Sad this got downvoted. The engagement was really good.
As much as anybody could “win” at war, I don’t think it would be possible with Trump as Commander in Chief. He wouldn’t have a head for tactics, and his blatant narcissism would refuse to allow generals (who are educated in war tactics and know what to do) to make decisions for him.
Realistically? If war broke out, I could see congress using it as a catalyst to finally impeach him. At least by removing Trump from office, they’d have someone who would actually listen to counsel.
But if Trump remains in office, he’d inevitably end up doing whatever is best for Russia. And that means he’d likely end up with the US in a war of attrition, dragging things out as long as possible, with each side taking large losses while Putin sits back and watches it all play out (and quietly takes Ukraine while everyone is distracted by their own wars).
No. Facism rewards loyalty and cronyism, not competency. We have the most powerful military on the planet, but the regime is full of bumbling idiots whose only skills are flattering the president. For now, there’s enough brainpower left at the Pentagon to pull off the Maduro abduction or invade Greenland, but after a few years of Trump/Hegseth/Miller calling the shots and firing anyone who points out their mistakes, we’d be toast.
As much as anybody “wins” at war, I absolutely hope we lose. I’m glad Germany lost, so I want us to lose.
I honestly have no idea how split people were in Germany at the time, but given that the Nazis are back for a sequel, then I hope they lose and lose BAD. Like bad to the point that they do some “political cleansing” of the entire government. I don’t think there’s a benefit of having any conservatives in power at all. Just straight up murder should still be wrong, but if any get good for the paddles come out. Bring conservative and holding power greater than student body president shouldn’t happen anywhere, ever, for any reason.
The only winning move is not to play.
Tell me more about how you don’t understand war at all. Nobody wins.
There would be no nukes because then all the “businessmen” couldn’t sell artillery anymore. /s
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.
Tsunamis are only really noticeable/dangerous in shallow water too, so that analogy doubly checks out
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)
No one wins.
They haven’t won a major armed conflict decisively, since WW2.
The Korean and Vietnam Wars were constrained by not trying to turn the Cold War hot. Also, Vietnam was as much about nation-building as it was fighting an enemy.
The invasion of Grenada met all military objectives.
The Gulf War was such a success that it changed war doctrine for those choosing to fight the USA after.
The USA intervention into Somalia fell apart as the government the USA supported collapsed.
The USA intervention into Yugoslavia got Serbia to withdrawal troops from Kosovo.
The Afghanistan War successfully toppled the previous Taliban government, the USA just couldn’t build a new government to replace the existing one.
The USA toppled Saddam Hussein rather quickly after the Iraq War; the current government is wildly different in form from the old one.
The USA successfully kidnapped the Venezuelan President.
Most of the USA’s war losses were due to attempts to nation-build. If the USA chooses not to nation-build, it can launch major military attacks to disable opponents. In those fights, the USA dominates.
And that was as part of a team, which they are actively moving to isolate from now.
deleted by creator
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
Yes, we are.
The only good thing about it is that it isn’t the alternative: total nuclear annihilation. (Some days I wonder if that would be better)
By some standards WWIII is already in progress. And no, America isn’t winning. Its power and influence are contracting rapidly.
I agree that it’s already started.
I don’t know about America losing. We have a wacko in charge that would rather nuke the world than admit defeat.
I’d consider that a “lose” condition.
It’s possible for everyone to lose a war.
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.
As an American, I hope not.
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
That’s a very complicated question.
Which nations are on which sides?
What’s the competing ideologies?
What was the inciting incident?Without those details and many more, nobody could hope to predict.
