Russia and China vs. NATO. Who would be last man standing? Patriotism aside.

Posted by: TheRussian

In a full out war (non-nuclear) between Russia and China vs. NATO, who would win? Put your patriotism aside. If you want, use this website to help you make your decision: http://www.globalfirepower.com/

  • Russia and China

  • NATO

39% 47 votes
61% 72 votes
  • holding their ground with the help of nukes. yeah i don't think NATO has the balls to invade either country with ground forces.

  • Because China is the rising world power...and China will not be fighting alone because Pakistan will be standing by China in any war...and Russia will be supported by India...so basically US and Nato, Israel Vs. China Russia India Pakistan North Korea Iran

  • Russia and China would win because with both of their powers combined all Russia has to do is invade all the NATO countries with China's support and then focus on the U.S.

  • Russia has the most powerful atomic bombs and the best jet (T-50) China has the most populist army in the world

  • I do not pick Russia and China nor do I choose the NATO alliance because a war between these two sides would be the end of the human race as we know it due to they both have advantages over one another NATO aka (USA) has a massive technological advantage along with more nuclear weapons when combined with its NATO allies but Russia and China have the advantage of numbers but the majority of Russian and Chinese troops are either ill trained or unexperienced compared to US troops who have been fighting wars for decades but a war between either side will involve the whole world because the US has many allies everywhere and this war will be short because the use of nuclear weapons will cause our destruction.

  • Russia&China because these countries have strong military furthermore russia is going to use what she has if will be on pressure and modern weapons are made in russia and china

  • Both Russia and China have many military equipments than the members of NATO. Also China has the biggest army in the world with a good GDP. Russia have no. 1 nuclear weapons in the world. So, I think they would win.

    Posted by: Popom
  • greediest nations the so called developed economy will do anything to get petroleum or natural resources.......US + Nato(blind followers) created Al-qaida ,taliban to fight Russia , now created ISIS to invade middle east nations.. they have to be termed as North Atlantic Christian Terrorist Organisation (NATCO) Russia nd China have power to do it nd other developing countries shud join defeat these evil forces .. let their greed end soon.. a peaceful world would prevail.

    Posted by: yalang
  • the nato is outdated oganisation it can stand against russia,chinaindiaand iran coalation.

  • Russia has strongest nuclear arsenal on the planet and China and Russia combined have biggest military on the planet. In the case of mentioned scenario west would face bigger economic crisis!

  • because i dont want to be slave of the american based bank cartels i dont to be deprived of the knowledge which i should know .....i dont want to be lied by media anymore ......i dont want to be a part of new world order

  • russia and china will win the war. because they have huge nmbr of modern solider with modern equipment. they both have advance technology which,nato & us have.

  • Russia and China cause The Us is evil

  • I think russia and china are clear winner since ... look at the size of the countries and the proud people. NATO consists of people who no more trust their governments and people running it.

  • most of american's are atheist people they believe in war and they proud to be their military power like nato and they creat riot all countries like syria and iraq because their god is lucifer look at them they permit homosexuality and worship illuminati..... may god destroy them i hope russia will win because their guard is lord all world know what they r doing bad they want made NEW WORLD ORDER

