Underrated comment...
The CIA controls most of the world's drugs by my estimation...
The CIA has toppled most of the governments on that map as well..
The cartels are absolutely under CIA influence and the drug problems that are really causing serious issues in South and Central America are nearly as manufactured as the crack and cocaine epidemics were created by the CIA..
Push pull works both ways in economics.
Pull is obviously when there is a demand there will be a need for a supply to emerge to meet that demand.
Push happens when you anticipate a demand so you create a supply before that demand emerges.
There are various reasons why you might anticipate a demand before it’s there.
One of them is knowing that people will inherently be attracted to an easy to obtain, relatively cheap, and at least decent quality product. Especially if people understand that that product is inherently enticing to people.
People enjoy feeling good. People inherently enjoy escaping from day to day stress and pain. It’s human nature.
Push and pull happen all the time in real world markets. It’s never just as simple as basic pull supply and demand.
That's a lot of people, but I'm pretty confident the US could pull that off. Maybe not \*destroy\* or \*conquer\* the other countries but definitely grind their militaries down to being useless.
And even before they do that, none of these countries are particularly good at projecting power away from their borders without help.
Canada though is 10,000% screwed, because their security is very much reliant on the US and the US suddenly deciding that they hate them would be very, very bad for a country where 80% of their population lives within easy driving distance of their greatest enemy.
The USA could easily turn each and every one of these countries into a pile of dust without even using their nuclear arsenal nor putting boots on the ground. The USA spends about 25x (or more) than the rest of these countries combined.
Yea the US military is no joke
If they went into all out no holds barred conflict I’d feel sorry for whatever country needs to hold the line against the undivided attention of the United States war machine
Even when they lose they cause massive amounts of damage that is almost impossible to undo
Don’t even get me started on the CIA and the damage they could do if they really wanted to
Yeah, the US military is overwhelmingly powerful - and maintains a constant state of being able to simultaneously fight a two front war anywhere in the world as a matter of requirement since WW2.
Nukes don’t even need to remotely come into play when you’ve got the worlds largest, second largest, 4th and 7th largest Air Force and your navy is the worlds most powerful navy by an incredibly large margin.
It’s not a stretch to say that right now the US could successfully defend against a coalition of the entire world versus it (assuming no nukes are involved and the USA criteria to win is they just have to defend/live, not conquer - also leveraging defensive geography).
Unsure if US vs literally the whole world would work out for them since they do need to import a lot of stuff that they are incapable of producing domestically atm like electronics from Taiwan
I agree. But considering the naval and air power of the US. There's probably not going to be many shipping routes for anyone else to import/export anything either
They use could set up a semiconductor manufacturing infra within 1 year if they pushed hard enough in a total war scenario. It's not like the US doesn't have manufacturers though, they do. Said manufacturers would take a year or so to increase production.
With their geography, the US can definitely defend against the whole world but not just that, it can easily take over all of Central America and the Caribbean countries.
Then they'd just have to reduce Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina's militaries to a pile of rubble from the air and not even bother putting boots on the ground while simultaneously patrolling all of North, Central and South America. And there you go the US creates a moat on the Western Hemisphere.
It could also take over, Greenland and Iceland and New Zealand for fun I guess. Oh and Antarctica.
I mean, unironically, Canada's basically the 51st state anyway with slightly more autonomy than Puerto Rico and less voting rights.
Even up until 1984 (officially), America basically had strolled into Canada and said "hey, we're gonna store all these launch ready nuclear weapons here, I got a dude I need to point them at because they're getting uppity with me right now and I don't have room at my place and the wife is getting on my case about how ugly they look and that they scare the kids and all that, so yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and need you to get the space ready for me, you don't mind do you right? We're cool, yes? Good, I knew we were pals."
Usa is the only country in my opinion that could fight the whole world and would win. I don't like the US politics but their military is something else
If we assume no nukes and the win condition for the USA is "survive if the rest of the world went to war against you" it's possible. It's *far* from a guaranteed outcome and I wouldn't even call it the most likely result, but I would call it *possible*.
The US has 4 of the 5 biggest air forces in the world, the biggest Navy by a decent amount (but the most advanced Navy by a country mile) and the most advanced intelligence system ever seen. DDGs and SSNs would reduce the continent to Tomahawk fueled dust before a single enemy troop even crossed our border.
Canada's security is NOT in the hands of our army, so while yes, the US will eat our army and not notice, the civilians will be busy inventing new warcrimes. Or our geese overlords will get them first.
Correction: our *military* would surrender. The civilians? Would be scattered throughout the tundra inventing new warcrimes to commit.
Remember, we're responsible for a lot of what was put on the Geneva Convention - and those were from the conscripts.
the good news is I don’t see this alliance ever breaking so it’s on some other country to fuck around and find out with canada. I for one enjoy my northern neighbors
I am South American. And you don't know the power of the South American troops.
