Serious question: If NATO were to join forces against the U.S., would the US even flinch? I saw a video of someone explaining the U.S. military and defense system are stronger than all those countries put together. - ThreadSky

pariss.blacktechpipeline.com • 44 days ago

Serious question:

If NATO were to join forces against the U.S., would the US even flinch?

I saw a video of someone explaining the U.S. military and defense system are stronger than all those countries put together.

Reposted from Anonymous

We all knew Trump was going to betray Ukraine, there was never a question about it. It is vital for Europe to show a unified front without the United States and keep in mind that its interests do not align with the rest of the democratic world until Trump & his cabal is removed or overthrown.

Comments

remiebolte.nl•44 days ago

I'm not sure how a war between Europe and the US would look like. The logistics of crossing the Atlantic (for both sides) are extremely daunting. The only reason it worked in WW2 was because of the UK. Otherwise the invasion would have been nearly impossible

psychaedulcisanima.bsky.social•44 days ago

At the moment JD Vance is lecturing the Munich Security Conference about how Euro govts don't live up to democratic values because they arrest protestors at abortion clinics. As Musk and his minions continue to ransack the US govt...

Europe depends on US power, they will cower as they always have.

ilisabat.bsky.social•44 days ago

Let's ignore nukes for a moment.

It wouldn't be a conventional war. Numerically, the US has a lot. We also rely on bases throughout the globe to project our power. Without those bases, the military can't function very well at all.

tl;dr Yes. We'd lose our logistics.

grahamcox82.bsky.social•44 days ago

I've heard from several different sources that the Geneva Convention was created, at least partly, to curtail some of the things Canada got up to in past wars.

Finland are now in NATO, and if you look up the Winter War between them and Russia then those numbers are kinda scary (for the opposition).

grahamcox82.bsky.social•44 days ago

The US likes to talk about how it's got the strongest military in the world. And it probably does.
But that doesn't mean it can win a global war against 31+ other countries. Or, at least, win it without suffering staggering losses.

grahamcox82.bsky.social•44 days ago

And that assumes that the US military would even go to war
Apparently military leaders are obligated to ignore illegal orders from higher up the chain of command. So if anything happened they might act defensively but not actually attack friendly countries... That's a stretch though... 😟

thebeehammer.com•44 days ago

There’s a difference between capability and willingness. “Would our troops use the full might of our forces against nato allies because a rogue government orders them to?” Is the key question. And idk.

One country shouldn’t have the might to be able to effectively fight the world.

dancow.bsky.social•44 days ago

We flinched pretty hard against Vietnam. I think we’d have trouble invading and occupying (i.e. doing something that requires more than just dropping bombs) even Greenland, given how little popular support there would be for a war against Europe

romabysen.bsky.social•44 days ago

"even flinch" sounds a bit sensationalist. The US couldn't really commit all it's military strength in a European theater without opening up real possibilities for China and Russia. Plus there's the whole logistical nightmare of the Atlantic ocean being between the US and Europe.

pariss.blacktechpipeline.com•44 days ago

I can’t lie, the theme I’m seeing when hearing about our defense system is that it’s #1 in every way possible. That’s why I’m wondering how true it is.

eyepatchguy.bsky.social•44 days ago

Defending your own territory against an attack is *extremely* different from projecting force against another country. We’ve spent the past few decades picking on countries with a severe technological and logistical disadvantage since Vietnam kicked our ass

eyepatchguy.bsky.social•44 days ago

Other countries could not successfully invade the U.S. but it would go SO wrong for us if we tried to invade another one. Sheer manpower only gets you so far. Invading Canada alone would be a disaster, NATO would be an all time military debacle

eyepatchguy.bsky.social•44 days ago

A lot of our strength depends on overseas military bases and waystations which…are mostly located in NATO countries. Losing Ramstein alone would fuck us

eyepatchguy.bsky.social•44 days ago

Also, look at it this way: when’s the last time we took on a country at the same level of technological prowess? Probably WW2. Ok when’s the last time we did the same *on our own*? The War of 1812? That was on home turf and we still lost

romabysen.bsky.social•44 days ago

Oh for sure, they are very good systems. For defending the US mainland. But as someone else said, a lot of US force is projected via bases in other countries and those will be the first to go. The US military was not designed to attack a united Europe.

itseore.bsky.social•44 days ago

U.S. and the world would def. flinch. There’s more to warfare than who has the smartest, biggest bombs and guns. Look at Afghanistan. Not to mention domestic and economic problems. The illusion is more powerful than the reality

pariss.blacktechpipeline.com•44 days ago

And if this is the truth then the US has no incentive to stop anything they’re doing. Right????

terrenceturner.bsky.social•44 days ago

I think a better question is what’s the last war the US has won. Like not the mission accomplished photo ops but truly won? Korea?Vietnam ? Iraq? Afghanistan? With an all volunteer army that can’t meet recruitment goals as is?

terrenceturner.bsky.social•44 days ago

They’d have to institute a draft which is wildly unpopular. I think it will be interesting to see how they manage antagonizing over half their domestic population while also antagonizing external former allies.

derrelldurrett.bsky.social•44 days ago

You grossly overestimate the number of American men who would be acceptable to the current regime as soldiers.

alphaomardiallo.com•44 days ago

The US would win on paper. But would still be facing a few nuclear powers that have the capacity to hit the US and Russian territory. So nobody wins. We all lose.

rastarafikii.bsky.social•44 days ago

We spend more than the next ten countries COMBINED on military. It’s nuts when we say “how are we gonna pay for that” like our military isn’t bleeding cash.

faolsean.bsky.social•44 days ago

NATO would not invade the U.S., so the U.S. would be the aggressor in the situation. NATO would be on defensive operations, likely overseas. The U.S. would have the disadvantage of fighting a war accross an ocean. Also the ratio for loses would be 3:1 in favour of defender, who in this case is NATO

gallaugher.bsky.social•44 days ago

My worry: US military annexes canal. NATO balks at imperialism & alliance shatters, large portions of military break w/commander in chief’s unprompted aggression, & US plunged into constitutional crisis. Russia annexes all of Ukraine, Transnistria, eyes Baltics/part of Finland. China takes Taiwan.

tnetennba.bsky.social•44 days ago

USA has bases everywhere - for logistics. Remember how long it took to establish an army of allies in Saudi Arabia in order to carry out Desert Storm II - it was 6 months because there was no presence there already

If USA do not remain in Europe then USA might end up facing Russia and China alone

tnetennba.bsky.social•44 days ago

I previously saw a breakdown of how much being in Europe costs the US. It was negligible because there would be no drawdown in force numbers if US were not there

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply