USA vs. the other top militaries

[Turkish]

Inspired by this thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1846192&enterthread=y

We all know the U.S. is the strongest military in the world, but lets say, assuming no nukes are involved, who'd win? AGAIN, NO NUKES.

USA

vs.

China
Israel
India
Russia
Korea, South
Korea, North
United Kingdom
Turkey
Pakistan

:laugh:

 

[ThePresence]

This topic has just about been beaten to death in the last few threads about this.

 

[MikeMike]

no nukes???

and why do you have the U.K. allied with many of their enemies?

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
This topic has just about been beaten to death in the last few threads about this.

Well, I mean, the other 9 combined :shocked:

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
no nukes???

and why do you have the U.K. allied with many of their enemies?

So Elizabeth can have an heart attack!

 

[Tom]

Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once.

 

[dym]

Originally posted by: Turkish
Inspired by this thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1846192&enterthread=y

We all know the U.S. is the strongest military in the world, but lets say, assuming no nukes are involved, who'd win? AGAIN, NO NUKES.

USA

vs.

China
Israel
India
Russia
Korea, South
Korea, North
United Kingdom
Turkey
Pakistan

:laugh:

Where is Vietnam? We have a "super strong" military!!!

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once.

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once.

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

Why?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

What about Canada?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once.

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

edit, btw, The Ohio National Guard could beat 4 or 5 of those countries, let alone the entire USA.

 

[IAteYourMother]

United States... maybe with a draft

Israel and Turkey have no projection capabilities, Non-issue while we focus on other countries. Koreas would fall easily and we could use the Korean Peninsula as a grounds from which to invade China, Russia, Pakistan, and India. Britain we'd just have to "contain" or defend against

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once.

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

They'd just invade those two first. Shouldn't be too hard Any one of the Top 9 can invade those two alone, wouldn't you say so?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Turkish

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once.

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

They'd just invade those two first. Shouldn't be too hard Any one of the Top 9 can invade those two alone, wouldn't you say so?

You are changing the scenario. And no, those 9 countries would do worse against the USA,Canada, and Mexico combined, than they would against just the USA.

To gain any advantage, you would have to include Canada or Mexico as part of the original list of enemies.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Turkish

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once.

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

They'd just invade those two first. Shouldn't be too hard Any one of the Top 9 can invade those two alone, wouldn't you say so?

You are changing the scenario. And no, those 9 countries would do worse against the USA,Canada, and Mexico combined, than they would against just the USA.

To gain any advantage, you would have to include Canada or Mexico as part of the original list of enemies.

umm, what? Its not changing the scenario, Canada and Mexico would be neutral countries that could easily be taken advantage of

 

[IAteYourMother]

where is the poll?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Turkish

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once.

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

They'd just invade those two first. Shouldn't be too hard Any one of the Top 9 can invade those two alone, wouldn't you say so?

You are changing the scenario. And no, those 9 countries would do worse against the USA,Canada, and Mexico combined, than they would against just the USA.

To gain any advantage, you would have to include Canada or Mexico as part of the original list of enemies.

umm, what? Its not changing the scenario, Canada and Mexico would be neutral countries that could easily be taken advantage of

In that case, it would be a lot easier for the USA to capture Canada and Mexico, as a buffer, than it would be for the other 9 countries to get control of that territory.

Alternatively the USA could protect Canada's and Mexico's coasts to prevent invasion of their territory as well as the USA coast.

The US Navy would completely dominate any movement of those 9 countries militaries by sea.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Turkish

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once.

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

They'd just invade those two first. Shouldn't be too hard Any one of the Top 9 can invade those two alone, wouldn't you say so?

You are changing the scenario. And no, those 9 countries would do worse against the USA,Canada, and Mexico combined, than they would against just the USA.

To gain any advantage, you would have to include Canada or Mexico as part of the original list of enemies.

umm, what? Its not changing the scenario, Canada and Mexico would be neutral countries that could easily be taken advantage of

In that case, it would be a lot easier for the USA to capture Canada and Mexico, as a buffer, than it would be for the other 9 countries to get control of that territory.