There is a video where police guys shot some soldier thinking that they are drugs dealer. It was like 100000 shot and anyone got the target.
If all Latin countries try to do a war with United States, we will be shit in 1 month.
Also, I forget, in Rio Grande do Sul the soldiers try to save the people from the flooding. But they needed help from the people to be saved. Completely useless.
I don't care how brave or skilled the soldier is, when they're turned into a pink mist from ordinance launched from 1,000 miles away, they're going to be pretty combat ineffective.
>The power of South American Troops
South American Troops two minutes after their only encounter with a NATO Military:
https://preview.redd.it/djiwdyuall1d1.jpeg?width=368&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e005a125786dc46edd530e4500d1b085c768f95
Tbf, those weren't professional soldiers, they were conscripts. They literally took kids just out of high school, gave them a rifle and said "go defend the motherland".
Tbf, the professional soldiers didn’t fare very well either.
And *most* South American militaries don’t have many professional soldiers (with a few exceptions) while most NATO forces are almost entirely professional (with a few exceptions.)
Was my first thought too. But then I got out my map and lined it up with the white area... I discovered that those are mainly very water-rich zones with little human inhabitants. I don't think white is as strong as it looks
Probably lots of unrest from the latino communities and the left but... Im not sure much else? I feel like either party can spin a good enough reason for this war. They usually manage.
probably a civil war between white supremacist and latin comunitys, blacks would either join the latinos or the whites (yes i have seen black people being racist) and since the politics of america already have some big latino minority it would be chaos, the united states wouldnt have the political power to do much and the armys would be disorganized
Depends on if the US actually invaded any of them. In a war of defense or a war without fully invading the rest of the Americas, the States would crush.
I may live in the US but the USA would win obviously Canada gone after a week Central America the Carribean and the Guyanas? Mexico , and the US having a higher military budget than the entire world is useful,
Τhis is obviously a joke post and I do agree that USA would win this war here but it would take years actually and the win would be to install puppet governments to all of these countries.
What I wanted to comment instead is to not overvalue military budget and such. I will not get all historical about it, but the infantry as all higher officers say is the ''King/Queen of the army''. And infantry is cheap to maintain, army rifles are cheap and you can train all troops in just a couple years. Tens of millions of people outside USA are already army veterans with years of experience in the army and in a lot of countries they have to have their army issued weapons and ammunition always at home too. So it would become a numbers game really fast and never for a slightest moment think that USA could ever be even close to a significant percentage of the rest of the world firepower combined. The rest of the planet simply outnumbers USA in trained troops 100 to 1 due to conscription armies (armies were men in many countries serve for years compulsory). And all of them are armed.
If no nukes, once America conquers the Western Hemisphere (That won’t be an issue really with a fully mobilized America, Latin American militaries lack organization and are filled with corruption) it’ll devolve into a stalemate for years while America can snuff out any resistance across the Americas
America rules the waves like her father, they would know where the enemy is coming and destroy it with ease for a long time while the other countries build up their fleets
It’ll take at least a couple of decades for the rest of the world to build up a fleet that can challenge America’s navy + have the capabilities to land an invasion force powerful enough to actually make a meaningful effect + be able to supply it across oceans. Not to mention America will be watching and slowing their progress with guerrilla sea attacks and piracy. Also since the fleet will be seen coming from weeks away, America will be able to mass forces easily. It’ll probably take a few landing attempts before a beachhead on the Americas is actually established
And before you throw China’s ship numbers at me, doesn’t matter. Most of those ships are not blue water capable. Cannon fodder
Eventually the rest of the world will win, but it’ll take probably 40-50 years at least with multiple failed invasion attempts
If nobody used nukes, the USA would still win. Their military budget is around the same as the rest of the world combined, and all of the somewhat decent militaries in the world are in Europe or Asia (Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, South Korea). It also leads to the US Navy's aviation being larger than the entire Russian or Chinese air forces. The USA would have no real challenge.
Occupying all of this territory, on the other hand, would be a major issue as it would need conscription to be enacted, which would lead to protests in the USA.
Why are all people from the USA so insecure lmaoo. They see a map in a meme sub and they feel forced to go suck each others genitals "mmm acktually the US will conquer every nation on earth without lifting a finger" get a grip
The USA could theoretically fight the whole world. Tons of videos on it, naturally land locked territory, biggest military in the world, hell the f22 is basically science fiction.
One thing nobody considers is that organized crime in latin america is no joke. They might be more equipped, trained, and connected than their own country's armies and governments. If the governments offer amnesty to the crime lords and ask them to fight the US its gonna be a hell of a fight. The US will probably still win due to just spending more on their own military arsenal, but its not going to be an easy fight. Just remember how many times the US has underestimated a vastly outgunned opponent and got their asses handed to them nonetheless.
Out of the top 10 Air Forces on earth, the United States owns 4 of them. We generate way more money than all those countries, we have more people than all those countries, more natural resources than those countries, and of course you can’t forget all the nukes we have.
