Thread Tools
Old February 11, 2003, 01:29   #91
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 16:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
GePap,

Quote:
Many US forces are stationed outside the US, and thus large segments of the trained US military would be cut of, isolated, and eliminated without he chance for support.
This assumes an overnight move for everyone to ally against the US and attack the next day. Not gonna happen. If the US starts seeing moves like this, it'll have time to move these forces out.

Quote:
While the economic collapes would be severe for all, the US could not secure enough oil to meet its energy needs. oil installations are easy targets for asymetrical warfare, speaically in Latin America. If one assumes an unfriendly populace, the US would be unable to hold on to any territory outside of the US withou a very significant outlay of resources, which would be fast dwindling.
Unless the US takes off the kiddie gloves and simply hits the major cities and towns in occupied territories with, say, neutron bombs and shoots anyone who comes out, civilians and soldiers alike.

Quote:
The US would have to impose major drafts to maintain its forces and any administrative units,
So would the world, but to a greater scale. Most Americans would volunteer if the threat were as great as this.

Quote:
and no, the US could no control the seas. The US navy is the largest in the world and most advanced, but the submarine threat is greater than ever and the US does not have enough Anti-sub warfare units [did we not outsource much of this work to other NATO allies?] to cope with the threat of European (including Russian) attack subs, specially those with cruise missiles.
Yes, in the Cold War, we outsourced a lot of ASW to NATO forces. A couple of points, though. First, the Soviet Navy was much more potent than the Russian navy, which is simply rusting in port. Exactly how many Russian submarines do you think could deploy against the US? Not that many I'd say, at least not for a while. Secondly, the US needed more ASW protection because it needed to keep the Atlantic open for convoys transporting equipment to Europe. This would not be the case in this type of a war.

You provided no real reason why the US would not control the seas. It seems as if you are conceding that the US surface fleet is more than a match for the surface fleets of the rest of the world, but the world would simply use submarines. That's a nice hypothesis, but quite frankly the rest of the world doesn't have enough subs. Let's look at the numbers:

The US currently has 2 Seawolf-class submarines (the most advanced attack subs in the world) and 50 Los Angeles-class attack boats (also very advanced). Further, the US has 18 Ohio class SSBNs, which are pretty much undetectable, even by the US - an Ohio has never been tracked in deep water, barring some sort of accident on board the SSBN. I see no reason these Ohios could be pressed into service as attack subs in a pinch.

So, we're looking at a total of 70 nuclear powered submarines, capable of extended, independent, long range operations anywhere in the world.

Further, there are a total of 30 Virginia class attack submarines planned, with the first coming into service next year, and the second in 2005. The further you delay this war, the more Virginia's the US will have in its arsenal.

Now, the rest of the world.

Russia has 12 SSBNs, although only the Typhoon class (of which they have one) is anywhere near the quality of an Ohio. The other 11 would be liabilites rather than assets in an attack role, and I have my doubts about the Typhoon. The 6 Delta-IVs are nearing the end of their service life (due to be retired in 2004), and are poorly maintained.

Russia also has 8 SSGNs - the Oscar-II class. These are relatively active, so I suppose we can count these in Russia's total.

Russia operates 10 Akulas, which are their best SSN but still considerably behind the US Los Angeles. There are also 2 Sierra-IIs, which are even further behind the Los Angeles. The final remaining nuclear boats are the 8 Victor-IIIs, which are behind the Sierra-IIs in terms of modernity. Russia retains 3 active Improved Kilo diesel-electric boats, and 12 regular Kilos, but the regular Kilos are coastal/littoral subs, so we can't really count those. I'll be generous, though, and lump these Kilos in with Russia's total.

Russia's final tally comes to 32 submarines, of which all but the Akulas, Typhoon, and possibly Oscar-IIs are of questionable value.

China has 1 Xia class SSBN, but this boat is utterly useless, as it's reactor makes so much noise I could probably hear it using a seashell and sink it with a harpoon. China also has 5 Han class SSNs, which are basically noisy and primitive in comparison to the US (or, for that matter, Russia). Finally, China has 2 Improved Kilos.

