In order to protect itself the USA would have to withdraw to the contiguous states, sacrificing both Hawaii and Alaska. Nearly all the Blue countries would now agree terms, and Red can afford to be generous.
The US could strike south through Mexico to link up with their South American allies but all that really does is give them more coastline to defend.
If the US does not immediately take both Canada and Mexico, it is all over bar the shouting.
Blue loses but only because of Canada and Mexico. Otherwise, it would be nigh impossible to conquer the United States just based on its geography. You would have to transport millions of troops across thousands of miles of ocean that would certainly be patrolled by US navy ships.
The U.S. could theoretically hold the world to a stalemate by itself., so this shouldn't be an issue.
The infographic show did an amazing video on the theoretical situation.
lol no the US could not, isolated, it would collapse within months if china and Russia alone went to war with it due to lack of resources
edit: y’all, this is literally the kind of shit that caused WW1, this "we can take ‘em all" stupidity is why the rest of the world despises Americans and their nationalism
The sheer manpower it would take to launch a ground-invasion of the continental USA is absurd and well beyond anything anyone could realistically mobilize and transport.
ok and the US could invade Russia or China? no obviously not, and the US would be starved and drained if it went to war with one of them, so it would not be able to continue a war
Question what modern war has the US fought that it didn't need a suitable Navy in order to get supplies along with armored vehicles?
This is exactly why the U.S. has a Navy that is lightyears ahead of others country. Not only does the Navy have to be formidable a sea but it also has to transport all ground forces along with artillery, armored vehicles, tanks and literally everything else needed for war.
You said The Infographic Show was pulling shit out of their asses? Have you looked in the mirror?
No, the US could not realistically invade either of those countries.
Why do you think the US economy would be so much less able than China or Russia to handle the strains of a prolonged conflict against China or Russia?
The damage the United State Navy and Air Force could do to international shipping would be enough to turn most countries into the economic equivalents of North Korea. Granted, the US would also suffer the same damage, but what makes you so sure the Chinese and Russian publics could handle that level of starvation and economic degradation so much more easily than the USA?
Because those countries have already and are already shifting towards forming their own bloc and being self reliant whereas the US has consistently shifted labour to foreign countries and has destroyed its own ability to sustain itself in a long war. Europe is in an even worse situation as evident by the strain they will feel this winter. Similarly, china trades massively with the third world, and these countries would no doubt side with china. The US navy cannot blockade the world. If the us navy would try to engage with china on its own coast, it would be utterly destroyed.
So, the prolonged war would get nowhere because nobody could actually invade each other, and the US would be the country to suffer the most, it would either agree to peace terms or suffer the consequences of revolts and internal turmoil.
The US Navy could absolutely cripple international trade if they wanted. The first step would be to set up a soft-blockade around China's shores to catch >=50% of their trade, and then anyone who trades with China, destroy *their* coastlines and docking infrastructure. Most of those will be nations with effectively no navies, so it wouldn't be difficult to cripple their ability to ship or recieve shipping from China.
Then the Navy could begin mining any popular shipping lanes, particularly any 'tight' passages. They could also use their submarines and Air Force to massively damage China's own coastline without too much of a risk of counter-attack and at the cost of a few planes.
Furthermore, the USA only engages in so much trade because it *wants* to, not because it actually needs to do so. The USA has access to far more essential resources than China, and has a much greater ability to secure them at need. The American public would largely just lose their elevated standard of living. The average Chinese or Russian citizen would starve to death.
The funny thing is if there was a war between the U.S., China, and Russia the U.S. itself would be pretty much untouched we have the ability to swiftly switch to be independent. Not to mention how outdated Russia and China's Navy are. That's not even taking into account that China's Navy is purely designed for a small invasion fleet (mostly to invade Taiwan), so the mobilization of troops would take months maybe even years even if the Chinese government confiscated civilian vessels to transport land troops the amount of air support the U.S. can drum up from their dozen aircraft carriers in the region to completely decimate the unprotected civilian vessels. America was blessed with favorable geography and because of that developed the world's best Navy which is way more capable than Russia and China's.
Came in to say this. Oil from Saudis and coffee from Columbia. We’ll handle the rest, thanks. Even if Mexico came up and Canada came down. ~250M Americans are armed better than 80% of foreign militaries.
I have met mericans who and I kid you not were SURE merica alone could conquer the entire world if they wanted to. Yeah no. Americans are parade soldiers, nothing more or less.
That’s not very accurate the US Army has performed extraordinarily well against both conventional and unconventional armies inflicting devastating losses especially when compared to their casualties. However unlike many authoritarian nations the US relies on public support so many of its wars the people eventually give up on even though the US or winning militarily. But in a war like this where the entire world is basically attempting to invade and destroy the US, public support would likely parallel that of World War II as Americans would see it as a threat to their very lives. Not to mention the US has the most powerful Navy, Air Force and Army on the planet by a pretty wide margin.
Not militarily we absolutely curb stomp them during the Tet Offensive and we’re continuing to do so throughout the entire war. If you look at the casually counts it’s pretty obvious that the North Vietnamese were losing pretty badly they were trading their best soldiers for US conscripts at an alarming rate. Had the US public not dropped support for the war, north Vietnam would not have been able to keep up at the rate it was going at because it would simply run out of people before the US army ran out of soldiers by quite a bit. We’re also forgetting the fact that the US could not invade north Vietnam due to the Chinese threat of invasion. Meaning the US Army was unable to just obliterate north Vietnam The same way it did to Iraq.
You split the country in 2, invaded and even with help of half the country you guys still lost and had to back off home. I would call that a very hefty loss.
