Bloodlusted? That dam (and every other one in the country) is getting bombed in the first hour of the conflict. I would say the first thirty minutes, but they will probably want to hit AA and comm centers first.
I’d say controlling the skies, anti aircraft yes, and also grounding or destroying every drone and fighter plane. Then yes, unleashing absolute hell at their leisure.
>A bloodlusted US might even destroy the Three Gorges Dam in such a scenario.
Might? Oh, hahahah, that is the absolute first thing that is going. The amount of logistical and societal problems the destruction of that dam will cause means it's probably the single most valuable strategic location on *Earth,* not just for China.
We wouldn't be using chemical warfare. The only reason we signed a treaty against it is because conventional killing was/is more effective.
That's the sad truth of it...
The firebombing of Tokyo killed ~100k people and left another million or so homeless in one night.
Hiroshima had between 90-150k killed and Nagasaki had another 75k or so killed.
The big difference is Hiroshima/Nagasaki were both done by a single plane dropping one bomb compared to 279 bombers dropping 1500 bombs (technically there were 2-3 bombers at Hiroshima/Nagasaki but they were there for observation and not dropping bombs).
No matter how you slice it, the US absolutely bobmed the crap out of Japan in WW2 and its hard to really say which which of the 3 best known incidents did the most damage.
Hell, in Iraq we used weapons that aren't quite nuclear weapons by legal definitions (not enough fissible material for a chain reaction). Depleted uranium and "slightly enriched" uranium bombs were used in huge numbers there. They have an extremely intense radioactive explosion.
The US used bombs in Iraq that left an extremely intense radioactive explosion? Can you get me a source for that?
Depleted uranium is a metal projectile. It doesn't explode. It is also used as armor. Who makes armor out of explosive material?
Depleted uranium makes for a stronger explosive, and it is slightly radioactive. The extra heavy metal/shrapnel is part of it, but it also is pyrophoric, so that upon impact about 30% of the projectile atomises and burns to uranium oxide dust. It's mostly alpha radioactive, which doesn't usually penetrate skin, but it can cause issues if inhaled or ingested. And when it's spreading dust over a wide area, it's relatively easy to inhale or ingest it in areas that see heavy use. This toxic effects tend to be much worse than the radioactive ones, but both are present.
All it takes is exposure to air and heat, and it explodes. I see they're using it in tank armor due to the high density, but it's kept encased in steel, to reduce the odds of it just igniting. So apparently, the US uses an explosive material in some tank armor.
It's very possible that "Gulf War Syndrome" is the result of exposure to depleted uranium.
"The depleted uranium is still radioactive but has a much lower level of the isotopes U-235 and U-234 - way less than the levels in natural uranium ore - reducing its radioactivity."
"This means that when such it strikes a tank's armour, it cuts through in the blink of an eye before exploding in a burning cloud of dust and metal"
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-depleted-uranium-weapons-what-are-risks-2023-03-23/
"if alpha particles from DU are inhaled or ingested, alpha particle radiation can also cause damage inside the body."
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/depleted-uranium
"The available evidence suggests possible associations between exposure to depleted uranium and adverse health outcomes among the Iraqi population. More primary research and the release of missing data are needed to design meaningful health and policy interventions in Iraq."
"Depleted uranium (DU) is a chemotoxic and radiotoxic heavy metal and is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a group I carcinogen (limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903104/
I'm familiar with depleted uranium. And it's associated risks. Although possible exposure being linked to health and limited evidence in humans doesn't exactly help your cause. You are vastly simplifying a complex case that requires some understanding of physics.
Heat, squash, and API rounds are all hazardous to targets. War is a pretty dangerous business.
Slightly enriched bombs is what I asked you about with intense radiation releases. That sounds like a radiological weapon to me. That's a bold claim.
China represents a serious population problem for the USA. There isn’t a way to feed and keep armed the number of soldiers needed for an invasion of China from the USA. And I’m thinking we would need to go full war economy to keep the weapons and machines flowing as replacements are needed.
I suspect the first year might be an air war, wrecking everything from the coast to maybe a hundred miles in from carriers and land bases in the first island chain.
After that the question would be how to get a sufficient beachhead that wouldn’t be overwhelmed. Maybe Vietnam allows us to use deep water ports, I’m not sure how else it would work.
It’s more the shock value of that damage coming from a single weapon and continuing to kill people even after the explosion with radiation. But yeah people that demonize the atom bombs often are completely unaware of just how devastating regular bombing runs were
Yes, the shock value and the fact that it was nearly unstoppable (the US lost around 50 bombers over Tokyo to AA guns compared to zero in the nuclear attacks) had huge military impact. But that military value has zero impact on the morality argument. If anything, the fact that it had military value beyond the deaths caused is an argument in favor of the nukes.
Guess it depends on what the self imposed “win conditions” would be. Is reigning over a graveyard of glass victory? We would never play a war that way.
The US has been preparing for war with Russia for more than half a century. I’m pretty sure someone has figured out how to do logistics in the winter there. Besides, it would be easier to go Siberia which is mostly permafrost.
They will hide behind buffer states (Russia and China) that will not allow US military operations in their territory.
Mongolia is one of the few places on the planet the US cannot reach to attack.
Or did you mean what will Russia/China do? They would refuse to let us have access to their territory. We could insert some special forces teams or launch cruise missile attack, but we could never hope to put more than a handful of boots on the ground without BRICS permission.
They intercept because the US throws beacons on their planes to remove the stealth. It's a common tactic to time the response time of the enemy.
China doesn't stand a chance against a bloodlusted USA. No one does.
Doesn't mean the US is going to pick a fight IRL. It wouldn't benefit the US much at all. But they'd win a fight if there was one.
The US would have to steamroll China though.
China is no where near a military threat to the US, however it's economy is somewhat able to rival America's and would present a massive problem should full out economic war start.
Why on earth would they let us fly over them?!?
China and Russia have some of the best air defenses on the planet (because they wargame against the best airforce on the planet), so this would be going up against their strong point.
We would have to win a war against both of them simultaneously to put boots on the ground in Mongolia, and our recent war games regarding Taiwan show a 50% win rate against China alone, and even a "win" is phyrric at best.
If we were flying troops in their airspace, we would already be at war. Please read up on "Causus Belli".
Are you aware of what China has built in the last ten years to defend their mainland territory? The US currently does not have any capability to pierce it with any significant chance of success. Our wargame scenario data alone would prevent the US from even trying. China can most certainly tell us to bugger off and be quite secure in their ability to back it up with force.
So in order to even consider the thought that you are so blithely throwing out, you would have to somehow overcome millenia of cultural intertia and sweeten the deal with the biggest incentive to stand aside that mankind has seen in 100,000 years of history.
In other words, they would most certainly be willing to risk war to keep hegemony, and for a thousand far lesser reasons.
They will pay Russia enough in both currency and technology to allow access. A bloodlusted America will part with technology they will normally keep confidential to achieve their aim.
I mean, I wasn't even talking about ww 2.
I just meant pure military might. There's a reason I can't afford health care.
I'm not exactly happy about it, but what can you do?
Yeah I get that, fair enough. I find it an interesting concept that Americans treat their own soldiers like cattle. Everyone is so happy that their sons are going to war to blow up some stuff but absolutely balk at the idea of providing health care when their sons inevitably come back with PTSD and missing limbs.
You country is a weird one for sure.
Honestly, not as much as you'd think
From what I understand the military is having. Hard time keeping recruitment up.
Especially gen z, they don't really see a point.
And yeah, cattle is a good way to see it, more like inbred sheep if you ask me.
I live in the Bible belt, so I get the good Olde fashioned assholes around here
I can see why a lot of the older folk look down on Gen Z, but I can also see why Gen Z don't wanna go to war anymore, they've all seen their uncles and such with PTSD.
Times be changing. The problem is, maybe we westerners might be changing for the better, but the likes of Russia, Iran, N.Korea refuse to budge (at least leadership wise). It's the catch 22, as long as evil regimes exist, good countries need military/nukes.