In theory, this gives China 8 submarines that can operate effectively against the USN, but in reality, the total is probably 0.

Now, to the European navies. France has 4 SSBNs, and 6 Amethyste class SSNs. I would question the value of the French SSBNs - again, probably more of a liability if used as attack subs. The Netherlands possesses 4 Walrus class diesal electrics which are possibly capable of overseas operations against the USN, although I doubt it. The British have 4 Vanguard class SSBNs, 7 Trafalgar SSNs, and 5 Swiftsure SSNs.

This concludes the relevant totals for Europe - I define "relevant" as submarines capable of operating long distances from their home base against the USN. The vast majority of Europe's submarines are simply coastal diesal electrics, which are unsuitable - an example of this is the Swedish submarine force. They have some excellent submarines, but they are irrelevant unless the US tries to park large naval forces off the coast of Europe.

The European numbers include 8 SSBNs, and 18 SSNs.

Let's see who else we can dig up with potential submarine combatants.

Australia has 5 Collins class SSKs, but all of these are suffering from combat systems problems which will delay full combat capability. I really doubt we can count this subs, at least initially.

India has 10 Kilo class boats, which are of questionable value in modern naval warfare.

Japan definitely has the best submarine force of the rest of the world. They possess 4 Oyashi class SSKs, 1 Asashio class SSK, 6 Harushio SSKs, and 7 Yushio class SSKs. This makes a total of 18.

Taiwan has 2 Hai Lung SSKs, and 2 Hai Shih SSKs - 4, total.

Canada has 4 Victoria class submarines.

Argentina has 2 Santa Cruz class SSKs.

Chile has 1 Oberon class boat.

Egypt has 4 Romeos, but these are utterly useless and outdated. I suppose we can count them, though.

Iran has 3 Kilos, but these all have "serious operational difficulties". I'm not gonna count those.

Algeria has 2 Kilos.

Pakistan has 1 Agosta 90B class boat.

North Korea has a bunch of submarines designed in the 1950s. I'm not worried.

So, overall, the rest of the world has the following forces which I view as capable of operating against the USN:

SSBNs: 20
SSGNs: 8
SSNs: 38 SSNs
SSKs: 60(most small and very very outdated, except for those of Japan, Canada, and a couple others)

As opposed (again) to the USN:

SSBNs: 18
SSNs: 52

This means the US has a large advantage in SSNs, a slight disadvantage in SSBNs, and has no SSKs. The US also has a significant technological advantage - the most advanced "world" submarines are the Russian Akulas and the British Trafalgars, both of which lag behind the Los Angeles, and lag a LOT behind the Seawolf and Virginia.

But initially, the USN would be fighting defensively in most areas. If the world wants to throw submarines at the USN, the US will be able to use not only it's submarines, but also it's considerable ASW warships and ASW aircraft operating off of aircraft carriers and land bases. Sure, the US would take losses, and the world might even get lucky and knock out a carrier or two, but the US would come out ahead in the trade by quite a bit.

Of course, that is a best case scenario for the world. Those submarine forces have huge differences in terms of training, maintenance, technology, and doctrine, do not have standardized weapons, use different communications suites, and speak different languages, and, perhaps most of all, are not used to operating together. Many of those Russian submarines are probably incapable of deployment, and the same can probably be said of many of the Third World's SSKs, such as the Kilos and Romeos. Most likely, the USN would simply clean up.

Quote:
The US controls 25-30% of the world economic output, but is deficient in several key materials beyond oil. Thus for the US to survie is not enough to keep invaders out of the US, but to secure the resources it needs from around the world, and this would lead to an endless bleeding of resources, specially in places like Africa, a key spource of many strategic resources.
This is very true, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of the resources the US needs could be found in easily accessible Western Hemisphere areas, or on Pacific islands. Remember, if the US controls the seas - and it would - it can get to various strategic islands with little difficulty.