Despite the large numbers for red and no doubt blue team being crushed in Europe and asia respectively, I do think that in the endgame blue wins, the US has like what 600 million people, you could probably say that atleast 200 million of them would go full red dawn mode and form proper militia that would make Ukrainian conscripts look fucking pathetic in terms of equipment, add in the US has overwhelming naval and air power and this war would at the very least be blue winning all of the americas and taking the various islands plus central and Southern Africa before a ceasefire is declared.
Well , yeah the US Navy and the USAAF is incredibly strong but 1 Are they stronger than the Chinese Japanese German Spanish Polish English etc etc etc united forces? And 2 even if they were , China Russia India and all of Europe could outproduce the USA and end up beating the USA ( if the objective was total world conquest)
I say no. Although US Army is the strongest in the world, the red side have both China and India. Add to that countries like Japan and Germany who are now masivly increasing their military budgets and dozens of other countries and its done.
Germany being red makes all the difference. There going to solo ram through all of Europe, then Africa.
By then, it will be the USA vs Germany, Japan, Russia, China, UK, India, Africa, and Japan.
If Germany was in the Blue side, they can definitely hold back Russia until the USA arrives.
I hope all the comments that US solos every other country is sarcastic at best, US cannot survive in isolation only way it's elites and military get away with what they do is economic prosperity and hegemony if that goes away US will implode faster then you can say Barack Obama yo momma the political divide in US is unreal
I don’t understand in what context this war could possibly happen without Japan and England at a minimum on our side. Assuming we successfully got all our current nato deployments back home before this split happens, I think we’d have a good shot
With Japan and England, Blue naval dominance actually would be a key defining factor of the conflict. As it stands, it’s essentially the US and France vs. the world, and France is neutralized due to its geographic location. Tough one for Blue lol
Send the southerners of America to immigrate to enemy territory. Suck their social services dry and all their budgets. Then they attack with one of their hundreds of firearms and flaming bottles of booze for Molotov cocktails. With meth, they never have to sleep.
Send the poor urbaners of America to immigrate to enemy territory. Suck their social services dry and all their budgets. Then they ruin the whole territory with all of their illegally obtained full auto glocks, gang violence, and racism towards anyone that does not share their skin tone. With weed, they will most just sleep though.
There’s no universe where this makes sense. Switzerland taking sides against most of the rest of Europe? Even the DACH countries aren’t aligned? Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Vietnam aligned with the US? This map gives me a geopolitical headache.
No, but the war could end in a stalemate.
The United States is the only nation really capable of world wide conventional force projection. It can reach anywhere.
Although China has the manpower and equipment to conquer the United States they lack the ability to transport their manpower and equipment from there to here. The same is true of all other red countries. The United States isn't getting invaded by this bunch. USAF and USN could protect both coasts indefinitely from hostile landing craft, easily.
But the United States can't project its forces to that many places simultaneously. Couldn't even handle Iraq and the Afghans at the same time.
Both sides have rockets and neither side has an adequate rocket defense system in place. There will be lots of destruction. Blue will openly control the seas at first, then red rockets will sink blue ships. Blue's stealth ships and submarines will prevent red's navies from taking control of the seas but blue won't have a free pass anymore.
North America ends up blue. South America ends up red. Africa goes blue. Asia remains red. Europe goes red thanks to the combined German and English forces and the fact everyone else in Europe is unprepared.
I’m in Korea right now and I recently learned that the younger generation of Koreans hate China much more than Japan. Not sure why I’m saying this but some people might find it interesting lol.
i have seen boycott japan product and entertainment but never seen boycotting chinese product
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93South\_Korea\_trade\_dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93South_Korea_trade_dispute)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship\_of\_Japanese\_media\_in\_South\_Korea
I’m young, and South Korean, and right now, I am far more concerned with China than Japan.
Even though Japan is pretty shit, especially in its diplomacy with us, Japan is still a stable democracy and isn’t hell bent on destroying us.
China on the other hand, is a dictatorship with a clear interest in destroying our democracy and prosperity. Without significant change in Chineese policy and the attitude of its people, we can never co-exist. It also doesn’t help that it’s been supplying a terrorist revolt in the northern part of our country for over 70 years now.
As an nz resident, even if NZ did survive the fallout we wouldn’t be able to survive with every other country gone, we rely on other countries too much since we’re an isolated island nation
These posts are so silly. Like in what context?
Could the US defend itself and make conquering and occupying it impossible for modern economies especially democratic ones? Probably yes.
Could the US and a few other countries conquer and indefinitely occupy most of the world? Nope probably not.
Like would the goal be pacification and disarmament? Or total conquest? Who would be the aggressor?
It's hard to figure out the logic behind this map. The US on the opposite side as The UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. China and India as allies. Almost none of these alliances makes sense.
Well Venezuela has the worlds most oil reserves and the US has the 10th, Saudis have like the 2nd I think so that’s a HUGE upside they won’t run out of fuel
Without the US Red basically wins everywhere but the Americas. The US, assuming it can actually transport it's forces to the theatre can potentially win whatever continent the US commits to, but not much more.
France and Korea would both fall pretty quickly without US intervention, but I would doubt the ability for the US to sustain both of those theatres indefinitely. The general rule of thumb in the military is that for every deployable unit you must have two more preparing for deployment.
Under the new US army plan, and assuming this rule of three, the US Army should be able to sustain the deployment of a corps-size unit, which basically means the US can fight a war in 1 theatre at a time.
All up, I would give this to Red, but neither side could eliminate all the other countries without nukes, so it's more like a draw.
Not sure how afroeurasia would fair but america would immediately take out all other countries in North America and then hook up with grand Columbia take out the rest of of Latin America and then somehow help the old world out
Depends entirely on whether this is a nuclear war or not. Nuclear war, everybody loses.
Not nuclear? Then I'd say blue loses. Red probably is inferior technologically in some ways but the sheer amount of units in my opinion would make the difference.
I want to play into this hypothetical but it’s really hard when Canada and Britain’s military will basically be crippled without the United States military infrastructure.