  • Ok. First of all, let's hope this never happens. Cuz yeah. I don't want nukes flying everywhere. But should this happen, it will he very difficult to tell which one is the clear winner. Russia has the largest nuke arsenal, but they probably are not gonna use it, neither will China or us nor NATO. So let's forget about nukes fora a sec here. Secondly, should this war take place, I assure you it will not be just China and Russia vs NATO The Pakistanis will definitely join China, and the Pakistanis hold huge geological strategical advantage. The Indians will back up Russia because everything they have is Russian made. The north Koreans will back up China, but they don't count. And heres the interesting part The UK might actually part with NATO and join the Chinese due to the fact that China simply invested took much money into the UK, way more than the US did, so UK might shift their loyalty. Next is Israel. Although the Americans have been on their side, will the Israelis shift loyalty like the Brits? No one expects the Mossad knows.... Many argue that NATO wins because of this carriers and satellites. Well you see the thing is... The Chinese and DF-21 missiles, which are intermediate range medium payload ballistic missiles carry a few tons of lead,thousands of them missiles will literally rain down lead onto NATO carrier groups, and yes the carriers and defense system, but out of the thousands of lead shells that rain down from space, howany can you shoot down? I wouldn't say that many. Next the Chinese got their anti satellite missiles they tested 1 year ago. They also got a few thousand if that. So should the war occur, NATO will most likely loose all satellite coverage overnight, and any carrier fleet that goes near China (5000km) will be destroyed. So that's like a fleet just reaching Hawaii is in range for those DF21 missiles. So by then, NATO just lost their only advantage, carrier fleet and satellite, over China and Russia. So now that both sides are only left with boots on the ground, its a fight based a numbers. The Chinese plus the Russians plus the Indians plus the Pakistanis got approximately 6 million soldiers active and 4 million reserves, so 10 million. While NATO got 5 million active and reserved combined, so unless NATO forces generate a 1 to 2 kill ratio, no way NATO can win Many argue that NATO forces are more experienced and better trained, well think of it like this. How well do you think Isis is trained? How well do you think Taliban or al-qaeda is trained? And how well do you think Vietnamese Cong was trained? U would say non if the above received even half of the training or equipments NATO forces have, but guess what? Farmers and Islamist with some crap Ak47 is yet to be defeated by the so called advanced NATO forces, because of one reason, those Vietnamese Cong or Taliban, have no fear of death, and when a man fear not his end,he is undefeatable. Not saying that the PLA or the Speznaz is like some Vietnamese Cong, they are more deadly. They are proper units whom received proper training and equipment, and do not fear death, so literally and upgrade of the Vietnamese Cong or some rebel in the middle East. So if the Americas can't even kill all the Vietnamese Cong, then why would they even think about defeating the PLA? So after all, in the end, it comes down to a comparison of man power. On day one of the war, both sides will loose satellite surveillance. On day 2, both sides will loose naval forces. And ond day three, it is sticks and stones. So the conclusion is, the Eastern based alliance is more likely to win.

  • I see that many say NATO wins is because if their technology and economy. But just saying, US alone owns the Chinese 19 trillion dollars. UK alone owns Chinese just under 1 trillion. And the US is literally using borrowed money on fuel her military. And I think if China and NATO goes to war, China won't be lending money by then. So what is the US gonna do? It won't have money to pay the soldiers. Won't have money to feed the soldiers. Wknt have money to repair or build new equipment, work have any for anything. Where as China has the cash to run the military. And more importantly, China has a mandatory draft protocol stating if Chinese sovereignty is compromise, all Chinese citizens must take arms and fend for the nation. Just saying, can you even imagine 1.5 billion people, man women, old and young with guns? That many people is just little hard to kill. The Japanese tried so hard with their chemical weapons and machine guns, and they had 8 years and they barely took out half. So what make NATO so strong when US is bankrupt and UK is empty out on cash, and they are facing 1.5 billion people with guns? I think the answer is pretty clear.

  • Just Russia alone have enough nukes to destroy NATO. But with the help of another world power, NATO stands no chance. You might argue that the US is stronger than Russia and China. But China and Russia also have allies including India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc

  • combined mass of active and reserve personnel of china combined with the latest Russian "super nuke" SATAN 2 could wipe out areas the size of France and then swept up by the largest single country infantry force. hold off any territory through sheer numbers knowing any attacking force can be stopped by SATAN 2 strikes.