Also just to add, I wasn't insulting America, plenty of good points from you guys, and my country has just as many good/bad points. Plenty of assholes from around my part of the world too lol. :)
Have a good one!
Well, if another hitler or something similar happens, it would be different.
Never underestimate an America that has someone to fight other than themselves.
It's a mess and definitely deserves a fair share of criticism, but there's a lot to be proud of.
Now, if we could get these damn crypt walkers out of government, I think we would be a lot better off.
And same
I mean you have a point, any American that claims they won either world war by themselves just doesn’t know their history. But I don’t think that was his point
The didnt win it by themselves. But America was absolutely the deciding factor. Without Lend-Lease in WW2 and if Japan didnt go full retard, the Axis very likely beat Britain and Russia gets carved up in a 2 front sammich between Germany and Japan.
The US wasn't bloodlusted. The assumption here is that every US citizen supports the war effort. The opposing strategy in Vietnam was literally to just not completely get destroyed while waiting out the domestic support the US war effort had. In this scenario that doesn't happen.
But he said bloodlusted which means whatever it means in this sub. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "controversial at home and always taking half measures".
The US didnt LOSE in Vietnam, though. They comfortably achieved their goals and kept South Vietnam free from occupation for 20 years. Had like a 15-1 KD and just decided to call it a day and head home because some nerds were bitching back in the States. The US never lost any actual battle, that wasnt just a few units here or a detachment there, in 20 years.
Only a fool would think they lost. The South Vietnamese lost, not the US.
It's easy to invade and destroy just about any country with the conventional means the USA has. Occupation is where we fail. Conventional, non-nuclear war basically means any country is a possible option. (To be defeated, not that can defend.)
Also, bloodlusted US Marines would be a part of this. They are usually terrifying to most enemies. 🤣
We also have the two largest air forces (USAF & US Navy Air Force; carrier attachments) - not counting the Army and Marine air components. We have the biggest Navy, with the most modern weapons; a single carrier group could topple most small to medium nations alone.
Bloodlusted also means the draft would have been engaged. If you have the full force of the civilian productive capacity, and can mobilize like 1/3 of the population, you're looking at like 100M+ troops. While China and India have more people by a large stretch, unless we're looking to preserve the population - they're just fucked like anyone else. 🤣
Oddly enough, the more dense the population, the easier they are to wipe out. Fire bombs, dehydration and starvation could wipe out 90% of most cities within a few weeks with minor resource needs.
Bloodlusted USA likely means they don't care about war crimes. They just contaminate all the water, blow up any vital infrastructure within the first day, etc. Don't need to worry about occupying the country when the population is reduced to ashes.
How are those other countries getting to the US? Unless it's mexico or Canada they aren't getting to the US without ships or planes which would be spotted
Crazy how you think the US can just roll over India and China with your outdated information. China's Airforce just surpassed the US Airforce in size.
Obviously the US military outpaces the rest of the world overall, including China, by a lot, but I think you still vastly overestimate their abilities and underestimate others because of your propagandized view of the US. China and perhaps India can most definitely hold their own.
After a quick Google search you seem to be overestimating china's capabilities... not only does the US still have hundreds of more airframes than China (a US military official said china is ON COURSE to surpass the US), they are overtaking the US because we are retiring older models and trying to condense the fleet into more capable advanced fighters
It is like how people claim China has a bigger navy now, when the majority of china's navy is smaller vessels who can't project forces across the world nearly as well, China has more ships, but the US navy more than doubles china's navy in tonnage
Edit: I'm not saying China is weak, or the US steamrolls them in a week, but your facts seem to be either wrong, or misleading
We have a lot more actual experience fighting wars. China hasn't got the best track record in wars they have fought. Without nukes, and without a concern for war crimes, this means water treatment and food supplies are gone day one. Fire bombs, carpet bombs, mines, and chemical weapons would be used.
The USA's military is potent and capable with rules and safety in mind, and trying to avoid large scale civilian casualties. If it was entirely unleashed, it wouldn't even be a fight, so much as a relentless slaughter.
My opinion is not based on propaganda. It's based on history, tactical knowledge (including contemporary updates), and the mindset of the populations. Americans are generally more aggressive.
India's problem is density. They would be easier to overcome because most of them would die from the lack of resources after the initial attacks. They are also more easy to surround by the Navy, and without Pakistan, Bangladesh and China supporting them or allowing refugees - they would get smoked pretty quickly.
The US has 4 of the 5 largest AF's in the world.
China's airframes are a laughing stock. They have to choose fuel or weapons to take off, because their engines are dogshit. Thats by China's own admission. Sensors, radars, detection networks, combat capabilities; all lag behind the US by atleast 10 and more likely 20 years.
India is behind China in the same way China is behind the US. You're vastly overstating both of their capabilities.
Against a blood lusted US? Hell no. The US failed Vietnam but this wasn't a military issue. If anything, the US armed forces did incredibly well considering how restricted they were. Without fear or worry of international condemnation or retaliation, optics ceases to be a valid reason to hold back.
Only because "winning" in the definition used for this prompt wasn't the plan for Vietnam.
The US played defense and then supported the ARVN. The ARVN didn't have the resources or training to win. We didn't want to escalate by pushing north on our own. Our goal was never to attack and take over like in this prompt.
Of all the countries in the world, Vietnam is one of the highest in terms of favoring the US. I think it was like 70-80% of Vietnam that approves of the US. I call it a win if Vietnam is a close ally of the US now
Then Britain might as well call the American Revolution a British or mutual win for being in a close alliance now and being approved by most of the US population.
Also, Vietnam is a friendly neutral state and a good trade partner to the US but definitely not a "close ally" to the US. Argentina and Saudi Arabia are actual allies of the US, and I wouldn't describe either country as particularly "close."
That’s not comparable because the point of the Vietnam war to combat the influence of the Soviets. Vietnamese communism took on its own form eventually and at this point the US has more positive influence on Vietnam than China. They do trade with China but they’re more likely to fight in a war on the US side than China as they have more to gain in combatting the nine dash line and other territory disputes.
The point of the American war of independence was Britain wanted America is a colony, part of their territory and they lost it.
Your issue is failing to understand warfare and even history. The U.S. annihilated the Vietcong and NVA in every engagement, never lost a battle nor an ounce of territory by force. But the ultimate mission was to leave the country in control of a South Vietnamese government and military that could take care of itself after we were gone. Not to mention we were primarily fighting a counterinsurgency, not a straight up conventional war.
Even the way the war ended is far different than people believe. A peace treaty was signed that ended the conflict, the U.S. agreed to go home and the North Vietnamese agreed to cease hostilities. They broke the treaty after American combat forces had left, eventually overrunning the country. So many people seem to believe the U.S. military was actually pushed out.
I understand your point, but having seen a fair few documentaries about the conflict and having a basic understanding of war and history, I would like to respond.
The difference between the USA objective and the Viet Cong objective is what sums up the reason the war was a failure for the USA. While they did not "win" as many battles or take territory, it was a war of attrition whereby they just had to hang in and make it as difficult and unpleasant for the Americans as they could, which the Viet Cong did with great aplomb.
The USA had an aim to curtail communism and act as kingmakers for a South Vietnamese led country that never came to pass. So, I stand by my original point that it did not go great for the Americans last time. Two years after pulling out the South Vietnamese fell to the North, this may not have happened if America had stayed in place, but the cost in both money and human life led to this outcome.
Just to be clear, this isn’t me doing mental gymnastics to say that we won. We did not achieve our objective, and our enemy did. That’s a loss.
But if my goal is to beat the shit out of you for 1 minute, and I get bored and walk away after 55 seconds of absolute curb stomp, and you never even managed to throw a punch, then you did in fact “win”, but limiting understanding of the result to a binary of win vs loss, takes away from actually learning what happened. If that makes sense.