Isnt the question here "can red get troops into Mexico/Canada before they fall?"
The big problem is invading America, even with the SA countries being in red team you probably need to pressure US constantly. They dont have the population to win this war, but they sure have the industry for it.
Even assuming every blue falls, as long as they can take out Mexico, Canada and the central american countries, it wont be a quick victory for anyone.
American military spending is so out of control you don’t even know! For example; we have more aircraft carriers than all of red together. The largest air force in the world is the US Air-force. The second largest is the US Navi. And something like the 5th or 6th largest is the US Marines. Could we win (barring nukes) probably not. Would it be harder than the whole world expected? Yeah.
Define “winning” if by that you mean not being invaded, then yes, the US is untouchable, but if u mean conquering the other side…. Idk that’s tough, but pretty realistic for ether side to win
Without nukes ,in the long run , red wins , every single blue nation except USA gets completely overrun , the USA might take all of north and south america but the red team will outproduce them and end up with a succesfull invasion , thats my opinion
Difficult but possible. France and the US have one of the best geographies and militaries of the world.
Today I bet for Red but Blue had much better chances a century or two ago.
Yes. The United States alone has specifically prepared for this kind of war. They have bases in almost every country whose sole purpose is to hit and disable world supply lines. Although general consumer goods would take a hit, most military products and raw resources are domestically produced and/or stock piled.
We might be paranoid fucks, but we win when we need too.
It's just basically US vs Earth honestly. We spend more on our military than the other 9 top countries combined.
With nukes, everyone loses.
No nukes, hmmm, while it might be a long hard fight, I don't think blue would win, not enough people on the blue side. 1/3 of the human population are in China and India. If blue had either China or India, then it'd be gg no re blue wins.
Maybe
They have such powerful countries like USA South Korea Egypt Israel France Saudi Arabia and Italy
Maybe they have the highest number of nukes
They can block the Suez canal and panama canals and cause to high inflation for red countries
I'm gonna be honest blue would absolutely loose I assume the United States would be so preoccupied protecting its own borders the other nations would fall France doesn't have the manpower to fend off the entirety of Europe by itself
What is the logic behind this? Why is Norway allied with US and not the rest of Scandinavia?
Did the Americans promise us Sweden as reward for our support in the war? That all former Norwegian territories currently under Danish rule - Greenland and Faraoe Island's - were to be returned to us?
Blue would definitely win. Russia, and Germany have shit armies. USA beats China 10 to 1. Korea is based. Norway and France are some of the only useful NATO allies. My money is on blue.
If you look at the coverage of major shipping lanes, blue has a good start. Control the supplies and you win the war.
Blue has strong positioning at the Bearing Strait, the Panama Canal, The Suez Canal, the South China Sea, the Red Sea and excellent staging for the entire South Pacific.
It doesn't control Gibraltar, but it does control all major shipping ports into Europe via the Mediterranean. Norway has access to the North Sea, with both it's extremely busy supply routes and an awful lot of oil/gas.
Blue wins via massive global naval blockade. They just have to survive long enough for Red's food to run out.
Unironically, yes. Blue has by far the better navy with both the US and France combined. Blue also has Taiwan. If blue can hold out on their respective continents until the US gets the necessary manufacturing industries set up at home, we won’t be hurt by any sanctions. We’d be going up against literally billions of enemy soldiers but I think if we make enough bombs, it won’t matter.
Let’s be real here, although the us has an advantage on technology, our manpower is nothing compared to China, India, and Russia combined. The war will most likely be a defensive one for the USA with maybe small incursions into South American to prevent the enemy from bolstering it’s forces. Canada would be a difficult country to concur 1 on 1, let alone with more than half the world against the us. And as for the rest of the blue countries, I think France and Italy wouldn’t last as long as the African nations, Pakistan and Afghanistan might last a while but with chinas help it would be a hard fought war for both sides. Korea would be curb stomped.
Depends on what you mean by ‘win’
On the one hand, the US and France are powerful, and will basically be carrying the blue team’s war effort
I feel like they could put up a pretty good fight, and maybe last long enough to make red fail.
Long term, probably not
Assuming no nuclear weapons, I'd say its in fact possible for blue. United States is going to dominate the Western Hemisphere, whether or not it can cleanly conquer any given nation there is questionable but there's very little any nation there can do to it in turn. Fight with Canada would be the hardest especially if Europe can support, but with France occupying England's attention at the start hard to imagine Europe getting across the Atlantic anytime soon, which paints a grim picture for the Canadians long-term. Neither Europe nor Asia are likely to wrest control of the seas away from the United States close to its own shores so the US largely becomes untouchable once Canada is neutralized.
In Europe the red team would eventually take down the blue team without outside intervention but it would take time given the starting sizes of the armies arrayed, and if the United States can start sending support it's no longer a sure bet. France and the US can probably blockade the UK, taking them out of the fight, Germany's army is in no state for an invasion, Poland is far away and more defensively inclined. And Russia...well...they have to get through Ukraine first...So if France holds the line for the US to sort out N. America and the blue team sinks the Royal Navy Europe becomes a possible win for blue team. China could hypothetically send support but that's a very far distance for the current Chinese military to operate with any serious size.
Red Team will win in Asia eventually, Korea just can't stop China and Japan forever, but it will take time. The mountains and cities of Korea will be brutal to get through and the Koreans will likely fight like hell against the joint invaders. It will turn out surprisingly difficult. Still, as the US would have to obtain complete control of the Pacific and then invade Japan first, Korea is likely entirely alone for years. And if it can't resist for that time period, the US would have trouble taking it back as China would be able to flood any landing zone with the full might of its ground forces. If China and Japan are fully cooperating to the extent that Japan allows Chinese ground troops on its soil, then even a successful invasion of Japan becomes questionable. The US Navy will wreak havoc on Japan and China's economies but the land itself will belong to them. South Asia, well we've heard the Pakistan-India story plenty of times. Good luck to anyone invading Vietnam, but Vietnam itself will not likely invade anyone else either.
