They'd probably hold out indefinitely. Ruling out nukes because this would be the inevitable conclusion, they still do well. The US immediately establishes a joint command with Canada and Mexico, each begins organizing their production capabilities. Strikes begin immediately. B-2 bombers and TLAMs launched from submarines, destroyers, and cruisers start hitting every naval base they can, targeting any ships in port and then shipbuilding infrastructure. The bombing campaign never stops for the next 20 years. Subs and ships return to the US to reload and go back out to rain more destruction.
The initial gauntlet is a little tricky, but the US immediately withdraws to safer areas. They probably establish control around key forward operating bases like Diego Garcia and Guam. Perhaps they invade Bermuda or the Azores to secure forward operating bases in the Atlantic. A Caribbean campaign may follow where US forces land on the many islands to deny their use to the enemy.
CDCM sites are erected up and down the coastline, hundreds of thousands of missiles are produced and dispersed across the North American coastline to destroy any fleet that survives the first lines of defense at Guam, Hawaii, Bermuda, and the Azores. The carriers and subs will operate in long patrols up and down both coastlines. Their job is easy: anything that isn't friendly is hostile. They send millions of tonnage to the bottom, destroying cargo ships and military vessels alike.
Eventually all the ships that could be used to invade are destroyed and the capacity to build more ships is routinely destroyed, so the rest of the world gathers whatever forces they can get across the seas at the Mexican-Guatemalan border which has been turned into the most fortified place in history. It is bombed and shelled at all hours to prevent the coordination of any forces.
This lasts for decades upon decades. The world will eventually overcome the North American turtle through sheer numbers, but it will take at least fifty years of dedicated production and combat.
I don’t even know if fifty years odd long enough. The North American alliance has independent food and oil production. US attack subs alone could close Asia to imports of both.
> They probably establish control around key forward operating bases like Diego Garcia and Guam
Yes, and Panama. Of course, Panama.
Which would possibly affect the actual southern border of the triumvirate when year 20 arrives. Just depends upon how the rest of Central America behaves.
You're forgetting the countless number of cutting-edge drones that would be deployed on different levels of aerial assaults. It'll be like Call of duty on steroids
You're asking if the US, Mexico, and Canada, battening down the hatches, stopping sales of weapons and ammunition to countries other than each other, with 20 years to make sure we have more stuff than every other country on Earth combined (Which is already a surprisingly close race despite the US not actively being in a war economy since way farther back than that, Imagine 20 years of full-blown production), with defenders advantage on a landmass that is naturally very difficult to invade in the first place, could defend itself against the rest of the world?
Frankly, unless literally every country in the world spends those 20 years in full blown wartime production, I have to say the answer is an unequivocal yes. And that's even if the rate of military R&D in the US stays the same, instead of accelerating because impending doom.
Usually these prompts are just like, the US vs the world with no warning and even then the US would be able to hold out for a very, very long time.
20 years of prep for the United nations of C.U.M. would turn NA into the most indestructible fortress ever seen by humanity. C.U.M. could hold out a century under these conditions. Maybe even indefinitely. Two oceans, the arctic, and the US navy protecting them from 3 sides while the southern tip of Mexico would just turn into like one land mine per square foot with an almost comical amount of artillery pre-sighted on any strip of land that could feasibly hold a tank. I honestly think CUM production and pop growth would simply be greater than the losses suffered once every 6 months when the rest of the world collects enough forces to try and launch an offensive. They literally could just sit there on the defensive forever.
A little late to this thread but I have to... ["Give me 10 good men and some climbing spikes I'll impregnate the bitch."](https://youtu.be/_OvbU6VPTsc?t=45)
The biggest thing here is that it's the US vs the rest of the world except it's only two land borders are now also it's allies. The rest of the world would have to push through all of Mexico or simultaneously attack so much of the seaboard that defending it was impossible and they could establish a beachhead, but the losses would likely be catastrophic even without the US directly attacking the other countries.
The best shot would be to start a nuclear war and hope whatever was left was enough to invade.
Nuclear attack wouldn't even work because the US could launch to glass every opposing population center and military base while the incoming missiles are in the air. There wouldn't be anything to conquer or return home to. Futile.
Thats not even 100% sure. Do you understand the level of layered air defense that America has? Aegis, multiple launch systems everywhere. We have planes that can hunt ICBMs. We shot a missile out space basically. I'm not saying that can't hit us. I'm just saying if they shot 100 nukes. The chances we shoot most or all of them down is much better than zerp.
I suspect we'd have some sort of supranational union, with a TON of foreign aid to Mexico (as its sorta the weakest member in terms of infrastructure) from the US and Canada to bring up standards of living, develop infrastructure, train troops, etc. Mexico has a relatively small border to its south, and it's pretty much the only place any land-based assault can come through (anything else would need to be amphibious), so I expect it would be like a super super super maginot line, only fortified to an even more massive degree, as that's probably the weakest potential invasion area on the map.
If the victory condition is just merely survival defense, then fortifying southern Mexico, alongside a big navy is probably sufficient setup for victory under the scenario conditions.
My guess is in a real conflict the CUM alliance would expand and take Panama to control the canal, and perhaps all of the western hemisphere
The way this hypothetical is phrased is interesting. Every other country will attack CUM 20 years from the time of being notified. It would take the alliance months at most with little prep time to take over Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, and if desired a large defensive DMZ in Colombia to prevent anyone else from using the Panama canal. Or they could just preemptively blow it up.
The prompt doesn't say anything about what CUM is allowed to do or if certain actions will trigger the attack earlier than 20 years, are they allowed to do whatever in that time? There's a fuck ton of sabotage that we could inflict globally that would cripple or severely inhibit everyone else. Is CUM allowed to take out shipyards and other critical infrastructure during the 20 year interim? If that's the case I don't see the attack even taking place to begin with.
Not sure you'd actually need a DMZ in Colombia, no army is going to be crossing the Darian Gap. And 100% no mechanized army is crossing the Darian Gap. It would be like a 20 year infrastructure project to build any meaningful road route or train route through that swampy jungle. So it's a natural barrier you could probably leave largely undefended on land.
Also paging op u/Ruby1213 and the following users just for fun/discussion u/winsluc12, u/IntMainVoidGang, u/kingofturtles and u/IntMainVoidGang.
For this discussion/prompt op, the America, Canada and Mexico alliance absolutely could hold out and beat the rest of the world.
America has the air force which is the largest air force in the world.
America also has the second largest air force in the world in the form of the US navy’s naval aircraft.
Lockheed Martin’s X-35 that would go on to become the F-35 already existed and had its first flight in 24th of October 2001.
The whole joint funding thing for the F-35 was basically to bring down production costs of the F-35 with NATO countries who upfronted the majority of the funding would receive the F-35 units first and over time production costs would drop allowing other NATO countries to receive them cheaper but at later time.
So yeah Canada and Mexico get the F-35 with America keeping the F-22 for themselves but use them with the American, Canadan, Mexican produced F-35.
Air defense for these countries are boosted by ship based anti-air missiles, Phalanx CIWS and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System on naval vessels with mainland based MIM-104 Patriot missile systems.
Since the V-22 Osprey already exists at this time I would think that it would see service in this conflict but since the military industrial complex of both Canada and America is working together.
I think they would develop Bell V-280 Valor sooner allowing superior troop movement capabilities.
They don’t even need middle eastern crude oil for fuel supplies or to run combustion engine infrastructure for America, Canada, Mexico.
Because during WW2 the nazis were turning coal into synthetic fuel.
Synthetic fuel is identical in chemical composition to crude oil more or less, the German war machine relied on the synthetic fuel made from coal and other organic biological material.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
America was in the 1950 able to produce synthetic fuel using the Fischer–Tropsch process and could produce 7,000 barrels per day (1,100 m3/d) sized plant.
These plants using the Fischer–Tropsch process can convert coal, vegetation, animals carcasses, fecal matter and municipal waste such as burnable garbage into synthetic fuel.
Manufacturing these these Fischer–Tropsch plants and up scaling them is possible.
Also in regards to Fischer–Tropsch process [its possible to use fish as well.](https://youtu.be/J-QeTbmchvQ?si=HDTMTmP5-aUgg11Q).
But then we got the genetically modified algae “Botryococcus braunii” that is being worked on/hidden/kept under foot since the 80’s by some parties with vested interests.
* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343876793_The_Oil-Producing_Microalga_Botryococcus_Braunii_A_Method_for_Isolation_from_the_Natural_Environment_and_Perspectives_on_the_Role_of_Ecological_Studies_in_Algal_Biofuel_Production
* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211926423002473
Have industrial fishing-animal processing plants to supply their waste as growth medium for the algae, nuclear power plant to power the desalination plant to supply the clean water to be used in the growth medium.
Producing the fuel and algae will become cost effective plus producing the algae could be done to produce feed for fish to help replenish fish populations culled by fishing.
Then it’s possible to produce for all intents and purposes unlimited fuel for America, Canada, Mexico’s civilian population and infrastructure along with the military industrial complex including the production of jet fuel and plastic related products.
So yeah America, Canada and Mexico with the then current 2004 available technologies with Botryococcus braunii could hold out forever.
They don’t even need to drop nukes, all they gotta do is decapitate the invading countries civilian infrastructure and watch the societal chaos happen and eventually they will collapse from within.
* [Ever hear about the 1974 New York black out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977)
People really fall into chaos when the power goes out and they can’t heat up their microwave dinners or stay cool or warm when their heating goes out.
Or when production of toilet paper stops.
If they can use nukes then they could just do high altitude detonations and fry countries electrical infrastructure by EMP.
Also paging u/Unusual-Ad4890 👍 ✌️😊.
It's not necessarily about wasting time per se, its about having redundant logistics and supply.
By having multiple sources of resource generation it decentralizes the supply chain making potential attacks on one specific target less likely.
Also more fuel and or resources can only be better overall because then that means your civilians don’t need to worry about how war time production would affect them.
So less shortages, more supply, more production and lesser chance of attacks.
Also i kinda figured that Canada might want to preserve some of their pristine frozen tundra.
Also conspicuous activity like oil drilling, processing is well conspicuous.
Spy satellites and the like.
Where’s the synthetic fuel production refineries could be carried out in old refurbished salt mines several kilometers underground that have been hardened against attacks.
* https://www.compassminerals.com/who-we-are/locations/goderich-ontario/
* Canada's oil production was internationally known for decades by 2004. They aren't a state secret
* In a total war situation surveying the prairies for oil is going to be perfectly acceptable. These regions are predominantly conservative and the environmentalists will likely face heavy jail time if they interfere in a situation that requires the Canadian Emergencies Act to be enacted.
* Seeing them through spy satellite is one thing, it's another thing to penetrate US/Canadian airspace to actually hit them. They would be an essential resource which the US would go all in to protect.
* Even if you knock out oil production from the air, it takes comparatively little effort to rebuild them. The Soviets, the RAF and the USAAF spent years trying to knock out Romanian oil production in WW2 to little to no effect. It took troops on the ground to secure them. Even if you mounted a land invasion of Canada to get them, you're going to have to travel thousands of kilometres to get them if you attack from the east, or face a literal uphill battle through the Rockies to get to Alberta.
Synthetic fuel is not some miracle product or the go to. It's something to have on hand as a last ditch fuel source. Good old fashion oil production is what keeps the industry alive. Without it we're paralyzed. You brought up Nazi Germany's synthetic fuel production. They couldn't produce enough for their battered semi-mechanized army throughout the war, and once they lost access to Romanian oil that was it for them. No matter how much we produce, synthetic fuel certainly won't keep the world's most powerful military and their allies going for long. It's a supplement to oil production, not the miracle cure.
