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

Who would win this match up?

No Europeans coming to the USA's rescue.

China & Russia.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
China & Russia.

I think this too, better soldiers, more fighting spirit. What do others think?

HYG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

I don't think Air craft carriers will matter if the US try invading Russia in winter.

Originally posted by Robtard
HYG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

Are you saying we would win?

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
I don't think Air craft carriers will matter if the US try invading Russia in winter.

It would be stupid to invade Russia during winter. I think there is a saying in the Russian military along the lines of their best general being "General Winter".

I think he is, we know a land war can't be won from the sea or Air, we've seen that with so many conflicts.

The worst thing that could happen was pushing China and Russia together. Which is what Obama has done.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The worst thing that could happen was pushing China and Russia together. Which is what Obama has done.

Yes Obama needs Europe more than ever now to protect the U.S.

Especially warrior nations like the U.K. and Germany.

Originally posted by Surtur
Are you saying we would win?
Yes, America would win. If war broke out then by extension trade would cease and China would be broke in a matter of weeks from not being able to sell their cheap crap in the US.

There's also the fact that neither Russia nor China (especially when broke) really has the capacity to wage a massive war across the ocean.

So broke-ass-China and Russia succumb to the might of the US aircraft carrier. Bombs away. *boom*

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
I don't think Air craft carriers will matter if the US try invading Russia in winter.

Engaging in a land war in Asia is the most famous classic blunder.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, America would win. If war broke out then by extension trade would cease and China would be broke in a matter of weeks from not being able to sell their cheap crap in the US.

There's also the fact that neither Russia nor China (especially when broke) really has the capacity to wage a massive war across the ocean.

So broke-ass-China and Russia succumb to the might of the US aircraft carrier. Bombs away. *boom*

I don't see that at all. I think it's far more likely the russians and chinese parachute in and take the U.S. I'm pretty sure this was realisticly dramatised.

I have to say I'd also favor the USA. I especially don't know if Russia and China have more "fighting spirit".

Originally posted by Surtur
I have to say I'd also favor the USA. I especially don't know if Russia and China have more "fighting spirit".

I also think whilst the Russians would parachute in the chinese would drill tunnels and come up from underneath. I saw that dramatised also. It would be the old high/low.

Russia in WWII fought harder than anyone.

Hold on you mean you think they would drill a tunnel from..China all the way to America?

Originally posted by Surtur
Hold on you mean you think they would drill a hole from..China all the way to America?

Yes, with giant drilling machines. They would make a giant network of tunnells. The Russians would parachute in at the same time. I have seen both of these plans excellently dramatised by American films.

The technology to do what you are talking about doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Surtur
The technology to do what you are talking about doesn't exist.

You say that but America was worried about this as long ago as 1967, where they created this propaganda piece to keep people vigilant about Chinamen coming up through the ground.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061387/

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
I don't see that at all. I think it's far more likely the russians and chinese parachute in and take the U.S. I'm pretty sure this was realisticly dramatised.

Those films had the Cubans and Soviets, then the N. Koreans and Russians. Entirely different animals, no comparison.

Anyhow, it is known that every real American has a gun (around 37%), so applying simple maths of US population-by-gun%, that means there would be roughly 117million guns aimed at the sky shooting down those Chinese and Russian paratroopers.

To put it in even finer perspective:

Chinese military = 4.63mil (Active/Res)
Russian military = 3.25 (Active/Res)

Gives us about 14.9 civilian guns aimed at every Chinese and Russian soldier. In short, real(not the fake ones who don't own guns) American citizens could defeat Russia and China without the help of the US military. /thread

USA, not even close. We have way more military budget than both of those combined, and we have more ability to expand our military budget. Our weaponry is higher tech, and yadda yadda. Russia's economy is weak, and would not be good in a war effort. Severing economic ties with China would hurt us a fair amount, but not nearly as much as it'd hurt China.

And, most importantly, our Navy is supremely dominant, neither of the two are naval powers.


Civilian guns don't matter for jack. Aside from civies with guns not really having much chance against soldiers, there's approximately zero chance of things reaching US shores.