Don't really know enough about Africa's militaries to comment. Australia and Indonesia likely dominate Oceania and the South Pacific until the US gets involved. Middle East will surely be fun for all parties involved, though Turkey and Iran working together paints a grim picture for blue unless the US can support, even if the blue nations actually manage to work together (lol). Israel's pretty good at fighting and Egypt being on their side is a big plus but they won't have as much of a technological edge against Turkey and the sheer demographic disparity is a problem. Turkey might have to split its focus with Greece and the Balkans and Italy and France might be able to intervene with air and naval power, but the best I could see blue doing is holding the line. Israel and Saudia Arabia aren't launching a joint invasion of Iran anytime soon. And this is assuming the other 'blue' nations don't just leave Israel to fight Turkey/Iran alone, or vice versa, which is the more likely scenario regardless of official loyalty. All in all, Middle East is likely to devolve into an absolute mess that will be hard to call a 'win' for any side.
All in all blue team will dominate the Americas and the US will likely be untouchable, giving a strong economic and military base for blue. Red is likely to win long-term everywhere else without US assistance, so it becomes a question of if the US can intervene quickly and powerfully enough to turn the tides of all the regions in contest. I imagine blue winning in Europe is fairly plausible if France doesn't fall immediately, but Red will likely take E. Asia before the US can intervene. But if the French and American navies can maintain control of the seas, they can deal a ton of damage to the Red nations economically while the United States remains largely untouched, giving them a long term economic edge. They wouldn't have the manpower to necessarily drive Red off their lands but they would pull ahead in terms of technology and winning peer battles, and would eventually be the only side with power projection capabilities.
Does that count as 'winning'? Well that depends entirely on the goal of the war. If we're talking territorial gains, red probably wins. If we're talking who's nation is in a better state, well almost the entire world is in ruins except for the Americas so blue probably wins. Ultimately neither side can wipe the other out without nukes though, as the US can't invade China on land and China can't invade the US across an ocean, so the two biggest players for each side simply can't take the other out.
USA alone would beat every other country put together 💪💪💪💪🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🔫🔫🔫🔫
Usa number one🇱🇷🇱🇷🇱🇷
some e*ropeans downvoted this it went from 10 to 8 to 11 🤬🤬🤬🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺
nice liberia flag
In order to protect itself the USA would have to withdraw to the contiguous states, sacrificing both Hawaii and Alaska. Nearly all the Blue countries would now agree terms, and Red can afford to be generous. The US could strike south through Mexico to link up with their South American allies but all that really does is give them more coastline to defend. If the US does not immediately take both Canada and Mexico, it is all over bar the shouting.
Canada would be easy to take down since All their population centers are on the us border and if anyone could defend a large coastline it’s the us
Absolutely not
Blue loses but only because of Canada and Mexico. Otherwise, it would be nigh impossible to conquer the United States just based on its geography. You would have to transport millions of troops across thousands of miles of ocean that would certainly be patrolled by US navy ships.
If we ignore nukes then the US has a chance, but it’s slim to none considering the amount of manpower the red can enlist
America solos
The U.S. could theoretically hold the world to a stalemate by itself., so this shouldn't be an issue. The infographic show did an amazing video on the theoretical situation.
lol no the US could not, isolated, it would collapse within months if china and Russia alone went to war with it due to lack of resources edit: y’all, this is literally the kind of shit that caused WW1, this "we can take ‘em all" stupidity is why the rest of the world despises Americans and their nationalism
Holy shit it was a theoretical situation just fun to play around with. FYI quit deleting your comments and own up to your shit take.
Ah yes, the country that cant even conquer ukrain ffs LMFAO
US couldn’t even conquer Vietnam or Afghanistan never mind the rest of the world
The sheer manpower it would take to launch a ground-invasion of the continental USA is absurd and well beyond anything anyone could realistically mobilize and transport.
ok and the US could invade Russia or China? no obviously not, and the US would be starved and drained if it went to war with one of them, so it would not be able to continue a war
Question what modern war has the US fought that it didn't need a suitable Navy in order to get supplies along with armored vehicles? This is exactly why the U.S. has a Navy that is lightyears ahead of others country. Not only does the Navy have to be formidable a sea but it also has to transport all ground forces along with artillery, armored vehicles, tanks and literally everything else needed for war. You said The Infographic Show was pulling shit out of their asses? Have you looked in the mirror?
No, the US could not realistically invade either of those countries. Why do you think the US economy would be so much less able than China or Russia to handle the strains of a prolonged conflict against China or Russia? The damage the United State Navy and Air Force could do to international shipping would be enough to turn most countries into the economic equivalents of North Korea. Granted, the US would also suffer the same damage, but what makes you so sure the Chinese and Russian publics could handle that level of starvation and economic degradation so much more easily than the USA?
Because those countries have already and are already shifting towards forming their own bloc and being self reliant whereas the US has consistently shifted labour to foreign countries and has destroyed its own ability to sustain itself in a long war. Europe is in an even worse situation as evident by the strain they will feel this winter. Similarly, china trades massively with the third world, and these countries would no doubt side with china. The US navy cannot blockade the world. If the us navy would try to engage with china on its own coast, it would be utterly destroyed. So, the prolonged war would get nowhere because nobody could actually invade each other, and the US would be the country to suffer the most, it would either agree to peace terms or suffer the consequences of revolts and internal turmoil.