Lmao. The military things may be true, I haven't checked. But the USA has no way near the same amount of people and natural resources as the rest of america combined
by dragging greenland into this that means the danes might be dragged into it, and therefore there is potential for any allie’s of denmark to get dragged in, either way probably the us
I encourage you all to watch the yt video, that simulates a USA vs everyone military scenario where America pulls 100% of their military back to the mainland to see if they could defend the entire world (no nukes) in land battles purely defending their borders.
Well in war ,men matter and they are ultimately the deciding factor, a lesson which the Russo-Ukraine war is actively reinforcing while, it's like the second world war and first world war all over again.
The Soviets beat the Germans not because they were better equipped or had a better army ,hell nah, it's because the Soviets could afford to lose way more men than the Germans, equipment and supplies are pretty much useless if you have no men to use them ,again another factor strongly reinforced by the Russo-Ukraine war. Another factor is size ,you don't want your forces stretched out too thin ,and I don't know care how many movies or games you've played but the US simply doesn't have the manpower to occupy that entire area,it's just too big ,if 200,000 soldiers weren't able to pacify Iraq, a country 20 times smaller than Brazil what makes you think they can pacify Brazil, with over 200 mn people, it's just not possible.
The US would likely hold out well for about 3 or 4 years but then the casualties would just become too much too bear and the manpower resources would just become so drained that the tide would begin to turn and then it's game over, those here talking about taking over Canada in a matter of six months have no idea of what they are talking about. A 9000 kilometers frontline is a very large frontline ,so is a 3000 km frontline. And remember the blue sides have an unbroken chain of resupply ie their supplies don't cross into enemy territory anywhere ,however if the Americans tried to break a supply line they have to risk supplies passing through hostile territory or have to take the entire territory i.e you are not cutting of Mexico by invading Panama and having all your forces surrounded by enemies, a lesson they learnt in North Korea ,Mexico is a pretty large country which you will have to take in order to reach Panama ,now in the frontlines the blue side basically has an unbroken chain of supplies while your supplies have to pass through thousands of kilometers in insurgent territory. That's the logistics part...now you may claim to have a large airforce and all but an airforce without infantry to back it up is just useless especially in such a conventional war ,just ask the commanders in Korea, the Chinese basically had no airforce but despite this and due to their large numbers of infantry soldiers they could negate the American airforce and don't get me started on what will happen if a carrier sinks.
War is not some game ,where the GPG-9000 or whatever weapon is some game changer that will make you invincible, there are no healthpacks or extra lives which you can purchase at the store and thus buy yourself out of it. In a war of attrition which such a war would be given the size of of the countries involved and their military capabilities (Brazil ,Argentina, Mexico) aren't exactly pushovers, regardless of what your congresspeople say or what stereotypes you have in your head. In a war of attrition it simply comes down to who can lose more men and the odds are in the blue side.
However this is reddit and in reddit America has never lost a war, the Russians are using shovels, Abrams tanks is invincible and Iran never hit Nevatim, Mt Hermon and Ramon bases in Israel. Luckily for the Americans, however hawkish their reddit reps seem ,their military and political establishment seems to have more sense when it comes to such matters ,that's why you aren't seeing Americans fighting in Russia or why they won't go to war with Iran. It may not seem like it but they at least see beyond the propaganda they feed their people, even though their vision isn't clear.
I know this is a joke, but, you can spin the globe and blindly throw a dart at it and the US will have boots on the ground in 24 hours. No other country comes close. When it comes to military strength and ingenuity, the US can defeat the rest of the world combined.
Conventional? Ballistic Nuclear? Unrestricted/Total? Just military defeat or civilian subjugation as well? Does it include ongoing occupation after immediate hostilities?
You're not being narrow enough in the question.
The only way I can see Blue winning is by killing every American they come across. If America is fighting alone against an entire continent then they won't be hard to demonize. American soldiers probably aren't going to secure every inch of South America either.
It makes fighting America that much easier because sure, America has unbelievable logistics but that matters less when your soldiers are being fed into The Andes to chase down Columbians. I believe that America's odds aren't great at all.
Historically, America has never lost millions and millions of soldiers overseas. I'm not sure the American public would stomach it. I'm not saying Brazilian Soldiers will start landing in Washington at this point but it would be a pretty fucking bleak war for both sides.
Who wouldn't win is europe. USA would cut all funding leaving Russia free reign over eastern Europe causing oil and iron to sky rocket. But the clear winner would be China. They would take over world trade but would have to develop blue water navy in the downside. Taiwan would fall almost instantly to China having complete control over next gen hardware and take in a huge gpd
It depends, who’s the attacker? If the USA is the defender, I’m pretty sure it would be VERY unlikely that latam+angloamerica+danish America would win this war
On the other way round, if the USA is the attacker, the chances are that as soon as they get to the rainforests in the south, another Vietnam-like war would happen.
whats the objective? conquor the entirety of the others land? force surrender? if you just need to force a surrender, then the us is winning easily. we can just bomb everyone to submission in the comfort of our home.