Originally posted by Robtard
Those films had the Cubans and Soviets, then the N. Koreans and Russians. Entirely different animals, no comparison.

Anyhow, it is known that every real American has a gun (around 37%), so applying simple maths of US population-by-gun%, that means there would be roughly 117million guns aimed at the sky shooting down those Chinese and Russian paratroopers.

To put it in even finer perspective:

Chinese military = 4.63mil (Active/Res)
Russian military = 3.25 (Active/Res)

Gives us about 14.9 civilian guns aimed at every Chinese and Russian soldier. In short, real American people could defeat Russian and China without the help of the US military. /thread

Not true, this propaganda peice showed the soviets crushing the US from the sky, and made Americans very vigilant aganst russians with parachutes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
You say that but America was worried about this as long ago as 1967, where they created this propaganda piece to keep people vigilant about Chinamen coming up through the ground.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061387/

Well that is just propaganda.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well that is just propaganda.

Yes, but are you saying as a nation America is easily led and paranoid about "reds under the bed" or even "under the ground"?

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Who would win this match up?

No Europeans coming to the USA's rescue.



LOL. US wouldn't need them to. US wins.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. US wouldn't need them to. US wins.

Europe will own the US soon.

All out war, China's population and resources could probably exhaust America into a stalemate which might even accomplish China's goals (recognizing dominion over the South China Sea, for instance).

A more limited war, Russia and China don't stand a chance. Russia knows this, it's why it's investing so heavily in its nuclear deterrent.
Originally posted by Ionceknewu
I think this too, better soldiers, more fighting spirit. What do others think?
Lol no.

China is completely untested as a conventional military. Russia's more elite soldiers (like those who took over Crimea) are probably on level with American troops, but the rest of their military, according to Russian military leaders, is still not fully modernized and so the decline in quality of training and equipment outside of that elite core is probably precipitous.

The fighting spirit comment is just silly.

The U.S doesn't even have enough ships in its navy to move our own troops and resources anymore. We have to get help from other nations to do it.


I say China beats us down. Hard.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
The U.S doesn't even have enough ships in its navy to move our own troops and resources anymore. We have to get help from other nations to do it.


I say China beats us down. Hard.
We have more ships than China, Russia, UK, Japan, and France combined.

Europe has very small conventional military compared to the US too, btw. Due to the fact that they're allies with us, and we insist on taking the front, they haven't had to put nearly as much.

We spend more than everyone else combined. Our navy could beat every single other navy on the planet, it is that huge. And our economy/industrial production is also quite impressive.

Sure, we sometimes ship our soldiers via other means, but China has barely any force-projection capacity whatsoever in comparison, and Russia's is rusting and far from it's peak (and even then wasn't a match for ours).

Heck, part of the reason we sometimes encounter limits, is because we keep large amounts posted around the world in case of other wars while we're fighting a war. We keep our navy split between two oceans, but in a war, we could concentrate it. Our military spread across half the planet, which we could draw oof, and so on.


Are people not aware that we are *the* military superpower on Earth? In order to fight us, any foe would have to build their way up from a major disadvantage, and neither Russia nor China has the money to do so.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Yes, but are you saying as a nation America is easily led and paranoid about "reds under the bed" or even "under the ground"?

Yes they were paranoid. Explains the over excessive military we have.

Originally posted by Q99
Europe has very small conventional military compared to the US too, btw. Due to the fact that they're allies with us, and we insist on taking the front, they haven't had to put nearly as much.

We spend more than everyone else combined. Our navy could beat every single other navy on the planet, it is that huge. And our economy/industrial production is also quite impressive.

Sure, we sometimes ship our soldiers via other means, but China has barely any force-projection capacity whatsoever in comparison, and Russia's is rusting and far from it's peak (and even then wasn't a match for ours).

Heck, part of the reason we sometimes encounter limits, is because we keep large amounts posted around the world in case of other wars while we're fighting a war. We keep our navy split between two oceans, but in a war, we could concentrate it. Our military spread across half the planet, which we could draw oof, and so on.