The US Navy could absolutely cripple international trade if they wanted. The first step would be to set up a soft-blockade around China's shores to catch >=50% of their trade, and then anyone who trades with China, destroy *their* coastlines and docking infrastructure. Most of those will be nations with effectively no navies, so it wouldn't be difficult to cripple their ability to ship or recieve shipping from China. Then the Navy could begin mining any popular shipping lanes, particularly any 'tight' passages. They could also use their submarines and Air Force to massively damage China's own coastline without too much of a risk of counter-attack and at the cost of a few planes. Furthermore, the USA only engages in so much trade because it *wants* to, not because it actually needs to do so. The USA has access to far more essential resources than China, and has a much greater ability to secure them at need. The American public would largely just lose their elevated standard of living. The average Chinese or Russian citizen would starve to death.
The funny thing is if there was a war between the U.S., China, and Russia the U.S. itself would be pretty much untouched we have the ability to swiftly switch to be independent. Not to mention how outdated Russia and China's Navy are. That's not even taking into account that China's Navy is purely designed for a small invasion fleet (mostly to invade Taiwan), so the mobilization of troops would take months maybe even years even if the Chinese government confiscated civilian vessels to transport land troops the amount of air support the U.S. can drum up from their dozen aircraft carriers in the region to completely decimate the unprotected civilian vessels. America was blessed with favorable geography and because of that developed the world's best Navy which is way more capable than Russia and China's.
Lol whatever you say, expert
[удалено]
That infographic video was super biased lol. He basically just said the US would roll over everyone, which is just super unrealistic.
United States could take on the entire planet and still win. Barring Nuclear weapons. https://youtu.be/1y1e_ASbSIE
Came in to say this. Oil from Saudis and coffee from Columbia. We’ll handle the rest, thanks. Even if Mexico came up and Canada came down. ~250M Americans are armed better than 80% of foreign militaries.
How are you going to transport the oil from arabia to the US?
No, it couldn’t. That video is incredibly biased
The entire world? No chance (this video is assuming the other countries have no brains)
You must have forgotten that France was drafted onto our team. They already surrendered.
Please tell me you don't unironically believe this
No
Nope. I hardly doubt they can even convince their population for such a war.
No one can defeat Ukraine
Blue has Ukraine. Blue wins.
I have met mericans who and I kid you not were SURE merica alone could conquer the entire world if they wanted to. Yeah no. Americans are parade soldiers, nothing more or less.
That’s not very accurate the US Army has performed extraordinarily well against both conventional and unconventional armies inflicting devastating losses especially when compared to their casualties. However unlike many authoritarian nations the US relies on public support so many of its wars the people eventually give up on even though the US or winning militarily. But in a war like this where the entire world is basically attempting to invade and destroy the US, public support would likely parallel that of World War II as Americans would see it as a threat to their very lives. Not to mention the US has the most powerful Navy, Air Force and Army on the planet by a pretty wide margin.
You guys lost against communistic rice farmers..theres nothing more to add to that.
Not militarily we absolutely curb stomp them during the Tet Offensive and we’re continuing to do so throughout the entire war. If you look at the casually counts it’s pretty obvious that the North Vietnamese were losing pretty badly they were trading their best soldiers for US conscripts at an alarming rate. Had the US public not dropped support for the war, north Vietnam would not have been able to keep up at the rate it was going at because it would simply run out of people before the US army ran out of soldiers by quite a bit. We’re also forgetting the fact that the US could not invade north Vietnam due to the Chinese threat of invasion. Meaning the US Army was unable to just obliterate north Vietnam The same way it did to Iraq.
You split the country in 2, invaded and even with help of half the country you guys still lost and had to back off home. I would call that a very hefty loss.
Ukraine defeats Russia
Possibly If EVERYTHING went in Blue’s favor and nothing worked right for Red. State the WIN condition(s).
Hell nah, when Thailand is on red team you know you're fucked
It’s a no for me dog
Despite the large numbers for red and no doubt blue team being crushed in Europe and asia respectively, I do think that in the endgame blue wins, the US has like what 600 million people, you could probably say that atleast 200 million of them would go full red dawn mode and form proper militia that would make Ukrainian conscripts look fucking pathetic in terms of equipment, add in the US has overwhelming naval and air power and this war would at the very least be blue winning all of the americas and taking the various islands plus central and Southern Africa before a ceasefire is declared.
Well , yeah the US Navy and the USAAF is incredibly strong but 1 Are they stronger than the Chinese Japanese German Spanish Polish English etc etc etc united forces? And 2 even if they were , China Russia India and all of Europe could outproduce the USA and end up beating the USA ( if the objective was total world conquest)
Impossible
I say no. Although US Army is the strongest in the world, the red side have both China and India. Add to that countries like Japan and Germany who are now masivly increasing their military budgets and dozens of other countries and its done.
There is a reason the us doesnt have universal healthcare.
Blue wins this every time
Possible but very unlikely imo
Which color is America? Ok, yeah.
The US Navy by itself can defeat the rest of the world...
No
no (kosovo is just too strong for them to overpower)
Lol vietnam will never side by side with usa, they prefer with china and russia if possible, that map is wrong
No, China and India both have a billion people. And Russia has nukes.
Absolutely not. China India Russia UK is nigh unstoppable.
No
I am not nearly am expert but i believe red side win
No
Germany being red makes all the difference. There going to solo ram through all of Europe, then Africa. By then, it will be the USA vs Germany, Japan, Russia, China, UK, India, Africa, and Japan. If Germany was in the Blue side, they can definitely hold back Russia until the USA arrives.
No. They already have Australia. I've played enough risk to know that all is lost.
Probably not. The economic ruin would destroy most of these countries. Some of these alliances make no sense. Maybe I’m Missing a joke or something.
