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.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
neither side has enough strength the successfully invade or occupy their opponents
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...
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.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
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.
Vs threads are always that way
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
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
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.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
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.
Last edited by tsilamini on Mar 12th, 2012 at 02:27 AM
KMC Community Forums
Mar 11th, 2012 11:42 PM