Are people not aware that we are *the* military superpower on Earth? In order to fight us, any foe would have to build their way up from a major disadvantage, and neither Russia nor China has the money to do so.

You're sounding very patriotic right now.

Not that you're wrong. Our performance in WWII proved that America can handle a naval war to the West, which is the only way for China or Russia to approach. It is just plain easier for us to break them before they break us. The only successive wars against the USA are wars where guerrilla tactics were employed en masse. Even then Vietnam benefited from the USA forces being held up by several factors outside their control, all boiling down to the war not being particularly popular stateside.

Also:

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
I think this too, better soldiers, more fighting spirit. What do others think?

Japan firmly believed that they had both in World War II. And we destroyed them. Spirit means nothing in the face of superior technology and a touch of insanity.

Originally posted by AuraAngel

You're sounding very patriotic right now.

Not that you're wrong. Our performance in WWII proved that America can handle a naval war to the West, which is the only way for China or Russia to approach. It is just plain easier for us to break them before they break us. The only successive wars against the USA are wars where guerrilla tactics were employed en masse. Even then Vietnam benefited from the USA forces being held up by several factors outside their control, all boiling down to the war not being particularly popular stateside.


I just find it silly the worries people have when we could split into three and be the three strongest militaries on Earth A lot of people seem quite unaware of the modern balance of power.


Here's the wikipedia page on navy size

Take a look at mass- Ours is literally three times the mass of China's or Russias. Except there's more to navy power than mass, an Aircraft carrier is an incredibly dominant force, and we have 10 to their 1 each, so even pound for pound there's no contest. And... well, you get the idea

China has a good amount of numbers, but a big chunk of 'em is just PT boats. Russia, corvette's make up the lion's share, they've had to decommission a lot, and even during the Cold War couldn't exactly take on the USN.

The USA has a larger budget on its military then the other top 10 countries have combined.

I'm going with them.

just look at china's military+ Russia's combined... that's a big problem.

a fella mentioned before ( think it was robtard) who mentioned 37% of all americans carry or own a gun.

So what? just because you have access to something doesn't nessacarily mean you know how to use it, although in saying that this is war times so there goes that theory.
the americans simply don't have the resources to take on 2 combined superpowers.

loving how this is ' conventional' warfare, honestly if this would go down it wouldn't be conventional, china and Russia would most likely have a bombing campaign into most populated areas and so on for the americans against the chinese and Russians.

what is America's anti missile technology like?

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Yes Obama needs Europe more than ever now to protect the U.S.

Especially warrior nations like the U.K. and Germany.

Warrior Nations like Germany?

Yes Germany. When those Bratwurst and Beer lovers go to war it takes the rest of the world to stop them.

Japan takes out the Chinese navy from the start and uses it's superior air forcr to tie up China's. As the Chinese realise taking down the US means they have to knock out Japan first, China makes vain attempts at sea and airborne invasions, where their already defeated navy and air force is ineffective.

Russia is a different beast.

You also have to take in the country's current leadership at the time to. And if we use the CURRENT Leadership of this country. Hell were getting out asses kicked by ISIS and Al-Queda. No way could we handle either Russia or China.

U.S. has the best military bar none. China/Russia together would massively out gun us. We couldn't win that war alone. It would probably end up nuclear.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
You also have to take in the country's current leadership at the time to. And if we use the CURRENT Leadership of this country. Hell were getting out asses kicked by ISIS and Al-Queda. No way could we handle either Russia or China.

You can't compare ISIS/Al-Queda/Guerilla Terrorist Groups because the United States hasn't actually engaged them in conventional warfare. Neither the Russian or Chinese militaries operate anything like either groups.

In a conventional battle, any decent military would squash ISIS/Al-Qaeda.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
U.S. has the best military bar none. China/Russia together would massively out gun us. We couldn't win that war alone. It would probably end up nuclear.

Best Military. Yes.

Best leadership. OHHHH HELLLL NO!!!!!!!