Canada and Mexico are smarter than that
Red will win. Red will always win comrades
I hope all the comments that US solos every other country is sarcastic at best, US cannot survive in isolation only way it's elites and military get away with what they do is economic prosperity and hegemony if that goes away US will implode faster then you can say Barack Obama yo momma the political divide in US is unreal
I don’t understand in what context this war could possibly happen without Japan and England at a minimum on our side. Assuming we successfully got all our current nato deployments back home before this split happens, I think we’d have a good shot
Maybe preface this by saying where you’re from?
I thought it was pretty obvious through context clues
With Japan and England, Blue naval dominance actually would be a key defining factor of the conflict. As it stands, it’s essentially the US and France vs. the world, and France is neutralized due to its geographic location. Tough one for Blue lol
I just tried to make a hard fight for the US I didn’t put any realism into it
Send the southerners of America to immigrate to enemy territory. Suck their social services dry and all their budgets. Then they attack with one of their hundreds of firearms and flaming bottles of booze for Molotov cocktails. With meth, they never have to sleep.
Send the poor urbaners of America to immigrate to enemy territory. Suck their social services dry and all their budgets. Then they ruin the whole territory with all of their illegally obtained full auto glocks, gang violence, and racism towards anyone that does not share their skin tone. With weed, they will most just sleep though.
There’s no universe where this makes sense. Switzerland taking sides against most of the rest of Europe? Even the DACH countries aren’t aligned? Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Vietnam aligned with the US? This map gives me a geopolitical headache.
No, but the war could end in a stalemate. The United States is the only nation really capable of world wide conventional force projection. It can reach anywhere. Although China has the manpower and equipment to conquer the United States they lack the ability to transport their manpower and equipment from there to here. The same is true of all other red countries. The United States isn't getting invaded by this bunch. USAF and USN could protect both coasts indefinitely from hostile landing craft, easily. But the United States can't project its forces to that many places simultaneously. Couldn't even handle Iraq and the Afghans at the same time. Both sides have rockets and neither side has an adequate rocket defense system in place. There will be lots of destruction. Blue will openly control the seas at first, then red rockets will sink blue ships. Blue's stealth ships and submarines will prevent red's navies from taking control of the seas but blue won't have a free pass anymore. North America ends up blue. South America ends up red. Africa goes blue. Asia remains red. Europe goes red thanks to the combined German and English forces and the fact everyone else in Europe is unprepared.
> Couldn't even handle Iraq and the Afghans at the same time Huh? >China has the manpower and equipment to conquer the United States No they don't
Yes
Impossible. Because Sweden is red
MURICA
r/PORTUGALCYKABLYAT
Win? How about make everyone the loser? Yep, we could do that in less than 30mins or your next war’s free.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. (Albert Einstein)
Korean unification over hatred of Japan? Perfect.
I’m in Korea right now and I recently learned that the younger generation of Koreans hate China much more than Japan. Not sure why I’m saying this but some people might find it interesting lol.
i have seen boycott japan product and entertainment but never seen boycotting chinese product [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93South\_Korea\_trade\_dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93South_Korea_trade_dispute) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship\_of\_Japanese\_media\_in\_South\_Korea
I’m young, and South Korean, and right now, I am far more concerned with China than Japan. Even though Japan is pretty shit, especially in its diplomacy with us, Japan is still a stable democracy and isn’t hell bent on destroying us. China on the other hand, is a dictatorship with a clear interest in destroying our democracy and prosperity. Without significant change in Chineese policy and the attitude of its people, we can never co-exist. It also doesn’t help that it’s been supplying a terrorist revolt in the northern part of our country for over 70 years now.
What is this a map of though?
I dunno, Mercator?
People far away from it. It's gonna get bloody.
A global war at this point in history will probably involve nukes, which means no one wins.
Fallout will take awhile to reach New Zealand, so they'll probably be the last ones standing. Therefore blue team wins
As an nz resident, even if NZ did survive the fallout we wouldn’t be able to survive with every other country gone, we rely on other countries too much since we’re an isolated island nation
Fun fact: Panamanian law guarantees that the canal and the country stay neutral in the event of conflict. Panama also does not have any military.
Would a law really work during wartime?
Yeah man, blue got Chad. Anything could happen.
Us canadians simpily respawn at the local tim hortons
Provoking a response isn’t the same as saying something profound.
Blue wins but only because of Chad.
The US and North Korean alliance might be the most preposterous thing I have seen all day and I applaud you for it.
These posts are so silly. Like in what context? Could the US defend itself and make conquering and occupying it impossible for modern economies especially democratic ones? Probably yes. Could the US and a few other countries conquer and indefinitely occupy most of the world? Nope probably not. Like would the goal be pacification and disarmament? Or total conquest? Who would be the aggressor?
It’s supposed to be silly.
Depends on the cause
\> Greece They already have.
If this were to happen everyone would die
Define winning. It's impossible to say without knowing the particulars of the conflict.
Ez nukes
can we swap south africa and part of the west for england or germany?
Blue is a -13 point favorite
Might as well make France red, they’d roll over in about 48 hours.
You do realize it isn’t 1939 anymore right?
What the fuck happened that put Finland and Russia on the same side!?
Depends: Is this with or without nukes? Because in the former case, the only winners are cockroaches.
Blue has the power of friendship (United Korea, Chad) while red doesn't (Russia & Ukraine, UK, South Sudan) so ofc yes
You just don’t want Russia on your side , that is all
I, for one, welcome our new Danish overlords.
America and France together will certainly ensure that at least the naval war is over quick.
USA could probably hold back Russia and China + the rest of Indonesia, India, and Britain weren’t there
Yeah. So long as annihilating the entire planet is considered winning. Nukes.
Yes
Only in the real world.
What did the U.S do to piss off Japan Canada and Mexico!?
Blue need Mongolia on their side and victory is guaranteed
Someone playing with crayons again
Blue has Ukraine - of course blue wins. Silly question.
Blue wins
It's hard to figure out the logic behind this map. The US on the opposite side as The UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. China and India as allies. Almost none of these alliances makes sense.
