It’s inevitable they have to there’s literally no winning this war outside of massive losses and pissing off even more of the population. So I’d imagine eventually they’ll just slink off and be like “oh yeah we would have won but the second controller was broken!” then invade Cuba.
They still have several times the population of Iran and also NATO and other allies. The economic efficiency would be much lower, but they still can mobilize and send enough people into the meatgrinder. They just don’t have other options, except meatgrinder and conceding defeat. Maybe they’ll do both.
The United States summoning 20 million loyal troops it is not even set up to use, outfitting them, and sending them on boats to the other side the planet to not even be able to open the straight of hormuz is a fantasy the liberal dictator conception of Stalin could not fathom of acomplishing in any meaningful time if he was full control. You are imaging the United States winning what is essentially every war it has lost in the 20th century with Ukraine stacked on top in a longstanding country of 90 million and im supposed to call that serious? This isn’t even “potental man” nonsense. This is arguing that a giant ripping its limbs off to use as clubs would be an effective strategdy an some how not kill the giant.
I do think that they can do it, if they commit to it. And also the consequences for them would be comparable with the consequences of WWI for European empires. So loyal troops would not be loyal indefinitely.
Just take the L.
It’s inevitable they have to there’s literally no winning this war outside of massive losses and pissing off even more of the population. So I’d imagine eventually they’ll just slink off and be like “oh yeah we would have won but the second controller was broken!” then invade Cuba.
Even massive losses wouldn’t win the war at this point if it ever would have lmao.
USA can win the war, but it would require WW2 level of commitment and would also irreparably fuck over the American Empire from overextension.
ww2 level commitment was possible because back then, the US had massive industrial potential. just vast tracts of factories, mines, trained workers.
so it was relatively easy to push the “arsenal of democracy” button.
they’d need a generation to rebuild that now.
They still have several times the population of Iran and also NATO and other allies. The economic efficiency would be much lower, but they still can mobilize and send enough people into the meatgrinder. They just don’t have other options, except meatgrinder and conceding defeat. Maybe they’ll do both.
The United States summoning 20 million loyal troops it is not even set up to use, outfitting them, and sending them on boats to the other side the planet to not even be able to open the straight of hormuz is a fantasy the liberal dictator conception of Stalin could not fathom of acomplishing in any meaningful time if he was full control. You are imaging the United States winning what is essentially every war it has lost in the 20th century with Ukraine stacked on top in a longstanding country of 90 million and im supposed to call that serious? This isn’t even “potental man” nonsense. This is arguing that a giant ripping its limbs off to use as clubs would be an effective strategdy an some how not kill the giant.
I do think that they can do it, if they commit to it. And also the consequences for them would be comparable with the consequences of WWI for European empires. So loyal troops would not be loyal indefinitely.
I mean, they could also do a botched land invasion or use a nuke. Both are very very bad ideas but not beyond America