Originally posted by FinalAnswer
You can't compare ISIS/Al-Queda/Guerilla Terrorist Groups because the United States hasn't actually engaged them in conventional warfare. Neither the Russian or Chinese militaries operate anything like either groups.

In a conventional battle, any decent military would squash ISIS/Al-Qaeda.


True but like I said. This goes back to an issue of LEADERSHIP.

And with the leaders we have now. We couldn't beat em.

Cause they wouldn't let our military do their job.

China and Russia wouldn't have that problem.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Who would win this match up?

No Europeans coming to the USA's rescue.

In this scenario there is no way the USA would send an invading force.

That means russia and china would have to invade and w/o help from other countries that landlock us the likelyhood of them sending troops to our borders is not worth discussing.

Originally posted by snowdragon
In this scenario there is no way the USA would send an invading force.

That means russia and china would have to invade and w/o help from other countries that landlock us the likelyhood of them sending troops to our borders is not worth discussing.

True Russia isn't some small oil producer in the middle east.

The Russians could just put on Parka's and cross into Alaska.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Yes Germany. When those Bratwurst and Beer lovers go to war it takes the rest of the world to stop them.

They have a tiny military.

France is much stronger.


Originally posted by Flyattractor
You also have to take in the country's current leadership at the time to. And if we use the CURRENT Leadership of this country. Hell were getting out asses kicked by ISIS and Al-Queda. No way could we handle either Russia or China.

No we aren't. We're playing a supporting role against Isis, and Al-Qaeda is counter-terrorism/policing and not military (and treating it as military is a poor way to handle such a force).


See, that's the thing, our military is still designed for a stand-up fight which our current foes aren't. Part of the silliness of our current military setup is we're designed for the type of fight no-one is stupid enough to try against us.

But this? This is exactly what the military is designed for, beating down near-peer foes.


And our leadership will have exactly zero problems loosing the military to do what it's best in the world at.



Originally posted by Ionceknewu
True Russia isn't some small oil producer in the middle east.

The Russians could just put on Parka's and cross into Alaska.

The Russians don't have a lot of stuff in that area, and the navy could slaughter them during the crossing.

Yeah, our (German) military is not really the pride of the nation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, our (German) military is not really the pride of the nation.

It's not the size, it's how you use it and Germany has always been good at using whatever it has. Look at how it controls Europe so well now. It didn't need a war in the end. I would also suggest Merkel is an excellent Battle Strategist.

Well, I agree with the second part. Merkel is a very skilled politician, and politics as well as economic power is what is most important for German foreign policy currently. Germany is well protected in NATO and so doesn't have to have a particularly impressive military itself currently. Still in some sort of hypothetical 1 on 1 war, this wouldn't help much.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I agree with the second part. Merkel is a very skilled politician, and politics as well as economic power is what is most important for German foreign policy currently. Germany is well protected in NATO and so doesn't have to have a particularly impressive military itself currently. Still in some sort of hypothetical 1 on 1 war, this wouldn't help much.

German's are also much better warriors individually than Americans.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
German's are also much better warriors individually than Americans.
Based on?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Based on?

Based on every American turning into Quanchi when threatened

Originally posted by krisblaze
Based on every American turning into Quanchi when threatened
Don't make me sic TI on you.

USA is likely to emerge victorious due to its vastly superior military and Intel gathering capabilities.

Oh yea, that's another good point, our intelligent network is much better. Russia's spy organization is not at their peak either.

Originally posted by Q99
Oh yea, that's another good point, our intelligent network is much better. Russia's spy organization is not at their peak either.

Snowden.......

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Snowden.......


What about him?

Having leaks is not the same as not having a superior intelligence network.

What are the goals of this war. Is it the us defending against them invading or vice versa. Or is it something else.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
True but like I said. This goes back to an issue of LEADERSHIP.

And with the leaders we have now. We couldn't beat em.

Cause they wouldn't let our military do their job.

China and Russia wouldn't have that problem.

Please prove President Obama would have any significant detrimental impact in a conventional war please.

Obama is not a wartime consigleire.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Yes, but are you saying as a nation America is easily led and paranoid about "reds under the bed" or even "under the ground"?

