World War III. USA, UK, Israel vs China, Russia, Iran. Who wins?

[1987_Lakers]

http://www.dailybbcnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/world-war-III.jpg

[EnoughSaid]

Whoever has China always wins.

/thread

[RidonKs]

golly gee, i wonder, this is like inserting a samarai into a fight between pre-schoolers

but in actuality, the truth is that everyone would lose

[1987_Lakers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CPZoBfIe1Y

[Scholar]

Whichever countries end up winning definitely won't be the losers.


Elementary, my good fellows.

[The Answer]

Assuming the war goes nuclear, everybody would lose. With that said, however, it's obvious that China and Russia would not get involved in any military conflict between Iran and the US/Israel.

[Sarcastic]

The US could beat all those countries by itself.

We spend more than like the next 50 countries combined on the military. Plus we have 2 huge oceans surrounding us that makes it incredibly hard to attack our mainland.

[RaininTwos]

The US could beat all those countries by itself.

We spend more than like the next 50 countries combined on the military. Plus we have 2 huge oceans surrounding us that makes it incredibly hard to attack our mainland.

I dont know if this post is serious but I lol'ed @ "2 huge oceans".

[Story Up]

The US could beat all those countries by itself.

We spend more than like the next 50 countries combined on the military. Plus we have 2 huge oceans surrounding us that makes it incredibly hard to attack our mainland.
You're an idiot.

[skan72]

I dont know if this post is serious but I lol'ed @ "2 huge oceans".

I never know whether or not Sarcastic's posts are serious or not. His schtick, like his name, is sarcasm, but some of his posts are so idiotic (or sarcastic??) it's very tempting to take them seriously and flame him. But you never know...

[GilZero]

UK is nothing but old glory, they have nothing to put up against anyone.

China, Russia and Iran would eat the US and Israel for breakfast. really.

[KeylessEntry]

The US could beat all those countries by itself.

We spend more than like the next 50 countries combined on the military. Plus we have 2 huge oceans surrounding us that makes it incredibly hard to attack our mainland.

If no nukes are allowed (everybody loses), i agree the US would probably win vs all those countries. We spend way more than all of them combined, and on top of that it would be almost impossible for a foreign military to even get to US soil for an actual invasion. nobody else has an army of predator and reaper drones or a stable of f22 raptors, and check out the carrier fleet comparison.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.gif

[B-Easy8]

If it's not nuclear and no allies get involved I would back China, Russia and Iran. I don't think people know what China is capable of.

[97 bulls]

I dont know if this post is serious but I lol'ed @ "2 huge oceans".
Actually, sarcastic is correct. The threat of invasion doesn't exist for the US. Not without a few days notice. And this is the US biggest strength.

[macmac]

If I had any money to bet... I'd bet it all on the U. S of A. Good, bad or indifferent.

Especially if your money was in US currency...

USA has by far, far, the strongest army in the world...now China, Russia and Iran? Might be a challenge, but Israel is no small fry either. They are trained to live every day in the serpents nest...

If the american economy completely crumbles, their incredible army will be the only thing they can hang their hats on, and that can be an extremely dangerous set of circumstances for the rest of the world

[JtotheIzzo]

Anyone who says anything other than the US is a complete and utter jackass.

This thread is over.

[LuppersGB]

In all out war I think it would be close.
The western armies have far far superior technological capability, also far more versatile Military forces.
The key question is where it would be fought geographically? The US military projection surpasses the other three combined. If the US was the general force whilst using the British and the Israelis as a skirmisher-esque asset they could inflict a serious amount of damage.

On the other hand if you look at the numbers game: Iran, Russia and China have a monstrous advantage.
Russia has a reserve force of 20million!
'Eastern' has a force of approx. 29,400,000
'Western' has a force of approx. 4,050,000
That's a 7:1 ratio against, in military strategy you look to gain victory by having at least a 3:1 ratio of forces availiable
and at the end of the day a $10 Ak-47 can still kill as many as a $1.2bill stealth fighter, because they have a lot of Ak-47s....

[RaininThrees]

No one.

[pauk]

US would wipe the floor...

Gimme these US weapons and i will kill em all myself... :pimp:

FOR INFANTRY ACTION:

CheyTac M200 sniper rifle:
http://forum.valka.cz/files/am200c-set-up-c_538.gif

.44/.50 cal Raging Bull:
http://www.justpistols.co.uk/rb_00008.jpg

FOR AA DEFENSE/OFFENSE

USS Essex Turret/Cannon:
http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/laser-cannon.jpg

M6 Bradley Linebacker:
http://www.army-guide.com/images/machbet_wieuriw4.jpg

FOR ANTI-TANK AND NUCLEAR BOMB DROPPING

A-10 Warthog::
http://i.pbase.com/o5/13/504713/1/69712422.El1qSHoz.warthoggunmouthresize.jpg

B2 Bomber:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/B-2_spirit_bombing.jpg/220px-B-2_spirit_bombing.jpg

FOR JET/DOGFIGHTING

F22 Raptor:
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/12/2009/07/f22_raptor_supersonic_jalopnik.jpg

F16 Hornet:
http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/f-16in-1.jpg

[JtotheIzzo]

Another thing to take into consideration is the US etc... would be allowed to use 95% of the countries in the world for bases, refueling, logistics, support etc... while The Chinese, Russians and Iranians would have North Korea, Cuba and maybe a couple of Central Asian and Middle Eastern countries.

Their massive number of soldiers would be irrelevant because they could not be used offensively.

It is only in the last couple of years that China has had the capabilities to take tiny Taiwan, the idea that they can get these troops elsewhere is preposterous.

