Thank you all for watching! To support the content consider leaving a like and a comment to help the video against the algorithm! Subscribe for at least one alternate history video every single week!
It is like math, infinity, 0, and 1 are quite absurd but it works. The USA would edge out the rest of the world in any and all wars, they barely squeeze by the tie breaker. Luckily they are the good guys, and everyone is an ally, some closer than others. The love and bond shared between the USA and earth is not 0.
@Tethloach1 I agree. Yeah they make some questionable choices but the US is definitely one of the better countries than the alternatives like China or the USSR, and I get why some countries hate being muzzled by the US. Just let them think what would happen if they were controlled by another global power.
@@kindahonourablecanadian Are yal meming? It would take numerous weeks for anyone to get near the US mainland best case, like please explain your position as to how..? N Im wondering what those places have to do with an invasion of the US?
Wouldn’t the US tanking the world economy cause incredibly large power vacuums and collapse that would impact the long term strategic integrity of everything?
a lot of countries current power dynamics only work in the context of America existing, in this ridiculous scenario, at least 20 countries will have to endure a civil war or external war before doing anything. (South Korea declaring war on the U.S.A is somehow less believable than a militarily exposed S.K. NOT being zerg rushed by an emboldened N.K.)
The funny thing about this is that only France and Britain have the capability to send armies to the states. Most nations don’t have expeditionary capabilities. It would take a lot of reforms to most world militaries to allow them to even support a war in North America much less win one
@@The_ragingJewZionist china has a big military but they don’t have the actual capability to send troops far away. They need the experience, equipment, knowledge, and logistical capacity to such an operation on the other side of the planet and they just don’t have the ability. They can only project military power in their country and in neighboring countries. Their navy could likely project power in North America but there is no way their army could.
@USAChina1 the Chinese fleet is a shore fleet with blue water capabilities. They do not have the expeditionary capacity to extend their military might across the pacific due to a lack of experience and establishment. The US has Guam, Midway, Hawaii, Australia, Japan, South Korea; a whole chain of rest stops that have been operated for decades with a military used to fighting wars on the other side of the planet. The Chinese navy is green as they come, with most experience coming from drills and bullying Phillipino fishing vessels. They do not have experience with supporting supply chains to extensive international networks of military presence, and anyone can tell you that supply chains make or break wars. It's not enough to get an army across the pacific, you need to maintain that connection for replacing troops/equipment, ammunition, and much much more. And the US is the only major power that has consistently proved their capability to do that for the past century.
Its a green water navy, has not got expeditionary capabilities. Outside of the USA, UK and France are the only nations who can do it, with Britain having larger auxillary force than France.@@solaris0000
I wonder how much switching the US for NATO would change this, would they be able to actually win, or is it just a matter of having more time before they collapse?
Honestly just with france I think they could be really close to a victory. If the French mainland can hold out against all of europe then the US and the French colonies can focus on keeping the Oceans controlled long enough to take key islands. This also splits the US Navy to the pacific and Army to Europe leaving the Airforce to be extra reinforcements.
It sounds dumb but that might be a win, just because a lot of the rest of the countries would not be able to significantly work against the US/NATO team so team Rest Of The World has a lot of dead weight and just having that much more population and industry would help out a lot. Plus a looooooot more staging points to spread American muscle. Maybe? I dunno that's still like .8 people vs 7 or so in terms of the people numbers involved.
@@jamesdulak3108 dude you dont understand how much of a vulnurable situation the us is in in the pacific, current american anti-missile technology is unable to intercept the hypersonic chinese and russian missiles, so in an event of war, american aircraft carriers, military bases etc. in the pacific and europe would all be destroyed within a matter of minutes.
It probably goes from certain defeat to reasonably likely victory, or certain victory if you add in countries that aren't NATO but are basically NATO like Japan and South Korea The big changes are that the rest of the world doesn't get access to NATO tech or former NATO navies. With just the US, it's an attritional war that's won by rest of the world boxing in the US. Here, it's an attritional war, but one where absolute control of the seas means most countries can be taken one at a time and access to food and fuel can be strangled with very few ways to stop it and reverse it. Basically, NATO and friends are the only countries with proper power projection capabilities. If the rest of the world was a consolidated bloob, they could win, but geography being what it is, you would see South America and Africa removed from the board probably without being occupied, a lot of fighting in the middle East, but the bits that are important are probably the easiest to take and hold (with all due respect to the desert warriors of old, that's not who the modern Arabs are anymore) and then a long, grind against India and China and Indochina. Without nukes, and assuming it's 2023, Russia isn't going to last long so you have a Europe that's decently safe, a Ukraine that's in a better position than it was before, a US and Australia that are almost completely safe, a Japan, Taiwan and Korea that are in danger but are fighting the exact war they're preparing to fight and an Israel that's fighting for it's life, getting invaded on all sides but what else is new. However, if we also add the stipulation that the populations of conquered territories just can't be pacified under any circumstances, then I think that eventually NATO probably loses. Even putting aside the fact that genocidal war and weponized famine are wrong, they're also exceptionally taxing and expensive and would spread NATO to thin
The only problem I see with this scenario is that is assumes the whole world would stay united in the face of economic collapse. this all assumes some pretty amazing resolve on the part of the global coalition, it also assumes the USA wouldn't foster regime change in attempts to pull countries with vital resources to their side.
But it's a fictional scenario, if we start reasoning too much with it then we could assume the this mega coalition would not be even possible to form but those are not the rules we set for the scenario
@Pierangelo B Precisely, it's far easier to persuade the entire Muslim world to invade Israel than it is to persuade the entire Middle East to invade the US. Some points in the real world is best left out in the simulation out of sheer necessity.
Remember that one of they key rules for this scenario is that all countries are fully committed to the war and cannot sign and individual peace with the USA. If countries in this scenario were allowed to pull out of the war, the war would just not happen because everyone would immediately try to make peace with the USA (And the USA would sue for peace with everyone)
@@hiddentreasure2161 the best assumption to increase the scope of the war is to assume that no one can declare peace, but the governments decision to go to war is not popular and risks a chance of being kicked out of office. It would provide a time limit to the coalition and make for a pretty epic divide and conquer brawl.
I disagree for the mere fact of the Middle East an Russian oil producing infrastructure could be leveled very early on and strangle the worlds war effort in the crib
I believe projects like the silk road would also become really important and a lot of railway tracks would be laid down around the world to make the naval superiority of the early and mid war nearly useless for the US.
I don't think so, there is no point in looking at this if no one can surrender (because it's just a matter of time, which US would lose), it would be more interesting if initially everyone declares war but nations surrender when they are militarily defeated.
Sure they were basically: American wins lulz. But I don't see it all terribly different. They never stipulated "Never give up! Never surrender!" In fact that's exactly how the US won in their scenario, the world wasn't willing to take years of war.
@@ryankline1164 In their scenario, it was the world that was starved of resources, instead of the US, if I remember correctly. That was the most brain dead video I have ever seen. If the US is so unbelievably powerful, why the hell did they lose to Vietnam? Truth is, they would easily be destroyed eventually. I would argue that only China+the EU could defeat the US given enough time, no rest of the world needed.
I would've loved to see you go into detail of how costly the eventual full invasion of the U.S would go. The most armed population on the planet fighting a constant guerrilla war against the coalition
As you probably know the USA have more guns then people so it would be probably billion plus people will die before they make more the one state amount of land lost
Thank you all for watching! For more weekly alternate history content consider subscribing to the channel! To help this video grow against the algorithm consider leaving a like and a comment, even simple comments like "hi" help the channel out massively!
Could you please make a vedio about "What if Sweden Won the Thirty Years' War?", it would be a really interesting cocept especially since most people only do what "What if Sweden Won the Great Northern War?". Thanks
I know i’m being picky but the EU map used in the thumbnail is wrong Norway isn’t in it but is in the thumbnail and Finland and Sweden are in the EU but aren’t included Other than that, AMAZING VIDEO
@@Kevineitor199 once again, the governments are commited, so the public wanting it to stop would be denied, meaning they would still fight the war, but public distress is still a factor
Bringing up anti-satellite weapons made me think of Kessler Syndrome. Already a potential problem today, but with the amount of ASAT being deployed in a scenario like this there would be a high probability this could occur. Kessler Syndrome is when the amount of space debris is so high that it hits a domino effect and a positive feedback loop. Space debris would make more and more space debris. Eventually any activity in low earth orbit (LEO) would be very difficult to occur, which could take generations to dissipate
Those pipelines and oil wells are very vulnerable pieces of infrastructure and given the United States is a generation ahead of everybody else in stealth aircraft... Much of the oil everybody needs to keep their industries afloat would simply be destroyed overtime.
It really wouldn’t take that long to dissipate in LEO. Atmospheric drag effects smaller objects more than bigger ones due to large surface area to volume ratios. They already need to adjust satellite’s orbits regularly to account for this. Each impact will decrease both objects velocity as well. A much larger concern is it occurring farther out, where atmospheric drag is almost nonexistent.
I mean its an unwinnable situation even without the world rules, they just make it more unwinnable by removing almost all meaningful strategic objectives for the United States. Given the rules the only """"""winning""""" move for the United States is to probably go all in on space program and screw off to another solar system or even just the void itself. Without the rules that's probably the best move after the opening years just because securing orbit would mean potential for near total exclusion of the front to the rest of the world, and also could allow for what's effectively strategic bombing across the entire planet, further making submarine warfare the most viable oceanic attack and transport for the world (cause larger ships can be killed from orbit.). Even if the United states were able to secure space they still prolly lose, but also likely everyone loses.
How I think this scenario would play out: - America takes all of Canada very quick. - America would have a slight difficulty taking over Mexico because of population unlike Canada. - America then starts a Naval Invasion on the Caribbean Islands and it would also be slightly harder than with Mexico. But still pretty easy. - After this, all America can really do is simply defend itself until the attackers tire off and are willing to make peace. That is if Nukes are included in this scenario.
@jacktophono1 America can definitely solo stomp the entire North America, it'snot even funny. Not only do they have the quality but also the quantity. Yes we keep hearing memes about the badass Canadians and Mexicans, but they both do not have the technological advancement nor the numbers like the US military.
just my opinion but, America would take the populated parts of Canada very quick but the snowy more northern parts would be a problem not just because it is really cold but there would be partisans supported by foreign equipment. Mexico would be very hard but not impossible because of terrain and population. Lastly The rest of the world would not simply tire off because of these main points : - America has less population even after taking north america compared to the rest of the world, which means less manpower for America - America will have less resources even after taking a majority of NA - America will have less tools - Other nations can simply overwhelm them with manpower, basically waves upon waves of manpower
Here are some ideas: What if Charles V gave the Netherlands in 1555 to his brother Ferdinand instead of his son Philip (so no Spanish Netherlands)? What if James II of England remained Protestant instead of converting to Catholicism and preserved his throne? What if Charles XII died in a battle in 1706 (possible better peace terms for Sweden as Peter I offered in 1706-1707)? What if Maurice Bavaud succeeded with his plan against Hitler in 1938 (will there still be WW2 in with a different German leader?)?
