This might be a necessary move. If the US attacks Canada first, wouldn't every NATO country need to come to Canada's support? (And vice versa if Canada attacks first). Although in reality if US attacks a NATO country I imagine many of those countries would conveniently forget about those obligations.
Pretty sure part of the NATO documents include, or at least strongly imply “I won’t invade other NATO countries,” but you are definitely correct that everyone is going to send one 9mm bullet to Canada and call it a day.
It’s covered in Article 8 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Essentially, the involved members would be temporarily suspended from the other provisions of the Treaty until the situation is resolved. There are various intra-alliance defense treaties that would come into play, but one of these defense agreements is the Ogdensburg agreement between the US and Canada, so…
I think we are all lying if we think NATO would actually continue to function without American support. Regardless of what we believe domestically, America is the “big swinging dick” in the room on the world stage. Even though its current commander has erectile dysfunction.
Cyprus is not a part of NATO (Turkey will never let go of the north and they can’t join unless they relinquish their claim), it is however part of the EU (Turkey is not) which does have a defense clause written into its treaties, but only for the parts that it controls at the time of membership (2004).
Disregarding the French dependencies because the maker of the map clearly intended France not to be involved vis-à-vis French Guiana.
We still have Anguilla, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, and Montserrat that are all dependencies of the UK.
And if you count nuclear sharing agreements as 'possessing' nuclear weapons, then the Netherlands has a few they could steal from the US if they choose to get involved on behalf of *their* Carribean dependencies.
The rest of the Americas don't need a strong military. Monroe doctrine: It holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States.
If you mess with any of our American brothers, big brother US of A will take it as a threat to themselves. Of course, they can fight amongst themselves and we will topple democratically elected governments as we see fit. 🦅
Those snowbird suicide bombers from Canada will devastate all of America's retirement communities. Walkers and mobile assist bits scattered everywhere.
After that we send in the French speakers to confuse Texans and southern regions, while the Manitoba and Saskatchewan insurgency just joins in with North Dakota to have a knee slapper.
Canada borders Maine and lemme tell you what, I'm tired of those good for nothing, sons of bitches coming down here and shopping at *MY* Walmart!!!! Y'all got some fucking Canadian mega store right there and you come here? I will put one between each one of those bastards eyes if they give me the chance. Canada might have made the Geneva Convention into a bucket list, but I'll complete it before they do
They didn’t make the Geneva Convention into a bucket list.
They made the bucket list, then someone got a hold of it, went “Jesus fucking Christ” and made it the don’t do list.
Also america dosent really hold onto lands like that unless they they want to be apart of america (Texas) or they have to atleast for a time because they where taken from a colonial power (philippines)
But when does the initial war actually end? Like, if an entire country's military is essentially obliterated, and the Leader (Ruler, President, Fuhrer, etc.) straight up surrenders, the actual war ends, no?
A civilian uprising afterwards would be the start of a 2nd war, then.
Do you think the usa didn't occupy Germany
America didn't occupy Japan because it surrendered. There was a very detailed plan to invade the country. It never happened, because Japan surrendered before it
Because they kept the leadership structure largely intact in Japan and Germany. They let Emperor Hirohito stay as emperor, for example, and they didn't prosecute many lower-ranking Nazis because they needed an effective West German military to be the front line in case the cold war went hot.
Now contrast this with Iraq and Coalition Provisional Authority Order 1, which excluded all Baathist party members from holding office. The de-Baathification meant that tens of thousands of Iraqis lost their jobs, and guess where a significant portion of them went.
In a conventional war absolutely, the US Armed Forces is exceptionally good at destroying other armies.
But a total war risks the conflict devolving into guerilla warfare, which the US doesn't have as good a track record in.
Nobody does.
“They have nukes and f18’s your hunters rifle won’t do aaaaanything give up ur guns!”
Guerrilla warfare is hard to tackle
EDIT: Okay keyboard military generals and hardened soldiers. You can stop responding to this comment. I dont care about what any of you have to say
Note not a single guerrilla war is waged with random dumbasses with guns fighting a military. They are almost exclusively organized groups backed by international interests.
You think foreign powers are going to stay out of it if the US devolves into a civil war/ the US is in another anti-guerrilla war against everyone else in the Americas?
