General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf the United states invades greenland and every other member of nato declares war on the united states. Would that be t
If the United states invades greenland and every other member of nato declares war on the united states. Would that be the biggest war since wwII?
Yes, a hypothetical war pitting the United States against every other NATO member (currently 31 countries, including major powers like the UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Canada, and others) would almost certainly qualify as the largest-scale conflict since World War II, based on several key metrics for "biggest" warssuch as number of nations involved, total military personnel, economic and technological resources, potential for global escalation, and destructive capacity.Why This Scenario Would Be Unprecedented in ScaleNumber of Participants: WWII involved over 30 major combatants across multiple continents. Post-WWII conflicts have been far more limitede.g., the Korean War (19501953) had about 20 nations in the UN coalition but was regionally contained; the Vietnam War (19551975) primarily involved the US, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and allies like Australia, with indirect Soviet/Chinese support. A full NATO-vs.-US war would draw in dozens of advanced economies and militaries, spanning North America, Europe, and parts of Asia (via Turkey), making it the broadest alliance-based conflict since 1945.
Military Might Involved: The US has the world's largest defense budget (around $800900 billion annually as of recent years) and over 1.3 million active-duty personnel, plus advanced nuclear arsenals and global reach. However, the combined non-US NATO forces include roughly 2 million active personnel, thousands of aircraft and ships, and nuclear capabilities from France and the UK. This matchup would dwarf post-WWII wars like the Gulf War (19901991), which involved a 34-nation coalition but against a single mid-tier power (Iraq), or the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict (since 2022), which is bilateral with indirect NATO support but no direct alliance-wide involvement.
Potential for Escalation and Destruction: Unlike regional wars such as the Yom Kippur War (1973) or the Iran-Iraq War (19801988)which caused hundreds of thousands of deaths but stayed containedthis scenario could rapidly globalize due to NATO's mutual defense pact (Article 5) and alliances like those with Indo-Pacific partners (e.g., via AUKUS or QUAD). With multiple nuclear states involved, it risks surpassing WWII's estimated 7085 million fatalities, potentially through conventional, cyber, or nuclear means. No war since 1945 has approached that level of existential threat.
Economic and Geopolitical Impact: The global economy would face unprecedented disruption, as the combatants represent over 50% of world GDP. Compare this to the Afghan War (20012021) or Iraq War (20032011), which were prolonged but involved far fewer resources and nations.
Comparisons to Major Post-WWII WarsHere's a quick table comparing this hypothetical to some of the largest conflicts since 1945 (based on estimates of involvement, duration, and casualties):
In summary, while wars like Korea or Vietnam were devastating, they didn't involve a head-on clash between superpowers and their full alliances. This Greenland-invasion scenariotriggered by a US attack on Danish territorywould shatter NATO's unity and likely become the most massive and dangerous war in the post-WWII era, potentially rivaling or exceeding WWII if it went nuclear or drew in non-NATO powers like China or Russia. Of course, this is purely speculative; real-world diplomacy, deterrence, and NATO's structure make it extremely unlikely.
https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=2013271283723817022
---
I asked the a.i this question. I think Russia and a few other countries would probably side with the united states, while China would side with the Nato.
I suspect that this event would be called in the future as world war III
Blues Heron
(8,446 posts)Only the dirty scum sucking pukes in Congress can get rid of this obvious threat. Do your job you sniveling feckless assholes!
ananda
(34,508 posts)Last term, he said he was going to nuke China,
but Mark Miller stopped it
Blues Heron
(8,446 posts)ananda
(34,508 posts)and use weapons of mass destruction on people.
He really gets off on this.
31st Street Bridge
(110 posts)Would Canadian forces fire on Americans?
Would French nukes be pointed here?
Would Putin simultaneously invade the Baltics?
Would American generals ignore unlawful orders from an illegitimate regime that has already invaded Minnesota?
Would American forces attack in Europe, too?
Would NATO nations seize US bases?
I'm not saying it's WW3 ... but it really could be.
Until Child Rapist Felon 47 is overthrown. And his piss bucket VP, too.
rampartd
(3,941 posts)in support of their vichy government in washington.
other than snapping up taiwan and maybe nepal the chinese would be avoiding this version od ww iii.
in what world does trump have "consent of the governed" on this?
if trump does take greenland, wouldn't he surrender on their behalf? that is what he did for the afghans that he is deporting to the taliban, ad for the ukrainians.
walkingman
(10,394 posts)it would be if we were experiencing a war at home like the rest of the world suffered in WW1 and WW2 and in present day countries these days.
We became an economic powerhouse based on the fact that the rest of the world was in shambles, and we escaped unscathed basically and was an industrial powerhouse because we had built up our manufacturing base in support of WW2.
The horror, death, and misery is not in our memories and it is dangerous.
onenote
(46,005 posts)They may impose economic sanctions, but declaring armed conflict? Not. Going. To. Happen.
Fiendish Thingy
(22,222 posts)Not sure why you chose to pollute the DU community with AI slop, rather than present your own ideas for discussion.
Your post is just as bad as those clickbait videos with altered content showing events that never actually happened.
AI slop is not evidence to support any argument.
As we speak, key members of the EU are drafting their economic responses to Trumps threatened tariffs over the EUs lack of support for his seizure of Greenland. Multiple nations have sent troops to Greenland as an Article 5 tripwire. Canada is about to join those European nations by sending a detachment of their own troops.
Trump is going to Davos, where he will get some face time with the European leaders who will tell him, unambiguously, what consequences he and the US face.
Watch the bond market to see if treasury bond prices start to wobble.
There is ample evidence to suggest that this conflict could end without a single shot being fired, and with Greenland remaining the sovereign nation it is today.
OC375
(479 posts)Once the knives come out, all bets are off...
Wars often start over x, yet often get y and z injected into them and shift around because of that.
Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Iran, Taiwan... lots going on that will absolutely capitalize on this and change it's course, besides just a USA v Europe bout.
And of course, non-governmental actors, companies, organized crime, freedom fighters and terrorists all also inevitably come rolling in to capitalize on opportunity when it comes to mayhem, king making, finance, post war reconstruction...
QueerDuck
(1,105 posts)I can think of other more preferable routes, more direct, and more satisfying... still. I do not have much hope that he'll be removed from power peacefully or politically.
canetoad
(20,299 posts)Plenty of investors in the war industry will be rubbing their blood-soaked hands with glee at the prospect of an absolute killing.