USA vs Everybody

Let's say Obama was feeling ballsy one day. He stages a fake bombing so that he has an easy ticket to fight Isis. But in this staged attack he makes it seem like Isis is working with communist countries too. So Obama can now declare war on anybody communist or Isis related. But our allies such as the UK know it was fake so they stand up against us. So Obama stands up and says it's go time and he declares war on the world. (For this scenario Nukes are legal, but they don't leave behind radiation. If it did the whole world and America would lose) so with that said who would win. America spends more money on their military than every country combined. But the world has 6 billion people to throw at america. So who wins in this showdown. Side battle Obama vs Kim Jong un in a boxing match. Edit. I feel like this is unfair in obamas favor. So it's now Obama vs Putin in a boxing match. Who wins?

The conditions to win are Americas army (and subsidiaries) can no longer fight. For the world to lose America has to beat the other countries armies. Or force them to surrender. America won't surrender so they fight until they drop.

Draw, everyone dies

Batman solos with preparation.

@saren@sc@renchamp@mercy_@god_spawn

What are the victory conditions ?

@leito: great question hold on lol

'Murica always wins

@matchesmalone21: is this not supposed to be up or something?

@andr413: damn. You're right.

Of course, he is :)

The US loses. Plenty of that money is tied up in R&D, and we have some pretty formidable nations to be up against- Canada has pretty much full access to march in and does in fact have the skill and resources to do so, Russia has the personnel and positioning to attack hard with no problem if the other nations are allied with them. It's just a hope skip and a jump and next thing they have Alaska again, then down through their new ally Canada and next thing the US is a super sized reenactment of the Battle of Berlin.

@noxmagnus: R&D?

Russia and China combined takes U.S out of existence

Nukes ftw

Research and Development- Mathematics, blueprints, prototypes, test programs, etc. Basically things that are (as of yet, and may or may not ever) not of any actually use on a battlefield.

@noxmagnus: ok thank you

USA loses, just throwing shit load of money at your army doesn't make it some godly army. USA probably would stale mate with Russia if they were serious about the war, now take every other country with Russia, USA wouldn't last a week.

Hitler didn't announce that his going to war with the whole world, he also was at the right time in the right place and one kind of genius. That kind of war won't happen again. Information passes too fast for 1 country to go against the world at this point.

Obama would probably stomp Kim, he is taller than him and his hand reach is better. Height plays a big role in random street fights where opponents are untrained.

@noxmagnus: The US has full access to enough nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons to ensure that nothing would survive.

Oh it's all or nothing with everything they have? Then I agree with pretty much nothing on this Earth surviving, all the nations would be wiped out including USA themselves.

Now let's wait for the guy with Supergirl avatar to come and say that his uncle works as a weapon designer in the US Military and that USA could literally destroy the planet Earth with their Nukes and we can laugh at him again.

Basically if the US launched everything they have at everyone, and everyone else launched their complete arsenal at the US, there would be nothing left. It's pretty much what stalemated the Cold War for decades.

@mikex20 Oh I agree, but that's not really much of a scenario to look at. I was intentionally leaving out WMDs. (Although honestly, most aren't actually as powerful as made out, nukes wipe out a massive area compared to traditional bombs, but compared to the size of the world, it's small, especially since most nations these days can detonate them before they hit, theoretically. Chemical weapons are deadly but hard to use in a large area and loose their killing power quickly. Biologicals are the biggest threat, and are a mixed bag of practicality). But as stated, my scenario was going with both sides wanting to rule the world/save the world, not destroy it.

Liberty Prime solos.

@noxmagnus: A conventional war, America wouldn't have a chance. America doesn't have the man power to tackle China. But I'm pretty sure the sh*t would the hit fan when in danger of being wiped out.

@sirneko: I changed it to Putin vs Obama.

@mikex20 Fair enough, assuming that they realize they are losing and decide to take everyone with them.... I don't think it would be world ending. There is the possibility that one of the biologicals could end humanity,but it's not actually much more likely than one of the natural nasties doing it any day now. With all the nuke dismantling in the past couple decades I don't believe there's enough nukes to irradiate even an in the end significant part of the world, let alone the whole thing, and phsyical damage from them isn't that great. It would devastate areas they are aimed for but, it wouldn't take out everyone, and 50 years later things would look like Hiroshima does now. Chemicals wouldn't even factor into it really, the only last for a couple days and cover a small area- though they could be used to take out the invading force coming to take out leaders.

@noxmagnus: I said that nukes wouldn't leave radiation this way that won't be a factor. And America can't drag the world with them. Who wins the boxing match? Putin or Obama?

The boxing match? I'll go with Putin. Size does matter and Obama is thin and gangly. Putin isn't the badass he tries to present himself as, but even for looks muscles are going to make the difference there.

To bad this isn't Putin vs Teddy Roosevelt, that would be a more even match up from looking at the two... although Roosevelt was a boxer, so maybe he'd have to much of advantage.

