Re: China and Russia Vs. USA Conventional war who wins?
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.
Re: Re: China and Russia Vs. USA Conventional war who wins?
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
[b]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. [/B]
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.
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 Flyattractor
[b]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.
[/B]
Please prove President Obama would have any significant detrimental impact in a conventional war please.
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.