• 166 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for ufcknoitall
#1 Posted by UFCKnoitall (53 posts) - - Show Bio

Modern day military's, who wins?

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for dre_savage
#2 Posted by Dre_Savage (5504 posts) - - Show Bio

Russia and China.

Avatar image for paytience
#3 Posted by Paytience (4518 posts) - - Show Bio

The U.S. Russia and China don't have the force projection capabilities or the air/sea lift capabilities to keep up any sort of logitic line against the U.S. The U.S. Navy, carrier for carrier, outnumbers every other Navy in the world combined, and every one of those ships are far more powerful.

We stop shipping water to China, cut off their oil supply from the middle east, and we do the same to Russia. We choke them until they have no choice but to try and break out through the South China Sea, which is suicide against the astronomical Naval and air advantages the U.S. has.
The only other option is China to try and go overland through Siberia and then link up with Russia to try and take european resources. Not going to happen.

Avatar image for marvelanddcfan24
#4 Edited by MarvelandDCfan24 (6946 posts) - - Show Bio

The US

Loses bad we would barely defeat China if not outright lose

Avatar image for babydarkseid
#5 Posted by BabyDarkseid (1907 posts) - - Show Bio

china solos

Avatar image for cosmic_lantern
#6 Edited by Cosmic_Lantern (5668 posts) - - Show Bio

China would be utterly destroyed by our Air Force, Russia can contend barely in the skies and in infantry but...... Since the battle of midway the USA has been unchallenged in the sea.

However if china and Russia form a triple entente with say Israel than we have a problem on all fronts even if we form our own big 3 of USA, UK, and possibly Brazil.

Avatar image for chaos239
#7 Posted by Chaos239 (5081 posts) - - Show Bio

Inb4 US >>> World when it can barely beat Russia.

Avatar image for wardevil
#8 Posted by WarDevil (794 posts) - - Show Bio

U.S loses to commie force

Avatar image for mysticmedivh
#9 Edited by MysticMedivh (32250 posts) - - Show Bio

The US military is leaps and bounds ahead of the Chinese and Russians. Both of their militaries combined wouldn't compare.

With that said, nobody in such a war would really "win". None of them can actually invade the other.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
#10 Posted by Cable_Extreme (16783 posts) - - Show Bio

Russia's submarines are no joke. China is severely outdated in military technology.

US wins obviously but Russia puts up more of a fight than an easily bombable china.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
#11 Posted by Cable_Extreme (16783 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos239: US no morals destroys all countries.

Avatar image for chaos239
#12 Posted by Chaos239 (5081 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for watertaco
#13 Edited by Watertaco (452 posts) - - Show Bio

Our navy and air force dwarfs theirs combined, but America still isn't winning this. Not without help from NATO.

First of all, this is a loaded question, with multiple different aspects. Who's invading who? There's no way Russia and China could pull off a successful land invasion of America, they don't have the navy or air power to pull it off. And yet, which country could America invade without being surrounded or overwhelmed?

Actually, the more I think about, the more I realize that neither side can win this. It probably ends with America defeating both navies (seriously, our navy dwarfs every other navy combined), trying to invade China (since it's easier to reach Beijing from the Yellow Sea than it is Moscow from either side...), and nukes somehow end up being exchanged. There is just no scenario in which a modern war fought between modern militaries ends without a nuclear exchange.

So a stalemate occurs, where all three countries end up being destroyed by nuclear hellfire.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
#14 Edited by Cable_Extreme (16783 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos239: Russia morals off attempts to nuke the US, the US counter nukes while using the THAAD and AEGIS missile defense systems including ones stationed near Russia and China for the purpose of shooting down ICBMs. Russia and China do not have the same technology or luxury of having missile defense systems on the same continent as America. Nor are thier missile defense systems anywhere as close to the quality of ours.

Avatar image for mrmonster
#15 Posted by mrmonster (14151 posts) - - Show Bio

The US. We have a more well funded army than the two of them combined.

Besides, the Chinese army is terrible. Their soldiers are not trained nearly as well as American or Russian soldiers. And there simply are not enough Russian soldiers to win.

Avatar image for shadowwaker
#16 Posted by Shadowwaker (2495 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't know about about China or Russia, but U.S combat helmets are durable enough to tank a hit from M24 snipers at least.

