So, /k/. If the US were to become an evil dictatorship and declare

>>31614724
>winners in a nuclear holocaust
dunno maybe Barbados cuz no one nuking barbados

>>31614767
Shit. Yeah, I meant to put no nukes. I assume that in the event of a massive modern war nobody would use nukes except for loose cannon countries in order to preserve at least some of the species.

>>31614791

One person uses nukes, everyone uses Nukes. There is no winning in WWIII. We got too good at killing each other

>>31614724
The turks win

>>31615610
>when you actually get it
kek, i mean the whole middle east survive

No one wins! it's never the people's war but the people is the only one who suffers our war should be with them and we all know who they are

>>31614724
>so /k/, if the US were to become an evil dictatorship

He doesn't know about Trump does he?

>>31614724
I mean, the US is always funding terrorist groups and dismantling democracy already so I don't know how much further those oil kikes can go to be considered evil

>>31614724
US wouldn't stand a chance.

North
>Canada
Northwest
>Russia
Northeast
>UK
West
>North Korea/India
East
>Nigeria/Rwanda
Southwest
>Australia
Southeast
>South Africa
South
>Mexico/Jamaica

In short, the Commonwealth would be enough to take the US, but there's undoubtedly other nations that would like some fun. Russia can take back Alaska, Mexico can take some Southern States including Texas, Hawaii would probably go to Australia (or Japan if they decided to pitch in), New England can go to UK, and there's still plenty of Central, Western, and North-Western US up for grabs. Cut it up like a pizza, sort of like what the world was doing with Qing Dynasty China in the late 19th century.

>>31614767
There's MAYBE enough nukes on Earth to destroy the State of New York if ALL nukes of EACH nation were dropped there, but ultimately, not as much devastation comes out of nukes as you might think. I've done the math, and if EVERY nuke on the planet caused as much devastation as Tsar Bomba (most powerful nuke ever tested), then it would not flatten much land in terms of the size of the planet. I can do the math again if desired.

>>31618621
Is this sarcasm? I can't really tell.

>>31618649
a single SS-18 carries ten warheads

>>31619474
Tsar Bomba destroyed all buildings within 55km. The heat would have caused 3rd degree burns 100km away so let's go with 100km.

There's about 15,000 nukes.

825,000 square kilometers of building destruction

1,500,000 square kilometers that can cause 3rd degree burns if you're exposed.

Well looks like i was incorrect in my assessment about New York, but it's still not world-ending. Texas has just shy of 700,000 square kilometers of land, so there's enough nukes on Earth to destroy every building in Texas as well as another 125,000 square kilometers.

As for giving people third degree burns, Alaska has just over 1,700,000 square kilometers, so an area the size of Alaska can be just about wiped out if everyone was outside.

This isn't American nukes, this is ALL NUKES ON EARTH, and I dare say Russia has more nukes than the US. Even if they don't, all nuclear countries other than the US would have a combined amount that's greater, for certain. So yeah, most nukes would go to the US, while those of the US will have to be spread about. I imagine they would go to as many major cities as possible, which would wipe out most of the world's population, but it's still the world vs US. The world would win, hands down, and you'd have to be a completely and utterly brainwashed American who wears nothing but stars and stripes with NOTHING that is not stained by burger grease while also eating nothing but McDonalds, to believe that America would even have a chance.

China and India; nuff said.

Fuck that...

China; nuff said. Yeah I know about the UN bullshit, but America could not take on the most populous nation on Earth with the largest Military on earth. I also think the QBZ-95 is superior to the M4a1 or M16A4.

File: Nuke.png (561KB, 1417x794px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1417x794px

>>31618649
you obviously don't need to nuke every ground to destroy a country

>>31617874
Good job shill. 25 cents have been deposited to your account

>>31619671
>hitting Detroit with a nuke

talk about a waste of a perfectly good warhead

>>31619671
US has less than half of the world's total number of nukes. Russia alone has more land than US, even China has more land than the US, so there's no way that the US can destroy all other nations on Earth. Meanwhile, about 8000 of America's most populous countries would be nuked, with Hawaii probably being taken out by one that's not particularly big (tsunamis would do much of the work, I would imagine).

