He's also got plenty of financial incentive to say shit like that. War on all 3 of those fronts would be so untenable with the state of things and he knows that which is why he's advocating for more drones but really? How realistic is that? China's drones are at least as advanced as ours
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
224 points (98.3% liked)
Progressive Politics
2804 readers
1143 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
224
He told the New York Times that he thinks the U.S. will “very likely” find itself in a three-front war with China, Russia, and Iran. As a result, he said, the Pentagon should continue developing autonomous weapons at full speed, pointing to big mismatches in how far the U.S. would be willing to go while fighting a war compared with other countries.
We have the arsenal to win all 3 wars almost instantly. Until now, no leader was stupid enough to take that route, but we have Trump.
Don't try to logic this situation with reasonable military tactics.
Define win because I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
The only tactic with “almost instant” results would be the US just nuking everything, which A. is definitely not a “win” by any definition, and B. is an insanely irresponsible assumption that there wouldn’t be substantial collateral damage and that’s if you were inhumane enough to ignore the lives of everyone living in the targeted countries to begin with.
Or somehow do you think the US could win a conventional war against three separate countries “almost instantly”, after it took 2 decades to make absolutely no lasting changes in Afghanistan? In which case just lol.
If Trump authorizes nuclear strikes on Russia, China and Iran, it is the secret services patriotic duty to put a pewpew seed in the old rooster's noggin.
Whoever launches nuclear weapons definitely loses and drags their economic allies down with them.
I wouldn't call global nuclear annihilation 'winning'.
We have the arsenal to win all 3 wars almost instantly.
As another poster pointed out, this is…not true.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-stockpiles-missiles
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-missile-defense-under-strain-213274
I believe they are referring to a far blunter instrument of death which would only purvey loss on a scale that is unprecedented and difficult to imagine.
Again, as the other respondent pointed out, the overwhelmingly likely end result of a nuclear exchange is hardly a “win” for any party.
Oh yeah, I just finished editing to add that part to be more clear of my opinion on the subject. There will never again be a nuclear “win” in human history, and in truth I wouldn’t even count the first.
Blam
No you don´t. You couldn´t win in Vietnam or Afghanistan, the latter with the help of NATO (Rmember, srticle 5 was invoked by the US, and some of us European deeply regret to have helped and sent our soldiers die for the US).
Don't be absurd, you most definitely do not have that. You have the arsenal to ensure mutual destruction between you and your nuclear armed enemies.
What makes him think we're going to fight Russia? Mango Mussolini loves Russia.
Yeah Hitler “loved” Russia for a minute too
Not to mention China seems to choose the most economical decision it seems. They care about Taiwan strictly because of money. There is no economic growth for them from fighting the U.S.
I disagree about Taiwan. That's a thing that goes back to the founding of modern China, it is, and has been a cornerstone of their policy. But otherwise ya, they seem to make rational economic choices.
It only seems like that because theyre being compared next to the US which is currently sawing its own leg off.
In some sense our large contributions to Ukraine earlier in the war could be seen as us fighting Russia via proxy. If I recall correctly our involvement with conflicts in Syria were also seen similarly, as us fighting a Russian proxy state. My understanding is that war between nuclear powers often looks like this because all out war could escalate to nuclear weapons too quickly. All this to say, I think we were already at war with Russia before Trump regained office.
Also they're in no shape to fight
Because Trump turns on everyone eventually.
art of the TACO
10 months ago*
Lunatics are truly running the asylum.
I mean, George Dubbya kinda let this one slip back in the 2000s.
Yes he did, the New World Order plans.
Because 3 way wars are easy to win.
Especially when one of the opponents has several times our population and all opponents are oceans away, besides two of the three being nuclear armed and the third being close. Even with the size of our military, I don't think that's a war we would stand a reasonable chance in.
Imo, we are fucked. Ukraine drones show that our aircraft carriers, planes, and tanks are worthless when a 1000 dollar drone can carry munitions to cripple them.
It's a new world and we aren't prepared for it.
I wasn't even thinking about that kind of thing, since drones are something I'm sure we could utilize as well. It's mostly the sheer production capacity and population that China in particular has. I expect an actual large scale war against them, that both didn't turn nuclear (since that renders the whole concept of a victor a bit moot) and wasn't some very quick defensive action like an attempt to defend Taiwan might be (which might end fast enough for production capacity to not matter as much as existing inventory), would end up looking something like Japan's war against the US during ww2: we might be able to cause a great deal of damage to their military assets at first, but if they can replace their losses much faster than we can, then all they have to to is drag things out enough for the numbers to swing decisively in their favor.
Offshoring all our factories isn't going to work out well. If only trump wasn't an idiot, he could have made progress on that over next 10 yrs
Iran would be a non-issue in an actual war with us. Occupying it would be a far different story. Same with Russia. China, on the other hand, would be extremely devastating to both sides.
The United States military strength has, until very recently, been focused on the ability to successfully prosecute war on two major fronts and one minor front.
Especially ones with no obvious win conditions
They are with a nuclear arsenal. And Trump is stupid enough to use it.
Psychopaths
So the guy who runs the AI intelligence corporation thinks the West is morally superior to the degree that more amoral, barbarous countries like China and Russia and Iran have some advantage over us.
Like it's just sensitive and soft westerners fighting against robotic Asians and Russians. Iranians are so evil compared to us: they're willing to use nukes!
If we can't clean up Iran quickly there's gonna be a no front war because China will roll us
Bet you China has some checkmate against carriers they'll pull from their sleeve if things go hot.
Chinese think many steps ahead so they won't escalate until victory is very likely.
Wtf is going on with that hair?
It's fighting a 360 front war
Thank God I have severe sleep apnea.
The US could probably take on Russia and Iran without much effort, but isn't China's military actually comparable to the US'?
No. Only slightly in number of people. And even then, they're probably more Russian like than we're expecting.
Something something BRICS
TBF I could have told you that was a real possibility like 3 or 4 years ago at least, but at that time I would have said it was unlikely because theres no way everybody just forgets how bad the Trump admin was and elects more republicans. The USA would have to be steeped in mental illness and masochistic mouthbreathing assholes for them to elect someone like Trump who escalates the situation.
Get the fuck out of the room