According to google, Military budgets are:

China - 151.5 billion USD

Russia - 70 billion USD

U.S.A - 597 billion USD

The military budget for U.S.A more than doubles the spending for costs. If one were to judge on cost alone; it would be U.S.A who has the best military.

Avatar image for skullskull
#17 Posted by skullskull (133 posts) - - Show Bio

Depends on the situation and what they use, America is more advanced than both of them but Russia & China vastly outnumber the US.
Essentially it comes down to strategy, and I reckon America eventually loses in a very long war.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a46927fc5463
#18 Posted by deactivated-5a46927fc5463 (2849 posts) - - Show Bio

Whoever wins, the world loses.

Avatar image for thanosfan500
#19 Edited by Thanosfan500 (179 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for merulezall
#20 Posted by MErulezall (3564 posts) - - Show Bio

Bloodlusted/no morals USA without nukes could pull it off but it'd be hard. However without the complete backing of the American people the USA would lose imo. The technology is for sure in the USA's edge, but not seeing them winning the war with the press biting their ankles.

Avatar image for thebestofthebest
#21 Posted by ThEBeStOfTheBeST (9872 posts) - - Show Bio
Online
Avatar image for shadowwaker
#22 Edited by Shadowwaker (2495 posts) - - Show Bio

@merulezall: Well they managed to win world war 2. They could just call martial law. Which i am pretty sure will happen when WWIII hits. I don't believe it will be if, i am pretty sure it will happen. You can call it a safety precaution, but the nukes are still armed.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
#23 Posted by CitizenSurfer (2638 posts) - - Show Bio

China would be utterly destroyed by our Air Force, Russia can contend barely in the skies and in infantry but...... Since the battle of midway the USA has been unchallenged in the sea.

However if china and Russia form a triple entente with say Israel than we have a problem on all fronts even if we form our own big 3 of USA, UK, and possibly Brazil.

Why the hell would Brazil side with America when it's a part of BRICS?

Avatar image for merulezall
#24 Posted by MErulezall (3564 posts) - - Show Bio

@shadowwaker: If martial law is put into place, half of the United States would rebel and throw a fit. The only factor they could really be is meat shields for the grinder. This is ofc if we had WW3.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
#25 Posted by CitizenSurfer (2638 posts) - - Show Bio

@merulezall: Well they managed to win world war 2.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Avatar image for shadowwaker
#26 Edited by Shadowwaker (2495 posts) - - Show Bio

@shadowwaker said:

@merulezall: Well they managed to win world war 2.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why are you laughing? You some kind of xenophobic?

Avatar image for cosmic_lantern
#27 Posted by Cosmic_Lantern (5668 posts) - - Show Bio

@citizensurfer: Same thing we did with most of Italy in WW1, bribe the hell outta them it's not like USA would lose anything major if they said no. Our current 'presidency' is actually an example of a rather flawed cabinet (that's putting it as loosely as I possibly can), with an idiot who has no sense whatsoever when it comes to reasoning with the common man. Warfare highly depends on leadership as well and to put it short and sweet Obama had the balls to do what trump can only talk about iZi.

Avatar image for shadowwaker
#28 Posted by Shadowwaker (2495 posts) - - Show Bio

@shadowwaker: If martial law is put into place, half of the United States would rebel and throw a fit. The only factor they could really be is meat shields for the grinder. This is ofc if we had WW3.

The draft was the main reason for rebelling during the Vietnam War. Since males and females at the age of 18 HAVE to sign up for selective services, then rebellion is imminent. However i am pretty sure the main reason is if they are defending. Like the attack on pearl harbor or the attack on the two towers. It seems to give people motivation when they are being attacked.

Avatar image for xxdeathmakerxx
#29 Posted by XxdeathmakerxX (1724 posts) - - Show Bio

US loses

Avatar image for deltahuman
#30 Edited by deltahuman (4969 posts) - - Show Bio

The US will badly lose. I'll try to explain why.

Now when I'm talking war, I'm not talking nuclear warfare. US, Russia and China all three have got nukes. Russian ICBMs and SLBMs are scary and crazy powerful and have the highest yeild. For instance it's RS-28 Sarmat has the capability to wipe out an area the size of Texas or the country France in a single strike. Don't know much about Chinese ones but sure do know that their ICBMs have the range to target all of US. Both Russia and China are on the verge of deploying Hypersonic glide vehicles too but its still not in operation so lets not talk about that. Lets not talk nuclear war at all cuz it will end all the three nations. Lets talk conventional warfare.