@@joaogabrielimperial7777 If Germany managed to form an alliance with the British empire, the French empire and others against the Soviets (basically most of Europe vs the USSR) it might've been a shorter war that might've not involved the US at all.
i think the video has one problem: why would the us consolidate its troops and have a strategy for the first weeks/months, but the rest of the world (that is activly planning this war) doesnt? Securing the suez and other strategic points should be obvious for them... and i think even the us navy isnt big enough to cover the pacific, atlantic and indian ocean against everyone all at once
i think its implied that the navies in the region just wont stand a chance to secure it, he even gave the caveat that due to intelligence or diplomatic efforts, the US is somehow aware of the impending war, which is what causes them to make the first moves in sabotaging the suez and what not. I get what youre saying, but its pretty easy to imply even if they did plan to secure it, it wouldnt stay secure for very long. Any installations in the area will get heavily bombarded. Air defenses mean shit vs hundreds of cruise missiles. And thats just ONE weapon platform. Nevermind the capabilities of the f35 on paper, which the US has hundreds of...the suez canal is a nono zone, along with things like the malacca straits and the panama canal.
@@xiphosmaniac US navy can barely beat China at this point. it not going to hold the Indian ocean against China AND India. it just not going to happen, they can deploy more carrier there than US can since US has to protect it east and west coast, we are looking at US at most committing 3 carrier strike group. and the chinese "055 destroyers" has missiles that outrange the operational range of F35s... the carriers will be running from those 8 ship since getting in range of them means death. like in every pentagon and congress wargames on Taiwan, US lost every carrier they send... even if US can "claim victory" by calling in Japan to war, they are not going to be able to do so in this scenario... 1 v ALL is just an insanely stupid scenario...
as for suez, I don't see the US goal as attempting to control it. all US has to do is to sink a few supertankers that are in the canal, and the world won't be able to use the suez for the next few years. US don't really have to "control" it, they just need to destroy their ability to function. so I see the US striking the Suez and fuel tank in saudi arabia, and bailing the hell out of the indian ocean, there is no reason to stay and try and control it against the world which would have a far larger combined navy than US does. US is better off using this group of navy to control south americas to avoid any allied landing... go full monroe doctrine is the best way for US to survive this.
The us basically is the Japan to the Allies in this scenario. Any war longer than 2 years is completely screwed. If Europe, S Korea, and Japan shared key tech with China while they themselves ramped up production, they’d be able to quickly produce ships on par with the US and at a much greater scale. Also disagree with invasion being impossible. It’s definitely possible but would be bloody, essentially like how a planned operation downfall would’ve went.
The invasion of the US would be possible, its just the amount of lives that the allies are willing to lose in holding it. America has unintentionally created the Werwolves with its militarised population. The cities would be relatively easy to garrison owing to their smaller gun to person ratio, but a squad going for an excursion into the countryside would be dead. Collaboration governments would need to be set up fast, and even then, its not impossible that the allies might just leave a solid chunk of the Midwest in anarchy, only establishing governments in the coastal states
You're discounting our nuclear deterrent. Invasion of mainland United States is impossible if the invaders don't want to return to a nuclear wasteland. The second an invasion seemed imminent the United States would use nuclear weapons against one or possibly a number of aggressors. Eventually there would be peace or mass destruction.
@@johnroach9026 likely start pushing back the US to its borders and arming the resistances in Carribean, Canada, and Central America to help prepare for a ground invasion. The manpower question for an invasion cay be solved if they can equip Central America and South America. Then once the US navy is dealt with, the world prepares a three pronged invasion South through the carribean and Mexico, from the east by Europe starting in Newfoundland and Quebec, and from the west by east Asia through British Columbia. Assuming a standard 10% mobilization rate like for just Europe, East Asia, and India alone, there could be about 1 soldier per U.S. citizen, way more than enough to fight and occupy the US. For Total deaths from invasion, I’d expect 20-40 million by the time the war concludes
@@maximusjackassicus3042 The total war with USA on one side and all the other nuclear powers on the other kind of wouldn't be very interesting, because you'd either have a quick stalemate with a lot of political manoeuvring (but it makes no sense to go with politics-based scenario that starts with something as ridiculous "everybody declares war on USA just because) or nuclear annihilation, really... Not much to analyse, really.
The US economy would crack if _everyone_ switched from USD as a reserve currency and implemented heavy sanctions on trade. Even a country as self-sufficient as the US wouldn't be able to cope with that. No military needed in this scenario.
@@admechrodi758 You're right, and there's no single good currency to replace the Dollar. The Euro is the best bet. Renminbi would be a disaster. In this scenario, however, it would be feasible.
@@Scornfull No. 80-90 percent of consumer goods and raw materials for tech are imported. And then there's the import of educated foreign nationals. Those 40% arts majors aren't going to fill the demand in tech or industry, just saying. When was the last time you bought an item "Made in the USA"?
I am only about half way through the video, but I take a few issues with where you left the US after the initial phase... notably why isn't the dominant US Navy making a point to take out competing navies and coastal military structures? In fact it may be strategically worth it for the US not to evacuate their overseas bases, as they could serve as jumping off points to sabotage or destroy other countries naval capabilities. Then it would be a surprisingly simple matter for the US to constantly bomb foreign shipyards. Also circa 10:45 what resources are necessary for the war effort, that they are running low on? They have the most stable supply of fossil fuels, they have clean water, and more food then they could eat.
Electronics and steel. 80% imported from Asia, and many key chemicals imported from Europe. They could ramp up production, but it would take a few years...
America wouldn't be able to do that against Europe, Russia, or China. The three people it would be needed against. European NATO & EU can coordinate and beat the Americans (who would be spread far and wide) back, and any attack on them would be costly as Europe's navy would be able to coordinate a lot easier and cause more damage which the US couldn't risk (they would need their army vigilant 24/7 as any crack means something the world can recover from and build up). In the beginning stages, they might get off some attacks, but like the navy Europe's airforce can coordinate. Plus, North Sea oil would make an incentive for Europe to defend from America. Submarines, as stated, would rage havoc on US supply lines, meaning they likely would require planes to focus on that. Along with this, anti-air systems would be set up in strategic positions like the Highlands of Scotland, Shetland, and Norwegian mountains, meaning any attack done on Europe would be costly. In the beginning of the war, I imagine they'd make some sort of air strikes against Britain, but it would be limited due to, as stated in the video, the West was hesitant to attack each other and doing so would imbitter Europe towards America and solidify their position in favour of the war. Which America wouldn't like and would prefer Europe remains in internal discord as it means they'd make fewer moves against them. Russia is just too far away. Simple as. Any attack done would be against Eastern Russia to avoid an invasion of Alaska, but Ameirca couldn't power project into Russia as any attempt would be met with CSTO and CIS (less unified but still have organisation) fighting them back. China can deal with itself as stated. The immediate coast and Chinese region are under Chinese control for basically all of the war. There's not much America could do without fully focusing on China and losing in other fronts.
@@davidcraft4636 That's not easily done after it's been dismantled the last 20 years. 90% of the rare earth minerals are controlled by China. That's the entire high tech sector, including components to every fancy weapon system. It's a completely unrealistic scenario but given the premise the US economy would be shattered before any serious fighting has even begun.
Because it's incredibly risky. It's very difficult to permanently take out industry, it's very easy to lose a ship. While it's stronger than ever, the US Navy has significantly fewer ships today than it had in the past so every ship lost to an anti ship missile or sub is a ship the US can't afford to lose. Right now, today, with NATO and just vs China, trying to attack their shipyards would be extremely dangerous. Spreading ships out, moving them away from land based radar and planes in a scenario where you're depending on those ships for safety is suicidal. Plus, there are a lot of shipyards around the world so destroying half would mean that it's the other half that get converted into military shipyards.
The interesting part about this is the fact that if this Was that happened the United States would cripple the world's economy and most of the allies on the other side would probably not want to fight overtime meaning that the Americans could also theoretically win this scenario Through crippling the economy and making uprisings of real possibility in every country
You do realize that the moment war is declared the USD becomes toilet paper. And the worlds gold reserves outpase the United states..... The world will switch to the Yuan or Rupee, the united states will have to eat paper to survive the conflict
I agree with this, however, let’s say there was a reason every country on earth decided to go to war against the US, but people in other countries as the war dragged on would slowly force governments out of war
This seems accurate long term, the strategy of the United States is its forward positioning and collations so if we lost both it would be inevitable. This did make me think of an absolutely ridiculous scenario where the rules of the game or risk apply in the real world… Then the United States might have a chance, but that would be such a contrived scenario, I think it would break our brains.
honestly if it takes decades to even start creeping on the mainland, it doesnt seem incredibly far fetched that the US will take the initiative, the submarines are already prepositioned around teh world, easy barrage of cruise missiles at most known installations, and those are just the important ones. Surgical strikes will be sent everywhere. One US Aircraft carrier has more planes than most countries entire Air Forces, and the US has 11 of them ready to go. Not to mention the air force and its focus on long range tactics, considering any and all conflict will be fought over great distances of ocean, the US is prepared for this sort of conflict. Mexico would collapse quickly, and probably be assimilated, not even a need for an occupation. Same with Canada. The cultural ties are too great for the people to be occupied morally by the US and the canadians will probably just choose to be with the US anyways. With that, the US food supplies and energy are basically guaranteed, and with so much absolute territory to conquer, even a global coalition would find it hard to wipe out the idea that is America off the map.
@@purple700raptor8 no where is it stated europe will have no oil...maybe in the video but thats just artistic flair. though in this scenario, i dont see the US not blowing up all the undersea cables and pipelines, leaving only land corridors, which can also be bombarded from the ocean with cruise missiles....or even send in fleets of aircraft. 2 aircraft carriers have more than 150 planes between them. More than enough to handle the biggest european air forces. The us will have no energy problems as far as oil is concerned. Oil isnt even a factor in this war. Oil will still be pumped freely all over the world, its just a matter of it getting to its destination safely, which the US will be a nuissance for most, if not all, navies to deal with.
