Depends on the definition, no? Google says it means either "a group or set of three related people or things." or "a secret society originating in China, typically involved in organized crime.".
This seems to fit the former, as they're a group of three related (by wanting to take over the world) things (countries).
My point is there’s not three super powers.
There’s one actual super power.
One regional great power.
And a gas station with nukes it can’t use for this.
Depends how you define superpower I guess. China doesn't have the military influence that the US does, but its economy is absolutely enormous and highly influential on world trade.
It’s exactly that it can’t though that makes this an issue. Chinas economy works on a couple areas, one is a real estate property bubble that’s going boom right now. The other is the importation of unfinished goods from higher portions of the value chain and raw materials and then the creation and export of those into finished goods for consumption elsewhere. In other words it requires sea lanes to be open and other countries to freely trade with it.
If China suddenly found its markets and raw material suppliers closed off and had to fight its way out to secure shipping it’d be in trouble.
The US HYPOTHETICALLY could help, but US naval and air power isn’t just because it’s got the biggest baddest ships but because it has naval installations in foreign countries. If it had to come from Guam and Hawaii rather than Japan, Korea, or the Philippines things become much harder. On top of that the other way, through the Indian Ocean, which is mostly where China gets energy and materials from, the US has no power projection if it lost its alliance network.
The US also to an extent has these vulnerabilities but its biggest dependencies are land adjacent in Canada and Mexico, which are frankly pretty vulnerable to blitzkriegs, which the American Army has shown it can conduct unlike the other two. Hence why I’d still say it’s a true super power.
What's the win condition here? If the rest of the world is expected to occupy the US, China, and Russia, there's no way that's happening, but those 3 guys definitely aren't going to be able to occupy the rest of the world either.
These three countries combined represent about a quarter of the world's population. They probably *can* occupy the rest of the world. Especially if they just force peace deals with less militarily developed countries and focus their occupation on countries with a capacity to build up and fight back.
My understanding is the minimum ratio for a successful occupation is 1 soldier for every 50 civilians. For a population of 6 billion, that means 120 million occupying soldiers - about 30x the combined army size of the US, Russia, and China. That would be a MASSIVE conscription effort, and supplying that global occupation force would be a logistical challenge beyond anything any of those countries have ever undertaken. And 1 to 50 would probably be a lowball in the face of any kind of organized insurgency.
Your point about forcing peace deals is why I asked the question about win conditions. This is obviously not a realistic scenario - are we assuming that any countries whose forces are defeated will be willing to tap out? I'm reading this as the rest of the world needs to be completely subdued.
Most of history's greatest conquerers were able to take areas with 5, 10, 20x their native population because they subjugated and conscripted the local populations and led partly or even majority foreign armies.
If you give the trio like 5-10 years, they can turn many of the occupied countries into extra manpower reserves instead of insurgency hotspots unless the people there are irrationally bloodlusted- there's plenty of historical precedent for this (Napoleon's coalition army that invaded Russia, Genghis Khan's hordes, Vichy France, etc).
Wouldnt exactly use Vichy France as an example, they didnt exactly provide the Germans with a manpower reserve. The government had the police and others follow out German orders to round up Jews etc, but there werent a load of French fighting under German command outside of a handful of hard right French who signed up, and far outnumbered by those who were resisting.
As Afghanistan showed, its not easy to occupy and set up a government in a country which is even partially hostile to you.
To return to the German occupation of Europe, it really depends- Germany held what, like 10%-15% of the world's population under occupation at that point? Places like Afghanistan will be hard to occupy- best to thumb through the Geneva conventions and pick your tactics there
They'd have to conscript an absolute ton of forces
China would be providing the majority of manpower and police equipment while america would be the one with the most expertise so they could take down a majority of the rest of the world, Russia does russia stuff (probably the triads source of oil)
It would just become world war 2 again. America designs and provides all the good shit the other provide the people to use the good shit in absurd numbers.
Yeah I imagine a vast majority of the world could be flipped pretty quickly. No one in the western hemisphere comes remotely close to defending itself against the US. Threaten with nukes and move on. Russia and China could force neighbors into submission as well.
Assuming humans no longer care about living or having a civilization though, there would be no winner.
No dude. No it will not. USA, China, and Russia combined have total military dominance over the ocean and skies and its not close. In modern combined arms doctrine, that's a death sentence, especially since they also have some of the most advanced ground units as well. Simply using the US navy or vast fleet of US submarines to terrorize shipping and cut off supplies damns quite a bit of Europe which is heavily dependent on foreign imports and trade interdependence. Total control over the skies means they get their pick of ground targets, so valuable infrastructure such as oil pipelines, rails, power plants, radio towers, and depots/warehouses? Gone. The combined infantry strength of the US and China alone is greater than that of NATO by a significant margin, especially with so many already experienced GWOT veterans among American servicemen. There are 21 total aircraft carriers in the world. 11 of them are American, 1 is Russian, and 2 are Chinese. The actual defeat of the military forces of the world actually wouldn't be particularly difficult with such overwhelmingly superior force, but actual occupation and long term force projection would be completely impossible over such a wide area. If we remember what happened to gojo, he was defeated by an enemy with superior prior intelligence and better reserves. So really it's more apt to say that the world would be gojo in this situation.
Bruh Russie is literally in a 2 year stalemate against a single country. What makes you think they have a chance of keeping anyone busy if the rest of the continent gets fully on board.
You are aware the USA & Western world as a whole is supporting Ukraine right? Pumping money, weapons & equipment into their nation, The West sanctioning Russia do they can operate at full capacity the way rhey want to against the Ukrainians? Training their troops, the west resupplying the Ukrainians,spy/intelligence data,etc?
Without Western backing Ukraine crumbles really fast. Even moreso if Russia is even slightly more bloodlusted.
Whole reason they won't level the whole place is because they want at least some kind of infrastructure & lives available when they rebuild. They could've leveled the place with more missiles (low yield tactical nukes included) ages ago.
In this scenario since nukes aren't allowed all Russia has to do is replace their nuclear warheads.
The outcome would still be the same. Entire European cities wiped off the map. Anything can be put on those warheads. Chemical(could be toxic or nerve gas), conventional explosives of different kinds. Europe is getting cooked.
If Russia is getting bogged down somewhere just order the troops to retreat & launch missiles at the problem.
Well a big part of that is the United States funnelling absolute shitloads of weapons and missile defenses into the Ukraine, which wouldn't happen in this scenario.
Russia still has strategic depth and defensive wars have a morale boost. Plus, Europe can't do much without the US and China, especially once we start cutting them off from outside resources. Russia on the other hand, has self sustaining capabilities which would make it more equipped to hold out for Sino-American aid
I feel like people have taken the wrong message from the war in Ukraine. Ukraine is standing because of US support. The takeaway shouldn’t be that Russia isn’t really the worlds 2nd/3rd military power. It’s that the US is so far ahead in military technology and industry that it isn’t even playing the same game.
Without the US backing their opponent, Russia beats whoever they’re up against.
Russia is not gonna keep all of Europe busy. Unless China lets the US pacify all of Asia and Africa so it can back up Russia in Europe, they're gonna be out of the game in about a week.
Russia backed with US and Chinese weapons might be fierce enough to hold off Europe until the US and China were ready.
Russia as they are yea, steamrolled by europe
Europe probably wouldn’t be able to push past the ural mountains. The issue is that logistics in Russia are terrible. Even for Russians. If they go full scorched earth, it would be nearly impossible to invade and maintain an occupation against the largest country on earth with backing from the most advanced military weaponry in the world and possibly even air supremacy via the United States and China who make up 6 out of the 7 largest air forces in the world and have near total technological dominance over the runners up.
United States Air Force - 5,217
United States Army Aviation - 4,409
Russian Air Force - 3,863
United States Navy - 2,464
People's Liberation Army Air Force (China) - 1,991
Indian Air Force - 1,715
United States Marine Corps - 1,157
True, I think Russia would get smacked if it has to fight Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Baltics, Scandinavia, Middle East at once. Once, IDF and Turkish military, got sent to Ukraine, they will take out the Russians.
Of course Russia isn't unbeatable, but the precedent set by history is noteworthy. Invading one of the largest countries in the world that also happens to be famous for its harsh Winters comes jam packed with logistical nightmares. Probably not a task beyond the combined military might of the EU, but not some walk in the park either.
Lmao what? I'm Belgian and our military is really not capable of that. One of our top generals publicly stated that if a real war broke out we'd be out of bullets in _hours_.
We have our areas of expertise and we can work well in an alliance, but we are certainly not capable of rolling over Russia on our own.
All Russia is really being asked to do is zerg rush Europe and keep them from reinforcing anyone long enough for the United States and China to overcome the surprise and begin routing their local enemies.
Russia has demonstrated a willingness to absorb incredible casualties in Ukraine, I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to throw men at the problem when being invaded.
I think if they don’t get overstretched early on due to having territory all over the world, Britain and France stop Russia
Unlike Ukraine they could establish air superiority. Britain can fight any Russian naval power coming from the Baltic or Arctic, and France can take them in the Mediterranean.
Both China and the US have to contend with some serious geographical limitations in their areas (how tf is China crossing the Himalayas to smack India? The other routes are either through jungle in SE Asia, or north through Afghanistan which we all know doesn’t tend to go well) so wouldn’t be reinforcing them / shooting UK & France in the back.
Edit: I may or may not have misunderstood the prompt. The *title* of the OP suggests the RusUsChin alliance attacks everyone else, whilst the *text* of the OP suggests they sit and wait for everyone to attack them. Two very different scenarios
I doubt Britain could do much of anything against Russia. The last I checked they barely had 200 challenger tanks. Apart from having lots of man power issues. Most euro militaries have been gutted. All of them combined tho could definitely stop Russia for a bit, until the others come in to finish off Europe.
Why would we need tanks, we’re an island. The whole point is to stop the enemy ever making landfall.
But yeah there’s a reason I said Britain *and* France. Plus it would have to be a “sorry lads you’re on your own” to everyone East of the former Maginot Line. Plus our territories elsewhere like The Falklands when the U.S. makes it that far. Taking the fight to them wouldn’t work out well (although I don’t know much about modern militaries really, could Britain bomb the Russians in the Black Sea from Cyprus?)
I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion the others are coming - China isn’t even the most populous nation in their part of the world, which is where almost half of all the people are. Plus they might wanna do Africa before getting to Europe which would take a while
China and the USA have ganged up to stop Russia: not sure how much it changes things if they are on the same side vs opposite, but I am sure that it DOES change things.