As of now, the US still has the edge in technology and military budget over all other nations. But it's only one side of the coin. Take military budgets for example. Budget of US dwarfs all other nations. China has the second largest. Russia has the third largest. Saudi Arabia has the fourth largest and India has the fifth largest. Saudi's are US allies but they just have the money so they buy stuff. No fighting experience at all. It's a rookie army. India is an interesting case. They are probably the friendliest country in the world. They are allies of both US, Russia, Japan, Australia, Isreal, European nations etc. Their only two enemies are Pakistan and China. Well China is more like a competitor for them in the great Asian power struggle but whatever it is, it's unlikely they'll join the war. The countries who will directly support US are the European nations and probably Australia. They have smaller budgets and smaller forces. Except France, No other nation is that powerful. Now the reason I said comparing budgets is not a good way to estimate power is because you have to take in account purchasing power. The cost of stuff in the US is much higher in the US than in Russia or China. So whatever stuff you can buy in $100 in the US, you'll be able to buy the same stuff in much lesser money in the other two nations.

Now let's move to technology and power projection. It's clear China and Russia do not have a largely effective blue water navy or much naval warfare experience. If you're attacking a country then you need Aircraft carriers, Amphibious landing crafts, landing barges, destroyers and frigates to protect your ships, a good missile defence, good surveillance, good fleet defence etc. In air force you need huge number of troop transport aircraft like say Globemasters or Galaxies. you need bombers, air superiority jets etc. In airforce too, US still has the edge because they operate 5th generation stealth aircraft lie the F22 or B2 spirit bomber. But the gap isn't very significant. Still I don't think Russia and China can successfully attack US conventionally without nukes.

Now what if it's the other way around. If US attacks Russia and China. Can it successfully do so. There are 3-4 reasons it can't. First let's talk aircraft carriers. Sure they are impressive. But you know what. They are white elephants during war. First they cost a lot. $5-6 billion to make one. The total cost including the aircrafts crew etc is more than $10 billion per piece. But you know why Russia doesn't operate a super carrier. Clearly they don't have the money but one other reason is, they can take out a $10 billion carrier with a single $5 million missile. Heard of the Indian/Russian cruise missile Brahmos? Sea skimming, fastest supersonic cruise missle in operation at Mach 3. Currently there are no ship based missile defence that can counter a Brahmos. The missile is operated mainly by Indian Navy but Russians have got its counterpart too. What's worse India and Russia are making a hypersonic version Brahmos-2. At Mach 7 it won't eveb need a warhead. It's kinetic energy would be enough to split a carrier into two. Even Brahmos can do that to smaller ships now. 2-3 Brahmos strikes will take down a carrier. Second thing is Anti ship ballistic missiles. They are actually quasiballistic but pack enough energy to take out a carrier or any ship in a single strike. Currently China has a few long range ones and India operates a short range one. Heard of the Chinese DF-26 or its other name 'Guam Express'? The DF-21D and DF-26 are very effective area denial weapons and in war they're gonna wreck US ships that venture into the South China sea. Third weapon of concern are Russian SSNs. They are the quietest deadliest submarines in operation in the world and are often called Black Holes in the sea. Their main weapons are supercavitating Torpedoes, a technology no other nation possesses. Overall Russian Subs are pretty well known for their deadly and effective qualities. Many times we've heard them deploying near US coast and US forces have no idea because they can't detect them.

In case of Airforce, like I said, US has the edge both in numbers and technology. Only the US currently has fifth gen stealth aircraft in operation. Russia has developed its own, the Su-57/PAK FA but not deployed yet. Apparently they've no money and are waiting for Indian Air force to invest because Indians will be buying the aircraft too. China didn't have the technological know-how or the infrastructure to develop stealth aircraft but they've allegedly hacked huge amounts of data from the U.S. F-35 programme and have developed their own 5th gen aircraft too, the J-20. Still since none are in operation, US has the advantage but wait. Does it actually have the advantage? Actually nope. Heard of Russian SAMs. The latest S-400 and the in development S-500 are said to be able to target 5th gen aircraft. Still a speculation but the Russians are good at this. Could be true. Ever wonder why US doesn't actively use F-22s over Syria? Because Syrians have Russian SAMs. It's the same theory. F-22 is a white elephant in war. Too costly to lose one. A single F-22 costs as much as 4-5 4th gen jets and that's not taking into account operating costs.