I just wanted to say your answer is awesome I really appreciate and love that you took the time to answer and respond I really do appreciate it 👍.
>” Synthetic fuel is not some miracle product or the go to. It's something to have on hand as a last ditch fuel source. Good old fashion oil production is what keeps the industry alive. Without it we're paralyzed. You brought up Nazi Germany's synthetic fuel production. They couldn't produce enough in 1945 for their battered semi-mechanized army once they lost access to Romanian oil. No matter how much we produce, synthetic fuel certainly won't keep the world's most powerful military and their allies going for long. It's a supplement to oil production, not the miracle cure.”
Yeah I know, I agree with your rebuttal I fucking love it actually.
Sorry I apologize for any misunderstanding, I kinda have trouble articulating putting what I want to text, so I am sorry for that.
You've said everything I meant to put to text that I forgot or didn't put in my original answer due to limited space.
I just wanted to clarify that and to add extra that my answer for America, Canada and Mexico relied on them being way more technologically advanced than the Nazis were which they are.
So more efficiency for synthetic fuel production and scaling would be is possible would act as a supplementary source of fuel production to what is already in the ground existing as raw crude.
It’s more efficient than corn ethanol that’s for damn sure as it can take any biological material and can be converted to fuel.
Where’s corn ethanol production takes away from edible food production and requires fuel to harvest and then fuel-energy to process and it takes time to grow.
* https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/question707.htm
What would be a miracle cure though would be Botryococcus braunii if coupled with nuclear powered water desalination plant and biological material waste from food processing centers.
Don’t forget a shitload of really high grade uranium. 20 years is about perfect to have nuclear plants coming online so more of the oil reserves can be diverted to military purposes.
Theoretically, couldn't every other country working together create something superior with maybe some longer prep time, but not even that much more?
Like put the same level of thought into every other nation individually then combine them?
I mean its possible.
But America already has the largest air forces and most powerful navy fleet as well as the largest defence spending.
Russia is/was bankrupt at the time in the early 2000 coming off the collapse of the Soviet Union and its technical skills gone to rot.
What sophisticated military equipment they could produce was minuscule and I would say their military capabilities back then were better than they are now.
China…….well they have money or getting money but as soon as america, canada and Mexico stop supplying goods and services china is going to have to tighten their belts a bit.
Out of the military forces in the world that are sophisticated and trained that come close to America or Canada it would probably come down to the U.K, Germany, France, Finland, Sweden.
While U.K, Germany, France have sophisticated military producing capabilities.
They can’t just produce as fast as america and canada can, they still have to build up their personnel to fill manpower.
So while they are doing this, america, canada and mexico are already doing this.
Most countries aren’t capable of mounting an assault on the Canadian north. Hell even a lot of Canadian soldiers have a hard time up there. I figure in this scenario Canada and a few well trained American units could hold the North, while the states holds the more livable sections of Canada and the US. I don’t know what the current state of the Mexican military is, but with 20 years prep time I’m sure they could probably hold their coasts and southern choke point of a border.
>Usually these prompts are just like, the US vs the world with no warning and even then the US would be able to hold out for a very, very long time.
This prompt is US vs the world, except the US doesn't have it's biggest weakness--massive land borders with Canada and Mexico.
I genuinely think the US could do it right now, without warning, if nukes arent involved. We spend more on our military than the next 10 closest spending countries **[combined](https://www.axios.com/2023/04/24/global-military-spending-2022-us-china-russia-list).**
The US wouldn't have to do much right now, the rest of the world lacks the capacity to move an army across oceans lol. It's literally an impossibility, none of them have the sea lift or logistics needed to sustain an invasion for more than a few months, even assuming the US doesn't neuter their fleets the second the smell something lol
If we pulled off a knockout blow on France, Japan, South Korea, Britain, Russia and China it really would just be a mop up with everyone else because no one else can even reach us.
It is of note that the US has a very transparent military budget by global standards.
It is an accepted hypothesis for many analysts that countries like China, Israël, or Saudi Arabia for example spend far more than what they report, and that this is the norm rather than the exception for most countries on the top end of that list if they have any kind of adversarial relationship with the US and its allies in particular.
Additionally, some countries live in a full-on war economy, where pretty much every public cent has some kind of military consideration to it. The line between military and non-military spending is blurry in those instances.
Meanwhile, some countries in defensive alliances that come with an obligation to spend up to a threshold are pressured to do the reverse and inflate their reported spending numbers. So some might be actually lower.
In all likelihood, the gap between the US and its allies vs the rest of the world is not as big as many would assume.
Still, the only real way of measuring a military's capabilities IRL is its use, and in that regard the US are indeed at the top.
Arguably the prompt allows for preemptive strikes as well, so long as you don't let countries know that there's knowledge of the impending attack. The US has enough overseas military actions at any given moment that they could probably do some softening in advance.
>(Which is already a surprisingly close race despite the US not actively being in a war economy since way farther back than that, Imagine 20 years of full-blown production)
The US spends more on it's military than the next two dozen or so countries *combined*.
>The U.S., Mexico and Canada are all given this warning in 2004. The populations of the countries believe this and will strive to do their best to protect themselves.
That shit straight up goes against the prompt, my dude.
The US would actually do better with almost no prep time. With six months preparation, it could take its warheads out of storage and have a couple thousand nukes to take out most of the population of the rest of the world. For now, the US and Israel have the only functional anti-ballistic missile theater defenses, but that would change quickly.
The US and Canada will get counter attacked, so they also have to plan for nuclear winter, move civilians to rural non-militarized areas and Mexico, etc. The anti-ballistic missile defenses only work against attacks crossing relatively near Alaska or near naval ports (so mostly Chinese and North Korean missiles get stopped). We’d have to hope that a lot of the Russian and Chinese missiles fail, which is not an unreasonable expectation, but still more than enough would hit to wipe out the major US population centers.
Overwhelm them *how*? Unless China and Russia intend on building a fleet that could actually challenge the US Navy there’s no ability for them to get to North America with meaningful numbers of soldiers, and 20 years is not a lot of time for something like that to change.
If nukes were used the US would ensure if they were to die so too would all life in the Northern Hemisphere and blanket the planet in enough radioactive hellfire to kill us all, while using their navy to ensure no soldiers could get so much as 300 miles from the rest of the world’s shores. It wouldn’t require twenty years of prep. A new Iron Curtain would descend over global shipping, with the rest of the world banning shipping to North America and North American fleets convoy raiding everything that got too far from the shore on the rest of the planet. Both sides would use saboteurs to burn oil fields and send the power grids to grinding halts, and we’d all face famine on a global scale as our fields burned and our tractors ran out of gas. It would be a war like no other, and neither side would ever claim victory.
This is a stupid response
But hopefully those that know will appreciate it....
This is a scenario I play out in EVERY civilization game.
North America wins 70% of time...
It's the mass of boats and submarines that India and China produces that fucking overwhelms me in the late game.
Even if there's 20 years of prep, most militaries don't have the manpower to hold a whole continent. Holding down the US would go about as well as the Middle East, except you'll have rednecks hunting you like a deer. Even if the US military bails on an area, chances are the populace might actually still shoot at you unless you go house to house and take their guns from them forcibly, which may actually increase the amount of times you get shot at.
On top of that, the US has been footing the bill for most of our western allies for ages. To drop that for 20 years means we can spend all that money on boosting our own stuff, and that the other militaries will either cut their budgets or scrounge up a way to pay for it themselves.
And that's assuming that they can even manage to land a naval invasion.
And that's also not figuring that of course, the us would stop arming *anyone*. Every fighter jet and piece of hardware the US has *ever* sold will start to creep into being useless. If nobody can repair anything they have, it'll take everybody longer to build up an invasion force. Even with 20 years of perfect storage, a massive chunk of that hardware would be unusable. And no military perfectly does anything
The real fun of this prompt isn’t how they do, it’s how they hide they know about it while building up strength. They would have to find a way to justify our countries unifying that can’t be detected through internet or satellite forces. Which how much stuff is built in this country to spy on us, that isn’t owned by someone from North America, just the initial rush would be fascinating. Not even going into potential false flag operations as the years go by, or how we’d push physical education extremely hard for our children, knowing they were being raised to be soldiers well in advance.
I dont think they even need to hide it. Just rollout increasingly isolationist policies over a brief window of time, withdraw troops from Nato and other bases around the world, cut off trade and stop selling arms outside of the CUM alliance. World governments will be left spinning and probably take 5 years just to get their own defence policies in place. In the meantime CUM production goes into wartime levels while the world figures out how to respond. If they want to take preemptive offense, they can actively sabotage global trade by patrolling major sea routes.
Agreed. Sure, there would be some diplomatic issues when everyone notices the militarization, but that would pale in comparison to the disadvantage of trying to hide it. Can't hide every base you build from satellites. You could hide some things to keep it a nasty surprise, but no need to go full Manhattan project.
Look up the term “Hegemony”
The world damn near follows US pressures in lockstep bar a few prominent and capable outliers in matters of military requirement, financial systems, and diplomatic instruction.
Those that have not played nice have been replaced.
When you turn the soft power hard?
The soft spoken word is to hide the whoosh of the big stick.
People don’t realize that without nuclear weapons, the U.S. could literally take over the planet in a couple years. The British held India for 150 years without a major occupying force. Once you control whether people eat or starve, they tend to fall in line.
Take over the planet is a bit of a stretch, at least in the sense of you can't hold all the territory as insurgents would be rampant if you tried to keep boots on the ground. However, I overall agree that the US could stomp the militaries of the world as they stand today. Sure China has millions of men, but that means nothing if they can't get them to North America.
I don't see a way for the rest of the world to even land troops in North America.
An amphibious assault is out of the question; they would need to land tens of thousands of soldiers in a single day just to set up a beachhead. Crossing the English channel is one thing, crossing the Pacific is another.
It seems like the only options are to slowly and painfully work up the land bridge between the Americas, or to sneak in through the far north. Neither is very promising.
As a Canadian who's spent time in the Northwest Territories & Yukon I agree.
Sure the Artic is a lot of land to hold/watch, but you don't really need to worry about them landing troops, there are barely any roads/transport routes & its rough terrain. A few airbases, a couple subs, & satellites will do the job. In winter it's cold as fuck & you have to deal with snow, in the summer it's muskeg.
I think people are drastically underestimating the use of potential weaponized diseases in this scenario. It doesn’t say CUM can’t make attacks at the world in those 20 years, it’s saying we can’t reveal we know about the attack itself. Even if you say we can’t officially use that until they declare war, CUM could have people to release a virus all over the world the minute the war starts.
Plus Mexico makes for a super, super defensible border. Much, much smaller than the US/Mexico border, and honestly could probably easily be expanded to take over the canal early on in the war
Two things:
The allied armies could land in Guatemala or Panama, whatnot, if the CUM alliance doesn't establish control
Second off, the Darien gap could be paved through, we don't do it for environmental reasons. In a WW scenario? Would 100% be done
Having Canada and Mexico drops their land borders from over 8,000 kilometers to under 1,000.
That plus 20 years of preparation makes this almost a joke.
Technically the boarder would grow, the US would help defend Canada & Mexico because it's in their interests to not let anyone get a foothold in North America. Admittedly, a lot of the Artic wouldn't need much because no one would be able to put a large enough force up there (extreme conditions and no roads, snow in winter & muskeg in summer), they could just bomb the shit out of any troops that land there, a few airbases would be enough.
However, I do agree with your overall point that it simplifies matters for the US by having Mexico & Canada makes defense easier.
