Who would win?

[FMJeff]

Here's the scenario. Our president visits foreign soil. In an act of obvious and cold murder, the highest ranking official of that country walks up to him, shakes his hand and puts a bullet in his head.

We are now at war.

In a non-nuclear, conventional war (air, land, sea) between:

1) USA vs RUSSIA
2) USA vs CHINA

Who would win in each match up? I'm talking our full power brought to bear, American people behind it, focused and 100% committed. Both super powers would be likely fighting on each others soil, but more likely on the soil of the country that committed the assassination.

I say we would win both.

Why?

1) Russia, emerging from an economic depression that gripped its country for years, is playing catch up, working rapidly to improve their military's hardware, technology and training. Our advanced weaponry will be too much for them to handle.

2) China: Although we are probably out matched in boots on the ground and equally if not greater matched in military technology and hardware, I feel China's people, currently living under the oppressive censorship of a cruel and heartless government, will recognize this as an opportunity to revolt and fight for democratic freedoms. Fighting a war on two fronts (its own people and the US), the chinese military will eventually be overrun.

Of course these are just hypotheticals based on very little fact or research. I just read an article where President Obama was visiting Russia on the day they were doing major war games, so this idea kinda jumped into my head.

Love to hear what you guys think.

[Snoogans]

Somali Pirates, once they have teamed up with sharks to create a super navy

[TripleSkeet]

Id say we beat Russia but China kicks our ass. Especially if its taking place in China.

[foodcourtdruide]

If this scenario were to occur there is NO WAY that dozens of countries would not flock to our side and join forces against the aggressor.

[boosterp]

Russia is spending a considerable chunk of real GDP on military upgrades. At this moment we would win only if we had NATO's full backing. WWII although 60+ years ago showed that the Russian's have resolve when an invasion happens on their soil. We would also have to have our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan engaged on the Russian front. Russia would have the backing of a few of the former Republics but not many. It would take quite some time and considerable manpower and money to beat them on their turf.

China, I fear in the end would repel us at the cost of many casualties, even with NATO's full backing. Reason being is they have just about one gun per person available. Once we eliminated their armor (which is the easy part), fought an intensive air war, we would face waves of people coming at our troops with guns. Because of the waves we would ultimately get pushed back due to a weakened infantry.

[Furtherman]

In a non-nuclear, conventional war (air, land, sea) between:

1) USA vs RUSSIA
2) USA vs CHINA

Who would win in each match up? I'm talking our full power brought to bear, American people behind it, focused and 100% committed. Both super powers would be likely fighting on each others soil, but more likely on the soil of the country that committed the assassination.

I'm going to answer this with the armies fighting to win the war, and no other factors involved.

I think we'd beat Russia, whereas their army is not as strong and mighty as it was during the cold war. It's fractured and most likely has lost much of its discipline and morale.

China would kick our ass. There's a billion of them. Their army is still cold, calculated and just don't have the same outlook on life as we do. They'll fight like Klingons, thinking that perhaps the day is a good day to die for honor and country.

[brettmojo]

Which side has Chuck Norris?

Which side has Rambo?

Yeah. Total domination.

[FMJeff]

If this scenario were to occur there is NO WAY that dozens of countries would not flock to our side and join forces against the aggressor.

I didn't even think about that. Good point.

[FMJeff]

I'm going to answer this with the armies fighting to win the war, and no other factors involved.

I think we'd beat Russia, whereas their army is not as strong and mighty as it was during the cold war. It's fractured and most likely has lost much of its discipline and morale.

China would kick our ass. There's a billion of them. Their army is still cold, calculated and just don't have the same outlook on life as we do. They'll fight like Klingons, thinking that perhaps the day is a good day to die for honor and country.

I dunno sounds like you're confusing them with the Japanese.

[FMJeff]

Russia is spending a considerable chunk of real GDP on military upgrades. At this moment we would win only if we had NATO's full backing. WWII although 60+ years ago showed that the Russian's have resolve when an invasion happens on their soil. We would also have to have our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan engaged on the Russian front. Russia would have the backing of a few of the former Republics but not many. It would take quite some time and considerable manpower and money to beat them on their turf.

China, I fear in the end would repel us at the cost of many casualties, even with NATO's full backing. Reason being is they have just about one gun per person available. Once we eliminated their armor (which is the easy part), fought an intensive air war, we would face waves of people coming at our troops with guns. Because of the waves we would ultimately get pushed back due to a weakened infantry.

See with China, that's where you're wrong. I really think the people would take this opportunity to revolt, and they'd be fighting us AND their own people. Look at what just happened when they tried to implement this GREEN DAM censorship program. The chinese people sent the government a proclamation that they would not stop until it was completely annihilated along with anything else they could take with them.

They're begging for someone like us to step in and distract their military long enough to take action. It's like the television show V, except the rebels with the slanty, beady eyes are not humanoid reptiles.

