the world had been in war for 4-5 years. We did not even get to Berlin first. The south pacific is different story though

        8 years ago at 9:52 am