^^ Do you know the above for sure?

To attempt attrition warfare against the US, you'd have to find some way to transport insane numbers of people across the ocean to the Americas. And you'd have to do it while avoiding getting blown up in the water, or air, during transit.

Crossing over through Alaska is not really an option as the terrain is practically inhospitable.

The New World has some built in advantages in terms of defense.

ajos: let d show begin...time to test ur weapons...who give a damn...me na hunger dey worry me now....
IF GARRI PRICE GO COME DOWN MEK EM NO FIGHT....

true2god: The Russian alone wouldnt have survive the Nazi onslaught without the support of the US in the supply of food, winter cloths, arms, and transport trucks (to move soldiers frm siberia to stalingrad as fast as possible to replace all destroyed platoons). The Russian airforce was a big mess at the start of the German invasion as their airforce almost collapsed to the superior German luftwaff, but the more experienced British RAF came to the rescue.

And remember, the Germans were fighting the US airforce and the British airforce in the west and at the same time facing the Russian tanks and steam rollers in the east. If the Germans do not make the mistake of fighting a war on two fronts, there is no way the Russian CAN single-handedly beat them. And for your information the Russians alone had one-third of the entire casualty during the second world war.

The defeat of the Germans was a joint effort of many countries and not only the Russians.

Do you know that at the end of the war the Soviet army was larger than the American army in numbers and in tanks and artillery? The amount of casualties the Russians suffered clearly does not mean much when they were still the largest army in the world.

Anyway, I didn't say defeating Hitler was not a joint effort and i'm aware that the U.S gave massive Aid to Russia. All i'm saying is that after 1943 the soviet Union probably could have defeated Germany alone. They were fighting somewhere around 70% of the Nazi forces and were steamrolling after Stalingrad. If the U.S were to never enter the war the Russians would have still made it to Berlin.

Michaeljones36: To attempt attrition warfare against the US, you'd have to find some way to transport insane numbers of people across the ocean to the Americas. And you'd have to do it while avoiding getting blown up in the water, or air, during transit.

Crossing over through Alaska is not really an option as the terrain is practically inhospitable.

The New World has some built in advantages in terms of defense.

The U.S is basically invincible in that regard. I cant imagine any country having the capability to defeat all the American Aircraft carriers, all the Nuclear subs, the entire coast guard and navy.... its impossible.

The only thing American civilians need to worry about is long range missles

Ihedinobi:

You're kidding, right? You really think the EU will turn her back on the US? Wanna venture a guess why?

i country would act first in its own interest! With russia literally above europe, i seriously doubt all the european countries will be supporting the U. S from whom they are separated by oceans.

I'm sure I don't understand what you are saying here. How will Russia be in trouble because she has Europe south of her if the EU won't back the US? Why wjll her Asian neighbors help to secure her Pacific border? Because they like her?

i didn't say anything about the E U, instead i talked about the possibility of each country chosing sides, the result will be pro russian countries against pro american countries.
In the event of a war, i take it japan and china will ally themselves with russia instead of the U. S, this will bring the pacific under control.

Which countries can serve as some examples and how are you sure that their hatred for the US will outweigh their concern for any other consequence of allying themselves with America's enemies?

as i said earlier, they won't be taking active part in the war. They'll simply give the enemy a free hand. For example a possible network of "terrorist-mercenary" cell will be efficent in a war against the U. S. Cuba and venezula will give them breathing space.

Israel will be isolated? Ok, I can accept that she will be, but I'm gaping at her neighbor's ganging up to teach her a lesson. I wonder if you know either the history or current happenings of and in that region. I said the region will explode becaise that part of the world is about the least predictable except for the fact that Israel will beat the hell out of anyone in that region that attacks them. If for some weird reason, the Arabs actually form a successful alliance to take on Israel, things will get really simple.

In such an event, there'll be just two sides: Israel and the Arabs and the Arabs aren't a safe bet even then. But should they in fact beat Israel, they'll instantly turn on each other.
The more likely event however is that Israel will try to confuse the alliance and the fight will grow messy. Then Israel might pick them off one by one or just watch them kill each other off and help by killing anyone that runs her way. However, Israel might survive with very severe and deep wounds. Because in royal rumbles, just about any freaking thing can happen.

you overestimate isreal. No army can fight a war on all fonts at the same time.

