USA VS Russia and China?

Could the United States be able to contain a war against China and Russia simultaneously?

Forget the support of Europe and other countries. I would like to know if in this supposed war the United States would have the technological and mainly FINANCIAL conditions to endure a war against Russia and China at the same time. No atomic bombs of course.

We're already in MASSIVE debt. The financial strain alone would eventually crush us. We might already have dug ourselves a hole we won't recover from.

Also, just sheer number of people, China is a giant that probably couldn't be taken down without many weapons of mass destruction.

China is an excellent and powerful country. Very crowded too. But it has an army a little bigger than the American army. It does not make direct comparisons and absolute parallels because it would depend on the technology used in wars and strategies. Air strikes can kill many people. That does not mean that the whole country is recruited into the military, causing the United States to face more than 1 billion people. I believe that when a good part of an army is eliminated, the respective country surrenders. The problem is if we have the technology, the contingency and the money to kill three times as many soldiers as our country. Facing Russia and China is something related to numbers and many many lost missiles. Many aircraft and ships destroyed until they reached a point of hope in victory.

China is an excellent and powerful country. Very crowded too. But it has an army a little bigger than the American army. It does not make direct comparisons and absolute parallels because it would depend on the technology used in wars and strategies. Air strikes can kill many people. That does not mean that the whole country is recruited into the military, causing the United States to face more than 1 billion people. I believe that when a good part of an army is eliminated, the respective country surrenders. The problem is if we have the technology, the contingency and the money to kill three times as many soldiers as our country. Facing Russia and China is something related to numbers and many many lost missiles. Many aircraft and ships destroyed until they reached a point of hope in victory.

I was just thinking out loud. I want to know if my considerations are plausible. Give your opinion. Feel free.

China is an excellent and powerful country. VERY CROWED too. But it has an army a little bigger than the American army. It does not make direct comparisons and absolute parallels because it would depend on the technology used in wars and strategies. Air strikes can kill many people. That does not mean that the whole country is recruited into the military, causing the United States to face more than 1 billion people. I believe that when a good part of an army is eliminated, the respective country surrenders. The problem is if we have the technology, the contingency and the money to kill three times as many soldiers as our country. Facing Russia and China is something related to numbers and many many lost missiles. Many aircraft and ships destroyed until they reached a point of hope in victory.

China is not very crowed its population density is only 151 people per km2. Its no where near the most crowed country in the world.

Forget the support of Europe and other countries. I would like to know if in this supposed war the United States would have the technological and mainly FINANCIAL conditions to endure a war against Russia and China at the same time. No atomic bombs of course.

What do you think?

A war with Russia would be nuclear and so would it be if China decided to enter on the Russian side.

But a war with those 3 would be the end of the world so no one would win.

A non-nuclear war?

Well, that rules out Russia; yeah, their military is no joke, but it is not what it used to be. They lost both the technological and numbers game when the Cold War ended. I also don't think they have the training or experience that the US or China has.

China has numbers, but I don't know where they stand on technology and training. I wager their training is pretty good given that they could afford it, but at the same time if they rely on a numbers game they might not really invest all that much into making sure their soldiers are good.

The US has cutting edge technology and spends more on their military than anyone, though a lot of that money is waste. The military has also been in conflict off and on for like 70 years, which leaves us with a lot of lessons, training, and experience.

Honestly I don't know, I want to say the US would come out on top but that would be pushing it.

I prefer to think if the protoss could take on both the zerg and terrans.

@mrbojangles25: The chances of going nuclear are slim, because it's MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

I see what you did there...

*tips hat to you sir*

Without nukes, yes.

@ mrbojangles25 :

The United States is indeed a very powerful nation. I think this country would be able to face two great powers simultaneously. Being able to win or maybe even lose. But even so it is incredible how the USA is able to hit the front with 2 countries almost that of equal to equal. Just as Russia today could face the entire European Union as equals. Of course the European Union would be a bit ahead in technology and perhaps in arsenal. But despite that Russia would be a tremendous stone in the European shoe to be removed. With chances to win or even lose. The world is divided into 4 great forces and a fifth fraction which to date is not fully defined on which side it is. They are Russia, China, USA, European Union and India.

In case you do not know India was placed as the fourth largest global power. Search on google or youtube..

This ^^

Vietnam says hi.

@littleangrydog: Maybe, maybe not either way gotta die somehow someday lol

@israelijoshua : These American losses to smaller countries are very relative. There are history experts who say that the war in Vietnam was not lost but delivered. This Brazilian channel explains many things about the history of the war in Vietnam. But he is Brazilian and I do not know if youtube subtitles translate the comments correctly.

With regard to wars in the Middle East it is even more complex to define a victory or a loss. We usually think of wars as something we see in movies, video games or chess games. Wars are too complex interactions between nations. In a war there are several strategic modes of fighting. We know that trying to keep peace in a middle-eastern rebel country is as complex as hitting a line on a sewing needle.

