_RKO_ said: Play Fallout 3. America won the war against China, but in turn the whole world was nearly destroyed. Thats pretty much what would happen if a war broke out now.

Very well said.

mrstickball said: Avinash, remember: The US has 1 less carrier than every other nation combined (11 US carriers vs. 12 carriers by all other nations). The most carriers any other country owns is 2.

Good point. Also, each one of those carriers carries more planes than all but ~17 countries have in their entire air forces. Also, in the even of a full-scale war, stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser could be brought online very quickly, further enhancing the gap.

I don't think some of the people posting in this thread fully comprehend the scale of investment the US has (and continues to pour in to) military technology and infrastructure. In 2008, the US allocated 607 billion dollars to defense spending. That's 41.5% of all the money spent by all countries in the entire world on military technology. Also, to put that figure in perspective, the UK's entire GDP is 2.7 trillion dollars (thus US defense budget == 22% of the UK's GDP) and only 17 countries (9% of the 192 UN member states) have a GDP that is greater than this figure. That means the US has an astronomical advantage in developing, testing, and mass producing military technology over any and all comers. It wouldn't man anything once war was declared, but it would sure as hell impact the outcome of said war...

I do say though, that I thoroughly hope and pray I will never have the opportuinity of seeing these speculations play out on a battlefield.

Well, it all depends on the period of time we're talking about.

If we're talking about now - then, yes, the US would own any opponent - although it's interesting to note than the one country that offers the best chance of actually landing on the US, is the US's closest ally, and would probably be fighting on the same side, anyway.

But, if we look into the future - when the EU is further integrated, the EU will become a superpower economically, which will make way for it to become a superpower militia wise, too. (And for those doubting the odds of this, there have already been plans put forward which ams to work towards an EU army).

SamuelRSmith said: Well, it all depends on the period of time we're talking about. If we're talking about now - then, yes, the US would own any opponent - although it's interesting to note than the one country that offers the best chance of actually landing on the US, is the US's closest ally, and would probably be fighting on the same side, anyway. But, if we look into the future - when the EU is further integrated, the EU will become a superpower economically, which will make way for it to become a superpower militia wise, too. (And for those doubting the odds of this, there have already been plans put forward which ams to work towards an EU army).

I don't doubt that so much as I'm unsure that the EU will ever spend as much militarily as the US... or that it will spend as much on conventional military technology.

Unless the US itself expierences a severe economic decline.

 

Also... the lack in Aircraft carriers in the world surprises me... probably from playing too much PTO 2.

The NATO of the East. China, Russia, and other countries could get around to it.

Are China and Russia on good terms? They've typically hated eachother.

mrstickball said: Are China and Russia on good terms? They've typically hated eachother.

"International relations analyst Parag Khanna states that by making massive trade and investment deals with Latin America and Africa, China has established its presence as a superpower along with the European Union and the United States. China's rise is demonstrated by its ballooning share of trade in its gross domestic product. He believes that China's consultative style has allowed it to develop political and economic ties with many countries including those viewed as rogue states by the United States. He states that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization founded with Russia and the Central Asian countries may eventually be the "NATO of the East".

 

Sounds far fetched, but who knows? I'm certainly unsure.

I was being more theoretical, me thinks.

Retrasado said: Good point. Also, each one of those carriers carries more planes than all but ~17 countries have in their entire air forces. Also, in the even of a full-scale war, stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser could be brought online very quickly, further enhancing the gap. I don't think some of the people posting in this thread fully comprehend the scale of investment the US has (and continues to pour in to) military technology and infrastructure. In 2008, the US allocated 607 billion dollars to defense spending. That's 41.5% of all the money spent by all countries in the entire world on military technology. Also, to put that figure in perspective, the UK's entire GDP is 2.7 trillion dollars (thus US defense budget == 22% of the UK's GDP) and only 17 countries (9% of the 192 UN member states) have a GDP that is greater than this figure. That means the US has an astronomical advantage in developing, testing, and mass producing military technology over any and all comers. It wouldn't man anything once war was declared, but it would sure as hell impact the outcome of said war... I do say though, that I thoroughly hope and pray I will never have the opportuinity of seeing these speculations play out on a battlefield.

The problem with comparing budgets is, that they consist of different value of work and different functions. For example, China has budget about 1/10 of US budget, but China has a lot cheaper workforce (keep in mind that due to national security issues, most military related stuff is domestic). But, due to China having bigger army, it has relatively bigger weight on military personnel that USA has.
In exchange, USA has more foreign military bases, that tend to have higher costs than domestic bases and also, aircraft carriers, that are very expensive in every aspect.

Also the military operations in progress take their own share from the budget.

Kasz216 said: Also... the lack in Aircraft carriers in the world surprises me... probably from playing too much PTO 2.

Yes, you propably play too much. Judging by the need for the carriers, the number seems inflated.
The thing is, that the carriers have very little defensive advantage, especially for the cost of them. In the worst case scenario, they even could occupy resources that are needed somewhere else.
For offensive purposes (far away from home), they are pretty good investment.

SamuelRSmith said: Well, it all depends on the period of time we're talking about. If we're talking about now - then, yes, the US would own any opponent - although it's interesting to note than the one country that offers the best chance of actually landing on the US, is the US's closest ally, and would probably be fighting on the same side, anyway. But, if we look into the future - when the EU is further integrated, the EU will become a superpower economically, which will make way for it to become a superpower militia wise, too. (And for those doubting the odds of this, there have already been plans put forward which ams to work towards an EU army).

There were lots of talk about it in 1990:s, but currently it doesn't look like something that is pushed forward. What is more likely (judging by current progress) is, that EU takes over NATO and NATO will become the unified EU defence organisation. If that happens, it will be interesting to see if countries like Norway or USA will be still willing to allocate resources to NATO.

^The SAFE legislation that passed through the EU Parl't in Feb was a step in the right direction.

That's easy: Vietnam