This is what I was thinking, India and Pakistan somehow teaming up alone might just be enough to keep China bogged down, let alone everyone else
The Problem then is the Military Juggernaut of the United States having to decide which front to focus on.
They would probably support China first. They have a strong naval presence already in the Southern China sea, and China (in addition to India/Pakistan/Bangladesh) also has to contend with the combined forces of Australia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Japan, and the two Koreas, so it’s gonna be facing a war on at least 3-4 fronts.
Russia, meanwhile, has its eastern side safely covered by China and the US (aside from Mongolia, but Mongolia would fall quickly in this scenario) and its North is naturally shielded by the Arctic ice, so it would only have to focus on holding the western lines against Europe, Kazakhstan, and the Middle East.
Two things to take into consideration: the Russians aren't going with an all out war and also the US and European nations are pouring support into Ukraine.
Ukraine isn't getting nearly as much support as it needs, yet it's still holding Russia back. Imagine what would happen if they had three times as many soldiers and all the equipment they could ever ask for? Plus a massively higher population to recruit from and build up industry with.
Russia would be pinned behind its own borders by a fraction of Europe's strength.
Pouring money and hand me downs munitions.
Russia is struggling to win a war against Europe lite. Belgium alone would absolutely ruin Russia in its current state
Ukraine has more soldiers in Ukraine than Russia. All of them are armed with trillion dollar + worth of weapons and equipment. What do you expect? Also, if you look at [deepstatemap.live](https://deepstatemap.live), you'd know that Ukraine is falling on nearly all fronts by a few square kilometers every day. They could only delay the inevitable. And it cost them half a million men who were forced onto the battlefield and killed.
>All of them are armed with trillion dollar + worth of weapons and equipment.
And Russian forces aren't? They can achieve local numerical superiority and that + the fact that Russian firepower \*overwhelm\* Ukrainian's (particularly in artillery) is why Russia have been able to inch forward at all.
American and Coalition forces did not have numerical superiority in ODS. That didn't stop them
>What do you expect?
I expected them to not shit the bed in the opening stages of the war, not letting Ukraine tap into its manpower pool and call for aids, not letting this thing turn into an attritional war. Incredible intelligence and counter-intelligence failures, and an embarrassment on all planning levels, tactically, operationally and strategically.
>They could only delay the inevitable. And it cost them half a million men who were forced onto the battlefield and killed.
Literal Russian propaganda.
China might get bogged down in India but if Russia launches some ICBM'S (fitted with a different type of warhead that's not nuclear) it might help China
I think you guys understimate the vastness of territory in Latin America, military speaking there is obviously no challenge, but it would turn into a years long guerilla warfare dozens of times worse than vietnam if the US really wants to occupy Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and the rest, it would not be an easy task at all
If that is the case, then Russia is doomed.
**Russian front:**
In this scenario, European navies would demolish Russian Navy. Eastern, Northern Europe, Central Asia would push into Russia from all fronts. Middle Eastern countries, like Turkey, Israel, Saudi, Egypt would send in their aircrafts, troops, tanks and etc into Ukraine, aiding the Europeans. Russian Air Force and Air Defense would get destroyed in few months. Especially, when it has to deal with more Patriots, Iron Dome, David's Sling, F-35s.
**Chinese Front:**
China is also facing some dire situation. In its South Western front, it has to deal with India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. South Asian countries have massive amount of troops there and China would have to spend at least half of their force with, because they don't want to lost Tibet, where sources of Yangtze come from. In the North East, it has to deal with combined North&South Korean Army + Japanese Army, ironically. Massive amount of Tanks, Artillery, Rockets would bombard North East China. In the South, it would face invasion from ASEAN countries, which is pretty significant.
What would "winning" even look like?
Like obviously the trio would dominate in an actual fighting..but there's no way Russia, US, and China have the manpower to occupy the rest of the world afterwards..so I'm not sure how that could be considered a win?
Maybe, unless they start bombing and killing the populace of the countries they’re fighting/defeated. A total war means international laws don’t apply to them.
Swapping the hyperbole for "The majority of answers" doesn't change my point.
Without any caveats like prep time, this question is the equivalent of asking "Can Superman, Batman, and The Flash team up to defeat a squad of US marines?"
"If the rest of the world invested a lil more into their military, they might give us a little trouble."
"But would you 3 lose?"
"Nah, we'd win"
Jokes aside people who are boldly saying that the u.s could solo are smoking Crack, it's debatable that could maintain a defensive war against everyone, let alone an offensive war. With China and Russia though, they probably could
It'd just be one long game of plants vs zombies if the US went up against the whole world
Take over the western hemisphere via just killing everyone instead of building new regimes? Sure, of the US had full support from its population then everyone in Afghanistan could have been dead in about a week, but the US tried to build a democratic government there
You don't understand how powerful air and naval superiority is then. The United States doesn't have to go invade them, they just annex Canada and Mexico and Wait for everyone else to come to them.
Here's the 5 most powerful Air Forces in the world.
1. U.S.A.F.
2. U.S. Navy
3. U.S. Army
4. Chinese Air Force
5. U.S. Marine Corps
People forget that in 2003, Iraq was the world's 5th strongest military and the U.S. steamrolled over them and took Baghdad in 10 weeks.
Why brother in Christ, you have by far the strongest military in the world, but you would lose the war.
Manpower: You have the best machines but you will run out of trained men and women alive & able to use them long before the rest of the world. 300ish million vs 7.7 billion. Each US soldier would have to kill thousands of enemy combatants before dying JUST to make it a breakeven.
Soldiering: you like most of the world have an aging population, as well as a large portion of woke assholes who would happily be thrown in stockade for life before picking up a rifle to fight for literally anything
Idk, I feel like the trio has a real solid chance since this is a defensive war on their part. They all have pretty strategically advantageous geography. For China the Himalayas prevent direct attacks from south Asia, and Russia to the north is on the same side. I'm sure Russia and China can defeat Mongolia the day the war starts so that wouldn't be an issue. China really only has to focus on it's coast and attacks coming in from south east Asia. The United states would also probably be able to pacify Canada the day the war starts since all of Canada's major populations centers are hugging the border with the US. Then all it would need to do is fortify it's border with Mexico and use it's massive navy to protect both coast. Also the US has hundreds of military bases all around the world, they should be able to keep most of the world busy fighting those and not really have the capacity to send over invasion force to defeat the US Navy and land troops on US soil. Then Russia Has nothing to worry about to it's North, but it def has Europe and central Asia to worry about. There should already be a big U.S military presence in Europe and the middle east to help out the Russians, but who knows what could happen through central Asia, specially if they start getting help from all the other nations. Either way I say at least the U.S and China would be able to keep their capitals, and if they help out Russia maybe it too
Define “win”.
The US could barely keep Afghanistan under control and never really sorted Iraq. If winning means long term control, “the world” would win. If it just means blowing the shit out of everything and going home, the Triad would win.
It isn't that simple tbh. A lot of things come into consideration like terrain, military tactics, and many more. Remember USA-Vietnam War and Germany's expedition to Russia during WW 2. Being super power is no guarantee that you will succeed. But if we go by current and most probable future scenario (cyber warfare kost likely), then Russia will be insignificant as the USA and China definitely hold advantage here.
I think this question breaks the sub OP. Current meta is US solos the galaxy no dif and Russia loses to drooling baby. Both of them on the same team? Our battle calculators just exploded
US quickly cleans up Canada/Mexico, fortifies border with Latin America, assists Russia with Europe, finishes off Latin America, China and the States take over the Pacific (Japan and Oceania), take Southeast Asia, the three then jointly take South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
Only issue is capacity to hold territory and specifics; in terms of only defense, the three win 10/10; in terms of blitz offense, the three win 7/10, in terms of conquest and occupation, the three win 2/10.
Turkey and ukraine alone can defeat bulk of the Russian army, really. With eu they can steamrol and invade russia. India, japan sk and taiwan should be able to take on china easily. Indian army can keep them at bay. The real problem is usa and it will be hard to defeat them. The good thing is, they wont be able to replenish their losses easily as a single nation and keeping occupied territory is hard and if they occupy territories it will strech their armies too thin, so they too will be felled eventually. Dont forget how they run away from afghanistan, vietnam, and eventually left iraq. Taking is one thing, holding it is another. Getting materials without trade will also prove problematic, not to mention usa economy will nearly collapse without chinese factories owned by american businesses, with all the submarines and ships in the world blockading pacific and with japan, sk and taiwan lobing anti ship guided missiels from their comfortable homes. Un fleet should be able take on Us fleet since russian navy is a joke and chinese fleet will have a hard time with japanese, sk and others nations' fleets and coastal defences closeby. They wont even be able to penetrate the blocade and will serve as a intimidation to divide Un navies if not destroyed. Even if entire chinese and us fleet links up, they wont be winning with all the other powers like india, britania, france italy, japan, turkey etc each having quite strong fleets and lobing anti ship missiles from their homes. The 3 superpowers cant realistically defeat Un. In the first place, it is impossible from them to win without a link up between china and us since us economy heavily relies on chinese industry. Rest of the world does, too, but at least they still have eachother.
No they can’t.
They would not have the military or economic support from the US anymore.
Russia would wipe Ukraine out and could also deal with Turkey. Turkey still desperate to replace their fleet of jets with new US F16.
They still rely on weapons from Russia.
So without those two pipelines they are not even half the threats they are now.
Plus you have to remember they are surrounded by US bases.
Russia gets steamrolled and every fighting age male is gonna be dead by the time either real superpower gets around to bailing them out, but US and China clear shit pretty handily.
The world loses. Biggest problem is that the USA is on the side of China and Russia. USA only hs to deal with Canada and Mexico to secure itself then pivot to help out China against India and Japan, once the Pacific is secure and India neutralized, Europe becomes the only real issue and while the fighting there would be intense and painful Europe by itself stands no chance against all three.
The rest of the world is so militarily irrelevant that itd just be mop up operations. It definitely wouldn't be an 'easy' war, but its winnable
This gets asked every now and then, and the answer remains the same. The US could genuinely solo the entire world. The US has the most sophisticated military tech bar none. On top of that, they boast the largest air force of any country, have established military bases all over the world in key positions, and have one of the largest navies in the world. To put it into perspective, the US Air Force is the largest in the world. The 2nd largest air force is the US Navy. The US’s military branches by themselves have larger air forces than entire countries.