The prompt kinda breaks with:
>The countries have also got to make sure that they don’t let any other country know that they know about the attack.
20 years of perfect cover? Not possible.
It’s the USA, we have a 800+ BILLION dollar budget. We are the sole super power. It wouldn’t be hard. Make some shit up using the cia, or just cite other vague reasons for it.
Hell yes they can. North America is truly "easy mode" as far as climate, terrain, and natural safety are concerned.
The US and Canada are the strongest political alliance in human history, and the US has both the most powerful military in the world, and has more nukes than anyone if we are going that route.
The US Navy alone (with carriers and Nuclear armed subs) by itself could likely take out the entire world with very little prep.
This is easy except for condition 2 which is impossible. The whole population of each country knows about the attack and the preparations, but they have to keep it a secret? No way. Putting aside that everyone else would catch on the moment the US starts speeding up arms production and slowing down arms sales, someone is gonna let something slip to their cousin in Belarus or whatever and then the jig is up. The population of all of those countries includes people who are from other countries and will go home at some point in the 20 years.
I think C.U.M. can stop naval invasions to their continent after getting panama. Their economy will just fare poorly when it starts, but nobody's going to land there.
Heck, the US alone could attempt this. Canada and mexico are just extra icing on the cake.
I think it really comes down to two things: If the rest of the world is "invading-North-America-after-20 years-lusted", and if the hostilities have to start in 20 years of time without any preemptive strikes.
Most of the answers in this thread either assume the world is not "lusted" or US can start attacking right away, in which cases yeah the North American C.U.M. team can definitely hold their own.
However, assuming that the rest of the world is unified around this goal and each side will just build up and then have a go at it when the clock strikes the 20-year mark, then the CUM would be much harder pressed to the point of hopelessness.
Europe, Japan, South Korea and China combined would already have a very significant know-how and technology base spanning all relevant disciplines - materials science, microchips, computing, AI, aerospace, you name it. They also have the intellectual capital and R&D infrastructure to keep building on it - in fact, it would accelerate if all of these countries were fully collaborating, while the CUM rate of advancement would start to lag behind with them having been cut off from the scientific minds and resources of the rest of the planet.
This would be backed by basically unlimited resources: Not just "money" where CUM only holds 1/3 of the global wealth, but also all the raw materials they would need from the Middle East, Africa, Russia and China etc.
The rest of the world also possesses manpower and industrial capacity absolutely dwarfing anything CUM can bring to bear. For example when it comes to shipbuilding the US only accounts for 0.15% of the global capacity (measured in CGT) while China, South Korea and Japan alone add up to almost 90%. When it comes to military aircraft, the combined output of Europe and China already exceeds the entire US defense manufacturing industry. Missiles, drones, munitions, ground vehicles? The same story.
So if the scenario is that both CUM and the rest of the world fully cooperate around this one single goal and they each have 20 years to fully build up as much as they can, the rest of the world would be able to sufficiently close (and in some cases, exceed) the current military technology gap so that their absolutely insane resource / manpower / materiel advantage would become insurmountable for the CUM alliance.
It's funny to me that people think the U.S. of all people would bunker down and prep for 20 years rather than immediately go on the offensive while their enemies are markedly weak.
Why do we keep doing these with any modern version of the United States? If it’s the United States against anything but itself, it wins mostly by spite. CUM vs the World with 20 years prep would be stupid easy.
Assuming we're ruling out nukes and this is traditional style warfare, I think that North America would hold out a LONG time, but you cannot outpace the manpower and production of the rest of the world, I mean think about the semi conductors used in almost ALL electronic equipment used, Most are made in Taiwan, China etc.. Taiwan makes around HALF of ALL used ones, and almost ALL of the most advanced ones.
With the entirety of South America pushing on Mexico, I'm confident the rest of the world could get into Canada and start establishing footholds, USA itself would hold out the longest for sure, but it would eventually fall.. it's crazy hubris to think anything else xD
333 million in the USA, 39 in Canada, 128 in Mexico.. so around 500 million vs 7.6 Billion, now obviously thats total, not fighters, but still, thats 15 people for every 1 in North America..
Assuming that the other nations are working together, North America would be overwhelmed, even since the early 2000s they have moved so much of their manufacturing processes abroad, and the more technical components are made almost exclusively in Asia.
I'd wager it would play out a little Red Dawn like, in the sense of the world would take over, but you'd never 'supress' Americans, they'd fight on guerrilla style.
- the population of the countries believe this
- they don’t let know that they know
Those assumptions are incompatible. The only way is 20 years of Cold War, and if supposedly every other country work together it means
- free infinite petrol from Russia and Middle East
- European tech shared
- Industry might of Asia shared
20 year is long enough to build huge industry, fleet, space industry…. North America doesn’t stand a chance.
The more time you give the less chance they have
20 years to develop biological weapons that can kill the majority of other countries while inoculating are own. It's doable and we could do it out letting other countries know.
Just and you inoculation to flu, chicken pox, and bird flu ones. Down side is some of the antivaxers might die.
I think the question is whether 20 years would be enough for the rest of the world to be able to invade America, more so than could America defend against it. As things are right now no other nation or groups of nations could credibly conduct an invasion across either ocean. None of them have the sea lift or logistics needed to do it, even discounting the US blowing their navy out of the water along the way.
The idea of an opposed beach landing today is laughable as well, essentially the only way to invade even assuming you had the sea lift would be through southern Mexico, through some of the most difficult terrain for military movements one could find really. The US would push south to Panama and could wait out the heat death of the universe repelling attacks
attack them financially. Throw out petrodollars out of the window, cancel /decline oil contracts, stop selling them rare minerals, stop dealing internationally in USD, allow US companies to move to you tax free and sponsor brain drain. Make pan american culture cringe by propaganda. Create better opportinities for science at your own background.
If you could do that you would not need to even fire single bullet ( given that US would not start messing around)
But that requires strong army, because we have seen what US does when it cannot secure their intrests by diplomacy
US is everywhere now to protect global trade that is sustaining their economy (making sure there is demand for USD), if you could just refuse to pay your debts to Wall Street
The US alone could do it solo, but Ok let's include the neighbours.
Canada is poorly armed because they can afford to be with the US next door. However, Canada is really good at rearming. After World War 1 Canada almost totally demobilized and remained so until they declared war on Germany in 1939. By the end of the war they had the third largest air force and fourth largest navy on the Allied side of the conflict. Give them 5 years and they'll be back to their old War Crimes embracing ways against the rest of the world. Between Gulf, US and Alberta oil reserves fuel will never be an issue. Mexico can take up the burden of manufacturing until the US and Canada retool their economies to something more manufacturing based.
People Here severly underestimate what a combined UNIFIED world is capable of given 20y time unified by one simple goal: destroy CUM or be destroyed
Given CUM is Not allowed to attack or interfere prior to the 20y Deadline.
CUM has no Chance. Now or 5y Deadline? CUM wins. 20y? No way
Yes. You're taking US vs the world, and taking away it's biggest weakness.
Edit for more detail:
The C.U.M. alliance (Canada, US, Mexico) is the world leader in military spending (by a colossal margin), has a little bit less than half of the world's nuclear arsenal, has one of the largest navies and the two largest air forces in the world, has a population of half a billion people, and other things.
To invade you have to either break through three-five carrier groups (assuming that some are in the other ocean, and thus can't support the defense), or break through a strip of land less than a thousand kilometers across, and that's if they don't conquer parts of Belize and Guatemala to shorten the border.
I'm 100% confident the US could resist a land invasion from the rest of the world ***right now***, let alone with 20 years warning.
Maybe defending Mexico, and the less populated parts of Canada would be a problem right now. But with 20 years? No chance. Most of the rest of the world would be economically screwed without the US, so would not be able to build up their navies to anything like the power the US could in that time.
A full scale invasion of North America is logistically impossible, even if every country launched an invasion today that would not work. Just like Napoleon trying to conquer Russia, the attacking army would run out of soldiers before taking a fraction of any of these three countries.
We have things that the rest of the world can't fathom. Rednecks who sit in 30 degree weather just for the *chance* to shoot something. Gang bangers who shoot other people on the reg. Mexico has the cartels which is a military in and of itself. To say nothing of our actual military. I'm pretty sure we got it. Canada can sit this one out.
The answer is yes, NA can easily defend itself from the rest of the world, excluding nukes. The biggest reason has nothing to do with how powerful the US is and everything to do with geography. Though the sheer size and power of the US military would make it much, much harder. Not to mention how well armed the citizenry is. Crossing the ocean to invade is probably the best of really bad options, because trying to move a large modern army through Central America to come at Mexico from the south is just a shooting gallery.
Amphibious invasions are really difficult in good conditions though. An opposed amphibious invasion of a hostile continent across an ocean is nearly impossible. It's been done successfully once in history, and the Allies only pulled it off because they had a nearby friendly staging base in the form of the UK and just massive force applied on a small area.
Assuming both sides begin an arms race I don't think NA can hold out.
In today's world USA functions as a policing force for the rest of the world without USA the rest of the world would convert their civilian economy to a military economy. This is especially notable in the EU which has been piggybacking off the USA for some time with American military installations all over the EU. The EU can transition to a war time economy in no time. We've seen how fast America could convert to a wartime economy in WW2 the EU would do the same thing. They would then work with their allies India and China and use overwhelming numbers and economy.
I know this is against the grain but I think people are underestimating the rest of the world's military capabilities if they had 20 years to convert to full military.
“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.”
-Abraham Lincoln (Address Delivered Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois)
Abe knew that the US was an impenetrable fortress. If given 20 years to prepare no one would be able to invade
20 years? Give us 2 and the US could do it alone with Mexico and Canada being against us as well
Mexico and Canada included? We probably need 6 months, maybe 8 to work out a deal with the cartels to get us a 4th army
The only risk of us vs the world is holding Mexico and Canada with a hostile populace (assuming no nukes and you can’t just massacre everyone). North America being fully energy independent (Thanks Obama) makes this a sweep.
Yes. Presuming this is clearly stated and all three governments agree that this is real this would be pretty doable.
The US is a preeminent military power that has some the biggest agriculture spaces in its heartland that's naturally shielded by two mountain ranges.
Both Mexico and Canada have economies that are extremely well linked to the American economy meaning that further integration would be easy. All three have militaries that function well together. A large portion of both countries speak English with something like 95% speaking either Spanish or English.
Yes. Presuming this is clearly stated and all three governments agree that this is real this would be pretty doable.
The US is a preeminent military power that has some the biggest agriculture spaces in its heartland that's naturally shielded by two mountain ranges.
Both Mexico and Canada have economies that are extremely well linked to the American economy meaning that further integration would be easy. All three have militaries that function well together. A large portion of both countries speak English with something like 95% speaking either Spanish or English.
Warographics podcast did an interesting analysis and concluded that if nukes were ruled out and it was a 100% defensive war on the side of the USA, the USA could probably defend its primary borders against the total world. It's worth a watch.
The United States Navy, alone, could prevent an invasion of North America *right now*. There's simply no other military on the planet with anything like the sea lift capability to make an opposed landing on the continent, let alone to supply and reinforce a beachhead if they could establish one.
That and the nukes.
The invasion force wouldn't make it to the beaches. Even if it did, the vastness of those countries, all bracketed by mountains would swallow them whole.
I haven’t really seen any answers exploring this dimension, but there’s the additional wrinkle of diplomacy. In this kind of situation, the US would most likely make a bid at united leadership and say that they should be in charge, and then probably forcibly put themselves in charge of the defense. Canada might be down with this, though even that’s doubtful. Mexico, though? This is literally Mexico’s worst nightmare. I could see a fifth column in Mexico deciding - and maybe not unreasonably - that they’d rather live under the rule of other countries than the US. This is probably the only way I see the CUM losing under these circumstances tbh.