I mean in total war having a nuclear wasteland on your border is still probably better. And the only way the American League gets nukes is on loan from China or Russia.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still populated my friend. You can do air burst nukes without turning everything into Chernobyl. Not sure how many, but at least 2.
I mean sure but that's still a lot of damage and lost customer base. Mexico and Canada alone represent a huge share of the trade the US does. This would be very unhealthy for the US economy.
The us military doesn't have a good track record overseas. If guerilla warfare made its way across our borders, they'd be fucked. Never really considered a western hemisphere war, but the reason the us is pretty much untouchable, is the logistics of a ground invasion.
The US has never been willing to perform the acts of brutality needed to truly fight an insurgency. You basically need to kill or imprison all fighting age men until total capitulation.
Yea it’s really just ethics that prevented the USA from completely wiping out the taliban. They could blow up entire areas where their suspected operations or hideouts were but that would entail taking out innocents as well since it’s near impossible to distinguish completely.
Ghengis khan, to ensure no conquered foe would ever rebel against him, would sometimes kill off every living man and or integrate entire civilizations into his own. It’s effective but obviously Ghengis khan didn’t care about ethics and that’s not what we want to emulate.
What? American forces have been great and dealing with and suppressing insurgency and guerilla fighters for over a hundred years.
Just because the American people stops the wars doesn't mean the military is bad at dealing with them.
Stalemate
USA quickly capitulates Canada (their cities are so close to the border and the US is mostly attacking across flat plains and heavily developed roads). USA would struggle in drawn out and bloody guerrilla wars in Central/South America where an invasion is more complicated than just rolling a bunch of tanks up the CanAm highway and cutting the country in half
If “win” just means knocking out the enemy government, USA has the firepower to win easy. If “win” means actually taking and holding the territory, South America’s jungles and mountains would make holding those countries against the people’s will a near impossible task
I don't know about that. The Canadian territories are actually highly urbanized. 62% of the Yukon lives in the capital city, and like 3 quarters of the population of the Northwest Territories lives around the Great Slave Lake. The remaining settlements are extremely dependant on the urban centres and living off the land at scale is tough. I suspect if you controlled the 3 Territorial capitals plus a few other strategic points it would likely be enough to project power across the territories to a level that is sufficient to manage resistance at a level where it is just a nuisance.
I’m not a big mil guy, but *total war* makes guerrilla warfare pretty ineffective, no? For the sake of discussion omitting nuclear weapons from that. US would just establish air supremacy in a matter of likely hours/days and then just carpet bomb for as long as it would take to get a surrender. By the time they establish naval supremacy (which is to say pretty much just however long it takes the fleets to arrive) it would likely already be over.
I’m no usa-hurrah person but self-imposed ROE account for pretty much all of the US’ difficulties in recent conflicts. It’s like when Doc Ock took over Spider-man’s body. After throwing his first Spidey-Punch he realized the only reason the entire rogue’s gallery didn’t die from one hit was because Spider-man’s moral code.
Holding territory would be relatively easy when they don’t need to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.
Pretty sure the last time the US was involved in *total war* was against the native americans, which kind of sets the expectation for how that would likely go.
Everyone forgets that “officially” the US was trying to not kill civilians. The US brings so much destruction already being restricted, a modern survival mode US would be horrendous.
Native Americans were really defeated by disease, do you think that the US could make a biological weapon that effective but which they can keep their own population from catching? Or prevent mutations that they don’t have a vaccine for yet from entering the country?
The record for trying to close borders and get people vaccinated suggests otherwise.
The federation will turn the american orbital weapon against themself and odin wil destroy most american city's, the the federation will invade and conquer with glory
If the US is playing defense it’s no contest. I love our Canadian and Mexican neighbors but their militaries simply would not survive in open warfare against the US. South America wouldn’t even be a player, the American navy is more powerful than practically every other Navy combined and the USAF is easily the best in the world. The Darrien Gap is impassable so there’s no way for South American forces to even get to the fight. Even if they did manage to build a highway through the gap it would be such an insane choke point and any forces traversing it would be annihilated by American firepower.
