No Stupid Questions

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.

The only winning move is not to play.

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.

Tell me more about how you don't understand war at all. Nobody wins.

There would be no winners.

There would be no nukes because then all the "businessmen" couldn't sell artillery anymore. /s

No one 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.

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.

They haven't won a major armed conflict decisively, since WW2.

By some standards WWIII is already in progress. And no, America isn't winning. Its power and influence are contracting rapidly.

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.

The only winners will be the people selling the guns.

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.

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.

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.

Nobody wins. Someone just gets control of the official narrative.

But who’s the “you” you’re asking here?

I'd get the Japanese American treatment. 👀

(I'm Chinese American)

So it depends on what you mean by "America"....

The constitution? Nah, its definitely dead and buried in a ww3 scenario.

Rich cis-het white conservative christian men? Yea they'd win, if you count living in a bunker¹ with trigger happy soldiers/security ready to overthrow them as a "win"; I bet the entire bunker will go into psychological breakdown after no outside + sunlight for a year.

¹Cuz Nukes went 💥🌇

Who are the allies of each side?

The question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of war. The purpose of war is to defeat your enemy and make them lose, it was never about making you win.

Its not like a video game where you just deal enough damage or accumulate enough points and your adversaies give up to grant you a victory.

War is an eternal conflict until the last man is standing. Its never been about winning always about not losing.

The US would lose faster than most, as it is a higher priority target for nuclear weaponry.

We should do our very best to make sure it doesn't...