The US doesn't have nearly the amount of troops needed to occupy either one of those.

The US would have to occupy to be able to use it as a buffer, the other 9 would only have to establish a base.

 

[Turkish]

But still, they can attack the U.S. from both east and west. That would be hard to defend given the long coasts...

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Turkish
But still, they can attack the U.S. from both east and west. That would be hard to defend given the long coasts...

We don't have to speculate about the issue. The USA has a vastly more powerful Navy than we did in World War 2, and we defended those coasts with no trouble in WW2, against countries with total Naval power much closer to our own, than the 9 countries you listed possess.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Turkish
But still, they can attack the U.S. from both east and west. That would be hard to defend given the long coasts...

We don't have to speculate about the issue. The USA has a vastly more powerful Navy than we did in World War 2, and we defended those coasts with no trouble in WW2, against countries with total Naval power much closer to our own, than the 9 countries you listed possess.

We pretty much dominated the Atlantic with our navy, which was more powerful than the opposition.

 

[tfinch2]

You think a country like North Korea would follow the rules of no nukes?

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Turkish
Inspired by this thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1846192&enterthread=y

We all know the U.S. is the strongest military in the world, but lets say, assuming no nukes are involved, who'd win? AGAIN, NO NUKES.

USA

vs.

China
Israel
India
Russia
Korea, South
Korea, North
United Kingdom
Turkey
Pakistan

:laugh:

China .... they beat us once in Korea. Well, not so much "beat" but rahter "invaded Korea forcing us to withdrawl to an arbitrary line and conceed that it was an intl border"

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Turkish

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Tom
Depends on if you mean offense or defense.

Those 9 countries combined, could not successfully invade the US, and the US could not succesfully invade all of them either, at least all at once.

Invading and occupying are two different ball games. They sure as hell could invade the US, but they don't have the type of transports to successfully bring enough troops over to occupy.

They couldn't get within 500 miles of our coasts with any invasion force, we have a vastly superior Navy and submarine fleet,and the OP didn't include Canada or Mexico so our land borders would not be threatened.

They'd just invade those two first. Shouldn't be too hard Any one of the Top 9 can invade those two alone, wouldn't you say so?

You are changing the scenario. And no, those 9 countries would do worse against the USA,Canada, and Mexico combined, than they would against just the USA.

To gain any advantage, you would have to include Canada or Mexico as part of the original list of enemies.

umm, what? Its not changing the scenario, Canada and Mexico would be neutral countries that could easily be taken advantage of

In that case, it would be a lot easier for the USA to capture Canada and Mexico, as a buffer, than it would be for the other 9 countries to get control of that territory.

The US doesn't have nearly the amount of troops needed to occupy either one of those.

The US would have to occupy to be able to use it as a buffer, the other 9 would only have to establish a base.

That's crazy. If you can imagin a single base for the combined Armies of China and Russia, the other countries are really irrelevant, it would sure be a big base, and a jiucy target for US Air force, which would dominate the Air. The only threat to US air power in the scenario is Russia, which while strong, has always probably been oeverrated by the US military, to justify expenditures.


The USA would not need to occupy any more than the other 9 would, in fact as I added, all the US really needs to do is defend Canada's and Mexico's coasts from invasion.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Turkish
Inspired by this thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1846192&enterthread=y

We all know the U.S. is the strongest military in the world, but lets say, assuming no nukes are involved, who'd win? AGAIN, NO NUKES.

USA

vs.

China
Israel
India
Russia
Korea, South
Korea, North
United Kingdom
Turkey
Pakistan

:laugh:

China .... they beat us once in Korea. Well, not so much "beat" but rahter "invaded Korea forcing us to withdrawl to an arbitrary line and conceed that it was an intl border"

Um... China just had a ridiculous amount of manpower and we didn't quite devote enough men to fight in Korea to combat the Chinese and risk escalation