Can any country beat the U.S in war??

Originally posted by Omega Vision
What kind of war?

In an open war fought on neutral territory where the goal is simply to defeat your opponent's forces not one of those countries could beat America.

Only way any of them would win a war with America was if America invaded them and a war of attrition ensued. Though I doubt Switzerland could even win that if America was deadset on subjugating it. I have my doubts about Germany as well. India and China would win such a war by virtue of their size alone.

You're just sill if you think, China or Russia is incapable of doing that.

China and Russia would get smoked in a conventional war. We straight **** them up.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
China and Russia would get smoked in a conventional war. We straight **** them up.

It depends, if the leadership uploads into a celestial self-replicating living super weapon that's spreads across both within and outside the earth, it will be impossible to defeat or kill such.

Now such weapon only needs a few ingredients to be instantiated in the real world, superintelligence(high power algorithms and computational hardware), high speed molecular tape sequencer, high speed molecular tape synthesizer, large multidomain knowledge data base.

Once built it is impervious to all forms of attack, and becomes more resilient through time, such that even mobile black hole or entropic death can no longer stop it.

Nope, America can beat anything. Ask AIDS.

You couldn't beat Canada, and your celebrities know it. It's a good thing for your American pride that the Keystone XL pipeline hasn't been built yet; we'd just flood the U.S. with oil and drop a match.

loose lips sink ships!!!

Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
It depends, if the leadership uploads into a celestial self-replicating living super weapon that's spreads across both within and outside the earth, it will be impossible to defeat or kill such.

Now such weapon only needs a few ingredients to be instantiated in the real world, superintelligence(high power algorithms and computational hardware), high speed molecular tape sequencer, high speed molecular tape synthesizer, large multidomain knowledge data base.

Once built it is impervious to all forms of attack, and becomes more resilient through time, such that even mobile black hole or entropic death can no longer stop it.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
You're just sill if you think, China or Russia is incapable of doing that.

China is completely untested. They haven't fought a war since the 70s.

Originally posted by inimalist
loose lips sink ships!!!

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Russia needed a whole week to overcome the conventional forces of Georgia.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
More like run them ashore with an ocean full of crude.

To be fair, Georgians are hardcore. I hear they wipe with sandpaper.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
China is completely untested. They haven't fought a war since the 70s.

They could be waiting for the right moment, waiting for a weakness in their potential enemies. Plus, not showing what they are capable of gives less information away as to what techniques/strategies they might use.

China could be hype but like Russia they aren't majorly fighting anywhere but WE are, losing troops, resources, morale etc. I'd say they're keeping themselves fresh while we're running ourselves into the ground trying to fight something we largely created and fanned the flames of in the first place.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
They could be waiting for the right moment, waiting for a weakness in their potential enemies. Plus, not showing what they are capable of gives less information away as to what techniques/strategies they might use.

China could be hype but like Russia they aren't majorly fighting anywhere but WE are, losing troops, resources, morale etc. I'd say they're keeping themselves fresh while we're running ourselves into the ground trying to fight something we largely created and fanned the flames of in the first place.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
They could be waiting for the right moment, waiting for a weakness in their potential enemies. Plus, not showing what they are capable of gives less information away as to what techniques/strategies they might use.

China could be hype but like Russia they aren't majorly fighting anywhere but WE are, losing troops, resources, morale etc. I'd say they're keeping themselves fresh while we're running ourselves into the ground trying to fight something we largely created and fanned the flames of in the first place.

The reason the US military seems weaker than it truly is at the moment comes from the fact they are fighting an enemy against whom their most powerful weapons are essentially useless. It has taken a radical redesign of the role of infantry as counter-insurgent forces, and basically benched much of the military hardware that would be relevant in conflict with a more formal military.

However, such a conflict is not what would be seen in a war against China (unless America tried some type of long-term occupation, that would fail terribly). China is a generally industrialized nation with a huge military budget and investment in modern military technology. They have planes, boats, tanks, etc. They would fight with tactics that are what the Americans have planned to fight against for decades. The entire defense strategy of the American military is specifically designed to counter the type of military threat China or Russia would pose.

