As much as I like shitting on the US, I think all of the comments here are forgetting that this wouldn’t be a 1v3. It would be a world war. There would be no winners.
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
46 points (82.9% liked)
World News
32326 readers
568 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, it would be cataclysmic. In the longer term though, I would argue that just about everyone on the planet would be a winner if the US empire were finally put down. You can’t really overstate how much of an impediment the US is to global human welfare and development.
World's biggest terrorist organisation
okay, but the US is kiiiinda terrible, but if the US loses here then china/russia/iran win…
so its not like the US just goes away; the US is replaced by full autocratic
There would be an immense toll, but it would mean the destruction of the US, Israel, NATO, and neoliberalism generally, which I think means there is also room for optimism. If I may gesture towards Mark Twain, there are two Reigns of Terror here, and though we have reason to fear the latter one, it will not last as long or kill as many as the former one that it puts an end to. If there is not a nuclear holocaust, anyway
If there is not a nuclear holocaust, anyway
That's a pretty fucking big "if"
Granted
It's pretty obvious it's not a big "if".
And that Palantir is an MIC contractor. They would have this outlook because it would keep them busy. The reality of such a scenario is far more unrealistic.
No winners is a fair outcome that I can live with.
"I hope" - he added.
So you better buy that thing my company sells. To be safe .
Well that sounds totally winnable.
By ourselves not easily. But such a war is World War III...everyone is getting involved.
Russia has already shown their military is subpar. Ukraine aid has still been quite limited in terms of how much of the more advanced stuff we've been willing to give them and ability to strike Russian targets. They've already got over 500,000 casualties not to mention equipment losses. They're starting with a disadvantage regardless of how Ukraine turns out. Biggest issues from Russia-owned GOPers continuing to detract and otherwise make full support difficult as well as disinformation campaigns.
The middle east is difficult. Question of getting bogged down (as per usual) as well as nuclear concerns. With NATO support on one side and opposing Russia-China support the other. Israel would likely be the biggest ally here(it is a major reason they get military support from us) and already have advanced weaponry and of course genocidal rage. Something something about enemies and enemies.
China would be the most difficult issue if already engaged with Russia and Iran. Numbers and military quality are certainly a concern. All the outsourced manufacturing would also be a major headache, honestly not certain which side would be hurt more by that economically. That said many nearby countries would probably be willing to aid in small and large ways because of dislike of China. Furthermore their last major military engagement was in Vietnam 1979 with skirmishes until 1991. So 30-40y on most Chinese commanders and infantry don't have actual battle experience. So question of quality and whether with allies we could stand up to their manpower and manufacturing capacity.
Not certain how much Africa would come into play as that'd be a real mess.
All in all, winnable or not would only be determined by actual battle. Major losses of life for all involved.
when you get high on your own propaganda
More than half of the world's aircraft carriers including Russias drydocked one.
The largest airforce in the world is the US air force. The second largest is the US army. The fourth largest is the US navy.
There's a lot to shit on the US for, the size and capability of our military ain't it unless you're talking about how it is too large.
We don't have straight manned capacity (3rd to China and India respectively). However China and India don't like one another and in fact just had a border clash not that long ago. So I'm including India against China, possibly Iran and neutral on Russia (with oil as a bargaining/diplomatic factor).
Palantir
Top tier blue curtain bazinga torment nexus enjoyers here. 
I mean, they at least got their reference but it wasn't supposed to be manual guide.
I guess "The US will very likely end the world in nuclear hellfire" doesn't roll of the tongue as well.
Liberals are going to get us all fucking killed
typical am*rican extravagance 😒
"Germany chose as it's enemy In this war...the world."
“I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”
What kind of reality does this guy live in? Like every adversary he mentions has either adopted a "No First Use" Policy or officially states that nuclear weapons are only to be used when the very existence of the state is threatened via a conventional military force or when being attacked by nuclear weapons. Contrast this to the US which "'reserves the right to use' nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict" or the UK which reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against "rogue states" (source: wikipedia article detailing all the above mentioned first use policies). How can you claim to have any moral superiority when your fucking bloc has these murderous policies in place? The western bloc has enshrined first use into its official policy and then this guy claims that only the adversaries of the West are determined to use nuclear weapons. The hypocrisy is beyond me.