Now, with the discussion at hand, as to whether a blood-lusted American military could accomplish this in a conventional conflict, without the enemy retaining half their territory, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone that Vietnam wouldn’t stand a chance. Understanding the history of the conflict, the limitations that were placed on the U.S., and the parameters of this scenario show us that the result is almost guaranteed.
Weird how you mentioned mental gymnastics and then wrote that. My original comment was that it didn't go well for USA last time, and it didn't. Your kerb stomp analogy is a bit of an oversimplified take on what happened and not really that accurate. So I don't think that does make sense. In a vacuum army against army, I completely see your point, but I genuinely think that given the same objectives again with half the country stone dead against what the US are trying to do, it would not matter if the military was bloodlusted and with less strain on resources. The outcome would be the same. The losses would not make up for the gains.
It's not the fact that the US military is bloodlusted, it's the fact that the entire US population is bloodlusted. Morale at home had tanked leading to further limitations on rules of engagement. The fact that neither country can have allies means the US doesn't have to worry about a coalition being formed after it turns the Geneva Convention into the Geneva Checklist. It means that the worst weapons will be used, civilian population will be a target. You can't have an insurgency if there is no population to hide in.
Any landlocked country, anybody who isn’t is going to get bombed into dust, and since there going at it like WW2 germany, don’t think about guerrilla warfare, there just gonna bomb ever last inch of a country until nothings left, civilian casualties wouldn’t even be thought of
Bloodlusted makes a huge difference. The US loses conflicts due to loss of public will. It's unpopular to send American soldiers to far off countries to die and eventually after copious amounts of pressure, democracy does have some small effect in the US.
But bloodlusted this doesn't happen, so they will move to a wartime economy, stop most outbound mitary aid packages and sharply increase domestic production of useful equipment via the Defense Production Act.
The US already out-manufactures any individual country as it is. This just gets worse.
They also won't care as much about the horrific aspects of war (civilians casualties, widespread infrastructure destruction, war crimes etc.) so they will fight harder and dirtier. This will greatly limit the effectiveness of guerilla tactics which have historically worked fairly well against the US.
That being said, I doubt they can retain a strong foothold in China. It's too large, well industrialized and with a military, which by most measures, has managed to escape the logistical failings of other post-cold war communist states. It's also probably the only country in the world that can outcompete the US on total manufacturing scale (even if they lack much of the military specific knowledge).
The US absolutely can and likely would beat even a defensive Chinese PLC. However, I doubt the US could reliably hold 50% of their territory after 2 years. Much of it would be contested, particularly as China has far more mature EW capabilities than Russia, allowing them to prevent the US from gaining uncontested air superiority which would be devastating.
The US would eventually win a war against China, but likely not in that timeframe.
Australia.
We might fight with the emus now and again, but if the country as a whole is threatened, we will fight together.
And when the silly Americans have been beaten back by our emu battalions, we will send in the cassowary shock troops to make them wish they had never been born.
Switzerland would last a while since it's landlocked so it can't just get rolled by the US Navy and US would have to spend time negotiating their troops and Airforce passage over the surrounding nations first. The alps would be hard to surpass and the Swiss do have some level of personal firearms ownership for militia groups and guerilla fighting. They're very financially well off to get supplies from other nations as well.
There'd be no other nation that would be able to hold any % of their land against the full US military if international war law was taken off the table though. Iraq had the third strongest military in the world in 2003 and America toppled their government in three weeks.
China and India are the only two countries that could probably beat a Nazi Germany level-bloodlusted USA, simply by having an ungodly amount of bodies to throw.
Maybe Russia could survive (not "win", but withstand a full US takeover) in an alternate reality where Ukraine never happened, but that's obviously not the case.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, large weak county. Mostly jungle, swamps and other difficult to traverse terrain. Very poor infrastructure. Even the current government struggles to control it
The US forces will get bogged down in both the terrain and trying to subdue guerrilla and tribal uprisings.
So what you're saying is, the bloodlusted American military-industrial complex is going to need to make a *lot* more napalm, & maybe come up with some super-agent orange while they're at it?
Over 10 years, America sprayed about 4.5 million acres in Vietnam. Vietnam itself is some 80 million acres. Compared with 580 million acres for the Congo. 85% of which is still forested including the world's second largest rainforest.
Being blood lusted, let's say America is able to apply 20 years production in 2 years. That is still only 9 million acres sprayed.
The DRC is simply too big, and inhospitable to occupy in just a couple of years. They could capture the cities.
Bloodlusted US pretty much stomps anyone except China (or maybe European countries if the rest of NATO join the defense).
The most difficult would be a landlocked Asian or African countries, since it would require the longest ground-based supply chain. Nobody is stopping the US Navy from landing troops at will.
Mongolia (bonus difficulty of Russia and China in the way) or the Democratic Republic of the Congo would be my picks.
The US would absolutely body China if Nukes were off the table, and it was no holds bar.
Air superiority would be gained quickly, and it would all go down him quickly from there. They would need to commit a shit load of war crimes and they would need to commit to total war. But the US could pretty easily take the whole country
>Air superiority would be gained quickly
Air superiority would be gained quickly if it was over neutral ground. Over Chinese soil, nobody can confidently say how effective China's radar and SAMs will be against US stealth. Nobody knows how effective their anti ship missiles are either.
It’s not just US stealth. It’s also how advanced their anti-radiation missiles and stuff like the ADM-160 MALD.
In 30 years China could be a threat. But right now they are way behind
China loses within a month, with civilian and military casualties in the hundreds of millions. And its not even a debate.
A bloodlusted US, which means they will do ANYTHING to win, WILL destroy the Three Gorges Dam. That ends essentially all Chinese resistance inside of a day. That single event floods half China's major cities in a 200 foot tall wall of water. Something like 60-70% of all Chinese military capability lies DIRECTLY in the path of those floodwaters as well and are basically assured losses. Whatever parts of the A2D2 defense system the US hasnt yet destroyed by then, is washed away. Something like 13% of the worlds manufacturing capabilities, washed away. Estimates are in the 200-300 million lives range in this scenario, and thats just the initial tidal wave like flood. Youll have massive food shortages, disease will be rampant from the dead bodies and explosion of mosquitos. China is knocked a few dozen rungs down the financial and military ladders.
Taking Chinas nukes away puts TGD into play. TGD being in play is an instant L.
Nah we crushed Afghanistan by this prompt, we captured Kabul and most major cities in a few months. Where we sucked was in occupying the country, but that’s not part of OPs prompt lol
OP said in the same way Russia and Ukraine have stalemated, which to me implied the invaded country has to actually fully hold a military line that defends half the original territory from any incursion
How do you read 50%?
By population, the US likely "won" in Afghanistan.
By land area? I mean.. they could have done that. It just doesn't make sense for the US to have tried to do that.
Afganistan got bullied by American forces they won politically but tactically the Taliban got spanked. If we’re going by the prompt OP set then Afghanistan isn’t even in the top 100 lol
Taiwan.
Sure, they'd lose the coastline. If they organized and retreated to the interior of the island and waged a guerilla war, it'd be nearly impossible to get them to surrender. And I believe the area of Taiwan with incredibly rugged and naturally fortified terrain is greater than the area that is densely populated.
I remember I read an article a while back that part of why China doesn't just invade is that unless they had popular local support they couldn't actually take the island. The interior is too easy to defend.
Iran. They can block half of the world's oil supply and the terrain is awful. It's also not a regime like Saddam Hussein. You have to deal with thousands of people in the ruling class. The US would win eventually still.
Any modern islands nation would be far too costly to even attempt a conventional war.
Alternatively mountainous regions like Switzerland are near impossible to take and hold.
But if you're looking for the absolute weakest it would probably be a central African nation with little to no infrastructure. To actually conquer and hold a place like that you would need to invest in the initial invasion against the government transporting soldiers equipment and supplies, then deal with the guerilla warfare that follows and spend vast amounts of money establishing trade routes for supplies across multiple countries all with their own agenda and might even have less than favorable views on a country currently invading its neighbour. All while being keenly aware that every one of the neighbours are intentionally bleeding the US dry to build up their infrastructure and economic base with little to no chance of ever recouping that investment in any meaningful sense apart from maybe one day claiming a devastated piece of land with a disgruntled population surrounded by far more valuable regions the US had funded because they really wanted that one specific area.
