Who has the most powerful military?

[cbrn2]

If the US, Russia, and China go to war with each other, who u think will win? Remember, it's does really count on who has the largest army. You must take in there training, technology, and resources.

[Kinofp]

the US; the best training, the best technology, and fairly good numbers.

[Alphex]

China for the fact that they have sheer numbers of cattle they can send out.

[SickLaxBro]

Didn't we have a thread like this before?

US hands down. The US is a huge nation that stretches from one ocean to the other. Unless your Canada or Mexico, your gonna have a hard time invading them. The US also spends more on their military then any other country. Sure, China has the numbers, but we have the better equipment, training, leadership, etc.

[justavictim82]

Originally Posted by SickLaxBro

Didn't we have a thread like this before?

US hands down. The US is a huge nation that stretches from one ocean to the other. Unless your Canada or Mexico, your gonna have a hard time invading them. The US also spends more on their military then any other country. Sure, China has the numbers, but we have the better equipment, training, leadership, etc.

The chinese win. By sheer numbers. Never underestimate the power of wave after wave if chinese soldiers under attack. Ask the Germans how fighting Russia at Leningrad or Stalingrad wasnt any fun. AK47's are also cheap to make and a 10 year old can learn to fire them. The chinese could easily replace their casualties as well with fresh meatshields. A million dead soldiers would be nothing when they have a billion more to replace them where as it would cripple our military. Aeriel Superiority would be a draw. Us has better equipment but the Chinese have more numbers and/or could produce more for any prolonged time frame.

[jcaz76]

Originally Posted by justavictim82

The chinese win. By sheer numbers. Never underestimate the power of wave after wave if chinese soldiers under attack. Ask the Germans how fighting Russia at Leningrad or Stalingrad wasnt any fun. AK47's are also cheap to make and a 10 year old can learn to fire them. The chinese could easily replace their casualties as well with fresh meatshields. A million dead soldiers would be nothing when they have a billion more to replace them where as it would cripple our military. Aeriel Superiority would be a draw. Us has better equipment but the Chinese have more numbers and/or could produce more for any prolonged time frame.

well first of all, sheer numbers means nothing when they have limited transportaion. The chinese do have a lot of troops but their numbers would come in small quantities because of their lack of overseas transportation, which would give the US a very superior defense, which directly leads to saying that the US has that in one of their strong suits. The US has devestating technology compared to AK 47s. If we were to deploy our military in china, we would win them not by number, but by trained and efficient troops that know specifically how to deal with guerrilla warfare. And to add to that, our air force outweighs theirs by very very far, and if you rule the sky, you can undoubtedly and easily say you rule the ground.

[justavictim82]

Originally Posted by jcaz76

well first of all, sheer numbers means nothing when they have limited transportaion. The chinese do have a lot of troops but their numbers would come in small quantities because of their lack of overseas transportation, which would give the US a very superior defense, which directly leads to saying that the US has that in one of their strong suits. The US has devestating technology compared to AK 47s. If we were to deploy our military in china, we would win them not by number, but by trained and efficient troops that know specifically how to deal with guerrilla warfare. And to add to that, our air force outweighs theirs by very very far, and if you rule the sky, you can undoubtedly and easily say you rule the ground.

I dont care how tactically advanced any country is you will not win a ground war in china. Its too much ground to cover (this isnt iraq people) for air superiority or for ground troops. The Chinese would go guerrilla as well and know their terrain better than anyone (see Afghanistan) Also if the Chinese wanted naval superiority they could have it in 5-10 years. The problem is that modern navies are not very cost effective. Most warships are used for troop support (escorting Troop and aircraft carriers, softening invasions with shell fire, etc) you arent going to see major sea battles like the ones in WW2 because ballistics have gotten 1000x better and more accurate in the last 70 odd years.

[tom the pit leader]

Originally Posted by justavictim82

I dont care how tactically advanced any country is you will not win a ground war in china. Its too much ground to cover (this isnt iraq people) for air superiority or for ground troops. The Chinese would go guerrilla as well and know their terrain better than anyone (see Afghanistan) Also if the Chinese wanted naval superiority they could have it in 5-10 years. The problem is that modern navies are not very cost effective. Most warships are used for troop support (escorting Troop and aircraft carriers, softening invasions with shell fire, etc) you arent going to see major sea battles like the ones in WW2 because ballistics have gotten 1000x better and more accurate in the last 70 odd years.

Japan almost did in WW2. It only after the US started to bankroll china and launch counter attacks that China had a prayer. It all depends on how little you care about civilian casualties. Japan burned a swath in China that made the Holocaust look like a picnic.

Any place can be conquered if you believe in the wholesale slaughter of the innocent and you lack other enemies to fight.

[IronsightSniper]

Originally Posted by jcaz76

well first of all, sheer numbers means nothing when they have limited transportaion. The chinese do have a lot of troops but their numbers would come in small quantities because of their lack of overseas transportation, which would give the US a very superior defense, which directly leads to saying that the US has that in one of their strong suits. The US has devestating technology compared to AK 47s. If we were to deploy our military in china, we would win them not by number, but by trained and efficient troops that know specifically how to deal with guerrilla warfare. And to add to that, our air force outweighs theirs by very very far, and if you rule the sky, you can undoubtedly and easily say you rule the ground.

Well you are so wrong on many points. How do you honestly think those goods manufactured in China goes to the U.S.? That's right, Container ships. Some can be just as large as a Nimitz classed aircraft carrier. And you are so very wrong about Chinese equipment and training. There's a stereotype out there on the basis that because I do not know anything about China, I will assume that they are doing the same things they were doing in the 50's. Completely and utterly wrong. There's a video on Youtube you can watch where a joint-U.S. and Chinese training regime is taken place. In one scene, you'd see a Chinese soldier dressed in Russian blues competeing in a timed obstacal course with a U.S. Marine. Who wins? The chinaman. And your belief that most Chinese soldiers field AK-47's is retarded. One thing, the Chinese army is actually quite small compared to their population, unlike our own. It's in the 4-5 million range I believe. They do not equip their Standard infantry with AK-47s or AK-74s, but Chinese manufactured Type-95 Bullpups. In a way, Type-95s are superior and more advanced than the M4s we field. And please, don't get me started on Naval Power. Dong Feng 21D and shit.

[Megamind]

Yeah I'm gonna say no one is going to win that one...