Anyways, discluding nukes (which is obviously a losing fight for the US), give the number of troops of every Military on earth minus those of the US... and it doesn't matter how bad the Chinese Navy might be (I hear it's not exactly stellar), nor the Air Force, because all the Navies and Air Forces of all non-US nations would go towards shipping troops/supplies to a massive invasion that would come from every direction. The US/Canada border alone is the largest unprotected shared border on the planet, possibly the biggest on the planet full stop, so while an attempt will be made on coasts near important areas (Washington DC), much of the world's forces would likely first go to Canada and then head South, also some going to Mexico but I think a land-based invasion from Canada would be the best way of going about it. Also, a concentrated effort on Florida, specifically where the peninsula meets mainland US. Florida can be cut off from the rest of the US so easily taken by sea from all direction, and that can become another area in which to gather forces for a southeast invasion.

Yeah! Fuck the rest of the coasts (save for an effort made on the White House), just go for those three points of invasion; Canada, Mexico, and Florida.

File: nuke2.jpg (296KB, 1416x796px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1416x796px

>>31619667
yeah not like someone will profit in a full nuclear engage

>>31619667
>US couldn't take china

Infantry alone won't win a war, tanks, aircraft, and naval tech all together.

And you should know by now how superior the US is in literally every element of modern warfare.

Lastly, the QBZ-95 is complete shit, it jams like fucking crazy.

>>31619667
Hey, dickweasel. 55 kilometers is only the blast RADIUS. Radius is the distance from the center of a circle. The affected area is a circle. Pi x Radius squared. That means a Tsar bomb would affect 9,480 square kilometers. Meaning the entire nuclear inventory (15,000) of that strength would affect an area of 142,477,500 square kilometers. And Earth only has 155,000,000 square kilometers of landmass. That's pretty fucking close to an extinction event.

>>31620019
Define 'affect'; no vague terms. People could still survive being within 100km of it if they aren't exposed to the light produced.

>>31614724
I would join I support an honest evil empire over a lying evil empire.. would sign up asap give me a meaning to my life... hail hydra

>>31620019
Keep in mind that 85% of existing nukes are 1 Mt or less.

In a realistic scenario no one is making or using tsar bombas,

>>31620019
Also, if we went by your vague 'affect' situation, then less than 70,000,000 square kilometers would be left to mess with the rest of the world, because over 70,000,000 square kilometers would be saved for the US. If I recall correctly, America has less than 7000 nukes. America has less than 10,000,000 square kilometers, so America would be 'affected' over 7 times over. That leaves the rest of the world's 145,000,000 or so square kilometers of land mass to be 'affected' by America's less than 70,000,000 square kilometer's 'affects' which means over half the rest of the world would be un'affected'.

So now that we've established that America would still lose, let's drop the nuke issue and focus on the rest of the situation, which still leads to America getting destroyed from every direction. Namely land invasions from Canada and Mexico with a sea invasion of Florida and likely Washington DC. There will of course be troops ready on the West coast ready for a sea invasion there as well, but I don't know which point(s) they would focus on.

>>31620197
>Namely land invasions from Canada and Mexico with a sea invasion of Florida and likely Washington DC. There will of course be troops ready on the West coast ready for a sea invasion there as well, but I don't know which point(s) they would focus on.
I actually highly doubt anyone would have war on their mind after THAT happens.

>>31620019
Also, if we went by your vague 'affect' situation, then less than 70,000,000 square kilometers would be left to mess with the rest of the world, because over 70,000,000 square kilometers would be saved for the US. If I recall correctly, America has less than 7000 nukes. America has less than 10,000,000 square kilometers, so America would be 'affected' over 7 times over. That leaves the rest of the world's 145,000,000 or so square kilometers of land mass to be 'affected' by America's less than 70,000,000 square kilometer's 'affects' which means over half the rest of the world would be un'affected'.

So now that we've established that America would still lose, let's drop the nuke issue and focus on the rest of the situation, which still leads to America getting destroyed from every direction. Namely land invasions from Canada and Mexico with a sea invasion of Florida and likely Washington DC. There will of course be troops ready on the West coast ready for a sea invasion there as well, but I don't know which point(s) they would focus on.

>>31620165
Also, if this is tue, then yeah, an extinction event is not going to happen. I still think that 'affect' also includes nuclear exposure. If that's the case, then Japan is an example of how nuclear exposure doesn't come anywhere near destroying a population. Best stick with the 'third degree burn' radius, or perhaps 1st degree but with modern medicine I imagine it would be easy to survive 1st degree burns all over the body. That's an assumption; I'm no doctor. 1st degree is just skin-deep, right? Muscle is left unaffected?