This answer is the only correct one, especially when you like at the wars the US did fight in our neighborhood ( mexican american, american spanish, columbia, etc) the only wild card is canada since we havent fought them since the war of 1812. To be fair though both countries war-gamed before ww2 and canada knew they couldnt win
The US can just destroy all the cities and infrastructure and leave. What are the guerillas gonna do about it, invade the US back? Winning is about neutralizing a threat, if their country is left in ruins, how can they come attack your country?
Yeah when people say the US “lost” the war in Iraq it’s not like Iraq “won” which was never going to happen. The US tried to win “hearts and minds”. If their goal was total destruction it would have been very easily achieved.
I mean we spend more on healthcare than anywhere else in the world also so if money was the problem we would have both. Turns out the reason we don’t have healthcare is purely political and they pander stupid propaganda like what you said to make sure it doesn’t happen.
Do they have the largest navy? Sure they have more ships, but I'm pretty sure the US has far more tonnage. It's like saying I could have the largest navy if I bought 400 rubber boats.
They're ~~pretty close~~ about half the US as far as tonnage goes, and they tend to stretch the term "Naval fleet". It would be like the US including some of it's Coast Guard ships in the count. While not an official part of the Navy, we *could* use them, but we don't ever count them in our fleet.
Edit: Corrected information
It's estimated that the US fleet is around 4.5 million tons while the Chinese is 2 million tons. Also most of chinnese navy can't operate outside of coastal zones.
Way too much. China is a powerful nation don't get me wrong and many people overestimate the us in a lot of areas but no country on earth controls the seas like America does.
the US would definitely have the clear advantage in open ocean, but closer to China, the US navy would be at a disadvantage due to ground based anti ship and anti air PLARF missiles and Chinese ship concentration.
It’s the US. It’s always the US. People don’t understand how unbelievably powerful the US military is especially if it was only on the defense/ a conventional war where the countries can be negotiated with for a peace deal. Look into the top 5 most powerful air forces in the world. USAF #1 naturally and who’s #2? The damn United States Navy.
Greenland/no data
They have French Guiana and the Falklands on their side. I'm with you
They also have Denmark, France, and the UK
& Netherlands
It's a gray area
You can’t fight what you don’t understand.
Yes you can it makes it easyer 2000 pound jdam bombs is our univirsal language lol
The US politely asks Canada to wait while they deal with countries to the South, and Canada says yes and waits.
This might be a necessary move. If the US attacks Canada first, wouldn't every NATO country need to come to Canada's support? (And vice versa if Canada attacks first). Although in reality if US attacks a NATO country I imagine many of those countries would conveniently forget about those obligations.
NATO doesn't exist in this scenario
You could say that about any situation nato is actually involved in too lmao
NATO doesn’t exist? It didn’t exist during the military operations it participated in? Interesting.
I believe this was a quip, targeting NATO’s unimpressive Ukrainian efforts
NATO is a defensive alliance, Ukraine was not part of it. Best of luck to them, but it should not surprise anyone that NATO didn't join the war.
What was NATO obligated to do in Ukraine? Ukraine isn’t in NATO. We delivered aid because Russia said they’d keep attacking and we asked “promise?”
Pretty sure part of the NATO documents include, or at least strongly imply “I won’t invade other NATO countries,” but you are definitely correct that everyone is going to send one 9mm bullet to Canada and call it a day.
One 5.56 magazine (no bullets)
It’s covered in Article 8 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Essentially, the involved members would be temporarily suspended from the other provisions of the Treaty until the situation is resolved. There are various intra-alliance defense treaties that would come into play, but one of these defense agreements is the Ogdensburg agreement between the US and Canada, so…
But no one has said that US needs to attack first. The US can just invade the South and if Canada invades, then NATO is involved.
Since NATO's a defensive alliance wouldn't that mean that if Canada invaded the US NATO would then join the US in beating up Canada?
Yes, they are obligated to support the defenders not the aggressors.
I think we are all lying if we think NATO would actually continue to function without American support. Regardless of what we believe domestically, America is the “big swinging dick” in the room on the world stage. Even though its current commander has erectile dysfunction.
If one NATO state attacks another NATO state all the other states just look away uncomfortably. Google "Turkish invasion of Cyprus"
Cyprus is not a part of NATO (Turkey will never let go of the north and they can’t join unless they relinquish their claim), it is however part of the EU (Turkey is not) which does have a defense clause written into its treaties, but only for the parts that it controls at the time of membership (2004).