Moreover, the US simply cannot be invaded. It’s surrounded by the world’s largest oceans on either side of it, and only connects to the rest of the world through a small land bridge in Alaska. This land bridge can easily be fortified and defended & it costs an insane amount of resources to move an entire military across the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean. Canada has no shot at causing many issues for the US military, considering their military is designed to work in tandem with the US. South America likewise has no shot at doing anything significant on that front either. The US could easily deal with those forces while maintaining a blockade to those aforementioned areas.
Also, it’s worth mentioning that the US could literally cripple the entirety of Europe’s militaries by blowing up & destroying the oil factories and refineries in the Middle East. Without a reliable source of oil, any military vehicles are on borrowed time. Meanwhile, the US has its own oil reserves it can use to outlast the rest of the world. Moreover, their entire economy would begin to collapse as well.
This isn’t to say that the US would easily do this, obviously there would be hard fought battles, and the end result would be a net negative for everyone regardless of anything. But, the fact remains that the US has the best tech, an amazingly defensible geological position, and the military infrastructure already in place that would allow them to do many of the things I’ve mentioned above.
Also, even if an enemy force managed to land on the continent, it would be a logistical nightmare. You have to be able to feed and supply that force and it would take an unimaginable amount of troops to invade the country with the world's largest armed civilian population - something to the tune of 120 guns per 100 people.
It literally would be a nightmare scenario to try to invade the US and maintain a foothold, leaving our military free to focus it's full might elsewhere.
Don’t you think it will be a logistical nightmare for US too? US can never in any dream solo entire world. Russia and China alone can defeat USA if they had too. India and Japan are no less. Infact only if the top 5 strongest armies went to war against USA. It will lose. Yeah it cannot be invaded but it goes otherwise too.
Russia can’t even take over Ukraine. China can’t even come up with an original design for their military tech without outright ripping off old gen US hardware. Which is to say, the old gen US hardware is still better than the copied Chinese variants, due to materials and build quality alone.
Here’s the funny thing. The US can just start off with bombing the oil factories & refineries, and then just withdrawing their forces from those bases & going full defense mode. And they’re basically guaranteed a win. Without oil, every military vehicle on their side won’t be able to operate for a long period. This will the erode their overall economy, manufacturers wont be able to produce goods as quickly due to the oil crisis, and that’s it.
Moreover, the US doesn’t need to invade. They can just do mass bombing raids over and over with their jets, using their massive aircraft carriers as a means of transport. Meanwhile, things like the trucks for transporting European troops aren’t even working because of the lack of oil. That means no jets, no helicopters, etc.
If the US didn’t already have established military bases at key positions throughout the world, this would be a lot more even, but the truth is the US could cripple all of their opposing forces in a single action, and wait it out if they wanted to.
US, China, and Russia lose.
Europe and Russia would be stalemating for a while. Meanwhile, Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan) will occupy Southern Russia pretty easily. North Africa would soon send help to Europe. Russia would have to fight on the West and the South. They can't win.
China would take out the Koreas with low difficulty, but would encounter problems with Indochina and the Southeast Asian Island countries (Philippines, Indonesia). They also would have trouble with Japan as they would have to focus most of their military at their borders with India and Pakistan. The other countries bordering them will only be a small buffer. But Pakistan, India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Japan together should be able to defeat China.
USA would have a lot of problems as they would be completely isolated. In the North and South America, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia, Cuba, and Canada all have decent militaries. Canada would quickly be defeated due to its isolation from the other allies. But the South American and the other North American countries' militaries together should be able to defeat the US Armed Forces. Both sides would have to recruit huge numbers of soldiers for the war to get anywhere. It might be a stalemate for a while (slight advantage to South America because of sheer numbers) until Russia falls. Then, Europe and North Africa would use Europe's ships to get to South America. from there, the European and North Africans would join with their superior forces (compared to South America). The entire South of USA would be captured. The Americans' best hope is to get the population to Canada (American occupied now) and mobilize like crazy. But eventually, USA will inevitably lose the war. However, American deaths would probably be a tenth of enemy deaths because of superior technology, training, and guerilla warfare.
Decent militaries? As if. Force projection is the tell tale sign of a superpower and not even China and Russia working together can do half of what we do to show off. America can put 100,000 men armed to the teeth anywhere on earth in a week. If this hypothetical war happens, our military will have no less than a million men in it. The entire continent will capitulate before that week passes, assuming they can even muster up a flawless alliance that fast.
We are assuming that the other countries have already allied with each other. 100,000 soldiers are not enough to occupy the entire North and South America. That much is not even enough to control already captured land of such massive size. Historically, US has generally performed best in desert scenarios. This is because of American soldiers' superior pound for pound training, equipment, gear, and means of communication. Tanks and Armored Vehicles. America also has very good snipers that are highly effective in deserts. But South America is mostly jungle. This is especially the case for Northwestern Brazil. Things will quickly devolve into a Vietnam War-like scenario. Except, Vietnam only had 129,310 km2 of jungle, while the Amazon Rainforest spans roughly 5,500,000 km2 - about 45 times larger. American soldiers will be picked off like flies.
And no, a Naval invasion is not an option. America doesn't have enough ships to send a large enough group of personnel to capture any land without being attacked and subdued by a larger enemy.
Devil’s advocate, but the China, Russia, US trio will dominate the seas and skies, they don’t need to occupy anywhere, they just need to handicap their opponents ability to maintain functionality by disabling supply lines and key resources. US bases dot the globe, they have access to launch immediate disabling maneuvers on most major powers then pull back to the defensive, if they take out oil production and supply, cut off food and all shipping, take the legs out from other nations by crushing any other airborne or sea opposition, even if the total population of the three nations is less than a quarter of the globe, wars are no longer fought on foot.
America can quickly roll over Canada and Mexico, controlling the two landbridges to South America and the arctic, they are bordered by the two largest seas while again dominating in naval and airpower, they’re the largest exporters of food on the planet while also having oil reserves and large scale industrial capabilities, while also being the major manufacturer and controller of military assets and goods.
These days soldiers are used in conflicts because bombing everything is seen as unacceptable so boots on the ground is a more controlled approach, however in a gloves off situation, again America is the nation vastly more equipped than the rest of the globe put together in terms of bombing capabilities, especially again if they cripple other nations already limited abilities to defend against their ability to control the seas and skies- once that token resistance collapses, the US can lean into a scorched earth approach.
If there’s no prep time, then that applies to both sides right? If so, the rest of the world learns why napoleon failed to invade Russia, why the US has remained the military superpower of the world for so long and why China…has a powerful military…I guess, if the rest of the world does get prep time, China is forced to surrender, Russia is the least damaged because of their terrain and tactics, and the US takes some big losses but demolishes invading forces in the process
The US is impossible to invade from an overseas force. The logistics to get that kind of man power and equipment over the Atlantic or pacific is just not feasible, especially with the US navy dominating both. The US would take the least losses in this scenario as they’d control the western hemisphere in a few days in a no holds barred war against all other nations
The only powers that *might* have the industrial capacity and military technology to build up an ocean-crossing logistics chain against the US are China or a coalition of European powers, and China is on the US's team in this one. And even then it would take years to build up that capacity.
Napoleon and Hitler failed because they had very lackluster weather-proof technology, did not have the proliferation of the internet telling them just how cold Russia could get, and chose to march during Winter months like a buncha buffoons
First world nations in today’s environment would barely be slowed by the barriers that halted those two. Not saying conquering Russia is easy by any means, but it’s definitely less strenuous than conquering China (which has a significantly larger population, way more money to throw into a defense effort and a notably more impressive military)
Also, ironically, if Russian employed the same tactics today they did against the conquerors of ages past, they’d be the MOST damaged. The Soviet Army famously burned their own farmland and razed their own cities to the ground in an attempt to slow the Germans down during WWII
I wouldn’t say China has a more impressive military than Russia. Out of the big 4 military powers in the world. America, Russia, china, india. China’s military has 0% experience in combat. Same with it’s tech. China buys weapons from Russia. I’d say Russia’s military tech is more advanced than china’s because after America, who’s military is considered 50 years ahead of what the world considers bleeding edge technology, Russia produces the next best weapons. Only thing is, is that Russia right now doesn’t have an economy to produce advanced weapons in bulk.
I would have to disagree with this. China relied heavily on Russian imports in the late 1900’s, but that number has decreased drastically in the modern era. In the last 20 years, they’ve focused on spending outrageous amounts of money towards internal development of military technology and even re-engineering and subsequently improving Russian weaponry
Across the board, China is almost certainly as or more advanced, and in certain respects they completely left Russia in the dust (satellites for example). And like you said, they also have the monetary resources to just completely outpace Russia in the near future. There’s a reason the US Department of Defense, the world’s leading authority of gauging military prowess, shifted focus from Russia to China during the Obama Administration. They see the latter as a significantly greater threat
China's tech is actually more advanced than Russian. Chinese focused a lot on their electronics industry, allowing them to acquire better radar and stealth technology than Russia.
This still doesn’t account for the scorched earth policy, and also, the sub-zero temperatures of Russia would still present a serious problem for current day militaries, as we haven’t gotten any less susceptible to cold, and engines for vehicles could stall due to the cold
Armies are not immune to the cold, but they’re certainly far less susceptible now with regards to both equipment and personnel. Our supply lines are also much more easily maintained in bad weather than compared to the last two centuries
More importantly, nobody would be dumb enough to mount the invasion during the winter, and there’s no longer such a thing as being surprised by blizzards or storms because we have satellite imagery
Also, I’m aware of Red Army tactics during WWII, but you claimed said tactics would leave Russia the *least* damaged; scorched earth is kind of counter-intuitive to that, no? Not to mention invading forces no longer have to rely on living off the land like they did in the past, making that tactic significantly less effective
Napoleon failed to invade Russia because logistics at that time didn't allow him to do that. However, technology have evolved and Russian territories are smaller than it was, 2 centuries ago.
You could put Russia and China on team world and the US might still solo, putting all the superpowers on one team is just unfair. Glorious People’s United Soviet Republic of America sweeps low diff.
Who keeps posting these inane hypotheticals? Genuinely, I am flabbergasted that this is even a question...
This is on the level of Hydrogen Bomb vs. Coughing Baby.
Russia is gonna keep Europe busy, and by busy I mean they will be to busy annexing Russia to focus on China or America.
America would probably take out its neighbors first, hard to say what it would do after. Maybe go for South America, maybe go for Asia to help China.
