United States Vs The World (Simulation) 

1. i think they should have lost guam latter becouse usa has the strongest navy in the world and the other countries navies would take a while to cooperate 2. invasion from north canada just wild

As a mexican, guess ill die

@@ShadowKAnimations ill rather live on somalia than see mexico getting invaded 😩🙏

I wish I could explain everything normal realistically our reserves in the United States are so deep that we would be able to leverage Our Own oil reserves in a mass production of oil refineries all around the inland US, along with the agricultural industries that we would stop exporting, and then just keep a stock piles in our strategic reserves in the advanced amount of munitions that we would be able to produce along with the manpower so long as we had the water running for at least 40 years, we will be able to have two generations of fighters Increase or 360 million population to over 1 billion easily within 20 to 30 years as long as we get people to want to reproduce and have a certain characteristic of general ideology, the vast amount of control we would have from the Panama Street from the south America the entire control of the both north and south American continents would ultimately sustain a hold specially if the naval power was expanded beyond just smart weapons, the older model ships would probably be employed. Nevertheless, the United States would ultimately be the most strategically advanced nation in all odds. If it were to just be expansionist and warmongering, the entire culture was manipulated that way from the people in the states at the end of the day, the capability to pull together, resources, produce enough weapons, food and water supplies, and advanced weapons to shoot down nuclear missiles. The United States would reign supreme specially with the space force capabilities, perhaps evening to make bases on the moon for a Plan B scenario with earths, became rotten by nuclear waste.

@@Towermidguard uhm...no? the usa would win navally...for a while...it's the entire world my guy...the usa is ahead of the other but by a reasonable margin, it's the resources of EUROAFRASIA against the u.s,the middle east's oil,russia and china's iron, brazil's silicon/iron along with many other resources from africa, the techonological increase would be...absurd, no way the usa can survive for more than 1/2 decades

Read the description, lol Video’s just a silly project someone made that wasn’t meant to be realistic.

I agree with the logistical part

🤓☝️

I can confirm, I’m on a government watchlist now.

The super unreasonable and unrealistic part is Canada losing 26,000,000 when it has 39,000,000…..

Cuba and Guatemala losing that much doesn’t make too much sense

WHY WON’T YOU MAKE THE VIDEO YOU SAID “Soon” and it’s been a year and you still haven’t made a single video

​@@b.j.likeseverything1906 I feel realistically Mexico would prepare to fight the US Army, in addition to Canada the US Army would not tolerate the cold to the maximum that there is in Canada

I always see you in comment sections

@@romaniamapping6002 Yeah I see you too!

@@Miskolcz_Mapper haha

Mexico Canada Guatemala and Cuba Nicaragua Colombia Venezuela casualties don’t make sense lol

Russia kinda makes sense Also what is wmd?

Russia casualties maybe are somewhat possible over that long

@@LeKing_ Ah

Not even a half. More like 1/5 of whats shown 😂

@@Nonamelol. more like 1/10, modern wars are not that deadly

@@Iberian_XAVO Please tell me you’re joking.

@@Iberian_XAVO Yeah, maybe because besides Russia and Ukraine there are no large scale wars right now, even Russia and Ukraine would be considered just another proxy war if this was the cold war. No two superpowers have fought since world War 2, world War 3 would be a blood bath Because it would be a such a blood bath it would be unlikely to happen, hence why there's no ww3 or deadly modern wars

@@Nonamelol. Look at how many people die in modern wars, small percentages of the overall population. I estimate 3 million people would die in this war, maybe.

I am not an american nationlist, but, USA haves the top economy, i think he can keep that zones for some time.

I think Greenland would be quite easy to secure honestly .

@@chromaz4299 it’s mostly I’ve not really

@@chromaz4299 by the Canadians yes, not americans

@@DuckthePolarxd yea but not 3 insanely big places at the same time

I very much doubt that the Americans know the Mexican territory better than the Mexicans themselves, and in the past Pancho Villa's guerrillas had entered the United States and looted towns. I don't know how Canada would handle it, but I am sure that the campaign in Mexico will be much worse than in Vietnam, it is no longer the same Mexico of the Mexican-American War of the 19th century

nah

@@Sicilyballproductions if they land an army on the continent we’re probably screwed, but the object of the simulation was to prevent a landing, after annexing everything from Greenland to the Darien gap. Realistically we would lose in an attrition war, but in the short term we have all of the advantages.

The United States' goal as stated in the video was white peace. This would probably be achievable by applying pressure against them, not just conquer. But obviously, time is not on your side in this scenario.

I’d assume they were more focused on trying to create a defense perimeter around North America from which to hold off the rest of the world.

Because the other countries would be on the defense, while the US navy is strong, i doubt they are capable enough to invade China or Russia.

it lost islands because, while its navy is currently stronger than that of any individual country, it is weake than that of every country combined.

