If all of the nations of Earth decided to unite and invade the United States of America, can it be done?

[Kyffhäuser]

addendum hey look it is Europeans building infrastructure in Africa

Good thing a European invented the camera to take this picture, so we could marvel at the progress of sub Saharan infrastructure, after their tens of thousands of years in habitation. Thankfully the drivers there are armed with good rifles, Mauser or Lee-Enfield I'm guessing. I'm also glad you've brought the African slave trade to bear. Thank you.

The OP might like to know of the 10,000,000 slaves who survived their journey between 1525 and 1866, only 388,000 were destined for the US. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-amer...ded-in-the-us/

Europe did not have a monopoly on slavery. Muslim traders also exported as many as 17 million slaves to the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1523100.stm

Its unknown just how many African slaves remained in Africa for the Africans. The African slave trade predates Europeans opening the Atlantic side. It seems safe to assume, given the same period, most slaves weren't taken by Muslims or Europeans, but by other tribes and kingdoms. So I'm even less sorry now, than not sorry at all for American slavery. I have negative sorries to give you OP. Not only are the horrors of antebellum slavery overblown, but African Americans still came out ahead of many of their kinsmen who remained.

I couldn't find the number of free men the Atlantic took in the same period as the 2,000,000 slaves who perished. Just how many of those ships were all hands lost? Those numbers would be great to have. Let's honor every man who made and lost his life at sea. We still lose crews in the US, but nobody gives them a month of celebrity. We still have slavery in the world, but instead of snuffing out slavery today, we devote a month to pitty partying for the blacks with the most opportunities at their finger tips.

I also couldn't find African Americans cursing the descendants of those Africans, who burned their villages and sold them off to foreigners. Nothing of African Americans demanding reparations from those countries' governments. It was their own closest kinsmen who uprooted them, miss me with those wubs you give for slaves destined for slavery 200 years ago. I'd say by obesity rates their progeny are fat and happy now.

Debt: paid

[conon394]

Not only are the horrors of antebellum slavery overblown

Not really.

but African Americans still came out ahead of many of their kinsmen who remained.

Not if the Civil war had worked out differently. I am sorry I am missing the pool of freed slaves voting in the south and the South's most largest banker being run by an ex slave and his son being say governor of Virginia.

Let's honor every man who made and lost his life at sea

It fair to say slavery and forced bondage of one for or another has been ubiquitous in the world since records have been kept and Europe cam a little late to actually honer its enlightenment ideals . Never the I will celebrate nobody who had a direct participant in the black African slave trade very a vile racial one that moreover supported perpetual bondage based on an accident of birth. An artificially created mark of Cain. Because we are now stuck with all the odious racist ideals developed to justify it. For most of history Slavery (or its equal) was just bad luck or a result of a crime. Its was an not unreasonable occurrence in a time before modern medicine and what not to decide hey you know running my farm hard and we beat these guys I think I just gut new permanent help. African slavery was odious because it created a special class of people to be slaves and centuries worth of justifications for it.

[Kyffhäuser]

You honestly believe the average slave costing 40,000 dollars in today's money was just beaten? You don't believe in any corporal punnishment? Enough with the myths written by abolitionists whipped by religious fervor and trendy ideas. Slaves didn't work any harder through the year, than what we could expect from yeomen of the time period. Do you think Dixie had extra seasons? Its not like all the planters could afford cattle too.

I grant you, the sugar plantations would be hot and wet work, but that's agriculture for you - free or slave. However, I think not all slavery is equal, and not all men are equal, therefore there were good slave holders and bad. Smart and stupid, cruel and kind. Slavery isn't evil in itself, there was no great harm or tragedy suffered here, as if the slaves taken by their rivals and better kinsmen were Carthaginians led out by Romans.

What do you really know about antebellum slavery? What about the bylaws in each state or the customs for treatment of a slave? Who were the owners of the ships and plantations? Could slaves work for profit in town before curfew? Were they given food and medicine, like you would expect, given so much of these planters' wealth was tied up in their slaves' health? Have you actually considered the south-side view of slavery, or must progressivism be protected from reality, because you know its a pack of lies?

Also, what are you talking about, an actual mark of Cain? He took a lot of slaves and their foreskins. He ordered his people pierce their ears or separate them from their families. Is that the mark you mean? Was he enlightened before he ordered this, or did you Enlighten him after?

[Condottiere 40K]

Antebellum slavery is perhaps not unique, but it is distinctive, since slavery was both inherited and genetic.

Presumably the Hebrews are visually distinctive from the Egyptians, but they have that redemption story, where their God manifests and rescues them, then the revenge aspect, where Egypt gets plagued, and their military forces are destroyed during the pursuit.

Having the real Ramses later ravaging Palestine and becoming a client kingdom tends to get glossed over, but at least they weren't slaves anymore.

Supposedly, the word slave originates from Slav, which tends to look like they also got the raw end of the stick.

