If NK, China, and Russia united against America, who would win a war?

[shimerra]

1: It was technically Russia's manpower advantage that won the war for them, they were able to throw more bodies at the enemy than they could throw back while simultaneously throwing more bodies into factories than they could and throw more tanks out of said factories than they could.

2: The USA is not currently as far ahead of China/Russia as Germany was ahead of Russia.

Not even a little bit. The Russians were shitting a brick by the end of it. And by it I mean the end of the German offensive into Russia. Allied supplies and the western front were the breathing room Russia needed to stay in the fight. Otherwise winter ends, Germany reestablishes its supply lines, and Russians continued to get slaughtered at an almost record pace that could only be beat by organized mass suicides. There is no world in which Russians were winning that war without help and to even say they "won" it given their absurd body count is still laughable. They were saved from death from others is a more accurate description of their state of affairs.

2. Yes we are. And modern day Russia is starting to look about as well equipped as WWII Russia given their economic issue. Cold War Russia might have a point but modern day Russia is not a global military threat. China is the much more important long term threat military speaking because while Russia is declining/struggling to maintain the status quo China is making steady progress. The U.S. navy alone could probably take on most of the world in a conventional war.

[caervek]

Haha the U.K and the U.S might have our differences but we back each other when it counts

That explains why we helped you freedomize Syria in 2013, oh snap we refused to help and Obama had to tuck his tail and back down (not because the US couldn't solo it but because he didn't want to launch another illegal war if nobody was going to join in).

[HolgerDK]

So what? Let's have you prove how woefully uninformed on the subject: how will China get to the U.S.? Answer: nowhere near as easily and effortlessly as the U.S. could attack mainland China.

You seem to have some idiotic child like obsession that the man that has the larger army always wins. This has never been the case at any point in history.



Not to mention to anyone who wasn't brain dead allied support was crucial to the Russian's surviving. Make no mistake with the death toll they suffered saying they won the war is laughable at best. Germany fighting on two fronts and their own mistake of over extending supply lines during a Russian winter on top of critical material support from allied countries is the only reason the Russian strategy of absorbing as many German bullets with bodies as they could "worked".

The home advantaged helped but it and numbers were nowhere close to enough.

The same way that USA would use to invade China. See how your argument is easily turned on you? - that because it is you that argue like a child.

[Doctor Amadeus]

That explains why we helped you freedomize Syria in 2013, oh snap we refused to help and Obama had to tuck his tail and back down (not because the US couldn't solo it but because he didn't want to launch another illegal war if nobody was going to join in).

You are mistaking a conflict over a specific issue that many in the U.S also disagreed with and fought over, so it isn't any different, but if came down to a war, I think you are out of your mind if you are under any impression that the U.K wouldn't back the U.S in a full on war.

In fact anybody in the U.K that thought otherwise about that relationship or in the U.S about the U.K they would find themselves very much alone. We don't have to love or always like each other, but That relationship as it pertains to survival is pretty fucking solid.

[Haven]

Israel. Those jews are sly as fuck...

[caervek]

Not even a little bit. The Russians were shitting a brick by the end of it. And by it I mean the end of the German offensive into Russia. Allied supplies and the western front were the breathing room Russia needed to stay in the fight. Otherwise winter ends, Germany reestablishes its supply lines, and Russians continued to get slaughtered at an almost record pace that could only be beat by organized mass suicides.

You seem to have the misconception that casualties have any relevance in war, they don't, the only thing that matters is who wins and who loses. Using superior numbers of poorly equipped troops and poorly built tanks to defeat a smaller force of better equipped troops and better built tanks was (and is) a valid tactic. It's how Germany beat France, it's how Russia won the eastern front (which is kind of lol when you think about it because it's not like the Germans had no idea about the danger of Blitzkrieg).

There is no world in which Russians were winning that war without help and to even say they "won" it given their absurd body count is still laughable. They were saved from death from others is a more accurate description of their state of affairs.

Ignoring the continued false value placed on body count, the German offensive into Russia was lost before it was launched, they never stood a chance with or without the west aiding Russia, the only difference it made was how far into Russia they would have penetrated before being stopped then beaten back.

- - - Updated - - -

You are mistaking a conflict over a specific issue that many in the U.S also disagreed with and fought over, so it isn't any different, but if came down to a war, I think you are out of your mind if you are under any impression that the U.K wouldn't back the U.S in a full on war.