File: tmp_12759-1474579619312558604648.gif (23KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x500px

If the scenario was "fuck those American sons of bitches" right this minute the rest of the world is in for some pain.

The only nation that is capable of an immediate preemptive nuclear strike is Russia.

American naval and air assets are all over the globe and could effectively engage most nations' military structure within a 24 hour window.

Chinese nuclear capability would be neutered in the cradle as they would have to bring their warheads to the launch devices since they keep them separate by a large enough margin to matter. Sub launched cruse missiles would destroy much of the launch and warhead assets well before they were launch capable.

US forces around the world would be in a mad scramble to destroy or disrupt as many enemy assets as they could through direct action followed by asimetric warfare.

Basically, without a set aside period for the rest of the world to mobilize onto an anti-US warfooting, the US would knock the teeth out of every immediate threat just as the nuclear brawl with Russia takes place. Depending on how much military survives the nuclear exchange the long game becomes much more interesting.

If most of the US naval capability survives the Russian slugfest then the rest of the world is going to have a very difficult time in overcoming the issue of force projection and logistics.

China's massive military won't be able to do anything if they can't ferry troops, hardware and supplies across the Pacific in any significant numbers. Same applies over the Atlantic.

Canada and Mexico have drastically fewer strategic capabilities than other potential threats and a ground invasion of the US would be a quagmire at best, suicide at worst, by these two countries.

>>31619793
Eh. They'd only rid us of a shithole.

>>31620224
Read.
>>31620197
>So now that we've established that America would still lose, let's drop the nuke issue and focus on the rest of the situation

The addition of nukes makes no sense because America would still get fucked. One source online says there's 45.5 Million regular and reserve soldiers on Earth. US has 2 Million regular and reserve soldiers, meaning it's 43.5 Million vs 2 Million. There's American soldiers in bases all over the world, some could see that as possibly an advantage, but I see it as a lot of small pockets of soldiers to be overwhelmed by whatever country's Military that they're stationed in, effectively killing off many US soldiers with likely very little effort due to sheer numbers. Let's assume that ALL US soldiers were in America though... and let's cut the number of soldiers the rest of the world has in half to try and exclude Reservists.

8,000,000 sent to Canada, send half a million west to brush through Alaska. 7.5 million south to mainland America.

5,000,000 to Mexico to go north

4,000,000 to Florida to establish a southwest base of operations there

3,000,000 to Washington DV from the east

Remaining can go to the west coast or get sent to wherever might need help.

Anyone want to bring up the number of gun owners in America? Or... perhaps... the amount of rounds that the US Military has in stock if such information is available? Nearly 22,000,000 soldiers to deal with (only half of what's available) is a lot to contend with... and 22,000,000 rounds is a lot of accurate shots to make. 2,000,000 soldiers for the US, let's say they all have 8 STANAG mags for 240 rounds a piece. That's... what... 480,000,000 rounds? If ALL the world's soldiers were sent meaning nearly 44,000,000, then all American soldiers would need over 10% accuracy, and with all hits being lethal. That's... a lot to ask for... considering statistics... and things like 'covering fire'. Of course that's not taking Air Force/Navy into account, nor tanks.

>>31620197
>land invasion from fucking MEXICO
lol
This is ridiculous. Canada has an armed force of like 45,000 or something. Mexico has a similar number.
The only armies ON THE PLANET that rival us in power are Russia and China, and neither have the force projection to get to US soil. We also have THE singular most advance missile defense system on the planet. They can't touch American soil with literally anything.

>>31620622
>We also have THE singular most advance missile defense system on the planet. They can't touch American soil with literally anything.
Except shittons of nukes.

>>31620634
The question was if America declared war, yeah? That means America has had all the time in the world to prepare, and they're already deployed.
This guy has the right idea >>31620480
It comes down to preparation in a lot of ways, and America, in this scenario, has that advantage.

>>31620672
You cant prepare for 3200 nukes, sorry.

>>31620692
You can, easily. Neutralize their launch capabilities, pinpoint nuke locations and capture them, there's a number of ways. Crank out a shitton of missile defense. Hackers can take out computerized systems, tac bombs can fuck up launch locations, literally any number of ways. And they, like I said, are already in a position to do that.