The USA would be able to hold em of. The USA has everything it needs on its homeland. Food oil and more! And the USA also could trade with Canada. So the USA would survive.
probably they will take the colonies from here and there but I doubt they will take england proper cause of the hostile population maybe they could get more influence on British politics , set up puppets, or just outright conquest of it like norman conquest of england and yeah the english language would've been very different
One thing I’d like to point out on the oil front in Russia: it has the production capacity to generally satiate most of europes military and non military oil demand (at least temporarily)
@@redthegamer12with what airforce? The US relies on its overseas bases but most of these would be impossible to hold onto, and long range bombers not supported by proper fighter jets will not be able to stand up to a combined indian, chinese and russian airforce let alone throwing in the brits and french
@@lordlousythe F-22 cannot be picked up by current radar systems, and US drones can easily get over the North pole and back. There are over 10,000 aircraft in the US, all more modern than Russia.
i think that the only thing you got wrong was latin america, although it is not as strong as europe or china is certainly is powerful enough to defend itself, the way you talked about latin america in the video was just wrong, and although they would certainly not defeat the us they would have a strong enough navy and army to atleast support the EU and china and defend their coastlines
Latin America vs the US, the US has the F-22 and the time to build all of them. Latin America loses. The US declares to its heavily armed population that any land they take in the Americas is their to keep. Latin America loses as all of the Kentucky boys and Texans roll up with small armies and being making land claims. No shot when you get the AC 130s and B-52 in the air.
What if the gulf war never happened ? Basically Iraq doesn't invade Kuwait because in this scenario Kuwait slows in oil production (by some reason) and the gulf monarchies decide to use Iraq as a barrier or a wall againt Iran. What would happen ? Would Iraq be an American ally ?, How would this impact the Middle East ?
Definitely Iraq stays a US ally, with the relationship mainly based on oil and anti-Iranian stance. Never understood why Saddam idiotically took himself out of the good graces of the US, and thought the world wouldn't respond to an invasion of one of the most oil rich countries in the world. No invasion of Iraq definitely, but this might instead have the US point their sights on Al-Assad of Syria. Which Saddam would DEFINITELY be glad to allow the US to use his country as a base of operations (cause Al-Assad and Hussein had a tense rivalry when the latter supported Iran and having different views of Baathism).
@@imgvillasrc1608 I think the fault there lies with USA diplomacy, really - they failed to convince Saddam that when they say "don't", they mean it. And are determined to act on that, also militarily. As a result of this communication failure, Saddam was convinced that this is all just a front and that he has a quiet permission to do what he wants. Sure, USA might not be HAPPY about his plans and if they get implemented, they'd make many angry statements about that - but it will mostly be just a front, without any real intention to take any sort of action against him, certainly not military action. The scenario where he takes over Kuwait, takes over the oil fields there and then gives US cheap oil to appease them doesn't sound all that outlandish... This is all conjecture, of course - we don't really know what he thought and what was going through the diplomatic with USA. Maybe the dictator just went mad and made a move despite expecting US response. But the scenario with USA just failing to understand how serious he was - while also failing to communicate clearly enough how serious THEY were - sounds quite plausible to me.
What if Greece joined the Entente when Britain offert Cyprus tho them What if george 1 survived his Assassination in thessalonica What if King Otto 1 of Greece staid King of Greece What if Greece won the battle of Peta What if John 4 Laskaris survived What if Greece joined the central Powers
Hi Posable history suggestion what if the USA and Russia stayed allies or officially became allies because the Russian Empire and the USA actually had pretty good relations but what if it was an actual alliance Also yesterday I watched your if martians invaded Earth in 1913 vid based on war of the worlds but I was wandering ether a part 2 or what if aliens invaded Earth in the modern world
I find the fact that the us could control Persian gulf for even a few weeks unlikely. Every aircraft from the surround countries would be search for them, China would send in their air force armed with anti ship missiles. The American fleet would be pelted by constant attacks, they would run out of anti air ammunition almost immediately. It would be battle of midway levels of destruction. The US fleet stationed there would be lost. Something similar would happen to the US 7th fleet around Japan.
the u.s. military has already played this scenario out agaibat only iran and due to the disastrous results they instead opted to show the sanitized version where they didnt lose an entire carrier group to iran
And how do you imagine these countries navigate their, mostly western-built, airplanes without GPS over open ocean? US would immediately encode their GPS signal, rendering existing navigation systems inoperable, unless they've been adapted for GLONASS, BeiDou or/ Galileo already. No country in that region would have the range and air superiority to operate over the ocean, so if the carrier group stay far enough from the mainland they might hold out for a while. Sure they can take off from Iran, Oman, India or Ethiopia, but without GPS, AWACS and air superiorty they would'nt even be able to come close to fire their anti-ship missiles. I agree they can't hold on forever and the destruction would be massive, but also be mutual.
@@rey_nemaattori China and India still have an active fleet big enough to wipe out any fleet. Along with their own gps satellites. I can’t see it being that hard to link the other nations battle nets to Chinese and Indian systems. And with cooperation over all countries this will be completed in a matter of weeks. Iraq also have a satellite, so do Iran. You’d be surprised how many nations have their own satellites. Edit: this isn’t me sucking those two countries dicks, I’m often pro nato/pro US. But one nation vs the whole world is such an unbalanced scenario that it’s insane. No country can hold against the sheer amount of numbers.
@@kfchundur4087made up. The actual exercise was a video game exercise that was deeply flawed because Iranian forces were granted several technological feats like teleportation and defying the laws of gravity.
Something I feel is not really addressed is Russia having huge oil and gas reserves of their own I don't know if it could supply everyone but I'm sure it's more than enough to supply Russia itself and maybe china for the months of the US blockade this is just a thought though
@@anon_148 I don't think that's really possible we are talking about the USA by itself without NATO trying to bomb thousands of Russian oil Fields in Siberia of all things while dealing with air defense systems and all the other countries planes and destroyers
If the Coalition were planning this beforehand, wouldn't China and Russia land troops in Canada and Mexico prematurely as well as fortifying positions in the Persian Gulf? Doing so would let them just completely embargo the US and wait for it to implode economically whilst minimizing damage to themsleves.
I think this would land with the same answer he had concerning oversea bases. They would find out due to diplomatic channels or intelligence efforts. Also the idea of them landing troops there is not feasible. The US would see them prepare long beforehand due to technology such as satellites. Even if they had the necessary vehicles to transport to those nations they would be fish in a barrel as they can be easily sunk.
Russia took 8 months to take a minor city of 10,000 people 65 km from its own border to which it is connected by land. Russia is IRRELEVANT. Do you think the US would just let them start ferrying troops and building up on its borders? How would they even be supplied after they're cut off by the US navy?
If we're talking a hoi style "no reason no limits" war, there's really no reason the Americans couldn't exterminate the population of central america and force the global coalition into either risky, basically doomed naval invasions, or trying to attack through the Panama region. Neither are very appealing
My views: 1) The US longer term strategy would realise it would never win the war and, even if it were possible, such a win would leave it still alienated in the world. Therefore, its plan would be to pursue a peace on the best terms, which cannot be sought under occupation. 2) Thereon, the US relies on technology with most vehicles and missiles requiring microchips, so losing just the factories in Taiwan and Netherlands would impede its replacement ability. China has been trying unsuccessfully for years. It would be a dangerous strategy to use missiles on the offensive when they could not be easily replaced. 3) Hence, I suspect the US would withdraw all its fleets to its eastern and western seaboards for defence, easier resupply and additional protection from air bases. 4) One might control the cities in Canada and Greenland, but these are vast land masses with adverse climates, so it would be impossible to defend the longest land border in the world. 5) If the US fleets were at sea, the Allies would see them as the primary threat and utilise hunter packs to pick them off or deny them resupply with air support from air bases if they stray too close to land. 6) Once boxed in, the Allies would either identify staging areas for a land attack or place the US under siege. Occupation never works out well, especially with more guns in the US than people, so turning the US into a hermit state like North Korea (and without a friendly neighbour like China) would incur less bloodshed. Then sit back and watch the political turmoil. 7) I disagree the morale of the Allies might be challenged, as surely the USA has committed such a crime to warrant the entire planet uniting against it. And getting the people to support the war? Look at how Western governments persuaded most of their populations to endure Covid restrictions and much of the history for the Ukraine conflict was easily forgotten.
The US would run out artillery rounds ,bombs and munitions within a few weeks of fighting,since they no longer possess a manufacturing capacity from years of monopoly and lobbying and hypersonic missiles can destroy the whole navy (except submarines) China or Russia can produce the required things
Either everyone would chill really fast or everyone dies. I also think it should be mentioned that France has a “Chill the fuck out” Air to Ground Nuclear missile that would probably make everyone think about whether or not they really want to continue doing what they are doing.
This just made me realize how ludicrously powerful the US really is. Even with the rest of the world united, it still has such a defendable position with it's huge economy and military!
I mean look at it. Even Russia is showing that most of their equipment is old af and probably couldn't make enough to replace all inventory in any amt of time, due to small economy. Compare this to the US that straight has old stock that ratios Russian equipment.
yeah so we we capitulated massive countries like Afghanistan and Iraq in months right in the modern era. Something yet to be achieved by any other modern day power.@@grayraven9927. Also with only a few thousand casualties.
I mean, the main things I take issue with is the statement that north America would lack resources, and that America wouldn't seize basically all the ports in South America in an actual whole-world-vs-us scenario. Regarding the former, North America is capable of full self sufficiency of all resources and industrial supply chains within a couple years, if ecological restrictions on mining are lifted and various companies actually started building here again. (Most everything is done at some scale of industry, which can be ramped up with imperative to) And it would be dumb for the US to not hold South America. Ultimately the last issue I have is more scenario setup, that being the inability to force individual peace treaties, even in occupied territories. It forces this to be an absolute no-win scenario for the US just by the rules as set. (I mean, besides removing the rest of the planet, and even if nukes were allowed they wouldn't be enough for extinction on that scale)
A bit of a contradiction, you say that many populations would obviously not support the war against the US, and especially if it causes literal famine, but you also assume the US would not invade and overthrow their government in fear the population would start guerilla warfare. I think the first assumption makes more sense than the second. The US would topple all Latin American governments and probably European governments as well, and the population would probably accept this invasion. Then they can turn the war as a ‘West vs the Rest’ conflict and mobilize the entire western hemisphere, to achieve a much easier victory. In fact since you made the rule that there would be no separate peace and only capitulation, it means the US can only win by literally occupying every single square inch of the entire world, while at the same time you assume it would not even try to occupy Mexico.
They can't occupy the whole world, that's the point. You don't simply let go of a country that capitulates, you have to maintain their submission until the end of the war and all the allies have capitulated. This is simply unfeasible. Plus, this is a war if agression against the US, US is on the defensive until every single country in the world has been subdued.