  • Well, what do i know about wars and innovations as an African? Nothing really. But i do know this : when an individual or a nation becomes mean, cruel, evil , deceptive, dark, horrid, low, abominable, then there are forces of nature...spiritual balances put in place to checkmate things. I'm a hapless , helpless Nigerian, having no power at all to make any difference. So i can't hurt america. But i do know that it is not russia or china that is killing people in iraq, afghanistan, libya,and many other countries. I do know that it is not russia and china that is using police to murder blacks publicly and in cold blood. I do know it is not russia and china that is going against God almighty directly by gay abominations. Actually i am sure of one thing: for any deed done on this earth , good or evil, a price must be paid. America has done a tremendous amount of evil. Oh, life ...kama...nature will give them the tab and they will pay in a way they cannot avoid. You can deceive some of the people all of the times and all the people some of the times, but you cannot deceive all of humanity all of the times. The u.s seems to think it is so smart with its lies. That everyone believes its garbage of lies, bloodletting , blackops and, red flag operations , eternal perpetuation of wars, creation of terrorist bodies like isis, taliban , boko haram et al. Summary most people you think are fools are not quite so foolish . The u.s has more enemies than you think quite simply because it is an evil nation calling for divine judgement. In a conflict, a lot more countries than you think would support russia and china. In a conflict, nuclear weapons and its use would be guarantteed... i assure you of this cause russia would have no choice than to resort to its trumcard. But i assure you that in a conflict, God's divine hand would be against the u.s . Plus the u.s underestimates the power of a hatred so strong it doesn't care to lose its life . People hate the u.s with a hatred that they under rate. This hatred has a power in the realm of the spirit that make strange things happen to the over confident. So the u.s will lose because God almighty is against them...cause they have been committing murders for too long!

  • Well, let me begin by saying that while NATO may have 29 countries, the majority of those nations (Hungary, Norway, Latvia, Estonia,Lithuania, Greece) rely on US equipment and protection while China Iran and North Korea do their own thing and aren't slaves who follow Russia's rule book. Most NATO nations, especially in Scandinavia and the Baltic, Israel etc. would be destroyed if the US abandoned them in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltic or a Joint Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah invasion of Israel. Some of you may argue that Russia is behind economically and russian military equipment is outdated, which is true. But A nation that had just industrialized just for the Germans to destroy their infastructure, while the US was across the atlantic, unscathed not having to deal with 1/3 of the Reichs manpower. Then rebuilding and having to keep up with the US during the Cold War is obviously a strain. So a examination of Russia's history explains why they may be behind the United States tech wise. (side note, Russia is STILL able to develop weapons like the T-14 Armata, an impressive and well trained air force, and has 4,500 nuclear weapons, and gotten over it's recession in 2017. So Russia is a survivor and really isn't that far behind the US, Russia is impressive) Secondly, it's hilarious how some of you ignorant, blind boomer NATO supporters call Russia "evil", Christianity has grown by 23% since the fall of the Soviet Union, and Russia has always been historically conservative, vs. The West which for 400 years enslaved africans and is a hotbed for liberalism, feminism, homosexuality, well you know where i'm going. The West is basically the Sodom and Gomorrah.

  • Russian and china couldn't fend all of NATO. That's like 30 or so countries and a good dozen are very powerful.

  • Really? Russia has litteraly NO chance. NATO and NATO affiliates crush the Russian military 100 times over. There is no realistic way Russia could compete militarily or economically with the west.

  • Russia couldn't win if they were only fighting the US. Now factor in all of the NATO nations and it's pretty obvious what the outcome would be.

  • The U.S. and Nato are way more equipped Putin is a coward he threatens with Nuclear weapons stand and fight like a man.

    Posted by: USA812
  • nato is 30 countries vs 2

  • They are out numbered and out gunned in every capacity, not to mention brains. The Russians think standing behind their nukes substantiates there moves. Be careful, we've done it before.

  • The fact of the matter is, with 28 separate countries, NATO is the clear winner. As well armed and large Russia and China are, they simply do not have the military strength to take down NATO in its entirety. I am assuming, of course, that all of NATO is involved in the war at once, and Russia and China are allies.

  • Super NATO

  • i vote nato for their unity as 1 (1 for all and all for 1) if enemy attacked 1 member of nato they attacked all of the members.

  • It will be a long and bloody war and might end up with the destruction of the world or major countries destroyed but i think Nato will win the war but again in cost of lives no clear winner

  • The countries that are in NATO have been working together and training for the next world war since NATO was created. With the tech advantages and carrier groups holding the choke points, I don't see how China and Russia could hope to defeat NATO. Plus the US armed forces has been in far more wars than China or Russia. That equals more experience. Those are just a few of the many reasons NATO would prevail.