[pauk]

and yes... i play to much Battlefield 3 :oldlol:

[LuppersGB]

I raise you
http://obamaforwards.com/content/binary/PutinVsObama.jpg

[LuppersGB]

Another thing to take into consideration is the US etc... would be allowed to use 95% of the countries in the world for bases, refueling, logistics, support etc... while The Chinese, Russians and Iranians would have North Korea, Cuba and maybe a couple of Central Asian and Middle Eastern countries.

Their massive number of soldiers would be irrelevant because they could not be used offensively.

It is only in the last couple of years that China has had the capabilities to take tiny Taiwan, the idea that they can get these troops elsewhere is preposterous.

so the fight would be on their soil which the logistics of the 'west' could handle. However against a trained force ie an individual who can fire a weapon system in the right direction with a certain degree of skill/undertstanding to what they are doing in a defensive position is f*cking hard to take on. Especially if you are numerically disadvantaged.
I'm definitely thinking that the west can not in anyway win this.

[B-Easy8]

Give me the Germans.

Everyone who is listing all the weapons the US has, do you think China and Russia wouldn't have this stuff also? They just have no intention of sharing what they have but I can guarantee that they would have a lot of shit themselves. Weapons aren't the whole story either, look at the Vietnam war. The sheer size of Russia, there massive population that they are willing to kill for nothing and there awful climate completely derailed the Nazis also so that also needs to be taken into consideration.

[JtotheIzzo]

so the fight would be on their soil which the logistics of the 'west' could handle. However against a trained force ie an individual who can fire a weapon system in the right direction with a certain degree of skill/undertstanding to what they are doing in a defensive position is f*cking hard to take on. Especially if you are numerically disadvantaged.
I'm definitely thinking that the west can not in anyway win this.

not sure if serious (add gif as necessary).

if it is fought on their soil, they have absolutely no chance of even challenging, let alone winning, they have no outward attacking ability, and the West can attack from all 4 directions as they have allies in all four directions.

bombs negate any numerical advantage, and with Western countries being basically untouched (due to the lack of forward attack from the CN/RU team) they can continue to churn out artillery at break neck speed.

ALSO

standing army aside, if the US and the UK had a draft, the numbers would approach equal very quickly.

There is NO WAY a China/Russia team could win this, their ceiling is holding off the west for an extended period of time inside their own borders.

Hardly world domination.

In WW2 the Germans and Japanese had serious amphibious capabilities and for long while superior air capabilities.

The Chinese and Russians have very few amphibious vehicles to transport troops and are at a serious air disadvantage.

but then again, if you think bunkering up in your own backyard and putting out human shield after human shield is a victory, then there is really no point in having a meaningful discussion about this.

[JtotheIzzo]

Give me the Germans.

Everyone who is listing all the weapons the US has, do you think China and Russia wouldn't have this stuff also? They just have no intention of sharing what they have but I can guarantee that they would have a lot of shit themselves. Weapons aren't the whole story either, look at the Vietnam war. The sheer size of Russia, there massive population that they are willing to kill for nothing and there awful climate completely derailed the Nazis also so that also needs to be taken into consideration.

you cannot hide aircraft carriers, and it is hard to hide fighter jets. When you have no overseas bases, bombing campaigns cannot be done (too much distance).

I'd be careful about how loosely you throw out your 'guarantee', your word may soon turn to mud.

The Russian climate only derailed the Germans because the Russians had very few paved roads for German infantry to traverse and they literally got stuck int he mud. Different time we live in now.

[RidonKs]

also bear in mind the game would be entirely different than, say, the frustrating invasions into Iraq and Afghanistan and even 'Nam because western strategy would come much closer to approaching total war that most other non-dominant nations tend to use anyway. the americans don't really need to and, more than any other superpower in history, they're worried about killing civilians because it causes major backlash on the homeland... not worried enough to stop, but worried enough to always provide pseudoexplanation and rationalization to please the loony lefties back home.

an event like this? they would take out entire f*cking cities, think dresden but way worse. oh, and missile defense systems are a hundred million times on the side of whoever plays with the americans. it would be difficult to get anything through.

the americans would set the conditions of the battle and win as a result.

[B-Easy8]

Where is this American money coming from also? If a war broke out they would need to borrow trillions and the country that has all the money is there enemy. The economy is already piss weak as is there would be a massive revolt if this were to happen.

[JtotheIzzo]

Where is this American money coming from also? If a war broke out they would need to borrow trillions and the country that has all the money is there enemy. The economy is already piss weak as is there would be a massive revolt if this were to happen.

:roll:

China owns 11% of US debt, hardly a drama. and don't forget the old adage: "If you owe the bank $100 you have a problem, if you owe the bank $1M the bank has a problem."

And as 'weak' as the US economy appears to be they are still infinitely richer than China where 70% of the population still lives in poverty.

Don't forget the main reason Germany went to war in WW2 was because their economy was in tatters and they almost took over the world. The US has a much wider gap in power than the Germans ever did.

[shlver]

I wonder if some of these guys know the extent of how large our naval and air forces are in comparison to other nations.

[LuppersGB]

not sure if serious (add gif as necessary).

if it is fought on their soil, they have absolutely no chance of even challenging, let alone winning, they have no outward attacking ability, and the West can attack from all 4 directions as they have allies in all four directions.

bombs negate any numerical advantage, and with Western countries being basically untouched (due to the lack of forward attack from the CN/RU team) they can continue to churn out artillery at break neck speed.

ALSO

standing army aside, if the US and the UK had a draft, the numbers would approach equal very quickly.