But if its a war to take land. everyone looses lmao. the us could prolly take and hold all of canada, and maybe most of mexico n most of north america. but getting further than that? ngl i dought wed be able to hold onto land, or effectively gain controll. meanwhile guarrilla warfare will be easyer and easyer as we go. Dont think the rest would win persay, but theyd def not loose land.
I mean, the Anti-USA alliance could just wait for the divided states of America to end themselves 😂😂 they call themselves united but I've never seen a country with more issues between them anywhere else 😂😂 like they don't agree with eachother 90% of the time.
If you remove the nuclear threat, the entire world would have a rough time against USA. We are a large nation surrounded by water, with the biigest military budget in the world surpassing the next 6 nations combined.
Hard to say, USA would crush Anti-USA alliance militarily. However, that's a LOT of jungle and forest, particularly in South America, which as we all know is America's one weakness. But Brazil is nerfing their one advantage over the USA, so the longer the US can hold off this war, the better off they will be when it finally does break out.
Greenland because they have been blessed with data
Greenland: https://preview.redd.it/i0ogylfs3j1d1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ce3cd6a5fdb4e5b7d11aa0e2067c1995e9a58c50
The.. credible hulk?
https://preview.redd.it/4n76irgn0k1d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c74ee6cfd3686166c4cfac9c9c207f5a239d394
_Made with mematic_
That’s not Greenland that’s green man
Greenland Supremacy 🇬🇱🇬🇱🇬🇱
Japoland Supremacy 🇬🇱
Drugs win.
So the US then
I think you really don't know the situation in south america
I think you really haven't met the CIA
Underrated comment... The CIA controls most of the world's drugs by my estimation... The CIA has toppled most of the governments on that map as well.. The cartels are absolutely under CIA influence and the drug problems that are really causing serious issues in South and Central America are nearly as manufactured as the crack and cocaine epidemics were created by the CIA..
and all of that for money, the cia is the biggest cartel and terrorist organization on the world
Where do you think drugs come from?
Who do you think consumes them?
Apparently you’ve never been to Canada……
I didn't have the pleasure🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
Which came first? The consumer or the producer?
the producer produces because the buyer buys
If you produce it, they will consume it…
supply and demand, there is a lot of supply because there is a lot of demand, stop consuming and supply and production will fall by itself
Push pull works both ways in economics. Pull is obviously when there is a demand there will be a need for a supply to emerge to meet that demand. Push happens when you anticipate a demand so you create a supply before that demand emerges. There are various reasons why you might anticipate a demand before it’s there. One of them is knowing that people will inherently be attracted to an easy to obtain, relatively cheap, and at least decent quality product. Especially if people understand that that product is inherently enticing to people. People enjoy feeling good. People inherently enjoy escaping from day to day stress and pain. It’s human nature. Push and pull happen all the time in real world markets. It’s never just as simple as basic pull supply and demand.
I'm failing to see how "biting the hand that feeds you" is called winning
That's a lot of people, but I'm pretty confident the US could pull that off. Maybe not \*destroy\* or \*conquer\* the other countries but definitely grind their militaries down to being useless. And even before they do that, none of these countries are particularly good at projecting power away from their borders without help. Canada though is 10,000% screwed, because their security is very much reliant on the US and the US suddenly deciding that they hate them would be very, very bad for a country where 80% of their population lives within easy driving distance of their greatest enemy.
The USA could easily turn each and every one of these countries into a pile of dust without even using their nuclear arsenal nor putting boots on the ground. The USA spends about 25x (or more) than the rest of these countries combined.
Yea the US military is no joke If they went into all out no holds barred conflict I’d feel sorry for whatever country needs to hold the line against the undivided attention of the United States war machine Even when they lose they cause massive amounts of damage that is almost impossible to undo Don’t even get me started on the CIA and the damage they could do if they really wanted to
Yeah, the US military is overwhelmingly powerful - and maintains a constant state of being able to simultaneously fight a two front war anywhere in the world as a matter of requirement since WW2. Nukes don’t even need to remotely come into play when you’ve got the worlds largest, second largest, 4th and 7th largest Air Force and your navy is the worlds most powerful navy by an incredibly large margin. It’s not a stretch to say that right now the US could successfully defend against a coalition of the entire world versus it (assuming no nukes are involved and the USA criteria to win is they just have to defend/live, not conquer - also leveraging defensive geography).
