Who would win? ABCA vs ME, China and Russia

[cris29]

Who did you vote for?
Why?

[hound]

Militarily US and allies will finish off any other combination on earth in a month to few months at the most.

If the opposing sides avoid the full frontal fight and opt for guerrilla type fighting then it will be a stalemate.

This all presuming that no nukes and wmds are used.

[Dogukan]

First why do you even include Canada and Australia? They have no soldiers nor any military power. Those two countries are economically rich. They don't rely on weapons, because they know that USA got their back if something happens.

Second is that USA and England would die against China and Russia. Plus where is the battle going to take place? That is very important. But I am sure no matter what USA will lose.

The war will probaly be fought without WMD. So Russia and China both have the same weapons as the USA. Plus they have more soldiers. China has about 2.3 million soldiers. USA has probably 400.000.

[Officer of Engineers]

First why do you even include Canada and Australia? They have no soldiers nor any military power.

Horse Puckey! Name any military operation the US has been involved in since the Kuwait War and you will find Canada as the 3rd or 4th largest force contingent and that includes Iraq.

[Trajan]

First why do you even include Canada and Australia? They have no soldiers nor any military power. Those two countries are economically rich. They don't rely on weapons, because they know that USA got their back if something happens.

No, Australia and Canada both have rather decent armies. You have to remember that Australia has a rather imperalistic neighbor that is a bellicose dictatorship: Indonesia. It would be stupid to rely on USA support for something that could happen within a day.

Second is that USA and England would die against China and Russia. Plus where is the battle going to take place? That is very important. But I am sure no matter what USA will lose.

Most likely within Europe at first unless the Russians land in Alaska. NATO would join the side of the US, and you would have the combined armies of Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Greece, Italy, Finland, Spain, Israel, Holland, Norway, Belgium, and, oh yea, the French too; all helping to invade Russia.

So I can see that numerical advantage shrinking a great deal.

The war will probaly be fought without WMD. So Russia and China both have the same weapons as the USA. Plus they have more soldiers. China has about 2.3 million soldiers. USA has probably 400.000.

It would be fought with WMD but most likely US preventives would manage to destroy those that were fired. Russia and China has the population size and government scruples that would allow them to make such actions.

Russia actually has inferior weapons right now. They're still working on updating their post-cold war weapons stocks and using them. My father works for a weapons design manufactuerer and the Russian government has been ordering large amounts of aircraft equipment, upgrading things of that sort. China has its own designs and military tech, but I would not say that it is onto par with US tech.

Another addition to the "they have more soldiers" comment, is that Japan and India both would most likely join against China and Russia for fear of being occupied or attacked by one of the two. Japan has its self-defense force which is pretty much a fancy title for a well armed if but small army. India has the second largest population in the world and has a decently sized army. Add in Japans ability to re-arm and India's hordes, atop everything else mentioned before, and the odds are shifted in favour of the pro-West forces.

As for the US only have 400,000 soldier...my step-mother is in charge of ROTC and recruiting efforts of all the mid-west (everything east of the mississippi), and I can vouch for the statement that we're well into about 800,000+ armed soldiers. This counts together Reserves, State troops, Regular Army, Rangers, Marines, Air force, Navy, and other specialized forces. In fact I may even be under-counting that number, but it is way more than 400,000.


Also, the Muslim world would most likely go against Russia and China. My reasoning for that being because Communist ideals declare God non-existant and if it came to such a world war, as it would indeed be, then I can see the US removing sanctions against certain middle east countries and providing weapons. Africa would mostly remain neutral and as would Sweden and Switzerland. So you have the world vs China and Russia...guess who I am betting on? ;)

[HistoricalDavid]

First why do you even include Canada and Australia? They have no soldiers nor any military power. Those two countries are economically rich. They don't rely on weapons, because they know that USA got their back if something happens.

Refer to OoE's comments.

Second is that USA and England would die against China and Russia. Plus where is the battle going to take place? That is very important. But I am sure no matter what USA will lose.

Why?

The war will probaly be fought without WMD.

Why?

So Russia and China both have the same weapons as the USA. Plus they have more soldiers. China has about 2.3 million soldiers. USA has probably 400.000.

China has 2.5 million active duty servicemen and the USA 1.4 million active duty. Not that a raw number alone matters much nowadays.

[Tronic]

China has its own designs and military tech, but I would not say that it is onto par with US tech.

Chinese tech is inferior to Russian tech....

Another addition to the "they have more soldiers" comment, is that Japan and India both would most likely join against China and Russia for fear of being occupied or attacked by one of the two. Japan has its self-defense force which is pretty much a fancy title for a well armed if but small army. India has the second largest population in the world and has a decently sized army. Add in Japans ability to re-arm and India's hordes, atop everything else mentioned before, and the odds are shifted in favour of the pro-West forces.

As for the US only have 400,000 soldier...my step-mother is in charge of ROTC and recruiting efforts of all the mid-west (everything east of the mississippi), and I can vouch for the statement that we're well into about 800,000+ armed soldiers. This counts together Reserves, State troops, Regular Army, Rangers, Marines, Air force, Navy, and other specialized forces. In fact I may even be under-counting that number, but it is way more than 400,000.