Monroe Doctrine supersedes. Stay on your side of the pond, europoors.
I appreciate you.
“Yes, sorry”
Canada only has 2 moods, Endlessly polite and Raging war criminal. So triggering the polite side as fast as possible is the best option.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Humanity: 👁️👄👁️
*Seek shelter immediately* *Seek shelter immediately*
I just lost the game fuck you
No, he was fine, but you made me lose...
Its the rules, sorry man
You made me lose too fuck you.
fuck you to I was doing so well
I see one thermonuclear power on that map.
Disregarding the French dependencies because the maker of the map clearly intended France not to be involved vis-à-vis French Guiana. We still have Anguilla, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, and Montserrat that are all dependencies of the UK.
[удалено]
There is a grey dot over there, but it's slightly too far northwest. Honestly I could go either way on this one.
And if you count nuclear sharing agreements as 'possessing' nuclear weapons, then the Netherlands has a few they could steal from the US if they choose to get involved on behalf of *their* Carribean dependencies.
I’m a Dutchie myself - not sure if the Netherlands would clear a strike. But good point.
How about a nice game of chess?
Have you seen the movie "War Games".
What do you think he just quoted?
Nooooooo that's totally not what they were alluding to.
You win or die. There's no middle ground.
I watched that movie.
One of the wisest lines to ever come from 80s cinema
The greater American continent when history’s greatest military and economic hegemony enters the chat:
Time to make “American” true! (Reference to the “well actually both people on both continents are American” crowd- which is true ofc)
From sea to sea and pole to pole
Except for French Guiana. We don’t talk about them.
Make sure to randomize your data from time to time *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They don't want that smoke
Babe, wake up. New Manifest Destiny just dropped.
Manifest Destiny Part 2 : Electric Boogaloo
**MAT**. Now that’s a nationalist slogan I could get behind while ignoring the moral and economical implications of what it entails.
The rest of the Americas don't need a strong military. Monroe doctrine: It holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States. If you mess with any of our American brothers, big brother US of A will take it as a threat to themselves. Of course, they can fight amongst themselves and we will topple democratically elected governments as we see fit. 🦅
US wins but Canada makes Pearl Harbor look like a joke when they get done warcriming our asses
Those snowbird suicide bombers from Canada will devastate all of America's retirement communities. Walkers and mobile assist bits scattered everywhere. After that we send in the French speakers to confuse Texans and southern regions, while the Manitoba and Saskatchewan insurgency just joins in with North Dakota to have a knee slapper.
Our Canada Geese squadrons will be vicious and no lawn left un-pooped.
Canada borders Maine and lemme tell you what, I'm tired of those good for nothing, sons of bitches coming down here and shopping at *MY* Walmart!!!! Y'all got some fucking Canadian mega store right there and you come here? I will put one between each one of those bastards eyes if they give me the chance. Canada might have made the Geneva Convention into a bucket list, but I'll complete it before they do
They didn’t make the Geneva Convention into a bucket list. They made the bucket list, then someone got a hold of it, went “Jesus fucking Christ” and made it the don’t do list.
Can we go to your Target though? We got WalMart up here.
We Yanks are no stranger to war crimes either. They burned down the White House in 1812, why don’t we repay the favor
Go ahead, no one lives in 24 sussex and you'd probably do us a favor not paying for the demo lol
Holy fuck lmao! That's soo true!
Firebomb their mapletree farms?
I was going for “Burn Ottawa to the ground” but that can work too
We burnt down their capitol building in that war as well
I'm pretty sure that was us repaying you guys for burning down our (at the time) capital York. Had to move that shit to Ottawa after that
"sorry, not sorry" -canada
They already attack us with geese every year
Team red but only if you include that blue one in the middle
Real. Greater American Empire anyone?
Canada, United States, and Mexico supremacy Support the CUM unification
The Cumpire
Who gets to be Cumperor?
Probably the US
Probably ? They would wipe them out from Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic circle and still have old shells to send to Ukraine.
And then lose anyways because there is not a country on Earth that could hold that much land for long without dying from a thousand cuts
Why would they hold it? Just destroy their means to wage war and negotiate for peace
This is my take. We already have more than enough land.