In terms of technology, America is still far superior to China on every front, and in terms of numbers, America has more essential equipment than do the Chinese. They may not have the same number of ground troops, but they have more Air Craft carriers, air fortresses and nuclear subs... by at least a 2:1 ratio (though, for something like Aircraft carriers, I don't believe China is expecting to have a single operational one for another decade).

China might be "biding their time", but as I was saying earlier in this thread (or a different one), assuming they continue the level of growth they are currently seeing (which they wont), they may develop a clear military advantage over America in 50+ years, but that almost assumes America collapses or no longer pursues global military dominance. Best estimates I've seen say it will be 20+ years before China can fully assert itself within its own sphere of influence.

This is, of course, excluding the nuclear option. China and America aren't even playing the same game when it comes to that. China has some nukes and some defenses, America has the most sophisticated and robust nuclear offenses and defenses on the planet.

To be frank, China will not surpass America in military power for the foreseeable future, and America isn't losing manpower or treasure all that fast either. By comparison, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been incredibly cheap in terms lost money or soldiers. Additionally, war between China and America may favor America in terms of economics.

As a consumer nation, America has many people looking for work but no demand for their labour because of the cheap goods from China. If that were to stop in a military situation, the government and the private sector could invest in getting these people to work almost akin to "war communism" that was a major part of "total war" theory. China stands to loose employed labour force in such a conflict, as they are a supplier nation. If trade between America and China was cut off, China would now be stuck with a surplus of goods its own population wouldn't be able to buy, and would face tremendous economic constriction. Sure, the Chinese state could invest to offset the impact, but that investment would be at the expense of investment into military goods. Even just converting the factories into military factories wouldn't offset it entirely. It would be devastating for both economies, with no doubt, but as with militarization in Germany prior to WW2, American investment into the production of more war-machines may have beneficial economic impacts that would see them fare better in an America-China conflict.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Then it's a generational war. China's entire economy is dependent on the world buying from it. They don't necessarily have to wait until their battle tactics and technology are second-to-none, they need to wait for their economy to be self-sufficient. Any aggression on their part will dry up foreign wells, so they need to be able stay afloat without them. If China goes to war with anybody else, they're going to war with the world. For them to win, they'd better be the only country on Earth with an economy.

Fair point, but as you said all they have do is have to wait and they do appear to be waiting now. They don't seem to be reacting as of yet but how close will they let US/UK get to their borders before they do?

With Russia they could jointly re-take the former Soviet states and threaten any tenuous 'grip' we might have by that time on Iraq and Afghanistan. They might not have many allies to start with for sure but we've rubbed a lot of noses the wrong way already so sympathy may come in short supply in some countries.

I'm not an expert on military matters so don't quote me here, I'd love to be wrong! 😄

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
They could be waiting for the right moment, waiting for a weakness in their potential enemies. Plus, not showing what they are capable of gives less information away as to what techniques/strategies they might use.

China could be hype but like Russia they aren't majorly fighting anywhere but WE are, losing troops, resources, morale etc. I'd say they're keeping themselves fresh while we're running ourselves into the ground trying to fight something we largely created and fanned the flames of in the first place.

Ask any American soldier if they'd prefer fighting Chinese troops on open battlefields or fight Mujahadeen in bombed out towns and in barren hillcountry and they'd probably prefer the battle they actually received training for in BT.

inimalist

Good analysis and I agree but with the nuclear option all of our strength and resources could be useless. Now I know MAD protects against regular launches but without a clear enemy how can one determine who dealt it? If suitcase nukes do exist for example, or other transportable bombs (either clean or 'dirty'😉 then before a country knows it they could be defenceless before the invading army. Now, this could apply to all countries because if one has them we all do.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
On the flipside it also means they have no practical experience and have no idea how they would perform either.

