Nobody but the Jesuits would win, because they’re the ones who script every single war. They did this with WWI and WWII (two of the three spirits unto frogs).

There would be no winners.

The only winning move is not to play.

Tell me more about how you don’t understand war at all. Nobody wins.

If there is a third world war I think either everyone will lose in one day (nuclear weapons), or it will be sabotage and ‘special military operations’ everywhere for decades, and not named as a world war until later.

As much as anybody could “win” at war, I don’t think it would be possible with Trump as Commander in Chief. He wouldn’t have a head for tactics, and his blatant narcissism would refuse to allow generals (who are educated in war tactics and know what to do) to make decisions for him.

Realistically? If war broke out, I could see congress using it as a catalyst to finally impeach him. At least by removing Trump from office, they’d have someone who would actually listen to counsel.

But if Trump remains in office, he’d inevitably end up doing whatever is best for Russia. And that means he’d likely end up with the US in a war of attrition, dragging things out as long as possible, with each side taking large losses while Putin sits back and watches it all play out (and quietly takes Ukraine while everyone is distracted by their own wars).

By some standards WWIII is already in progress. And no, America isn’t winning. Its power and influence are contracting rapidly.

What would its goals be? Realistically, the US was probably bound for conflict with China and Russia before Trump. Now, Trump is creating a scenario where the US will have conflict with its allies and China. This is Russia’s doing.

Militarily, Russia has shown itself to be weak. The US could easily crush Russia in a conventional conflict if it wanted too, but there would be a risk of nukes popping off. Thats why Biden’s strategy was to let it bleed out in Ukraine and hope Putin got toppled internally in the fallout.

Trump creating conflict with US allies creates a scenario where they must work with China. It’s uncertain how that will go, but if the US invades another country, it will likely encounter a prolonged guerrilla conflict and be bogged down there like Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq. China will help the other side make it as painful as possible.

Also, this conflict is unlikely to be popular in the US and rather than pulling together like in WWII, Americans will scatter or resist. At least half the country wouldn’t support the war and with the US being the aggressor there is a real chance bombs could fall on US soil. People will flee. Americans will become refugees.

That’s a very complicated question.
Which nations are on which sides?
What’s the competing ideologies?
What was the inciting incident?

Without those details and many more, nobody could hope to predict.

The only winners will be the people selling the guns.

They haven’t won a major armed conflict decisively, since WW2.

As an American, I hope not.

Which America are you referring to? North, meso, or south?

In case you are referring to the United States of, they are losing allies and partners fast. They would have to fight wars on many fronts and that never ends well.

Furthermore, they are moving towards a civil war, so one of their fronts will be on their own soil.

Their arrogance and entitlement will prolong the war, but in the end, they’ll lose.

Some people think it goes to nukes immediately. I don’t think so. It will stay sidelined like chemical weapons that were used in WW1 but avoided and unused in WW2.

The US does not have the industrial capability that it once had and has struggled with manufacturing of electronic components. Now maybe that can be changed, but maybe not fast enough to matter. But as far as current capability they got combat experience and are the only nation that has proven ability to project military power worldwide. As long as logistics keep up they can kick serious ass.

China makes a ton of stuff already, and that would make a hell of a wartime production rate that can scale too. Their military is untested, but large, new and growing. They are the gorilla in the room. Hell they might think Russia is the easier fish to fry and take them on first.

But there’s also the chance of everything falling apart where most nations desintigrate into a long term state of fracture with infighting and homeland problems overriding any possibility of winning a global fight, and therefore preventing a large world war like we’ve seen in the past. Rand calls it neomedievalism

I can’t make head or tails of who would be fighting whom in that war.

If a WW was to break tomorrow, it would probably be because of Trump making true his threats to attack NATO in order gain definite control over Greenland?

Probably USA would be its own side without allies?
Then there would probably be NATO as one side, most likely with Australia and Japan on the same team as NATO. And, I’d say, probably all of Southern and Central America.
And the Russia and Iran with China? Pakistan would probably be on their side, so India would seek something else. More likely NATO than USA?

But then again, WWIII would be such a big deal that it feels weird imagining it might end up a three-sided war. The loosest piece on this board is USA… If it allies with one of the sides, will that side be that of NATO or that of the Russia?

Hm. Well, if it allies with China and the Russia, it gets super difficult for NATO to keep shit together. Then again, the Canadian border is not all that far away from DC, and Latvia is not far away from Moscow. We’d probably also have Ukraine on our side, and they can teach a lot about modern warfare!

All in all: If USA manages to ally with someone, that side is likely to win. If it remains alone, it will probably lose. I would say that in a situation where USA doesn’t ally with anyone, NATO would be the side losing the least.

But, in the end nobody wins in a war.