| Words Of Wisdom said: I hope we never find a real answer to these questions. |
The name says it all.
No Nukes huh?
The rest of the world would beat the US through shear numbers... and the UK being pretty close to the US in Military tech.
If the Uk sided with the US though... it'd be hard even for the rest of the world to stand up to that conventionally.
They could obviously stalemate because there wouldn't be enough soldiers in the US/UK to invade the rest of the world... or even a large part of the world...
But I'm not sure they could win. As modern technology seems to make numbers more and more worthless.
| Vetteman94 said: Yeah I agree with the majority here, 1 on 1 no chance, but a group effort of Russia and China may be too much for the USA to deal with. Despite having superior technology the sheer numbers against the USA in that situation would be too much for them to handle. |
Why? How would Russia and China mount an attack on the US? All their ships would get picked out of the water before they even got to the US.
You shouldn't ever fight China in a ground war... but when you've got huge gulfs of water between you and them... they aren't too much of a threat.
UK is the biggest threat, with the EU the second biggest... China and Russia really aren't anything unless parterned up with someone with really gerat technology.
Honestly Mexico and Canada partnered up is probably more of a threat then China and Russia. Guerilla Warfare. That's how you need to beat the US. Otherwise they'll just bomb their enemies till they give up.
Afterall we have a democrat in office. It'll be the Clinton guide to war waging all over again. He started a few wars and nobody bitches at him about it because he never committed ground troops. He just gained air superiority and bombed everyone into submission.
Really it'd all be up to the US to start cranking out those Superfighters.
| bdbdbd said: I find the way the question is put absurd. What are "conventional weapons" and what kind of situation are we talking about? The capability of the armies of superpowers haven't relied on "conventional weapons" in ages anymore. Russia, for example, has 20 million men reserve, but they don't push it as high tech as USA. USA have less manpower, and rely on satellite guidance, that China showed a while ago how to strip it. China has propably a million men more in active duty, as USA. Etc. In reality, if we start to talk about the "big boys" fighting, we can't rule out nukes, which would mean that it's a tie; everybody dies. |
Conventional weapons = Not nuclear.
A war with conventional weapons would basically mean that the earth gets showered with particles that make nuclear weapons unusuable.
War has become irrelevant to human history. The US hasn't been able to control two tiny Central Asian countries, despite massive occupation forces and $1 trillion in expenditures.
If it was soldier against soldier (no air support/bombs/nukes, etc) Russia could take the USA. While all the American soldiers are sitting there defenseless after their lousy M16's jammed the Russian soldiers would AK-47 us to death!
Chairman-Mao -
Problem is, the Russian soldiers would be dead due to the M-16's more accurate fire. Americans have shot plenty of AK-47 wielding soldiers before...Never has been a problem.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
Russians don't use AK-47s any more, they use AK-74's AK-103's 105's and AN-94's
Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!! It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!! Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)
The question really is too generic, as people have said it really depends on where the war is being fought, who its against, the state of the world economy, the political context within the countries involved etc. Obviously if a war is fought conventionally then the US would win, no doubt about it, but wars are never fought only on conventional levels. If we assume the US is projecting its power in the war then eventually the US would have to pull out as their military would get bogged down by guerilla fighters etc, we've seen how difficult its been for the US just in two relatively small middle eastern countries. Imagine how hard it'd be in Russia, China or Britain. Not to mention how expensive it'd be.
On the other hand if the group of countries involved were going to invade the US then at this point in time the US would win hands down as the other countries probably wouldn't even hit American soil thus forcing the war to remain conventional ensuring a win for the US.
If the war is nuclear with someone like Russia then everybody losses. Too many nukes = huge devestation.
Lets hope the US doesn't ever actually have a war with a proper opponent, the results would be horrendous for everyone involved.
PDF -
China is beginning to rival it. It has a growing GDP, and since it's currency isn't pegged against the dollar, it allows for a very low valuation on their currency - ergo, more can get done for their dollar, including military builds.
If I was to make a list of emerging/potential superpowers, it would go:
US
China
EU (3rd from a military standpoint, 2nd from an economic)
India
Brazil
Russia
ASEAN
Really, it comes down to what they're doing to emerge as an economic superpower, and if their military is competent.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
WHO IS JESUS REALLY?