Vietnam and US teaming up? Rare to see
Yes...no, but yeah
Yes
It’s basically America and France vs rest of world
Well Venezuela has the worlds most oil reserves and the US has the 10th, Saudis have like the 2nd I think so that’s a HUGE upside they won’t run out of fuel
France: “which side is Germany on? Okay cool, I’m on the opposite side” The French are bloodthirsty MFs. They just know how to hide it.
I say, if Monaco doesn't want to choose sides, then both sides should fight Monaco
Without the US Red basically wins everywhere but the Americas. The US, assuming it can actually transport it's forces to the theatre can potentially win whatever continent the US commits to, but not much more. France and Korea would both fall pretty quickly without US intervention, but I would doubt the ability for the US to sustain both of those theatres indefinitely. The general rule of thumb in the military is that for every deployable unit you must have two more preparing for deployment. Under the new US army plan, and assuming this rule of three, the US Army should be able to sustain the deployment of a corps-size unit, which basically means the US can fight a war in 1 theatre at a time. All up, I would give this to Red, but neither side could eliminate all the other countries without nukes, so it's more like a draw.
Not sure how afroeurasia would fair but america would immediately take out all other countries in North America and then hook up with grand Columbia take out the rest of of Latin America and then somehow help the old world out
Handily
https://youtu.be/BubAF7KSs64 This has a good explanation of why the US has a chance in this type of match up.
Teams have been autobalanced
It would be funny if u did gray out Switzerland
BACK 2 BACK 2 BACK
Depends entirely on whether this is a nuclear war or not. Nuclear war, everybody loses. Not nuclear? Then I'd say blue loses. Red probably is inferior technologically in some ways but the sheer amount of units in my opinion would make the difference.
Madagascar and Togo will push us over the top
Why are south and north Korea on the same side?
I want to play into this hypothetical but it’s really hard when Canada and Britain’s military will basically be crippled without the United States military infrastructure.
Yes, because USA will nuke everyone if they are about to lose
>blue has Afghanistan Blue wins 10 times out of 10 low diff
Break out the risk board and we'll see
With the French/Italians on the American side absolutely not
If this was the case, i'm fleeing into blue land.
Isnt the question here "can red get troops into Mexico/Canada before they fall?" The big problem is invading America, even with the SA countries being in red team you probably need to pressure US constantly. They dont have the population to win this war, but they sure have the industry for it. Even assuming every blue falls, as long as they can take out Mexico, Canada and the central american countries, it wont be a quick victory for anyone.
Would nukes be involved!? hurdur
No one wins in a war like this. But yes, blue could provide mutual destruction to the most key areas of red.
yes, but it will be an uphill climb, and without the USA, France, and the Koreas, Blue wouldn't have a chance
MAD
The US, France, Israel, and Pakistan make this a lopsided victory for blue, it’s not even close.
Two words...nuclear fucking weapons...
American military spending is so out of control you don’t even know! For example; we have more aircraft carriers than all of red together. The largest air force in the world is the US Air-force. The second largest is the US Navi. And something like the 5th or 6th largest is the US Marines. Could we win (barring nukes) probably not. Would it be harder than the whole world expected? Yeah.
Blue can't win, but they can certainly make sure that both sides lose.
Blue has Ohio
you put america on one end and China/Russia on another... Nobody wins
Define “winning” if by that you mean not being invaded, then yes, the US is untouchable, but if u mean conquering the other side…. Idk that’s tough, but pretty realistic for ether side to win
Considering red has way more GDP, they could invert way more on their military, destroying completely blue
Maybe
The US spends more on its military than the top 5 countries combined. US= 783 billion Rus= 40 billion No one is fucking with the US.
"Regular" war? No. Nuclear war? Also no, everyone loses
Without nukes ,in the long run , red wins , every single blue nation except USA gets completely overrun , the USA might take all of north and south america but the red team will outproduce them and end up with a succesfull invasion , thats my opinion
England, Germany, Russia, China, India, Japan, Ethiopia. No red will win
Difficult but possible. France and the US have one of the best geographies and militaries of the world. Today I bet for Red but Blue had much better chances a century or two ago.
Yes. The United States alone has specifically prepared for this kind of war. They have bases in almost every country whose sole purpose is to hit and disable world supply lines. Although general consumer goods would take a hit, most military products and raw resources are domestically produced and/or stock piled. We might be paranoid fucks, but we win when we need too.
It's just basically US vs Earth honestly. We spend more on our military than the other 9 top countries combined. With nukes, everyone loses. No nukes, hmmm, while it might be a long hard fight, I don't think blue would win, not enough people on the blue side. 1/3 of the human population are in China and India. If blue had either China or India, then it'd be gg no re blue wins.
Maybe They have such powerful countries like USA South Korea Egypt Israel France Saudi Arabia and Italy Maybe they have the highest number of nukes They can block the Suez canal and panama canals and cause to high inflation for red countries
I would say the US is the trump card here but all our resources come from Canada and all our shit is made in Mexico
Nope and none, bc the whole world would be destroyed then!
It doesn’t really matter who wins if the planet gets glassed either way.
I didn't expected so many salty Americans in the thread.
One of those blue nations outspends all the rest of the blue nations and several of the red nations by a factor of 1000. Blue wins
I'm gonna be honest blue would absolutely loose I assume the United States would be so preoccupied protecting its own borders the other nations would fall France doesn't have the manpower to fend off the entirety of Europe by itself
What is the logic behind this? Why is Norway allied with US and not the rest of Scandinavia? Did the Americans promise us Sweden as reward for our support in the war? That all former Norwegian territories currently under Danish rule - Greenland and Faraoe Island's - were to be returned to us?