There is NO WAY a China/Russia team could win this, their ceiling is holding off the west for an extended period of time inside their own borders.

Hardly world domination.

In WW2 the Germans and Japanese had serious amphibious capabilities and for long while superior air capabilities.

The Chinese and Russians have very few amphibious vehicles to transport troops and are at a serious air disadvantage.

but then again, if you think bunkering up in your own backyard and putting out human shield after human shield is a victory, then there is really no point in having a meaningful discussion about this.
:blah
If the Chinese had a draft today they have 300,000,000 available.
I don't think you are understanding the sheer amount of people available to the other guys. The UK and Israel have very small but efficient Armed forces, the other guys have huge number, literally mind bogglingly huge armies. Technology is useful in war but and the end of the day a primitive weapon system like a Kalashnikov can still kill as effectively as one that that cost millions.
The Russians have a blue water navy that can match the UK and trounce it, granted they would lose in a surface battle against the US. It has more nuclear weapons, and lots of MOABs...which the US don't have. The numbers game has an advantage, because the US does not have an unlimited supply of weapons.
The 'east' team does have a fight back ability, because you can advance out off defense and Russia is pretty damn close the the USA.
Alliances: The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation include India as an observer, you now have to fight a force of 4,100,000 and an active recall of 300,000,000 eligible personnel. It is absolutely a numbers game

[FatComputerNerd]

I think USA would be in trouble.

Reason being, if we got involved in a large scale conflagration like that, we could also see full on civil war break out within our borders.

Too many hippies/liberals, and also extremists who hate Israel, and are wanting to have our own "Arab spring".

Things could get real ugly real quick.

[creepingdeath]

Lots of naive adolescent gaming nerds in this thread.

[Dolphin]

It's all fine an dandy us ISHiots spouting knowledge about how US, let alone allied with Israel and Britain would easily win this "war" as if it's a video game, but let's consider the real costs of a war such as this. You realize how many American, Israeli and British nationals (as well as nationals from any other allies) would be slaughtered? You can kiss any family member you have in the middle east, central Asia, east Asia, Russia, etc. good bye.

You might say the military cost for "our side" would be relatively small compared to the other side's.....but the loss of life on both sides would be disastrous.

What happens if the US starts nuking these countries, killing innocent citizens and say some European countries, amongst others, start to really not be happy with what's going on and perhaps not side with Russia, but say enough is enough and suddenly are starting to put their foot down? Does the US bomb them too?

What if this alienates the US, Israel, Britain and others from the rest of the world. Good bye America being a first world country for long. Unless they are gonna kill everyone and use their resources. lol

Plus, Britain would be the first to back out and say "Whoa, this is going too far." It would be the US, Israel and a bunch of "half in" allies.

The real damage would be done when the dust settles. Poor living conditions and a lot less allies. Would only be waiting for WW4.

[DeuceWallaces]

Don't be fooled by bullshit in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea or even Vietnam; the US was somewhat hindered by policy and public perception.

An all out for real WWIII would result in a fully unleashed US Army.

[falc39]

Geez, judging by some of the responses it seems people actually want a war to happen.

Everyone would lose in such a war, especially since China holds so much of our debt and we have such a large trade deficit with them. We would see an immediate drop in living standards and that's not even counting the jump in real resources we will have to produce and allocate to cover the costs of another war.

Honestly, I'm sick and tired of hearing so much about these potential "wars". It's all propoganda, fear-mongering, and blame-placing to cover the problems of our own doing. It's almost like people want war to happen, to see people fantasizing about it (not singling out anyone in particular). Actually, all the looney republican candidates sans Ron Paul actually want it. We should have it so that people in favor of a war get sent out first if it ever happens.

[lakers_forever]

The era of war between powerful countries is over. Because of nukes, there would not be any winners in a world war. The planet would not resist.

But just for the fun of it, what about other countries? Who would they support?

We all know Nato would support US/UK, but what about Important countries with big military forces like Brazil, India and Pakistan?

[LJJ]

While the USA has the most powerful military by far, once you reach a certain threshold of damage-doing capacity it doesn't really matter.

Russia and China both have many equipped nuclear submarines. In an all out war they have the capacity to completely lay waste to the entirety of the USA. Who cares who is more powerful, when each of them are powerful enough to annihilate each other?

[BurningHammer]

USA, UK, Israel would win, but I would still wish Israel to lose anyway.

[Real Men Wear Green]

"Mutually assured destruction." We do have the smartest, strongest, best-armed military but when everyone is firing nukes everyone dies. Whichever side has the ability (if either side has the ability) to disarm the other's nuclear arsenal first is the victor, but I don't think anyone has that power. This could be why all members of the security council have veto power instead of a more democratic system, because you can't risk offending any of these countries.

[The Answer]

"Mutually assured destruction." We do have the smartest, strongest, best-armed military but when everyone is firing nukes everyone dies. Whichever side has the ability (if either side has the ability) to disarm the other's nuclear arsenal first is the victor, but I don't think anyone has that power. This could be why all members of the security council have veto power instead of a more democratic system, because you can't risk offending any of these countries.

You're exactly right. A lot of people in this thread are seriously underestimating the number of ICBMs that Russia and China possess. They could absolutely obliterate this country. Furthermore, the US could not knock out its opponents' nuclear arsenals in a first strike, and the US also does not have the kind of missile defense system in place to protect itself from a massive nuclear assault. While the United States undoubtedly has a major conventional military edge over both the Chinese and Russians, it wouldn't matter at all the moment this war escalated to the point where a nuclear exchange became inevitable. The most likely result of this war: everybody loses.