Is this assuming that all the citizens are on board with the war? Could there be war weariness? Looking at WW1 the main thing that drove Germany to surrender was war weariness by the population, surrendering while the German army was still on foreign soil. Assuming all are on board initially with the War on both sides, I believe with the amount of people at the disposal for the world, you could spread out causalities across the nations to a degree where it is not a big impact on the individual societies, going weeks or months without hearing about a casualty in your circle of family and friends, while in the US that would probably be constant news every other week.
IF the US decides to aggressively attack while everyone defends, but the US would be smarter than that. Geography is USA's best defense for a reason. All the US has to do is conquer the tire North America then sit out defensively, bomb South America back to the stone age, and sit out while the rest of the world tries to settle with their logistical nightmare to cross the Atlantic and Pacific before invading the US.
"if all countries declared war on the united states" Firstly there must be a reason. In my country, for example, the United States helped more than it hurt... Everything was fine, until the American troops returned home, and the illegal loggers began to annihilate the surrounding areas. 😢
I'd like you to think of a marginally realistic reason right now. This video is not meant to have a reason, it is just a thought experiment, and your comment is stupid.
What you explained was more like: what if the US suddenly declared war on the world, instead of the other way around. As you let the USA be prepared for this war, but not the rest of the world.
It would take decades to build up the Naval, Air Power and small arms needed to take on the US Navy & Air Force and then fight the slow ground war. The world would have a logistical nightmare supplying across an ocean and fighting in tough terrain you’d then have to factor in how many men & guns you need for an occupation. We have more guns than people and we might politically fight each other but if an outsider is coming in we’re spreading those guns around to our neighbors so we can all take shoots. It’s not a realistic scenario but eventually the world would win but considering the time it would take to build up then win the naval & air war and then manage to start a ground war while dealing with resistance decades atleast. Logistics matters and crossing an ocean against the most powerful navy & airforce and landing ground forces, keeping them supplied while dealing with local resistance. It would be much harder than people think. Plus the US has been in an almost nonstop state of war it’s history and is far more inclined to fight and knows how to run a war economy & motivate its population which isn’t hard if everyone is out to get you literally lol. Fun scenario I definitely agree the us would hit first using the advantage they have to capture as many resources as possible but then it’s a slow decades long push back to its borders.
Worst case scenario is that hypersonic missiles can destroy the entire navy also,the US ironically would only have a combat load of 2 weeks ,afterwards the US would struggle to produce bombs ,munitions and even artillery shells,which will put the US at a big disadvantage That scenario might happen if US decides to not pay their debts ,enough to piss many countries,if not the whole world
The us would most likely hit the world hard in the beginning. Canada would be completely occupied, Mexico would be knocked out of the war relatively quickly, Venezuela would probably be occupied, the rest of South America would be bombed to non existence in the hope of them surrendering, Greenland and iceland would be occupied and built up in order to hold a key position against Europe, nations in Asia would be occupied and built up in order to strangle Japan and china. Australian food exports would be intercepted and strategic cities in Australia could be occupied in order to force them out of the war, the Middle East would turn into a bigger crater, the suez destroyed, and a blockade in the region. America would definitely win the first 1-2 years of the conflict forcing all Latin American nations out of the war, most south Asian nations under occupation, and nonstop bombing of Chinese, European, and middle eastern infrastructure. Eventually the American war machine would run out of precision missiles and due to a chip shortage production would be extremely slow like in Russia today. I could imagine European nations would be able to take back Greenland and Iceland, China would be able to take back Asian countries, and overall america would be caught in a two front naval war slowly retreating until our ships are stuck in port or in the bottom of the sea. Peace would probably be made by then America would most definitely remain in control of North America. The death toll would be massive. With nations starving for the first couple years of the war and massive bombing campaigns in China, Japan, and Europe I could see the war being the deadliest war. Africa, China, and Japan would have the highest civilian casualties due to starvation and bombings.
The US is a major player in chip production though? A large chunk of the world's supply of wafer fab equipment is made in the US, and nearly all US military equipment uses US-made chips. The reason the Russians are struggling is because their equipment also largely uses US made chips. Chip shortages for US military equipment probably wouldn't be an issue. A much larger issue would be supplies of some other materials like lithium and titanium.
Very good analysis. One things the Americans might do as things got desperate, however, would be to secure the Western Hemisphere and mercilessly exploit it for resources and manpower. This is not a knock on the US. In our own timeline, we’ve seen desperate powers do the same thing when national survival was at stake. The will to do this would not likely be at issue, as Americans - for all their division - are quite good at uniting against common enemies.
no way usa can hold persian gulf so easily. india is so near. i know usa has a lot bigger navy, but remember most of navy is in other places. also china can send a big navy in a week. and other neighbouring countries can also send. not all countries but many big countries could send more than a few milliom soldiers to reinforce.
To refine more for export… Usually you’ll have Canadian or Mexican oil brought into Gulf Coast refineries, turned into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, plastics, etc. and then shipped back at profit or shipped globally. The US used to do this swap extensively with Venezuela where it’d be both the top importer of oil and the top exporter of oil based products to them.
Wouldn't the us airforce just start bombing the hell out of the industrial bases of the coalition? We have the largest airforce and largest navy airforce so I think more harassment or just straight up bombing runs on cities would be the norm throughout the war. Which would then hamper the war effort and increase unrest due to strangulation of resources. And if the US goes into war economy I think it'd be pretty easy to re coup loses or even yet lead to new innovations.
The rest of the world combined could easily outbomb the United States, seeing as the only evidence we have of US bombing campaigns have been in smaller less technologically advanced countries. I.e, the US is a senior playing against freshmen
The problem is range and how many targets there are, only strategic bombers can do this without bases, and they need escorts that need in air refuling. Only the B2s can do this without escort or refuling but there are too few of them. They could strike extremely critical infrastructure though, even if it's suicide, the three gorges dam, the dams and barriers that protect the Dutch, and other critical things like nuclear power plants. Overall it would slow down the world but this not permanent.
Thank you all for watching! To support the content consider leaving a like and a comment to help the video against the algorithm! Subscribe for at least one alternate history video every single week!
Short / medium war: America wins.
Long war 50 years: World wins.
What if king Stephen of Hungary converted Tho orthodoxe Christianity instead of
Catholic Christianity
What if America won the war of 1812
What if the Nederlands Regonquerd the zoudtern Nederlands in the 80 Years war
What if Egypte Russia Austria invaded attacked the otoman Empire when the Greek Revolution happened-started
It's funny how when you realistically analyse a ridiculous scenario, all the actors would want to stop because it's happening for no reason.
Maybe because aliens are controlling them
@@1mol831 .
It is like math, infinity, 0, and 1 are quite absurd but it works. The USA would edge out the rest of the world in any and all wars, they barely squeeze by the tie breaker. Luckily they are the good guys, and everyone is an ally, some closer than others. The love and bond shared between the USA and earth is not 0.
@@Tethloach1 what the...
@Tethloach1 I agree. Yeah they make some questionable choices but the US is definitely one of the better countries than the alternatives like China or the USSR, and I get why some countries hate being muzzled by the US. Just let them think what would happen if they were controlled by another global power.
"No nation can ignore the USA:s might" Bhutan not recognising the USA, Russia, China or Taiwan
A protectorate of India with no foreign policy as a result
They still interact with all of those countries
Their nation is basically a mountain with less than a million people soooo
@Walt shhhhh you’re going to blow our cover
@@therealgaben5527 The Dwarves will rise someday
The most insane part is that the Swiss didn't remain natural
learn to spell Neutral 😂
@@MoeKage309 No no, since It's in their nature
@@MoeKage309 Learn respect
@@MoeKage309 You're talking so much about grammar while you literally capped "neutral" but not "learn."
That is actually the craziest part lol 😂
I give the US one week in a war like this once Liechtenstein and San Marino can completely mobilize
Agreed
Lul
Don’t forget Vatican City, Monaco, Andorra and Luxembourg. You only need one of these in order to defeat the US.
Are yal meming? It would take numerous weeks for anyone to get near the US mainland best case, like please explain your position as to how..?
@@kindahonourablecanadian Are yal meming? It would take numerous weeks for anyone to get near the US mainland best case, like please explain your position as to how..? N Im wondering what those places have to do with an invasion of the US?
Wouldn’t the US tanking the world economy cause incredibly large power vacuums and collapse that would impact the long term strategic integrity of everything?
No? Europe and China would still be able to eventually strangle the Usa
the rest of the world would have already realized that & probably accepted that as a price to pay so they could dunk on the USA
it’s possible history not likely history
a lot of countries current power dynamics only work in the context of America existing, in this ridiculous scenario, at least 20 countries will have to endure a civil war or external war before doing anything. (South Korea declaring war on the U.S.A is somehow less believable than a militarily exposed S.K. NOT being zerg rushed by an emboldened N.K.)
rome colapsed aswell
The funny thing about this is that only France and Britain have the capability to send armies to the states. Most nations don’t have expeditionary capabilities. It would take a lot of reforms to most world militaries to allow them to even support a war in North America much less win one
Bro forgot about china
@@The_ragingJewZionist china has a big military but they don’t have the actual capability to send troops far away. They need the experience, equipment, knowledge, and logistical capacity to such an operation on the other side of the planet and they just don’t have the ability. They can only project military power in their country and in neighboring countries. Their navy could likely project power in North America but there is no way their army could.
@USAChina1 the Chinese fleet is a shore fleet with blue water capabilities. They do not have the expeditionary capacity to extend their military might across the pacific due to a lack of experience and establishment. The US has Guam, Midway, Hawaii, Australia, Japan, South Korea; a whole chain of rest stops that have been operated for decades with a military used to fighting wars on the other side of the planet. The Chinese navy is green as they come, with most experience coming from drills and bullying Phillipino fishing vessels. They do not have experience with supporting supply chains to extensive international networks of military presence, and anyone can tell you that supply chains make or break wars. It's not enough to get an army across the pacific, you need to maintain that connection for replacing troops/equipment, ammunition, and much much more. And the US is the only major power that has consistently proved their capability to do that for the past century.
@@The_ragingJewZionist Bro forgot about China's navy
Its a green water navy, has not got expeditionary capabilities. Outside of the USA, UK and France are the only nations who can do it, with Britain having larger auxillary force than France.@@solaris0000
I wonder how much switching the US for NATO would change this, would they be able to actually win, or is it just a matter of having more time before they collapse?
Honestly just with france I think they could be really close to a victory. If the French mainland can hold out against all of europe then the US and the French colonies can focus on keeping the Oceans controlled long enough to take key islands. This also splits the US Navy to the pacific and Army to Europe leaving the Airforce to be extra reinforcements.
It sounds dumb but that might be a win, just because a lot of the rest of the countries would not be able to significantly work against the US/NATO team so team Rest Of The World has a lot of dead weight and just having that much more population and industry would help out a lot. Plus a looooooot more staging points to spread American muscle.