In most cases, classes and castes, except possibly India, integrated, so that memory and resentment has subsided.

[Mayer]

Anyway, I rather like nature, as well as having stuff to eat, so anyone who wants to start, or provoke, a nuclear war should kindly go himself as far as I'm concerned.

Then why do you support the american position? They explicitly state to not rule out a nuclear first strike whereas China has pledged No first use(NFU) since 1964. Russia in the past also had pledged no first use.

[conon394]

Then why do you support the american position? They explicitly state to not rule out a nuclear first strike whereas China has pledged No first use(NFU) since 1964. Russia in the past also had pledged no first use.

That is not entirely true. Putin did seem to clarify that strategically Russia would not launch first strike. However as I read it he left open the doctrine of using low yield weapons tactically in a European (and maybe also a implied threat to China ) war first or second. The danger here is Trump also seems to want open the low yield door as well for supposed tactical use. One wonders how long until both sides start adding nuclear torpedoes again. Both Russia and the US seem to back on the path to normalize 'small friendly' nukes Even China is not as nice as you say by claiming a vapor ware ballistic missile anti ship weapon they open up a real risk of the other side guessing wrong about the missile or its payload. None of India, Pakistan nor NK have a no first strike policy.

[Mayer]

To be fair, Russia revoked the NFU promise in a difficult time in the 90s. The country was in shambles and with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, they lost the buffer states which protected them from a western invasion. And NATO was expanding, disregarding a promise to Gorbachev, Poland became a forward operating base. Russia has reasonable fears that a 2nd Hitler, let's call him Bush Junior would use NATOs advantageous position to launch a full-scale invasion of the country.
On the other hand, US fears of a invasion by Russia are laughable, which is why people in this thread giggled at the scenario.

China is positively isolationist, they only care about chinese territory and interests. They don't want to impose their political system on others and are content with sovereignty rights. And they have the largest military force in numbers, and could potentially recruit their enormous manpower pool. So they wouldn't ever need to use nuclear weapons in the first place, they are retaliation only.

[Condottiere 40K]

Most experts agree that you can't control nuclear escalation.

It's assessed that about half the Russians think they can nuke parts of Poland and Germany with battlefield yields, and force ceasefire negotiations, because their tanks will run out of gas long before they reach the Rhine.

Personally, I think at that point, an American attack submarine will pop up off the coast of Russia and salvo off nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

[conon394]

Poland became a forward operating base

Umm they do seem to asking for a permanent US base. They have no agency or free will just Russia? Last time I checked it was Russia/USSR and Germany who moved their boarders all about without asking In living memory and quite few times before.

Russia has reasonable fears that a 2nd Hitler, let's call him Bush Junior would use NATOs advantageous position to launch a full-scale invasion of the country.

Err no. Unless you allow Poland and say Estonia have a justified fear that the (new) Czar (v2.0) will invade their countries.

[athanaric]

Is that better or worse than being called a women as an insult which happens about once a year for me? Just remember If you are going keep pretending don't let him call you a Yankee if you are going to make a fake southern (US) identity.

Well yeah, the types who think I'm American always seem to peg me for a Christian from the Deep South. I mean I'm not some douche who's offended by being taken for a citizen of country x, or a member of ethnicity y, but it is kind of telling if they're so wrong.

Then why do you support the american position? They explicitly state to not rule out a nuclear first strike whereas China has pledged No first use(NFU) since 1964. Russia in the past also had pledged no first use.

I support my own position. I'm against people who want to risk a nuclear war by egging on other countries to attack the US.

On the other hand, US fears of a invasion by Russia are laughable, which is why people in this thread giggled at the scenario.

So are fears of an invasion of Russia by the USA or any of the European powers. The only people who're likely to invade Russia and try to take its territory are Islamists and China.

China is positively isolationist, they only care about chinese territory and interests.

"Chinese territory" which just happens to be situated in India, Vietnam, and the Philippines. "Chinese interests" which somehow manifest on every continent. I know they are easy to forget about since unlike some other immigrants, they don't usually behave like pigs, but have you ever taken time to notice how many Chinese people are living in Europe (and North America, and Australia), including your own country? Who do you think they are beholden to?

[Mayer]

So are fears of an invasion of Russia by the USA or any of the European powers. The only people who're likely to invade Russia and try to take its territory are Islamists and China.

A China-Russia conflict is very unlikely, they both cooperate in the Shanghai Pact. Islamists main enemy is the US and Israel, the Chechen are subdued. Look at Ukraine, the NATO-Russia conflict already resulted in bloodshed. The pro-war rhetoric in Washington and the arms race is increasing(including nuclear capabilties after the death of the INF treaty).

"Chinese territory" which just happens to be situated in India, Vietnam, and the Philippines. "Chinese interests" which somehow manifest on every continent. I know they are easy to forget about since unlike some other immigrants, they don't usually behave like pigs, but have you ever taken time to notice how many Chinese people are living in Europe (and North America, and Australia), including your own country? Who do you think they are beholden to?