[Dictator]

USA most likely......loses

[Timmy D for MVP]

I'm not sure some of you realize the scope of our Naval and especially out Air Forces. And I truly hope that no one ever will because that would mean a full scale war. And no one wants that.

[Dolphin]

not sure if serious (add gif as necessary).

if it is fought on their soil, they have absolutely no chance of even challenging, let alone winning, they have no outward attacking ability, and the West can attack from all 4 directions as they have allies in all four directions.

bombs negate any numerical advantage, and with Western countries being basically untouched (due to the lack of forward attack from the CN/RU team) they can continue to churn out artillery at break neck speed.

ALSO

standing army aside, if the US and the UK had a draft, the numbers would approach equal very quickly.

There is NO WAY a China/Russia team could win this, their ceiling is holding off the west for an extended period of time inside their own borders.

Hardly world domination.

In WW2 the Germans and Japanese had serious amphibious capabilities and for long while superior air capabilities.

The Chinese and Russians have very few amphibious vehicles to transport troops and are at a serious air disadvantage.

but then again, if you think bunkering up in your own backyard and putting out human shield after human shield is a victory, then there is really no point in having a meaningful discussion about this.

On another note, I think the US would have a very hard time with implementing a draft even if it was truly required. Way too many people willing to tell the gov't to **** off. Especially if the US were to use nukes and kill millions of people.

I'm not sure about civil war exactly (especially if Russia/China are genuinely seen as the bad guys), but I believe we would see mass protestations against being drafted.

It would be interesting to see how the gov't would deal with it. You can't arrest them all. And the ones you do, are you gonna just imprison them, send them overseas and say "See ya later......IN HELLLLLLL!" lol

That would be a big scar on America's history.

But then again, this is an all out nuke war apparently, so I guess that would be far down the list of worries. lol

[Norcaliblunt]

Banker's and military defense corps are the only ones who would win in this. LMAO at anyone saying anything else.

Learn about how banks fund both sides of wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs

And lmao at people who still think elites give a crap about nationalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk

[fiddy]

No one.
It was about time someone go to the answer

[Norcaliblunt]

It was about time someone go to the answer


But that isn't the answer. History has shown us that banks/lenders who fund these wars are the true winners.

[bdreason]

U.S. has nukes all around the world, and on aircraft carriers that can travel anywhere in the world. I pity the Nations who challenge the U.S. in the next World War.

[fiddy]

But that isn't the answer. History has shown us that banks/lenders who fund these wars are the true winners.
I dont think anyone would survive ww3.

Btw i read somewhere a guy called USA=4th reich :D

[fiddy]

U.S. has nukes all around the world, and on aircraft carriers that can travel anywhere in the world. I pity the Nations who challenge the U.S. in the next World War.
Many nations have nukes and maybe other weapons.

Back in 1979 russians wiped about 100k chinese with a laser weapon.

[GilZero]

Laughing so hard at this thread, most of you know NOTHING and still so very certain about your opinion.

NO ONE knows how much military power China or Russia really have.

[Nick Young]

Israel+USA:rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

[Draz]

I don't think it matters. We wouldn't want to be in a war with any country. Look at Pakistan for example, or India. Anyone want to go to war against them? A war is a war, at this point and time countries are far more advanced. It takes one bullet to kill a man, one bomb to kill thousands, how more advanced does one weapon or bomb need to be? Maybe the U.S. is far superior but, like I said all this won't matter when were all wiped out off the face of this planet. If a bomb doesn't kill us, radiation will.

[ErhnamDjinn]

I think USA would be in trouble.

Reason being, if we got involved in a large scale conflagration like that, we could also see full on civil war break out within our borders.

Too many hippies/liberals, and also extremists who hate Israel, and are wanting to have our own "Arab spring".

Things could get real ugly real quick.
I dont think that would happen if anything thats what you Americans are good at is getting together when someone oppresses you, I think it was Yamamoto who said it would be a mistake to invade America because when you guys put your mind on one thing you guys become a well oiled machine, same thing when 911 happened imagine if China or Russia tried to invade your country youd kick them all to the curb.

[JtotheIzzo]

:blah
If the Chinese had a draft today they have 300,000,000 available.
I don't think you are understanding the sheer amount of people available to the other guys. The UK and Israel have very small but efficient Armed forces, the other guys have huge number, literally mind bogglingly huge armies. Technology is useful in war but and the end of the day a primitive weapon system like a Kalashnikov can still kill as effectively as one that that cost millions.
The Russians have a blue water navy that can match the UK and trounce it, granted they would lose in a surface battle against the US. It has more nuclear weapons, and lots of MOABs...which the US don't have. The numbers game has an advantage, because the US does not have an unlimited supply of weapons.
The 'east' team does have a fight back ability, because you can advance out off defense and Russia is pretty damn close the the USA.
Alliances: The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation include India as an observer, you now have to fight a force of 4,100,000 and an active recall of 300,000,000 eligible personnel. It is absolutely a numbers game


India would NOT side with China, are you on crack? No? Oh yeah, that's right, you're an idiot.

[RidonKs]

seriously... there's a reason the liberal scum decry american military imperialism... it's because it's always unilaterally and quite often unjustly taking international affairs into their own hands because they're the big dog.

but if the world split into camps and Chinese, Russian, and Iranian forces were overtly seeking to murder American civilians on their own soil? f*cking jesus, there might be a tiny dissenting minority but everybody else would be up in arms, literally. like dude said above, the country would turn into a well oiled machine and kick the living crap out of their opponents. nuts to the numbers game, drones rule the battlefield now.

[Sarcastic]

Many nations have nukes and maybe other weapons.