What then? Army invasion. Huh that's even more difficult. China has the world's largest standing army and since it's a communist nation with the largest population, it can produce more than twice that number by conscription. Russians have the worlds most advanced Main Battle Tank, the T-14 Armata. Russia and China combined will give hell to any Invading army. US has got considerable war experiences but most of its modern wars were against small insignificant nations like Afghanistan or against Islamic State. The last big war US fought was against the Irakis but China and Russia combined are a much better bigger and stronger foe.

Off course in real life situations in the 21st century, there's not gonna be a huge lasting conventional war. Sooner or later all three will nuke each other and wipe each other out and destroy the world too through a long nuclear winter.

Avatar image for merulezall
#31 Posted by MErulezall (3564 posts) - - Show Bio

@shadowwaker: Back then yes, but to be honest now days, I doubt it. There's so many people who'd flee before joining imo, but maybe you're right.

Avatar image for nickzambuto
#32 Posted by nickzambuto (29288 posts) - - Show Bio

I think you're all missing the most important factor to this battle.

The United States has Captain America.

Avatar image for nerdchore
#33 Posted by nerdchore (8094 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyone saying the us loses. Is sorely misinformed.

Avatar image for wut
#34 Posted by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

United States blockades China. China fires missiles. Does some damage to ships. United States fires back, China looks at the damage, draining economy and wonders why it is doing this. Chest beating happens. Negotiations happen. Both walk away wondering why they just wasted human lives and resources in a war neither of them want.

Russia was happy to be included.

@deltahuman:The Armata hasn't actually done anything besides break down at its own parade. Much impressed, much wows. Call me when it does something noteworthy to prove its hype.

Avatar image for deltahuman
#35 Posted by deltahuman (4969 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut said:

United States blockades China. China fires missiles. Does some damage to ships. United States fires back, China looks at the damage, draining economy and wonders why it is doing this. Chest beating happens. Negotiations happen. Both walk away wondering why they just wasted human lives and resources in a war neither of them want.

Russia was happy to be included.

Well yeah, nobody wants to destroy their economy. China is the second fastest growing large economy behind India. It's the largest economy in terms of GDP(PPP) and second largest in terms of GDP (nominal). So It's already surpassed US in purchasing power and will surpass the US in nominal value sometime in the 2030s. A War would only slow it down. That's why perhaps you've taken notice of the fact that right now despite India and China being in a state of border skirmishes since like 2 months, No bullet has been fired by both. India is the third largest economy by purchasing power and is the fastest growing. So it too doesn't want war. Only the middle eastern countries actively pursue war I guess.

BTW when did Armata break down? haven't heard of it. Even then it's the most advanced MBT yet. Much ahead of its peers. Besides Russian T-90 MS MBTs are enough to take down the US Abrams MBT. Abrams doesn't even have an Active Protection System. It's vulnerable to the latest RPGs. Even the Isreali Merkava MBT has an Active Protection System.

Avatar image for wut
#36 Edited by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@deltahuman: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/russias-new-armata-tank-breaks-down-in-rehearsal-for-debut-parade-10232605.html

Literally breaks down on its rehearsal for its debut. Their excuse is hilarious, "Oh, we.. we just wanted to show people what it would be like if it did break down! Yes, nothing to see here citizens."

If you think tanks are what win wars, think again. Navies, air force and logistics win wars. All three of which the United States will win. Again, China gets blockaded. No ground troops are really deployed, after a few spats, China and the US realize fighting is stupid, they don't hate each other after all and go home. Russia, again, was just happy to be invited.

Avatar image for deltahuman
#37 Posted by deltahuman (4969 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut: Eh I never said Tanks win wars. I've just provided an outlook of what happens. US has the best navy, best air force, best logistics. I already agreed to that. Chinese and Russians are not equipped to invade a country in another continent, the US is. Does that mean US can invade China and Russia. Absolutely no. I've already provided reasons why US can't hope to invade. You're saying naval blockade. How will the US ensure a naval blockade when it has no means to defend against SSNs, Supersonic Crusie missiles and Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles. The US has 10 Naval supercarriers. A few other countries like China India Russia France etc operate carriers but most nations have only one or two and not even one of them is as capable or big as a US supercarrier. Does that mean US can invade China. Absolutely no. Even 2-3 super carrier loses will force U.S. to rethink its invasion plans while at the same time if Russia or China lose their two carriers its not gonna cost them much.