@@amelinadebritobelchior4743 people said that the US navy is in fact stronger than all countries combined. But i doubt that, the US has a lot of carriers, yes, but they're only useful for power projection, all other countries like China and Russia have invested in anti-carrier missiles, so the moment USA gets near to Russia or China their carries will go kaboom, and you might say that carriers can deflect those missiles, but i doubt carriers can deflect nuclear bombs. Also, literally nothing is stopping the world from coming together and building 400 carriers. The reason countries like China and Russia don't invest into carriers is because they have no interest in projecting power overseas, because they can literally just do that on land.

The would probably last longer lmao

@@theremapping3840 nah it's just in films thet USA is very powerful

@@theremapping3840 true

I mean, the U.S. has a lot of natural resources, a strong economy, and a powerful army. Their only issue would be running out of supplies they need in other parts of the world, since, obviously, this is against only the U.S., they wouldn't be able to get them. But, again, they have more than enough strength to keep a decades long war going like this.

@@polskamapping6116 yeah theres another video that's much more accurate. We wouldn't waste military hardware and lives fighting over useless islands. First thing we would do is sieze and destroy all the oil production in the middle east. The US can supply itself. The rest of the world gets 80% of it's oil from the middle east. If the war lasted even close to this long the rest of the world would be out of fuel and the US would still be fine.

@@pzwang4109 still Canada losing that much doesn’t make sense

I assume because America had to assert a lot of resources on Mexico and Central America because realistically there would be insurrections to a scale higher than the Taliban. I guess also chem, bio, etc. are on the table so I suppose as this is just a hypothetical scenario that the world uses all of it's capabilities regardless of morals (besides china, russia, nk, iran, etc. because they don't have any to begin with)

@@flying0possum many western countries also don't have any to begin with

Depending on the situation usa (or any major power) may not have them either

because the youtuber allowed g3n0c1d3s

Naur💀

I’m sorry, I have nothing against Canada, however it was pretty accurate. Considering we have no reason to fight plus the small Canadian army and Population which is close to the border… sorry man.

@@trevorreese3510 I dunno, I think the Canadians would have a better chance of holding off the invading Americans towards the far north due to much closer supply lines and the harsh weather making it difficult for the US to send troops and heavy equipment in large numbers. I think it would end up like the winter war IMO.

@@adhip0574 Even with shorter supply lines the Canadians cannot hold such a frontline because of the gaps in their lines. The Americans could just straight up walk around the Canadian divisions.

@@trevorreese3510 Vietnam

@@adhip0574 That’s an entirely different scenario where America wasn’t able to send enough troops to make a difference because otherwise the Chinese and Russians would’ve gotten involved. Not to mention that was decades ago, modern warfare doesn’t work like that.

@@hbrwdtntrhewh1 The world has basically no Defense against the U.S unless The Forces of Russia, China, Japan, N Korea, S Korea and all those Countries decide to work together. Which I doubt they’d be able to set aside their differences. Maybe Just maybe with A Little time China, NKorea, Russia would be able to overpower The U.S to a curtain extent. But I think overall the U.S is Undefeatable when it comes to Earthly Entities. But also I think the U.S is simply to overpowered like sure the other nations could build up, but they are so far behind that The U.S could just crush them before they get to powerful. Idk that’s my take on it and Other people have their Opinions. That’s my Opinion. (We all know I love talking about stuff that makes me sound smarter than I am lol)

Yanki a la vista

the us cant beat *EARTH,* they would simply run out of oil needed for all their stuff

You can say the same about Nazi Germany and Japan in WW2,they got very far very fast,but lost in the end because their victories werent of raw outproducing and outmanuevering,but just being too fast for the enemies to react,and at some point,supplying these rapidly gained areas became a nightmare,partially because of a war still being fought,and bombing,rebellions etc,and at this point,wit the combined navies of the world,and the airpower and tank fleets,basic military unit advantages would render the United States undefendable after some extended period of time,example,China ALONE has some 600+million fit for service individuals,much more than the entire population of the United States,also including that in this,the United States has to produce everything it jeeds because it is fighting with all its trade partners,so basically it was a ticking time bomb of a lack of everything after a while,it is a "come as you are" war

@@obamagaming-zv4vy nice reply and all you said is feasible. It's just seems off cause in this the US gained ground across the entire globe. Germany or China never got that far. It just seems that if you actually got that far you would have killed or destroyed the world's fighting pop or it's armaments already. Supplies would be a major tilting point as you point out though. It was an interesting video none the less.

This is conjecture, we would be able to hold off the world for a long time, they might never beat us. We have all the resources we need and if in a real war, we would be building out the armed forces just like everybody else. In WW2, we out built the rest of the world combined, with the exception of USSR armored vehicle production. This time around, we already have a huge head start, due to the Cold War and right to this day we have an armed forces designed to destroy countries, if we so desire. Only other place to get this ability was the Soviet Army.

@@jrus690 no healthcare?

Everyone would have sent troops at that point

India is no where close to USA in military capability. All they can do is stay defensive

It means a peace in which nothing changes. Essentially just ending the war and everyone goes home like it never happened.

Can you do an alternate history ww3?