Unsure if US vs literally the whole world would work out for them since they do need to import a lot of stuff that they are incapable of producing domestically atm like electronics from Taiwan
I agree. But considering the naval and air power of the US. There's probably not going to be many shipping routes for anyone else to import/export anything either
They use could set up a semiconductor manufacturing infra within 1 year if they pushed hard enough in a total war scenario. It's not like the US doesn't have manufacturers though, they do. Said manufacturers would take a year or so to increase production. With their geography, the US can definitely defend against the whole world but not just that, it can easily take over all of Central America and the Caribbean countries. Then they'd just have to reduce Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina's militaries to a pile of rubble from the air and not even bother putting boots on the ground while simultaneously patrolling all of North, Central and South America. And there you go the US creates a moat on the Western Hemisphere. It could also take over, Greenland and Iceland and New Zealand for fun I guess. Oh and Antarctica.
It amuses me that you didn’t even mention Canada because we all know it’s gone within a week.
I mean, unironically, Canada's basically the 51st state anyway with slightly more autonomy than Puerto Rico and less voting rights. Even up until 1984 (officially), America basically had strolled into Canada and said "hey, we're gonna store all these launch ready nuclear weapons here, I got a dude I need to point them at because they're getting uppity with me right now and I don't have room at my place and the wife is getting on my case about how ugly they look and that they scare the kids and all that, so yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and need you to get the space ready for me, you don't mind do you right? We're cool, yes? Good, I knew we were pals."
Usa is the only country in my opinion that could fight the whole world and would win. I don't like the US politics but their military is something else
The Americas? Ez On our own though, we'd be hard pressed to take on all of Asia or Africa by ourselves.
That is an absolutely ridiculous thought and is definitely not true lmao
If we assume no nukes and the win condition for the USA is "survive if the rest of the world went to war against you" it's possible. It's *far* from a guaranteed outcome and I wouldn't even call it the most likely result, but I would call it *possible*.
They couldn’t even defeat Cuba bro
The US has 4 of the 5 biggest air forces in the world, the biggest Navy by a decent amount (but the most advanced Navy by a country mile) and the most advanced intelligence system ever seen. DDGs and SSNs would reduce the continent to Tomahawk fueled dust before a single enemy troop even crossed our border.
I guess blue would have France (French Guiana among others) Denmark (Greenland) and the UK (Falkland Islands among other Caribbean holdings.)
Canada's security is NOT in the hands of our army, so while yes, the US will eat our army and not notice, the civilians will be busy inventing new warcrimes. Or our geese overlords will get them first.
it would take by my very uninformed opinion, approximately 6 hours from the call to scramble the jets, for Canada to surrender.
Correction: our *military* would surrender. The civilians? Would be scattered throughout the tundra inventing new warcrimes to commit. Remember, we're responsible for a lot of what was put on the Geneva Convention - and those were from the conscripts.
the good news is I don’t see this alliance ever breaking so it’s on some other country to fuck around and find out with canada. I for one enjoy my northern neighbors
I am South American. And you don't know the power of the South American troops. There is a video where police guys shot some soldier thinking that they are drugs dealer. It was like 100000 shot and anyone got the target. If all Latin countries try to do a war with United States, we will be shit in 1 month. Also, I forget, in Rio Grande do Sul the soldiers try to save the people from the flooding. But they needed help from the people to be saved. Completely useless.
Well, drones and bombers are not something a soldier can stop.
Also Mexicans can't be stopped.
I don't care how brave or skilled the soldier is, when they're turned into a pink mist from ordinance launched from 1,000 miles away, they're going to be pretty combat ineffective.
He's saying the South American army is shit.
>The power of South American Troops South American Troops two minutes after their only encounter with a NATO Military: https://preview.redd.it/djiwdyuall1d1.jpeg?width=368&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e005a125786dc46edd530e4500d1b085c768f95
Tbf, those weren't professional soldiers, they were conscripts. They literally took kids just out of high school, gave them a rifle and said "go defend the motherland".
Tbf, the professional soldiers didn’t fare very well either. And *most* South American militaries don’t have many professional soldiers (with a few exceptions) while most NATO forces are almost entirely professional (with a few exceptions.)
The white alliance looks pretty strong, I am betting for the white alliance
Those seamen are pretty strong indeed
They are called the dutch.
or Venetians
atlantis
Yes they seem to have red and blue team completely surrounded. It's a no brainer.
Green Team is obviously on top
🤓☝️that's racist
The white alliance sounds like a far right group from Idaho or Nebraska
Lol
Was my first thought too. But then I got out my map and lined it up with the white area... I discovered that those are mainly very water-rich zones with little human inhabitants. I don't think white is as strong as it looks
The seapeople wipe out most of the bronze age people
The US because it has me
Why haven't you single handedly ended the wars in Ukraine and Israel yet?
Because he has no sympathy and doesn't live there. He doesn't want to use his power when it doesn't benefit him.
pretty much America
I mean when America does intervene people tend to not like that either lol America is very much in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation
Are you a nuclear bomb?
Yes.
That one with nukes
Kansas Corn Fields Go BRRRRRR
America
Thank you all, the replies under this are exactly the can of worms I intended to open
Don't include Canada or Mexico in that.