If anything morale would go up during a war with China. Look at the Vietnam War: whenever NV forces launched major conventional offensives US troops would experience surges in morale because they finally had an enemy they could fight in the manner they'd been trained to fight.

Ask any American soldier if they'd prefer fighting Chinese troops on open battlefields or fight Mujahadeen in bombed out towns and in barren hillcountry and they'd probably prefer the battle they actually received training for in BT.

Practical experience no, but they've been watching us operate for a long time and we have never actively engaged the Russians (at least not officially) before, so how does that fit in US training? Ask the Nazis what it felt like to have the Red Army bear down on them;yes, they had support from us at the time but they're not reliant on us now.

Bringing up the Vietnam War doesn't help your argument because you lost, they won. Your weapons/technology couldn't beat their strategies and philosophy. This same philosophy will undoubtably be shared by China and certainly N.Korea. I don't think they could invade/occupy you but they certainly could defeat you by attrition alone.

I seriously doubt there's any difference between a Mujahadeen fighter and a Chinese soldier, save maybe discipline, both of them would be prepared to die to take down any opponent, both use the terrority to their advantage and weaponise it you will, use scare tactics, psychological warfare. As did the Vietnamese and they drove you out, if they had had a bigger country/arsenal they could have retaliated, and with your country brutalised by that encounter who knows what could have happened.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Practical experience no, but they've been watching us operate for a long time and we have never actively engaged the Russians (at least not officially) before, so how does that fit in US training? Ask the Nazis what it felt like to have the Red Army bear down on them;yes, they had support from us at the time but they're not reliant on us now.

I seriously doubt there's any difference between a Mujahadeen fighter and a Chinese soldier, save maybe discipline, both of them would be prepared to die to take down any opponent, both use the terrority to their advantage and weaponise it you will, use scare tactics, psychological warfare. As did the Vietnamese and they drove you out, if they had had a bigger country/arsenal they could have retaliated, and with your country brutalised by that encounter who knows what could have happened.

Like do you actually know anything about it?

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Good analysis and I agree but with the nuclear option all of our strength and resources could be useless.

not really. China doesn't have enough nuclear missiles. I will elaborate, but one of the sort of misconceptions about nuclear warfare in the public mind is that the most effective place to nuke is a major city or whatever. Nuclear war is about taking out opposing military capacity. If you look at the way missile silos were placed in America (before the days of MIRVs at least 😛), the calculations were done such that they believed it would only be possible for soviet missiles to target each silo individually. Basically, it became a game of how to create a nuclear system that could survive the initial strike and retaliate, making the cost of striking first too much to justify the advantage of attacking.

China has the capacity to hit a bunch of cities and kill a lot of people, but they have no capacity to disable the American military in a single strike. Even if they could (they can't) take out America's land based missiles, America has numerous nuclear armed subs constantly patrolling with the ability to launch sub based ICBMs, essentially guaranteeing China will be struck back after attacking first. China may have 5 such subs.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Now I know MAD protects against regular launches

actually, there is no MAD with China. America could quite easily obliterate their nuclear capacity and such with ICBMs and China would have no ability to retaliate whatsoever.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
but without a clear enemy how can one determine who dealt it?

? I thought we were talking about a military conflict between China and America...

regardless, MAD style ICBM attacks wouldn't be too hard to determine the origin of, especially given all the radar and such set up during the cold war specifically to monitor such things.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
If suitcase nukes do exist for example, or other transportable bombs (either clean or 'dirty'😉 then before a country knows it they could be defenceless before the invading army.

see, this is what I was talking about above though. A suitcase bomb or a dirty bomb are things used to kill many people or hit single targets to cause panic. How are you going to cripple the entire American military capacity with suitcase bombs? sure, you can kill people in a city discretely, but man, the cost associated with that... If America even suspected Chinese involvement in such an action, they would be almost forced to vaporize them...