So yeah War is very unlikely like you said and I totally agree. I'm just providing conditions for a hypothetical war.

Avatar image for wut
#38 Edited by Wut (6892 posts) - - Show Bio

@deltahuman: Actually, it does have the means to defend against missiles and China doesn't have enough missiles to inflict enough losses to ward off the USA. The US protects is super carriers, if the Chinese were very lucky, they could damage one or two who would have to return for repairs as actually fully destroying a ship is very difficult.

Loading Video...

^ A good take on the USA vs China, China has the advantage in the beginning until the US shows up in force. And then it turns against them. That is what would happen. Realistically, as he mentions in the end, China would fall much sooner and be forced to the table if the US had its diplomatic allies.

US would never invade china on its own. We don't get to assume one side is incompetent.

Avatar image for mightykalel
#39 Posted by MightyKalEl (2202 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for tantani
#40 Posted by Tantani (2894 posts) - - Show Bio

I guess no nuke/chemical/biological weapons allowed since in that case it will be tie with both sides completely annihilated

I also believe there is no outside help since this will be world war and is far more complicated

THe US takes it, but millions will die at bare minimum

Avatar image for citizensurfer
#41 Posted by CitizenSurfer (2638 posts) - - Show Bio

@citizensurfer said:
@shadowwaker said:

@merulezall: Well they managed to win world war 2.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why are you laughing? You some kind of xenophobic?

I'm laughing because you're ignorant and think America won World War 2.

Avatar image for willpayton
#42 Posted by willpayton (22062 posts) - - Show Bio

Assuming no nukes, and only conventional war:

US would eventually win. The US has far superior tech and a big advantage in air and sea power. Since Russia/China have no way to send land forces directly to the US, it means that air and sea power are the key. Once the US gains air superiority it can decimate the ground forces of the team as well as any manufacturing and logistics targets. Same with sea power. The US can basically attack from the air and the sea while the team can only sit there and take it, with no real way to counter attack once their air and sea forces are gone. Then it's just a battle of attrition until the US destroys enough of the military power to launch a land invasion.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
#43 Posted by CitizenSurfer (2638 posts) - - Show Bio

@citizensurfer: Same thing we did with most of Italy in WW1, bribe the hell outta them it's not like USA would lose anything major if they said no. Our current 'presidency' is actually an example of a rather flawed cabinet (that's putting it as loosely as I possibly can), with an idiot who has no sense whatsoever when it comes to reasoning with the common man. Warfare highly depends on leadership as well and to put it short and sweet Obama had the balls to do what trump can only talk about iZi.

Same thing we did with most of Italy in WW1, bribe the hell outta them it's not like USA would lose anything major if they said no.

Brazil would automatically join the sides of Russia & China, since they are you know, a part of BRICS.

Our current 'presidency' is actually an example of a rather flawed cabinet (that's putting it as loosely as I possibly can), with an idiot who has no sense whatsoever when it comes to reasoning with the common man. Warfare highly depends on leadership as well and to put it short and sweet Obama had the balls to do what trump can only talk about iZi.

I'm still confused on how Donald Trump got elected.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
#44 Posted by CitizenSurfer (2638 posts) - - Show Bio

@deltahuman:

Except France, No other nation is that powerful.

??????????????????????????????????????????????

United Kingdom & Germany...

Avatar image for mysticmedivh
#45 Posted by MysticMedivh (32250 posts) - - Show Bio

@citizensurfer:

BRICS is an economic partnership, not a military one like NATO.

By that same logic, India would join hands with China and fight the US?

The most likely outcome is that South Africa, India, and Brazil remain neutral.

Avatar image for sanohibiki
#46 Posted by SanoHibiki (3379 posts) - - Show Bio

Mutual and total annihilation.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
#47 Posted by CitizenSurfer (2638 posts) - - Show Bio

@citizensurfer:

BRICS is an economic partnership, not a military one like NATO.

By that same logic, India would join hands with China and fight the US?

The most likely outcome is that South Africa, India, and Brazil remain neutral.

BRICS is an economic partnership, not a military one like NATO.