The countries are themselves to blame for opening their education system and business for foreigners. China only tries to gets the most out of it. I prefer the docile chinese who only invest, over the americans who sanction, bomb and invade whenever they like. China has a better claim on islands in China's Sea than the USA,btw.

[conon394]

Well yeah, the types who think I'm American always seem to peg me for a Christian from the Deep South. I mean I'm not some douche who's offended by being taken for a citizen of country x, or a member of ethnicity y, but it is kind of telling if they're so wrong.

I never pegged you as such but I believe as far JATQ if you not backing you might as well be. Because the world hates America and nobody else between themselves. The thing is even if you are an American who despises Trump and thinks the framing of the GWOT was a terrible mistake (rather than a short war to punish the Taliban) and since it than allowed President Cheney err Bush to lead the US into a disastrous war of choice - a blunder on a century level scale... JATQ will still say I'm an arrogant American that should die or lose all my possessions or something or a reeducation camp.

Funny though I can see the close team work between Greece, Northern Macedonia, Turkey and both parts of Cyprus. A band of brothers all ready to put aside differences. Greeks might say the USA is Threat to World peace but I suspect if ask what country worries you the most the result might be different.

Shanghai Pact.

Which so dealt with the boarder clash between China and India in 2017. The effective way both side agreed to member arbitration and accepted the results - not?

[athanaric]

A China-Russia conflict is very unlikely, they both cooperate in the Shanghai Pact. Islamists main enemy is the US and Israel, the Chechen are subdued.

Russia has resources that China needs, and far fewer citizens to defend them. They're cozy at the moment but that won't necessarily last forever, especially if the US were to become more isolationist.
Radical Islamic terrorists are at war with everyone, and there's a lot of potential recruits for them in Russia.

Look at Ukraine, the NATO-Russia conflict already resulted in bloodshed.

Because Russia invaded Ukraine. NATO didn't invade Russia.

The pro-war rhetoric in Washington and the arms race is increasing(including nuclear capabilties after the death of the INF treaty).

I suspect that the failure of the treaty was quite convenient for the hardliners and the MIC on both sides.

The countries are themselves to blame for opening their education system and business for foreigners. China only tries to gets the most out of it. I prefer the docile chinese who only invest, over the americans who sanction, bomb and invade whenever they like.

The Chinese aren't docile, they're just underhanded. And I've already told you they don't just invest, they also settle, like every other empire (and wannabe empire, à la Turkey). Go take a look around Frankfurt (or Toronto, or Vancouver) if you don't believe me.

China has a better claim on islands in China's Sea than the USA,btw.

The US don't claim territory in the South China Sea, their local allies own territory there, specifically their coastal waters. Which the Chinese try to occupy because something something history. Even though the Philippines used to be an American colony and Vietnam were invaded by the US not so long ago, they still prefer the Americans over the Chinese somehow. Imagine Denmark trying to claim the Farne Islands because Danish refugees made a visit there in 793 AD, or Norway wanting the Isle of Man. That's the kind of claim China stakes.
China claims Arunachal Pradesh because Tibet used to claim it, and China occupied Tibet after all. Which is so insolent an argument you almost have to admire it. I do prefer to see that state being a part of democratic India though, instead of the theocratic backwater of Tibet, or the Chinese Empire.
The only thing you might legitimately take issue with here is the large area of Polynesia under US control, which is a result of WWII, though.

[conon394]

China has a better claim on islands in China's Sea than the USA,btw.

The US not has not made any claims there since it left the Philippines. The US is rather objecting to how covetous China is with other peoples stuff in the region outside of any typical understanding of territorial waters sans a treaty agreement.

[Condottiere 40K]

Also because of the Politburo's sleight of hand of trying to change the facts of the ground, in creating islands to both cement their claims on an extensive exclusive zone, and militarizing them, despite competing claims by bordering nations.

Permitting the Chinese a free hand in the South China Sea would disrupt and endanger the sea routes to two of America's allies, South Korea and Japan.

[conon394]

I would not mind the OP refining this to make this this more than a pointless discussion. Are we talking about the whole world just being infected by space bats and declare war on the US on some day (telepathically knowing they are all in agreement) or some kind of diplomatic effort that culminates in a UN vote where everyone agrees to ignore the US veto and the world is united. Thus a diplomatic process over time leading to some ultimatum.

The OP has refined that the war is explicitly aimed a liquidating the US as a polity and perhaps all it population but for First Nations (although not specifying what happens to those who actively serve the US government in any way or kinda like their place in the world now ). Thus of course the end game is nuclear war. But I would be interested to see if anyone can hash out the politics that would lead to the OP desired state of affairs. One that does not involve clinking one's ruby slippers together and saying I wish... Perhaps maybe a situation that sees the US isolated with only a tiny handful of friends over time.