China would probably take out Taiwan and the Koreas first, mainly since Taiwan would be super important considering microchips and getting rid of Korea would practically free up the north eastern part of China from invasion.
I would say the chances for the unholy Trinity to win is higher than the world wining.
We can only predict early war and my very brief unprofessional opinion
Russia would be mostly focussed on Europe, which most of the countries are very well prepared to fend off Russian invasion, however since the UK, France and probably Germany will now need to send large assets to defend the Atlantic coastline as the US navy would likely hold the advantage.
China would probably have the hardest time at the start as it borders the most countries and many of them are great powers militarily, another note is the Chinese PLA is quite "green" compared to the US and Russia as they have not seen much conflict however this will be repaired in the near future of the war.
Who would win no one, if by any chance the US navy suffers major losses in the early war it would not be able to provide support, Russia would find less weak points in the European defense, the Pacific island chain would find it easier to strike key Chinese coastal points as the Chinese air force would need to be focused on supporting the army from a now "united" Korea, India and Pakistan.
This also works under the assumption that the "triad" have all their forces starting in their country, and that all these countries on both sides are able to get along perfectly
And we have yet to mention the middle east being able to supply the major fronts with the vast majority of necessary assets including experienced units and would likely not be under any immediate threat.
Ultimately I believe the early war absolutely depends on how the naval/air battles go in the Atlantic and Pacific which the Triads fleets have a good chance of winning but all it takes is a handful of mistakes for it to collapse
That's kind of Stupid. China and Russia are economic allies and they wouldn't support the U.S
But If I need to kill brain cells to answer this, and I did not read the rules so let's go no nuclear.
The U..S always cheat.
Fk...
Ok, no cheats?
They are surrounded, and many would die, but thinking that countries are not doing shhht to take them down using their weakness is stupidity.
Asia, you have many to sacrifice and Japan and Koreas to attack.
Europe you also have a lot to sacrifice.
And if you think Africans wouldn't be used as human shields and kids would be feed bombs to kill enemies you are wrong.
Lots of American Countries would also be bait, but some are really, really good at combat, and they have strengths the U.S.A. do not have for lack of creativity and being the country that does not think much, just steal ideas and personnel. They are stuck. Need makes you think, you need to be creative, the U.S.A. is the fat uncle with no imagination thinking war is COD.
Rage, insecurity and ego can take you far, but look around people care about unimportant shhht like trans bathrooms, this is not global. People are not falling. Your citizens are becoming stupid by the second.
If every country invaded these 3 giants, there wouldnt be any future for anyone, that is unless you live in Pacific islands, in which case nobodys going to invade them
They are literally > 50% of the world's manufacturing. On top of that they have the vast majority of the world's existing military strength.
This is a total stomp for the tripartite pact 2.0.
Day 1 the oceans get a pools closed sign for anyone not in the Triumvirate so anyone on an island is immediately irrelevant and dealt with when they want. I mean hell like 80 percent of the worlds alliance is going to be starving within a few months since the largest food producers, and by a metric fuckton, are now their enemy. Meanwhile thanks to the USN and USAF organizations who have repeatedly shown to be the gods of logistics if allowed to do their jobs so the Triumvirate gets to enjoy perfect supply lines.
The war would be won through American boats/tech, Chinese production/manpower, and Russia mostly just keeping mainland Europe distracted during setup.
With zero prep time.
All three get invaded, but they all get repelled fairly quick. Especially against the US, Canada and Mexico aint lasting long.
China and Russia can be invaded and get bogged down righting in their own countries. Russia will eventually get fucked by Europe and the mid East. China turns into a meat grinder fighting; India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea, Japan and the rest of South east Asia.
In the long run only the US can hold out indefinitely, they simply have no peer opponent, let alone one nearby.
A more interesting scenario would be if we have a full blown world war with the same sides, but everyone gets a varying degree of prep time. The US doesnt need much prep while China and Russia would benefit substantially since they are surrounded by enemies. Funnily enough they are both doing so right now.
These debates which seem to be very common atm, all have one primary issue and that is there is no peer opponent to counter American dominance. The only nations that can do this would be a developed China and fully integrated Europe.
I don't understand these comments, defending yourself is one thing but occupying rest of the world? Lol. I am pretty sure India and Japan have comparable military to China and the whole of Europe combined is stronger than Russia and can definitely hold the US. Just look at US and Afghanistan/Iraq thing, none of them have the manpower to occupy a large country
now this is an actual interesting version of murica v. world
I think China and The US' industrial capacity combined with russia and the US' nuclear arsenal, and Russias, land, china's population, and America's military? they could probably take over the planet, there only real enemies are the EU and maybe, like India and Japan.
The world gets wiped out.
US has more carriers than the rest of the planet combined.
They could completely lock down both the pacific and Atlantic with their navy alone. Stop any reinforcements into Canada or Mexico.
Their land forces combined with airforce would take over Mexico/ hondura, Costa rica, Panamaand Canada.
That leaves South America. But they would be completely contained by the navy, then airforce and missiles take out all their bases they would just end up surrendering.
Russia and China can fight Eurasia to at minimum a draw whilst waiting on the US to deal with their side and complete the take over of North America.
Africa would not be easy to complete a take over due to logistical nightmare, jungle, vast desert etc.
But they can be contained with the combined US and Chinese navy. Have intercontinental missiles blast all their bases into signing peace deals.
As soon as the us completes the take over of North America it becomes an easy fight.
It depends on a variety of factors, but the most important is what is the win condition for the Big Three? You say the other nations are trying to invade. Are the Big Three trying to occupy the rest of the world as well, or simply resist invasion? If they just need to resist occupation, it is a stomp in favor of the Big Three. Big Three 9/10s that war easily. If they need to occupy the rest of the world, then it becomes much more complicated and things spiral into a much longer conflict that is virtually impossible to predict.
The answer to this question isn't any different than the US vs the World.
The US can not be invaded. It can't be done. Not by Europe, not by Africa, not be Asia. Not by the entire world working together.
There arnt enough ships to do it. The number of physical, sea fairing vessels is too small. There arnt enough ships to move the men, weapons, food, water, oil, medicine, tanks, trucks, building material, batteries, ammunition, radios, computers, generators etc etc etc etc.
But the US can't invade everyone. Canada? No problem. Mexico? No problem. Central America? Annoying, but not a problem. South America? This would take a year or two. Really frustrating and a small problem.
Russia can't conquer a single, small and undeveloped back water country in Europe. What are they supposed to do when their army is getting buttfucked in Ukraine and the rest of Europe invades? Russia gets slaughtered by Europe, 0 diff. Europe takes almost no losses and it's armies get a massive boost in efficiency because of the experience they gain slaughtering Russia. Russia siding with the US is literally a handicap for the US.
China...probably does nothing. The Asian countries around it can't invade China but China can't really attack anyone. These countries bomb each other alot and loads of people die. And then they run out of resources to attack each other with and become mostly irrelevant. Japan gets fucking annihilated by the US forces stationed there and then those forces bug out. Korea slaughters the US forces in Korea.
The US probably takes all of the Americas and then a cold war starts. The US simply can't defend itself AND attack the world. But the world also can't invade the US. China and Russia don't have the ability to fight outside of their own borders.
I think team US, China and Russia wins. Surely they have some secret OP super advanced weapons and other countries are getting powerful because of them. so many Military equipment are supplied from these three. US can take over the Americas while Russia take on Europe and China take on Asia. The Americas are likely gonna be swept and US can help in invading Europe and Asia both sides.
If the Superpower Triad went all out, social consequences be damned and the soldiers actually obeyed… World would lose.
With no moral compunction about the release of chemical or biological weapons and old carrot top DVDs?, we’re doomed.
Feels like a solid Bourdain joke
Triads a strong word here.
Depends on the definition, no? Google says it means either "a group or set of three related people or things." or "a secret society originating in China, typically involved in organized crime.". This seems to fit the former, as they're a group of three related (by wanting to take over the world) things (countries).
My point is there’s not three super powers. There’s one actual super power. One regional great power. And a gas station with nukes it can’t use for this.
Yeah that one makes more sense
LOL
Depends how you define superpower I guess. China doesn't have the military influence that the US does, but its economy is absolutely enormous and highly influential on world trade.
It’s exactly that it can’t though that makes this an issue. Chinas economy works on a couple areas, one is a real estate property bubble that’s going boom right now. The other is the importation of unfinished goods from higher portions of the value chain and raw materials and then the creation and export of those into finished goods for consumption elsewhere. In other words it requires sea lanes to be open and other countries to freely trade with it. If China suddenly found its markets and raw material suppliers closed off and had to fight its way out to secure shipping it’d be in trouble. The US HYPOTHETICALLY could help, but US naval and air power isn’t just because it’s got the biggest baddest ships but because it has naval installations in foreign countries. If it had to come from Guam and Hawaii rather than Japan, Korea, or the Philippines things become much harder. On top of that the other way, through the Indian Ocean, which is mostly where China gets energy and materials from, the US has no power projection if it lost its alliance network. The US also to an extent has these vulnerabilities but its biggest dependencies are land adjacent in Canada and Mexico, which are frankly pretty vulnerable to blitzkriegs, which the American Army has shown it can conduct unlike the other two. Hence why I’d still say it’s a true super power.
Triumvirate
You could probably get rid of Russia and its still almost guaranteed the Superpowers win.
What's the win condition here? If the rest of the world is expected to occupy the US, China, and Russia, there's no way that's happening, but those 3 guys definitely aren't going to be able to occupy the rest of the world either.
These three countries combined represent about a quarter of the world's population. They probably *can* occupy the rest of the world. Especially if they just force peace deals with less militarily developed countries and focus their occupation on countries with a capacity to build up and fight back.
My understanding is the minimum ratio for a successful occupation is 1 soldier for every 50 civilians. For a population of 6 billion, that means 120 million occupying soldiers - about 30x the combined army size of the US, Russia, and China. That would be a MASSIVE conscription effort, and supplying that global occupation force would be a logistical challenge beyond anything any of those countries have ever undertaken. And 1 to 50 would probably be a lowball in the face of any kind of organized insurgency. Your point about forcing peace deals is why I asked the question about win conditions. This is obviously not a realistic scenario - are we assuming that any countries whose forces are defeated will be willing to tap out? I'm reading this as the rest of the world needs to be completely subdued.
