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

[kenthovind]

USA is run by Illuminati, and Illuminati did 9/11 and created ISIS. They are mad Russia shut down ISIS so now they will try to punish Russia. China, even though they are atheists, are clever enough to fall for America's lies that Assad used chem weapons.

(Infracted)

[Youn]

I believe the answer to this question is None of the Above would win the war. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) means exactly what it says. At the end of a war of those nations, there would be no nations left.

[Etselion]

Last i remember, some vietnamese farmers beat the shit out of a "very pissed" America.

[Deleted]

Europe would win by staying out of it

No, they wouldn't.

Either the US wins and thinks Europe are traitors for not helping out. Or NK/China/Russia win and come for Europe next. Either way it would be bad for Europe.
It would be a lot better to stand with the US and defeat the others.

[Martymark]

4 countries with 95%+ of the world's nukes in an all out war? Planetary death.

[Karlz0rz]

Under the premise of 3 nations uniting against the US, I assume that the US would also unit with their allies? If that is the case, then the US would win. If they didn't unite with their allies? The US would still win.
Have you seen their yearly spending on their military? ^^
If nukes are involved, no one wins.

[LaserChild9]

Good luck stopping a country with more than 4 times the population of the USA from winning a non-nuclear war.

In an ideal situation, you are probably right, if you put both armies on the same land mass, maybe china would just roll over the US, problem is, how do you get your armies onto US soil? That's a long way to move an entire army by sea/air, how much do you think would actually arrive?

[Karlz0rz]

Everyone dies. All out implies full nuclear engagement.

- - - Updated - - -



Op says all out war. All out implies nothing is held back, including nukes.

Then under that premise, no one wins :P. So I guess his question is a little redundant!

[Maruka]

I think the US air force would end up carpet bombing them into oblivion, many civilians would die in their respected countries. Ground forces would not be very effective. Oh and good luck invading mainland USA if it got that far.

[Ashnazg]

That's not true. Having air support makes a massive difference in ground wars and US would have a monopoly over the skies. Land forces are also the easiest to rally. Although the army now is relatively small millions could be conscripted and trained within a few months.

The US can't have monopoly over the skies of a modern nation with a fully functioning AA system. It just doesn't have enough technological supremacy to prevail over a nation that is number #1 world wide in rocketry design. For that matter, aircraft carriers won't be able to come close to the Russian shores to deploy planes effectively (both Black Sea and Baltic Sea are too small and narrow for US AC groups to enter, and both would make them too vulnerable to shore rocket fire), so deployments and sorties would have to be done from NATO bases in Europe, which themselves are vulnerable to return fire from Russian rockets.

[BuckSparkles]

NK isn't a threat. China and Russia might be scary, but I am still confident America would win. Our military technology is very advanced, and if gloves were off and our troops were not chained, we could easily decimate ground forces with our air force.

This is all assuming nukes were not used.

[Ehrenpanzer]

LOL no you are not further ahead of China, than Nazigermany was ahead of USSR. And China has the largest standing army in the world with 2,3 active troops, 0,9 million active troops more than USA.

Spoken by someone who clearly demonstrates they have absolutely no idea of how a modern war is conducted or planned.

WW2 and full scale infantry/mechanized brigade wars was 80 years ago. 2.3M active troops will do fuck all when they cant REACH their enemy.
Welcome to the age of drones, stealth fighters and bombers and naval warfare to strangle a country into submission. In every category the United States has an almost laughably inconceivable superior force to Russia and China put together, NK doesn't even deserve to be in the conversation.

[Deleted]

This is all assuming nukes were not used.

Of course they'll be used once a country feels it's about to lose. It's the whole reason Israel has them, and it's the reason North Korea pushes hard to develop theirs.

[Crispin]

Woah woah woah woah hold on a second there, NATO was designed to help the Europeans, if the US needed help, we would probably get the UK aiding us while everyone else condemned us for NK attacking us first kappa

Is that why the US is the only member to ever invoke article 5?

- - - Updated - - -

Americans see safety as a guarantee and when anything disrupts that they run in fear and cower. There are a few that would fight, and well, but so many Americans are divided that they would probably just shoot each other. A single company with air support and cities would fall.

Well tbh, America is filled with veteran soldiers, alot whom I suspect would be armed.

- - - Updated - - -

Last i remember, some vietnamese farmers beat the shit out of a "very pissed" America.

So you expect China and Russia would hide in their forests, dig tunnels etc.?

Let's be honest, the real loser in the Vietnam war was Vietnam, while it had some implications for the US, it didnt leave thousands of dead civilians and infrastructure destroyed. Afghanistan and the Iraq isnt really an example since the war was won so fast, yet the whole "nation building" project took years and utterly failed. Korea? Still to be determined I guess.

[BuckSparkles]

Of course they'll be used once a country feels it's about to lose. It's the whole reason Israel has them, and it's the reason North Korea pushes hard to develop theirs.

Very true. A desperate country would more than likely use them.

If Nazi Germany had nukes at the time as an example, I would bet 100% they would use them in the final stretch out of desperation.

[Eldar45]

We wouldn't all die in a nuclear war. It would be extremely bad but the human race and most of the planet would survive.

Now, lets assume that the war does not go nuclear, MAD is a pretty good deterrent. The eastern coalition would win in the long term if the US doesn't get any help. Include NATO in this and the Western allies win but only after many years of war.

[Rustedsaint]

I lol every time some one mentions Vietnam beating the USA
58k do to ambushes versus over 1million Vietnam soldiers
https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War
Any invading army will suffer casualties in a guerrilla warfare case due to ambushes and traps .
I can see nk trying that but Russia or China? Only if the USA actually sent land troops in and didn't just flatten the place with their aircraft

[ReleaseDay]

Europe would win by staying out of it

Europe is already gone.

[Deleted]

No, they wouldn't.

Either the US wins and thinks Europe are traitors for not helping out. Or NK/China/Russia win and come for Europe next. Either way it would be bad for Europe.
It would be a lot better to stand with the US and defeat the others.

It does not matter what the US thinks in such a situation. Nor would it matter what NK,China,Russia thinks because all those involved in such a war would be decimated back to the stone age and at best back to the iron age even if nuclear weaponry was avoided.

Their is also the fact that the 3 Western European powers are still in the top 10 Military spenders worldwide (France, Britain, Germany) and will probably go up in the list after such a war happens (Because America, China, Russia and NK will cease to exist and will be renamed as the wasteland). Two of those nations have nuclear weaponry and the Germans have the power to go Nuclear within a few months.

The Americans also have never stomached the wars the Europeans (French, Germans, British, Russians) or the Asian powers such as China have fought.
Just look at how many Americans died in WW2 and WW1 combined or even the American Civil war. Those wars would be a minor skirmish compared to the casulties of battles like Stalingrad, Verdun. The casulties from those 3 wars (ww1,ww2, acw) are not even close to what China suffered during the Taiping Rebellion.
America does not have the stomach for such a war.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I don't know. Ask Vietnam, Korea and parts of the the middle east how overwhelming the US was/is...

Haha you fucking serious those are wars and conflicts on completely different terms than the the fiction in the OP. Because by that measure Russia and China have both gotten their asses kicked by the same measures.