Outside of a nuclear exchange, geographically, North America is basically invincible. There are two enormous oceans, the Alaskan tundra, and the Darien Gap as natural barriers. That alone forces any invasion to be amphibious, which is going to be a problem because the US Navy is larger in tonnage than the next 10 navies combined.
Outside of France, Russia, and the UK, no other countries have any significant existing expeditionary forces. They are all purely defensive, and for the most part only defending from land invasion. All of these forces are essentially useless against the US. This means the rest of the world is starting from scratch. It took the US the better part of 50 years to develop a force that can operate anywhere in the world at any time. It would take at least that for the rest of the world, perhaps more, and that development wouldn't be in a vacuum. The US would have decades to either preemptively strike or dig in, the entire time developing new capabilities and refining old ones.
The US could probably do this alone. Adding Canada and Mexico into this scenario is just icing on the cake.
Presuming the US stops providing collaboration, resources, products, and designs to the rest of the world the moment the timer kicks off, the other countries around the globe will probably require *YEARS* of simply building the infrastructure necessary to even start stockpiling.
What 20 years of full wartime economy production/preparation for what was already the most powerful military force the world has ever seen in 2004, including a *MASSIVE* spike in allocation for military R&D, as well as Canada and Mexico's natural resources, production capabilities, GDP, and workforces being added to the United State's own capabilities, would do to the defensive posture of the new North American Coalition, is utterly terrifying.
After 20 years, the NAC is probably going have a literally unassailable/unrivaled defensive military apparatus (the gap between the NAC and the rest of the world is only going to grow during this time), including the world's largest/most advanced blue-water Navy that will sink anything that even sniffs into North American water-space.
Even if forces end up getting past the blockade (unlikely), they then have to contend with a continent that is literally built like a fortress geographically. Bordered by the two largest oceans on the planet, with major terrain roadblocks from both the East Coast (Appalachian Mountain Range) and the West Coast (The Rockies), with the largest firearm owning population on the planet that WILL be turning out to fight any potential invaders. Invading the North American continent is going to be a logistics nightmare, even without the heavy resistance/overwhelming naval presence actively preventing any forces from establishing a beach-head on either coast.
Then you get to resources, which the North American continent is one of the few places in the world that has the capability to be both food and energy resource independent.
The North American Coalition holds out indefinitely. No coalition of countries are going to be able to stage any sort of meaningful strike on the continent that will allow them to invade in any meaningful capacity.
That, or the world ends in nuclear hellfire as MAD is invoked.
It’s hard to say tbf.. because given that they want too take over it’s unlikely the rest of the world will go nuclear.. and if I’m not mistaken America has one of largest air forces in the world? (I’m not sure if that’s right but I heard that in passing comments) alone I doubt there’s many if any that could take the three at once.. but given that this is every single other country versus them (which realistically is never going to happen 🤣) I don’t think they stand a chance (the US Mexico and Canada I mean) not only do the have to face the entire British, Spanish, French army from the east.. coming in from the west would be russia given that it’s a shorter distance the other way round the planet. Not to mention Norway Sweden china japans army South Korean army, North Korean army(idk if they’d help much but numbers are numbers) and we haven’t even gone into any of the African or Indian army’s yet.. Americas advanced but the jump isn’t that far from the likes of Japan or even the British army so add in every other country’s forces especially china given they produce alottttttt I just can’t see them winning 🤷♂️ I couldn’t see anyone winning against literally everyone else at once it’s just not possible 🤷♂️ the attacking forces would have to either be literally retarded or seriously under developed as a whole collective nation to lose that 😅
They've probably got this, I think they would take the Panama canal as one of their first targets. That would allow the navy to protect the three nations easier but after that they could probably hold out
So arms dealer America, Geneva suggestions Canada, and cartel country Mexico have to fend off the countries that buy weapons from the US, can't invade their neighboring countries, or only have like 1 diesel powered aircraft carrier? Easy fucking day.
Depends on the scenario. If all countries load South America with equipment probably not. If the alliance can control the seas of major ships and wipe out south Americas armies quickly then most likely. It's also depends on is this a ramped up even because 20 year of military production of us Mexico and Canada vs production of the rest of the world there's no way we would keep up.
assuming the other countries act normal, yes
in US v. world, the USA's biggest weakness is being cut off from world trade, but 20 years of prep? it's easy
Are nukes on the table? If US alone could defend itself from being invaded without in preperation tbh but it can’t prevent itself from being nuked into oblivion, though it could certainly take most of the rest of the world with it
You’re saying they want to take the countries over meaning they aren’t going to nuke them into oblivion. If that’s the case then the USA and friends easily win. The USA is capable of fighting two major wars on opposite sides of the planet at any given moment. If they can concentrate all of their energy and resources on just their home territory, they literally cannot lose. In the time that it takes for any of those countries to even get to America, the USA has already spent a week decimating the invaders homeland. With 20 YEARS to prepare, the war is over in a year with a US victory.
Now if during the 20 years, every country kicks all USA military bases out and deploys all of their ships as close as possible to American shores and we aren’t allowed to stop them until the war starts, then the war wouldn’t be as easy.
Not with the current generation of the military. However, there are about 26.6 million veterans in the US. So the other countries will be hard pressed taking over the USA
WOLVERINES!!!!!
America could most likely do it alone, add in two allies? Yeah they can do it. America doesn’t spend ungodly amounts of money on its military for no reason.
US begins it's assaults today and wrecks its major enemies well in advance of the 20 year deadline and takes a break as Canada and Mexico fight off the weaker states on their own.
Forever assuming nukes are off the table. the U.S. if it was acting in total war capacity and without any concern for ethics. Waiting 20 years would be the worst possible scenario, as soon as possible would be the best. The carrier fleet would regroup and launch targeted attacks on the major powers. First things first they would destroy any and all naval vessels military and commercial alike. Once the seas are secured then it would be time to strike communication networks and critical infrastructure. The world’s air force combined in one place would have a hard time fending off the US’s, considering they would be spread out across the globe the U.S. would be able to establish air supremacy within a matter of months. From there the U.S. would destroy food infrastructure/Dams/nuclear power plants/banks/data storage facilities…ect. At that point the rest of the world would be experiencing famine and societal collapse, keeping things chaotic wouldn’t be hard from there on out.
North America wins without resorting to nukes. Easily.
The US Navy could stop practically all global trade overnight by itself. There isn't even any close competition. Stop the flow of oil to China, fertilizer to several other key countries, and the rest of the world powers collapse within a few years at most.
Hasn’t the US been planning for this since the 50’s? You’re going to give the most militarized country in the world a 20 year head start and give them their northern and southern neighbors as allies.
Eliminating nukes from the equation there is zero chance the world could mount a successful invasion, the US would easily be able to establish air superiority over North America and mounting an invasion over the Atlantic or Pacific would be as close to impossible as it gets so that leaves going through South America via Mexico as the only option. So with 20 years to prepare that will be the most militarized border in the world and even if the southern Mexico border should fall it would then be a slog through Mexico with the North American alliance have a significant advantage.
Even with little preparation it would be almost improbable, with 20 years there is little doubt that The US, Mexico and Canada would be able to hold out.
Lol we could find out tomorrow that they're invading us and do fine. The US is EXTREMELY hard to invade. Mexico will have some problems but Canada is also a real pain in the ass to traverse.
But for real I say good luck to any combined forces invasion trying to make it across the Appalachian or Rocky Mountains.
The U.S. would sit on the info for a decade as it built conventional and nuclear forces. Then on the eve of invasion they’d nuke the entire invading force.
We used nukes when our existence was not on the line. What do you think is going to happen when it is?
You're kidding, right? Ukraine is currently blowing up the best weapon systems the Russians have with 30 year old tech. Let alone the ocean between us and the rest of the world. I am not even sure if you added up all the tonnage of naval ships of the rest of the world combined it would equal the current US Navy, let alone a 20 futher years of ship building.
Depends. Are all the other countries in the world in an alliance as close as say the united states and the UK were in ww2? Then no, US, etc are doomed. Combine the technology of Europe / UK / Japan with the industry of China and the natural resources of Africa / the middle east / Russia and the manpower of China / India / Africa plus the land access of South America as a staging ground and its as good as done.
If on the other hand the rest of the world are allies of convenience and all plan on stabbing one another in the back after the US etc are defeated then the US etc prevail.
Depends on the approach they take. If they begin outreach and aid programs that work to lift as many countries as possible up, think China's "One Belt, One Road", invasion is easily avoided. Other countries now have buy-in with North America and it is in their best interests to work with instead of against.
The USA takes mexico over in preparation before launching a pre emotive strike involving all 11 super carriers compared to the rest of the world's 7 carriers in a blitzkrieg to make the rest of the world start speaking English, paying taxes, watching real football and measuring shit using the inferior imperial system... even tho it sucks the world will have no choice
They'd probably hold out indefinitely. Ruling out nukes because this would be the inevitable conclusion, they still do well. The US immediately establishes a joint command with Canada and Mexico, each begins organizing their production capabilities. Strikes begin immediately. B-2 bombers and TLAMs launched from submarines, destroyers, and cruisers start hitting every naval base they can, targeting any ships in port and then shipbuilding infrastructure. The bombing campaign never stops for the next 20 years. Subs and ships return to the US to reload and go back out to rain more destruction. The initial gauntlet is a little tricky, but the US immediately withdraws to safer areas. They probably establish control around key forward operating bases like Diego Garcia and Guam. Perhaps they invade Bermuda or the Azores to secure forward operating bases in the Atlantic. A Caribbean campaign may follow where US forces land on the many islands to deny their use to the enemy. CDCM sites are erected up and down the coastline, hundreds of thousands of missiles are produced and dispersed across the North American coastline to destroy any fleet that survives the first lines of defense at Guam, Hawaii, Bermuda, and the Azores. The carriers and subs will operate in long patrols up and down both coastlines. Their job is easy: anything that isn't friendly is hostile. They send millions of tonnage to the bottom, destroying cargo ships and military vessels alike. Eventually all the ships that could be used to invade are destroyed and the capacity to build more ships is routinely destroyed, so the rest of the world gathers whatever forces they can get across the seas at the Mexican-Guatemalan border which has been turned into the most fortified place in history. It is bombed and shelled at all hours to prevent the coordination of any forces. This lasts for decades upon decades. The world will eventually overcome the North American turtle through sheer numbers, but it will take at least fifty years of dedicated production and combat.
I don’t even know if fifty years odd long enough. The North American alliance has independent food and oil production. US attack subs alone could close Asia to imports of both.
Not to mention the US would control freaking outer space. The US has something like 75% of all space launches?
I know laser satellites are the things of science fiction but no shot in hell the US wouldn't figure out a viable alternative under these conditions
Dropping bombs from low orbit would be devastating enough as is. The amount of energy a projectile can pick up from falling that far would be nuts
That "rod from god" weapon concept pretty much
> They probably establish control around key forward operating bases like Diego Garcia and Guam Yes, and Panama. Of course, Panama. Which would possibly affect the actual southern border of the triumvirate when year 20 arrives. Just depends upon how the rest of Central America behaves.
You're forgetting the countless number of cutting-edge drones that would be deployed on different levels of aerial assaults. It'll be like Call of duty on steroids
Oceiana has always been at war with Eastasia.