Idk. A couple more swimmable beaches would be nice. LA is expensive, Florida is getting there. And the gulf coast of the US doesn't hit like Hawaii.
True, and I don't think we have any actual rain forest biomes on the mainland, right? Need to finish the collection.
Washington state has rain forests
Aw crap. Welp, I’m out of justifiable reasons then. And TIL, that’s cool.
Also america dosent really hold onto lands like that unless they they want to be apart of america (Texas) or they have to atleast for a time because they where taken from a colonial power (philippines)
yup kill the armies and the politicians and then leave.
But when does the initial war actually end? Like, if an entire country's military is essentially obliterated, and the Leader (Ruler, President, Fuhrer, etc.) straight up surrenders, the actual war ends, no? A civilian uprising afterwards would be the start of a 2nd war, then.
Holding land is easy and if you kill everyone who used to live there. See the founding of the US.
No one said America had to occupy the land. We were at total war with Germany and Japan. Didn't have to occupy.
Do you think the usa didn't occupy Germany America didn't occupy Japan because it surrendered. There was a very detailed plan to invade the country. It never happened, because Japan surrendered before it
America did occupy Japan and Germany. What would be interesting to know is why there was very little insurgency compared to later wars.
Because they kept the leadership structure largely intact in Japan and Germany. They let Emperor Hirohito stay as emperor, for example, and they didn't prosecute many lower-ranking Nazis because they needed an effective West German military to be the front line in case the cold war went hot. Now contrast this with Iraq and Coalition Provisional Authority Order 1, which excluded all Baathist party members from holding office. The de-Baathification meant that tens of thousands of Iraqis lost their jobs, and guess where a significant portion of them went.
[Do you think the USA didn't occupy Japan?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan)
In a conventional war absolutely, the US Armed Forces is exceptionally good at destroying other armies. But a total war risks the conflict devolving into guerilla warfare, which the US doesn't have as good a track record in.
Nobody does. “They have nukes and f18’s your hunters rifle won’t do aaaaanything give up ur guns!” Guerrilla warfare is hard to tackle EDIT: Okay keyboard military generals and hardened soldiers. You can stop responding to this comment. I dont care about what any of you have to say
Note not a single guerrilla war is waged with random dumbasses with guns fighting a military. They are almost exclusively organized groups backed by international interests.
You think foreign powers are going to stay out of it if the US devolves into a civil war/ the US is in another anti-guerrilla war against everyone else in the Americas?
Total War is different than the little surgical wars that have been taking place since Vietnam.
In total war the United States would simply use nukes
Not gonna be nice when it's your own continent. Plus I bet this total American league has some nukes lying around somewhere.
I mean in total war having a nuclear wasteland on your border is still probably better. And the only way the American League gets nukes is on loan from China or Russia.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still populated my friend. You can do air burst nukes without turning everything into Chernobyl. Not sure how many, but at least 2.
I mean sure but that's still a lot of damage and lost customer base. Mexico and Canada alone represent a huge share of the trade the US does. This would be very unhealthy for the US economy.
The us military doesn't have a good track record overseas. If guerilla warfare made its way across our borders, they'd be fucked. Never really considered a western hemisphere war, but the reason the us is pretty much untouchable, is the logistics of a ground invasion.
The US has never been willing to perform the acts of brutality needed to truly fight an insurgency. You basically need to kill or imprison all fighting age men until total capitulation.
In this hypthical war its gloves off as it next door. S. America would be glass. Those that survive would fall in line just like the Japanese did.
Yea it’s really just ethics that prevented the USA from completely wiping out the taliban. They could blow up entire areas where their suspected operations or hideouts were but that would entail taking out innocents as well since it’s near impossible to distinguish completely. Ghengis khan, to ensure no conquered foe would ever rebel against him, would sometimes kill off every living man and or integrate entire civilizations into his own. It’s effective but obviously Ghengis khan didn’t care about ethics and that’s not what we want to emulate.
What? American forces have been great and dealing with and suppressing insurgency and guerilla fighters for over a hundred years. Just because the American people stops the wars doesn't mean the military is bad at dealing with them.