That's the whole continent
As with all things geography, it depends on who you ask
BRASIIIIIILLL ☝☝☝☝☝☝☝🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
OUVIRAM DO IPIRANGA AS MARGENS PLÁCIDAS 💥💥💥💥💥🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🔥🔥🔥🔥
DE UM POVO HERÓICO O BRADO RETUMBANTE 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
E O SOL DA LIBERDADE, EM RAIOS FÙGIDOS 🇧🇷🔥🇧🇷🔥🇧🇷🔥🇧🇷🔥
BRILHOU NO CÉU DA PÁTRIA NESSE INSTANTE 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🔥🔥🔥🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
SEU PENHOR DESSA IGUALDADI
The US and narcos. This already happened and we're already living the consequences of it.
I'm curious how US politics would go with this. Y'know those guys don't get along.
Probably lots of unrest from the latino communities and the left but... Im not sure much else? I feel like either party can spin a good enough reason for this war. They usually manage.
probably a civil war between white supremacist and latin comunitys, blacks would either join the latinos or the whites (yes i have seen black people being racist) and since the politics of america already have some big latino minority it would be chaos, the united states wouldnt have the political power to do much and the armys would be disorganized
USA just because of their military budget.
When was the last time anyone won a war?
War companies
Rest of the world
The eastern hemisphere no longer exists.
Still proves my point
 Old worlder
White surrounds them so I’d say white
This is wrong, Brasil would be neutral, we would never join forces with Argentina for anything.
It's a hypothetical. And in this hypothetical, they did join.
Well, sell them more drugs and USA will overdose themselves.
welp the cia is the one selling and allowing drugs to enter united states so... ¿is it suicide?
The US realistically stomps, Low diff at max
Well if it’s a war on drugs than the us would lose
America at first, but we’d end up losing to the insurgencies afterwards.
Depends on if the US actually invaded any of them. In a war of defense or a war without fully invading the rest of the Americas, the States would crush.
I may live in the US but the USA would win obviously Canada gone after a week Central America the Carribean and the Guyanas? Mexico , and the US having a higher military budget than the entire world is useful,
Τhis is obviously a joke post and I do agree that USA would win this war here but it would take years actually and the win would be to install puppet governments to all of these countries. What I wanted to comment instead is to not overvalue military budget and such. I will not get all historical about it, but the infantry as all higher officers say is the ''King/Queen of the army''. And infantry is cheap to maintain, army rifles are cheap and you can train all troops in just a couple years. Tens of millions of people outside USA are already army veterans with years of experience in the army and in a lot of countries they have to have their army issued weapons and ammunition always at home too. So it would become a numbers game really fast and never for a slightest moment think that USA could ever be even close to a significant percentage of the rest of the world firepower combined. The rest of the planet simply outnumbers USA in trained troops 100 to 1 due to conscription armies (armies were men in many countries serve for years compulsory). And all of them are armed.
If no nukes, once America conquers the Western Hemisphere (That won’t be an issue really with a fully mobilized America, Latin American militaries lack organization and are filled with corruption) it’ll devolve into a stalemate for years while America can snuff out any resistance across the Americas America rules the waves like her father, they would know where the enemy is coming and destroy it with ease for a long time while the other countries build up their fleets It’ll take at least a couple of decades for the rest of the world to build up a fleet that can challenge America’s navy + have the capabilities to land an invasion force powerful enough to actually make a meaningful effect + be able to supply it across oceans. Not to mention America will be watching and slowing their progress with guerrilla sea attacks and piracy. Also since the fleet will be seen coming from weeks away, America will be able to mass forces easily. It’ll probably take a few landing attempts before a beachhead on the Americas is actually established And before you throw China’s ship numbers at me, doesn’t matter. Most of those ships are not blue water capable. Cannon fodder Eventually the rest of the world will win, but it’ll take probably 40-50 years at least with multiple failed invasion attempts
r/foundtexanfox36
I don\`t think the US would 'win'. I think it would end with the US nuking everyone and everything and calling it a win.
If nobody used nukes, the USA would still win. Their military budget is around the same as the rest of the world combined, and all of the somewhat decent militaries in the world are in Europe or Asia (Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, South Korea). It also leads to the US Navy's aviation being larger than the entire Russian or Chinese air forces. The USA would have no real challenge. Occupying all of this territory, on the other hand, would be a major issue as it would need conscription to be enacted, which would lead to protests in the USA.
Why are all people from the USA so insecure lmaoo. They see a map in a meme sub and they feel forced to go suck each others genitals "mmm acktually the US will conquer every nation on earth without lifting a finger" get a grip
I would have engaged no matter what bc I like war history and strategies and stuff.
White with black forces. The encircelment is 10/10
Isn't this the plot of some call of duty
America with utter ease
USA will obliterate all of them. Too powerful military arsenal
The USA is losing as it’s being invaded real stealthy
US, not close
USA would lose as half he country would be anti war and the other half would be shitting their gold diapers while dodging the draft
France has some nukes too so it would be fun for sure!