Quote:
One has then to assume attacks on US digital domains, economic warfare, and attacks against our space assets. When one is heavily reliant on such devices, their loss would be devastating, and anyone who thinks some engineer outside of the US could no think up some crude way of bringing down our GPS satellites is really a fool.
I think that US computer attacks, cryptanalysis and the like would be far better and more coordinated than that of the rest of the world. In terms of finding a way to bring down satellites, sure, it could be done, but remember that the primary ESA launch facilities are in the Western Hemisphere (French Guyana), and the Japanese facilities could be hit with missiles without too much trouble. This leaves the Russian facilities which would be largely safe, but just how many launchers do you think Russia has available right now? Not a lot, I'd imagine, and in any case, I'd be willing to bet the US could bring down European and Russian satellites before their own were brought down.

el freako,

Quote:
Yup, almost the only thing the British Royal Navy seems to have been designed for is ASW - i'd like to see the yanks try and get past us even with their new high-tech subs (of which they have 2 AFAIK).
Let's look at the British surface fleet.

3 Invincible class VSTOL carriers (of which 1 is always in reserve/refit). I suppose these could be used in ASW, but using carriers for ASW is not that great of an idea, as the Royal Navy found out early in WW2. Besides, these would be needed if the world wanted to present any serious challenge to the US surface fleet.

4 Manchester class air defense destoyers. As the name implies, used more for air defense than ASW.

4 Sheffield class air defense destroyers. See explanation above.

3 Sheffield class air defense destroyers. See explanation above, with the added caveat that these are very lacking in effective self defense, and two were lost to Argentina in the Falklands War.

16 Duke class frigates. These could certainly be used for ASW, but certainly some of them would be needed as carrier escorts, not in dedicated ASW hunter-killer type groups.

4 Cornwall class frigates. See above.

1 Boxer class ASW frigate. Ah, a ship actually called an ASW frigate.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the Royal Navy, while one of the best surface fleets in the world, is just not adequate to fighting the USN. It can either use all of its warships in ASW roles close to Europe, or it can forward deploy against the USN. If it forward deploys, it dies to US naval aviation. If it stays close in, it accomplishes nothing, and probably still gets nibbled away by US submarines.

DinoDoc,

Quote:
Water is a very effective barrier to invasion. We need only look at the example of the UK to see as much.
Great point. If Spain in the 16th Century, France in the early 19th Century, and Hitler's Germany couldn't invade (and thus defeat) England because of the Royal Navy and English Channel, why should the world be able to defeat the US, when the US possesses even greater naval dominance over the world and much greater water barriers than the UK possessed?

Barley,

Quote:
My point is that whilst the USA has developed this technology and employ it in theater to a much large scale than the rest of the world we are not behind in terms of technology.
That's nice. But all that really matters is naval technology and capability, and the US has the rest of the world faded in that field.

Quote:
That means USA could theoretically field a combat army of say 50 million while the rest of the world would be say 1000 million.
Irrelevant. The USA probably wouldn't need an army larger than a couple-three million. This is the same analogy as China-Taiwan. Sure, China has 4 million men, but they can't swim across the Taiwan Straits, so they effectively don't exist.

Quote:
If total war was to happen the fact that your current assets include whatever number of Aegis Cruisers, Cruise Missiles, Large Carrier Battle Groups, Stealth Bombers, Attack Submarines etc would be irrelevant, so would the much vaunted protective belt of ocean. USA could not win in, as in total war the victor would be determined by war of attrition. The combined industrial and production capacity of the rest of the world once geared up for full war production would far outstrip that of the USA, and unlike USA would not be limited to such a small number of sites.
OK, but here is your problem. If the US needed to, it could simply withdraw the navy to within shore based air cover. If this happens, in order to defeat the US, the world would have to bring along enough naval aviation to defeat both the USN and USAF. And I'll bring up my point from before - if it takes the world 15 years to design and build and field even 20 large carriers, with 70 aircraft apiece, that's still only 1400 aircraft. I'd be willing to bet the US could crank out more aircraft than that in a year, without significantly cranking up wartime production. Say the US built 2000 aircraft a year. In 15 years, that's 30,000 aircraft. 30,000 aircraft against 1400 would be a turkey shoot.