[boosterp]

I'm going to answer this with the armies fighting to win the war, and no other factors involved.

I think we'd beat Russia, whereas their army is not as strong and mighty as it was during the cold war. It's fractured and most likely has lost much of its discipline and morale.

China would kick our ass. There's a billion of them. Their army is still cold, calculated and just don't have the same outlook on life as we do. They'll fight like Klingons, thinking that perhaps the day is a good day to die for honor and country.

I think you have it reversed who is more of the nationalist. Russia is already predisposed to anti-American sentiment through their government. China is learning to love the US due to the dependence of sending our business there. If we pulled all of our business out of China they would hit the worst recession known to man. But China has a strict conscription measure that basically states if you do not serve during the time of war you can be killed by police.

Hence my argument about the waves of people coming at our troops.

[TripleSkeet]

If this scenario were to occur there is NO WAY that dozens of countries would not flock to our side and join forces against the aggressor.

Yea, thats true. The whole pulling a gun on a World Leader thing wouldnt go over well with the rest of the world.

I was thinking more just a straight up war between the two countries. I dont think the Chinese would turn on their government as easily as you believe Jeff.

[boosterp]

See with China, that's where you're wrong. I really think the people would take this opportunity to revolt, and they'd be fighting us AND their own people. Look at what just happened when they tried to implement this GREEN DAM censorship program. The chinese people sent the government a proclamation that they would not stop until it was completely annihilated along with anything else they could take with them.

They're begging for someone like us to step in and distract their military long enough to take action. It's like the television show V, except the rebels with the slanty, beady eyes are not humanoid reptiles.

See my latest post and think more Iran. Although the two governments differ in structure and philosophy, the Chinese have a ton of police, para-military, and civilian force to counter the younger generations. Hell, Tienanmen is not even talked about there because it is against the law.

[TripleSkeet]

They're begging for someone like us to step in and distract their military long enough to take action. It's like the television show V, except the rebels with the slanty, beady eyes are not humanoid reptiles.

Are we talking about Snoogans now?

[Furtherman]

I dunno sounds like you're confusing them with the Japanese.

I think you have it reversed who is more of the nationalist.

Ahem. I said : "I'm going to answer this with the armies fighting to win the war, and no other factors involved."


I was thinking more just a straight up war between the two countries.

Exactly.

If you're going to bring in anti-American sentiment through their government, or an opportunity to revolt, then you're just bringing in to many random factors to guess an outcome, thereby ruining the fun of a question of who would win, mano y mano.

[boosterp]

Ahem. I said : "I'm going to answer this with the armies fighting to win the war, and no other factors involved."



Exactly.

If you're going to bring in anti-American sentiment through their government, or an opportunity to revolt, then you're just bringing in to many random factors to guess an outcome, thereby ruining the fun of a question of who would win, mano y mano.

Then you negate the original question. Also, in a true to life situation you have to factor in everything else or it is not even close to a valid argument.

[ToiletCrusher]

Jesus.

He wins every battle.

[Stankfoot]

Depends who has the better robot army.

http://cache.io9.com/assets/resources/2008/02/giantrobotactivate.jpg

[sailor]

this is obviously an anti-chinese thread. i'm just trying to figure out jeff's angle.

[Ritalin]

Wolverines!

[epo]

Somali Pirates, once they have teamed up with sharks to create a super navy

Shhhhhhhh!

The power is the sneak attack...

[FMJeff]

this is obviously an anti-chinese thread. i'm just trying to figure out jeff's angle.

It's really not, believe me! :flush:

[Gvac]

Since WWII has there been a time we were at war where the soldiers and the effort had the complete support of the American people?

This is why we haven't decisively won one since, nor are we likely to do so in the future.

[boosterp]

Since WWII has there been a time we were at war where the soldiers and the effort had the complete support of the American people?

This is why we haven't decisively won one since, nor are we likely to do so in the future.

The first Gulf War ring a bell because it did not according to your statement?

[A.J.]

With our forces already committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not too confident about fighting somebody else right now.

[weekapaugjz]

With our forces already committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not too confident about fighting somebody else right now.

What about the french? Froggy pricks.

[ToiletCrusher]

What about the french? Froggy pricks.

You can drown all of them by throwing a few dozen loaves of baguette into the English Channel.

[FMJeff]

With our forces already committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not too confident about fighting somebody else right now.

I said fully committed. I mean a total recall of our troops stationed around the world. All branches of the armed forces involved. Nothing but total focus on the war at hand.

[TooLowBrow]

I said fully committed. I mean a total recall of our troops stationed around the world. All branches of the armed forces involved. Nothing but total focus on the war at hand.

could we even afford that?

that would cost so much money to move so much and so many people

[instrument]

Lol like printing money is an issue here!