Back in 1979 russians wiped about 100k chinese with a laser weapon.

They don't have the means to deliver them to the mainland US.

The United States can put a nuke anywhere on the planet within a few hours.

[KeylessEntry]

If nukes are off limits, US wins.

If nukes are used, everyone loses.

[Hazard]

As a Russian Jew living in USA, I don't like these teams. Trade UK for Russia, throw in 2 draft picks. I think they would do it.

[donald love]

South America is underrated.

[RedBlackAttack]

I can't believe that this is even being debated.

I mean, I understand the real cost of war and this isn't a video game or a sporting event, but if you are going to make a thread like this with a question of "who wins," the answer is so simple that it isn't even worth discussing.

People really need to understand that our military takes great pains to keep civilian casualties low because it would upset the rest of the world and a lot of our own population, which is paying for the war with our tax dollars.

Civilian death in Iraq and Afghanistan still happens quite a bit, but it isn't for a lack of trying to keep it down.

In a war like this wherein our country would be decimated if we lost and the US was really forced to unleash the military without concern of civilian casualties or backlash...

You would see countries literally flattened and it doesn't even necessarily have to be done with nuclear weapons.

Then, you think about what it would take for a country to have a real military campaign in the United States and the difficulty that our defense systems as well as natural boundaries present?

This would not be a fair fight. Throw in two very competent military units in the UK and Israel?

I mean, come on people...

http://oi42.tinypic.com/a9vmlu.jpg

This isn't the 1700s anymore where battles are won by whichever side has more troops and you just line them up face-to-face and fire at one another. The size of the military takes a backseat to the technology, strategy, competency and available assets.

Our military industrial complex is absolutely massive... awe-inspiring. And this is coming from a person that would love to see the defense budget cut in half.

Reagan began building a completely out-of-control defense in an effort to lure the Soviet Union into a spending contest and, as a result, to totally bankrupt them. That was in the early 1980s and it worked. The USSR collapsed.

However, the second part of Reagan's plan was to slash the defense spending once the Soviet Union crumbled. It never happened and, in fact, that spending continued to increase over the ensuing 30 years. What we put into our defense is absolutely and completely insane. It can't be defended by any rational human being.

If you total up all of the money that all of the world spends on defense, the US encompasses 43-percent of the world's defense spending. China accounts for exactly 7.3-percent, while Russia is at 3.5-percent and Iran isn't even above 1-percent.

Throw in the UK at 3.7-percent and Israel, who has probably the second best Air Force in the world behind only the US...

Then throw in things like number of military bases and the vast amount of area that the US side would be able to use to set up invasions as opposed to the other side...

This is not debatable.

[RedBlackAttack]

You can throw all the military budget shit out the window, because it doesn't really matter in a long term war where the whole economy would be put towards the effort by every nation.
I think the point that you are missing is that we've had a military budget that is equal to about the next 19 nations combined for the last 25 years (since the collapse of the USSR).

This isn't about what the budgets will be once the war starts. It is about what those 25 years of building a military with this absolutely ridiculous spending has ALREADY done to America's military in contrast to the rest of the world.

Think about what kind of stockpiles and technology and training, etc. that amount of money for that amount of time brings.

[Norcaliblunt]

I can't believe that this is even being debated.

I mean, I understand the real cost of war and this isn't a video game or a sporting event, but if you are going to make a thread like this with a question of "who wins," the answer is so simple that it isn't even worth discussing.

People really need to understand that our military takes great pains to keep civilian casualties low because it would upset the rest of the world and a lot of our own population, which is paying for the war with our tax dollars.

Civilian death in Iraq and Afghanistan still happens quite a bit, but it isn't for a lack of trying to keep it down.

In a war like this wherein our country would be decimated if we lost and the US was really forced to unleash the military without concern of civilian casualties or backlash...

You would see countries literally flattened and it doesn't even necessarily have to be done with nuclear weapons.

Then, you think about what it would take for a country to have a real military campaign in the United States and the difficulty that our defense systems as well as natural boundaries present?

This would not be a fair fight. Throw in two very competent military units in the UK and Israel?

I mean, come on people...

http://oi42.tinypic.com/a9vmlu.jpg

This isn't the 1700s anymore where battles are won by whichever side has more troops and you just line them up face-to-face and fire at one another. The size of the military takes a backseat to the technology, strategy, competency and available assets.

Our military industrial complex is absolutely massive... awe-inspiring. And this is coming from a person that would love to see the defense budget cut in half.

Reagan began building a completely out-of-control defense in an effort to lure the Soviet Union into a spending contest and, as a result, to totally bankrupt them. That was in the early 1980s and it worked. The USSR collapsed.

However, the second part of Reagan's plan was to slash the defense spending once the Soviet Union crumbled. It never happened and, in fact, that spending continued to increase over the ensuing 30 years. What we put into our defense is absolutely and completely insane. It can't be defended by any rational human being.

If you total up all of the money that all of the world spends on defense, the US encompasses 43-percent of the world's defense spending. China accounts for exactly 7.3-percent, while Russia is at 3.5-percent and Iran isn't even above 1-percent.

Throw in the UK at 3.7-percent and Israel, who has probably the second best Air Force in the world behind only the US...

Then throw in things like number of military bases and the vast amount of area that the US side would be able to use to set up invasions as opposed to the other side...

This is not debatable.


This is a good example why banks and defense corps are the only true winners and not any nation or it's people. With that kind of money being spent and lent it should be fairly obvious to anyone with common sense that WWIII would just be business as usual.

[Jan95]

I just know, that common people would not win.

[Sarcastic]

I just know, that common people would not win.

