Scenario 1:
rest of the WW1 world.
Scenario 2:
Rest of the WW2 world. ( nukes allowed for WW2 world too use )
Scenario 3:
Vietnam war
Scenario 4:
The US army from WW1
Scenario 5:
The US army from WW2 ( nukes allowed for WW2 America too use )
Scenario 6:
The US army from the Vietnam war
Scenario 7:
The US army from 2001 ( Nukes not allowed )
Scenario 8:
The rest of the world from 1991 ( Nukes allowed for rest of the world )
This post rests on native land
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I have a better fun alternative scenario for you
US vs USSR in
1949 (first Soviet atomic test)
1962 (Cuban Missiles Crisis)
1983 (Able Archer incident)
It's interesting because the US can win the first 2, but the third one is Mutually Assured Destruction.
!historychads
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
@gigachad_brony think 2050 US could defeat Able Archer incident.
This post rests on native land
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I think you're right, although like the other guy said #2 would still be pretty bad. While there were fears of a "bomber gap" and a "missile gap" for a while, the Soviets were really way behind the US in strategic nuclear weapons. They had a few ICBMs but they took ~24 hours to fuel so a B-52 could get in and bomb them first. Some of their bombers would get through, but probably only a fraction. Enough to kill many millions of people, but America wouldn't be wiped out.
This was important because US strategy in the 1950s under Eisenhower was that we didn't need a huge expensive army to refight WW2. We had a huge advantage in nukes, so if the commies went for a full scale war we'd let them have it. This gradually makes less and less sense until around the late 1960s the Soviets have so many missiles that can't be stopped that they can effectively destroy us.
In Europe they still up until the 1980s figured that the Russians would win the ground war but then NATO would hit them with lots of tactical nuclear weapons where we also had an advantage. Seems pretty darn risky to me. By the 1980s tho new weapons were coming online that let the US take on vastly superior numbers of commies in a conventional war.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
In the case of 1962 it also depends on who strikes first. Thanks to the U2 planes the US knew where the missiles in Cuba and the ICBM silos in the USSR were located. Asuming american first strike there would be fewer casualties in the United States. The missiles in Cuba could destroy most East Coast and Southern East cities but the West-Coast would be safe from them. The Soviet Union and Europe on the Other hand would be hit hard.
One thing that is for certain is that had WW3 erupted in 1962, Cuba would have been obliterated and turned into a radioactive wasteland.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Are you feeling okay bud?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Arguably the second is also MAD. The US then didn't have the means to shoot down ICBMs then, and even if they could knock out all those Bears, the nukes would likely still explode in Canada and irradiate the world anyway.
Definitely would win #1 scenario with some nukes tossed around.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
nobody
modern US
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Disagree. US modern armaments would be advanced enough too stop nuclear missiles from reaching targets with ease.
This post rests on native land.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We have an ability to shoot down some ICBMs as long as they're not very advanced with the GMD but we've only got 44 of them.
There's one problem with shooting down ballistic missiles that's been insurmountable. One enemy MIRV missiles can drop a dozen or more warheads all over your country. You have to either shoot it down before that (extremely difficult) or build a dozen ABMs for every missile he has aimed at you. It's way cheaper for him to just keep building more MIRV missiles until you can't keep up.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
WW2 nukes were dropped by bomber craft.
Idk how advanced the VIetnam times US nuke delivery system was.
This post rests on native land
@gigachad_brony enjoyed you're comment
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
In 1965 we had Minuteman missiles (earlier versions of what we still use today) and some of the older Titan. We had lots of B-52s. And the Navy had the Polaris, the first generation SLBM. So we haven't improved a whole lot on that. The Trident SLBMs are way better, but most of this stuff hasn't really changed. And back then before arms control treaties we had a lot more of it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
oh yeah that's true. Once you go past 200 nukes it doesn't matter.
This post rests on native land.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I sometimes wonder where we are w/ this tech. It would obviously be highly classified. But if somehow we got in a war w/ Russia and nukes started flying and the US didn't have any way to stop incoming ICBMs from leveling all of our cities, I'd be really pissed. Like wtf have they been DOING all these decades?
We should have kept at Star Wars tbh. "b-b-but america we can't keep up with your research spending" too bad fricking commies sucks to suck.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This but unironically.
The US military budget has been more than the rest of the world combined for decades there is no way they don't have something secret up their sleeve that nobody knows about.
@gigachad_brony is willing too bet at least some of the UFO videos are actually secret US military tech.
Add AI too the mix, and that the NSA had access too user data decades before consumer companies, and you just know Military AI has been helping build even more advanced tech for at least a decade or two.
This post rests on native land.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Nuclear warfare is winnable depending on the enemies capabilities and size of nuclear stockpile
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
what are your thoughts on a nuclear deployment in the ongoing russo-ukrainian war?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You mean deploying nukes in Ukraine for deterrence or full scale nuclear warfare between Nato and Russia?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Whichever makes us the least dead
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
You need to define what 'winning' means. There's a significant gulf between neutralizing the capabilities of a traditional military force, establishing DEI initiatives in Pakistan, and nuclear annihilation. Are you gonna rebuild and occupy the rest of the planet? With what army? What about administration? And for how long? What about trade? Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to OP, whom, as much as I admire his curiosity, I do quibble with. We look at real history and it's not that simple. But OP doesn't ask the question: What was America's tax policy? Did they maintain a standing army? What did the US do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these Indians? By the end of the war, Canada is gone but all of the Indians aren't gone — they're in the mountains. Did the US pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby Indians, in their little Indian cradles?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Winning means defeating the other army.
This post rests on native land
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
US
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Elaborate
This post rests on native land
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Don't need to
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
We're way better now in a few ways. Our communications is far superior. And back then there were huge numbers of guys behind the lines who spent a lot of their time typing shit on forms on typewriters to keep the logistical system going. Without computers they still had to keep track of thousands of spare parts, it just took a lot of work. Our military now is way better at automating that stuff so more troops can be in combat units instead of doing administrative paperwork.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Based and war pilled.
US age of conquest when?
This post rests on native land
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
WW2 US beats 2024 US without nukes. We're built for GWOT, not an actual war.
No, I will not elaborate further.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
2024 US stomps 1940s US and is not even close. Not only because of massive technological advancement, but also larger population and industrial base, I'm not even including nukes.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
What's GWOT
This post rests on native land
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Global War on Terror, aka when we lost to rural farmers all over the middle east.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Wasn't that because American troops weren't allowed too flatten the entire country like they did in Iraq?
This post rests on native land.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah, we were way more about killing insurgents while trying win hearts and minds.
We haven't fought near-peer since WW2 so I think we just don't have good experience with that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
most countries don't have experience fighting at all
this post rests on native land
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context