  • The U.S.A has more aircraft carriers and weapons that we don't even know about so even know Russia and china allies will be more of infantry attacks but the us can put planes any were in the matter of minutes so if they do drop nukes hopefully everyone know that the us can shoot those down with no problem.

  • OK, we have to be realistic here, forget what you read and hear through the media, and just use logic. First and foremost the United States of America (US) has a military budget that is greater than all the countries on the planet' budgets combined! That should be your first clue who has more military strength. The US has more soldiers, double, triple and sometimes up to 10 times the equipment that Russia has. That is before we even discuss NATO. If a war starts there will be no winners as Putin will be faced with either cooperating with the New World Order or using nuclear weapons. Let us hope and pray that the Lord comes to us before choices like this have to be made.

  • 1. Economics: The combined economies of the EU and the USA are THREE times larger than that of Russia and China combined. The US economy alone is much bigger than both Russia and China combined. Economically speaking, the Chinese and Russians have no chance. Both the US and the EU are also much more developed economies than China and Russia. China really is pulling all the economic weight in this fight. Russia is an economic non-factor because their economy is GARBAGE. Look up the numbers guys. 2. Military: The US spends TWICE as much as both Russia and China combined. The US has 10 aircraft carriers - China and Russia both have 1. The "nuclear arsenal" argument is irrelevant because because all these nations have enough nukes to destroy the entire world. A larger nuclear arsenal doesn't add any strategic advantage in this case. NOTICE: I haven't even included discussions of the EU armed forces here. America's military alone could contend with both China and Russia. In terms of numbers and statistics, NATO would overcome China and Russia without a doubt. Geo-politics: Let's not forget that another World War would undoubtedly involve more than NATO and Russia/China. All the Commonwealth countries would become involved. That means Australia and Canada join NATO forces. SinoPak (voting for Russia/China) incorrectly asserted that India would join Russia. This is a laughable idea, as that would align them with Pakistan, which would not happen in any case. SinoPak also seemed to overlook the EU forces which led to the ridiculous conclusion that Russia/China would win. To the Dissenters: I imagine it's difficult to see the truth when the state has so much control over the information you receive (speaking to the Russians and Chinese). That's why you hear silly facts called out like "Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal" (I addressed the irrelevance of this above) or "China has the largest army" (EU, US, and their allies have a much larger combined force than Russia, China, and their allies combined). Nobody can truly predict the outcome of this proposed conflict, but the statistics clearly point to a MASSIVE advantage for NATO over China and Russia.

  • each nation in nato individually are forces to be reckoned with such as Poland, Germany, France, Great Britain, and of course the united states

    Posted by: onyx34
  • To much red tape and attempts at 'politically correct' with NATO. With Russia's highly advanced and surprisingly powerfull weapons and the fact they trust there military commanders to make judgement calls in the field dooms NATO. Just look at syria

  • I personally don't want any war to happen and if one does I sincerely hope it doesn't come to a nuclear scale but if I had to choose a side it would be NATO 1. NATO is comprised of big and smaller countries with some being close to Russia allowing us to deploy troops quickly that is both a pro and a con 2. Most likely if ALL of NATO went to war including USA NATO (could) be supported by USAs allies 3. Most countries in NATO has more of a high tech and well trained military. also Russias equipment is starting to get old ( cold war era ) and just because the Chinese has a larger military doesn't mean there properly trained. Also take this into thought USA spent 564 Billion in military defense in 2015 alone compare this to China's 215 billion and in third place Saudi Arabia with only 84.2 billion

  • NATO has Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States. [Most likely South Korea, [Philippines, Japan, Israel, and Baltic States would probably be with NATO] Then Russia and China [and maybe North Korea] That is a victory for NATO.