Not to mention that US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, and they didn't do it for any military purpose. They dropped them on civilian population to show USSR the level of depravity they were capable of.
US is the first and only country to ever use an atomic bomb. And not just one bomb: two. So of course we wouldn't launch a preemptive strike, right?
Mommy mommy ! I want some headlines.
Jesus fuck
“I think we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”
There's a moral disparity alright, but it's not the US who has the moral high ground.
Good news because they'll lose
You aren't very bright, are you?
As an American, I am constantly opposing war mongering in my country. They're are many times when I've wanted to simply leave (most notably when Trump first took office). But we can't leave... The reasonable people need to stay, because the military the US has right now is fucking insane.
Here's a graph to spell things out for you:
If you want positive change, stop dreaming about the destruction of countries, and start working to change the hearts and minds of those residing in influential countries.
Seems like you're the one who's not very bright. Spending doesn't directly translate into anything tangible. The US military industrial complex is a vehicle for sucking up your taxes and putting them back into the hands of the oligarchs. The incentives it has is to produce overdesigned and expensive weapons that require huge amounts of maintenance in small quantities. This is how you end up with shit like F35. Meanwhile, Russia spending a fraction of what US does can produce three times the artillery shells that all western countries can combined https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html
Especially glaring examples is actually UK which have bigger budget than Russia in this graph, yet they admitted they would last 3 weeks in the war as in Ukraine, they have some really embarrassing public fuckup around every month, like the one where they send barely armed ships against Yemen or how their carriers break all the time, and they constantly shrink their army and navy and still have problems with getting enough basic personnel.
Exactly, we're now seeing that late stage capitalism can't even keep a military running.
I would like to ban submissions from fortune.
we’re in an age when nuclear deterrent is actually less effective because the West is very unlikely to use anything like a nuclear bomb, whereas our adversaries might,” he added. “Where you have technological parity but moral disparity, the actual disparity is much greater than people think.”
See. I don't think the deterrent was ever meant to be a response to tactical nuclear weapons. They were meant to be a way to make sure that if World ending strategic nuclear weapons were fired against cities, that the response would be absolute.
I wholesale believe that western countries with strategic nuclear weapons would return fire against an attack in our direction. Just as it looked in wargames.
No we're not going to destroy the world if Russia or any other adversary uses tactical nuclear weapons. We have much more proportionate responses.
Or, maybe I'm just misreading it?
Yeah, I fully expect that the US would start the apocalypse as soon as it was on a back foot in a major conflict.
I'd like to think not. I'd like to think that any NATO nuclear enabled nation would only act in response to strategic nuclear weapons deployed against a NATO ally. But, I guess we'll only know if/when we get there.
Given the unhinged behavior of the US historically, and being the only nation to use nuclear weapons, I don't see why you'd expect any restraint.
I realize this is Lemmy so it is a race to make the most edgelord anti-US comment. I would be remiss if I didn't remind people of the shocking naivety of this mentality.
It seems many on this board believe that the US would get destroyed, western values would be undermined and some magic communist utopia would just naturally arise the world over in the aftermath. Wrong.
The conflict being described here would be a world war in which multiple large scale nuclear strikes would be deployed. Whatever country you are shitposting from wouldn't be immune from first order effects, let alone follow-on effects of such a disasterous exchange. Millions would die. You would be better off perishing in the initial salvos than struggling to survive in whatever Mad Max scenario your country devolves into in the resulting hellscape of nuclear fallout, zero international deterrence, likely cessation of emergency services on a local level, and all non local supply chains and communication channels being broken.
So, be careful what you wish for, and don't hasten the day.
Seems like you misunderstand, nobody wants US to start a world war. In fact, most people outside of US would love it if US would mind its own fucking business instead of running around trying to play world police. Yankees go home.
No one here wants WWIII what are you on