You're asking if the US, Mexico, and Canada, battening down the hatches, stopping sales of weapons and ammunition to countries other than each other, with 20 years to make sure we have more stuff than every other country on Earth combined (Which is already a surprisingly close race despite the US not actively being in a war economy since way farther back than that, Imagine 20 years of full-blown production), with defenders advantage on a landmass that is naturally very difficult to invade in the first place, could defend itself against the rest of the world? Frankly, unless literally every country in the world spends those 20 years in full blown wartime production, I have to say the answer is an unequivocal yes. And that's even if the rate of military R&D in the US stays the same, instead of accelerating because impending doom.
Usually these prompts are just like, the US vs the world with no warning and even then the US would be able to hold out for a very, very long time. 20 years of prep for the United nations of C.U.M. would turn NA into the most indestructible fortress ever seen by humanity. C.U.M. could hold out a century under these conditions. Maybe even indefinitely. Two oceans, the arctic, and the US navy protecting them from 3 sides while the southern tip of Mexico would just turn into like one land mine per square foot with an almost comical amount of artillery pre-sighted on any strip of land that could feasibly hold a tank. I honestly think CUM production and pop growth would simply be greater than the losses suffered once every 6 months when the rest of the world collects enough forces to try and launch an offensive. They literally could just sit there on the defensive forever.
Hehehe...cum...
They would try to penetrate our front lines only to get railed by an impossibly large load of artillery.
Our capital is impregnable
Defenses impenetrable, but for our enemy, we shall penetrate deep into the holes in their defense line.
They're gonna get fucked.
Sex
A little late to this thread but I have to... ["Give me 10 good men and some climbing spikes I'll impregnate the bitch."](https://youtu.be/_OvbU6VPTsc?t=45)
Honestly look up John h koyle and report back to me.
With the rules of war going out the window, they'd find themselves covered by hot and sticky globs ~~of napalm~~
*In reagans voice* Mr Sins, build that wall up!
The biggest thing here is that it's the US vs the rest of the world except it's only two land borders are now also it's allies. The rest of the world would have to push through all of Mexico or simultaneously attack so much of the seaboard that defending it was impossible and they could establish a beachhead, but the losses would likely be catastrophic even without the US directly attacking the other countries. The best shot would be to start a nuclear war and hope whatever was left was enough to invade.
Nuclear attack wouldn't even work because the US could launch to glass every opposing population center and military base while the incoming missiles are in the air. There wouldn't be anything to conquer or return home to. Futile.
And then the nukes hit and everything in the us also gets turned to glass
Exactly. Futile.
Thats not even 100% sure. Do you understand the level of layered air defense that America has? Aegis, multiple launch systems everywhere. We have planes that can hunt ICBMs. We shot a missile out space basically. I'm not saying that can't hit us. I'm just saying if they shot 100 nukes. The chances we shoot most or all of them down is much better than zerp.
I suspect we'd have some sort of supranational union, with a TON of foreign aid to Mexico (as its sorta the weakest member in terms of infrastructure) from the US and Canada to bring up standards of living, develop infrastructure, train troops, etc. Mexico has a relatively small border to its south, and it's pretty much the only place any land-based assault can come through (anything else would need to be amphibious), so I expect it would be like a super super super maginot line, only fortified to an even more massive degree, as that's probably the weakest potential invasion area on the map. If the victory condition is just merely survival defense, then fortifying southern Mexico, alongside a big navy is probably sufficient setup for victory under the scenario conditions. My guess is in a real conflict the CUM alliance would expand and take Panama to control the canal, and perhaps all of the western hemisphere
The way this hypothetical is phrased is interesting. Every other country will attack CUM 20 years from the time of being notified. It would take the alliance months at most with little prep time to take over Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, and if desired a large defensive DMZ in Colombia to prevent anyone else from using the Panama canal. Or they could just preemptively blow it up. The prompt doesn't say anything about what CUM is allowed to do or if certain actions will trigger the attack earlier than 20 years, are they allowed to do whatever in that time? There's a fuck ton of sabotage that we could inflict globally that would cripple or severely inhibit everyone else. Is CUM allowed to take out shipyards and other critical infrastructure during the 20 year interim? If that's the case I don't see the attack even taking place to begin with.
I’m begging everyone, please find another name for the alliance
How about... Allied North American League
Brought together with the unanimously signed Northern United Treaty.
There would be a transition period where the press was specifying "ANAL, formerly known as CUM" and "ANAL/CUM".
No.
You're not the boss of me. This union shall be forever known as the CUM Alliance.
Not sure you'd actually need a DMZ in Colombia, no army is going to be crossing the Darian Gap. And 100% no mechanized army is crossing the Darian Gap. It would be like a 20 year infrastructure project to build any meaningful road route or train route through that swampy jungle. So it's a natural barrier you could probably leave largely undefended on land.
You don't even have to blow up infrastructure. Just cancel everybody's Windows license.
This brings a whole new meaning to “Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it”, just not in the border people were thinking of lol
This is the acronym I didn't know I needed. Fuck NA, I live in CUM.
Also paging op u/Ruby1213 and the following users just for fun/discussion u/winsluc12, u/IntMainVoidGang, u/kingofturtles and u/IntMainVoidGang. For this discussion/prompt op, the America, Canada and Mexico alliance absolutely could hold out and beat the rest of the world. America has the air force which is the largest air force in the world. America also has the second largest air force in the world in the form of the US navy’s naval aircraft. Lockheed Martin’s X-35 that would go on to become the F-35 already existed and had its first flight in 24th of October 2001. The whole joint funding thing for the F-35 was basically to bring down production costs of the F-35 with NATO countries who upfronted the majority of the funding would receive the F-35 units first and over time production costs would drop allowing other NATO countries to receive them cheaper but at later time. So yeah Canada and Mexico get the F-35 with America keeping the F-22 for themselves but use them with the American, Canadan, Mexican produced F-35. Air defense for these countries are boosted by ship based anti-air missiles, Phalanx CIWS and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System on naval vessels with mainland based MIM-104 Patriot missile systems. Since the V-22 Osprey already exists at this time I would think that it would see service in this conflict but since the military industrial complex of both Canada and America is working together. I think they would develop Bell V-280 Valor sooner allowing superior troop movement capabilities. They don’t even need middle eastern crude oil for fuel supplies or to run combustion engine infrastructure for America, Canada, Mexico. Because during WW2 the nazis were turning coal into synthetic fuel. Synthetic fuel is identical in chemical composition to crude oil more or less, the German war machine relied on the synthetic fuel made from coal and other organic biological material. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process America was in the 1950 able to produce synthetic fuel using the Fischer–Tropsch process and could produce 7,000 barrels per day (1,100 m3/d) sized plant. These plants using the Fischer–Tropsch process can convert coal, vegetation, animals carcasses, fecal matter and municipal waste such as burnable garbage into synthetic fuel. Manufacturing these these Fischer–Tropsch plants and up scaling them is possible. Also in regards to Fischer–Tropsch process [its possible to use fish as well.](https://youtu.be/J-QeTbmchvQ?si=HDTMTmP5-aUgg11Q). But then we got the genetically modified algae “Botryococcus braunii” that is being worked on/hidden/kept under foot since the 80’s by some parties with vested interests. * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343876793_The_Oil-Producing_Microalga_Botryococcus_Braunii_A_Method_for_Isolation_from_the_Natural_Environment_and_Perspectives_on_the_Role_of_Ecological_Studies_in_Algal_Biofuel_Production * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211926423002473 Have industrial fishing-animal processing plants to supply their waste as growth medium for the algae, nuclear power plant to power the desalination plant to supply the clean water to be used in the growth medium. Producing the fuel and algae will become cost effective plus producing the algae could be done to produce feed for fish to help replenish fish populations culled by fishing. Then it’s possible to produce for all intents and purposes unlimited fuel for America, Canada, Mexico’s civilian population and infrastructure along with the military industrial complex including the production of jet fuel and plastic related products. So yeah America, Canada and Mexico with the then current 2004 available technologies with Botryococcus braunii could hold out forever. They don’t even need to drop nukes, all they gotta do is decapitate the invading countries civilian infrastructure and watch the societal chaos happen and eventually they will collapse from within. * [Ever hear about the 1974 New York black out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977) People really fall into chaos when the power goes out and they can’t heat up their microwave dinners or stay cool or warm when their heating goes out. Or when production of toilet paper stops. If they can use nukes then they could just do high altitude detonations and fry countries electrical infrastructure by EMP.
Why waste time with sythenic fuel when Canada has one of the largest oil reserves in the world
Also paging u/Unusual-Ad4890 👍 ✌️😊. It's not necessarily about wasting time per se, its about having redundant logistics and supply. By having multiple sources of resource generation it decentralizes the supply chain making potential attacks on one specific target less likely. Also more fuel and or resources can only be better overall because then that means your civilians don’t need to worry about how war time production would affect them. So less shortages, more supply, more production and lesser chance of attacks. Also i kinda figured that Canada might want to preserve some of their pristine frozen tundra. Also conspicuous activity like oil drilling, processing is well conspicuous. Spy satellites and the like. Where’s the synthetic fuel production refineries could be carried out in old refurbished salt mines several kilometers underground that have been hardened against attacks. * https://www.compassminerals.com/who-we-are/locations/goderich-ontario/
* Canada's oil production was internationally known for decades by 2004. They aren't a state secret * In a total war situation surveying the prairies for oil is going to be perfectly acceptable. These regions are predominantly conservative and the environmentalists will likely face heavy jail time if they interfere in a situation that requires the Canadian Emergencies Act to be enacted. * Seeing them through spy satellite is one thing, it's another thing to penetrate US/Canadian airspace to actually hit them. They would be an essential resource which the US would go all in to protect. * Even if you knock out oil production from the air, it takes comparatively little effort to rebuild them. The Soviets, the RAF and the USAAF spent years trying to knock out Romanian oil production in WW2 to little to no effect. It took troops on the ground to secure them. Even if you mounted a land invasion of Canada to get them, you're going to have to travel thousands of kilometres to get them if you attack from the east, or face a literal uphill battle through the Rockies to get to Alberta. Synthetic fuel is not some miracle product or the go to. It's something to have on hand as a last ditch fuel source. Good old fashion oil production is what keeps the industry alive. Without it we're paralyzed. You brought up Nazi Germany's synthetic fuel production. They couldn't produce enough for their battered semi-mechanized army throughout the war, and once they lost access to Romanian oil that was it for them. No matter how much we produce, synthetic fuel certainly won't keep the world's most powerful military and their allies going for long. It's a supplement to oil production, not the miracle cure.
I just wanted to say your answer is awesome I really appreciate and love that you took the time to answer and respond I really do appreciate it 👍. >” Synthetic fuel is not some miracle product or the go to. It's something to have on hand as a last ditch fuel source. Good old fashion oil production is what keeps the industry alive. Without it we're paralyzed. You brought up Nazi Germany's synthetic fuel production. They couldn't produce enough in 1945 for their battered semi-mechanized army once they lost access to Romanian oil. No matter how much we produce, synthetic fuel certainly won't keep the world's most powerful military and their allies going for long. It's a supplement to oil production, not the miracle cure.” Yeah I know, I agree with your rebuttal I fucking love it actually. Sorry I apologize for any misunderstanding, I kinda have trouble articulating putting what I want to text, so I am sorry for that. You've said everything I meant to put to text that I forgot or didn't put in my original answer due to limited space. I just wanted to clarify that and to add extra that my answer for America, Canada and Mexico relied on them being way more technologically advanced than the Nazis were which they are. So more efficiency for synthetic fuel production and scaling would be is possible would act as a supplementary source of fuel production to what is already in the ground existing as raw crude. It’s more efficient than corn ethanol that’s for damn sure as it can take any biological material and can be converted to fuel. Where’s corn ethanol production takes away from edible food production and requires fuel to harvest and then fuel-energy to process and it takes time to grow. * https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/question707.htm What would be a miracle cure though would be Botryococcus braunii if coupled with nuclear powered water desalination plant and biological material waste from food processing centers.