No offense but have you ever been to the UK? From a military POV the USA is persona non grata here due to Iraq, there is zero chance of us aiding the US in a major war of it's starting, to the point where even if the government voted for it the public wouldn't comply.

[Slant]

An all-out war basically. WW3 and nothing less.

The US. Because NATO.

- - - Updated - - -

Well this thread is specifically about a theoretical conflict between the USA and China+friends, but for reference the UK is under no obligation to assist you in a war if you instigate it, and I can practically guarantee that in the post-Iraq climate we wouldn't.

This would change if the US was attacked. Friendly me wants to say the US wouldn't instigate a war. Cynical me agrees with you.

[caervek]

This would change if the US was attacked.

...

Well yes because they wouldn't be the aggressor anymore would they, the context would be completely reversed.

[OrcsRLame]

Assuming no one used nukes, the US has the advantage on paper. Just glancing at the 2017 rankings for Global Firepower, America has about a 2-1 advantage against China and Russia combined concerning the military resources that actually matter in modern warfare. That's roughly consistent with US foreign police of being able to fight and win 2 wars on opposite sides of the planet at the same time.

Russia and China together have an absurd population though, and as Napolean said, quantity has a quality all its own, so if it somehow became a war fought primarily with infantry, Russia and China would suddenly have the advantage.

[Slant]

...

Well yes because they wouldn't be the aggressor anymore would they, the context would be completely reversed.

Yep. This scenario is way too vague to make any real statement.

[skitzin]

The same way that USA would use to invade China. See how your argument is easily turned on you? - that because it is you that argue like a child.

The USA has far better Naval and Air Force capabilities than China does. In essence, the USA controls the Oceans and can easily shut down many of the choke points China needs to move beyond their territory.

For starters, the USA has got military installations all around China to start with. Thailand, The Philippines, Japan, South Korea. Any move they made would be detected long before they could detect a move made by the USA.

No offense but have you ever been to the UK? From a military POV the USA is persona non grata here due to Iraq, there is zero chance of us aiding the US in a major war of it's starting, to the point where even if the government voted for it the public wouldn't comply.

The UK would be the first to jump to America's side in their defense.

Thinking anything else is delusional. Even from this year alone, the UK is backing the USA in the Syrian conflict. If it came down to an actual conflict with either country the UK would 100% the USA.

[Doctor Amadeus]

No offense but have you ever been to the UK? From a military POV the USA is persona non grata here due to Iraq, there is zero chance of us aiding the US in a major war of it's starting, to the point where even if the government voted for it the public wouldn't comply.

It would depend on some things perhaps but not overall, but I tell you what since this is poll and others can see besides you possibly from the U.K let see if they agree with your notion that the U.K wouldn't back the U.S or vise verse if needed.

You could be correct, but personally I think you are full of shit, just as I am sure you have as warped reality about the situation concerning the U.S and U.K relationship as you do the U.S and our capabilities do to bias.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. This scenario is way too vague to make any real statement.

If the NK, China and Russia united against us lets face it this situation wouldn't happen, but even if it did without nukes, just the 3, we don't need nukes to win a war, provided none come from the other side obviously.

[caervek]

You could be correct, but personally I think you are full of shit, just as I am sure you have as warped reality about the situation concerning the U.S and U.K relationship as you do the U.S and our capabilities do to bias.

I'm the one with a warped reality? lol, we refused to help you invade Syria, we're not about to just agree to help you invade Russia/China lol.

[Flarelaine]

The USA has far better Naval and Air Force capabilities than China does. In essence, the USA controls the Oceans and can easily shut down many of the choke points China needs to move beyond their territory.

For starters, the USA has got military installations all around China to start with. Thailand, The Philippines, Japan, South Korea. Any move they made would be detected long before they could detect a move made by the USA.

I mostly agree, but I also believe China has the capability to detect US moves as well. Just because they do not grandstand does not mean they do not improve their capabilities like crazy. They have more money to throw at their armed forces than anyone else save Uncle Sam and they've been doing massive industrial espionage all over the West but especially America for years now.

Oh, and I'm not sure how much you can count on the Philippines these days.

[Slant]

It would depend on some things perhaps but not overall, but I tell you what since this is poll and others can see besides you possibly from the U.K let see if they agree with your notion that the U.K wouldn't back the U.S or vise verse if needed.