Honestly, the above didn't make a lot of sense to me. When I think you're saying that US allies will act to protect America, you end up saying they'll in fact fight America. When I think you're going to show how pro-Russian American states are going to will feature I get something that doesn't quite make sense.
Why would South American states go to war across the ocean just cos they hate America? It makes more sense that they should attack America herself next door. But then US allies also next door will beat the crap out of them for trying. You thought of Canada and, at least, Brazil, didn't you when you were typing? On the American continents, one of them is a military heavyweight too and the other is a budding heavywweight.

by states i mean countries pro american european countries. That will clarify things.

Michaeljones36: To attempt attrition warfare against the US, you'd have to find some way to transport insane numbers of people across the ocean to the Americas. And you'd have to do it while avoiding getting blown up in the water, or air, during transit.

Crossing over through Alaska is not really an option as the terrain is practically inhospitable.

The New World has some built in advantages in terms of defense.

You dont have to do that if you already have large numbers of supposedly "American" people already naturalized. As sleeper cells, they can be devastatingly effective. In fact, in the event of an all out war, expect such attacks from highly skilled sleeper cells masquerading as naturalized americans both within and outside the american military.

Essentially, one of their greatest strengths is also their greatest weakness.

pleep: Do you know that at the end of the war the Soviet army was larger than the American army in numbers and in tanks and artillery? The amount of casualties the Russians suffered clearly does not mean much when they were still the largest army in the world.

Anyway, I didn't say defeating Hitler was not a joint effort and i'm aware that the U.S gave massive Aid to Russia. All i'm saying is that after 1943 the soviet Union probably could have defeated Germany alone. They were fighting somewhere around 70% of the Nazi forces and were steamrolling after Stalingrad. If the U.S were to never enter the war the Russians would have still made it to Berlin.

Yes, it terms of conventional forces the Soviet army is the largest then, but not in nuclear forces, after the war.

Towards the end of 1942 the tide of war turned against the German both in the atlantic and the eastern front. All by the effort of the allies. The russians were doing the bulk of the fighting no doubt (they lost more than 23 million men compare to US who lost roughly 450,000 and the British 520,000). Lets say there was no initial allies support to the Russians in terms of arms, medicine and food supply, all the population of stalingrad would have starved to death during the 400day siege and the Germans would hav easily marched to moscow.

The allies did assist the Russian not cos they love them, but to ensure that Russia do not collapse paving way for the Japanese(who are active belligerent against the allies) and the German forces to to meet in far eastern russian to mongolia. If that had happend the Americans will surely be defeated as well.

Josef Stalin (or the Russians), before the war, was German ally before their (German) invasion of Russia, hence the western allies were reluctant to give them full support to end the war quickly. Thats y the Russian did the bulk of the fightings themselves.

But without the initial allies support at the begining of the German offensive, the Russians would hav collapse by the end of 1942. If the British had accepted Hitlers peace plan of 1941 so that the Germans would concentrate fully on the Russians, the result would hav been the opposite in the east.

Ubenedictus: i country would act first in its own interest! With russia literally above europe, i seriously doubt all the european countries will be supporting the U. S from whom they are separated by oceans.

So the EU will help Russia because Russia's closer?

i didn't say anything about the E U, instead i talked about the possibility of each country chosing sides, the result will be pro russian countries against pro american countries.

My friend, European countries are almost completely one political unit now. That's why we talk of the EU rather than individual European countries.

However, what examples of "pro Russian" countries can you give? Or of "pro American" countries?

In the event of a war, i take it japan and china will ally themselves with russia instead of the U. S, this will bring the pacific under control.

So why do you take it that Japan and China will ally themselves with Russia?

as i said earlier, they won't be taking active part in the war. They'll simply give the enemy a free hand. For example a possible network of "terrorist-mercenary" cell will be efficent in a war against the U. S. Cuba and venezula will give them breathing space.

Are you even bothering to read what everyone else is posting here? Do you suppose that the US would just sit back and allow the enemy to land in her backyard or that her allies in that neck of the woods would do that either?

you overestimate isreal. No army can fight a war on all fonts at the same time.

What are you talking about? What do you know about Israel's military capabilities?

by states i mean countries pro american european countries. That will clarify things.

Sure. Are you aware that Europe moves more and more as a unit now than ever?