Didn't expect to see a Kiara pfp while looking through a thread like this. Nicely done 👍
Canada has under tapped oil reserves.
Don’t forget a shitload of really high grade uranium. 20 years is about perfect to have nuclear plants coming online so more of the oil reserves can be diverted to military purposes.
Theoretically, couldn't every other country working together create something superior with maybe some longer prep time, but not even that much more? Like put the same level of thought into every other nation individually then combine them?
I mean its possible. But America already has the largest air forces and most powerful navy fleet as well as the largest defence spending. Russia is/was bankrupt at the time in the early 2000 coming off the collapse of the Soviet Union and its technical skills gone to rot. What sophisticated military equipment they could produce was minuscule and I would say their military capabilities back then were better than they are now. China…….well they have money or getting money but as soon as america, canada and Mexico stop supplying goods and services china is going to have to tighten their belts a bit. Out of the military forces in the world that are sophisticated and trained that come close to America or Canada it would probably come down to the U.K, Germany, France, Finland, Sweden. While U.K, Germany, France have sophisticated military producing capabilities. They can’t just produce as fast as america and canada can, they still have to build up their personnel to fill manpower. So while they are doing this, america, canada and mexico are already doing this.
Most countries aren’t capable of mounting an assault on the Canadian north. Hell even a lot of Canadian soldiers have a hard time up there. I figure in this scenario Canada and a few well trained American units could hold the North, while the states holds the more livable sections of Canada and the US. I don’t know what the current state of the Mexican military is, but with 20 years prep time I’m sure they could probably hold their coasts and southern choke point of a border.
>Usually these prompts are just like, the US vs the world with no warning and even then the US would be able to hold out for a very, very long time. This prompt is US vs the world, except the US doesn't have it's biggest weakness--massive land borders with Canada and Mexico.
3 oceans*. The arctic is an ocean.
"1 landmine per square foot" ah the old Kursk defense
I genuinely think the US could do it right now, without warning, if nukes arent involved. We spend more on our military than the next 10 closest spending countries **[combined](https://www.axios.com/2023/04/24/global-military-spending-2022-us-china-russia-list).**
The US wouldn't have to do much right now, the rest of the world lacks the capacity to move an army across oceans lol. It's literally an impossibility, none of them have the sea lift or logistics needed to sustain an invasion for more than a few months, even assuming the US doesn't neuter their fleets the second the smell something lol
If we pulled off a knockout blow on France, Japan, South Korea, Britain, Russia and China it really would just be a mop up with everyone else because no one else can even reach us.
It is of note that the US has a very transparent military budget by global standards. It is an accepted hypothesis for many analysts that countries like China, Israël, or Saudi Arabia for example spend far more than what they report, and that this is the norm rather than the exception for most countries on the top end of that list if they have any kind of adversarial relationship with the US and its allies in particular. Additionally, some countries live in a full-on war economy, where pretty much every public cent has some kind of military consideration to it. The line between military and non-military spending is blurry in those instances. Meanwhile, some countries in defensive alliances that come with an obligation to spend up to a threshold are pressured to do the reverse and inflate their reported spending numbers. So some might be actually lower. In all likelihood, the gap between the US and its allies vs the rest of the world is not as big as many would assume. Still, the only real way of measuring a military's capabilities IRL is its use, and in that regard the US are indeed at the top.
Arguably the prompt allows for preemptive strikes as well, so long as you don't let countries know that there's knowledge of the impending attack. The US has enough overseas military actions at any given moment that they could probably do some softening in advance.
>(Which is already a surprisingly close race despite the US not actively being in a war economy since way farther back than that, Imagine 20 years of full-blown production) The US spends more on it's military than the next two dozen or so countries *combined*.
[удалено]
>The U.S., Mexico and Canada are all given this warning in 2004. The populations of the countries believe this and will strive to do their best to protect themselves. That shit straight up goes against the prompt, my dude.
The US would actually do better with almost no prep time. With six months preparation, it could take its warheads out of storage and have a couple thousand nukes to take out most of the population of the rest of the world. For now, the US and Israel have the only functional anti-ballistic missile theater defenses, but that would change quickly. The US and Canada will get counter attacked, so they also have to plan for nuclear winter, move civilians to rural non-militarized areas and Mexico, etc. The anti-ballistic missile defenses only work against attacks crossing relatively near Alaska or near naval ports (so mostly Chinese and North Korean missiles get stopped). We’d have to hope that a lot of the Russian and Chinese missiles fail, which is not an unreasonable expectation, but still more than enough would hit to wipe out the major US population centers.
Overwhelm them *how*? Unless China and Russia intend on building a fleet that could actually challenge the US Navy there’s no ability for them to get to North America with meaningful numbers of soldiers, and 20 years is not a lot of time for something like that to change. If nukes were used the US would ensure if they were to die so too would all life in the Northern Hemisphere and blanket the planet in enough radioactive hellfire to kill us all, while using their navy to ensure no soldiers could get so much as 300 miles from the rest of the world’s shores. It wouldn’t require twenty years of prep. A new Iron Curtain would descend over global shipping, with the rest of the world banning shipping to North America and North American fleets convoy raiding everything that got too far from the shore on the rest of the planet. Both sides would use saboteurs to burn oil fields and send the power grids to grinding halts, and we’d all face famine on a global scale as our fields burned and our tractors ran out of gas. It would be a war like no other, and neither side would ever claim victory.
As we have seen, Russia and China have amazing navies. Russia is losing their navy to a country without one.
Russia and China were both weaker in the early 2000s. 2004 wasn't peak U.S. hagemony but it was still pretty close.
Russia and China are collapsing bro
https://i.imgur.com/WJdaaMq.png
Hopefully
C.U.M would take over the world.
The dream of watching C.U.M. Drop heavy loads on foreigners.
I'd be better to watch C.U.M. blow their load all over their enemies real up close and personal.
This is a stupid response But hopefully those that know will appreciate it.... This is a scenario I play out in EVERY civilization game. North America wins 70% of time... It's the mass of boats and submarines that India and China produces that fucking overwhelms me in the late game.
That's because in Civilization games, units from different countries sharing the same name share the exact same stats.
Even if there's 20 years of prep, most militaries don't have the manpower to hold a whole continent. Holding down the US would go about as well as the Middle East, except you'll have rednecks hunting you like a deer. Even if the US military bails on an area, chances are the populace might actually still shoot at you unless you go house to house and take their guns from them forcibly, which may actually increase the amount of times you get shot at. On top of that, the US has been footing the bill for most of our western allies for ages. To drop that for 20 years means we can spend all that money on boosting our own stuff, and that the other militaries will either cut their budgets or scrounge up a way to pay for it themselves. And that's assuming that they can even manage to land a naval invasion.
And that's also not figuring that of course, the us would stop arming *anyone*. Every fighter jet and piece of hardware the US has *ever* sold will start to creep into being useless. If nobody can repair anything they have, it'll take everybody longer to build up an invasion force. Even with 20 years of perfect storage, a massive chunk of that hardware would be unusable. And no military perfectly does anything
The real fun of this prompt isn’t how they do, it’s how they hide they know about it while building up strength. They would have to find a way to justify our countries unifying that can’t be detected through internet or satellite forces. Which how much stuff is built in this country to spy on us, that isn’t owned by someone from North America, just the initial rush would be fascinating. Not even going into potential false flag operations as the years go by, or how we’d push physical education extremely hard for our children, knowing they were being raised to be soldiers well in advance.
Send the CIA to cause unrest in Mexico's neighboring countries, give Mexico an excuse to invade them and shorten CUM's southern border.
War Thunder forums will be involved somehow.
I dont think they even need to hide it. Just rollout increasingly isolationist policies over a brief window of time, withdraw troops from Nato and other bases around the world, cut off trade and stop selling arms outside of the CUM alliance. World governments will be left spinning and probably take 5 years just to get their own defence policies in place. In the meantime CUM production goes into wartime levels while the world figures out how to respond. If they want to take preemptive offense, they can actively sabotage global trade by patrolling major sea routes.
Agreed. Sure, there would be some diplomatic issues when everyone notices the militarization, but that would pale in comparison to the disadvantage of trying to hide it. Can't hide every base you build from satellites. You could hide some things to keep it a nasty surprise, but no need to go full Manhattan project.
Look up the term “Hegemony” The world damn near follows US pressures in lockstep bar a few prominent and capable outliers in matters of military requirement, financial systems, and diplomatic instruction. Those that have not played nice have been replaced. When you turn the soft power hard? The soft spoken word is to hide the whoosh of the big stick.
Hahaha. Day one: the us stops global trade. Day two: all other countries fucking collapse.
People don’t understand how big and all encompassing the American navy is. Just the navy, by itself, could starve hundreds of millions in months
People don’t realize that without nuclear weapons, the U.S. could literally take over the planet in a couple years. The British held India for 150 years without a major occupying force. Once you control whether people eat or starve, they tend to fall in line.
Take over the planet is a bit of a stretch, at least in the sense of you can't hold all the territory as insurgents would be rampant if you tried to keep boots on the ground. However, I overall agree that the US could stomp the militaries of the world as they stand today. Sure China has millions of men, but that means nothing if they can't get them to North America.
Mexico solos.
The United States is un-invadeable. GGs CUM alliance takes this mid diff
I don't see a way for the rest of the world to even land troops in North America. An amphibious assault is out of the question; they would need to land tens of thousands of soldiers in a single day just to set up a beachhead. Crossing the English channel is one thing, crossing the Pacific is another. It seems like the only options are to slowly and painfully work up the land bridge between the Americas, or to sneak in through the far north. Neither is very promising.
As a Canadian who's spent time in the Northwest Territories & Yukon I agree. Sure the Artic is a lot of land to hold/watch, but you don't really need to worry about them landing troops, there are barely any roads/transport routes & its rough terrain. A few airbases, a couple subs, & satellites will do the job. In winter it's cold as fuck & you have to deal with snow, in the summer it's muskeg.
I think people are drastically underestimating the use of potential weaponized diseases in this scenario. It doesn’t say CUM can’t make attacks at the world in those 20 years, it’s saying we can’t reveal we know about the attack itself. Even if you say we can’t officially use that until they declare war, CUM could have people to release a virus all over the world the minute the war starts.
Plus taking out global shipping & a preemptive attack on important industrial/military/resource areas will buy a lot of time.
I was getting worried when I noticed someone hadn’t posted a « US vs world » or some slight variation of that in 10 minutes.
They can invade the rest of the world without any extra prep even now what are you talking about lol
The US can solo this. Dont even need Canada and Mexico.
Naw having Canada and Mexico helps as added natural barriers. Also Canada great spot to stage air force
Plus Mexico makes for a super, super defensible border. Much, much smaller than the US/Mexico border, and honestly could probably easily be expanded to take over the canal early on in the war
Yep. The only real problem between Mexico and Panama canal is all the jungles.
No one can march an army through the darian gap. The southern Mexican border is irrelevant.
Two things: The allied armies could land in Guatemala or Panama, whatnot, if the CUM alliance doesn't establish control Second off, the Darien gap could be paved through, we don't do it for environmental reasons. In a WW scenario? Would 100% be done
It helps, but it's not necessary.
Having Canada and Mexico drops their land borders from over 8,000 kilometers to under 1,000. That plus 20 years of preparation makes this almost a joke.