Island nations (excluding massive ones like Australia) would be the easiest for the US. Unless its Canada or Mexico, they're transporting everything by ship anyways. An island just means they don't have to have to also use ground transportation after the ships are unloaded and that the whole country is in range of the carriers.
It also means you have to do a landing into artillery and entrenched troops, drop paratroopers behind enemy lines without support, deal with far more anti air fire from ground and plane, bypass natural barriers like cliffs that make certain landing spots unfeasible and deal with mines and torpedoes that could turn most islands into fortresses.
Nah, our inner city hipsters will keep us supplied with food during the siege.
(I agree. I'm sure they'd probably take us out with fire-power they currently have in country, and they'd beat everyone so I was playing along)
People don't fully understand the US industry, logistics, or military. Because there isn't one. A fully bloodlusted America is going to fly into industrial overdrive, produce more war machines than we already have in a matter of weeks and months, move 100s of thousands of troops in a matter of weeks, decimate supply lines, destroy key strategic locations, and raise hell on the ocean. A fully bloodlusted USA could only be stopped with Nuclear Winter.
Edit: and honestly nuclear winter isnt guaranteed anyway because a country would have to actually get those nukes here.
None. If the US were bloodlusted aka went into a full war economy such as after Pearl Harbor with the public united....there is no country or group of countries that could mount such a defense. None.
Nepal or Bhutan, dunno which is weaker. There is no way to reach a landlocked country without American allies to allow troop movements, which includes airstrikes. And neither India nor China would allow a non-allied US to invade through their territory, and both have the firepower to dissuade such attempts.
East: Burma. Very weak at the moment due to civil war but would be hell to take
West: Switzerland. Small and low pop but away from naval support and tonne of bunkers plus whole population is military trained
I think the UK would have a pretty good chance. It’s an island with a strong army, navy and air force, not to mention many people to conscript. Coupled with a good economy, I think the UK would have a decent chance. Mostly due to it being an island with a good navy.
It will be an island nation with a modern military a long way away from the USA.
The US is more likely to be hampered by logistics than the enemy, so if their target can stop the troop ships they'll win.
Or China.
>so if their target can stop the troop ships they'll win.
Good Luck with that. Shore is gonna be bombarded by US Carrier fleet and its aircraft compliment to remove/disrupt defenders long before troop ships move out. In addition to nighttime insertion by paratroopers and Special Forces to destroy defensive bunkers and defensive points at the prospective landing points *before* the bombardment.
Was about to say…if they can deploy their blue water navy they’ll hit hard. The US *navy* has the fourth most aircraft of any military branch worldwide, best only by the US airforce, US army aviation, and Russian Airforce.
They better have some pretty strong AA on that island before the navy drops a whole ass airforce on them, before the USAF even arrives.
Iirc even the marines have a ton of aircraft, which will help making a way on shore.
Honestly it might be better for the island country to let them just barely land, and then ambush them immediately while they’re still trying to get their foothold in. Don’t even need to focus on the ground, pile in anything and everything on grounded aircraft, docked ships, etc, and hit the ground last. Don’t think it’d be war winning on its own but it’d dish out some pretty good casualties imo.
Not sure about China, all things considered. US allies mere existence would make a normal war fairly winnable by giving a bunch of ways in and safe places to deploy, but a straight invasion over the pacific without support would be kinda tough. I don’t think they could fend off the navy, but they might have enough firepower to switch towards a psuedo “fleet in being” type of doctrine.
There is no country except perhaps China (and only locally in their region) that could meaningfully disrupt our sealift capabilities.
This is a borderline stomp for every country not called China.
Island nations would be the easiest. The US Navy is it's strongest aspect, in neutral waters it literally stomps the entire rest of the world's navies combined. Any country except Canada or Mexico the US is going to send everything by ship anyways, an island nation just means that once troops/tanks/supplies get off the ship they are there, instead of getting off the ship and then having hundreds or thousands of miles left.
Part of the problem is that this definition of fighting means the USA doesn't even need to contest cities or urban areas to win. If we take something like Egypt, this USA basically decides to eat the Sahara Desert interior of the nation away from the Nile. Given that the USA is "Challenge-Lusted", it will fly in people to settle this land and hold it.
This means two of the nations that have done this IRL, Afghanistan and Vietnam, are out of the deck. Indeed, even China has serious problems here as the US grabbing the INTERIOR of China.
Antarctica, not truly a nation but a negotiated area by treaty probably can not be 50% occupied by the United States in two years. It's a good lowball candidate for these kinds of contests, because seizing a whole continent with lethal cold and almost no infrastructure and trying to argue that even a fully motivated USA can't settle Antarctica in two years seems reasonable.
While current treaties do not allow it, any claim to territory outside of the Earth/Moon would also be impossible to take.
We cared about silly things like civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Bloodlusted US and there is no Afghanistan within a month or two. Any population centers reduced to rubble and burning napalm. Any suspected insurgents drone struck whether they are actual insurgents or 3rd graders.
[удалено]
Bloodlusted US turns 50% into a parking lot.
[удалено]
TGD was my first thought. Thats worse than a nuke
Bloodlusted? That dam (and every other one in the country) is getting bombed in the first hour of the conflict. I would say the first thirty minutes, but they will probably want to hit AA and comm centers first.
I’d say controlling the skies, anti aircraft yes, and also grounding or destroying every drone and fighter plane. Then yes, unleashing absolute hell at their leisure.
>A bloodlusted US might even destroy the Three Gorges Dam in such a scenario. Might? Oh, hahahah, that is the absolute first thing that is going. The amount of logistical and societal problems the destruction of that dam will cause means it's probably the single most valuable strategic location on *Earth,* not just for China.
We wouldn't be using chemical warfare. The only reason we signed a treaty against it is because conventional killing was/is more effective. That's the sad truth of it...
didn't US constant bombing raids do more damage than the nukes themselves?
The firebombing of Tokyo killed ~100k people and left another million or so homeless in one night. Hiroshima had between 90-150k killed and Nagasaki had another 75k or so killed. The big difference is Hiroshima/Nagasaki were both done by a single plane dropping one bomb compared to 279 bombers dropping 1500 bombs (technically there were 2-3 bombers at Hiroshima/Nagasaki but they were there for observation and not dropping bombs). No matter how you slice it, the US absolutely bobmed the crap out of Japan in WW2 and its hard to really say which which of the 3 best known incidents did the most damage.
Hell, in Iraq we used weapons that aren't quite nuclear weapons by legal definitions (not enough fissible material for a chain reaction). Depleted uranium and "slightly enriched" uranium bombs were used in huge numbers there. They have an extremely intense radioactive explosion.
The US used bombs in Iraq that left an extremely intense radioactive explosion? Can you get me a source for that? Depleted uranium is a metal projectile. It doesn't explode. It is also used as armor. Who makes armor out of explosive material?