  • I have never heard so much nonsense from user Frederic. He stated that the UK to go against America and back maybe china. Never heard as much nonsense in a long time. America would have Germany Poland France U.K. Etc. The shooting down of the Russian aircraft from turkey proved that Russia and Co don't really want to mess with NATO. Although China have worlds biggest military, they are not trained as good as America GB etc. He claims you don't have to be well trained, Isis proves this. You don't Evan have to be well armed. Firstly, America invented Isis, trained them, armed them. There one of the richest gangs/groups in the world. So there not using crap weapons. Before posting made up stuff, maybe know about what your talking about. NATO are powerful, but would not want to go to war with Russia and co and vise-versa. If this did ever happen. Close call but NATO wins. Its actually closer than its ever been. But I say again. U.K. Would never turn on America for China. That's just shit talk

  • In my opinion there will be a lot of blood shed, but overall it comes down to innovations and strategy. Which I believe China and Russia don't have the raw materials to take down US let alone all of Nato. Also depends whether nukes would be used, If one side launches a nuke the other side won't be far behind

  • First, USA IS #1 in the world, and France, Italy, Britain, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries, most of which are in the EU and/or Nato, arena the top 15 countries

  • First off, I think after reading so many comments from the Russian Federation that are misinformed people. Do you all seriously think if it came to this Russia would prevail? I do not know where your source originate, but you're all fooled. Also, its a lie that Americans hate Russians, just like the lie the US Dollar is failing. Wake up Russia! Putin is fooling you!

  • Not only is NATO one of the strongest alliances out there it has over 29 countries involved and they are almost all nuclear countries also and in nato if anyone of the countries inside the alliance of nato if one country is attacked all of the countries are attacked and i know im right when i say China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea will not have enough of everything compared to NATO

  • With the United States, The Uk, France, India and Israel having more nukes then Russia and China, North Korea and Pakistan combined, plus greater air and sea forces, the New Axis of Evil would be defeated!