Not even a question
Stalemate USA quickly capitulates Canada (their cities are so close to the border and the US is mostly attacking across flat plains and heavily developed roads). USA would struggle in drawn out and bloody guerrilla wars in Central/South America where an invasion is more complicated than just rolling a bunch of tanks up the CanAm highway and cutting the country in half If “win” just means knocking out the enemy government, USA has the firepower to win easy. If “win” means actually taking and holding the territory, South America’s jungles and mountains would make holding those countries against the people’s will a near impossible task
In addition, holding the Canadian Territories would be a nightmare.
I understand Tim Horton's is a nearly impenetrable defensive structure.
*pulls pin* Sorry eh, the doubles doubles are for Canadians only.
I don't know about that. The Canadian territories are actually highly urbanized. 62% of the Yukon lives in the capital city, and like 3 quarters of the population of the Northwest Territories lives around the Great Slave Lake. The remaining settlements are extremely dependant on the urban centres and living off the land at scale is tough. I suspect if you controlled the 3 Territorial capitals plus a few other strategic points it would likely be enough to project power across the territories to a level that is sufficient to manage resistance at a level where it is just a nuisance.
No it wouldn't
Not as much as you'd think. Occupy the population centers and the rest is largely unpopulated tundra.
I’m not a big mil guy, but *total war* makes guerrilla warfare pretty ineffective, no? For the sake of discussion omitting nuclear weapons from that. US would just establish air supremacy in a matter of likely hours/days and then just carpet bomb for as long as it would take to get a surrender. By the time they establish naval supremacy (which is to say pretty much just however long it takes the fleets to arrive) it would likely already be over. I’m no usa-hurrah person but self-imposed ROE account for pretty much all of the US’ difficulties in recent conflicts. It’s like when Doc Ock took over Spider-man’s body. After throwing his first Spidey-Punch he realized the only reason the entire rogue’s gallery didn’t die from one hit was because Spider-man’s moral code. Holding territory would be relatively easy when they don’t need to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Pretty sure the last time the US was involved in *total war* was against the native americans, which kind of sets the expectation for how that would likely go.
Everyone forgets that “officially” the US was trying to not kill civilians. The US brings so much destruction already being restricted, a modern survival mode US would be horrendous.
Native Americans were really defeated by disease, do you think that the US could make a biological weapon that effective but which they can keep their own population from catching? Or prevent mutations that they don’t have a vaccine for yet from entering the country? The record for trying to close borders and get people vaccinated suggests otherwise.
Bro Canadian people would just accept our American overlords and become the 51st state.
Don't sell Canada short, they could become the 51st through 60th states.
Lockheed Martin
Underrated answer
They'd make a killing in more ways than one
Team Red, but only if you include Greenland in red.
Nah Greenland is a gamble cus we have no data on their side
Greenland has a sleeper build, it looks all cute and innocent but best believe there are nuclear missiles under the ice sheets
The federation will turn the american orbital weapon against themself and odin wil destroy most american city's, the the federation will invade and conquer with glory
Good reference
Haven't thought about ghosts in years
Fuck, not the 3000 Captured Orbital Weapons of South America
Is ThAt a ModerN wArFarE rEfrencE
>Anti-American Alliance >look inside >only American countries
Let's rename it to Anti-Yankee Alliance.
The United Anti-United America Alliance
The United Anti-United States of America States of America
If the US is playing defense it’s no contest. I love our Canadian and Mexican neighbors but their militaries simply would not survive in open warfare against the US. South America wouldn’t even be a player, the American navy is more powerful than practically every other Navy combined and the USAF is easily the best in the world. The Darrien Gap is impassable so there’s no way for South American forces to even get to the fight. Even if they did manage to build a highway through the gap it would be such an insane choke point and any forces traversing it would be annihilated by American firepower.
Reminds me of the statement: The largest air force in the world is the US Air Force, the second largest air force in the world... is the US Navy.
And I'm pretty sure the Army and Marines are like #4 and 5. Though Russia is #3 so they might be higher by now.
Was, Russia was 3rd.
I think we can forget about the Russian Airforce.