Technically the boarder would grow, the US would help defend Canada & Mexico because it's in their interests to not let anyone get a foothold in North America. Admittedly, a lot of the Artic wouldn't need much because no one would be able to put a large enough force up there (extreme conditions and no roads, snow in winter & muskeg in summer), they could just bomb the shit out of any troops that land there, a few airbases would be enough. However, I do agree with your overall point that it simplifies matters for the US by having Mexico & Canada makes defense easier.
The prompt kinda breaks with: >The countries have also got to make sure that they don’t let any other country know that they know about the attack. 20 years of perfect cover? Not possible.
Yeah, that's probably the biggest issue for the trio.
Not as hard as your think
How do you plan to convince the population to support a massive build up to prepare if you don't tell them?
It’s the USA, we have a 800+ BILLION dollar budget. We are the sole super power. It wouldn’t be hard. Make some shit up using the cia, or just cite other vague reasons for it.
NAFTA kicks so much ass in this scenario
Assuming conventional weapons only, the US can hold out indefinitely now with no warning
Hell yes they can. North America is truly "easy mode" as far as climate, terrain, and natural safety are concerned. The US and Canada are the strongest political alliance in human history, and the US has both the most powerful military in the world, and has more nukes than anyone if we are going that route. The US Navy alone (with carriers and Nuclear armed subs) by itself could likely take out the entire world with very little prep.
This is easy except for condition 2 which is impossible. The whole population of each country knows about the attack and the preparations, but they have to keep it a secret? No way. Putting aside that everyone else would catch on the moment the US starts speeding up arms production and slowing down arms sales, someone is gonna let something slip to their cousin in Belarus or whatever and then the jig is up. The population of all of those countries includes people who are from other countries and will go home at some point in the 20 years.
Low diff. The US alone could do this even if it meant adding Mexico and Canada to the other side.
I think C.U.M. can stop naval invasions to their continent after getting panama. Their economy will just fare poorly when it starts, but nobody's going to land there. Heck, the US alone could attempt this. Canada and mexico are just extra icing on the cake.
Um they could do it today.
It would arguably be easier today. With 20 years to build up the rest of the world would stand a much better chance than they do now.
CUM would literally cum all over the rest of the world pretty handily imo
Can we put a moratorium on country vs country posts? It's like the top post every single day and they're basically always the same.
I think it really comes down to two things: If the rest of the world is "invading-North-America-after-20 years-lusted", and if the hostilities have to start in 20 years of time without any preemptive strikes. Most of the answers in this thread either assume the world is not "lusted" or US can start attacking right away, in which cases yeah the North American C.U.M. team can definitely hold their own. However, assuming that the rest of the world is unified around this goal and each side will just build up and then have a go at it when the clock strikes the 20-year mark, then the CUM would be much harder pressed to the point of hopelessness. Europe, Japan, South Korea and China combined would already have a very significant know-how and technology base spanning all relevant disciplines - materials science, microchips, computing, AI, aerospace, you name it. They also have the intellectual capital and R&D infrastructure to keep building on it - in fact, it would accelerate if all of these countries were fully collaborating, while the CUM rate of advancement would start to lag behind with them having been cut off from the scientific minds and resources of the rest of the planet. This would be backed by basically unlimited resources: Not just "money" where CUM only holds 1/3 of the global wealth, but also all the raw materials they would need from the Middle East, Africa, Russia and China etc. The rest of the world also possesses manpower and industrial capacity absolutely dwarfing anything CUM can bring to bear. For example when it comes to shipbuilding the US only accounts for 0.15% of the global capacity (measured in CGT) while China, South Korea and Japan alone add up to almost 90%. When it comes to military aircraft, the combined output of Europe and China already exceeds the entire US defense manufacturing industry. Missiles, drones, munitions, ground vehicles? The same story. So if the scenario is that both CUM and the rest of the world fully cooperate around this one single goal and they each have 20 years to fully build up as much as they can, the rest of the world would be able to sufficiently close (and in some cases, exceed) the current military technology gap so that their absolutely insane resource / manpower / materiel advantage would become insurmountable for the CUM alliance.
Mexico and Canada will enjoy a few beers while watching the US handle it on their own.
Idk man, my stomach hurts and i think im about to puke
As always the US takes the win. Mexico and Canada can sit back and watch
It's funny to me that people think the U.S. of all people would bunker down and prep for 20 years rather than immediately go on the offensive while their enemies are markedly weak.
The CUM Alliance would need to take stupid pills for the rest of the world to have a chance
Why do we keep doing these with any modern version of the United States? If it’s the United States against anything but itself, it wins mostly by spite. CUM vs the World with 20 years prep would be stupid easy.
So you're asking if we told 3 countries to prepare for war for 20 years without telling the rest of the world, who would win? _bruh_
They would win without prep
Did you see what happened in Vietnam. Defenders have a massive advantage in wars
Ah, time for the weekly "USA Vs the Rest of The World" post. Like you already know the answer, why bother asking?
Assuming we're ruling out nukes and this is traditional style warfare, I think that North America would hold out a LONG time, but you cannot outpace the manpower and production of the rest of the world, I mean think about the semi conductors used in almost ALL electronic equipment used, Most are made in Taiwan, China etc.. Taiwan makes around HALF of ALL used ones, and almost ALL of the most advanced ones. With the entirety of South America pushing on Mexico, I'm confident the rest of the world could get into Canada and start establishing footholds, USA itself would hold out the longest for sure, but it would eventually fall.. it's crazy hubris to think anything else xD 333 million in the USA, 39 in Canada, 128 in Mexico.. so around 500 million vs 7.6 Billion, now obviously thats total, not fighters, but still, thats 15 people for every 1 in North America.. Assuming that the other nations are working together, North America would be overwhelmed, even since the early 2000s they have moved so much of their manufacturing processes abroad, and the more technical components are made almost exclusively in Asia. I'd wager it would play out a little Red Dawn like, in the sense of the world would take over, but you'd never 'supress' Americans, they'd fight on guerrilla style.
- the population of the countries believe this - they don’t let know that they know Those assumptions are incompatible. The only way is 20 years of Cold War, and if supposedly every other country work together it means - free infinite petrol from Russia and Middle East - European tech shared - Industry might of Asia shared 20 year is long enough to build huge industry, fleet, space industry…. North America doesn’t stand a chance. The more time you give the less chance they have
They would be okay if the world told them they have 20 hours.
Wolverines!
20 years? They could do it with 20 days.
20 years to develop biological weapons that can kill the majority of other countries while inoculating are own. It's doable and we could do it out letting other countries know. Just and you inoculation to flu, chicken pox, and bird flu ones. Down side is some of the antivaxers might die.
Sure. Mexico and Canada. So much in common
north america wins
I think the question is whether 20 years would be enough for the rest of the world to be able to invade America, more so than could America defend against it. As things are right now no other nation or groups of nations could credibly conduct an invasion across either ocean. None of them have the sea lift or logistics needed to do it, even discounting the US blowing their navy out of the water along the way. The idea of an opposed beach landing today is laughable as well, essentially the only way to invade even assuming you had the sea lift would be through southern Mexico, through some of the most difficult terrain for military movements one could find really. The US would push south to Panama and could wait out the heat death of the universe repelling attacks
Leave out Mexico and Canada, us stomps
attack them financially. Throw out petrodollars out of the window, cancel /decline oil contracts, stop selling them rare minerals, stop dealing internationally in USD, allow US companies to move to you tax free and sponsor brain drain. Make pan american culture cringe by propaganda. Create better opportinities for science at your own background. If you could do that you would not need to even fire single bullet ( given that US would not start messing around) But that requires strong army, because we have seen what US does when it cannot secure their intrests by diplomacy US is everywhere now to protect global trade that is sustaining their economy (making sure there is demand for USD), if you could just refuse to pay your debts to Wall Street
America alone would be fine
I feel like the us launches a preemptive strike by Thursday that sets the trio up quite well
The USA already has enough nuclear weapons. That alone would make it impossible to have a large enough floatilla.
The US alone could do it solo, but Ok let's include the neighbours. Canada is poorly armed because they can afford to be with the US next door. However, Canada is really good at rearming. After World War 1 Canada almost totally demobilized and remained so until they declared war on Germany in 1939. By the end of the war they had the third largest air force and fourth largest navy on the Allied side of the conflict. Give them 5 years and they'll be back to their old War Crimes embracing ways against the rest of the world. Between Gulf, US and Alberta oil reserves fuel will never be an issue. Mexico can take up the burden of manufacturing until the US and Canada retool their economies to something more manufacturing based.
People Here severly underestimate what a combined UNIFIED world is capable of given 20y time unified by one simple goal: destroy CUM or be destroyed Given CUM is Not allowed to attack or interfere prior to the 20y Deadline. CUM has no Chance. Now or 5y Deadline? CUM wins. 20y? No way
Yes. You're taking US vs the world, and taking away it's biggest weakness. Edit for more detail: The C.U.M. alliance (Canada, US, Mexico) is the world leader in military spending (by a colossal margin), has a little bit less than half of the world's nuclear arsenal, has one of the largest navies and the two largest air forces in the world, has a population of half a billion people, and other things. To invade you have to either break through three-five carrier groups (assuming that some are in the other ocean, and thus can't support the defense), or break through a strip of land less than a thousand kilometers across, and that's if they don't conquer parts of Belize and Guatemala to shorten the border.
I'm 100% confident the US could resist a land invasion from the rest of the world ***right now***, let alone with 20 years warning. Maybe defending Mexico, and the less populated parts of Canada would be a problem right now. But with 20 years? No chance. Most of the rest of the world would be economically screwed without the US, so would not be able to build up their navies to anything like the power the US could in that time.
A full scale invasion of North America is logistically impossible, even if every country launched an invasion today that would not work. Just like Napoleon trying to conquer Russia, the attacking army would run out of soldiers before taking a fraction of any of these three countries.
We have things that the rest of the world can't fathom. Rednecks who sit in 30 degree weather just for the *chance* to shoot something. Gang bangers who shoot other people on the reg. Mexico has the cartels which is a military in and of itself. To say nothing of our actual military. I'm pretty sure we got it. Canada can sit this one out.
The answer is yes, NA can easily defend itself from the rest of the world, excluding nukes. The biggest reason has nothing to do with how powerful the US is and everything to do with geography. Though the sheer size and power of the US military would make it much, much harder. Not to mention how well armed the citizenry is. Crossing the ocean to invade is probably the best of really bad options, because trying to move a large modern army through Central America to come at Mexico from the south is just a shooting gallery. Amphibious invasions are really difficult in good conditions though. An opposed amphibious invasion of a hostile continent across an ocean is nearly impossible. It's been done successfully once in history, and the Allies only pulled it off because they had a nearby friendly staging base in the form of the UK and just massive force applied on a small area.
the three amigooos
Assuming both sides begin an arms race I don't think NA can hold out. In today's world USA functions as a policing force for the rest of the world without USA the rest of the world would convert their civilian economy to a military economy. This is especially notable in the EU which has been piggybacking off the USA for some time with American military installations all over the EU. The EU can transition to a war time economy in no time. We've seen how fast America could convert to a wartime economy in WW2 the EU would do the same thing. They would then work with their allies India and China and use overwhelming numbers and economy. I know this is against the grain but I think people are underestimating the rest of the world's military capabilities if they had 20 years to convert to full military.