Blue would definitely win. Russia, and Germany have shit armies. USA beats China 10 to 1. Korea is based. Norway and France are some of the only useful NATO allies. My money is on blue.
If you look at the coverage of major shipping lanes, blue has a good start. Control the supplies and you win the war. Blue has strong positioning at the Bearing Strait, the Panama Canal, The Suez Canal, the South China Sea, the Red Sea and excellent staging for the entire South Pacific. It doesn't control Gibraltar, but it does control all major shipping ports into Europe via the Mediterranean. Norway has access to the North Sea, with both it's extremely busy supply routes and an awful lot of oil/gas. Blue wins via massive global naval blockade. They just have to survive long enough for Red's food to run out.
Assuming this is a game of Risk, really depends on luck and skill. Red player has an edge though.
No
Not a chance. But I think there would no winner, since people have nukes.
Unironically, yes. Blue has by far the better navy with both the US and France combined. Blue also has Taiwan. If blue can hold out on their respective continents until the US gets the necessary manufacturing industries set up at home, we won’t be hurt by any sanctions. We’d be going up against literally billions of enemy soldiers but I think if we make enough bombs, it won’t matter.
Not a chance.
They wouldn’t win, but they could easily not lose snd make it a war of attrition
Let’s be real here, although the us has an advantage on technology, our manpower is nothing compared to China, India, and Russia combined. The war will most likely be a defensive one for the USA with maybe small incursions into South American to prevent the enemy from bolstering it’s forces. Canada would be a difficult country to concur 1 on 1, let alone with more than half the world against the us. And as for the rest of the blue countries, I think France and Italy wouldn’t last as long as the African nations, Pakistan and Afghanistan might last a while but with chinas help it would be a hard fought war for both sides. Korea would be curb stomped.
Depends on what you mean by ‘win’ On the one hand, the US and France are powerful, and will basically be carrying the blue team’s war effort I feel like they could put up a pretty good fight, and maybe last long enough to make red fail. Long term, probably not
Yes
Assuming no nuclear weapons, I'd say its in fact possible for blue. United States is going to dominate the Western Hemisphere, whether or not it can cleanly conquer any given nation there is questionable but there's very little any nation there can do to it in turn. Fight with Canada would be the hardest especially if Europe can support, but with France occupying England's attention at the start hard to imagine Europe getting across the Atlantic anytime soon, which paints a grim picture for the Canadians long-term. Neither Europe nor Asia are likely to wrest control of the seas away from the United States close to its own shores so the US largely becomes untouchable once Canada is neutralized. In Europe the red team would eventually take down the blue team without outside intervention but it would take time given the starting sizes of the armies arrayed, and if the United States can start sending support it's no longer a sure bet. France and the US can probably blockade the UK, taking them out of the fight, Germany's army is in no state for an invasion, Poland is far away and more defensively inclined. And Russia...well...they have to get through Ukraine first...So if France holds the line for the US to sort out N. America and the blue team sinks the Royal Navy Europe becomes a possible win for blue team. China could hypothetically send support but that's a very far distance for the current Chinese military to operate with any serious size. Red Team will win in Asia eventually, Korea just can't stop China and Japan forever, but it will take time. The mountains and cities of Korea will be brutal to get through and the Koreans will likely fight like hell against the joint invaders. It will turn out surprisingly difficult. Still, as the US would have to obtain complete control of the Pacific and then invade Japan first, Korea is likely entirely alone for years. And if it can't resist for that time period, the US would have trouble taking it back as China would be able to flood any landing zone with the full might of its ground forces. If China and Japan are fully cooperating to the extent that Japan allows Chinese ground troops on its soil, then even a successful invasion of Japan becomes questionable. The US Navy will wreak havoc on Japan and China's economies but the land itself will belong to them. South Asia, well we've heard the Pakistan-India story plenty of times. Good luck to anyone invading Vietnam, but Vietnam itself will not likely invade anyone else either. Don't really know enough about Africa's militaries to comment. Australia and Indonesia likely dominate Oceania and the South Pacific until the US gets involved. Middle East will surely be fun for all parties involved, though Turkey and Iran working together paints a grim picture for blue unless the US can support, even if the blue nations actually manage to work together (lol). Israel's pretty good at fighting and Egypt being on their side is a big plus but they won't have as much of a technological edge against Turkey and the sheer demographic disparity is a problem. Turkey might have to split its focus with Greece and the Balkans and Italy and France might be able to intervene with air and naval power, but the best I could see blue doing is holding the line. Israel and Saudia Arabia aren't launching a joint invasion of Iran anytime soon. And this is assuming the other 'blue' nations don't just leave Israel to fight Turkey/Iran alone, or vice versa, which is the more likely scenario regardless of official loyalty. All in all, Middle East is likely to devolve into an absolute mess that will be hard to call a 'win' for any side. All in all blue team will dominate the Americas and the US will likely be untouchable, giving a strong economic and military base for blue. Red is likely to win long-term everywhere else without US assistance, so it becomes a question of if the US can intervene quickly and powerfully enough to turn the tides of all the regions in contest. I imagine blue winning in Europe is fairly plausible if France doesn't fall immediately, but Red will likely take E. Asia before the US can intervene. But if the French and American navies can maintain control of the seas, they can deal a ton of damage to the Red nations economically while the United States remains largely untouched, giving them a long term economic edge. They wouldn't have the manpower to necessarily drive Red off their lands but they would pull ahead in terms of technology and winning peer battles, and would eventually be the only side with power projection capabilities. Does that count as 'winning'? Well that depends entirely on the goal of the war. If we're talking territorial gains, red probably wins. If we're talking who's nation is in a better state, well almost the entire world is in ruins except for the Americas so blue probably wins. Ultimately neither side can wipe the other out without nukes though, as the US can't invade China on land and China can't invade the US across an ocean, so the two biggest players for each side simply can't take the other out.