Happy new year

merry christmas

Could you do a scenario of The United States of America VS the rest of the Americas

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Pv0dso2bPoA.html this is

@@aureolqx good

Not really. Although global sanctions would be catastrophic, the United States is quite self-sufficient.

​@@nicholass.brisco2213nope, allmost all US bases will be conquered by the host country pretty much easily. This can alone cripple USA's ability to fight a global and be forced to switch on defensive

Global sanctions would be catastrophic...for everyone else. The US economy is so massive and intertwined with global trade that any sanctions on us would cause only relatively minor problems, and only for a short time as we possess most of the resources we need already, and a conquered south America would give us the rest. Meanwhile, every other country except north Korea would flat out no longer have an economy at all. Nowhere in the world has the economic power to counteract the loss of America from global trade. Period.

no it's not, the worlds gdp excluding the us is around 70 trillion not 200 trillion

@@aydenhudson1026 Wrong, the worlds is actually 180 Trillion but I rounded it. Its still almost a bit more than a third of the worlds gdp.

@@LuffyPortal I'm not wrong, look it up, excluding the united states from the worlds gdp is around 70 trillion

Imagine a world war that last 15 years with the technology we have

Maybe the US committed war crimes against civilians like Germany at ww2

It was probably a stalemate on the fronts or preparing forces, maybe something like during the Battle of Britain during WWII except over the Pacific, Arctic, and past the Panama Canal.

Yeah in no scenario would the US win this, I'm from the United States, I've studied lost of conflicts and world affairs, it's not a simple "We're the strongest so that must mean we can take on the whole world" The us heavily relies on the outside world for shipping, even large companies such as Nintendo, Volkswagen, and most school supplies are made from other countries, if for any reason the world declared war on the US, every country would have to hate the US, decreasing the US economy. Second the US wouldn't issue a first strike unless it's a last resort as a nuclear war would be as catastrophic for the US as it would be for the world, nuclear bombs don't follow borders, even if almost no nukes hit the US at all, nuclear winter and radiation from the wind would cripple the US agriculture, a large famine would ensue, the US doesn't "win" as no scenario where the world goes catastrophic is a win for any country. Second, we do not have the largest population or largest standing army, at some point, quantity can beat quality, if the entire world came together to defeat one country, I'm pretty sure the world was preparing for thus conflict just as much as the US. Imagine every non amerocan scientist working together under a unifying cause. You can see how under no circumstances there is a win for anyone as this would all in nuclear annihilation. I don't feel like typing this comment 1000000 times to 10000 people who don't get it, so....I'm gonna copy and paste this.

@@laboot7447 we import things because they are cheaper. after any war we could easily resume a self-sustaining economy if need be. places that would be of strategic benefit would be taken over first .. food, fuel, etc. plenty of small countries of little military import to choose from. you are mostly correct that we would not strike first, depending on intel, political rhetoric, and global military movements. also depending who is commander in chief. )the present one would just let china come right on in, since he is/was on their payroll). but even if we are hit first our response would depend on where/what and by whom. would vary from a drone strike to a capital city destruction. all fighting would be outside our contiguous borders except for sleeper cells doing their terrorism thing. our infrastructure would remain intact and operable. we do not need the largest population to win a world war. technology has drastically reduced the need for boots on the ground until much closer to the end. besides, china and india (the two more populace countries) have no way of getting their boots anywhere they would be of benefit. they could not train or arm the billion more people to have any effect. numbers would mean very little if anything. canada and mexico (and below) would be ineffectual as invading countries. we would not have to kill everyone in any country to make them irrelevant or surrender. if nukes are used then almost everything changes strategically. don't overestimate the chances of dozens of them hitting our cities. one or two would be horrible but not debilitating. no country believes it would remain if it went nuclear, except us. correct again that no country would win such a war but we would recover and become even better and stronger because of it. in time. how things might start or progress is conjecture but the end is not

​​@@boedude8496In Case of a nuclear Engagement the temparatures in the Northern Hemisphere are expected to drop to a avarage of -60 Celsius, wich would mean EVERYONE in the Northern Hemisphere either Makes it Out to the southern Hemisphere in time or He Most certainly will die.

@@somelostguy So frostpunk, radioactive edition?

Wrong. This war game is based on a no WMD premise as nukes and the like too obviously negate the purpose of such an experiment. In the event of a global conventional war of the US vs everyone, we would win. We possess the means and resources to gain full self sufficiency with months in such a scenario. Besides which, any damage to our economy due to denial of foreign trade would result in similar or worse economic damage to those nations. The US is not utterly dependent on any one foreign nation for anything except maybe the anime market lmao. In contrast, most foreign nations that trade with us would experience economic collapse immediately without our economy to buy their stuff. Furthermore, a significant majority of the world is dependent on US aid, military support, and/or investment. Including almost all of Europe. The reality is that a us vs the world conventional war would result in a us victory almost immediately as everyone else would just collapse. The few that wouldn't, would have no means of striking us across the seas and any attempt to build up such forces would be destroyed immediately by our overwhelming headstart and technological advantages at sea and in the air. Kindly don't comment when you don't even understand the basic STATED premise of the simulation.