If NK, China, and Russia united against America, who would win a war?

[Kaleredar]

Men and politics. The US has two distinct disadvantages that they need to absolutely compensate with their advantage in high tech warfare. They have less men available and they need to keep the domestic approval up. If Vietnam has taught us one thing it's that the best way to beat the US is to inflict pain. You don't need to win against the US on the battlefield. It's much easier to win against them in their own approval ratings. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq... textbook examples of strategy on how to beat the US.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are different from something like a world war, especially if the United States was attacked first.

Those wars became a matter of "why the hell is the US even there" and segued from a "fight the commies/terrorists" to a matter of "holy crap this is a shitshow, how do we clean this up" that lasted for decades.

In a sense it's much easier to defeat a country with a standing army and a capital city on a map than scattered guerilla forces.

In the meantime, China, NK and Russia have a history of not giving two shits about approval ratings, dirty fighting and sending soldiers to the meatgrinder. All things the US needs to avoid in order for them to not lose moral support at home.

China and Russia aren't immune to social revolution if the population is pushed too far.

In fact they're textbook examples of that; that's why they have the governments they currently have. Russia practically flipped government systems three times in the past 100-ish years.

So there's no reason to think that China and Russia's population would "take it on the chin" if their governments play too fast and loose, especially if they see that their efforts are going to waste. They certainly didn't previously.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Men and politics. The US has two distinct disadvantages that they need to absolutely compensate with their advantage in high tech warfare. They have less men available and they need to keep the domestic approval up. If Vietnam has taught us one thing it's that the best way to beat the US is to inflict pain. You don't need to win against the US on the battlefield. It's much easier to win against them in their own approval ratings. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq... textbook examples of strategy on how to beat the US.

In the meantime, China, NK and Russia have a history of not giving two shits about approval ratings, dirty fighting and sending soldiers to the meatgrinder. All things the US needs to avoid in order for them to not lose moral support at home.

True on all fronts but do you remember after September 11th, forget what you may think happens on the date, I mean after, Stupidity was on HIGH for us, and we gave zero fucks. And yes the cooler heads tried to prevail and those were two very important financial centers were we all watched people die.

Left or Right We were pissed. So we didn't always give a shit about approval ratings, and those of our allies let us know and sent love, too bad it ended as many things just about anger, do.

But this is a dick measuring contest of the thread, and I don't think we need a reminder who can be the biggest dicks on the planets when we want to. Forget what flags and hated we have for one another in this country we have an amazing ability when it's all our asses on the line to say "FUCK THAT" and unite Against anyone if that means Russia and China.

Putin tries to appease us in the U.S and work us against one another for a reason, because nobody stands a chance to take us down but ourselves. Which we might likely do. By our own making.

No idea why you're just talking about the UK. The entire NATO alliance would stand with the US and together they'd totally clean up whoever attacked one of us.

I agree because I will admit if something goes down with many of our allies or they hurt like say Japan it feels personal. People take that thing called freedom kind of personally and what not.

[Puri]

What happened to our allies? They've signed treaties that they will help us in a war.

They would only be obliged to help when the US was attacked first, not when the US starts the war.

And btt, obviously an all out war would turn into a nuclear war, which means the "winner" of such a war in all likeliness would be countries in south america and south africa.

[caervek]

Haha you didn't read the fucking question

You didn't ask one (at least not in the post I replied to).

NO and the U.S or anyone sane would not likely follow anybody into some dumb shit like that

Context required, what is this in relation too?

as for Syria as I said you have a warped fucking view. That wasn't a war it was a conflict.

It wasn't an anything (apart from an embarrassment for Obama) because after we refused to help the US backed down.

But if the NK, China and Russia declared war the U.S wouldn't stand alone

Well of course but that isn't the subject of this thread or the conversation we were having.

and the U.K would stand with us despite your view

My view IS that the UK would stand with the US if it were attacked >.>

but I am open to being wrong

Well you've done well so far I guess...