They never have and never will.

[Scoooter]

Do we get Germany too? They make some cool shit.

[dunksby]

And as expected the thread turned into a pissing contest :lol

[Lebron23]

US would wipe the floor...

Gimme these US weapons and i will kill em all myself... :pimp:

FOR INFANTRY ACTION:

CheyTac M200 sniper rifle:
http://forum.valka.cz/files/am200c-set-up-c_538.gif

.44/.50 cal Raging Bull:
http://www.justpistols.co.uk/rb_00008.jpg

FOR AA DEFENSE/OFFENSE

USS Essex Turret/Cannon:
http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/laser-cannon.jpg

M6 Bradley Linebacker:
http://www.army-guide.com/images/machbet_wieuriw4.jpg

FOR ANTI-TANK AND NUCLEAR BOMB DROPPING

A-10 Warthog::
http://i.pbase.com/o5/13/504713/1/69712422.El1qSHoz.warthoggunmouthresize.jpg

B2 Bomber:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/B-2_spirit_bombing.jpg/220px-B-2_spirit_bombing.jpg

FOR JET/DOGFIGHTING

F22 Raptor:
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/12/2009/07/f22_raptor_supersonic_jalopnik.jpg

F16 Hornet:
http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/f-16in-1.jpg




http://i39.tinypic.com/t5nech.jpg

[niko]

The US would win. Our millitary has actually battle tested our toys whereas other countries are just collecting as a deterrent. China has fought wars recently against whom? Everything is theoretical.

That said i'm not anxious to see it in action.

[BMOGEFan]

Why do people still talk about nuclear technology.

That is some 70 year old shit your talking about...The current weapons would make the nuclear bomb look like ants.

[Joshumitsu]

US has superior technology.

That being said, no one would win in the given scenario. It'd be too long and drawn out of a war.

I'd say if WWIII happens, it'd be 50-100 years into the future and would consist mostly of NATO+Allies vs. N. Korea and/or Iran with several theaters in Asia (Philippines, Burma), Africa, and the Mid-East (Iraq and possibly, Syria). China and Russia would have to be distanced enough that they wouldn't be interested in backing up these countries.

Otherwise, superpower vs. superpower is a waste of resources.

[shlver]

Why even list Israel? They don't matter at all.
How do you know? Their nuclear program is one of the most secretive in the world.

[shlver]

We have 14 active Ohio class submarines capable of delivering 4032 nuclear warheads to anywhere in the world with no treaty reductions with virtual undectability until them being fired. That is just the navy part of our nuclear triad.

[Derka]

US ability to project power anywhere in the world is unmatched. Right away, that's a huge advantage. This also translates to essentially forcing these other countries to defend home turf...there's no way someone's landing an invasion force on US shores.

China's and Russia's advantages rest in pure manpower, but in terms of technology and training...I'll take the US and Israel's troops whether on land, air and sea.

Iran...lol. Unless they're using civilians as suicide bombers and fighting the war through proxy terrorist groups it finances, US troops will doing the cha-cha in Tehran within mere days of eliminating its tiny frigate Navy and taking Bandar Abbas.

The biggest question, as many have brought up already, is the nuclear question. That's a whoooole other discussion.

I think in terms of a conventional war being fought, Russia and China's losses would be enormous...but they're losses both countries are willing to take those losses and keep fighting. Would the US be willing to do the same? I'm not so sure our soft, incredibly weak citizens would be able to stomach it.

[LBJMVP]

F*ck britian... U.S and Israel are two of the best armies in the world.

we would F*ck up anyone... we won world war 2 with one hand tied behind our back. do you know how much this country can do during war time? look at the transformation prior to pearl harbor and then during the war.

no nukes, we would win... alot of deaths because the asian countries have so much pride that five asians will kill themselves just to kill one american.

if an invading force ever even landed in the U.S. which is almost impossible... then they would still have to manuevuer throughout the territory. our country has so many different eliments. desert, mountain, forrest, fields, water...

[Derka]

if an invading force ever even landed in the U.S. which is almost impossible... then they would still have to manuevuer throughout the territory. our country has so many different eliments. desert, mountain, forrest, fields, water...

To say nothing of a strong National Guard and a well-armed civilian population.

[Velocirap31]

F*ck britian... U.S and Israel are two of the best armies in the world.

we would F*ck up anyone... we won world war 2 with one hand tied behind our back. do you know how much this country can do during war time? look at the transformation prior to pearl harbor and then during the war.

no nukes, we would win... alot of deaths because the asian countries have so much pride that five asians will kill themselves just to kill one american.

if an invading force ever even landed in the U.S. which is almost impossible... then they would still have to manuevuer throughout the territory. our country has so many different eliments. desert, mountain, forrest, fields, water...

Buuuuuuullllshit you did. You guys showed up almost 3 years late when Germany was already losing ground to the Russians and Allies. You took out Japan thanks to the German scientists that fled Germany to teach you how to build an atomic bomb. If you guys had invaded Japan, the war wouldn't have ended for at least another year.

[LBJMVP]

Buuuuuuullllshit you did. You guys showed up almost 3 years late when Germany was already losing ground to the Russians and Allies. You took out Japan thanks to the German scientists that fled Germany to teach you how to build an atomic bomb. If you guys had invaded Japan, the war wouldn't have ended for at least another year.

we practically took out japan single handely and britian was F*cked if we didnt send them free weapons when we weren't part of it. we would have taken out japan regardless of the Nukes. we had the surrounded, russia was attacking from the backside.

U.S. probly used about 75% effort in that war.