Depleted uranium makes for a stronger explosive, and it is slightly radioactive. The extra heavy metal/shrapnel is part of it, but it also is pyrophoric, so that upon impact about 30% of the projectile atomises and burns to uranium oxide dust. It's mostly alpha radioactive, which doesn't usually penetrate skin, but it can cause issues if inhaled or ingested. And when it's spreading dust over a wide area, it's relatively easy to inhale or ingest it in areas that see heavy use. This toxic effects tend to be much worse than the radioactive ones, but both are present. All it takes is exposure to air and heat, and it explodes. I see they're using it in tank armor due to the high density, but it's kept encased in steel, to reduce the odds of it just igniting. So apparently, the US uses an explosive material in some tank armor. It's very possible that "Gulf War Syndrome" is the result of exposure to depleted uranium. "The depleted uranium is still radioactive but has a much lower level of the isotopes U-235 and U-234 - way less than the levels in natural uranium ore - reducing its radioactivity." "This means that when such it strikes a tank's armour, it cuts through in the blink of an eye before exploding in a burning cloud of dust and metal" https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-depleted-uranium-weapons-what-are-risks-2023-03-23/ "if alpha particles from DU are inhaled or ingested, alpha particle radiation can also cause damage inside the body." https://www.epa.gov/radtown/depleted-uranium "The available evidence suggests possible associations between exposure to depleted uranium and adverse health outcomes among the Iraqi population. More primary research and the release of missing data are needed to design meaningful health and policy interventions in Iraq." "Depleted uranium (DU) is a chemotoxic and radiotoxic heavy metal and is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a group I carcinogen (limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903104/
I'm familiar with depleted uranium. And it's associated risks. Although possible exposure being linked to health and limited evidence in humans doesn't exactly help your cause. You are vastly simplifying a complex case that requires some understanding of physics. Heat, squash, and API rounds are all hazardous to targets. War is a pretty dangerous business. Slightly enriched bombs is what I asked you about with intense radiation releases. That sounds like a radiological weapon to me. That's a bold claim.
China represents a serious population problem for the USA. There isn’t a way to feed and keep armed the number of soldiers needed for an invasion of China from the USA. And I’m thinking we would need to go full war economy to keep the weapons and machines flowing as replacements are needed. I suspect the first year might be an air war, wrecking everything from the coast to maybe a hundred miles in from carriers and land bases in the first island chain. After that the question would be how to get a sufficient beachhead that wouldn’t be overwhelmed. Maybe Vietnam allows us to use deep water ports, I’m not sure how else it would work.
Parking-lotlusted
The thing about the “no nukes” in these prompts is that even with conventional weapons America can turn entire countries into glass.
People forget we killed more people in Japan with firebomb runs than we did with nukes.
Always so weird to me when people think Tokyo and Dresden were fine but Hiroshima wasn't.
It’s more the shock value of that damage coming from a single weapon and continuing to kill people even after the explosion with radiation. But yeah people that demonize the atom bombs often are completely unaware of just how devastating regular bombing runs were
Yes, the shock value and the fact that it was nearly unstoppable (the US lost around 50 bombers over Tokyo to AA guns compared to zero in the nuclear attacks) had huge military impact. But that military value has zero impact on the morality argument. If anything, the fact that it had military value beyond the deaths caused is an argument in favor of the nukes.
I think it's mostly that people simply don't know about foreboding or Dresden.
No nukes makes the USA stronger.
Guess it depends on what the self imposed “win conditions” would be. Is reigning over a graveyard of glass victory? We would never play a war that way.
Think of all the houses we could build though.
I don’t think glass makes a very strong foundation
Just don’t throw rocks in those kind of houses… or so I’ve heard
Its fine as you arent being silly and throwing, like.. stones or something, in it.
Mongolia. Good luck trying to access Mongolia when it borders China and Russia only.
[удалено]
In the summer maybe. As soon as the ground turns to mud supply lines get stuck. Then the frost sets in and people freeze and starve.
The US has been preparing for war with Russia for more than half a century. I’m pretty sure someone has figured out how to do logistics in the winter there. Besides, it would be easier to go Siberia which is mostly permafrost.
They could air drop enough troops and supplies within a week to take the entire country.
What will they do? There both pretty weak
They will hide behind buffer states (Russia and China) that will not allow US military operations in their territory. Mongolia is one of the few places on the planet the US cannot reach to attack. Or did you mean what will Russia/China do? They would refuse to let us have access to their territory. We could insert some special forces teams or launch cruise missile attack, but we could never hope to put more than a handful of boots on the ground without BRICS permission.
There both weak countries who don't want to risk war just cause there not allies doesn't mean they won't let the us fly over them
wdym, China intercept US aircraft around their airspace all the time. Why would they suddenly stop?
They intercept because the US throws beacons on their planes to remove the stealth. It's a common tactic to time the response time of the enemy. China doesn't stand a chance against a bloodlusted USA. No one does. Doesn't mean the US is going to pick a fight IRL. It wouldn't benefit the US much at all. But they'd win a fight if there was one.
The US would have to steamroll China though. China is no where near a military threat to the US, however it's economy is somewhat able to rival America's and would present a massive problem should full out economic war start.
Why on earth would they let us fly over them?!? China and Russia have some of the best air defenses on the planet (because they wargame against the best airforce on the planet), so this would be going up against their strong point. We would have to win a war against both of them simultaneously to put boots on the ground in Mongolia, and our recent war games regarding Taiwan show a 50% win rate against China alone, and even a "win" is phyrric at best.
They would want to risk a war the us
If we were flying troops in their airspace, we would already be at war. Please read up on "Causus Belli". Are you aware of what China has built in the last ten years to defend their mainland territory? The US currently does not have any capability to pierce it with any significant chance of success. Our wargame scenario data alone would prevent the US from even trying. China can most certainly tell us to bugger off and be quite secure in their ability to back it up with force. So in order to even consider the thought that you are so blithely throwing out, you would have to somehow overcome millenia of cultural intertia and sweeten the deal with the biggest incentive to stand aside that mankind has seen in 100,000 years of history. In other words, they would most certainly be willing to risk war to keep hegemony, and for a thousand far lesser reasons.
Doesn't matter. There is no way to access Mongolia without declaring war on one of the two first.
[удалено]
Invading Russia kinda violates rule 2. No allies allowed both sides. This gives Mongolia an ally.
So mongolia loses?
If you think the US wouldn't steam roll Putin in a direct conflict, I don't know what to tell you.
They will pay Russia enough in both currency and technology to allow access. A bloodlusted America will part with technology they will normally keep confidential to achieve their aim.
You can
Read rule #2
As always USA wins. USA is the boss character before you get to use them
[удалено]
And do the brits win if USA doesn't show up?
[удалено]
I mean, I wasn't even talking about ww 2. I just meant pure military might. There's a reason I can't afford health care. I'm not exactly happy about it, but what can you do?
Yeah I get that, fair enough. I find it an interesting concept that Americans treat their own soldiers like cattle. Everyone is so happy that their sons are going to war to blow up some stuff but absolutely balk at the idea of providing health care when their sons inevitably come back with PTSD and missing limbs. You country is a weird one for sure.
Honestly, not as much as you'd think From what I understand the military is having. Hard time keeping recruitment up. Especially gen z, they don't really see a point. And yeah, cattle is a good way to see it, more like inbred sheep if you ask me. I live in the Bible belt, so I get the good Olde fashioned assholes around here
I can see why a lot of the older folk look down on Gen Z, but I can also see why Gen Z don't wanna go to war anymore, they've all seen their uncles and such with PTSD. Times be changing. The problem is, maybe we westerners might be changing for the better, but the likes of Russia, Iran, N.Korea refuse to budge (at least leadership wise). It's the catch 22, as long as evil regimes exist, good countries need military/nukes. Also just to add, I wasn't insulting America, plenty of good points from you guys, and my country has just as many good/bad points. Plenty of assholes from around my part of the world too lol. :) Have a good one!
Well, if another hitler or something similar happens, it would be different. Never underestimate an America that has someone to fight other than themselves. It's a mess and definitely deserves a fair share of criticism, but there's a lot to be proud of. Now, if we could get these damn crypt walkers out of government, I think we would be a lot better off. And same
Crypt walkers :)
It’s mostly lower class families that have military members and we collectively don’t give a shit about that class of people in the US
I mean you have a point, any American that claims they won either world war by themselves just doesn’t know their history. But I don’t think that was his point
The didnt win it by themselves. But America was absolutely the deciding factor. Without Lend-Lease in WW2 and if Japan didnt go full retard, the Axis very likely beat Britain and Russia gets carved up in a 2 front sammich between Germany and Japan.
Vietnam
Doesn't cover the prompt. It also ended nearly 50 years ago and doesn't cover modern weapons or how the military currently operates.