[Khetagurov]

Europe would win by staying out of it

Europe would have no choice but to get involved. For one, I would expect Russian tanks to roll into the former soviet bloc countries virtually immediately, and even if they didn't, a world without the American counterbalance to Russia and China would be unthinkable to the EU and to Britain.

I think if this did happen, nuclear war would break out between India and Pakistan, also. Everyone would lose.

[Puri]

Europe would have no choice but to get involved. For one, I would expect Russian tanks to roll into the former soviet bloc countries virtually immediately, and even if they didn't, a world without the American counterbalance to Russia and China would be unthinkable to the EU and to Britain.

So? As this war will turn nuclear without any doubt, Europe can just stay neutral or even surrender and wait for those countries to turn themselves into glass deserts before getting rid of their occupation. No need to counterbalance marbles.

[Airlick]

How come it's so obvious to everyone that Russia would take China's side? I'm sure Russian leaders are painfully aware that the only thing keeping them in the game is their nuclear sabre rattling, since aside of that, they are 3rd rate at best compared to USA and China. If it comes to war between USA and China, Russia siding with China would mean it accepts its status as China's satellite state. Russia is the big unknown factor, since it's as likely to aid China as it is to stab it in the back or completely ignore a Sino-US war and roll its tanks into Europe, counting on European NATO crumbling with USA busy with China.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You didn't ask one (at least not in the post I replied to).

I am talking about the question in the thread, it's just about measuring something there are real answers for and this one has been pretty well settled. It's unwinnable in reality, and without nukes, we would still win.

Context required, what is this in relation too?

Well everybody I can safely say is sick of war, period so most in the U.S and U.K aren't really willing to jump to do that shit easily even if it's in the country they are in, UNLESS it actually came down to defense or survival, or aide of an Ally being attacked the same folks feel differently.

It wasn't an anything (apart from an embarrassment for Obama) because after we refused to help the US backed down.

You are delusional because that shit didn't fucking happen, maybe they refused some aide in terms of a conflict with Syria but we aren't at war, unless in this same place you think we lost to China and Russia and the U.K because of how you feel would let us be attacked without coming to our defense.

Well of course but that isn't the subject of this thread or the conversation we were having.

No and that is my entire point, in fact I am not even sure if Putin actually tried to do that or the Chinese Leadership they wouldn't have problems in their own countries starting a war especially with the U.S. If we attacked I am sure they would feel differently.

But either way we wouldn't

My view IS that the UK would stand with the US if it were attacked >.>

That is my only point.

Well you've done well so far I guess...

No I haven't I am right about Russia and China losing to us in a war, I could be wrong about the U.K so let see if others would echo what you say from the U.K yeah if the U.S was attacked then fuck us right?

[Independent voter]

No I haven't I am right about Russia and China losing to us in a war, I could be wrong about the U.K so let see if others would echo what you say from the U.K yeah if the U.S was attacked then fuck us right?

I think he's one of those Serbian refugees who reside in the UK and hates the US for some reason.

[Doctor Amadeus]

How come it's so obvious to everyone that Russia would take China's side? I'm sure Russian leaders are painfully aware that the only thing keeping them in the game is their nuclear sabre rattling, since aside of that, they are 3rd rate at best compared to USA and China. If it comes to war between USA and China, Russia siding with China would mean it accepts its status as China's satellite state. Russia is the big unknown factor, since it's as likely to aid China as it is to stab it in the back or completely ignore a Sino-US war and roll its tanks into Europe, counting on European NATO crumbling with USA busy with China.

That is a pretty good question, my guess is Putin wouldn't be that stupid. Neither would China or the U.S the Thread question is a pretty strange what if.

[Daevelian]

Man, awful lotta yanks tootin their own horns in this thread.

America would lose regardless of nukes if it went to war against China. America depends too much on China currently, it would cease to function as a country without their support.

[Themanintobuildafire]

America has 10 aircraft carriers....10.

Each aircraft carrier group has enough fire power to end most countries.

Best technology by far. The air superiority wouldn't even be a contest, and if you take nukes out and just look at who can bomb who...USA isn't going to lose that battle...but a war like this would kill more people than all previous wars combined.