[Velocirap31]

we practically took out japan single handely and britian was F*cked if we didnt send them free weapons when we weren't part of it. we would have taken out japan regardless of the Nukes. we had the surrounded, russia was attacking from the backside.

U.S. probly used about 75% effort in that war.

Russia defeated Germany on their own without USA's assistance. Britain was definitely toast without your help though which would have allowed the Germans to face Russia on one front alone, which could have changed things drastically. Your country's military was terrible pre-WW2 but afterwards it was probably the best. Those weapons weren't free lol, The US made a killing off of WW2. WW2 made you guys a superpower (along with cotton and slavery). Remember that Russia made it to Berlin days ahead of the Allies and also suffered by far the most casualties of the war.

You would have defeated Japan without the bomb, but it would have been at the cost of close to a hundred thousand US troops or more and an invasion would have taken years probably. Give props to the German scientists though, they gave you the bomb and then led NASA's apollo program. Luckily, they realized the Nazi's evil and fled to your country (some fled to Russia, but communism was unpopular then as it is now).

[L8k3r5]

If nukes are off limits, US wins.

If nukes are used, everyone loses.
THIS
/Thread

[bdreason]

The U.S.A. can tactically nuke anywhere in the entire World. We control the Oceans, and have a geographical advantage. I feel sorry for the Countries who decide to engage in a Nuclear War with the United States.

[Crystallas]

Ummmm...

A war, just to have a war? LOL?

You need a real motive first.

[G-Funk]

Hiroshima Victims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyIHlKKDrfc&feature=relmfu

[shlver]

The U.S.A. can tactically nuke anywhere in the entire World. We control the Oceans, and have a geographical advantage. I feel sorry for the Countries who decide to engage in a Nuclear War with the United States.
This. Our SLBM's are basically impervious to first strike.

[tomtucker]

The U.S.A. can tactically nuke anywhere in the entire World. We control the Oceans, and have a geographical advantage. I feel sorry for the Countries who decide to engage in a Nuclear War with the United States.

uh, everybody loses in a Nuclear War

[RaininTwos]

People still think we are in the forties, if world war 3 were to break out, shit would be like jerico. You would have to be a fool to talk with such arrogance. I just cannot see another world war where the us mainland goes through completely unscathed. Big cities will be hit hard. Islamic extremist groups automatically side with iranian teams. Sleeper cells are activated and you can say bye bye to nyc,chicago,la,etc.

[CeltsGarlic]

F*ck britian... U.S and Israel are two of the best armies in the world.

we would F*ck up anyone... we won world war 2 with one hand tied behind our back. do you know how much this country can do during war time? look at the transformation prior to pearl harbor and then during the war.

no nukes, we would win... alot of deaths because the asian countries have so much pride that five asians will kill themselves just to kill one american.

if an invading force ever even landed in the U.S. which is almost impossible... then they would still have to manuevuer throughout the territory. our country has so many different eliments. desert, mountain, forrest, fields, water...


https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/198989_1832572427729_1642953148_1842284_47040_n.jp g

[Jello]

There will never be nukes used in a war ever again by a nation unless it is some rogue idiot extremist that managed to get their hands on one.

[Jello]

People still think we are in the forties, if world war 3 were to break out, shit would be like jerico. You would have to be a fool to talk with such arrogance. I just cannot see another world war where the us mainland goes through completely unscathed. Big cities will be hit hard. Islamic extremist groups automatically side with iranian teams. Sleeper cells are activated and you can say bye bye to nyc,chicago,la,etc.
So you think those groups' sleeper cells have the ability to level those cities? You are delusional. Once again, nukes will not be used because whoever uses them first will have the force of almost every nuke possessing nation and any other nation on them. A first nuclear strike is a suicide wish.

[D-Wade316]

Buuuuuuullllshit you did. You guys showed up almost 3 years late when Germany was already losing ground to the Russians and Allies. You took out Japan thanks to the German scientists that fled Germany to teach you how to build an atomic bomb. If you guys had invaded Japan, the war wouldn't have ended for at least another year.
I think not. They still had a chance in 1942. By 1943 they could only delay the inevitable. So the Western powers were late for 1 year. I believe the war in Europe could have been won without Normandy.

[RaininTwos]

So you think those groups' sleeper cells have the ability to level those cities? You are delusional. Once again, nukes will not be used because whoever uses them first will have the force of almost every nuke possessing nation and any other nation on them. A first nuclear strike is a suicide wish.
You seriously cant expect everyone to choose sides in a war like this. If nukes were used, countries would be extremely hesitant to join.

I dont think that nukes will be used, my point was that people shouldnt expect other countries to be virtually destroyed without the us sufferring some major damage. 19 dudes killed over three thousand americans by using planes and boxcutters but i am supposed to assume in an all out war that big cities wont be hit hard?

[Jello]

You seriously cant expect everyone to choose sides in a war like this. If nukes were used, countries would be extremely hesitant to join.

I dont think that nukes will be used, my point was that people shouldnt expect other countries to be virtually destroyed without the us sufferring some major damage. 19 dudes killed over three thousand americans by using planes and boxcutters but i am supposed to assume in an all out war that big cities wont be hit hard?
There will never be a war like this. Economies are too intertwined that it would be economic suicide for some of these nations. National survival is a key part in major wars. If your own country's national survival is at risk then why engage in nuclear war when there are countries on equal footing to completely wipe out your own nation. Large-scale wars are simply not worth it. And extremist group attacks are insignificant.