Maybe? I dunno that's still like .8 people vs 7 or so in terms of the people numbers involved.
@@jamesdulak3108 dude you dont understand how much of a vulnurable situation the us is in in the pacific, current american anti-missile technology is unable to intercept the hypersonic chinese and russian missiles, so in an event of war, american aircraft carriers, military bases etc. in the pacific and europe would all be destroyed within a matter of minutes.
Honestly at that point it's closer to a toss-up but I think NATO would still lose.
It probably goes from certain defeat to reasonably likely victory, or certain victory if you add in countries that aren't NATO but are basically NATO like Japan and South Korea
The big changes are that the rest of the world doesn't get access to NATO tech or former NATO navies. With just the US, it's an attritional war that's won by rest of the world boxing in the US. Here, it's an attritional war, but one where absolute control of the seas means most countries can be taken one at a time and access to food and fuel can be strangled with very few ways to stop it and reverse it.
Basically, NATO and friends are the only countries with proper power projection capabilities. If the rest of the world was a consolidated bloob, they could win, but geography being what it is, you would see South America and Africa removed from the board probably without being occupied, a lot of fighting in the middle East, but the bits that are important are probably the easiest to take and hold (with all due respect to the desert warriors of old, that's not who the modern Arabs are anymore) and then a long, grind against India and China and Indochina.
Without nukes, and assuming it's 2023, Russia isn't going to last long so you have a Europe that's decently safe, a Ukraine that's in a better position than it was before, a US and Australia that are almost completely safe, a Japan, Taiwan and Korea that are in danger but are fighting the exact war they're preparing to fight and an Israel that's fighting for it's life, getting invaded on all sides but what else is new.
However, if we also add the stipulation that the populations of conquered territories just can't be pacified under any circumstances, then I think that eventually NATO probably loses. Even putting aside the fact that genocidal war and weponized famine are wrong, they're also exceptionally taxing and expensive and would spread NATO to thin
The only problem I see with this scenario is that is assumes the whole world would stay united in the face of economic collapse. this all assumes some pretty amazing resolve on the part of the global coalition, it also assumes the USA wouldn't foster regime change in attempts to pull countries with vital resources to their side.
But it's a fictional scenario, if we start reasoning too much with it then we could assume the this mega coalition would not be even possible to form but those are not the rules we set for the scenario
@Pierangelo B Precisely, it's far easier to persuade the entire Muslim world to invade Israel than it is to persuade the entire Middle East to invade the US.
Some points in the real world is best left out in the simulation out of sheer necessity.
Remember that one of they key rules for this scenario is that all countries are fully committed to the war and cannot sign and individual peace with the USA. If countries in this scenario were allowed to pull out of the war, the war would just not happen because everyone would immediately try to make peace with the USA (And the USA would sue for peace with everyone)
@@hiddentreasure2161 the best assumption to increase the scope of the war is to assume that no one can declare peace, but the governments decision to go to war is not popular and risks a chance of being kicked out of office. It would provide a time limit to the coalition and make for a pretty epic divide and conquer brawl.
I disagree for the mere fact of the Middle East an Russian oil producing infrastructure could be leveled very early on and strangle the worlds war effort in the crib
I believe projects like the silk road would also become really important and a lot of railway tracks would be laid down around the world to make the naval superiority of the early and mid war nearly useless for the US.
Sure, but don't forget that trade via water is like 20 times easier/cheaper than overland
Too bad it would have to happen before the war because this is a scenario where the whole world is at war with the us
Nah, Shipping Lanes always trump Railways.
Even inland water (rivers and lakes) shipping outclass Railways.
no.
You do realize the US Air Force is also incredibly powerful right?
What if Freddy Fazbear won WW2?
The pizza would taste better
That's a topic for Docudubery to cover :P
Wdym bro he did
😂😂😂
This was really cool. Seeing the infographics show trying to cover this felt so stupid, this is a lot more reasonable.
I don't think so, there is no point in looking at this if no one can surrender (because it's just a matter of time, which US would lose), it would be more interesting if initially everyone declares war but nations surrender when they are militarily defeated.
@@segiraldoviit’s not about being interesting, Poland didn’t surrender in ww2 despite being invaded completely
Sure they were basically: American wins lulz.
But I don't see it all terribly different. They never stipulated "Never give up! Never surrender!" In fact that's exactly how the US won in their scenario, the world wasn't willing to take years of war.
@@ryankline1164 In their scenario, it was the world that was starved of resources, instead of the US, if I remember correctly. That was the most brain dead video I have ever seen. If the US is so unbelievably powerful, why the hell did they lose to Vietnam? Truth is, they would easily be destroyed eventually. I would argue that only China+the EU could defeat the US given enough time, no rest of the world needed.
It wasn’t stupid and this one wasn’t reasonable. Infographics was factually correct. The US would win a war against the entire world
I would've loved to see you go into detail of how costly the eventual full invasion of the U.S would go. The most armed population on the planet fighting a constant guerrilla war against the coalition
As you probably know the USA have more guns then people so it would be probably billion plus people will die before they make more the one state amount of land lost
Honestly every introduction in your videos is so good and well narrated
Thank you all for watching! For more weekly alternate history content consider subscribing to the channel! To help this video grow against the algorithm consider leaving a like and a comment, even simple comments like "hi" help the channel out massively!
Please make a part 2 to "What If the Martians Invaded"
Could you please make a vedio about "What if Sweden Won the Thirty Years' War?", it would be a really interesting cocept especially since most people only do what "What if Sweden Won the Great Northern War?". Thanks
Can you make "what if Poland wasn't divided in the XVIII c"?
I know i’m being picky but the EU map used in the thumbnail is wrong
Norway isn’t in it but is in the thumbnail and Finland and Sweden are in the EU but aren’t included
Other than that, AMAZING VIDEO
Probably just a mix up of NATO and the EU since most EU countries are in NATO and vice versa
@@stargazer-elite I thought so but Austria in on the thumbnail too
Turkey was on the map, got indoctrinated real quick, had to subscribe
@@Qwerka bro my comment is over a year old
@@BogaBoga 👍
Will keep watching and supporting even when I'm no longer in the server. Keep up the work!
"in this scenario all nations are fully commited to the war"
"the population wants the war to stop"
you cant have both man
the governments are committed but the people will still probably revolt. so you can in fact have both.
@@jadennguyen2852 so, they arent fully commited to war, making this claim not accurate to his statement
@@Kevineitor199 once again, the governments are commited, so the public wanting it to stop would be denied, meaning they would still fight the war, but public distress is still a factor
@@jadennguyen2852so once again they're not FULL commited to the war
@@gabrielfeltrim7078 a government determines if they are fully committed, yet the people can hinder that. so yes, they are.
Bringing up anti-satellite weapons made me think of Kessler Syndrome. Already a potential problem today, but with the amount of ASAT being deployed in a scenario like this there would be a high probability this could occur.
Kessler Syndrome is when the amount of space debris is so high that it hits a domino effect and a positive feedback loop. Space debris would make more and more space debris. Eventually any activity in low earth orbit (LEO) would be very difficult to occur, which could take generations to dissipate
Those pipelines and oil wells are very vulnerable pieces of infrastructure and given the United States is a generation ahead of everybody else in stealth aircraft... Much of the oil everybody needs to keep their industries afloat would simply be destroyed overtime.
@@nicholasrocha2414 I have to confess, I don't understand what that has to do with Kessler Syndrome.
It really wouldn’t take that long to dissipate in LEO. Atmospheric drag effects smaller objects more than bigger ones due to large surface area to volume ratios. They already need to adjust satellite’s orbits regularly to account for this. Each impact will decrease both objects velocity as well. A much larger concern is it occurring farther out, where atmospheric drag is almost nonexistent.
kessler syndrome is super easy to fix
Question: what if Ottoman Empire industrialized and how it would perform in ww1
you would have to change a lot of history for that to happen
I mean its an unwinnable situation even without the world rules, they just make it more unwinnable by removing almost all meaningful strategic objectives for the United States. Given the rules the only """"""winning""""" move for the United States is to probably go all in on space program and screw off to another solar system or even just the void itself. Without the rules that's probably the best move after the opening years just because securing orbit would mean potential for near total exclusion of the front to the rest of the world, and also could allow for what's effectively strategic bombing across the entire planet, further making submarine warfare the most viable oceanic attack and transport for the world (cause larger ships can be killed from orbit.). Even if the United states were able to secure space they still prolly lose, but also likely everyone loses.
How I think this scenario would play out:
- America takes all of Canada very quick.
- America would have a slight difficulty taking over Mexico because of population unlike Canada.
- America then starts a Naval Invasion on the Caribbean Islands and it would also be slightly harder than with Mexico. But still pretty easy.
- After this, all America can really do is simply defend itself until the attackers tire off and are willing to make peace. That is if Nukes are included in this scenario.
Who knows, who knows ; )
America could not possibly do that
@@highgroundpov9523 yeah. Bold to assume USA can solo both Americas
@jacktophono1 America can definitely solo stomp the entire North America, it'snot even funny. Not only do they have the quality but also the quantity.
Yes we keep hearing memes about the badass Canadians and Mexicans, but they both do not have the technological advancement nor the numbers like the US military.
just my opinion but, America would take the populated parts of Canada very quick but the snowy more northern parts would be a problem not just because it is really cold but there would be partisans supported by foreign equipment. Mexico would be very hard but not impossible because of terrain and population. Lastly The rest of the world would not simply tire off because of these main points :
- America has less population even after taking north america compared to the rest of the world, which means less manpower for America
- America will have less resources even after taking a majority of NA
- America will have less tools
- Other nations can simply overwhelm them with manpower, basically waves upon waves of manpower
What's most unrealistic here is Switzerland going to war
Here are some ideas: What if Charles V gave the Netherlands in 1555 to his brother Ferdinand instead of his son Philip (so no Spanish Netherlands)? What if James II of England remained Protestant instead of converting to Catholicism and preserved his throne? What if Charles XII died in a battle in 1706 (possible better peace terms for Sweden as Peter I offered in 1706-1707)? What if Maurice Bavaud succeeded with his plan against Hitler in 1938 (will there still be WW2 in with a different German leader?)?
maybe this ww2 is longer and ends eith more soviet or american control in europe
@@joaogabrielimperial7777 If Germany managed to form an alliance with the British empire, the French empire and others against the Soviets (basically most of Europe vs the USSR) it might've been a shorter war that might've not involved the US at all.
i think the video has one problem: why would the us consolidate its troops and have a strategy for the first weeks/months, but the rest of the world (that is activly planning this war) doesnt? Securing the suez and other strategic points should be obvious for them... and i think even the us navy isnt big enough to cover the pacific, atlantic and indian ocean against everyone all at once
i think its implied that the navies in the region just wont stand a chance to secure it, he even gave the caveat that due to intelligence or diplomatic efforts, the US is somehow aware of the impending war, which is what causes them to make the first moves in sabotaging the suez and what not. I get what youre saying, but its pretty easy to imply even if they did plan to secure it, it wouldnt stay secure for very long. Any installations in the area will get heavily bombarded. Air defenses mean shit vs hundreds of cruise missiles. And thats just ONE weapon platform. Nevermind the capabilities of the f35 on paper, which the US has hundreds of...the suez canal is a nono zone, along with things like the malacca straits and the panama canal.