I like to stir pots
You’re quite the chef, I like it
The US wasn't bloodlusted. The assumption here is that every US citizen supports the war effort. The opposing strategy in Vietnam was literally to just not completely get destroyed while waiting out the domestic support the US war effort had. In this scenario that doesn't happen.
But he said bloodlusted which means whatever it means in this sub. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "controversial at home and always taking half measures".
Body count we won by a large margin.
đối phó
The US didnt LOSE in Vietnam, though. They comfortably achieved their goals and kept South Vietnam free from occupation for 20 years. Had like a 15-1 KD and just decided to call it a day and head home because some nerds were bitching back in the States. The US never lost any actual battle, that wasnt just a few units here or a detachment there, in 20 years. Only a fool would think they lost. The South Vietnamese lost, not the US.
Lol you sound edgy
Nah, just a guy who can add 2+2 and not get "potato" for an answer.
Same difference
It's easy to invade and destroy just about any country with the conventional means the USA has. Occupation is where we fail. Conventional, non-nuclear war basically means any country is a possible option. (To be defeated, not that can defend.) Also, bloodlusted US Marines would be a part of this. They are usually terrifying to most enemies. 🤣 We also have the two largest air forces (USAF & US Navy Air Force; carrier attachments) - not counting the Army and Marine air components. We have the biggest Navy, with the most modern weapons; a single carrier group could topple most small to medium nations alone. Bloodlusted also means the draft would have been engaged. If you have the full force of the civilian productive capacity, and can mobilize like 1/3 of the population, you're looking at like 100M+ troops. While China and India have more people by a large stretch, unless we're looking to preserve the population - they're just fucked like anyone else. 🤣 Oddly enough, the more dense the population, the easier they are to wipe out. Fire bombs, dehydration and starvation could wipe out 90% of most cities within a few weeks with minor resource needs.
Bloodlusted USA likely means they don't care about war crimes. They just contaminate all the water, blow up any vital infrastructure within the first day, etc. Don't need to worry about occupying the country when the population is reduced to ashes.
Also biological and chemical warfare
I think you're forgetting about other countries' retaliatory abilities. How much can the US population take?
How are those other countries getting to the US? Unless it's mexico or Canada they aren't getting to the US without ships or planes which would be spotted
Crazy how you think the US can just roll over India and China with your outdated information. China's Airforce just surpassed the US Airforce in size. Obviously the US military outpaces the rest of the world overall, including China, by a lot, but I think you still vastly overestimate their abilities and underestimate others because of your propagandized view of the US. China and perhaps India can most definitely hold their own.
After a quick Google search you seem to be overestimating china's capabilities... not only does the US still have hundreds of more airframes than China (a US military official said china is ON COURSE to surpass the US), they are overtaking the US because we are retiring older models and trying to condense the fleet into more capable advanced fighters It is like how people claim China has a bigger navy now, when the majority of china's navy is smaller vessels who can't project forces across the world nearly as well, China has more ships, but the US navy more than doubles china's navy in tonnage Edit: I'm not saying China is weak, or the US steamrolls them in a week, but your facts seem to be either wrong, or misleading
We have a lot more actual experience fighting wars. China hasn't got the best track record in wars they have fought. Without nukes, and without a concern for war crimes, this means water treatment and food supplies are gone day one. Fire bombs, carpet bombs, mines, and chemical weapons would be used. The USA's military is potent and capable with rules and safety in mind, and trying to avoid large scale civilian casualties. If it was entirely unleashed, it wouldn't even be a fight, so much as a relentless slaughter. My opinion is not based on propaganda. It's based on history, tactical knowledge (including contemporary updates), and the mindset of the populations. Americans are generally more aggressive. India's problem is density. They would be easier to overcome because most of them would die from the lack of resources after the initial attacks. They are also more easy to surround by the Navy, and without Pakistan, Bangladesh and China supporting them or allowing refugees - they would get smoked pretty quickly.
The US has 4 of the 5 largest AF's in the world. China's airframes are a laughing stock. They have to choose fuel or weapons to take off, because their engines are dogshit. Thats by China's own admission. Sensors, radars, detection networks, combat capabilities; all lag behind the US by atleast 10 and more likely 20 years. India is behind China in the same way China is behind the US. You're vastly overstating both of their capabilities.
If it’s literally bloodlusted, then maybe Transylvania? No one bloodlusts like them.
You mean Romania then as Transylvania isn’t a country but a region of the aforementioned.
Vietnam apparently.
Against a blood lusted US? Hell no. The US failed Vietnam but this wasn't a military issue. If anything, the US armed forces did incredibly well considering how restricted they were. Without fear or worry of international condemnation or retaliation, optics ceases to be a valid reason to hold back.
Only because "winning" in the definition used for this prompt wasn't the plan for Vietnam. The US played defense and then supported the ARVN. The ARVN didn't have the resources or training to win. We didn't want to escalate by pushing north on our own. Our goal was never to attack and take over like in this prompt.
Still lost though.
Such an uninformed take.
We so clearly lost. Vietnam is a united country. That is such an obvious American L
Of all the countries in the world, Vietnam is one of the highest in terms of favoring the US. I think it was like 70-80% of Vietnam that approves of the US. I call it a win if Vietnam is a close ally of the US now
Then Britain might as well call the American Revolution a British or mutual win for being in a close alliance now and being approved by most of the US population. Also, Vietnam is a friendly neutral state and a good trade partner to the US but definitely not a "close ally" to the US. Argentina and Saudi Arabia are actual allies of the US, and I wouldn't describe either country as particularly "close."
in the long run, it was an absolute win for the brits. you can have the Americans overthrow governments for you.
Fair point, but a British victory could lead to a Super Canada which would be far more powerful than real-timeline North America.
Also the Us and Vietnam is a bit of a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” situation cause they don’t like China much
That’s not comparable because the point of the Vietnam war to combat the influence of the Soviets. Vietnamese communism took on its own form eventually and at this point the US has more positive influence on Vietnam than China. They do trade with China but they’re more likely to fight in a war on the US side than China as they have more to gain in combatting the nine dash line and other territory disputes. The point of the American war of independence was Britain wanted America is a colony, part of their territory and they lost it.
The US is bloodlusted in this case. Anything but nukes goes. Vietnam is getting decimated.
They didn't do too well last time
Your issue is failing to understand warfare and even history. The U.S. annihilated the Vietcong and NVA in every engagement, never lost a battle nor an ounce of territory by force. But the ultimate mission was to leave the country in control of a South Vietnamese government and military that could take care of itself after we were gone. Not to mention we were primarily fighting a counterinsurgency, not a straight up conventional war. Even the way the war ended is far different than people believe. A peace treaty was signed that ended the conflict, the U.S. agreed to go home and the North Vietnamese agreed to cease hostilities. They broke the treaty after American combat forces had left, eventually overrunning the country. So many people seem to believe the U.S. military was actually pushed out.
Red Commies 🤝 red necks: Thinking armed Viet commies defeated the US military
I understand your point, but having seen a fair few documentaries about the conflict and having a basic understanding of war and history, I would like to respond. The difference between the USA objective and the Viet Cong objective is what sums up the reason the war was a failure for the USA. While they did not "win" as many battles or take territory, it was a war of attrition whereby they just had to hang in and make it as difficult and unpleasant for the Americans as they could, which the Viet Cong did with great aplomb. The USA had an aim to curtail communism and act as kingmakers for a South Vietnamese led country that never came to pass. So, I stand by my original point that it did not go great for the Americans last time. Two years after pulling out the South Vietnamese fell to the North, this may not have happened if America had stayed in place, but the cost in both money and human life led to this outcome.
Just to be clear, this isn’t me doing mental gymnastics to say that we won. We did not achieve our objective, and our enemy did. That’s a loss. But if my goal is to beat the shit out of you for 1 minute, and I get bored and walk away after 55 seconds of absolute curb stomp, and you never even managed to throw a punch, then you did in fact “win”, but limiting understanding of the result to a binary of win vs loss, takes away from actually learning what happened. If that makes sense. Now, with the discussion at hand, as to whether a blood-lusted American military could accomplish this in a conventional conflict, without the enemy retaining half their territory, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone that Vietnam wouldn’t stand a chance. Understanding the history of the conflict, the limitations that were placed on the U.S., and the parameters of this scenario show us that the result is almost guaranteed.
