No one wins.
this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2026
53 points (82.7% liked)
No Stupid Questions
45822 readers
763 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There would be no winners.
This is defense contractor erasure.
What good is money when everyone is dead?
It's not even as good when everyone is just scraping by. If you've never been to a place that's truly thriving it's kind of amazing. Rising tides lift all boats and tsunamis don't care about bank balances.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
If that's right were already in it
Yes, we are.
The only good thing about it is that it isn't the alternative: total nuclear annihilation. (Some days I wonder if that would be better)
The only winning move is not to play.
Tell me more about how you don't understand war at all. Nobody wins.
By some standards WWIII is already in progress. And no, America isn't winning. Its power and influence are contracting rapidly.
Caused by ITSELF
All loses the USA is taking are all fucking own goals.
The USA is the equivalent of starting the game up 100-0 (due to WW2) and then proceeding to just unload 30 meter bangers into its own goal.....
Arguably caused by psyops and political capture by China and Russia but. Technically caused by US citizens, albeit traitors.
Wouldn't be the first time in history that a major power started a war and then promptly proceeded to decisively lose it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
So America?
Probably Switzerland.
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.
Americans are already fleeing as political refugees, regardless of whether or not asylum is involved. I did it on a work permit but the mental and physical stresses are all there (I'm tired boss)
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.
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.
I think if Trump attacks NATO there will be a serious possibility that the USA erupts in civil war
If the US really tried to take Greenland by force, I think China would see the opportunity and try to align with the remnants of NATO
Whether the other countries in NATO agree or not... Dunno
Idk, I think the most likely cause of a world war breaking out tomorrow would be Russia either making an antagonistic move towards Poland, or else deciding to use nukes in Ukraine. I expect that this would play out in the EU/NATO/Anglosphere/possibly liberal asia (but not the US) fighting Russia and whoever is unwise enough to ally with them (Iran, Belarus, and NK being obvious candidates). Russia, now vastly outgunned in conventional warfare, starts deploying its aging nuclear weapons against Europe, but because the Russian military is a trash fire, about half of them can't even launch, half that launch fail to make it to their destinations and harmlessly fall out of the air or fail to detonate on impact, and some are caught by advanced anti-icbm tech that NATO developed 20 years ago but has kept secret. At least one icbm detonates on the lauchpad and irradiates the surrounding area, which the Kremlin will try to spin as a retaliatory nuclear attack. Europe and its allies, being boy scouts, stick to conventional warfare.and quickly overrun Moskow, but spend the next several years routing out the Russian military from secret ICBM bases.
The US, always the main character, has a sub-plot where they mostly-nonviolently oust Trump from office and install an aw-shucks middle aged white man in the White House, who deploys the US military just in time to join the European forces to take Moscow. The US, being the largest single military in the alliance now, will pat itself on the back in its history books for the next 50 years for once again saving liberal Europe.
I am extremely dubious about the likelihood of the US actually taking significant military action in Greenland. The impression I get of the current US administration is that Trump is an aggressive and stupid bulldog that more powerful and sane interests have successfully leashed and collared. They let him run around and break shit as he pleases as long as it doesnt affect their interests and occasionally point him in a certain direction as an intimidation tactic in order to gain leverage. But the US putting itself on the losing side of a global conflict is not in their best interest, so they will always reign him back in before he actually starts any real shit.
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
As an American, I hope not.
They haven't won a major armed conflict decisively, since WW2.
And that was as part of a team, which they are actively moving to isolate from now.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'd get the Japanese American treatment. 👀
(I'm Chinese American)
So it depends on what you mean by "America"....
The constitution? Nah, its definitely dead and buried in a ww3 scenario.
Rich cis-het white conservative christian men? Yea they'd win, if you count living in a bunker¹ with trigger happy soldiers/security ready to overthrow them as a "win"; I bet the entire bunker will go into psychological breakdown after no outside + sunlight for a year.
¹Cuz Nukes went 💥🌇
Nobody wins. Someone just gets control of the official narrative.
But who’s the “you” you’re asking here?
America is unable to function by itself and is on tour to implode. How are they going to win a war, no one in the country is willing to put up a real fight either.
It is the most divided political landscape on the planet right now, on the brink of a potentional civil war, which is the only fight they will do if they decide to grow a spine.
The question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of war. The purpose of war is to defeat your enemy and make them lose, it was never about making you win.
Its not like a video game where you just deal enough damage or accumulate enough points and your adversaies give up to grant you a victory.
War is an eternal conflict until the last man is standing. Its never been about winning always about not losing.
Only if the opening move would be to unload its entire nuclear arsenal in every direction. And then they "win" a big charred ball of ash.
Who are the allies of each side?
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).
The US would lose faster than most, as it is a higher priority target for nuclear weaponry.
We should do our very best to make sure it doesn't...
There would be no nukes because then all the "businessmen" couldn't sell artillery anymore. /s
As much as anybody "wins" at war, I absolutely hope we lose. I'm glad Germany lost, so I want us to lose.
I honestly have no idea how split people were in Germany at the time, but given that the Nazis are back for a sequel, then I hope they lose and lose BAD. Like bad to the point that they do some "political cleansing" of the entire government. I don't think there's a benefit of having any conservatives in power at all. Just straight up murder should still be wrong, but if any get good for the paddles come out. Bring conservative and holding power greater than student body president shouldn't happen anywhere, ever, for any reason.
No. Facism rewards loyalty and cronyism, not competency. We have the most powerful military on the planet, but the regime is full of bumbling idiots whose only skills are flattering the president. For now, there's enough brainpower left at the Pentagon to pull off the Maduro abduction or invade Greenland, but after a few years of Trump/Hegseth/Miller calling the shots and firing anyone who points out their mistakes, we'd be toast.
view more: next ›