  • Europe is powerful enough to stalemate russia and the entirety of the US military could smash russian forces into the dirt. it may seem like the us is weak against groups like ISIS but thats only because it is fighting an unconventional war with diplomatic restrictions on its military forces. if it came down to conventional warfare the USA and europe would be able to smash Russia into the dirt and the USA's allies in the pacific could keep china under wraps for a while until russia falls.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
TheRussian says2014-04-28T23:21:57.2963653-05:00
If you take a look at the website that I provided, you will realize that other than the US, there are pretty much no other significant members of NATO. The military of the European NATO members is very weak.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-28T23:36:20.2491200-05:00
Over half of the NATO countries can take on Russia alone. Now factor in the US, which spends 60 times more on military then russia
Jifpop09 says2014-04-28T23:53:00.1623200-05:00
The scenarios extremely unlikely also. China will support Russia, but it wont go to war for them. As already shown for dropping support in Ukraine.
discomfiting says2014-04-29T08:19:50.6286545-05:00
Therussian said put patriotism aside and ironically is the only person that votes russia-china. >_> so much for putting that patriotism aside.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T09:28:44.3230908-05:00
Yes, I put it aside. Look at the website I provided! You will realize that the NATO country's military (other that US) is nothing.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T09:29:08.9242908-05:00
I'm looking at real military numbers, not "Hey, NATO has a lot of countries so it wins."
Muttl200 says2014-04-29T09:32:34.2358908-05:00
Numbers isn't everything TheRussian. You must also take account military tech, as well as their current generals. After all, you want people making the right choice that could win a war. Not a flawed plan that will just get more than most of your men killed.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T09:33:04.5622908-05:00
NATO countries include Albania, Iceland, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Greece...Are you joking? They have no military. Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway...They are nothing. The only real members of NATO are: US, France, Turkey, UK. Russia alone could take on France, Turkey and UK. Combined with China, NATO would stand no chance. Let's be honest. Look at the numbers: http://www.globalfirepower.com/
Muttl200 says2014-04-29T09:33:29.8030908-05:00
Though many/some of those small NATO countries don't have very much of what I said.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T09:35:46.9732458-05:00
Russian weaponry combined with sheer Chinese manpower and industry would destroy any opponents.
discomfiting says2014-04-29T09:38:09.2212130-05:00
Russia would barely even stand a chance against America alone.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T09:38:54.0493454-05:00
Like I have said, take a look at the website I provided. In fact, I would be glad to debate a US vs. Russia war with you.
Muttl200 says2014-04-29T09:39:00.2893854-05:00
Germany is also a part of NATO. And I'm pretty sure if all these counties needed an army, they'd just draft a few thousand men into the military. Unless that site counts that. I didn't have time to look.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T09:40:06.4240130-05:00
Russia would take heavy losses but would reduce the US military to nothing. With help of Chinese industry, losses of armored vehicles etc. would be quickly repaired.
discomfiting says2014-04-29T09:41:02.1729667-05:00
I looked at your site but also looked at more than one source of information because to simply look at one thing and take it as 100% fact, is stupid.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T09:42:24.8374191-05:00
Alright, look at other websites then. No matter how you look at it, Russian land forces alone would overpower US land forces. In fact, it would probably be able to keep ALL of NATO's land forces at bay.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-29T09:46:09.3580130-05:00
No.. You have to keep in mind that Russia would have little economic power. The US has military bases all over the world and could act instantly. Not to mention Drone strikes could deal massive damage.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T09:48:20.8816130-05:00
Drones are expensive and are not produced in sufficient numbers to deal any real damage. Plus, Russian AA systems such as the Tor-M2 are very good at eliminating drones. Russian economy? It may not be as powerful as that of the Us, but that still doesn't negate the fact that Russia ALREADY has a very powerful standing army.
Seido says2014-04-29T09:49:14.4832130-05:00
TheRussian, you're right, the majority of NATO doesn't have a huge military; however, enough members of it are powerful enough to take on both China and Russia. The US has a larger enough military that it could easily destroy either Russia or China, and it could likely destroy them both if it had long enough. But, for the sake of this scenario, let's just say that it can only take on one. That leaves the rest of the strong NATO countries to take on China or Russia, depending on who the US doesn't target. That means that the UK, France, Germany, and Turkey to take on one country or the other, and they'll all likely be receiving enormous support from the US itself. In the end, it would be a disastrous battle, but the NATO forces would end up winning. And yes, I have looked at the numbers. Just because Russia and China have large infantries doesn't mean they would win. The NATO countries, particularly the US, overwhelm them where it matters: technological warfare.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T09:52:26.0668130-05:00
I agree that infantry no longer solves the dispute. BUT, Russia's dominance on land (along with help of China) would be crucial. China's air force will help make up for Russia's lack of it, and the combination of Russian and Chinese subs and mine-warfare boats would protect the coastline from NATO attack, negating their advantage on the seas.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T09:54:57.0264317-05:00
Russia alone has more tanks than all of NATO members combined. Russia alone has more MLRSs than all of NATO combined. Russia and China's combined artillery would be devastating NATO's ground forces.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-29T09:57:49.9757919-05:00
You have to remember this, Russian navy can't do anything. Drones and Cruise Missiles can preform Surgical Strikes. A war as such could never take place due to the sheer amount of Nuclear weapons the US and Russia have.
Seido says2014-04-29T09:59:56.5012130-05:00