You could be correct, but personally I think you are full of shit, just as I am sure you have as warped reality about the situation concerning the U.S and U.K relationship as you do the U.S and our capabilities do to bias.

If the NK, China and Russia united against us lets face it this situation wouldn't happen, but even if it did without nukes, just the 3, we don't need nukes to win a war, provided none come from the other side obviously.

You're severely underestimating the biggest and most valuable resource in warfare.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You're severely underestimating the biggest and most valuable resource in warfare.

Teach me then

- - - Updated - - -

I'm the one with a warped reality? lol, we refused to help you invade Syria, we're not about to just agree to help you invade Russia/China lol.

Haha you didn't read the fucking question, NO and the U.S or anyone sane would not likely follow anybody into some dumb shit like that, as for Syria as I said you have a warped fucking view. That wasn't a war it was a conflict.

But if the NK, China and Russia declared war the U.S wouldn't stand alone and the U.K would stand with us despite your view, but I am open to being wrong so let's see if your fellow citizens agree with your bullshit.

[Slant]

Teach me then

Men and politics. The US has two distinct disadvantages that they need to absolutely compensate with their advantage in high tech warfare. They have less men available and they need to keep the domestic approval up. If Vietnam has taught us one thing it's that the best way to beat the US is to inflict pain. You don't need to win against the US on the battlefield. It's much easier to win against them in their own approval ratings. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq... textbook examples of strategy on how to beat the US.

In the meantime, China, NK and Russia have a history of not giving two shits about approval ratings, dirty fighting and sending soldiers to the meatgrinder. All things the US needs to avoid in order for them to not lose moral support at home.

- - - Updated - - -

But if the NK, China and Russia declared war the U.S wouldn't stand alone and the U.K would stand with us despite your view, but I am open to being wrong so let's see if your fellow citizens agree with your bullshit.

No idea why you're just talking about the UK. The entire NATO alliance would stand with the US and together they'd totally clean up whoever attacked one of us.

[skitzin]

I mostly agree, but I also believe China has the capability to detect US moves as well. Just because they do not grandstand does not mean they do not improve their capabilities like crazy. They have more money to throw at their armed forces than anyone else save Uncle Sam and they've been doing massive industrial espionage all over the West but especially America for years now.

Oh, and I'm not sure how much you can count on the Philippines these days.

Of course, they'd detect at least some of it. But they are definitely at a disadvantage and even if they were able to detect something they lack the footing to be able to act on it in a lot of situations. To make up that they are disadvantaged they have embraced technology and would seek to use it as much as possible. And the big targets wouldn't even be the US military - they would more likely target companies and hit the USA from an Economic angle.

Because China's actual strength lies in not actually engaging an enemy but rather fighting a war of attrition and economics. They have been positioning themselves like this for a while now. Just look at the South China Sea. That region has a huge amount of trade traffic going through it every year - $3.37 trillion worth in 2016. Being the ones in control of that area is a lot like controlling the Panama Canal.

[Phlegethon]

You do realize having a larger population doesn't mean having a larger or well trained population correct?

You do realise that the NK special forces are better trained than the murrican ones right?

Thing is, this is the last war that would be fought with modern weapons. WW4 would be with sticks and stones. Nobody can win that war.
Ond the count of China not siding with Russia because of export to the US, that's a bit silly. Russia and China are not specifically allies, China protects NK. Now if NK would be attacking first China said they would not intervene. If the US strikes first, China would come to NK's aid. NK would strike SK and the world economy would go down the toilet. There would not be much talk about who trades with whom.
Jon made a nice piece on NK... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrS0uNBuG9c

You fucked up your "sides".

[Slant]

This scenario is nothing like Vietnam et al. In none of those previous conflicts was there ever a danger of survival at home. A war with Russia/China would be totally different and not something you could just pull out of because people started believing more in pot and free love.

Ah, so we're talking specifically a fight on US soil? See, these are details that would've been useful in the OP.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realise that the NK special forces are better trained than the murrican ones right?

Doubt that. NK can barely feed their soldiers, let alone motivate them to be trained that well. Is this like everyone saying the Republican Guard is a super elite special force of Iraq that'll cost the US a shitload of casualties and then they ran away like bitches in their undies when the US actually showed up?