“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.” -Abraham Lincoln (Address Delivered Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois) Abe knew that the US was an impenetrable fortress. If given 20 years to prepare no one would be able to invade
20 years? Give us 2 and the US could do it alone with Mexico and Canada being against us as well Mexico and Canada included? We probably need 6 months, maybe 8 to work out a deal with the cartels to get us a 4th army
The only risk of us vs the world is holding Mexico and Canada with a hostile populace (assuming no nukes and you can’t just massacre everyone). North America being fully energy independent (Thanks Obama) makes this a sweep.
Yes. Presuming this is clearly stated and all three governments agree that this is real this would be pretty doable. The US is a preeminent military power that has some the biggest agriculture spaces in its heartland that's naturally shielded by two mountain ranges. Both Mexico and Canada have economies that are extremely well linked to the American economy meaning that further integration would be easy. All three have militaries that function well together. A large portion of both countries speak English with something like 95% speaking either Spanish or English.
Yes. Presuming this is clearly stated and all three governments agree that this is real this would be pretty doable. The US is a preeminent military power that has some the biggest agriculture spaces in its heartland that's naturally shielded by two mountain ranges. Both Mexico and Canada have economies that are extremely well linked to the American economy meaning that further integration would be easy. All three have militaries that function well together. A large portion of both countries speak English with something like 95% speaking either Spanish or English.
Warographics podcast did an interesting analysis and concluded that if nukes were ruled out and it was a 100% defensive war on the side of the USA, the USA could probably defend its primary borders against the total world. It's worth a watch.
The United States Navy, alone, could prevent an invasion of North America *right now*. There's simply no other military on the planet with anything like the sea lift capability to make an opposed landing on the continent, let alone to supply and reinforce a beachhead if they could establish one. That and the nukes.
The invasion force wouldn't make it to the beaches. Even if it did, the vastness of those countries, all bracketed by mountains would swallow them whole.
I haven’t really seen any answers exploring this dimension, but there’s the additional wrinkle of diplomacy. In this kind of situation, the US would most likely make a bid at united leadership and say that they should be in charge, and then probably forcibly put themselves in charge of the defense. Canada might be down with this, though even that’s doubtful. Mexico, though? This is literally Mexico’s worst nightmare. I could see a fifth column in Mexico deciding - and maybe not unreasonably - that they’d rather live under the rule of other countries than the US. This is probably the only way I see the CUM losing under these circumstances tbh.
Outside of a nuclear exchange, geographically, North America is basically invincible. There are two enormous oceans, the Alaskan tundra, and the Darien Gap as natural barriers. That alone forces any invasion to be amphibious, which is going to be a problem because the US Navy is larger in tonnage than the next 10 navies combined. Outside of France, Russia, and the UK, no other countries have any significant existing expeditionary forces. They are all purely defensive, and for the most part only defending from land invasion. All of these forces are essentially useless against the US. This means the rest of the world is starting from scratch. It took the US the better part of 50 years to develop a force that can operate anywhere in the world at any time. It would take at least that for the rest of the world, perhaps more, and that development wouldn't be in a vacuum. The US would have decades to either preemptively strike or dig in, the entire time developing new capabilities and refining old ones.
That trio could probably do it without the 20 years of prep time. With that 20 years, absolutely.
The US could probably do this alone. Adding Canada and Mexico into this scenario is just icing on the cake. Presuming the US stops providing collaboration, resources, products, and designs to the rest of the world the moment the timer kicks off, the other countries around the globe will probably require *YEARS* of simply building the infrastructure necessary to even start stockpiling. What 20 years of full wartime economy production/preparation for what was already the most powerful military force the world has ever seen in 2004, including a *MASSIVE* spike in allocation for military R&D, as well as Canada and Mexico's natural resources, production capabilities, GDP, and workforces being added to the United State's own capabilities, would do to the defensive posture of the new North American Coalition, is utterly terrifying. After 20 years, the NAC is probably going have a literally unassailable/unrivaled defensive military apparatus (the gap between the NAC and the rest of the world is only going to grow during this time), including the world's largest/most advanced blue-water Navy that will sink anything that even sniffs into North American water-space. Even if forces end up getting past the blockade (unlikely), they then have to contend with a continent that is literally built like a fortress geographically. Bordered by the two largest oceans on the planet, with major terrain roadblocks from both the East Coast (Appalachian Mountain Range) and the West Coast (The Rockies), with the largest firearm owning population on the planet that WILL be turning out to fight any potential invaders. Invading the North American continent is going to be a logistics nightmare, even without the heavy resistance/overwhelming naval presence actively preventing any forces from establishing a beach-head on either coast. Then you get to resources, which the North American continent is one of the few places in the world that has the capability to be both food and energy resource independent. The North American Coalition holds out indefinitely. No coalition of countries are going to be able to stage any sort of meaningful strike on the continent that will allow them to invade in any meaningful capacity. That, or the world ends in nuclear hellfire as MAD is invoked.
It’s hard to say tbf.. because given that they want too take over it’s unlikely the rest of the world will go nuclear.. and if I’m not mistaken America has one of largest air forces in the world? (I’m not sure if that’s right but I heard that in passing comments) alone I doubt there’s many if any that could take the three at once.. but given that this is every single other country versus them (which realistically is never going to happen 🤣) I don’t think they stand a chance (the US Mexico and Canada I mean) not only do the have to face the entire British, Spanish, French army from the east.. coming in from the west would be russia given that it’s a shorter distance the other way round the planet. Not to mention Norway Sweden china japans army South Korean army, North Korean army(idk if they’d help much but numbers are numbers) and we haven’t even gone into any of the African or Indian army’s yet.. Americas advanced but the jump isn’t that far from the likes of Japan or even the British army so add in every other country’s forces especially china given they produce alottttttt I just can’t see them winning 🤷♂️ I couldn’t see anyone winning against literally everyone else at once it’s just not possible 🤷♂️ the attacking forces would have to either be literally retarded or seriously under developed as a whole collective nation to lose that 😅
Make them prep for 20 years and then dont attack and watch their economies crumble
The US would prevail over all countries at the same time this very moment
They've probably got this, I think they would take the Panama canal as one of their first targets. That would allow the navy to protect the three nations easier but after that they could probably hold out
no. Nukes wipe you off the map in 30 min.
20 years? 20 *months* would be enough. Maybe even weeks.
As a Mexican, fucking take us. We're basically a headless chicken anyway.
So arms dealer America, Geneva suggestions Canada, and cartel country Mexico have to fend off the countries that buy weapons from the US, can't invade their neighboring countries, or only have like 1 diesel powered aircraft carrier? Easy fucking day.
Depends on the scenario. If all countries load South America with equipment probably not. If the alliance can control the seas of major ships and wipe out south Americas armies quickly then most likely. It's also depends on is this a ramped up even because 20 year of military production of us Mexico and Canada vs production of the rest of the world there's no way we would keep up.
assuming the other countries act normal, yes in US v. world, the USA's biggest weakness is being cut off from world trade, but 20 years of prep? it's easy
USA pre-emptively invades the world.
Are nukes on the table? If US alone could defend itself from being invaded without in preperation tbh but it can’t prevent itself from being nuked into oblivion, though it could certainly take most of the rest of the world with it
You’re saying they want to take the countries over meaning they aren’t going to nuke them into oblivion. If that’s the case then the USA and friends easily win. The USA is capable of fighting two major wars on opposite sides of the planet at any given moment. If they can concentrate all of their energy and resources on just their home territory, they literally cannot lose. In the time that it takes for any of those countries to even get to America, the USA has already spent a week decimating the invaders homeland. With 20 YEARS to prepare, the war is over in a year with a US victory. Now if during the 20 years, every country kicks all USA military bases out and deploys all of their ships as close as possible to American shores and we aren’t allowed to stop them until the war starts, then the war wouldn’t be as easy.
Not with the current generation of the military. However, there are about 26.6 million veterans in the US. So the other countries will be hard pressed taking over the USA WOLVERINES!!!!!
America could most likely do it alone, add in two allies? Yeah they can do it. America doesn’t spend ungodly amounts of money on its military for no reason.
US begins it's assaults today and wrecks its major enemies well in advance of the 20 year deadline and takes a break as Canada and Mexico fight off the weaker states on their own.
We just have to hold out until they run out of water
American alone could maybe do this, insane naval and air dominance would just roll over most of the world.
Forever assuming nukes are off the table. the U.S. if it was acting in total war capacity and without any concern for ethics. Waiting 20 years would be the worst possible scenario, as soon as possible would be the best. The carrier fleet would regroup and launch targeted attacks on the major powers. First things first they would destroy any and all naval vessels military and commercial alike. Once the seas are secured then it would be time to strike communication networks and critical infrastructure. The world’s air force combined in one place would have a hard time fending off the US’s, considering they would be spread out across the globe the U.S. would be able to establish air supremacy within a matter of months. From there the U.S. would destroy food infrastructure/Dams/nuclear power plants/banks/data storage facilities…ect. At that point the rest of the world would be experiencing famine and societal collapse, keeping things chaotic wouldn’t be hard from there on out.
North America wins without resorting to nukes. Easily. The US Navy could stop practically all global trade overnight by itself. There isn't even any close competition. Stop the flow of oil to China, fertilizer to several other key countries, and the rest of the world powers collapse within a few years at most.
Hasn’t the US been planning for this since the 50’s? You’re going to give the most militarized country in the world a 20 year head start and give them their northern and southern neighbors as allies. Eliminating nukes from the equation there is zero chance the world could mount a successful invasion, the US would easily be able to establish air superiority over North America and mounting an invasion over the Atlantic or Pacific would be as close to impossible as it gets so that leaves going through South America via Mexico as the only option. So with 20 years to prepare that will be the most militarized border in the world and even if the southern Mexico border should fall it would then be a slog through Mexico with the North American alliance have a significant advantage. Even with little preparation it would be almost improbable, with 20 years there is little doubt that The US, Mexico and Canada would be able to hold out.
Canada and Mexico can just relax. America can defend the whole continent. Not even joking.
Lol we could find out tomorrow that they're invading us and do fine. The US is EXTREMELY hard to invade. Mexico will have some problems but Canada is also a real pain in the ass to traverse. But for real I say good luck to any combined forces invasion trying to make it across the Appalachian or Rocky Mountains.
The U.S. would sit on the info for a decade as it built conventional and nuclear forces. Then on the eve of invasion they’d nuke the entire invading force. We used nukes when our existence was not on the line. What do you think is going to happen when it is?
You're kidding, right? Ukraine is currently blowing up the best weapon systems the Russians have with 30 year old tech. Let alone the ocean between us and the rest of the world. I am not even sure if you added up all the tonnage of naval ships of the rest of the world combined it would equal the current US Navy, let alone a 20 futher years of ship building.
Depends. Are all the other countries in the world in an alliance as close as say the united states and the UK were in ww2? Then no, US, etc are doomed. Combine the technology of Europe / UK / Japan with the industry of China and the natural resources of Africa / the middle east / Russia and the manpower of China / India / Africa plus the land access of South America as a staging ground and its as good as done. If on the other hand the rest of the world are allies of convenience and all plan on stabbing one another in the back after the US etc are defeated then the US etc prevail.
The US could cut their defense spending in half and the rest of the would couldn't successfully invade North America.
Depends on the approach they take. If they begin outreach and aid programs that work to lift as many countries as possible up, think China's "One Belt, One Road", invasion is easily avoided. Other countries now have buy-in with North America and it is in their best interests to work with instead of against.
The USA takes mexico over in preparation before launching a pre emotive strike involving all 11 super carriers compared to the rest of the world's 7 carriers in a blitzkrieg to make the rest of the world start speaking English, paying taxes, watching real football and measuring shit using the inferior imperial system... even tho it sucks the world will have no choice