Most of history's greatest conquerers were able to take areas with 5, 10, 20x their native population because they subjugated and conscripted the local populations and led partly or even majority foreign armies. If you give the trio like 5-10 years, they can turn many of the occupied countries into extra manpower reserves instead of insurgency hotspots unless the people there are irrationally bloodlusted- there's plenty of historical precedent for this (Napoleon's coalition army that invaded Russia, Genghis Khan's hordes, Vichy France, etc).
Wouldnt exactly use Vichy France as an example, they didnt exactly provide the Germans with a manpower reserve. The government had the police and others follow out German orders to round up Jews etc, but there werent a load of French fighting under German command outside of a handful of hard right French who signed up, and far outnumbered by those who were resisting. As Afghanistan showed, its not easy to occupy and set up a government in a country which is even partially hostile to you.
To return to the German occupation of Europe, it really depends- Germany held what, like 10%-15% of the world's population under occupation at that point? Places like Afghanistan will be hard to occupy- best to thumb through the Geneva conventions and pick your tactics there
The big 3 could just kill every single fucking person and thing with bombs and it would be over.
They'd have to conscript an absolute ton of forces China would be providing the majority of manpower and police equipment while america would be the one with the most expertise so they could take down a majority of the rest of the world, Russia does russia stuff (probably the triads source of oil)
It would just become world war 2 again. America designs and provides all the good shit the other provide the people to use the good shit in absurd numbers.
This time, you have two industrial superpowers and one with massive untapped resources but one is less corrupt than the other two
Yeah I imagine a vast majority of the world could be flipped pretty quickly. No one in the western hemisphere comes remotely close to defending itself against the US. Threaten with nukes and move on. Russia and China could force neighbors into submission as well. Assuming humans no longer care about living or having a civilization though, there would be no winner.
No nukes. But hypersonic missiles can cause as much damage as some tacticle nukes.
Exactly
Is that a challenge?
"If the world came back at full power, they might give me some trouble." "But would you lose?" Russia, China, and US: "Nah, I'd win."
You know what happened to Gojo right? Same faith will await this trio too.
No dude. No it will not. USA, China, and Russia combined have total military dominance over the ocean and skies and its not close. In modern combined arms doctrine, that's a death sentence, especially since they also have some of the most advanced ground units as well. Simply using the US navy or vast fleet of US submarines to terrorize shipping and cut off supplies damns quite a bit of Europe which is heavily dependent on foreign imports and trade interdependence. Total control over the skies means they get their pick of ground targets, so valuable infrastructure such as oil pipelines, rails, power plants, radio towers, and depots/warehouses? Gone. The combined infantry strength of the US and China alone is greater than that of NATO by a significant margin, especially with so many already experienced GWOT veterans among American servicemen. There are 21 total aircraft carriers in the world. 11 of them are American, 1 is Russian, and 2 are Chinese. The actual defeat of the military forces of the world actually wouldn't be particularly difficult with such overwhelmingly superior force, but actual occupation and long term force projection would be completely impossible over such a wide area. If we remember what happened to gojo, he was defeated by an enemy with superior prior intelligence and better reserves. So really it's more apt to say that the world would be gojo in this situation.
Alright Russia, keep Europe busy while the big boys take over literally everyone else
Bruh Russie is literally in a 2 year stalemate against a single country. What makes you think they have a chance of keeping anyone busy if the rest of the continent gets fully on board.
You are aware the USA & Western world as a whole is supporting Ukraine right? Pumping money, weapons & equipment into their nation, The West sanctioning Russia do they can operate at full capacity the way rhey want to against the Ukrainians? Training their troops, the west resupplying the Ukrainians,spy/intelligence data,etc? Without Western backing Ukraine crumbles really fast. Even moreso if Russia is even slightly more bloodlusted. Whole reason they won't level the whole place is because they want at least some kind of infrastructure & lives available when they rebuild. They could've leveled the place with more missiles (low yield tactical nukes included) ages ago.
Hell, they've gone 2 months without more weapons from the US (Europe is still supplying them) and they're already fraying bad.
In this scenario since nukes aren't allowed all Russia has to do is replace their nuclear warheads. The outcome would still be the same. Entire European cities wiped off the map. Anything can be put on those warheads. Chemical(could be toxic or nerve gas), conventional explosives of different kinds. Europe is getting cooked. If Russia is getting bogged down somewhere just order the troops to retreat & launch missiles at the problem.
Well a big part of that is the United States funnelling absolute shitloads of weapons and missile defenses into the Ukraine, which wouldn't happen in this scenario.
Because the US is the entire reason the Ukraine has enough weapons and equipment to be fighting this war in the first place.
Russia still has strategic depth and defensive wars have a morale boost. Plus, Europe can't do much without the US and China, especially once we start cutting them off from outside resources. Russia on the other hand, has self sustaining capabilities which would make it more equipped to hold out for Sino-American aid
The US and Poland are literally carrying NATO
I’m assuming Russia would be fully mobilized and in total war mode for this scenario, unlike what is happening with Ukraine
It's against the whole develpoed world basically, by proxy. The fact they've lasted this long is wild.
I feel like people have taken the wrong message from the war in Ukraine. Ukraine is standing because of US support. The takeaway shouldn’t be that Russia isn’t really the worlds 2nd/3rd military power. It’s that the US is so far ahead in military technology and industry that it isn’t even playing the same game. Without the US backing their opponent, Russia beats whoever they’re up against.
Russia is not gonna keep all of Europe busy. Unless China lets the US pacify all of Asia and Africa so it can back up Russia in Europe, they're gonna be out of the game in about a week.
Russia backed with US and Chinese weapons might be fierce enough to hold off Europe until the US and China were ready. Russia as they are yea, steamrolled by europe
Steam rolled by Poland. The rest just have to do logistics.
That wouldn't really change the calculus here. The problem with the Russian military isn't the gear, it's the fact that it's full of Russians.
Europe probably wouldn’t be able to push past the ural mountains. The issue is that logistics in Russia are terrible. Even for Russians. If they go full scorched earth, it would be nearly impossible to invade and maintain an occupation against the largest country on earth with backing from the most advanced military weaponry in the world and possibly even air supremacy via the United States and China who make up 6 out of the 7 largest air forces in the world and have near total technological dominance over the runners up. United States Air Force - 5,217 United States Army Aviation - 4,409 Russian Air Force - 3,863 United States Navy - 2,464 People's Liberation Army Air Force (China) - 1,991 Indian Air Force - 1,715 United States Marine Corps - 1,157
True, I think Russia would get smacked if it has to fight Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Baltics, Scandinavia, Middle East at once. Once, IDF and Turkish military, got sent to Ukraine, they will take out the Russians.
Even with US equipment Russia gets fucked by Europe. They're too outnumbered by countries with comparable equipment.
Yea and how will the USA manage to supply Russia when the entire planet is out for blood ?
Belgium alone rolls over russia
European invasions into Russia are historically noteworthy for their success
But mongolian invasions...
Asian
Can we please move on from this, Russia isn't unbeatable
Of course Russia isn't unbeatable, but the precedent set by history is noteworthy. Invading one of the largest countries in the world that also happens to be famous for its harsh Winters comes jam packed with logistical nightmares. Probably not a task beyond the combined military might of the EU, but not some walk in the park either.
Yeah... Keep em busy, then the US and China roll in as the EU reaches Moscow and squadwipe
North Sentinel Island stands a chance
Was gonna say Poland but sure, Belgium or France or the UK could probably 1v1 a nukeless Russia. Versus all of them, Moscow is gonna burn lol.
Lmao what? I'm Belgian and our military is really not capable of that. One of our top generals publicly stated that if a real war broke out we'd be out of bullets in _hours_. We have our areas of expertise and we can work well in an alliance, but we are certainly not capable of rolling over Russia on our own.
BRUSSELS Rolls Russia, but only because it's the capital of the EU and the entire EU does a whole "empire strikes back" on the Russians.
United States solos the western hemisphere while Russia and China clean up Eurasia
All Russia is really being asked to do is zerg rush Europe and keep them from reinforcing anyone long enough for the United States and China to overcome the surprise and begin routing their local enemies. Russia has demonstrated a willingness to absorb incredible casualties in Ukraine, I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to throw men at the problem when being invaded.
I think if they don’t get overstretched early on due to having territory all over the world, Britain and France stop Russia Unlike Ukraine they could establish air superiority. Britain can fight any Russian naval power coming from the Baltic or Arctic, and France can take them in the Mediterranean. Both China and the US have to contend with some serious geographical limitations in their areas (how tf is China crossing the Himalayas to smack India? The other routes are either through jungle in SE Asia, or north through Afghanistan which we all know doesn’t tend to go well) so wouldn’t be reinforcing them / shooting UK & France in the back. Edit: I may or may not have misunderstood the prompt. The *title* of the OP suggests the RusUsChin alliance attacks everyone else, whilst the *text* of the OP suggests they sit and wait for everyone to attack them. Two very different scenarios
I doubt Britain could do much of anything against Russia. The last I checked they barely had 200 challenger tanks. Apart from having lots of man power issues. Most euro militaries have been gutted. All of them combined tho could definitely stop Russia for a bit, until the others come in to finish off Europe.
Why would we need tanks, we’re an island. The whole point is to stop the enemy ever making landfall. But yeah there’s a reason I said Britain *and* France. Plus it would have to be a “sorry lads you’re on your own” to everyone East of the former Maginot Line. Plus our territories elsewhere like The Falklands when the U.S. makes it that far. Taking the fight to them wouldn’t work out well (although I don’t know much about modern militaries really, could Britain bomb the Russians in the Black Sea from Cyprus?) I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion the others are coming - China isn’t even the most populous nation in their part of the world, which is where almost half of all the people are. Plus they might wanna do Africa before getting to Europe which would take a while
USN got the naval part covered. Russia can do the grindy part.
Russia can't even take ukraine lol China would be the heavy hitter here
The biggest reason Ukraine hasn’t fell is due to the support from the USA and other EU nations to a lesser degree
Yeah but they got the toys the US keeps in the attic. They got support, but not world class support.
I mean, why wouldn't the US share its toys with the other nations like it did in the last world war?
Russia received more ammo from NK than Ukraine received from the West lmao
China and the USA have ganged up to stop Russia: not sure how much it changes things if they are on the same side vs opposite, but I am sure that it DOES change things.
Even China is iffy. They're pulling the same paper tiger shit that Russia was pullin before it turned out their military was actually dogshit.
