ecoho said:
you assume of course two things
1. that the people left alive would be willing to and capable to resist when there's not a single water source available to them that's not heavily defended and controlled.
2. that the enemies we made would be able to do anything to the US.
as for those last two points you mentioned
1. we only have problems in the middle east because we care about civilian casualties and don't bomb every heat signature we find in an area were hostiles are operating. Plus you know desert target water they die in days due to their own county killing them.
2. south America can be taken out with the use of EMPs at strategic locations breaking their economy and if that's not enough a blockade would pretty much ruin their trade with nations outside South America.
3. You seriously thing the European Union could out spend the US then your delusional their economy has almost collapsed twice in the last 8 years and one of those was because the US went into recession.
4. Really going with lack of manpower? Just got to ask who do you think protects international trade in the ocean?
then we can get into our air force bombing targets from home with drones or just dropping them for above effective Anti-air fire.
Seriously you don't need much to cripple a nation now. Just an effective way to deliver what can do it.
1:: seriously, you under estimate the human spirit. The polish didn't give up when Germany kicked them over, they formed a resistance and kept fighting, at the cost of their historic capital city. The British didn't give up when the Luftwaffe bombed London and Coventry to rubble, killing thousands. And the Viet-cong didn't give up because the US napalmed their country.
In a similar vein, America didn't give up just because terrorists knocked down the world trade towers. People don't respond to atrocity with shock and complacency, historically they respond with anger and vengeance.
2: What EMP's? I am not aware of any strategic or tactical EMP weapon in any nations arsenal, that aren't nuclear warheads. You going to nuke south america? How would the rest of the world respond?
3: Sure. In this nightmare scenario you are creating for yourself, you have already committed multiple atrocities, alienated your allies and started invading other countries. The least we would do is put an embargo on trade, no matter how much it hurt. The British sacrificed their entire empire to stop Nazi Germany, why would the EU do any less? More over, we are showing signs of recovery in Europe, and Germany is already clear of the worst damage. The US is still trying to drag itself clear of the ground zero it created with the sub prime mortgage crisis (thanks for that, by the way.)
4: Everyone else combined has more people than America. Everyone else combined has more money than America. You have a large army and navy, but I'm pretty sure if you where fighting everyone else in the world, while trying to garrison multiple locations and kill thousands of civilians in atrocities, you'd quickly run out of warm bodies and boots on the ground. Unless being wrapped in the star spangled banner makes you bullet proof.
So far, all I've seen from your posts is a commplete lack of understanding of real politik, military logistics or even common sense. Stop cribbing from Call of Duty and Spec-Ops: the Line and do some real research please. And learn to spell.