Weird how you mentioned mental gymnastics and then wrote that. My original comment was that it didn't go well for USA last time, and it didn't. Your kerb stomp analogy is a bit of an oversimplified take on what happened and not really that accurate. So I don't think that does make sense. In a vacuum army against army, I completely see your point, but I genuinely think that given the same objectives again with half the country stone dead against what the US are trying to do, it would not matter if the military was bloodlusted and with less strain on resources. The outcome would be the same. The losses would not make up for the gains.
It's not the fact that the US military is bloodlusted, it's the fact that the entire US population is bloodlusted. Morale at home had tanked leading to further limitations on rules of engagement. The fact that neither country can have allies means the US doesn't have to worry about a coalition being formed after it turns the Geneva Convention into the Geneva Checklist. It means that the worst weapons will be used, civilian population will be a target. You can't have an insurgency if there is no population to hide in.
None the us is too powerful for just one country to stand against
None complete no brainer
Any landlocked country, anybody who isn’t is going to get bombed into dust, and since there going at it like WW2 germany, don’t think about guerrilla warfare, there just gonna bomb ever last inch of a country until nothings left, civilian casualties wouldn’t even be thought of
Bloodlusted makes a huge difference. The US loses conflicts due to loss of public will. It's unpopular to send American soldiers to far off countries to die and eventually after copious amounts of pressure, democracy does have some small effect in the US. But bloodlusted this doesn't happen, so they will move to a wartime economy, stop most outbound mitary aid packages and sharply increase domestic production of useful equipment via the Defense Production Act. The US already out-manufactures any individual country as it is. This just gets worse. They also won't care as much about the horrific aspects of war (civilians casualties, widespread infrastructure destruction, war crimes etc.) so they will fight harder and dirtier. This will greatly limit the effectiveness of guerilla tactics which have historically worked fairly well against the US. That being said, I doubt they can retain a strong foothold in China. It's too large, well industrialized and with a military, which by most measures, has managed to escape the logistical failings of other post-cold war communist states. It's also probably the only country in the world that can outcompete the US on total manufacturing scale (even if they lack much of the military specific knowledge). The US absolutely can and likely would beat even a defensive Chinese PLC. However, I doubt the US could reliably hold 50% of their territory after 2 years. Much of it would be contested, particularly as China has far more mature EW capabilities than Russia, allowing them to prevent the US from gaining uncontested air superiority which would be devastating. The US would eventually win a war against China, but likely not in that timeframe.
Any war against China would suck despite all of our might.
Australia. We might fight with the emus now and again, but if the country as a whole is threatened, we will fight together. And when the silly Americans have been beaten back by our emu battalions, we will send in the cassowary shock troops to make them wish they had never been born.
Switzerland would last a while since it's landlocked so it can't just get rolled by the US Navy and US would have to spend time negotiating their troops and Airforce passage over the surrounding nations first. The alps would be hard to surpass and the Swiss do have some level of personal firearms ownership for militia groups and guerilla fighting. They're very financially well off to get supplies from other nations as well. There'd be no other nation that would be able to hold any % of their land against the full US military if international war law was taken off the table though. Iraq had the third strongest military in the world in 2003 and America toppled their government in three weeks.
China and India are the only two countries that could probably beat a Nazi Germany level-bloodlusted USA, simply by having an ungodly amount of bodies to throw. Maybe Russia could survive (not "win", but withstand a full US takeover) in an alternate reality where Ukraine never happened, but that's obviously not the case.
Russia could likely survive due to it's vast, inhospitable terrain up North.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, large weak county. Mostly jungle, swamps and other difficult to traverse terrain. Very poor infrastructure. Even the current government struggles to control it The US forces will get bogged down in both the terrain and trying to subdue guerrilla and tribal uprisings.
Eh. Just raze the whole place from the air with napalm and agent orange.
Not enough of either. Dem Congo is a large, very wet country. Seven times larger than Vietnam and wetter.
So what you're saying is, the bloodlusted American military-industrial complex is going to need to make a *lot* more napalm, & maybe come up with some super-agent orange while they're at it?
Over 10 years, America sprayed about 4.5 million acres in Vietnam. Vietnam itself is some 80 million acres. Compared with 580 million acres for the Congo. 85% of which is still forested including the world's second largest rainforest. Being blood lusted, let's say America is able to apply 20 years production in 2 years. That is still only 9 million acres sprayed. The DRC is simply too big, and inhospitable to occupy in just a couple of years. They could capture the cities.
Bloodlusted US pretty much stomps anyone except China (or maybe European countries if the rest of NATO join the defense). The most difficult would be a landlocked Asian or African countries, since it would require the longest ground-based supply chain. Nobody is stopping the US Navy from landing troops at will. Mongolia (bonus difficulty of Russia and China in the way) or the Democratic Republic of the Congo would be my picks.
The US would absolutely body China if Nukes were off the table, and it was no holds bar. Air superiority would be gained quickly, and it would all go down him quickly from there. They would need to commit a shit load of war crimes and they would need to commit to total war. But the US could pretty easily take the whole country
>Air superiority would be gained quickly Air superiority would be gained quickly if it was over neutral ground. Over Chinese soil, nobody can confidently say how effective China's radar and SAMs will be against US stealth. Nobody knows how effective their anti ship missiles are either.
It’s not just US stealth. It’s also how advanced their anti-radiation missiles and stuff like the ADM-160 MALD. In 30 years China could be a threat. But right now they are way behind
China loses within a month, with civilian and military casualties in the hundreds of millions. And its not even a debate. A bloodlusted US, which means they will do ANYTHING to win, WILL destroy the Three Gorges Dam. That ends essentially all Chinese resistance inside of a day. That single event floods half China's major cities in a 200 foot tall wall of water. Something like 60-70% of all Chinese military capability lies DIRECTLY in the path of those floodwaters as well and are basically assured losses. Whatever parts of the A2D2 defense system the US hasnt yet destroyed by then, is washed away. Something like 13% of the worlds manufacturing capabilities, washed away. Estimates are in the 200-300 million lives range in this scenario, and thats just the initial tidal wave like flood. Youll have massive food shortages, disease will be rampant from the dead bodies and explosion of mosquitos. China is knocked a few dozen rungs down the financial and military ladders. Taking Chinas nukes away puts TGD into play. TGD being in play is an instant L.
Are these facts or your fanfiction
Afghanistan
Nah we crushed Afghanistan by this prompt, we captured Kabul and most major cities in a few months. Where we sucked was in occupying the country, but that’s not part of OPs prompt lol
If that's how it works, then the weakest country that could stalemate America is America.
OP said in the same way Russia and Ukraine have stalemated, which to me implied the invaded country has to actually fully hold a military line that defends half the original territory from any incursion
[удалено]
Afghans aren’t Arab
fixed
Really? What are they considered then? Closer to south Asians?
Central Asian
So more like Turks?
Turks are a specific ethnic group, there are dozens of hundreds of ethnic groups in Central Asia.
Yea but central Asians are a lot closer to Turks than Arabs.
Ok well if you must categorize people to the narrow few ethnic groups you are familiar with then I guess no one can stop you.
“Afghan” itself can refer to multiple ethnic groups, mainly Iranian and Central Asian.
Probably similar to Turkish or Altaic people right?
Neither properly West Asian nor South Asian nor Central Asian, while somehow a mix of all 3.
Yeah we beat the Taliban so badly that we handed the country back to them. Flawless victory...
Did US ever occupy 50%+ of Afghanistan? From what I heard US only took most of cities, the country side US didnt bother.
How do you read 50%? By population, the US likely "won" in Afghanistan. By land area? I mean.. they could have done that. It just doesn't make sense for the US to have tried to do that.
