Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

USA
Isreal
United Kingdom

Vs

China
Russia
Iran

Non nuclear
1. The goal is to invade and occupy who wins?
2. The goal is to cause as much damage to your enemys mainland cities base etc to force a surrender who wins?

3. Nuclear, who wins or does the most offensive damage?

Well, Saudi Arabia would probably cheer for USA, Israel and UK, allowing (as they offered before) Israeli and (probably) US aircrafts to use their airspace to blow up Iran.

I feel that would be a strategic advantage for the team UIU.

Iran is a serious weak link for Team 2

who would be better?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Non nuclear
1. The goal is to invade and occupy who wins?

neither side has enough strength the successfully invade or occupy their opponents

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
2. The goal is to cause as much damage to your enemys mainland cities base etc to force a surrender who wins?

America because of Aircraft Carriers. Russia, China and Iran lack the ability to extend their forces in a conventional way that would allow them to bombard America in a non-nuclear conflict, save retrofitting ICBMs to contain non-nuclear payloads...

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
3. Nuclear, who wins or does the most offensive damage?

America, because their second strike capacity is much greater than the Russians or Chinese

As much as people dislike cbc's threads, this topic is admittedly much more interesting than any of the other topics on this page.

As I recall for all their warheads the Russians only have a few hundred (if even that) in ready to fire condition whereas America has around a thousand on standby.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
As much as people dislike cbc's threads, this topic is admittedly much more interesting than any of the other topics on this page.
Vs threads are always that way

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As I recall for all their warheads the Russians only have a few hundred (if even that) in ready to fire condition whereas America has around a thousand on standby.

in a first strike situation though, given America doesn't have a fleet of bombers in the air, several hundred well aimed bombs could do massive damage to America's ability to launch a nuclear counter-strike.

I think it is more that Russia would have no follow-up, and there is no way they could get a full killing blow on the American nuclear capacity.

EDIT: hmmm, wiki says America only operates 450 ICBMs atm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Land-based_ICBMs

Originally posted by inimalist
in a first strike situation though, given America doesn't have a fleet of bombers in the air, several hundred well aimed bombs could do massive damage to America's ability to launch a nuclear counter-strike.

I think it is more that Russia would have no follow-up, and there is no way they could get a full killing blow on the American nuclear capacity.
What I remember is that the two biggest concerns of both sides during the Cold War were tactical nukes (admittedly much less of a problem now) and submarines armed with ICBMs.

America has more submarine nukes.

what about china hacking the crap out of our gps navigation, stealth bombers and missles?

what abouy chinas vast submerine fleet which can deliver missles from underwater?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
what about china hacking the crap out of our gps navigation and stealth bombers?

what abouy chinas vast submerine fleet which can deliver missles from underwater?
China has impressive Cyber Warfare capabilities, but I don't know if they could hack in flight bombers.

According to Wikipedia, China only has five submarines capable of launching missiles. America has eighteen.

Russia has one (two are being reactivated but aren't currently operational) and the UK has four.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
What I remember is that the two biggest concerns of both sides during the Cold War were tactical nukes (admittedly much less of a problem now) and submarines armed with ICBMs.

America has more submarine nukes.

indeed, America has 6x the active number of nuclear armed subs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_class_submarine

however, Soviet missiles themselves might pack a bit more punch than the American's do, as they generally carry more warheads:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-29RMU_Sineva

Originally posted by Omega Vision
China has impressive Cyber Warfare capabilities, but I don't know if they could hack in flight bombers.

flight bombers would get shot down, china and russia is large.

so china would badly cripple us with there cyber warfare, while russia bombs us and we cant bomb back.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
flight bombers would get shot down, china and russia is large.

so china would badly cripple us with there cyber warfare, while russia bombs us and we cant bomb back.
Stealth bombers getting shot down? Now, it's possible to shoot down a Stealth Bomber, but you make it sound like it's easy.

Russia doesn't really have a large fleet of conventional bombers that can reach the USA and defeat its air defenses.

You exaggerate everything.

so the usa can solo?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
so the usa can solo? USA shoots first, yes.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
so the usa can solo?

no

it is really unlikely that the US could mount a successful ground invasion of either China or Russia.

Well, save some very long and bloody coastal siege, but I still would have my doubts. Both of those nations are just too large and the terrain in parts too rough to be occupied.

America is the exact same, plus the citizens are armed to the teeth.

If you put both the teams on like, a neutral field where they just engaged in conventional war? sure, I'd say US is the last guy standing, with or with out the UK/Israel

EDIT: also, it is arguable that China has a stronger cyber-military than America. In America, the best talent tends to be in the private sector, but even look at stuff like Stuxnet. China has a lot of nationalists who do low level attacks and stuff, but in terms of technical sophistication, America is steps ahead. China is good, very good, but I wouldn't say they are so much better it collapses the Americans.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
so the usa can solo? Originally posted by Omega Vision

You exaggerate everything.

is it true that china will be more powerful than usa in a decade or so?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
is it true that china will be more powerful than usa in a decade or so?

militarily? no

so we will always be #1 in militia?
also can china cause us to go bankrupt pre war to there advantage?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
so we will always be #1 in militia?

no, but it will be interesting to see what happens to China, because it is hard to imagine continued growth for another decade, so it is not really settled on how fast China is going to rise.

I personally think India may in fact overtake China, but that is another topic.

However, given current projections, China will be able to control its own sphere of influence within 20-30 years. America, while declining, will still be investing enormous amounts of its finances into the military, and will likely be at least equal in technical sophistication.

so, I'm not sure. Provided they continue to grow or at least don't collapse, the Chinese may be "more powerful" in 50+ years, but even then... I don't see them gaining such a huge advantage over the Americans that they could dictate what they do. This is huge speculation of course, 50 years is a long time, but... ya, it would take some radical shift in geopolitical power or some sci-fi tech to really see the Americans not be a top military power for a long time into the future.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
also can china cause us to go bankrupt pre war to there advantage?

they could, but that would be arguably as damaging to them as it would be to the West

Simple UIU hands down