Also, the Muslim world would most likely go against Russia and China. My reasoning for that being because Communist ideals declare God non-existant and if it came to such a world war, as it would indeed be, then I can see the US removing sanctions against certain middle east countries and providing weapons. Africa would mostly remain neutral and as would Sweden and Switzerland. So you have the world vs China and Russia...guess who I am betting on? ;)

firstly... Middle Eastern dictators will most likely side with China because they are all in the same bed together... and then you can add North Korea, Pakistan, Burma and Cambodia to the Chinese group also... and probably Iran also will side with China... and considering many of those nations have big armies... example Iran has some revolutionary warriors or something like that numbering around 10 million!!! don't know how many of those will probably come and fight though... and as for India joining... don't count on it... unless ofcourse China or Pakistan or Burma invade first... otherwise Indian politicians will gladly sit by and watch and maybe form another NAM alliance... Israel/US will have their hands full in the Middle East and will probably get pummelled if South Asia doesn't erupt... and if South Asia does erupt that will probably keep Pakistan occupied along with Afghani/Pakistani militia... and I doubt Chinese leaders will want to open a front with India if they are fighting the rest of the world... unless ofcourse they get a retard like Hitler in power... and that covers the Middle East and South Asia for you...

[Bill]

This is an easy one...

Here's your winner folks:



Any questions?

[SRB]

This is an easy one...

Here's your winner folks:



Any questions?

Definitly
That war will end when losser side use their nuclear capacty and someone here said that USA can destroy Russian nuclear wave?
Who if Russian launch first?
US umbrella system doesnt work and when it work(we dont no if it will happen ever because it is to hard to intercept ICBM) isnt build to stop such huge attack.
This is why there is MAD.
What I think is what if in Russia some smart ass start in shadow to arm old AA missiles with tactical nuclear warheads(around 40000 warheads) it could be where nasty suprise in future nuclear war because they are capable to intercept and destoroy ICBM. Macmara was really smart man

[HistoricalDavid]

US umbrella system doesnt work and when it work(we dont no if it will happen ever because it is to hard to intercept ICBM) isnt build to stop such huge attack.

Who says it doesn't work? 5/8 successful GBI tests and 6/7 successful SM-3 tests doesn't sound too bad. But no, it isn't designed to defend against Russia.

This is why there is MAD.
What I think is what if in Russia some smart ass start in shadow to arm old AA missiles with tactical nuclear warheads(around 40000 warheads) it could be where nasty suprise in future nuclear war because they are capable to intercept and destoroy ICBM. Macmara was really smart man

Done before. The first wave of missiles would blind your own radars and fry your own country pretty quickly.

[SRB]

Who says it doesn't work? 5/8 successful GBI tests and 6/7 successful SM-3 tests doesn't sound too bad. But no, it isn't designed to defend against Russia.



Done before. The first wave of missiles would blind your own radars and fry your own country pretty quickly.

Do you ever hear for decoy warhead?
Yes I hear that in one test kintetic interceptor hit right not decoy but it had 50% chase because there was real warhead and ONE decoy.What about 2 warhead and 6 decoys?

About MAD.
Why you think that USA will fire first?
As I said looser would fire first and to me Russia will be looser in coventional war.
Also I dont think that old Soviet systems are so vurneble to EMp.Dont forget West transfer or it radars and electronics to chips while in Russia (because of lack of $) they still use old tube radars and systems.
I am not Russian for your info, if you are not from Europe I wouldnt say this,but because you are form Europe I must.

[Bill]

There was no winning a nuke WWIII.

Everyone was dying in that one.

[HistoricalDavid]

Do you ever hear for decoy warhead?
Yes I hear that in one test kintetic interceptor hit right not decoy but it had 50% chase because there was real warhead and ONE decoy.What about 2 warhead and 6 decoys?

This decoy malarkey has been discussed before.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...missile+shield

About MAD.
Why you think that USA will fire first?

I didn't say anything about that... but a nuke-SAM system will still have to defend against missiles no matter what order they're launched in.

As I said looser would fire first and to me Russia will be looser in coventional war.
Also I dont think that old Soviet systems are so vurneble to EMp.Dont forget West transfer or it radars and electronics to chips while in Russia (because of lack of $) they still use old tube radars and systems.
I am not Russian for your info, if you are not from Europe I wouldnt say this,but because you are form Europe I must.

Er, all I said was that nuke-tipped SAMs are a bad idea because they would blind the defender, not by EMP but simply being a big explosion in the sky emitting a godlike amount of radiation. Also, you'd start damaging yourself regardless.

We've had edifying discussions before, I know very well you're not Russian... and while we're talking heritage, I myself do come from the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, specifically Romania.

[Dreadnought]

First why do you even include Canada and Australia? They have no soldiers nor any military power. Those two countries are economically rich. They don't rely on weapons, because they know that USA got their back if something happens.

Second is that USA and England would die against China and Russia. Plus where is the battle going to take place? That is very important. But I am sure no matter what USA will lose.

The war will probaly be fought without WMD. So Russia and China both have the same weapons as the USA. Plus they have more soldiers. China has about 2.3 million soldiers. USA has probably 400.000.

Put your crack pipe on the deck and slowly back away and go study military history. Assclown

[lwarmonger]

Second is that USA and England would die against China and Russia. Plus where is the battle going to take place? That is very important. But I am sure no matter what USA will lose.

We can kick any ass on earth. Our level of military superiority is unprecedented.

The war will probaly be fought without WMD. So Russia and China both have the same weapons as the USA. Plus they have more soldiers. China has about 2.3 million soldiers. USA has probably 400.000.

Even without nukes we could crush the Chinese and the Russians. But why wouldn't we use nukes when we started pushing into China?