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Now, this could apply to all countries because if one has them we all do.

well, you can sleep safely knowing that while both the Americans and Russians have tried and may have succeeded in building such bombs, they are certainly more prominent in fiction than they are in national military conflict.

Terrorists and the like are different, but for nations, suitcase bombs make little sense.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I seriously doubt there's any difference between a Mujahadeen fighter and a Chinese soldier

one wears a uniform of a single nation, is part of a sophisticated command structure and is learned and engages in modern mixed unit tactics whereas the other uses asymmetric tactics while supported by local populations, loyal to nothing but an ideology.

Like, given the structure and size, the Chinese army would be at a detriment if they moved to mujahadeen/insurgent combat tactics. Insurgent groups are hugely limited in their capacity to project their forces, have very limited win scenarios and generally rely on the "morality" of the more powerful force to not just murder all the civilians. ugh, wont get into another long ramble here... the main point is that China would fare far worse against the Americans if they attempted asymmetric tactics than they would with conventional tactics. The asymmetric option really only helps in a scenario where America tries to occupy China, not in a conflict between the two armies. Asymmetric combat would only be worthwhile largely after the Chinese army proper was defeated.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
inimalist

Good analysis and I agree but with the nuclear option all of our strength and resources could be useless. Now I know MAD protects against regular launches but without a clear enemy how can one determine who dealt it? If suitcase nukes do exist for example, or other transportable bombs (either clean or 'dirty'😉 then before a country knows it they could be defenceless before the invading army. Now, this could apply to all countries because if one has them we all do.

This is the reason that security services exist. If the enemy thinks you're bringing a bomb into the country they will be very angry. Most tactically important targets are also hardened against attack (either with actual bomb resistance or layers of localized security).

Security services also tend to advocate redundancy and secrecy. If you want to cripple the military of a nation large enough to actually have a military you need extensive intelligence gathering abilities and very impressive coordination. Lots of people, planting lots of bombs, after months or years of surveillance to make sure it happens. It's a very effective form of passive defense, the only weapon that can get through is so huge and unweildy if it doesn't trip up and collapse on its own it will be seem coming a long ways away.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Fair point, but as you said all they have do is have to wait and they do appear to be waiting now. They don't seem to be reacting as of yet but how close will they let US/UK get to their borders before they do?

With Russia they could jointly re-take the former Soviet states and threaten any tenuous 'grip' we might have by that time on Iraq and Afghanistan. They might not have many allies to start with for sure but we've rubbed a lot of noses the wrong way already so sympathy may come in short supply in some countries.

I'm not an expert on military matters so don't quote me here, I'd love to be wrong! 😄

I wouldn't be worried too much about Russia. Their birth rate's in the can. Their numbers will be plummeting by the millions by 2050. 1000's of terrorists attacks go largely unreported, their military couldn't even handle Georgia, and if Putin/Medvedev are gonna be in til '24, you can bet on some internal strife and disorder. Those protests we've seen are just the beginning. They're either gonna be too busy tearing themselves up, or too busy stamping themselves down. And I doubt very much that the EU will take kindly to Russia annexing their Eastern members. Germany's GDP alone is higher than all of Russia's, it's population is at a ratio of 140 Russia:80 Germany. And that's just Germany.

China's population is also set to fall. It doesn't seem like a big deal considering their current numbers, but their birthrate isn't what it once was, and that One Child policy is going to come back and bite them ass. Apparently it's already started happening.

India's the one I'd be worried about in the mid 21st century. Billion+ numbers, high birthrate, massive economy, nuclear. But still... their GDP per capita stinks, and like China are very much reliant on international markets.

And that last bit's the great thing about globalization. Nations, especially the powerhouses, are too reliant on trade and international cooperation. Our economies are nowhere near self-sufficient enough to withstand a war with one another. China makes war with the West and NATO, kiss its economy goodbye. It doesn't have enough powerful friends to trade with to maintain it's massive population, economy, and war machine.

Penn Jillette said it best on Bullshit!. Jump to 4:55:

YouTube video