We can not say that one country has won or not won a war against another where the entire people are militarized and create rebellious anarchies of invasive military resistance. I believe that the loss of a war can only be defined when a country no longer has the economic and military conditions to sustain the conflicts until the end. And this is what I believe to be complicated for countries like Russia and China. Which means that the United States would also have economic difficulties to spend a decade of war losing soldiers, ships, aircraft and ammunition daily.

As for these small countries mentioned by you, wars take place in their territory. The United States can not use its most powerful arsenal. There were very innocent and civilians in the conflicts. But in a cymetric war of large proportions with the use of advanced military arsenal in fields, oceans and relatively neutral airspace the story would be different. Japan, for example, was losing the war and the United States only had to use atomic bombs because it was testing the power of its new weapon until then.

The Japanese were so desperate that they had to throw their planes on American ships as a kind of honorable suicide, called the "kamikaze." This story that the United States lost the war to Vietnam is a myth created by communist propaganda in the 1980s and even today is spoken by less informed people. From a purely military point of view, the United States won the war because they succeeded in completing their objective of not allowing the North Vietnamese to conclude annexation with South Vietnam.

The demise some people speak of was political but not warlike. A US political decision to give up the conflict and allow Vietnam to make its own decisions with the UN. Whatever a war between the United States, China and Russia would be terrible and no one would win. I just wanted to say that I was surprised to realize how powerful the United States is and its ability to face two great nations simultaneously!

I didn't say the USA is invincible.

Judging by the previous two instances of superpowers fighting each other and the resulting disregard for human life and the speed at which the countries involved build from everyday society a total war machine that would eat up every man, woman and child, I wouldn't expect there to be any winners from such a conflict. And given how surprised everyone was at the effectiveness of weaponry after a near 100 year period of smaller conflicts, I think it's clear that we would have no clue as to the effectiveness of weaponry today, and the thought of how far biochemical warfare may have advanced alone makes me shudder.

I would wager, given the general publicly known advances in science and the video's on new weaponry and the amount of control governments of developed countries around the world have gotten over their population, that a new war between supernations (no matter if you leave the rest out of it) would result in a slaughter with a scope, cruelty, speed yet longevity of devastation that we have never dared to imagine and are not prepared for in the slightest, a total disregard for citizen life of all ages and genders that would make the world wars look like an appetizer, an economic price tag higher than that of all previous wars combined and an ecological footprint that would then be governing life on Earth for the next hundreds of years, if a group of humans would live to see what's after.

Just look at autonomous weaponry, cures for viruses involving genetic makeup. The effectiveness of people using weaponry would be at an all time low relative to the science of destruction. Life would be a sidenote. I hope that all supernations realize that whatever they have is unlikely to be unique, so that we'll never have to find out.

You can't use the war in Iraq or Afghanistan as a point when talking about fighting a conventional enemy like Russia or China. There are tons of factors that change when you go from fighting an insurgency to an actual uniformed enemy.

I also think the biggest factor is where is the war? If the U.S. is trying to invade Russia and China, yeah they're gonna have a hard time. But if China or Russia was trying to attack the US mainland? Forget about it. Impossible.

A major war between large countries without using nuke is impossible. That's why no one still starting World War 3 because nobody knows how many nuke their opponent has.

In terms of military might:

China > America > Russia

IMO in the world war China and Russia combined would easily beat USA.

This theoretical war wouldn't happen without nukes...so really this is just a thought experiment.

If the question is "would the USA's military be able to "beat" or "win out" against china/Russia's armies?" the answer would be, of course. Our budget is STUPID huge. Much larger than those countries combined. Our technologies and hardware (11 Carriers for us, 1/2 crap ones for both China/Russia), missiles, air superiority, etc.

So...we would smash them in this thought experiment. However...could we occupy/build there? Of course not.

So it depends on what kind of "war" we are discussing. A military/military conflict, WW2 style, we would win. A takeover over time (ie Iraq/Afghan), of course we couldn't.

So people throwing in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam...those are differing wars, I think, from what this talk is supposed to be.

The USA military is the single largest, bloated, force of death the world has ever seen. It's absurd.

But anyways...Nukes change the whole landscape, so we can't ignore them irl. A military strike on Russia would be catastrophic to the USA, and the world in general, because of the nuclear retaliation.

@kakashiii: Im agree with u. No winners in war

jpisfuny

@childintime:

Haha, I would disagree with that, what makes you so sure of your position?

You forgot that Russia has super strong AAW. Plus Chinese AAW ain't shabby either. Large amount of American military aircraft would be blown away by S-500 systems if they're striking against the Russian territory.