Brazil would have a lot more to lose if it went against Russia & China.

By that same logic, India would join hands with China and fight the US?

Due to the tension that is already present between China & India due to the Asia power struggle I wouldn't find it hard to believe that India would join China & Russia, not to mention the extreme proximity of both countries.

The most likely outcome is that South Africa, India, and Brazil remain neutral.

I can see South Africa & Brazil remaining neutral but not India.

Avatar image for paytience
#48 Posted by Paytience (4518 posts) - - Show Bio

@shadowwaker said:
@citizensurfer said:
@shadowwaker said:

@merulezall: Well they managed to win world war 2.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why are you laughing? You some kind of xenophobic?

I'm laughing because you're ignorant and think America won World War 2.

They did. Remove American industry ad manufacturing and the allies lose the war, or lose enough major battles that Germany has serious leverage in peace talks. Plain and simple.

Avatar image for citizensurfer
#49 Posted by CitizenSurfer (2638 posts) - - Show Bio

Assuming no nukes, and only conventional war:

US would eventually win. The US has far superior tech and a big advantage in air and sea power. Since Russia/China have no way to send land forces directly to the US, it means that air and sea power are the key. Once the US gains air superiority it can decimate the ground forces of the team as well as any manufacturing and logistics targets. Same with sea power. The US can basically attack from the air and the sea while the team can only sit there and take it, with no real way to counter attack once their air and sea forces are gone. Then it's just a battle of attrition until the US destroys enough of the military power to launch a land invasion.

Since Russia/China have no way to send land forces directly to the US

No Caption Provided

What?

Avatar image for citizensurfer
#50 Edited by CitizenSurfer (2638 posts) - - Show Bio

@paytience said:
@citizensurfer said:
@shadowwaker said:
@citizensurfer said:
@shadowwaker said:

@merulezall: Well they managed to win world war 2.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why are you laughing? You some kind of xenophobic?

I'm laughing because you're ignorant and think America won World War 2.

They did. Remove American industry ad manufacturing and the allies lose the war, or lose enough major battles that Germany has serious leverage in peace talks. Plain and simple.

They did. Remove American industry ad manufacturing and the allies lose the war

"Here is the extraordinary true story of the American businessmen and government officials who dealt with the Nazis for profit or through conviction throughout the Second World War: Ford. Standard Oil, Chase Bank and members of the State Department were among those who shared in the spoils. Meticulously documented and dispassionately told, this is an alarming story. At its centre is 'The Fraternity', an influential international group associated with the Rockefeller or Morgan banks and linked by the ideology of Business as Usual.

Higham starts with an account of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland - a Nazi-controlled bank presided over by an American, Thomas H. McKittrick, even in 1944. While Americans were dying in the war, McKittrick sat down with his German, Japanese, Italian, British and American executive staff to discuss the gold bars that had been sent to the Bank earlier that year by the Nazi government for use by its leaders after the war. This was gold that had been looted from the banks of Austria, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia or melted down from teeth fillings, eyeglass frames, and wedding rings of millions of murdered Jews.

But that is only one of the cases detailed in this book. We have Standard Oil shipping enemy fuel through Switzerland for the Nazi occupation forces in France; Ford trucks transporting German troops; I.T.T. helping supply the rocket bombs that marauded much of London ; and I.T.T. building the Focke-Wulfs that dropped those bombs. Long and shocking is the list of diplomats and businessmen alike who had their own ways of profiting from the war."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-world-war-ii-americas-was-providing-military-aid-to-the-ussr-while-also-supporting-nazi-germany/5449378

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1445822/Ford-used-slave-labour-in-Nazi-German-plants.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

http://chaplain1.tripod.com/ford.html

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-american-companies-that-aided-the-nazis.php

If America hadn't been dealing with Nazi Germany we would've won the war in a shorter amount of time, but no; America wanted more money so they started double dealing. I could continue providing links, but I think you get the point.

Germany has serious leverage in peace talks. Plain and simple.

By the time America actually joined the war not double-dealing, I mean actually getting its hands dirty and fighting along the rest of the countries who had already been fighting for 3 years; Germany was on its last legs, Germany was never going to win that war after it invaded Russia, add to the fact, Britain cracking the Enigma code just sealed the deal.

P.S. Can you link me to anything where America won a war without receiving any outside help?