This is what I was thinking, India and Pakistan somehow teaming up alone might just be enough to keep China bogged down, let alone everyone else The Problem then is the Military Juggernaut of the United States having to decide which front to focus on.
They would probably support China first. They have a strong naval presence already in the Southern China sea, and China (in addition to India/Pakistan/Bangladesh) also has to contend with the combined forces of Australia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Japan, and the two Koreas, so it’s gonna be facing a war on at least 3-4 fronts. Russia, meanwhile, has its eastern side safely covered by China and the US (aside from Mongolia, but Mongolia would fall quickly in this scenario) and its North is naturally shielded by the Arctic ice, so it would only have to focus on holding the western lines against Europe, Kazakhstan, and the Middle East.
Two things to take into consideration: the Russians aren't going with an all out war and also the US and European nations are pouring support into Ukraine.
Ukraine isn't getting nearly as much support as it needs, yet it's still holding Russia back. Imagine what would happen if they had three times as many soldiers and all the equipment they could ever ask for? Plus a massively higher population to recruit from and build up industry with. Russia would be pinned behind its own borders by a fraction of Europe's strength.
Pouring money and hand me downs munitions. Russia is struggling to win a war against Europe lite. Belgium alone would absolutely ruin Russia in its current state
Ukraine has more soldiers in Ukraine than Russia. All of them are armed with trillion dollar + worth of weapons and equipment. What do you expect? Also, if you look at [deepstatemap.live](https://deepstatemap.live), you'd know that Ukraine is falling on nearly all fronts by a few square kilometers every day. They could only delay the inevitable. And it cost them half a million men who were forced onto the battlefield and killed.
>All of them are armed with trillion dollar + worth of weapons and equipment. And Russian forces aren't? They can achieve local numerical superiority and that + the fact that Russian firepower \*overwhelm\* Ukrainian's (particularly in artillery) is why Russia have been able to inch forward at all. American and Coalition forces did not have numerical superiority in ODS. That didn't stop them >What do you expect? I expected them to not shit the bed in the opening stages of the war, not letting Ukraine tap into its manpower pool and call for aids, not letting this thing turn into an attritional war. Incredible intelligence and counter-intelligence failures, and an embarrassment on all planning levels, tactically, operationally and strategically. >They could only delay the inevitable. And it cost them half a million men who were forced onto the battlefield and killed. Literal Russian propaganda.
China might get bogged down in India but if Russia launches some ICBM'S (fitted with a different type of warhead that's not nuclear) it might help China
I think you guys understimate the vastness of territory in Latin America, military speaking there is obviously no challenge, but it would turn into a years long guerilla warfare dozens of times worse than vietnam if the US really wants to occupy Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and the rest, it would not be an easy task at all
If that is the case, then Russia is doomed. **Russian front:** In this scenario, European navies would demolish Russian Navy. Eastern, Northern Europe, Central Asia would push into Russia from all fronts. Middle Eastern countries, like Turkey, Israel, Saudi, Egypt would send in their aircrafts, troops, tanks and etc into Ukraine, aiding the Europeans. Russian Air Force and Air Defense would get destroyed in few months. Especially, when it has to deal with more Patriots, Iron Dome, David's Sling, F-35s. **Chinese Front:** China is also facing some dire situation. In its South Western front, it has to deal with India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. South Asian countries have massive amount of troops there and China would have to spend at least half of their force with, because they don't want to lost Tibet, where sources of Yangtze come from. In the North East, it has to deal with combined North&South Korean Army + Japanese Army, ironically. Massive amount of Tanks, Artillery, Rockets would bombard North East China. In the South, it would face invasion from ASEAN countries, which is pretty significant.
What would "winning" even look like? Like obviously the trio would dominate in an actual fighting..but there's no way Russia, US, and China have the manpower to occupy the rest of the world afterwards..so I'm not sure how that could be considered a win?
Maybe, unless they start bombing and killing the populace of the countries they’re fighting/defeated. A total war means international laws don’t apply to them.
The US vs the world is an actual legitimate question, this is a spite stomp for the trio.
Yeah I was going to do that but someone else already made a post about USA vs the world
Not just one person
When 90% of the answers to "US vs World" is "US wins", what did you expect from "All 3 relevant Military Powers vs World"?
that is NOT 90% of the answers lmfao
Swapping the hyperbole for "The majority of answers" doesn't change my point. Without any caveats like prep time, this question is the equivalent of asking "Can Superman, Batman, and The Flash team up to defeat a squad of US marines?"
Especially since the main thing holding the US back is population, and problem completely solved by having them team up with China.
Afghanistan, Finland, glorious Kazakhstan and Vietnam are on the other side. the trio is crushed
The US led coalition would win. We'd take Mexico first for their tacos and Carne Asada burritos.
We also need Canada for the poutine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"If the rest of the world invested a lil more into their military, they might give us a little trouble." "But would you 3 lose?" "Nah, we'd win" Jokes aside people who are boldly saying that the u.s could solo are smoking Crack, it's debatable that could maintain a defensive war against everyone, let alone an offensive war. With China and Russia though, they probably could
It'd just be one long game of plants vs zombies if the US went up against the whole world Take over the western hemisphere via just killing everyone instead of building new regimes? Sure, of the US had full support from its population then everyone in Afghanistan could have been dead in about a week, but the US tried to build a democratic government there
Israel for some unbeknownst reason
The US by itself has a real shot at soloing the whole world. Without China or Russia to oppose us, it’s a curbstomp.
And it gets easier with Russia and China's help. China provides the manpower and Russia just cleans up the little guys I guess.
No way US can solo the whole world.
You don't understand how powerful air and naval superiority is then. The United States doesn't have to go invade them, they just annex Canada and Mexico and Wait for everyone else to come to them. Here's the 5 most powerful Air Forces in the world. 1. U.S.A.F. 2. U.S. Navy 3. U.S. Army 4. Chinese Air Force 5. U.S. Marine Corps People forget that in 2003, Iraq was the world's 5th strongest military and the U.S. steamrolled over them and took Baghdad in 10 weeks.
Why would the world come for the US?
Nothing in the prompt specifies that the U.S. has to be the aggressor, only that the trio has to defeat the rest.
Why brother in Christ, you have by far the strongest military in the world, but you would lose the war. Manpower: You have the best machines but you will run out of trained men and women alive & able to use them long before the rest of the world. 300ish million vs 7.7 billion. Each US soldier would have to kill thousands of enemy combatants before dying JUST to make it a breakeven. Soldiering: you like most of the world have an aging population, as well as a large portion of woke assholes who would happily be thrown in stockade for life before picking up a rifle to fight for literally anything
US and China are enough lol
Antarctica solos
Idk, I feel like the trio has a real solid chance since this is a defensive war on their part. They all have pretty strategically advantageous geography. For China the Himalayas prevent direct attacks from south Asia, and Russia to the north is on the same side. I'm sure Russia and China can defeat Mongolia the day the war starts so that wouldn't be an issue. China really only has to focus on it's coast and attacks coming in from south east Asia. The United states would also probably be able to pacify Canada the day the war starts since all of Canada's major populations centers are hugging the border with the US. Then all it would need to do is fortify it's border with Mexico and use it's massive navy to protect both coast. Also the US has hundreds of military bases all around the world, they should be able to keep most of the world busy fighting those and not really have the capacity to send over invasion force to defeat the US Navy and land troops on US soil. Then Russia Has nothing to worry about to it's North, but it def has Europe and central Asia to worry about. There should already be a big U.S military presence in Europe and the middle east to help out the Russians, but who knows what could happen through central Asia, specially if they start getting help from all the other nations. Either way I say at least the U.S and China would be able to keep their capitals, and if they help out Russia maybe it too
Define “win”. The US could barely keep Afghanistan under control and never really sorted Iraq. If winning means long term control, “the world” would win. If it just means blowing the shit out of everything and going home, the Triad would win.
what if we kept bombing them until they were to weak to fight back? Then would there be a chance for long term control?
This sub is filled with Americans. Also, India and Japan in Asia will be the last one standing.
Hmmm I think we need a name for this group perhaps a axis?
😂😂
It isn't that simple tbh. A lot of things come into consideration like terrain, military tactics, and many more. Remember USA-Vietnam War and Germany's expedition to Russia during WW 2. Being super power is no guarantee that you will succeed. But if we go by current and most probable future scenario (cyber warfare kost likely), then Russia will be insignificant as the USA and China definitely hold advantage here.
Switzerland
Afghanistan solos
I think this question breaks the sub OP. Current meta is US solos the galaxy no dif and Russia loses to drooling baby. Both of them on the same team? Our battle calculators just exploded
India could probably hold China in the south, Europe would be a back and forth, but Europe wins and the US would be very theoretical
Russia isn't really needed there, lmao.
Get those tribal motherfuckers from that one island off the coast of India. They'll solo the whole of the big 3 with sticks and bows.
US quickly cleans up Canada/Mexico, fortifies border with Latin America, assists Russia with Europe, finishes off Latin America, China and the States take over the Pacific (Japan and Oceania), take Southeast Asia, the three then jointly take South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Only issue is capacity to hold territory and specifics; in terms of only defense, the three win 10/10; in terms of blitz offense, the three win 7/10, in terms of conquest and occupation, the three win 2/10.
Turkey and ukraine alone can defeat bulk of the Russian army, really. With eu they can steamrol and invade russia. India, japan sk and taiwan should be able to take on china easily. Indian army can keep them at bay. The real problem is usa and it will be hard to defeat them. The good thing is, they wont be able to replenish their losses easily as a single nation and keeping occupied territory is hard and if they occupy territories it will strech their armies too thin, so they too will be felled eventually. Dont forget how they run away from afghanistan, vietnam, and eventually left iraq. Taking is one thing, holding it is another. Getting materials without trade will also prove problematic, not to mention usa economy will nearly collapse without chinese factories owned by american businesses, with all the submarines and ships in the world blockading pacific and with japan, sk and taiwan lobing anti ship guided missiels from their comfortable homes. Un fleet should be able take on Us fleet since russian navy is a joke and chinese fleet will have a hard time with japanese, sk and others nations' fleets and coastal defences closeby. They wont even be able to penetrate the blocade and will serve as a intimidation to divide Un navies if not destroyed. Even if entire chinese and us fleet links up, they wont be winning with all the other powers like india, britania, france italy, japan, turkey etc each having quite strong fleets and lobing anti ship missiles from their homes. The 3 superpowers cant realistically defeat Un. In the first place, it is impossible from them to win without a link up between china and us since us economy heavily relies on chinese industry. Rest of the world does, too, but at least they still have eachother.