The world's greater industrial production would only become relevant if they could field it against the US effectively. In WW2, for example, the US significantly outproduced Germany in 1942, yet it still couldn't invade Europe, and this with air superiority over the landing areas and an unsinkable aircraft carrier that Germany couldn't effectively attack (Britain).
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old February 11, 2003, 01:57   #92
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
DF:

To begin: 1.
Quote:
Unless the US takes off the kiddie gloves and simply hits the major cities and towns in occupied territories with, say, neutron bombs and shoots anyone who comes out, civilians and soldiers alike.
Neutron bombs are WMD. The US would be vaporized, as would so many other places , once this was done. Two: if you kill evryone, then you must import workers trained to run the facilities, no? and killing evryone not only eventually wear down the moral of your forces (as the Nazi's learned form their extermination campaigns) but it also is very costly. My point still stands. And where will the US hit such towns from? Bases in the US? If you asume no US bases outside the US, then the ability of the US to fly around the world is severely cut since that ability rests on a world-wide network of refueling planes, which you assumed form the start not to exist.

2. As for your notion of commanding the seas. You forget the size of the Ocean, my friend. Being able to control the middle of nowhere in the mid ocean is meaningless. The question is whether the US can control sea routes, which means that the US navy not only has to deal with naval forces but with land-based aircraft and much more undane things like mines. NOt glamorous, but hey. As for resources, the US does not have the ability to dominate the whole western hemisphere (point above and remake my previous point) so the US would have to go to the old world (not just some "pacific islands, many of which are nothing more then coral sticking out of the sea) to gain various key resources. Which only exarserbates the previous issue.

Now, could the US defend itself from a direct invasion? probably. But winning wars is more then just not being invaded. Eentual economic collapse in the US would lead to the end of whichever political movement brought the state to collapse. Fine, the same could be said of other states as well, specially in Africa, where the disruption of the worldwide food market would make a huge impact, but still, they are minor. No, the US would lose any war if it were trully alone. It is obvious if WMD come into play, and still obvious if they didn't.
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old February 11, 2003, 02:00   #93
Kramerman
Prince
 
Kramerman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Posts: 884
DF, wow, how much time you spend on that? very interesting information
__________________
"I bet Ikarus eats his own spunk..."
- BLACKENED from America's Army: Operations
Kramerman - Creator and Author of The Epic Tale of Navalon in the Civ III Stories Forum
Kramerman is offline  
Old February 11, 2003, 02:48   #94
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 16:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Kman,

Quote:
DF, wow, how much time you spend on that?
Half an hour. It's just a matter of accessing/remembering the info and making a reasonably readable post.

GePap,

Quote:
Neutron bombs are WMD.
Fine, mass napalm attacks.

Quote:
Two: if you kill evryone, then you must import workers trained to run the facilities, no?
We aren't exactly talking about a ton of facilities the US would need to operate. Some oil refineries and drills, maybe some offshore platforms, stuff like that.

Quote:
and killing evryone not only eventually wear down the moral of your forces (as the Nazi's learned form their extermination campaigns)
I specifically said to put aside the question of morale, because realistically, the morale of the rest of the world would collapse in an offensive war against the US. Come on.

Quote:
And where will the US hit such towns from? Bases in the US?
Yes. Why couldn't US heavy bombers, with adequate refueling, hit necessary targets in North America and northern South America?

Quote:
2. As for your notion of commanding the seas. You forget the size of the Ocean, my friend. Being able to control the middle of nowhere in the mid ocean is meaningless. The question is whether the US can control sea routes, which means that the US navy not only has to deal with naval forces but with land-based aircraft and much more undane things like mines. NOt glamorous, but hey.
Why would the US need to control sea lanes, such as the Straits of Malacca or the Suez Canal, etc.? I thought the assumption was already that the US was cut out of foreign trade, so why defend something that isn't beneficial?

But you're the one who is misunderstanding modern naval warfare. A single US carrier battle group basically dominate a bubble around it equal to the maximum strike range of it's aircraft - several hundred miles. If you add more battle groups, you add more control. There's no reason the US couldn't dominate the Pacific, from Midway to the West Coast and from Alaska to several thousand miles south, and no reason the US couldn't strike outward against world naval forces beyond this range. Same thing in the Atlantic - the South American navies are not a threat at all. The US probably wouldn't lose a single ship sinking those fleets.