I can't tell if you legitimately believe the technology to do what you were saying exists or if you were trying to make some point about how paranoid America can be.

You guys are nuts. At the end of the day the Generals would eventually take over, not taking orders from the chain of Command. What the host is asking is a an end of days scenario. Fortunately, we live in a world where we don't have to worry about what,nuclear weapon the other guy has. This is because to use any ONE of them would be considered an act of war which benefits no one.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
You guys are nuts. At the end of the day the Generals would eventually take over, not taking orders from the chain of Command.


One, the generals would *not* displace the president of the united states! That's really stupid.


Two, part of this is because they *already* draw up the war plans and actually run the war. The president's job is just to rubber stamp them.


Do you think FDR ran things personally in World War 2? Heck no!


Granted, we do occasionally have bad war planners, but the failures of, say, Iraq, and lack of long-term planning there, did not come from the mind of the president, they came from his Secretary of Defense, who in turn had generals and such work on them.


Or in other words, I do not think you lot really *get* the role of a President in a war.


Also, a fair number of people are committing one of the classic blunders. "Hah, those people are soft! When a real enemy comes, they'll roll over in no-time!" -American South about the North, Imperial Japan about America (and it's president, a Democrat who got into the job on the basis of his economic spending program, no less!), and so on.

War isn't about winning, it's about losing less than whomever you're wagig it against.

Modern warfare isn't about troops or tanks, that's why the only thing you accomplish in Iraq is ****ing up your own economy. Modern warfare is about missile and defense systems. And frankly, it's not like Russia or China couldn't nuke the States if they wanted to.

That would be mutually assured destruction and not what we're talking about.

Originally posted by Newjak
What are the goals of this war. Is it the us defending against them invading or vice versa. Or is it something else.
Basically this. How a war turns out between USA and Russia/China is entirely dependent on the goals.

If the USA has to invade and force China and Russia to capitulate, there's no way America wins without the help of all of its allies (if it can at all), but if it has to achieve most goals less than that (say, expel Russia from Eastern Ukraine while also defending the Philippines from a Chinese invasion) it could probably accomplish those goals and achieve a favorable peace, but it would be more difficult than any war since WW2.

how about us + china + russia vs the hulk?

ground war with airforce and navy gimped, in the spirit of this thread.

Film, Comic or Film Crit Hulk?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Basically this. How a war turns out between USA and Russia/China is entirely dependent on the goals.

If the USA has to invade and force China and Russia to capitulate, there's no way America wins without the help of all of its allies (if it can at all), but if it has to achieve most goals less than that (say, expel Russia from Eastern Ukraine while also defending the Philippines from a Chinese invasion) it could probably accomplish those goals and achieve a favorable peace, but it would be more difficult than any war since WW2.

The US can basically trash any and every opposing military, but actually occupying and such... yea, that's a lot harder.

Originally posted by Q99
The US can basically trash any and every opposing military,
Wars don't work like that.

Originally posted by Astner
Wars don't work like that.

I'm pretty sure they do, I've played a lot of Call of Duty so I'm somewhat of an expert.

Originally posted by Astner
Wars don't work like that.
You're correct in the sense that we actually have no idea what a conventional war would be like between two major industrialized nations because it hasn't happened since the Falklands War in 1982 and military tactics and equipment have changed a lot since then.

However, in a pure stand-up fight, the US military is designed to crush enemies like Russia.

Originally posted by Astner
Wars don't work like that. Wars work however we want them to.

I don't know how this would play out but my best guess would be The USA would do well early on. We have poured more resources into our military so we would initially gain the upper hand.

If it gets long and drawn out though I think we will start to see a shift due to China and Russia being able to throw more manpower/resources against. China has 1.35 billion people or something close to that. They have a strong economy and while Russia is a baby compared to the soviet union they can still pour in some vast resources as well.

So I could see a WW2 Germany Scenario happen where we just keep getting whittled down while two superpowers drain us of bodies and materials.

Of course there are many variables that would need to be accounted for such as weather, location, intelligence gathering, other logistics such as food, water, supplies.