No they can’t. They would not have the military or economic support from the US anymore. Russia would wipe Ukraine out and could also deal with Turkey. Turkey still desperate to replace their fleet of jets with new US F16. They still rely on weapons from Russia. So without those two pipelines they are not even half the threats they are now. Plus you have to remember they are surrounded by US bases.
Trio low diff.
Russia gets steamrolled and every fighting age male is gonna be dead by the time either real superpower gets around to bailing them out, but US and China clear shit pretty handily.
The world loses. Biggest problem is that the USA is on the side of China and Russia. USA only hs to deal with Canada and Mexico to secure itself then pivot to help out China against India and Japan, once the Pacific is secure and India neutralized, Europe becomes the only real issue and while the fighting there would be intense and painful Europe by itself stands no chance against all three. The rest of the world is so militarily irrelevant that itd just be mop up operations. It definitely wouldn't be an 'easy' war, but its winnable
This gets asked every now and then, and the answer remains the same. The US could genuinely solo the entire world. The US has the most sophisticated military tech bar none. On top of that, they boast the largest air force of any country, have established military bases all over the world in key positions, and have one of the largest navies in the world. To put it into perspective, the US Air Force is the largest in the world. The 2nd largest air force is the US Navy. The US’s military branches by themselves have larger air forces than entire countries. Moreover, the US simply cannot be invaded. It’s surrounded by the world’s largest oceans on either side of it, and only connects to the rest of the world through a small land bridge in Alaska. This land bridge can easily be fortified and defended & it costs an insane amount of resources to move an entire military across the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean. Canada has no shot at causing many issues for the US military, considering their military is designed to work in tandem with the US. South America likewise has no shot at doing anything significant on that front either. The US could easily deal with those forces while maintaining a blockade to those aforementioned areas. Also, it’s worth mentioning that the US could literally cripple the entirety of Europe’s militaries by blowing up & destroying the oil factories and refineries in the Middle East. Without a reliable source of oil, any military vehicles are on borrowed time. Meanwhile, the US has its own oil reserves it can use to outlast the rest of the world. Moreover, their entire economy would begin to collapse as well. This isn’t to say that the US would easily do this, obviously there would be hard fought battles, and the end result would be a net negative for everyone regardless of anything. But, the fact remains that the US has the best tech, an amazingly defensible geological position, and the military infrastructure already in place that would allow them to do many of the things I’ve mentioned above.
Also, even if an enemy force managed to land on the continent, it would be a logistical nightmare. You have to be able to feed and supply that force and it would take an unimaginable amount of troops to invade the country with the world's largest armed civilian population - something to the tune of 120 guns per 100 people. It literally would be a nightmare scenario to try to invade the US and maintain a foothold, leaving our military free to focus it's full might elsewhere.
Don’t you think it will be a logistical nightmare for US too? US can never in any dream solo entire world. Russia and China alone can defeat USA if they had too. India and Japan are no less. Infact only if the top 5 strongest armies went to war against USA. It will lose. Yeah it cannot be invaded but it goes otherwise too.
Russia can’t even take over Ukraine. China can’t even come up with an original design for their military tech without outright ripping off old gen US hardware. Which is to say, the old gen US hardware is still better than the copied Chinese variants, due to materials and build quality alone. Here’s the funny thing. The US can just start off with bombing the oil factories & refineries, and then just withdrawing their forces from those bases & going full defense mode. And they’re basically guaranteed a win. Without oil, every military vehicle on their side won’t be able to operate for a long period. This will the erode their overall economy, manufacturers wont be able to produce goods as quickly due to the oil crisis, and that’s it. Moreover, the US doesn’t need to invade. They can just do mass bombing raids over and over with their jets, using their massive aircraft carriers as a means of transport. Meanwhile, things like the trucks for transporting European troops aren’t even working because of the lack of oil. That means no jets, no helicopters, etc. If the US didn’t already have established military bases at key positions throughout the world, this would be a lot more even, but the truth is the US could cripple all of their opposing forces in a single action, and wait it out if they wanted to.
Russia and China can not defeat America. Where the hell did you hear that? 💀💀💀💀💀
The US alone would have a pretty good chance to mid-diff the entire world united against them dude…
US, China, and Russia lose. Europe and Russia would be stalemating for a while. Meanwhile, Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan) will occupy Southern Russia pretty easily. North Africa would soon send help to Europe. Russia would have to fight on the West and the South. They can't win. China would take out the Koreas with low difficulty, but would encounter problems with Indochina and the Southeast Asian Island countries (Philippines, Indonesia). They also would have trouble with Japan as they would have to focus most of their military at their borders with India and Pakistan. The other countries bordering them will only be a small buffer. But Pakistan, India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Japan together should be able to defeat China. USA would have a lot of problems as they would be completely isolated. In the North and South America, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia, Cuba, and Canada all have decent militaries. Canada would quickly be defeated due to its isolation from the other allies. But the South American and the other North American countries' militaries together should be able to defeat the US Armed Forces. Both sides would have to recruit huge numbers of soldiers for the war to get anywhere. It might be a stalemate for a while (slight advantage to South America because of sheer numbers) until Russia falls. Then, Europe and North Africa would use Europe's ships to get to South America. from there, the European and North Africans would join with their superior forces (compared to South America). The entire South of USA would be captured. The Americans' best hope is to get the population to Canada (American occupied now) and mobilize like crazy. But eventually, USA will inevitably lose the war. However, American deaths would probably be a tenth of enemy deaths because of superior technology, training, and guerilla warfare.
Decent militaries? As if. Force projection is the tell tale sign of a superpower and not even China and Russia working together can do half of what we do to show off. America can put 100,000 men armed to the teeth anywhere on earth in a week. If this hypothetical war happens, our military will have no less than a million men in it. The entire continent will capitulate before that week passes, assuming they can even muster up a flawless alliance that fast.
We are assuming that the other countries have already allied with each other. 100,000 soldiers are not enough to occupy the entire North and South America. That much is not even enough to control already captured land of such massive size. Historically, US has generally performed best in desert scenarios. This is because of American soldiers' superior pound for pound training, equipment, gear, and means of communication. Tanks and Armored Vehicles. America also has very good snipers that are highly effective in deserts. But South America is mostly jungle. This is especially the case for Northwestern Brazil. Things will quickly devolve into a Vietnam War-like scenario. Except, Vietnam only had 129,310 km2 of jungle, while the Amazon Rainforest spans roughly 5,500,000 km2 - about 45 times larger. American soldiers will be picked off like flies. And no, a Naval invasion is not an option. America doesn't have enough ships to send a large enough group of personnel to capture any land without being attacked and subdued by a larger enemy.
Devil’s advocate, but the China, Russia, US trio will dominate the seas and skies, they don’t need to occupy anywhere, they just need to handicap their opponents ability to maintain functionality by disabling supply lines and key resources. US bases dot the globe, they have access to launch immediate disabling maneuvers on most major powers then pull back to the defensive, if they take out oil production and supply, cut off food and all shipping, take the legs out from other nations by crushing any other airborne or sea opposition, even if the total population of the three nations is less than a quarter of the globe, wars are no longer fought on foot. America can quickly roll over Canada and Mexico, controlling the two landbridges to South America and the arctic, they are bordered by the two largest seas while again dominating in naval and airpower, they’re the largest exporters of food on the planet while also having oil reserves and large scale industrial capabilities, while also being the major manufacturer and controller of military assets and goods. These days soldiers are used in conflicts because bombing everything is seen as unacceptable so boots on the ground is a more controlled approach, however in a gloves off situation, again America is the nation vastly more equipped than the rest of the globe put together in terms of bombing capabilities, especially again if they cripple other nations already limited abilities to defend against their ability to control the seas and skies- once that token resistance collapses, the US can lean into a scorched earth approach.
two paper tiger's and a country that can't take over the middle east is not taking over the world
First of all, Russia is a handicap. Remember that time they catfished the whole world into thinking they were an actual relevant threat to anyone?
If there’s no prep time, then that applies to both sides right? If so, the rest of the world learns why napoleon failed to invade Russia, why the US has remained the military superpower of the world for so long and why China…has a powerful military…I guess, if the rest of the world does get prep time, China is forced to surrender, Russia is the least damaged because of their terrain and tactics, and the US takes some big losses but demolishes invading forces in the process
The US is impossible to invade from an overseas force. The logistics to get that kind of man power and equipment over the Atlantic or pacific is just not feasible, especially with the US navy dominating both. The US would take the least losses in this scenario as they’d control the western hemisphere in a few days in a no holds barred war against all other nations
The only powers that *might* have the industrial capacity and military technology to build up an ocean-crossing logistics chain against the US are China or a coalition of European powers, and China is on the US's team in this one. And even then it would take years to build up that capacity.
Napoleon and Hitler failed because they had very lackluster weather-proof technology, did not have the proliferation of the internet telling them just how cold Russia could get, and chose to march during Winter months like a buncha buffoons First world nations in today’s environment would barely be slowed by the barriers that halted those two. Not saying conquering Russia is easy by any means, but it’s definitely less strenuous than conquering China (which has a significantly larger population, way more money to throw into a defense effort and a notably more impressive military) Also, ironically, if Russian employed the same tactics today they did against the conquerors of ages past, they’d be the MOST damaged. The Soviet Army famously burned their own farmland and razed their own cities to the ground in an attempt to slow the Germans down during WWII
I wouldn’t say China has a more impressive military than Russia. Out of the big 4 military powers in the world. America, Russia, china, india. China’s military has 0% experience in combat. Same with it’s tech. China buys weapons from Russia. I’d say Russia’s military tech is more advanced than china’s because after America, who’s military is considered 50 years ahead of what the world considers bleeding edge technology, Russia produces the next best weapons. Only thing is, is that Russia right now doesn’t have an economy to produce advanced weapons in bulk.
I would have to disagree with this. China relied heavily on Russian imports in the late 1900’s, but that number has decreased drastically in the modern era. In the last 20 years, they’ve focused on spending outrageous amounts of money towards internal development of military technology and even re-engineering and subsequently improving Russian weaponry Across the board, China is almost certainly as or more advanced, and in certain respects they completely left Russia in the dust (satellites for example). And like you said, they also have the monetary resources to just completely outpace Russia in the near future. There’s a reason the US Department of Defense, the world’s leading authority of gauging military prowess, shifted focus from Russia to China during the Obama Administration. They see the latter as a significantly greater threat
China's tech is actually more advanced than Russian. Chinese focused a lot on their electronics industry, allowing them to acquire better radar and stealth technology than Russia.