@@xiphosmaniac US navy can barely beat China at this point. it not going to hold the Indian ocean against China AND India. it just not going to happen, they can deploy more carrier there than US can since US has to protect it east and west coast, we are looking at US at most committing 3 carrier strike group. and the chinese "055 destroyers" has missiles that outrange the operational range of F35s... the carriers will be running from those 8 ship since getting in range of them means death. like in every pentagon and congress wargames on Taiwan, US lost every carrier they send... even if US can "claim victory" by calling in Japan to war, they are not going to be able to do so in this scenario... 1 v ALL is just an insanely stupid scenario...
as for suez, I don't see the US goal as attempting to control it. all US has to do is to sink a few supertankers that are in the canal, and the world won't be able to use the suez for the next few years. US don't really have to "control" it, they just need to destroy their ability to function. so I see the US striking the Suez and fuel tank in saudi arabia, and bailing the hell out of the indian ocean, there is no reason to stay and try and control it against the world which would have a far larger combined navy than US does. US is better off using this group of navy to control south americas to avoid any allied landing... go full monroe doctrine is the best way for US to survive this.
@@lagrangewei it also wouldnt be able to hold the atlantic from the british french germans and russians at the same time
@@lagrangeweiThe States has over 4x the operational carrier ratio of china, with thousands more sailors? Barely is a supreme overstatement
The US would lose instantly, they are fighting Bhutan
Agreed
Facts idk if we could do Bhutan
If they don’t think you exist you can’t fight them, as something that doesn’t exist can’t hurt you physically
😂😂
I like this better than Infographic Show’s video because this one is more realistic
The us basically is the Japan to the Allies in this scenario. Any war longer than 2 years is completely screwed.
If Europe, S Korea, and Japan shared key tech with China while they themselves ramped up production, they’d be able to quickly produce ships on par with the US and at a much greater scale.
Also disagree with invasion being impossible. It’s definitely possible but would be bloody, essentially like how a planned operation downfall would’ve went.
The invasion of the US would be possible, its just the amount of lives that the allies are willing to lose in holding it. America has unintentionally created the Werwolves with its militarised population. The cities would be relatively easy to garrison owing to their smaller gun to person ratio, but a squad going for an excursion into the countryside would be dead. Collaboration governments would need to be set up fast, and even then, its not impossible that the allies might just leave a solid chunk of the Midwest in anarchy, only establishing governments in the coastal states
You're discounting our nuclear deterrent. Invasion of mainland United States is impossible if the invaders don't want to return to a nuclear wasteland. The second an invasion seemed imminent the United States would use nuclear weapons against one or possibly a number of aggressors. Eventually there would be peace or mass destruction.
@@maximusjackassicus3042 that’s why this is a fantasy scenario to begin with that no one uses nukes
@@johnroach9026 likely start pushing back the US to its borders and arming the resistances in Carribean, Canada, and Central America to help prepare for a ground invasion.
The manpower question for an invasion cay be solved if they can equip Central America and South America. Then once the US navy is dealt with, the world prepares a three pronged invasion South through the carribean and Mexico, from the east by Europe starting in Newfoundland and Quebec, and from the west by east Asia through British Columbia.
Assuming a standard 10% mobilization rate like for just Europe, East Asia, and India alone, there could be about 1 soldier per U.S. citizen, way more than enough to fight and occupy the US.
For Total deaths from invasion, I’d expect 20-40 million by the time the war concludes
@@maximusjackassicus3042 The total war with USA on one side and all the other nuclear powers on the other kind of wouldn't be very interesting, because you'd either have a quick stalemate with a lot of political manoeuvring (but it makes no sense to go with politics-based scenario that starts with something as ridiculous "everybody declares war on USA just because) or nuclear annihilation, really... Not much to analyse, really.
The US economy would crack if _everyone_ switched from USD as a reserve currency and implemented heavy sanctions on trade. Even a country as self-sufficient as the US wouldn't be able to cope with that.
No military needed in this scenario.
The problem with that is which reserve currency gets selected to back economies.
@@admechrodi758
You're right, and there's no single good currency to replace the Dollar.
The Euro is the best bet. Renminbi would be a disaster.
In this scenario, however, it would be feasible.
Their economy would also crack but the US would actually be fine since we're not the ones relying on their dollar's value it's the other way around
The worlds economy would crack lol
@@Scornfull No. 80-90 percent of consumer goods and raw materials for tech are imported. And then there's the import of educated foreign nationals. Those 40% arts majors aren't going to fill the demand in tech or industry, just saying.
When was the last time you bought an item "Made in the USA"?
This channel is really underrrated.
Take a shot every time he shows the thumbnail.
I am only about half way through the video, but I take a few issues with where you left the US after the initial phase... notably why isn't the dominant US Navy making a point to take out competing navies and coastal military structures? In fact it may be strategically worth it for the US not to evacuate their overseas bases, as they could serve as jumping off points to sabotage or destroy other countries naval capabilities. Then it would be a surprisingly simple matter for the US to constantly bomb foreign shipyards. Also circa 10:45 what resources are necessary for the war effort, that they are running low on? They have the most stable supply of fossil fuels, they have clean water, and more food then they could eat.
Electronics and steel.
80% imported from Asia, and many key chemicals imported from Europe.
They could ramp up production, but it would take a few years...
America wouldn't be able to do that against Europe, Russia, or China. The three people it would be needed against. European NATO & EU can coordinate and beat the Americans (who would be spread far and wide) back, and any attack on them would be costly as Europe's navy would be able to coordinate a lot easier and cause more damage which the US couldn't risk (they would need their army vigilant 24/7 as any crack means something the world can recover from and build up). In the beginning stages, they might get off some attacks, but like the navy Europe's airforce can coordinate. Plus, North Sea oil would make an incentive for Europe to defend from America. Submarines, as stated, would rage havoc on US supply lines, meaning they likely would require planes to focus on that. Along with this, anti-air systems would be set up in strategic positions like the Highlands of Scotland, Shetland, and Norwegian mountains, meaning any attack done on Europe would be costly. In the beginning of the war, I imagine they'd make some sort of air strikes against Britain, but it would be limited due to, as stated in the video, the West was hesitant to attack each other and doing so would imbitter Europe towards America and solidify their position in favour of the war. Which America wouldn't like and would prefer Europe remains in internal discord as it means they'd make fewer moves against them.
Russia is just too far away. Simple as. Any attack done would be against Eastern Russia to avoid an invasion of Alaska, but Ameirca couldn't power project into Russia as any attempt would be met with CSTO and CIS (less unified but still have organisation) fighting them back.
China can deal with itself as stated. The immediate coast and Chinese region are under Chinese control for basically all of the war. There's not much America could do without fully focusing on China and losing in other fronts.
@@Emanon... The US would just reopen or build steel factories. There is a reason the Midwest is called the rust belt.
@@davidcraft4636
That's not easily done after it's been dismantled the last 20 years.
90% of the rare earth minerals are controlled by China. That's the entire high tech sector, including components to every fancy weapon system.
It's a completely unrealistic scenario but given the premise the US economy would be shattered before any serious fighting has even begun.
Because it's incredibly risky. It's very difficult to permanently take out industry, it's very easy to lose a ship. While it's stronger than ever, the US Navy has significantly fewer ships today than it had in the past so every ship lost to an anti ship missile or sub is a ship the US can't afford to lose.
Right now, today, with NATO and just vs China, trying to attack their shipyards would be extremely dangerous. Spreading ships out, moving them away from land based radar and planes in a scenario where you're depending on those ships for safety is suicidal.
Plus, there are a lot of shipyards around the world so destroying half would mean that it's the other half that get converted into military shipyards.
The interesting part about this is the fact that if this Was that happened the United States would cripple the world's economy and most of the allies on the other side would probably not want to fight overtime meaning that the Americans could also theoretically win this scenario Through crippling the economy and making uprisings of real possibility in every country
Maybe
You do realize that the moment war is declared the USD becomes toilet paper. And the worlds gold reserves outpase the United states.....
The world will switch to the Yuan or Rupee, the united states will have to eat paper to survive the conflict
the US economy is going to be crippled way faster as the coalition trades between themselves, hence the 1st uprising will be in the us itself
no one wins in nuclear war
The video states there would be no nuclear war @@Tsy172
Great video!
Simplified version: F-22 pilots will work overtime
Nice work!
I agree with this, however, let’s say there was a reason every country on earth decided to go to war against the US, but people in other countries as the war dragged on would slowly force governments out of war
i mean even the people in the US would want it to stop as well
And US wouldnt? US population are not very united at the moment, so a war with the rest of the world?
@@DoubleAAce not if the world declared war on us
@@b-1775 are you insane its one country vs the world there is no way the people want that. They will inevitably lose
In reality this is What if Kanye West won 2020 election
nah kanye would probably win the war
Okay now this is hype
Damm bro just roasted infografics show
This seems accurate long term, the strategy of the United States is its forward positioning and collations so if we lost both it would be inevitable.
This did make me think of an absolutely ridiculous scenario where the rules of the game or risk apply in the real world… Then the United States might have a chance, but that would be such a contrived scenario, I think it would break our brains.
honestly if it takes decades to even start creeping on the mainland, it doesnt seem incredibly far fetched that the US will take the initiative, the submarines are already prepositioned around teh world, easy barrage of cruise missiles at most known installations, and those are just the important ones. Surgical strikes will be sent everywhere. One US Aircraft carrier has more planes than most countries entire Air Forces, and the US has 11 of them ready to go. Not to mention the air force and its focus on long range tactics, considering any and all conflict will be fought over great distances of ocean, the US is prepared for this sort of conflict. Mexico would collapse quickly, and probably be assimilated, not even a need for an occupation. Same with Canada. The cultural ties are too great for the people to be occupied morally by the US and the canadians will probably just choose to be with the US anyways. With that, the US food supplies and energy are basically guaranteed, and with so much absolute territory to conquer, even a global coalition would find it hard to wipe out the idea that is America off the map.
Europe without oil
With russia around
Is not accurate
@@xiphosmaniac usa become a soviet union?