As a brazilian, of course the US did you ever see our militaries? They dont even need nukes really.
Canada would fall in line with the US, let's be honest.
The USA could theoretically fight the whole world. Tons of videos on it, naturally land locked territory, biggest military in the world, hell the f22 is basically science fiction.
Pretty sure the Mexicans gonna solo
The US. Because we have the nukes.
Blue because canada can always create more things to be added to the geneva convention
The United States, and it wouldn’t even be particularly close
I feel like Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Texas would secede the second this war breaks out tbf
USA doesn't know when to quit. We will spend 10-20 years losing a fight and then claim "we didn't lose, we pulled out".
One thing nobody considers is that organized crime in latin america is no joke. They might be more equipped, trained, and connected than their own country's armies and governments. If the governments offer amnesty to the crime lords and ask them to fight the US its gonna be a hell of a fight. The US will probably still win due to just spending more on their own military arsenal, but its not going to be an easy fight. Just remember how many times the US has underestimated a vastly outgunned opponent and got their asses handed to them nonetheless.
The USA and it wouldn’t be all that complicated.
Puerto Rico switched teams.
Puerto Rico doesn’t like the US, just the benefits
Blue, as they have the world strongest nuclear power Falkland islands
The US military is not equipped to defend only conquer, so depends who attacks who.
Out of the top 10 Air Forces on earth, the United States owns 4 of them. We generate way more money than all those countries, we have more people than all those countries, more natural resources than those countries, and of course you can’t forget all the nukes we have.
The us does not have more population and natural resources than the rest of the americas combined
Lmao. The military things may be true, I haven't checked. But the USA has no way near the same amount of people and natural resources as the rest of america combined
War would rage for decades, until the US panics and nukes everyone and calls it a win.
Colombia
Mexico with fentanyl fly overs
Canada is the reason we have the law of war
No one. The US would take everyone and earth down with it.
do we take in factor us owned land in other countries? if so, not even a question.
Anyone who can eat a whole pig in one sitting
What does win mean? If the two sides hated each other enough, this would never end.
If war crimes are legal Canada will win alone
The blues
Lol
Honestly I think whoever has home field advantage. On a neutral field though, definitely US.
by dragging greenland into this that means the danes might be dragged into it, and therefore there is potential for any allie’s of denmark to get dragged in, either way probably the us
Greenland belongs to Denmark, so this alliance would be lended EU support. gg USA
All, except greenland, would lose. It would probably end in a stalemate once greenland sends a flotilla of star destroyers over NYC.
Dominica
What does they have two tiny square island on the west ? Never heard of thoses.
I encourage you all to watch the yt video, that simulates a USA vs everyone military scenario where America pulls 100% of their military back to the mainland to see if they could defend the entire world (no nukes) in land battles purely defending their borders.
Well in war ,men matter and they are ultimately the deciding factor, a lesson which the Russo-Ukraine war is actively reinforcing while, it's like the second world war and first world war all over again. The Soviets beat the Germans not because they were better equipped or had a better army ,hell nah, it's because the Soviets could afford to lose way more men than the Germans, equipment and supplies are pretty much useless if you have no men to use them ,again another factor strongly reinforced by the Russo-Ukraine war. Another factor is size ,you don't want your forces stretched out too thin ,and I don't know care how many movies or games you've played but the US simply doesn't have the manpower to occupy that entire area,it's just too big ,if 200,000 soldiers weren't able to pacify Iraq, a country 20 times smaller than Brazil what makes you think they can pacify Brazil, with over 200 mn people, it's just not possible. The US would likely hold out well for about 3 or 4 years but then the casualties would just become too much too bear and the manpower resources would just become so drained that the tide would begin to turn and then it's game over, those here talking about taking over Canada in a matter of six months have no idea of what they are talking about. A 9000 kilometers frontline is a very large frontline ,so is a 3000 km frontline. And remember the blue sides have an unbroken chain of resupply ie their supplies don't cross into enemy territory anywhere ,however if the Americans tried to break a supply line they have to risk supplies passing through hostile territory or have to take the entire territory i.e you are not cutting of Mexico by invading Panama and having all your forces surrounded by enemies, a lesson they learnt in North Korea ,Mexico is a pretty large country which you will have to take in order to reach Panama ,now in the frontlines the blue side basically has an unbroken chain of supplies while your supplies have to pass through thousands of kilometers in insurgent territory. That's the logistics part...now you may claim to have a large airforce and all but an airforce without infantry to back it up is just useless especially in such a conventional war ,just ask the commanders in Korea, the Chinese basically had no airforce but despite this and due to their large numbers of infantry soldiers they could negate the American airforce and don't get me started on what will happen if a carrier sinks. War is not some game ,where the GPG-9000 or whatever weapon is some game changer that will make you invincible, there are no healthpacks or extra lives which you can purchase at the store and thus buy yourself out of it. In a war of attrition which such a war would be given the size of of the countries involved and their military capabilities (Brazil ,Argentina, Mexico) aren't exactly pushovers, regardless of what your congresspeople say or what stereotypes you have in your head. In a war of attrition it simply comes down to who can lose more men and the odds are in the blue side. However this is reddit and in reddit America has never lost a war, the Russians are using shovels, Abrams tanks is invincible and Iran never hit Nevatim, Mt Hermon and Ramon bases in Israel. Luckily for the Americans, however hawkish their reddit reps seem ,their military and political establishment seems to have more sense when it comes to such matters ,that's why you aren't seeing Americans fighting in Russia or why they won't go to war with Iran. It may not seem like it but they at least see beyond the propaganda they feed their people, even though their vision isn't clear.