[caervek]

You are delusional because that shit didn't fucking happen

30 August 2013, the UK voted against helping the USA invade Syria, after the loss of the USA's main ally Obama changed stance and backed down.

If we attacked I am sure they would feel differently.

While it was a US attack on Russia/China that was being discussed >.>

if the U.S was attacked then fuck us right?

Nobody has said that the USA wouldn't be supported by it's allies if it was attacked, in fact I believe I said it would. I was just pointing out that there is zero chance of the UK agreeing to assist the USA in invading Russia/China.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I think he's one of those Serbian refugees who reside in the UK and hates the US for some reason.

Well I don't know but he might have a lot of foggy ideas when it comes to the difference between rhetoric and reading people's actual convictions. Because it has nothing to do with what I believe either, any time something happens in the U.K or the U.S we are among the first to step up and help one another as well as most of the allies and even some that aren't.

It's also no foggy delusions of mine of patriotism either, but people generally are going to vote NO to burning down a house they are sitting in. I think whats happening in Texas is a pretty good indication of that.

[Airlick]

America has 10 aircraft carriers....10.

Each aircraft carrier group has enough fire power to end most countries.

Best technology by far. The air superiority wouldn't even be a contest, and if you take nukes out and just look at who can bomb who...USA isn't going to lose that battle...but a war like this would kill more people than all previous wars combined.

They have never ever been tested in actual warfare, unless you count millions of dollars worth jets bombing sandmen armed with AK-47s actual warfare. The thing with what appears on paper as all-powerful and invincible weapons may just not stand up to reality.

[Doctor Amadeus]

30 August 2013, the UK voted against helping the USA invade Syria, after the loss of the USA's main ally Obama changed stance and backed down.

That was a conflict not a war. The U.K didn't back it because they disagreed on the fundamentals of what for. Not because we needed them and they wouldn't come.

While it was a US attack on Russia/China that was being discussed >.>

It says if NK, China and Russia united against America.

Nobody has said that the USA wouldn't be supported by it's allies if it was attacked, in fact I believe I said it would. I was just pointing out that there is zero chance of the UK agreeing to assist the USA in invading Russia/China.

And why would we be invading China or Russia then?

Just decided to say fuck it, we're bored lets cause WW3.

Our dinner plans fell through, so let's go commit to a conflict that would likely end in millions of people dead?

[Puri]

America has 10 aircraft carriers....10.

Each aircraft carrier group has enough fire power to end most countries.

Best technology by far. The air superiority wouldn't even be a contest, and if you take nukes out and just look at who can bomb who...USA isn't going to lose that battle...but a war like this would kill more people than all previous wars combined.

The carriers would be the first to be ordered back into the harbours. They would be prime targets, they could attack each of those carriers with thousands of cruise missiles and the cost of such an attack would still be a tiny fraction of net worth of what was lost by a destroyed carrier.

[Doctor Amadeus]

They have never ever been tested in actual warfare, unless you count millions of dollars worth jets bombing sandmen armed with AK-47s actual warfare.

That is interesting and neither are all these bullshit experimental planes and and weapons China and Russia supposedly have. The reason we would end Putin is because we don't want to, the reason Putin couldn't end us is he can't there is a difference.

And as far as China goes, our economy is the best thing going for them right now, and their internal conflicts as it sits are something they are a hell of a lot more concerned with than with anybody else.

As long as WE don't attack, they are pretty much not going to fly all the way over here to fight on U.S Soil.

[caervek]

That is interesting and neither are all these bullshit experimental planes and and weapons China and Russia supposedly have

That's not true, Russia's planes have been extensively tested, you can find well tested pieces of them all over the middle east XD

[Doctor Amadeus]

That's not true, Russia's planes have been extensively tested, you can find well tested pieces of them all over the middle east XD

Ok, and if you are convinced Russia and China would kick our asses, I can't really convince you otherwise. The only thing you have is body count and in a conventional war without Nukes even that means next to nothing.