@@purple700raptor8 no where is it stated europe will have no oil...maybe in the video but thats just artistic flair. though in this scenario, i dont see the US not blowing up all the undersea cables and pipelines, leaving only land corridors, which can also be bombarded from the ocean with cruise missiles....or even send in fleets of aircraft. 2 aircraft carriers have more than 150 planes between them. More than enough to handle the biggest european air forces. The us will have no energy problems as far as oil is concerned. Oil isnt even a factor in this war. Oil will still be pumped freely all over the world, its just a matter of it getting to its destination safely, which the US will be a nuissance for most, if not all, navies to deal with.
The USA would be able to hold em of. The USA has everything it needs on its homeland. Food oil and more! And the USA also could trade with Canada. So the USA would survive.
I really enjoyed the video
Idea: What if the Dutch won the Anglo-Dutch wars?
probably they will take the colonies from here and there but I doubt they will take england proper cause of the hostile population maybe they could get more influence on British politics , set up puppets, or just outright conquest of it like norman conquest of england and yeah the english language would've been very different
The little dig against the infographics show made me chuckle
One thing I’d like to point out on the oil front in Russia: it has the production capacity to generally satiate most of europes military and non military oil demand (at least temporarily)
The United States would just bomb it all.
@@redthegamer12with what airforce? The US relies on its overseas bases but most of these would be impossible to hold onto, and long range bombers not supported by proper fighter jets will not be able to stand up to a combined indian, chinese and russian airforce let alone throwing in the brits and french
@@lordlousythe F-22 cannot be picked up by current radar systems, and US drones can easily get over the North pole and back. There are over 10,000 aircraft in the US, all more modern than Russia.
@@redthegamer12 Yup, US' propaganda is as effective as ever...
@@narindercatt2230bro’s only argument 😭
This was great
This shows just how insane it would be if any one or even ten other countries decided to mess with the states.
no it doesnt XD
@@grayraven9927 i mean the fact that the us manages to hold out for decades even though they are fighting the entire world is pretty impressive
question is, will this be called ww3 or just everyone vs usa?
Ww3 no question
i think that the only thing you got wrong was latin america, although it is not as strong as europe or china is certainly is powerful enough to defend itself, the way you talked about latin america in the video was just wrong, and although they would certainly not defeat the us they would have a strong enough navy and army to atleast support the EU and china and defend their coastlines
And failing that, South America has the Amazon to hide in. Its pretty much Vietnam times a hundred
@@johnroach9026EXACTLY i was thinking about Brazil
Latin America vs the US, the US has the F-22 and the time to build all of them. Latin America loses. The US declares to its heavily armed population that any land they take in the Americas is their to keep. Latin America loses as all of the Kentucky boys and Texans roll up with small armies and being making land claims. No shot when you get the AC 130s and B-52 in the air.
Possible history when impossible history:
What if the gulf war never happened ?
Basically Iraq doesn't invade Kuwait because in this scenario Kuwait slows in oil production (by some reason) and the gulf monarchies decide to use Iraq as a barrier or a wall againt Iran. What would happen ?
Would Iraq be an American ally ?, How would this impact the Middle East ?
Definitely Iraq stays a US ally, with the relationship mainly based on oil and anti-Iranian stance. Never understood why Saddam idiotically took himself out of the good graces of the US, and thought the world wouldn't respond to an invasion of one of the most oil rich countries in the world.
No invasion of Iraq definitely, but this might instead have the US point their sights on Al-Assad of Syria. Which Saddam would DEFINITELY be glad to allow the US to use his country as a base of operations (cause Al-Assad and Hussein had a tense rivalry when the latter supported Iran and having different views of Baathism).
@@imgvillasrc1608 I think the fault there lies with USA diplomacy, really - they failed to convince Saddam that when they say "don't", they mean it. And are determined to act on that, also militarily. As a result of this communication failure, Saddam was convinced that this is all just a front and that he has a quiet permission to do what he wants. Sure, USA might not be HAPPY about his plans and if they get implemented, they'd make many angry statements about that - but it will mostly be just a front, without any real intention to take any sort of action against him, certainly not military action. The scenario where he takes over Kuwait, takes over the oil fields there and then gives US cheap oil to appease them doesn't sound all that outlandish...
This is all conjecture, of course - we don't really know what he thought and what was going through the diplomatic with USA. Maybe the dictator just went mad and made a move despite expecting US response. But the scenario with USA just failing to understand how serious he was - while also failing to communicate clearly enough how serious THEY were - sounds quite plausible to me.
@@imgvillasrc1608 Well if you give megalomanics a fuckton of weapons to fight YOUR enemies, they just might decide to use them for themselves.
I watched this on the 4th of July ironically
The United States of Planet Earth.
You forgot the one possible cause of this war: Alien Space Bats
What if Greece joined the Entente when Britain offert Cyprus tho them
What if george 1 survived his Assassination in thessalonica
What if King Otto 1 of Greece staid King of Greece
What if Greece won the battle of Peta
What if John 4 Laskaris survived
What if Greece joined the central Powers
are you greek by any chance xD
No Dutch
@00Marton en Iris Yeah those what if you said sound like κάποιος από την Ελλάδα θα έλεγε.
Greece...did join the Entente anyway.
6:12 we’ve heard about cars they travel via land and can transport stuff.
Hi Posable history suggestion what if the USA and Russia stayed allies or officially became allies because the Russian Empire and the USA actually had pretty good relations but what if it was an actual alliance
Also yesterday I watched your if martians invaded Earth in 1913 vid based on war of the worlds but I was wandering ether a part 2 or what if aliens invaded Earth in the modern world
Congrats on almost 12k
I find the fact that the us could control Persian gulf for even a few weeks unlikely.
Every aircraft from the surround countries would be search for them, China would send in their air force armed with anti ship missiles. The American fleet would be pelted by constant attacks, they would run out of anti air ammunition almost immediately. It would be battle of midway levels of destruction. The US fleet stationed there would be lost.
Something similar would happen to the US 7th fleet around Japan.
the u.s. military has already played this scenario out agaibat only iran and due to the disastrous results they instead opted to show the sanitized version where they didnt lose an entire carrier group to iran
And how do you imagine these countries navigate their, mostly western-built, airplanes without GPS over open ocean?
US would immediately encode their GPS signal, rendering existing navigation systems inoperable, unless they've been adapted for GLONASS, BeiDou or/ Galileo already.
No country in that region would have the range and air superiority to operate over the ocean, so if the carrier group stay far enough from the mainland they might hold out for a while.
Sure they can take off from Iran, Oman, India or Ethiopia, but without GPS, AWACS and air superiorty they would'nt even be able to come close to fire their anti-ship missiles.
I agree they can't hold on forever and the destruction would be massive, but also be mutual.
@@rey_nemaattori China and India still have an active fleet big enough to wipe out any fleet. Along with their own gps satellites.
I can’t see it being that hard to link the other nations battle nets to Chinese and Indian systems. And with cooperation over all countries this will be completed in a matter of weeks.
Iraq also have a satellite, so do Iran. You’d be surprised how many nations have their own satellites.
Edit: this isn’t me sucking those two countries dicks, I’m often pro nato/pro US. But one nation vs the whole world is such an unbalanced scenario that it’s insane. No country can hold against the sheer amount of numbers.
@@kfchundur4087made up. The actual exercise was a video game exercise that was deeply flawed because Iranian forces were granted several technological feats like teleportation and defying the laws of gravity.
@@kurousagi8155 made up like you are doing?
The Djiboutian militia would annihilate U.S. troops on a ratio of 3686 - 1 🥶🥶
i want a mod like this in hoi4 where everyone declares war on the us by 1937 sounds like a fun challenge kinda like ragnarok but for the us
America couldn't win that due to the small size of the American army + the isolation laws unless America gets some buffs
Would have to start in 1940 otherwise us gets clapped
@@nicotobiko7153 and that's a bad thing?
That would be breaking the rule that states never interfere with an enemy who is busy destroying itself.
Something I feel is not really addressed is Russia having huge oil and gas reserves of their own I don't know if it could supply everyone but I'm sure it's more than enough to supply Russia itself and maybe china for the months of the US blockade this is just a thought though
@@anon_148 I don't think that's really possible we are talking about the USA by itself without NATO trying to bomb thousands of Russian oil Fields in Siberia of all things while dealing with air defense systems and all the other countries planes and destroyers
@@anon_148russia also can missle bomb fracking infrastructure to disrubt american oil.
Now we're talkin'. That actually be a helluva battle. A real world war 3 like people thought ww2 was.
If the Coalition were planning this beforehand, wouldn't China and Russia land troops in Canada and Mexico prematurely as well as fortifying positions in the Persian Gulf? Doing so would let them just completely embargo the US and wait for it to implode economically whilst minimizing damage to themsleves.
I think this would land with the same answer he had concerning oversea bases. They would find out due to diplomatic channels or intelligence efforts. Also the idea of them landing troops there is not feasible. The US would see them prepare long beforehand due to technology such as satellites. Even if they had the necessary vehicles to transport to those nations they would be fish in a barrel as they can be easily sunk.
Russia took 8 months to take a minor city of 10,000 people 65 km from its own border to which it is connected by land. Russia is IRRELEVANT. Do you think the US would just let them start ferrying troops and building up on its borders? How would they even be supplied after they're cut off by the US navy?
when you think about it, many major nuclear powers, Russia, Us, China, India, Pakistan could solo their whole region around them and win
Nukes were removed from the equation like 30 seconds into the video
If we're talking a hoi style "no reason no limits" war, there's really no reason the Americans couldn't exterminate the population of central america and force the global coalition into either risky, basically doomed naval invasions, or trying to attack through the Panama region. Neither are very appealing
As long as you guys give us Australia, we will be fine
My views:
1) The US longer term strategy would realise it would never win the war and, even if it were possible, such a win would leave it still alienated in the world. Therefore, its plan would be to pursue a peace on the best terms, which cannot be sought under occupation.
2) Thereon, the US relies on technology with most vehicles and missiles requiring microchips, so losing just the factories in Taiwan and Netherlands would impede its replacement ability. China has been trying unsuccessfully for years. It would be a dangerous strategy to use missiles on the offensive when they could not be easily replaced.
3) Hence, I suspect the US would withdraw all its fleets to its eastern and western seaboards for defence, easier resupply and additional protection from air bases.
4) One might control the cities in Canada and Greenland, but these are vast land masses with adverse climates, so it would be impossible to defend the longest land border in the world.
5) If the US fleets were at sea, the Allies would see them as the primary threat and utilise hunter packs to pick them off or deny them resupply with air support from air bases if they stray too close to land.
