Our budget is the size of the rest of the top 10 military budgets combined and makes up 35% of the global total. I don't think making the USA the standard for "huge" is fair. Russia is topped only by the USA, China, and barely by Saudi Arabia. The USA military budget already puts a huge strain on our economy, and we're involved in so many things that even our bloated budget is spread thin. Granted Russia's is as well, but let's say once ISIS is taken care of, Russia provided robots to Syria to boost the Assad regime, and we had to provide robots to the rebels to keep our side of the war from collapsing. My money would be on Russia and Assad, even with Iran's involvement shrinking due to the new sanctions. And that's just one conflict. Let's say there were a new proxy war conflict, and both Russia and China backed the side against the one the US was propping up. With our budget stretched as thin as it is from over-involvement in so many foreign affairs, we'd lose that new proxy war and probably damage our economy in the process. In an outright conflict between a Russia-China alliance and the US (God forbid), we'd probably do fine, but only if we pulled back from all other areas and concentrated on that one, and only so long as nukes didn't get involved. If other nations joined the Russia-China side, like say, Iran, North Korea, and Turkey (since our relations with them are souring now and they're getting closer to Russia), I could see things getting ugly for the US, especially if Trump rips up NATO and sours our other alliances and no one comes to our aid as a result. We might get Saudi Arabia's help if the optics of the conflict didn't make it look like we're at fault, and maybe India if they felt ballsy enough to try to rein in China. Again though, once nukes get involved, none of it matters.

Detroit Become Human =p