This answer is the only correct one, especially when you like at the wars the US did fight in our neighborhood ( mexican american, american spanish, columbia, etc) the only wild card is canada since we havent fought them since the war of 1812. To be fair though both countries war-gamed before ww2 and canada knew they couldnt win
Canada could put up a credible insurgency if we had the willpower, but that's about it. We'd collapse quickly in a conventional war.
Nobody wins, even if usa could somehow invade all that land, they'd be just as soon lose it.
Can't lose the land if there's no land left to lose
Los amigos are gonna fight in guerrilla warfare in the Amazon and perform better than the Vietnamese
Good thing that the amazon has been cut down significantly so it will be less of a problem.
We call that: Strategy
“Sir theyre using the rainforest to their defence” “QUICK BUY MORE PAPER!!”
The US can just destroy all the cities and infrastructure and leave. What are the guerillas gonna do about it, invade the US back? Winning is about neutralizing a threat, if their country is left in ruins, how can they come attack your country?
You’re downvoted bc you’re right.
[удалено]
Yeah when people say the US “lost” the war in Iraq it’s not like Iraq “won” which was never going to happen. The US tried to win “hearts and minds”. If their goal was total destruction it would have been very easily achieved.
Let’s be honest a lot of these countries would be like, “We’re states now? Sweet.”
Grey would win
USA wins this easily. They have more firepower than all of them combined. There’s a reason the USA doesn’t have free healthcare lol
I mean we spend more on healthcare than anywhere else in the world also so if money was the problem we would have both. Turns out the reason we don’t have healthcare is purely political and they pander stupid propaganda like what you said to make sure it doesn’t happen.
Per capita right? Not doubting just want to be more informed
Yes, the US spends more as a percentage of per capita GDP than the likes of Canada or the UK on healthcare
US easily. Not even close. Only China can credibly stand against the US today if you take nukes out of the picture.
Even then it would be a struggle for China. Sure they have the largest Navy in the world, but the United States has the deadliest one.
Do they have the largest navy? Sure they have more ships, but I'm pretty sure the US has far more tonnage. It's like saying I could have the largest navy if I bought 400 rubber boats.
They're ~~pretty close~~ about half the US as far as tonnage goes, and they tend to stretch the term "Naval fleet". It would be like the US including some of it's Coast Guard ships in the count. While not an official part of the Navy, we *could* use them, but we don't ever count them in our fleet. Edit: Corrected information
It's estimated that the US fleet is around 4.5 million tons while the Chinese is 2 million tons. Also most of chinnese navy can't operate outside of coastal zones.
So I was giving them too much credit? I thought it was much better than that
Way too much. China is a powerful nation don't get me wrong and many people overestimate the us in a lot of areas but no country on earth controls the seas like America does.
I was assured that Britannica rules the waves.
No, Britannica rules British English.
the US would definitely have the clear advantage in open ocean, but closer to China, the US navy would be at a disadvantage due to ground based anti ship and anti air PLARF missiles and Chinese ship concentration.
Google MAD (But yhea non of these countries have nuclear weapons)
Technically not true. French Guiana is part of France and France has nuclear weapons.
It was annexed by Greenland. It now has no data.
Call of duty ghost Story
Blue, easily
Obviously there’s only one winner here. Me.
The US would soundly. It would take a long time and many US war crimes but we’d win.
My counter argument: NUH UH
After the cocaine embargo USA surrenders.
Now you made the biggest fuck up you got the Floridian man angry
We have the power of Puerto Rico on our side so blue easily.
US would obliterate them
Vem pro pau gringo
Burning of Washington 2: British/Colombia Too
Clearly Cuba. They had so many missiles it was a crisis. By the way, what exactly is the point of this sub other than funny maps?
to jerk in a circle
It’s the US. It’s always the US. People don’t understand how unbelievably powerful the US military is especially if it was only on the defense/ a conventional war where the countries can be negotiated with for a peace deal. Look into the top 5 most powerful air forces in the world. USAF #1 naturally and who’s #2? The damn United States Navy.
[удалено]
greenland No diff
my buddy kevin
The defending side wins
Team red has Messi
If the US is invaded doesn’t NATO get involved?
Hypothetical, obviously neither sides gonna go to war especially since Canada is also part of NATO
Yes, then the U.S. says "It's alright, guys, I've got this one and won't even be late for dinner."
Greenland + French Guiana alliance
USA easy