USA vs Every other country

The USA would not stand a chance against every other county in the world... This is obvious.

USA vs. China would be a draw, adding the entire world into it makes it extremely obvious that the world would crush America.

I guess a lot of people never really considered that the USA owns other countries through various means. Or maybe I'm not looking at this like the question is presented.

USA vs. China? A draw? Lol. The USA could easily beat China. Hell, if the US went to war with every other country in the world, the US likely would win. The reason why it ends up losing a war with the rest of the world is because it would be screwed when it comes to trade and getting natural resources. If it wasn't for the trade aspect of things, it could easily defeat most of the world.

@Christian_Debater, the USA does not "own" most of the other countries in the world. That is simply not true. @Seido, please, that is delusional. The USA could not "easily" beat every country in the world.

Key word being "Most". The only countries that would really be a threat are Russia, China, and parts of Europe. The US could quite easily beat any of the individually. That is, so long as it is just a war in which trade is not effected. The US needs the world for trade, and most of the world likes the US for trade. If the US were to go to war with everyone, of course it would lose; but that is because of issues in regard to trade and natural resources. Militarily speaking, it could take out most of the world, particularly if it used nuclear weaponry.

No one wins with Nuclear Weapons. Russia has a ton two and there would be nothing left of humanity if Nuclear weapons where to be used.

Well, the US does posses weaponry that can disable nuclear weapons, so its rather likely that the US could eliminate most threats of nuclear attacks on itself. I'm not quite sure who else possesses that type of weaponry though.

China's 2.2 million bests the United States' 1.4 million... It'd be a considerable fight.

Still, radiation spreads. Not to mention I am sure we don't have enough to block all the nuclear Weapons Russia and China have. If nukes are used, no one wins, and we all die and fail our future generations.

@Seido: Yes but the poll does not specify that it would take down each country one at a time. It is "USA vs Every other country" which heavily implies being at war with all of them at once. But I would still disagree that the Us could "easily" defeat Europe, Russia and China. Oh I think they could possibly win, but not easily. And just NO, in terms of military speaking, it could NOT take out most of the world... Only if, as you say nuclear weapons were used and if that happened the US would be completely destroyed by return fire.

Infantry is not the entirety of a war. In modern day warfare, infantry doesn't matter much, technological warfare does. The US would cream China in regard to air warfare, sea warfare, and in any artillery battle, the US would win. The US also has a larger economy, and allies that surround China that would provide the US with a means for attacking China up close. In addition, neither would ever want to go to war with each-other because they're both fairly dependent on one another economically. In a 1v1 battle, there are few ways that the US could lose. When it comes to a massive war though where the US has no allies, and everyone is fighting against it, the US would lose primarily due to trade reasons. The US MIGHT be overwhelmed by the sheer number of men in a fight against the rest of the world, but the main reason why it would lose would be trade.

Its the WORLD against America, no allies. Along with trade, yes. Trade will effect in this because its the entire world against us. We wouldn't even make it to Europe.

US would lose after being carpet bombed from 50 nations and have the combined force of every country on earth but America beat it down. America is surrounded completely, Canada and Russia to the North. South America, Central, and Mexico to the south are all landing points for invasion.

Fair enough, otter. And Zylorarchy, the majority of the countries of the world have armies that pale in comparison to that of the US. The only countries that have armies that could really pose a threat, in a 1v1 or in a full out fight, would be that of Russia, China, Europe, and perhaps a few other countries within Asia such as Japan. The thing is, the US' military is larger, better positioned, and more advanced than that of all of the aforementioned enemies. The issue is that their sheer numbers might be able to overwhelm that of the US, despite being lesser in regard to technology. And no, I'm not saying the US would win this war. It couldn't. I'm saying that the primary reason it WOULD lose is because of the lack of trade and natural resources. Assuming that the US is cut off from from the rest of the world in regard to trade, it wouldn't have the ability to support its military. If trade was still going on, it would likely be a close fight, despite the US likely losing in the end due to the sheer numbers of its enemies. Nonetheless, such a situation is unlikely.

Positioned in the middle of countries in Europe and stuff, cut off from America and ready to be slaughtered.

Hmm... You seem to easily discard every other countries technology. The US would simply be overwhelmed... That is just the reality. Honestly I won't spew out all these facts because I simply lack military knowledge, however I still confident enough to say that the USA would simply be so vastly outnumbered... And I mean, have you looked at every country in the world, looks at their technological strength? I mean if the US is so mighty, why can it not fight guerilla warfare? Why was it defeated in Vietnam? Why is the Taliban still not defeated after over 12 years?

There is a HUGE difference between what happened in Vietnam and with Alquaeda, and what is going on here. If the US had wanted to conquer Iraq, Vietnam, or Afghanistan, it could have done so within a matter of weeks, if not days; but that was not the goal of the US. The US was trying to neutralize a group of people who were armed militarily while trying to not hurt the infrastructure of the country. And I stand firmly in my belief that the US easily beats most other countries in regard to military technology.

Regardless, the US is hardly "winning" the Afghanistan War. And yes it does, and yes the Us could beat most if not all countries in a "1v1" fight. But the technology of Europe, China, and Russia is not so inferior that it could "easily" take them out all at the same time. You can, and have every right to stand by your belief, as do I.

As I said, there's a difference between the war in Afghanistan and a war like this. The goal of the war in Afghanistan is to eliminate a small group of people that are hiding without harming the citizens of Afghanistan, not harming the infrastructure of Afghanistan, and working within the constraints of the government of Afghanistan. The war described above is a war of conquest, in which none of these are an issue. The US' government could easily defeat most countries in a war of conquest. And in regard to Russia, China, and Europe, you'd be surprised. Most of them are using very outdated military technology. Heck, Europe only has some of their advanced technology because the US provided them with it. And I'll state once again, the US would lose because of the sheer number of men that are attacking her, but primarily because of the economic issues that I've talked about.

And just to clarify, I voted for the US in the poll as a joke, but I stand by what I've said.

@Seido: That's fair enough, I am not implying your opinion is irrelevant. :)

Germany Rules

I'm an American and I made this poll for my persuasive essay on which one would win, but decided to go with every other nation except US. Because that's over 190 nations vs 1. Who do you think would win???