I don't think I forgot anything...I think you are overestimating those placements.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-s-300-s-400-s-500-vs-americas-f-35-f-22-who-wins-20095

You may find that interesting. I stand by my original statement.

America has the best military. It would win

USA would win against both if it's allowed to unleash what it has.

guys!

the war would be nuclear and would contaminate everyone on the planet.

why are you guys talking about the cost?

If the USA unleashes what it has (nukes), then so will Russia and China. The result would be all three losing.

USa would win in 37 days vs. china and russia.

Forget the support of Europe and other countries. I would like to know if in this supposed war the United States would have the technological and mainly FINANCIAL conditions to endure a war against Russia and China at the same time. No atomic bombs of course.

USA is part of the Five Eyes group i.e. USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Lockheed Martin Corporation's year 2010 stealth fiber material patent

http://www.google.com/patents/US20100271253#v=onepage&q&f=false

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In some aspects, embodiments disclosed herein relate to a radar absorbing composite that includes a (CNT)-infused fiber material disposed in at least a portion of a matrix material. The composite is capable of absorbing radar in a frequency range from between about 0.10 Megahertz to about 60 Gigahertz. The CNT-infused fiber material forms a first layer that reduces radar reflectance and a second layer that dissipates the energy of the absorbed radar.

LM's year 2010 stealth fiber material patent is effective from 0.1 MHz to 60 Ghz which is included all VHF, L-band, S-Band, X-band, Ku-band

P-Band – 30-100 cm (1-0.3 GHz)

L-Band – 15-30 cm (2-1 GHz)

S-Band – 8-15 cm (4-2 GHz)

C-Band – 4-8 cm (8-4 GHz)

X-Band – 2.5-4 cm (12-8 GHz)

K-Band – Ku: 1.7-2.5 cm (18-12 GHz);

Ka-Band: 0.75-1.2 cm (40-27 GHz).

Lockheed Martin reveals F-35 Lot 4 and above features carbon nanotube (CNT) reinforced polymer (CNRP) material structures

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-reveals-f-35-to-feature-nanocomposite-357223/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-A6PWRFno

The video shows F-35's EO-DAS capabilities with tracking/detection >1300Km range. The target was Space X's Falcon rocket.

https://news.vice.com/article/us-defense-secretary-announces-navy-can-blow-up-anything-it-wants-any-time-it-wants

A test SM missile was fired from USN Aegis ship and track/target data driven by F-35.

http://www.govexec.com/defense/2017/12/newly-revealed-experiment-shows-how-f-35-could-help-intercept-icbms/144372/

F-35's (EO-DAS) sensors can guided U.S. Navy’s anti-ballistic missile or U.S. Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile battery.

F-35 is a flying SAM site that doesn't need it's nose to be pointed at the target.

F-35 doubles as Aegis compatible ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) sensor platform with the potential to shoot down S-500's missiles.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/f-35-overwhelming-superiority-over-rafale-and-eurofighter-in-atlantic-trident.523986/

The F-35A's overwhelming superiority has been recorded in some of the most epic air combat in NATO history when the USAF fighter met for the Atlantic Trident (April 12-18), French Rafale fighters and British Eurofighter Typhoon

he score was overwhelmingly in favor of US fighters, of course, the 5th generation, but the issue for the Greek side is not how the European fighters behaved against the F-22, but against the F-35, as in six months "tired" Mirage 2000 and F-16 third generation, PA will have to face the Turkish F-35A.

Rafale and Eurofighter were destroyed by AIM-120 long before they realized there was an enemy in the shooting position.

The APG-81, the F-35 radar tracking track at distances over 230 km and locking distances of 150 km and firing at the AIM-120 firing range with the Anglo-English fighters, literally did not know "where they came from "!

They never reached distances of less than 30 km and when the English-style fighters did it, they were all destroyed!

All of this from an aircraft that was not designed as an airborne aircraft against aircraft designed as airborne aircraft (let's say Air fighting was emphasized in Rafale), but it has now shown that the 4th of the 5th generation gap is real, as it is not just the stealth features, it is also the electronic systems that give the overwhelming avant-garde.

It was impressed that neither Eurofighter's IRST system was useful, as the F-35's shots were out of range.

In the exercises, F-15E fighters took part with the Red forces and they had the same luck.

The question then is how do some people in Greece consider spending an enormous amount (1 billion initially and up to 3 billion dollars later) to upgrade old F-16s that, because they will acquire AESA radar, will be able to articulate "Dissuasive" reason against the hordes of the Turkish F-35!

When the senior Rafale and Eurofighter are presumed to "eat wildwood" from the USAF fighters, which even - and this has its significance - do not even have a complete flight envelope, as it is believed that the fighter is still evolving!

lol

USA would lose. So would China and Russia lose. They would just wipe each other out. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

Ukraine Chernobyl's fall-out stayed in the northern hemisphere.