6) Once boxed in, the Allies would either identify staging areas for a land attack or place the US under siege. Occupation never works out well, especially with more guns in the US than people, so turning the US into a hermit state like North Korea (and without a friendly neighbour like China) would incur less bloodshed. Then sit back and watch the political turmoil.
7) I disagree the morale of the Allies might be challenged, as surely the USA has committed such a crime to warrant the entire planet uniting against it. And getting the people to support the war? Look at how Western governments persuaded most of their populations to endure Covid restrictions and much of the history for the Ukraine conflict was easily forgotten.
The US would run out artillery rounds ,bombs and munitions within a few weeks of fighting,since they no longer possess a manufacturing capacity from years of monopoly and lobbying and hypersonic missiles can destroy the whole navy (except submarines) China or Russia can produce the required things
The U.S produces its own chips now LOL
@@calidawg510W chips act
Either everyone would chill really fast or everyone dies.
I also think it should be mentioned that France has a “Chill the fuck out” Air to Ground Nuclear missile that would probably make everyone think about whether or not they really want to continue doing what they are doing.
This just made me realize how ludicrously powerful the US really is. Even with the rest of the world united, it still has such a defendable position with it's huge economy and military!
I mean look at it. Even Russia is showing that most of their equipment is old af and probably couldn't make enough to replace all inventory in any amt of time, due to small economy. Compare this to the US that straight has old stock that ratios Russian equipment.
i love that i can tell when you americans are commenting because you dont realise how weak the us army actually is XD
yeah so we we capitulated massive countries like Afghanistan and Iraq in months right in the modern era. Something yet to be achieved by any other modern day power.@@grayraven9927. Also with only a few thousand casualties.
Ragnarök the HOI4 mod: America Edition
I mean, the main things I take issue with is the statement that north America would lack resources, and that America wouldn't seize basically all the ports in South America in an actual whole-world-vs-us scenario.
Regarding the former, North America is capable of full self sufficiency of all resources and industrial supply chains within a couple years, if ecological restrictions on mining are lifted and various companies actually started building here again. (Most everything is done at some scale of industry, which can be ramped up with imperative to)
And it would be dumb for the US to not hold South America.
Ultimately the last issue I have is more scenario setup, that being the inability to force individual peace treaties, even in occupied territories. It forces this to be an absolute no-win scenario for the US just by the rules as set. (I mean, besides removing the rest of the planet, and even if nukes were allowed they wouldn't be enough for extinction on that scale)
Ok how about Anglosphere vs the world?
A bit of a contradiction, you say that many populations would obviously not support the war against the US, and especially if it causes literal famine, but you also assume the US would not invade and overthrow their government in fear the population would start guerilla warfare.
I think the first assumption makes more sense than the second. The US would topple all Latin American governments and probably European governments as well, and the population would probably accept this invasion. Then they can turn the war as a ‘West vs the Rest’ conflict and mobilize the entire western hemisphere, to achieve a much easier victory.
In fact since you made the rule that there would be no separate peace and only capitulation, it means the US can only win by literally occupying every single square inch of the entire world, while at the same time you assume it would not even try to occupy Mexico.
They can't occupy the whole world, that's the point. You don't simply let go of a country that capitulates, you have to maintain their submission until the end of the war and all the allies have capitulated. This is simply unfeasible. Plus, this is a war if agression against the US, US is on the defensive until every single country in the world has been subdued.
"Central American is little threat to the US" Cuba says hello
Is this assuming that all the citizens are on board with the war?
Could there be war weariness?
Looking at WW1 the main thing that drove Germany to surrender was war weariness by the population, surrendering while the German army was still on foreign soil.
Assuming all are on board initially with the War on both sides, I believe with the amount of people at the disposal for the world, you could spread out causalities across the nations to a degree where it is not a big impact on the individual societies, going weeks or months without hearing about a casualty in your circle of family and friends, while in the US that would probably be constant news every other week.
i think he said they would be very dedicated because there would be an event even worse than pearl harbor that would make everyone wanna fight
There's a disturbing lack of numbers
Ez rest of the world
IF the US decides to aggressively attack while everyone defends, but the US would be smarter than that. Geography is USA's best defense for a reason.
All the US has to do is conquer the tire North America then sit out defensively, bomb South America back to the stone age, and sit out while the rest of the world tries to settle with their logistical nightmare to cross the Atlantic and Pacific before invading the US.
How exactly do you sabotage a canal?
"if all countries declared war on the united states"
Firstly there must be a reason.
In my country, for example, the United States helped more than it hurt...
Everything was fine, until the American troops returned home, and the illegal loggers began to annihilate the surrounding areas. 😢
I'd like you to think of a marginally realistic reason right now. This video is not meant to have a reason, it is just a thought experiment, and your comment is stupid.
At about 9:00 you put Denmark as a food dependant Nation, why is that? Denmark exports more food than we ourselves need
What if Yugoslavia joined the European Union
Still would collapsed
What you explained was more like: what if the US suddenly declared war on the world, instead of the other way around.
As you let the USA be prepared for this war, but not the rest of the world.
It would take decades to build up the Naval, Air Power and small arms needed to take on the US Navy & Air Force and then fight the slow ground war. The world would have a logistical nightmare supplying across an ocean and fighting in tough terrain you’d then have to factor in how many men & guns you need for an occupation. We have more guns than people and we might politically fight each other but if an outsider is coming in we’re spreading those guns around to our neighbors so we can all take shoots. It’s not a realistic scenario but eventually the world would win but considering the time it would take to build up then win the naval & air war and then manage to start a ground war while dealing with resistance decades atleast. Logistics matters and crossing an ocean against the most powerful navy & airforce and landing ground forces, keeping them supplied while dealing with local resistance. It would be much harder than people think. Plus the US has been in an almost nonstop state of war it’s history and is far more inclined to fight and knows how to run a war economy & motivate its population which isn’t hard if everyone is out to get you literally lol. Fun scenario I definitely agree the us would hit first using the advantage they have to capture as many resources as possible but then it’s a slow decades long push back to its borders.
Worst case scenario is that hypersonic missiles can destroy the entire navy also,the US ironically would only have a combat load of 2 weeks ,afterwards the US would struggle to produce bombs ,munitions and even artillery shells,which will put the US at a big disadvantage
That scenario might happen if US decides to not pay their debts ,enough to piss many countries,if not the whole world
Can you cover a scenario like in the Netflix series Occupied? Norway vs the entirety of the EU and Russia. Excluding France, of course.
wdym by that, the eu would crush norway and why excluding france
@@ZPheenix that's what the show is about.
@@DeathSocrates I’ve never heard of occupied
The us would most likely hit the world hard in the beginning. Canada would be completely occupied, Mexico would be knocked out of the war relatively quickly, Venezuela would probably be occupied, the rest of South America would be bombed to non existence in the hope of them surrendering, Greenland and iceland would be occupied and built up in order to hold a key position against Europe, nations in Asia would be occupied and built up in order to strangle Japan and china. Australian food exports would be intercepted and strategic cities in Australia could be occupied in order to force them out of the war, the Middle East would turn into a bigger crater, the suez destroyed, and a blockade in the region. America would definitely win the first 1-2 years of the conflict forcing all Latin American nations out of the war, most south Asian nations under occupation, and nonstop bombing of Chinese, European, and middle eastern infrastructure. Eventually the American war machine would run out of precision missiles and due to a chip shortage production would be extremely slow like in Russia today. I could imagine European nations would be able to take back Greenland and Iceland, China would be able to take back Asian countries, and overall america would be caught in a two front naval war slowly retreating until our ships are stuck in port or in the bottom of the sea. Peace would probably be made by then America would most definitely remain in control of North America. The death toll would be massive. With nations starving for the first couple years of the war and massive bombing campaigns in China, Japan, and Europe I could see the war being the deadliest war. Africa, China, and Japan would have the highest civilian casualties due to starvation and bombings.
The US is a major player in chip production though? A large chunk of the world's supply of wafer fab equipment is made in the US, and nearly all US military equipment uses US-made chips. The reason the Russians are struggling is because their equipment also largely uses US made chips. Chip shortages for US military equipment probably wouldn't be an issue. A much larger issue would be supplies of some other materials like lithium and titanium.
Best timeline
Very good analysis. One things the Americans might do as things got desperate, however, would be to secure the Western Hemisphere and mercilessly exploit it for resources and manpower. This is not a knock on the US. In our own timeline, we’ve seen desperate powers do the same thing when national survival was at stake. The will to do this would not likely be at issue, as Americans - for all their division - are quite good at uniting against common enemies.
mostly the police against other races
it would be impossible currently for iran and israel or india and pakistan to team up.
no way usa can hold persian gulf so easily. india is so near. i know usa has a lot bigger navy, but remember most of navy is in other places. also china can send a big navy in a week. and other neighbouring countries can also send. not all countries but many big countries could send more than a few milliom soldiers to reinforce.
The United States Navy is stronger than the rest of the world combined, this isn’t even me glazing the U.S, it’s just a fact lol.
Apparently according to this thumbnail Norway is in the EU and Sweden is not. It is the other way around.
You and AdizzPro should talk, he could help you with mapping the invasion. Just saying 😏
"Look what the United States can do!"
"Yeah that's cool, but have you ever seen what the entire world can do?"
Legitimate question, why on Earth would the US import oil if it already produces what it needs?
To refine more for export…
Usually you’ll have Canadian or Mexican oil brought into Gulf Coast refineries, turned into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, plastics, etc. and then shipped back at profit or shipped globally.
The US used to do this swap extensively with Venezuela where it’d be both the top importer of oil and the top exporter of oil based products to them.
money
At least France surrendered as soon as we took over Greenland.
Wouldn't the us airforce just start bombing the hell out of the industrial bases of the coalition? We have the largest airforce and largest navy airforce so I think more harassment or just straight up bombing runs on cities would be the norm throughout the war. Which would then hamper the war effort and increase unrest due to strangulation of resources. And if the US goes into war economy I think it'd be pretty easy to re coup loses or even yet lead to new innovations.
The rest of the world combined could easily outbomb the United States, seeing as the only evidence we have of US bombing campaigns have been in smaller less technologically advanced countries. I.e, the US is a senior playing against freshmen
The problem is range and how many targets there are, only strategic bombers can do this without bases, and they need escorts that need in air refuling. Only the B2s can do this without escort or refuling but there are too few of them. They could strike extremely critical infrastructure though, even if it's suicide, the three gorges dam, the dams and barriers that protect the Dutch, and other critical things like nuclear power plants. Overall it would slow down the world but this not permanent.
@@duitk just target coasts
Switzerland should’ve just stayed neutral smh.
What if Y2K actually happened?
the year is 2023 so i would assume that the year 2000 happened
Something like it will happen again, probably our biggest defense against an ai takeover lol
This would be where the US shows the world what is in Area 51