Quote:
As for resources, the US does not have the ability to dominate the whole western hemisphere (point above and remake my previous point)
Sure it does. The US can't OCCUPY the entire Western Hemisphere, certainly, but outside the US, the major resource is oil, which can be found close to the US in Mexico and Canada. Further, the US could exercise a huge amount of pressure by simply stopping food shipments to South and Central America - starve them out through blockade. The Amazon basin isn't exactly ideal for grain production, and Argentina certainly doesn't produce enough to feed 400 million people, I wouldn't imagine (especially not after the US strikes their agricultural areas with airpower).

Quote:
Now, could the US defend itself from a direct invasion? probably. But winning wars is more then just not being invaded.
Not in this case. The whole point of the world united against the US would be to invade and destroy the US. If the US stops this, and does considerable damage to the world military forces in the meantime, then the US wins, no?
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old February 11, 2003, 02:59   #95
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
On various points: Carrier groups are more vulnerable than landbased aircraft: looses by normal attrition are higher, the ability to refule and rearm limited by the safety fo supply vessels, so forth and so on. In general, carrier borne aircraft will not win a protracted battle with landbased aircraft, and yes, airplanes miss things at sea as well. control can never be airtight. Also maximum range does not equal effective range fully loaded and incombat conditions.

As for your asumption that 'world' sentiment would break before American: why? Just saying it doesn't make it a valid argument.

2. Latin America is self-sufficient in food. Thus the US could not "starve it out" as you imagine. The notion of sriking farmland with bombs is silly, though the myriad problems with this notion are too many to go over. Only the use of chemicals or the use of land-forces could make such a strategy useful. On invokes WMD use anyway, the other necesitates occupation.

3. Napalm is a conventional weapon, and thus like all conventional weaponsm hardly 100% effective. Killing everyone in an area is a highly espensive task, wich does demoralize forces and break down their effectiveness.

This is my last word here in this thread, for I don't crae to spend the time to make an argument I find so obvious.
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old February 11, 2003, 03:06   #96
Combat Ingrid
Prince
 
Combat Ingrid's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:02
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Smothered in delicious yellow chemical sludge.
Posts: 782
Quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
if it takes the world 15 years to design and build and field even 20 large carriers, with 70 aircraft apiece, that's still only 1400 aircraft. I'd be willing to bet the US could crank out more aircraft than that in a year, without significantly cranking up wartime production. Say the US built 2000 aircraft a year. In 15 years, that's 30,000 aircraft. 30,000 aircraft against 1400 would be a turkey shoot.

So you are saying that US has 20x the capacity of the rest of the world?
I bet Sweden alone could easily produce these aircrafts if we were in wartime production. But then again, the rest of the world could probably not manage to build ~1 carrier/year
__________________
The enemy cannot push a button if you disable his hand.
Combat Ingrid is offline  
Old February 11, 2003, 03:48   #97
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 16:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
GePap,

Quote:
On various points: Carrier groups are more vulnerable than landbased aircraft: looses by normal attrition are higher, the ability to refule and rearm limited by the safety fo supply vessels, so forth and so on. In general, carrier borne aircraft will not win a protracted battle with landbased aircraft, and yes, airplanes miss things at sea as well. control can never be airtight. Also maximum range does not equal effective range fully loaded and incombat conditions.
That's all well and good, but where did I ever suggest US carriers would be making a habit of fighting ground based airforces? Oh, there might be some exceptions, such as battles around Latin America, but please don't tell me you think your average Latin American air force can take a CVBG.

Quote:
2. Latin America is self-sufficient in food. Thus the US could not "starve it out" as you imagine.
Didn't know that. Oh well, it's not really relevant. Argentinean exported grain wouldn't be getting out, that much is certain at least.

Quote:
The notion of sriking farmland with bombs is silly, though the myriad problems with this notion are too many to go over.
Who said anything about bombs? If anything, I'm talking about napalm.