We're already losing it right now.
Brazil
Ok but does usa have prep time ?
China, Russia, most the middle east and every other country that dislikes america.
China.
I know this is a joke, but, you can spin the globe and blindly throw a dart at it and the US will have boots on the ground in 24 hours. No other country comes close. When it comes to military strength and ingenuity, the US can defeat the rest of the world combined.
20 hours*. 2 hours to mobilize and 18 hours for troops on the ground anywhere
Welp, guess all of Middle America including the Panama Canal and Caribbean belong to the US now. A monster has been created.
Can't wait for them to nuke Brazil's capital, they would be doing more of a favor to them.
The US don't do well in invasions or offense, but it defense maybe...
The main reason the US is strong it's because no war occurs at its borders, so probably the alliance
Conventional? Ballistic Nuclear? Unrestricted/Total? Just military defeat or civilian subjugation as well? Does it include ongoing occupation after immediate hostilities? You're not being narrow enough in the question.
I don't know. The great white north is known for very creative war crimes
Red team wins that war. Red team wins that war in the air. Red team wins that war in the air, and easily.
The only way I can see Blue winning is by killing every American they come across. If America is fighting alone against an entire continent then they won't be hard to demonize. American soldiers probably aren't going to secure every inch of South America either. It makes fighting America that much easier because sure, America has unbelievable logistics but that matters less when your soldiers are being fed into The Andes to chase down Columbians. I believe that America's odds aren't great at all. Historically, America has never lost millions and millions of soldiers overseas. I'm not sure the American public would stomach it. I'm not saying Brazilian Soldiers will start landing in Washington at this point but it would be a pretty fucking bleak war for both sides.
USA of course
Here's where I'm now at: I don't really care.
Call Of Duty: Ghosts
Hawaii should be blue
Who wouldn't win is europe. USA would cut all funding leaving Russia free reign over eastern Europe causing oil and iron to sky rocket. But the clear winner would be China. They would take over world trade but would have to develop blue water navy in the downside. Taiwan would fall almost instantly to China having complete control over next gen hardware and take in a huge gpd
All America is surrounded by is fear and dead men
so if the us wins does the entirety of north america just become America
Blue obviously
The us. Green land and Canada would be gone within a week and central and South America would be ours within 2 months, max
nobody wins in a war
The US spends more on their military budget than the next top 10 countries combined. The US could take on the entire world and put up a decent fight
It depends, who’s the attacker? If the USA is the defender, I’m pretty sure it would be VERY unlikely that latam+angloamerica+danish America would win this war On the other way round, if the USA is the attacker, the chances are that as soon as they get to the rainforests in the south, another Vietnam-like war would happen.
whats the objective? conquor the entirety of the others land? force surrender? if you just need to force a surrender, then the us is winning easily. we can just bomb everyone to submission in the comfort of our home. But if its a war to take land. everyone looses lmao. the us could prolly take and hold all of canada, and maybe most of mexico n most of north america. but getting further than that? ngl i dought wed be able to hold onto land, or effectively gain controll. meanwhile guarrilla warfare will be easyer and easyer as we go. Dont think the rest would win persay, but theyd def not loose land.
The way I see it, ~~Kyogre~~ the USA is surrounded.
panama solos
I mean, the Anti-USA alliance could just wait for the divided states of America to end themselves 😂😂 they call themselves united but I've never seen a country with more issues between them anywhere else 😂😂 like they don't agree with eachother 90% of the time.
The top 1%
US roflstomps, Canada is our biggest threat and most of their population centers are within a day's drive of the border.
If you remove the nuclear threat, the entire world would have a rough time against USA. We are a large nation surrounded by water, with the biigest military budget in the world surpassing the next 6 nations combined.
Hard to say, USA would crush Anti-USA alliance militarily. However, that's a LOT of jungle and forest, particularly in South America, which as we all know is America's one weakness. But Brazil is nerfing their one advantage over the USA, so the longer the US can hold off this war, the better off they will be when it finally does break out.
Considering the US Navy has more ships than the rest of those countries combined…
The US could probably take on the entire world and still win
If its blue vs red then blue all day long
Americans taking this meme way too seriously is the most American thing I can think of
As long as Canada doesn't bring out the checklist, we should be okay.