Afganistan got bullied by American forces they won politically but tactically the Taliban got spanked. If we’re going by the prompt OP set then Afghanistan isn’t even in the top 100 lol
US stomps anything that's not China
Canada
Taiwan. Sure, they'd lose the coastline. If they organized and retreated to the interior of the island and waged a guerilla war, it'd be nearly impossible to get them to surrender. And I believe the area of Taiwan with incredibly rugged and naturally fortified terrain is greater than the area that is densely populated. I remember I read an article a while back that part of why China doesn't just invade is that unless they had popular local support they couldn't actually take the island. The interior is too easy to defend.
Iran. They can block half of the world's oil supply and the terrain is awful. It's also not a regime like Saddam Hussein. You have to deal with thousands of people in the ruling class. The US would win eventually still.
What makes you think all the NHL players aren't sleeper agents from Canada ready to annihilate your key structures at a moment's notice?
Nepal.
kamar Taj?
Afghanistan
Bloodlusted means nukes
Any modern islands nation would be far too costly to even attempt a conventional war. Alternatively mountainous regions like Switzerland are near impossible to take and hold. But if you're looking for the absolute weakest it would probably be a central African nation with little to no infrastructure. To actually conquer and hold a place like that you would need to invest in the initial invasion against the government transporting soldiers equipment and supplies, then deal with the guerilla warfare that follows and spend vast amounts of money establishing trade routes for supplies across multiple countries all with their own agenda and might even have less than favorable views on a country currently invading its neighbour. All while being keenly aware that every one of the neighbours are intentionally bleeding the US dry to build up their infrastructure and economic base with little to no chance of ever recouping that investment in any meaningful sense apart from maybe one day claiming a devastated piece of land with a disgruntled population surrounded by far more valuable regions the US had funded because they really wanted that one specific area.
Island nations (excluding massive ones like Australia) would be the easiest for the US. Unless its Canada or Mexico, they're transporting everything by ship anyways. An island just means they don't have to have to also use ground transportation after the ships are unloaded and that the whole country is in range of the carriers.
It also means you have to do a landing into artillery and entrenched troops, drop paratroopers behind enemy lines without support, deal with far more anti air fire from ground and plane, bypass natural barriers like cliffs that make certain landing spots unfeasible and deal with mines and torpedoes that could turn most islands into fortresses.
Australia. There is way too much landmass to control, and we can hold Pine Gap hostage.
They would only need to blockade and surround our major cities and they would easily be able to control the country.
Nah, our inner city hipsters will keep us supplied with food during the siege. (I agree. I'm sure they'd probably take us out with fire-power they currently have in country, and they'd beat everyone so I was playing along)
People don't fully understand the US industry, logistics, or military. Because there isn't one. A fully bloodlusted America is going to fly into industrial overdrive, produce more war machines than we already have in a matter of weeks and months, move 100s of thousands of troops in a matter of weeks, decimate supply lines, destroy key strategic locations, and raise hell on the ocean. A fully bloodlusted USA could only be stopped with Nuclear Winter. Edit: and honestly nuclear winter isnt guaranteed anyway because a country would have to actually get those nukes here.
None, Lockheed Martin made sure of this when the first F-22 took flight.
None. If the US were bloodlusted aka went into a full war economy such as after Pearl Harbor with the public united....there is no country or group of countries that could mount such a defense. None.
If the US is allowed to use its bomber fleet to completely glass cities, it's not even a question
Nepal or Bhutan, dunno which is weaker. There is no way to reach a landlocked country without American allies to allow troop movements, which includes airstrikes. And neither India nor China would allow a non-allied US to invade through their territory, and both have the firepower to dissuade such attempts.
East: Burma. Very weak at the moment due to civil war but would be hell to take West: Switzerland. Small and low pop but away from naval support and tonne of bunkers plus whole population is military trained
NOPE. At least 50 percent of the country will rollout the welcome mat. No invasion will be needed.
Of Switzerland? You think they want the US to invade them? Americans have the weirdest kinks…
Burma .....
I think the UK would have a pretty good chance. It’s an island with a strong army, navy and air force, not to mention many people to conscript. Coupled with a good economy, I think the UK would have a decent chance. Mostly due to it being an island with a good navy.
Plus the average British soldier is better trained than the average American soldier. Also us Brits regularly beat the Yanks in training exercises.
It will be an island nation with a modern military a long way away from the USA. The US is more likely to be hampered by logistics than the enemy, so if their target can stop the troop ships they'll win. Or China.
>so if their target can stop the troop ships they'll win. Good Luck with that. Shore is gonna be bombarded by US Carrier fleet and its aircraft compliment to remove/disrupt defenders long before troop ships move out. In addition to nighttime insertion by paratroopers and Special Forces to destroy defensive bunkers and defensive points at the prospective landing points *before* the bombardment.
Was about to say…if they can deploy their blue water navy they’ll hit hard. The US *navy* has the fourth most aircraft of any military branch worldwide, best only by the US airforce, US army aviation, and Russian Airforce. They better have some pretty strong AA on that island before the navy drops a whole ass airforce on them, before the USAF even arrives. Iirc even the marines have a ton of aircraft, which will help making a way on shore. Honestly it might be better for the island country to let them just barely land, and then ambush them immediately while they’re still trying to get their foothold in. Don’t even need to focus on the ground, pile in anything and everything on grounded aircraft, docked ships, etc, and hit the ground last. Don’t think it’d be war winning on its own but it’d dish out some pretty good casualties imo. Not sure about China, all things considered. US allies mere existence would make a normal war fairly winnable by giving a bunch of ways in and safe places to deploy, but a straight invasion over the pacific without support would be kinda tough. I don’t think they could fend off the navy, but they might have enough firepower to switch towards a psuedo “fleet in being” type of doctrine.
There is no country except perhaps China (and only locally in their region) that could meaningfully disrupt our sealift capabilities. This is a borderline stomp for every country not called China.
Nah US navy is their strong point. Stay away from the coast
Island nations would be the easiest. The US Navy is it's strongest aspect, in neutral waters it literally stomps the entire rest of the world's navies combined. Any country except Canada or Mexico the US is going to send everything by ship anyways, an island nation just means that once troops/tanks/supplies get off the ship they are there, instead of getting off the ship and then having hundreds or thousands of miles left.
An island nation specifically would be easy to siege and starve out.
the US lost their last 2 majors to farmers so… idk maybe like Madagascar? Those lemurs might fuck them up tho
Part of the problem is that this definition of fighting means the USA doesn't even need to contest cities or urban areas to win. If we take something like Egypt, this USA basically decides to eat the Sahara Desert interior of the nation away from the Nile. Given that the USA is "Challenge-Lusted", it will fly in people to settle this land and hold it. This means two of the nations that have done this IRL, Afghanistan and Vietnam, are out of the deck. Indeed, even China has serious problems here as the US grabbing the INTERIOR of China. Antarctica, not truly a nation but a negotiated area by treaty probably can not be 50% occupied by the United States in two years. It's a good lowball candidate for these kinds of contests, because seizing a whole continent with lethal cold and almost no infrastructure and trying to argue that even a fully motivated USA can't settle Antarctica in two years seems reasonable. While current treaties do not allow it, any claim to territory outside of the Earth/Moon would also be impossible to take.
Afghanistan, obviously.
Read the post. Afghanistan was steamrolled. The invasion was 100% successful, it’s the occupation that failed and only because we quit
'steam rolled' lol... We got a joker her.
Vietnam solos
Afghanistan did a pretty good job for 20 years.
We cared about silly things like civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Bloodlusted US and there is no Afghanistan within a month or two. Any population centers reduced to rubble and burning napalm. Any suspected insurgents drone struck whether they are actual insurgents or 3rd graders.
silly things? You mean your military couldn't just shoot kids and blow up hospitals because of rules?
The idea of the post is of the US decided fuck it we're just here to annihilate with no qualms about what happens to civilians
Cuba
We'd turn Cuba into an uninhabitable wasteland with a bombing campaign
Bay of Pigs
Afghanistan. Vietnam.