Could the USA solo the rest of the world in world war 3?

could the USA solo the rest of the world in world war 3?

Lambright here.

Yes we could.

And repopulate the world with degenerates?

If everyone agreed to not use nukes, probably.

If nukes are allowed, everyone would lose.

This.
Once one country decides to say fuck it, everyone will end up doing the same. Any plans and attacks suddenly end up circling back to scorched earth once that happens. The question is who would do it? There are a lot of variables that could change likelihood of nuclear attacks though, so it would just be speculation to put it lightly.

We probably couldn't win against just China or Russia

No, nore should we want to. We could pretty much end humanity's chances of making it to the stars, but we couldn't "win" against the rest of the world. There would be no winner in such a conflict. There would only be suffering and who generated more casualties. That being said Israel would probably get nuked so we if we survived would be stuck with all of the remaining Jews so no we wouldn't win at all now that I think about it.

Nah nigga, Canada would fuck yall niggas like the little bitches you are >>>:D

nice joke

If the rest of the world were organised and united, no, USA as you know it would cease to exist. There would be no value in a WW3.

But it would be the shitshow to end all shitshows. At least 1 billion dead.

>300mi vs 6.7bi
sure...

That gif gets me every time.

?

Holy shit you're delusional. Our forces are spread all over the world. A Chinese or Russian army is going to be able to bring their full armies.

The US couldn't solo Iraq

You could take them 1 on 1 but not together

There is an article written about this, where the journalist interviews retired generals and defense people, and they all say no way the world beats America.

Lol that was a profiteering occupation.
US forces steamrolled Sadam's goons in like less than a week.
Our tanks were rolling so fast to the capital that they had to slow down for fuel supply to catch up.

You don't even know what victory means. The US could have genocided all of Iraq if they wanted to.

2/3rds of our navy planes aren't mission-capable, so no

if all of our shit were mission-capable and fully functioning, indubitably

we would not need all of our forces for either of those countries.

>You could take them 1 on 1 but not together
wrong

china has no force projection, so they can't fight outside of their AO

russia stands zero chance at being able to defeat us in a head-to-head conflict no matter who the fuck is on their side, even china

there's no transporting troops to the US mainland and no hope for them once they're there, so the only hope for WW3 would be china cutting us off economically which the rest of the world would most likely reciprocate in doing against them besides the "baddie bloc" countries (because it would not be the US vs everyone at all ever), and as china has no fucking water and shit in natural resources we would just strangle, starve, and dehydrate them

at that point china would become an insular economy with a lot of problems and become north korea levels of volatile, and if the intent were to destroy and not just subjugate or calm down, we'd obliterate their coastline and they'd pretty much just slip back 20 years into nothingness

with them though, they'd take the rest of us as china is the only source of growth for almost everyone even if profits are shit there (as they are in auto manufacturing, at least)

tl;dr the end of ww3 is the beginning of global communism and the full fledged onset of OWG

I think they MAY stand a chance on home turf, provided they were not attacked in one major seize. However, they would not have the necessary resources to last very long I believe.

if tiny republic of chechnya could keep russia at bay, then US can take on russia, you dumb fuck

Israel

yes, israel has the samsonite option

Hahahaha no

moar of these. MOOOARRRRR