Quote:
Only the use of chemicals or the use of land-forces could make such a strategy useful. On invokes WMD use anyway, the other necesitates occupation.
Would you consider the use of any chemicals to be WMDs? I'm not sure that's really accurate, honestly.

Quote:
3. Napalm is a conventional weapon, and thus like all conventional weaponsm hardly 100% effective.
Tell that to the Japanese.

CI,

Quote:
So you are saying that US has 20x the capacity of the rest of the world?
I bet Sweden alone could easily produce these aircrafts if we were in wartime production. But then again, the rest of the world could probably not manage to build ~1 carrier/year
*sigh* OK, OK, I'll go over it again. Try to pay attention this time.

1)I don't care how many planes the rest of the world produces. If they sit on airfields in Europe and Japan and elsewhere, they're doing nothing. You could have a million aircraft and a trillion soldiers, but that won't help you one bit in crossing an ocean.

2)That's correct. The rest of the world could not average one carrier per year, at least not for quite a while. Why? The rest of the world has not been in the habit of building modern, large nuclear powered carriers, and as such they'd have to build up the capacity to construct such ships. There are few places where the shipyard infrastructure is even close to the level needed. Further, a carrier is gonna take probably 3-4 years, optimistically speaking, to reach construction. On top of that, it takes time to develop suitable naval aircraft, train suitable crew members and operators, learn how to use carriers, develop and build proper escorts (such as a decent air defense cruiser), and a whole myriad of other things.

3)The US already has all of this, and it would take quite some time for the rest of the world to catch up.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
Old February 11, 2003, 04:02   #98
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:02
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
This assumes an overnight move for everyone to ally against the US and attack the next day. Not gonna happen. If the US starts seeing moves like this, it'll have time to move these forces out.
You can't have it both ways. In this case, the World will be able to build up considerate forces along Canada-US border and Mexico-US borders.

Quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Unless the US takes off the kiddie gloves and simply hits the major cities and towns in occupied territories with, say, neutron bombs and shoots anyone who comes out, civilians and soldiers alike.
It's not like the World doesn't have nuclear missiles?

Quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
You provided no real reason why the US would not control the seas.
No oil, no operative aircraft for the US. Simple. In which case, the only thing the USN has left are the nuclear subs, which are rather vulnerable to ASW.

Quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
But initially, the USN would be fighting defensively in most areas.
No, not in this scenario where both sides have already mobilised. The USN desparately needs to stop supplies going into Canada and Mexico, where as the World merely needs to make sure the US doesn't succeed.

Quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
The world's greater industrial production would only become relevant if they could field it against the US effectively. In WW2, for example, the US significantly outproduced Germany in 1942, yet it still couldn't invade Europe, and this with air superiority over the landing areas and an unsinkable aircraft carrier that Germany couldn't effectively attack (Britain).
It doesn't have to. All the World has to do is to keep the US from oil. Which isn't so hard if you allow both sides to mobilise, as implied by you in this message.
__________________
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Urban Ranger is offline  
Old February 11, 2003, 04:05   #99
David Floyd
Emperor
 
Local Time: 16:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Posts: 4,620
Quote:
You can't have it both ways. In this case, the World will be able to build up considerate forces along Canada-US border and Mexico-US borders.
Why would the US allow a hostile worldwide alliance to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops around its borders? Doctrine of pre-emption, perhaps?

Quote:
No oil, no operative aircraft for the US. Simple. In which case, the only thing the USN has left are the nuclear subs, which are rather vulnerable to ASW.
Why wouldn't the US just use domestic oil, and seize Mexican and Canadian oil fields?

Quote:
The USN desparately needs to stop supplies going into Canada and Mexico, where as the World merely needs to make sure the US doesn't succeed.
Again, simple pre-emption would work here. The US would enjoy significant air and ground superiority, unless it foolishly allowed the world to build up over a series of years. Naval superiority wouldn't even be an issue, although the US would certainly have it.

Quote:
It doesn't have to. All the World has to do is to keep the US from oil. Which isn't so hard if you allow both sides to mobilise, as implied by you in this message.
This ignores Western Hemisphere sources either within the US or easily within the reach of the US.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/
David Floyd is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:02.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team