>>31620622
Troops sent to Canada and Mexico. Those countries are merely the funnels from which a land invasion could be staged.

>>31620634
Stop talking about nukes; America would still lose anyways.

>>31620672
I had not considered this, but if it's America declaring war, then they will be attempting invasions, which means choosing locations to attack. Nations not under attack would send their troops to the areas of attack. American troops would be spread dangerously thin while also probably leaving a 'skeleton crew' as it were in their nation to try and defend it.

America gets taken over while the body of the forces is away, supplies cut off, world fights defensively to try and minimalize casualties while Americans inevitably run out of equipment/food/etc.

That, or America attempts defence and offense at the same time.

That, or... America declares war... and waits for the world to invade?

They only have 2,000,000 troops. Yeah there's Air Force and Navy, but the numbers are still not in their favour. The world will take a Hell of a hit, to be sure. Probably a greater hit than if any other nation had the same situation, but they still could not win. Every single loss would be a great one. There would LITERALLY be over 20 troops for the world for every 1 American soldier.

>>31620692
>>31620743
This isn't about nukes, stop talking about nukes, America loses anyways. Even according to >>31620480
Russia (who has the most nukes in the world) is capable of an immediate preemptive nuclear strike. Even if they get the jump on them by America though, they are still capable of an immediate strike, so over 7000 nukes would be headed for America, or at least locations of heavily concentrated American troops (perhaps nuking some of their own Russian land to destroy thousands upon thousands of invading American troops)

>>31620743
>Neutralize their launch capabilities
You cant.
> pinpoint nuke locations and capture them
Like, drop peeps into the middle of Russia (they totally do not notice), they find the nuke (which can be anywhere in 250 000 sq.km of the deployment area), kill a bunch of guys guarding it (batman techniques), repeat a couple of hundred times, then assault static sites (totally not guarded), then airbases (totally not guarded too), then jump in the water and blow up submarines.
>Crank out a shitton of missile defense.
That were not tested against actual ICBM.
>Hackers can take out computerized systems
Floppy_disks.jpg
>tac bombs can fuck up launch locations
Again, no one will notice.
>And they, like I said, are already in a position to do that.
And russians are jerking off and drinking beer, ok.
Thats really dumb, you know.

>>31620616
Well, you are forgetting about one major thing, the ability to get those men into those positions. How do you get 4 million men into canada or mexico? You need to be able to project a force like that. You need a navy. The best navy on the planet is stoppong you from landing troops anywhere near this hemisphere

>>31620794
Not all 7000 warheads are ICBM launched. Not all of them are even ready for immediate deployment. That is just the total amount they have.

You also don't send just one nuke per target. You send enough to get as close to a 100% kill potential as you can get. That may be 3, it maybe 15 depending on the target.

The Russians have more nukes but most projections still see the US coming out on top in an exchange. Bloodied but still coming out on top.

The US has an advantage in naval deployment of nukes as well as counter-missile defense (claimed effectiveness is about 50%, realistically it is closer to 10% but that still increases the amount of warheads needed to approach 1 pk). They also gave an advantage in accuracy for both ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. Number of nukes alone does not dictate outcome. Accuracy, defense penitration, warhead function (not all will operate as intended) all play a role in a strike being effective at neutralizing retaliation capability.

>>31614724
>>31614767
>>31614791
>>31615062
>>31615610
>>31615667
Its the plan of the neo cons and the zionists every land becomes a mix of negro cascosiod and mongoloid race and the whole wolrd gets nuked to the stone age but isreal becomes the only true super power where every one is a slave to gods chosen people

>>31620765
>sent to Canada and Mexico
Which nations have the naval power to move into the ocean at all? And then which ones have the ability to take on the American navy? Have you looked up the numbers and massive difference in tech?
>>31620794
Manpower has incredibly little to do with modern warfare, given that we literally use tech as leverage to make one man in to eighty, and who has the most advanced tech?
>>31620884
>you can't
Not an argument. This is the Americans attacking. You're assuming they're just going to start lobbing bombs and give no fucks. That's retarded. The planning would have went in to place a while before, troops would have been placed, just like they are now. All around the world with controlled tactical locations all over the world. We literally have a point of attack on every major country. How do countries with less power, less training, less intel, and less tech plan to subvert a preemptive strike from a nation with all of those things?