Sad this got downvoted. The engagement was really good.
The only winning move is not to play.
They haven’t won a major armed conflict decisively, since WW2.
Tell me more about how you don’t understand war at all. Nobody wins.
What would its goals be? Realistically, the US was probably bound for conflict with China and Russia before Trump. Now, Trump is creating a scenario where the US will have conflict with its allies and China. This is Russia’s doing.
Militarily, Russia has shown itself to be weak. The US could easily crush Russia in a conventional conflict if it wanted too, but there would be a risk of nukes popping off. Thats why Biden’s strategy was to let it bleed out in Ukraine and hope Putin got toppled internally in the fallout.
Trump creating conflict with US allies creates a scenario where they must work with China. It’s uncertain how that will go, but if the US invades another country, it will likely encounter a prolonged guerrilla conflict and be bogged down there like Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq. China will help the other side make it as painful as possible.
Also, this conflict is unlikely to be popular in the US and rather than pulling together like in WWII, Americans will scatter or resist. At least half the country wouldn’t support the war and with the US being the aggressor there is a real chance bombs could fall on US soil. People will flee. Americans will become refugees.
Americans are already fleeing as political refugees, regardless of whether or not asylum is involved. I did it on a work permit but the mental and physical stresses are all there (I’m tired boss)
As an American, I hope not.
There would be no winners.
This is defense contractor erasure.
What good is money when everyone is dead?
It’s not even as good when everyone is just scraping by. If you’ve never been to a place that’s truly thriving it’s kind of amazing. Rising tides lift all boats and tsunamis don’t care about bank balances.
Only if the opening move would be to unload its entire nuclear arsenal in every direction. And then they “win” a big charred ball of ash.
If there is a third world war I think either everyone will lose in one day (nuclear weapons), or it will be sabotage and ‘special military operations’ everywhere for decades, and not named as a world war until later.
If that’s right were already in it
Some people think it goes to nukes immediately. I don’t think so. It will stay sidelined like chemical weapons that were used in WW1 but avoided and unused in WW2.
The US does not have the industrial capability that it once had and has struggled with manufacturing of electronic components. Now maybe that can be changed, but maybe not fast enough to matter. But as far as current capability they got combat experience and are the only nation that has proven ability to project military power worldwide. As long as logistics keep up they can kick serious ass.
China makes a ton of stuff already, and that would make a hell of a wartime production rate that can scale too. Their military is untested, but large, new and growing. They are the gorilla in the room. Hell they might think Russia is the easier fish to fry and take them on first.
But there’s also the chance of everything falling apart where most nations desintigrate into a long term state of fracture with infighting and homeland problems overriding any possibility of winning a global fight, and therefore preventing a large world war like we’ve seen in the past. Rand calls it neomedievalism
By some standards WWIII is already in progress. And no, America isn’t winning. Its power and influence are contracting rapidly.
Caused by ITSELF
All loses the USA is taking are all fucking own goals.
The USA is the equivalent of starting the game up 100-0 (due to WW2) and then proceeding to just unload 30 meter bangers into its own goal…
Arguably caused by psyops and political capture by China and Russia but. Technically caused by US citizens, albeit traitors.
Wouldn’t be the first time in history that a major power started a war and then promptly proceeded to decisively lose it.
No one wins.
Which America are you referring to? North, meso, or south?
In case you are referring to the United States of, they are losing allies and partners fast. They would have to fight wars on many fronts and that never ends well.
Furthermore, they are moving towards a civil war, so one of their fronts will be on their own soil.
Their arrogance and entitlement will prolong the war, but in the end, they’ll lose.
The only winners will be the people selling the guns.
So America?
Probably Switzerland.
America is unable to function by itself and is on tour to implode. How are they going to win a war, no one in the country is willing to put up a real fight either.
It is the most divided political landscape on the planet right now, on the brink of a potentional civil war, which is the only fight they will do if they decide to grow a spine.
I can’t make head or tails of who would be fighting whom in that war.
If a WW was to break tomorrow, it would probably be because of Trump making true his threats to attack NATO in order gain definite control over Greenland?
Probably USA would be its own side without allies?
Then there would probably be NATO as one side, most likely with Australia and Japan on the same team as NATO. And, I’d say, probably all of Southern and Central America.
And the Russia and Iran with China? Pakistan would probably be on their side, so India would seek something else. More likely NATO than USA?But then again, WWIII would be such a big deal that it feels weird imagining it might end up a three-sided war. The loosest piece on this board is USA… If it allies with one of the sides, will that side be that of NATO or that of the Russia?
Hm. Well, if it allies with China and the Russia, it gets super difficult for NATO to keep shit together. Then again, the Canadian border is not all that far away from DC, and Latvia is not far away from Moscow. We’d probably also have Ukraine on our side, and they can teach a lot about modern warfare!
All in all: If USA manages to ally with someone, that side is likely to win. If it remains alone, it will probably lose. I would say that in a situation where USA doesn’t ally with anyone, NATO would be the side losing the least.
But, in the end nobody wins in a war.
If the US really tried to take Greenland by force, I think China would see the opportunity and try to align with the remnants of NATO
Whether the other countries in NATO agree or not… Dunno
I think if Trump attacks NATO there will be a serious possibility that the USA erupts in civil war
Idk, I think the most likely cause of a world war breaking out tomorrow would be Russia either making an antagonistic move towards Poland, or else deciding to use nukes in Ukraine. I expect that this would play out in the EU/NATO/Anglosphere/possibly liberal asia (but not the US) fighting Russia and whoever is unwise enough to ally with them (Iran, Belarus, and NK being obvious candidates). Russia, now vastly outgunned in conventional warfare, starts deploying its aging nuclear weapons against Europe, but because the Russian military is a trash fire, about half of them can’t even launch, half that launch fail to make it to their destinations and harmlessly fall out of the air or fail to detonate on impact, and some are caught by advanced anti-icbm tech that NATO developed 20 years ago but has kept secret. At least one icbm detonates on the lauchpad and irradiates the surrounding area, which the Kremlin will try to spin as a retaliatory nuclear attack. Europe and its allies, being boy scouts, stick to conventional warfare.and quickly overrun Moskow, but spend the next several years routing out the Russian military from secret ICBM bases.
The US, always the main character, has a sub-plot where they mostly-nonviolently oust Trump from office and install an aw-shucks middle aged white man in the White House, who deploys the US military just in time to join the European forces to take Moscow. The US, being the largest single military in the alliance now, will pat itself on the back in its history books for the next 50 years for once again saving liberal Europe.
I am extremely dubious about the likelihood of the US actually taking significant military action in Greenland. The impression I get of the current US administration is that Trump is an aggressive and stupid bulldog that more powerful and sane interests have successfully leashed and collared. They let him run around and break shit as he pleases as long as it doesnt affect their interests and occasionally point him in a certain direction as an intimidation tactic in order to gain leverage. But the US putting itself on the losing side of a global conflict is not in their best interest, so they will always reign him back in before he actually starts any real shit.