Entire USA would get destroyed.

Few million poeple outside the USA would survive.

BRICS ftw!

History of civilization is like cycle. You will rise and then you will fall. For example Rome empire has golden age then it collapse and fall. Same with many other empire

@mikex20: Yeah, no. America's military is far superior to China's.

That being said, America either takes it or barely loses.

Lol The war will end in less than 3 days it's retarded to even imagine USA having enough manpower to defeat 190+ countries.

The top 4 military power nations should be enough.

@keenko I agree, China isn't the big threat in this scenario. Russia is a player due to decent technology and manpower, but otherwise I see the biggest players really being our former allies.

@noxmagnus: Russia still uses Cold War era technology. UK is a good military but honestly, they're still inferior is every single way. India's army is larger than the UK's.

@keenko: @noxmagnus: OP forgot to restrict nukes. Everybody loses.

@mandarinestro: The OP says Nukes are allowed but magically don't leave behind radiation. (Which doesn't make any sense but honestly none of the OP does.)

Nothing left, aka civilization would be wiped out. You wouldn't even tickle the Earth itself. If you take all the Nukes that have been accounted on the Earth(~26k) and launch them all at the North Pole you would move North Pole quarter of an inch. Those nukes would create 24% of the energy of Japan's Tsunami.

America would lose bad. They, by themselves, are powerful, but they're not powerful enough to wipe out the world. They'd probably lose in the first 3 days..... top 4 military nations (other than the USA) should be able to stop them.

Also, Putin curbstomps, he is ex-KGB and has military and special forces experience (and hand-to-hand experience from there).

and as a side fact, the nuclear weaponry in the world at the time of the Cold War was enough to destroy the world 20 times over. It's 2015 now, so that number is much much bigger...

@keenko Yes they do for some things, but not all of their tech is Cold War, and they are better organized than the Chinese, and their tech is better than the Chinese knock offs. UK is a good military, and yes, India has a larger military than them, but #5 in world firepower is not shabby. Meanwhile Canada is up at #14 and has a huge border to send attacks across easily. And 14 is not shabby out of 126 rated militaries, especially teamed up with #5, #6, and #13 as nations that work really well together and know our tactics and protocols. Taking the rest of the world in that means we have all of the other ones as well... but their knowledge makes them formidable and like I said, Russia (# 2) has good logistics for it. And this is overall ratings based on all factors of the militaries: http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

@mandarinestro You're right, he didn't but he did specify that they do not produce radiation, meaning that the only thing that really makes them threatening is gone. They still do more damage than standard bombs, but not a whole lot more. Even if they had radiation, it wouldn't actually do much more damage or last very long. Nuclear blasts are extremely survivable

@akzar Actually, the number is smaller now, much smaller. The majority of the cold war stockpile has been dismantled. And the amount of destruction was vastly overrated, especially the "destroy the world". There isn't enough radioactive material on earth to destroy it, and nukes aren't as powerful as they've been claimed in media or popular opinion.

@noxmagnus: it's bigger. Nuclear weaponry has become much more powerful and much more efficient, and a large amount of nuclear weaponry has been said to have been dismantled. Most likely they removed the uranium or plutonium and made better bombs. But now they're are warheads which can cause the destruction of the Hiroshima bomb with only an eighth of the uranium (but they probably use plutonium, because Uranium 235/236/237 are quite unreliable even though they're the most used, and plutonium comes from Uranium 238 which is quite common comparatively).

And yes, it's more it would destroy civilization not the entire world. But not entirely overrated it is incredibly powerful and destructive.

@noxmagnus: That line of reasoning sounds good until you consider that America isn't number 1 by a small amount. We're twenty years ahead of China's military in a time of relative peace, can you imagine how much our budget would inflat if the USA were at war with the ENTIRE world?

Also, to everyone bringing up nukes, it'd be neigh impossible to get a nuke through US defenses. And only a few nations even have the capabilities to launch an inter-continental nucler missle.

"War's over. You just don't know it yet. Everyone lost" Can you name the quote?

China solos.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

@keenko: they're are more countries that are able to send nukes then you think. And what do you think the US' defence is? It's supposed to defend against smaller ICBM attacks and not against large and technically advanced barrages. So it's not "neigh impossible to get a nuke through US defences". More like nigh impossible for the US defence to stop an intercontinental nuclear warhead.

this works too

@akzar still not enough to hit each major city in the world with a nuke.

@keenko Actually, we're officially rated at only slightly higher than Russia, and we still can't outspend the entire rest of the world, especially if none of them are willing to sell us any of the things we rely heavily on. I agree with you though, not many countries can actually get a nuke all the way here at the moment. Also, our allies all have our same patriot missile defense system to shut down any that we send. (we gave away that tech to alot of nations, and even paid for a few of them to get set up)

@batbro15 I don't know that one but it sounds along the same line as "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

@noxmagnus: that is true.