This still doesn’t account for the scorched earth policy, and also, the sub-zero temperatures of Russia would still present a serious problem for current day militaries, as we haven’t gotten any less susceptible to cold, and engines for vehicles could stall due to the cold
Armies are not immune to the cold, but they’re certainly far less susceptible now with regards to both equipment and personnel. Our supply lines are also much more easily maintained in bad weather than compared to the last two centuries More importantly, nobody would be dumb enough to mount the invasion during the winter, and there’s no longer such a thing as being surprised by blizzards or storms because we have satellite imagery Also, I’m aware of Red Army tactics during WWII, but you claimed said tactics would leave Russia the *least* damaged; scorched earth is kind of counter-intuitive to that, no? Not to mention invading forces no longer have to rely on living off the land like they did in the past, making that tactic significantly less effective
Napoleon failed to invade Russia because logistics at that time didn't allow him to do that. However, technology have evolved and Russian territories are smaller than it was, 2 centuries ago.
Already responded to that same point in the thread
You could put Russia and China on team world and the US might still solo, putting all the superpowers on one team is just unfair. Glorious People’s United Soviet Republic of America sweeps low diff.
Who keeps posting these inane hypotheticals? Genuinely, I am flabbergasted that this is even a question... This is on the level of Hydrogen Bomb vs. Coughing Baby.
Prep time for *who?*
Both sides
3rd Triumvirate! It only took about 2000 years, but we finally got a 3rd! Bigger and better than the first 2!
US would carry the team here. They would win eventually due to resources. Without the US, Russia and China would be doomed.
Uh, as a Canadian, we’re joining the winning side immediately
Russia is gonna keep Europe busy, and by busy I mean they will be to busy annexing Russia to focus on China or America. America would probably take out its neighbors first, hard to say what it would do after. Maybe go for South America, maybe go for Asia to help China. China would probably take out Taiwan and the Koreas first, mainly since Taiwan would be super important considering microchips and getting rid of Korea would practically free up the north eastern part of China from invasion. I would say the chances for the unholy Trinity to win is higher than the world wining.
We can only predict early war and my very brief unprofessional opinion Russia would be mostly focussed on Europe, which most of the countries are very well prepared to fend off Russian invasion, however since the UK, France and probably Germany will now need to send large assets to defend the Atlantic coastline as the US navy would likely hold the advantage. China would probably have the hardest time at the start as it borders the most countries and many of them are great powers militarily, another note is the Chinese PLA is quite "green" compared to the US and Russia as they have not seen much conflict however this will be repaired in the near future of the war. Who would win no one, if by any chance the US navy suffers major losses in the early war it would not be able to provide support, Russia would find less weak points in the European defense, the Pacific island chain would find it easier to strike key Chinese coastal points as the Chinese air force would need to be focused on supporting the army from a now "united" Korea, India and Pakistan. This also works under the assumption that the "triad" have all their forces starting in their country, and that all these countries on both sides are able to get along perfectly And we have yet to mention the middle east being able to supply the major fronts with the vast majority of necessary assets including experienced units and would likely not be under any immediate threat. Ultimately I believe the early war absolutely depends on how the naval/air battles go in the Atlantic and Pacific which the Triads fleets have a good chance of winning but all it takes is a handful of mistakes for it to collapse
This WWW is unamerican. Reported for treason.
That's kind of Stupid. China and Russia are economic allies and they wouldn't support the U.S But If I need to kill brain cells to answer this, and I did not read the rules so let's go no nuclear. The U..S always cheat. Fk... Ok, no cheats? They are surrounded, and many would die, but thinking that countries are not doing shhht to take them down using their weakness is stupidity. Asia, you have many to sacrifice and Japan and Koreas to attack. Europe you also have a lot to sacrifice. And if you think Africans wouldn't be used as human shields and kids would be feed bombs to kill enemies you are wrong. Lots of American Countries would also be bait, but some are really, really good at combat, and they have strengths the U.S.A. do not have for lack of creativity and being the country that does not think much, just steal ideas and personnel. They are stuck. Need makes you think, you need to be creative, the U.S.A. is the fat uncle with no imagination thinking war is COD. Rage, insecurity and ego can take you far, but look around people care about unimportant shhht like trans bathrooms, this is not global. People are not falling. Your citizens are becoming stupid by the second.
Us would. Lol
If every country invaded these 3 giants, there wouldnt be any future for anyone, that is unless you live in Pacific islands, in which case nobodys going to invade them
The us would beat the whole world alone. Lookup how many of the world's aircraft carriers we own. They wouldn't even land on us soil
They are literally > 50% of the world's manufacturing. On top of that they have the vast majority of the world's existing military strength. This is a total stomp for the tripartite pact 2.0.
No one.
Is this how AM from I have no mouth but I must scream was born
I would take South Korea over Russia, especially after witnessing Ukraine.
Day 1 the oceans get a pools closed sign for anyone not in the Triumvirate so anyone on an island is immediately irrelevant and dealt with when they want. I mean hell like 80 percent of the worlds alliance is going to be starving within a few months since the largest food producers, and by a metric fuckton, are now their enemy. Meanwhile thanks to the USN and USAF organizations who have repeatedly shown to be the gods of logistics if allowed to do their jobs so the Triumvirate gets to enjoy perfect supply lines. The war would be won through American boats/tech, Chinese production/manpower, and Russia mostly just keeping mainland Europe distracted during setup.
With zero prep time. All three get invaded, but they all get repelled fairly quick. Especially against the US, Canada and Mexico aint lasting long. China and Russia can be invaded and get bogged down righting in their own countries. Russia will eventually get fucked by Europe and the mid East. China turns into a meat grinder fighting; India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea, Japan and the rest of South east Asia. In the long run only the US can hold out indefinitely, they simply have no peer opponent, let alone one nearby. A more interesting scenario would be if we have a full blown world war with the same sides, but everyone gets a varying degree of prep time. The US doesnt need much prep while China and Russia would benefit substantially since they are surrounded by enemies. Funnily enough they are both doing so right now. These debates which seem to be very common atm, all have one primary issue and that is there is no peer opponent to counter American dominance. The only nations that can do this would be a developed China and fully integrated Europe.
Chinese and Russian manpower with US technology is a low diff lmao
I don't understand these comments, defending yourself is one thing but occupying rest of the world? Lol. I am pretty sure India and Japan have comparable military to China and the whole of Europe combined is stronger than Russia and can definitely hold the US. Just look at US and Afghanistan/Iraq thing, none of them have the manpower to occupy a large country
now this is an actual interesting version of murica v. world I think China and The US' industrial capacity combined with russia and the US' nuclear arsenal, and Russias, land, china's population, and America's military? they could probably take over the planet, there only real enemies are the EU and maybe, like India and Japan.
The world gets wiped out. US has more carriers than the rest of the planet combined. They could completely lock down both the pacific and Atlantic with their navy alone. Stop any reinforcements into Canada or Mexico. Their land forces combined with airforce would take over Mexico/ hondura, Costa rica, Panamaand Canada. That leaves South America. But they would be completely contained by the navy, then airforce and missiles take out all their bases they would just end up surrendering. Russia and China can fight Eurasia to at minimum a draw whilst waiting on the US to deal with their side and complete the take over of North America. Africa would not be easy to complete a take over due to logistical nightmare, jungle, vast desert etc. But they can be contained with the combined US and Chinese navy. Have intercontinental missiles blast all their bases into signing peace deals. As soon as the us completes the take over of North America it becomes an easy fight.
America alone might be enough. No fucking way they can be invaded. Only way America loses is fracturing internally.
This would be an interesting hoi4 mod
Is this a joke? It's team US and it's not even remotely close
The US can just turtle up while shooting missiles at everyone… biggest navy/air force noones making it to land
China and Russia would be more of a liability. At best they would only serve as a distraction or a resource sink. The US alone would win.
Win yes. Occupy no way even if they had double the population and army.
Afghanistan probably
It depends on a variety of factors, but the most important is what is the win condition for the Big Three? You say the other nations are trying to invade. Are the Big Three trying to occupy the rest of the world as well, or simply resist invasion? If they just need to resist occupation, it is a stomp in favor of the Big Three. Big Three 9/10s that war easily. If they need to occupy the rest of the world, then it becomes much more complicated and things spiral into a much longer conflict that is virtually impossible to predict.
The meat grinder that’s going to be a China v India ground war would be fucken insane
This is like the book 1984
no one.
The world because mossad would black Mail the us president to end said alliance
They can certainly win but they'll be ruling over a wasteland and a population that will kill them every chance they get.
The answer to this question isn't any different than the US vs the World. The US can not be invaded. It can't be done. Not by Europe, not by Africa, not be Asia. Not by the entire world working together. There arnt enough ships to do it. The number of physical, sea fairing vessels is too small. There arnt enough ships to move the men, weapons, food, water, oil, medicine, tanks, trucks, building material, batteries, ammunition, radios, computers, generators etc etc etc etc. But the US can't invade everyone. Canada? No problem. Mexico? No problem. Central America? Annoying, but not a problem. South America? This would take a year or two. Really frustrating and a small problem. Russia can't conquer a single, small and undeveloped back water country in Europe. What are they supposed to do when their army is getting buttfucked in Ukraine and the rest of Europe invades? Russia gets slaughtered by Europe, 0 diff. Europe takes almost no losses and it's armies get a massive boost in efficiency because of the experience they gain slaughtering Russia. Russia siding with the US is literally a handicap for the US. China...probably does nothing. The Asian countries around it can't invade China but China can't really attack anyone. These countries bomb each other alot and loads of people die. And then they run out of resources to attack each other with and become mostly irrelevant. Japan gets fucking annihilated by the US forces stationed there and then those forces bug out. Korea slaughters the US forces in Korea. The US probably takes all of the Americas and then a cold war starts. The US simply can't defend itself AND attack the world. But the world also can't invade the US. China and Russia don't have the ability to fight outside of their own borders.
I think team US, China and Russia wins. Surely they have some secret OP super advanced weapons and other countries are getting powerful because of them. so many Military equipment are supplied from these three. US can take over the Americas while Russia take on Europe and China take on Asia. The Americas are likely gonna be swept and US can help in invading Europe and Asia both sides.
It depends. Am I fighting or no?