[RaininTwos]

There will never be a war like this. Economies are too intertwined that it would be economic suicide for some of these nations. National survival is a key part in major wars. If your own country's national survival is at risk then why engage in nuclear war when there are countries on equal footing to completely wipe out your own nation. Large-scale wars are simply not worth it. And extremist group attacks are insignificant.
Worthless response

[Jello]

Worthless response
lol you try to be realistic without being realistic. The truth is nuclear warfare is out of the question and the conflict will not be on the US mainland. Any attack on any US cities is incredibly inefficient to even consider. But we gotta worry about those islamic sleeper cells levelling entire cities. lol youre beyond retarded.

[shlver]

There will never be nukes used in a war ever again by a nation unless it is some rogue idiot extremist that managed to get their hands on one.
Yep. You won't be seeing any large scale wars between military superpowers. Guerilla warfare and strategic ground movements will replace them.

[c3z4r]

LOL, imagine if you include north korea in China, Russia, Iran group

[LBJMVP]

i wonder how a draft would work these days... during vietnam going to college was a free pass out of the draft, but now almost every goes to college. i'd honestly be so scared if i were a front line soldier.

[RaininTwos]

lol you try to be realistic without being realistic. The truth is nuclear warfare is out of the question and the conflict will not be on the US mainland. Any attack on any US cities is incredibly inefficient to even consider. But we gotta worry about those islamic sleeper cells levelling entire cities. lol youre beyond retarded.
In a thread where the OP asked who would win in a hypothetical war between various countries, you start your response by saying that this wouldn't happen.

Then you make assumption after assumption about shit you don't know. I cannot fathom why you think that the U.S. mainland is untouchable even though people can walk across the border at various spots both north and south. The truth is that the US isnt nearly as secure as they think they are and if you think that "two huge oceans" will keep attackers at bay or that "sleeper cells cant do damage" then keep living in a fairytale bro.

My case isnt clearly as retarded as you want it to be. If Israel and west join up in war then all hell will break loose. No expense will be spared. In the end, no one really wins.

[Norcaliblunt]

Bankers and military industrialists.

[BMOGEFan]

I can't believe you guys are still talking about using nukes in war.

So the world's technology was stagnant for 70 years

[fiddy]

I can't believe you guys are still talking about using nukes in war.

So the world's technology was stagnant for 70 years
:facepalm

The first nuke was droppbe by plane, since then missiles cary nuke, hence anti-missile system have been developed and hence anti-anti-missile missile. :D

[Sarcastic]

In a thread where the OP asked who would win in a hypothetical war between various countries, you start your response by saying that this wouldn't happen.

Then you make assumption after assumption about shit you don't know. I cannot fathom why you think that the U.S. mainland is untouchable even though people can walk across the border at various spots both north and south. The truth is that the US isnt nearly as secure as they think they are and if you think that "two huge oceans" will keep attackers at bay or that "sleeper cells cant do damage" then keep living in a fairytale bro.

My case isnt clearly as retarded as you want it to be. If Israel and west join up in war then all hell will break loose. No expense will be spared. In the end, no one really wins.

Do you think people will just be walking across the border if we are in a war? Every border will be guarded. We don't put the time/money/effort into doing it now because there is no incentive to do so. If our survival is the incentive, you can bet your ass the borders would be secure.

[Mr Know It All]

F*ck britian... U.S and Israel are two of the best armies in the world.

we would F*ck up anyone... we won world war 2 with one hand tied behind our back. do you know how much this country can do during war time? look at the transformation prior to pearl harbor and then during the war.

no nukes, we would win... alot of deaths because the asian countries have so much pride that five asians will kill themselves just to kill one american.

if an invading force ever even landed in the U.S. which is almost impossible... then they would still have to manuevuer throughout the territory. our country has so many different eliments. desert, mountain, forrest, fields, water...

United States, Russia, Britain, various other allied countries. Ya, thank God the brave Americans saved everyone. As someone else already mentioned, had to drop nukes on civilians in order to force Japan to surrender, otherwise would have been a different story. The Japanese were the fiercest soldiers during that war.

If history has shown anything, any country, any Empire, no matter how powerful, can always been defeated and destroyed. Given the right conditions, say severe economic decline, major political and social unrest because of these economic factors, can make any nation weak and open to attack directly and indirectly.

[shawbryant]

China is nothing but population.
Even Thailand, Philippin,Vietnam these not that large neighbors can always shut China up on South China sea business, let alone the powerful neighbors like Japan, Korea.

[tomtucker]

North Korea is the most militarized country in the world today,[6] having the fourth largest army in the world, at about 1,106,000 armed personnel, with about 20% of men ages 17

[Velocirap31]

:bowdown:
China is nothing but population.
Even Thailand, Philippin,Vietnam these not that large neighbors can always shut China up on South China sea business, let alone the powerful neighbors like Japan, Korea.

Times are changing. China is developing state of the art jet fighters and ships (more state of the art than the US currently has). In 5 years, they will be a true military superpower.

[Kews1]

USA. Pretty sure when the government spends as much money as they do on the military we must have some super secret
bombs or somthing that can do more dange than nukes. China and Russia obviously are powerful countries but in terms of full military power the united states dominates. China and Russia have some good assets that can match or are even better than the US but overall the USA is much more powerful. Not to mention the US allies. The US is basiclly in control of Japan and Germanys millitarys and even tho they are only allowed defensive millitarys because of the first two world wars you better belive that the US would unleash both of th
onto Russia and China. Then you throw in the UK,France,India,Australia,South Africa,Canada,Mexico. It's not really that close China and Russia don't want a war with the US. As China continues
to grow obviously it gets closer
as they develop more military power but right now it's still a long way off

[Velocirap31]

Yeah, the US has a lot more allies than people realize. Thanks for mentioning Canada btw.