You seem to be under the impression that the NATO forces are taking the offensive in this battle which innately puts them at a disadvantage. Knowing the history of the disputes between the West and the East, that likely wouldn't be the case. We're more likely to see a fight in which China or Russia try to attack Eastern Europe or parts of Asia. This would mean that they'd either be attacking NATO forces on their own turf, which would negate much of what you just said, or it would mean that they'd be fighting against Japan's forces and South Korea's forces as well. If we are to assume that the NATO forces are the aggressors though, we must take into account their ability to use the countries surrounding both Russia and China as bases for their armies. Russia and China do not have any countries that are allied with them that border the more important countries of NATO (other than themselves, depending on which countries we're talking about). Contrarily, NATO forces would have access to places such as Japan, South Korea, Eastern Europe, among other countries that directly surround both China and Russia. This would end up negating the ability of Russia and China to setup and use most of the defenses that you just mentioned, as NATO forces would be reaching them through allies territory.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:00:19.7532898-05:00
Russian can do a lot. It would help keep NATO's European members locked in Europe and covering Eastern Russia from the US. Yes, US has cool missiles but so does Russia and China. In fact, Russia has a larger arsenal of missiles than the US. Http://www.Armscontrol.Org/factsheets/missiles Let's not consider nuclear war. In case of nuclear war, no one wins.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:00:30.0100130-05:00
Russian Navy*
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:03:58.6692091-05:00
Both NATO and Russia have an aggressive war history. I can debate that NATO, esp. US, is more aggressive, but let's consider both options. Even if Russia/China was to attack, if planned, Russian land forces would overrun all of Europe. This is unnecessary because Russia already has a lot of land to cover and doesn't need any more. That's also why I consider Russia's attack unlikely. After destroying Europe, Russia/China would be free to focus on the US and UK.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:05:31.8636091-05:00
Because of the fact that Russia is a giant piece of land, enemy Navy would not have a very large impact. Supplying NATO troops would be very difficult (esp. If deep in Russia) because it is a very large piece of land. Lot of distance to cover to supply troops.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-29T10:07:03.4512091-05:00
Same going into Europe, and into Russia. You have to remember NATO surrounds Russia, and can push them into their own country, and bomb them into submission. The US has Military bases all over the world, and could easily move troops to counter a Russian Charge into europe.
Seido says2014-04-29T10:12:46.7000670-05:00
That's amazingly unrealistic. The US actually doesn't have much of an aggressive past. It usually attacks in response to having been attacked. So, no, the US and NATO wouldn't have any reason to attack Russia and China unless they did something first. The only situation in which I can see NATO being the aggressors is if they try to take on North Korea, in which case you could still argue that North Korea was the aggressor based on nuclear threats and breaking international law. And are you kidding me about Russia? They don't need any more land? Are you paying attention to the crisis in Ukraine at all? Russia literally invaded Ukraine and took it, by force, for themselves! And then there's the fact that they're also the fact that under Putin, Russia has shown extremely aggressive tendencies towards the West. It took Jordan, and is showing no signs of stopping with Ukraine right now. And also, just look at the past. They tried to take all of Europe in the past! Not aggressive? You have got to be kidding. And in regard to China, you need only look at what's happening with Japan, what might happen in Hong Kong, and what likely will happen in Taiwan to see a reason for China to go on the offensive. And in regard to taking all of Eastern Europe or all of Asia, no, they couldn't. Eastern Europe might not be as strong as Western Europe, but it would still be able to hold off Russian or Chinese forces long enough for the US, the UK, France, Germany, and Turkey to respond to their aggression. In addition, most countries within NATO have been preparing for such a situation for decades! And have had similar experiences with dealing with situations like that from back during the days of the Soviet Union. Russia and China wouldn't have a chance to do half of what you're talking about before they got their asses kicked by the stronger countries of NATO through the aforementioned methods.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:12:55.7836130-05:00
Yes, US has military bases all over the place but: a small part of them are anywhere near Russia/China. Even less have a significant force. Almost none of them would be a serious threat. "Bombing into submission" would not work. We saw how Germany tried to do that to UK (dense population) in WW2. It did not work at all. The effect would be even less significant with Russia. Plus, NATO does not even have very many bombers. It is not a sufficient force to turn the tide of the war. It would be a small nuisance, soon to be eliminated by Russian/Chinese air force and AA systems.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-29T10:16:10.2361836-05:00
In the case you are going, Russia is going offensive into Europe, this means NATO can flank around through Japan and Alaska into Russia. NATO and the EU should be a large factor is defending the European countries, and in such an invasion they would meet heavy resistance.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:20:18.5569836-05:00
@Seido. First, please relax. I am just having fun debating this. Now, you say US is only aggressive when attacked? It has never been attacked. The US has never had a real war on its soil. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea? Have you forgotten all the countries the US has invaded? And no, Russia/China would not have "their asses kicked" by Eastern Europe. Not only are many countries in Eastern Europe slavic, have ties with Russia, but they have no military. They would be quickly overrun. They would be no challenge. You mention Crimea? Russia didn't take it because of territory. Russia took it because of tactical advantages. Don't get mixed up.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:22:33.8104130-05:00
Flank around through Japan? They would be stopped by China. If not stopped, then slowed down enough until Russian reinforcements arrive.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-29T10:23:24.6649836-05:00
Also, supply a reason why China would Help Russia in WW3?
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:24:31.0288130-05:00
Because why wouldn't 2 of the 3 most powerful nations in the world combine to defeat a common foe?
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-29T10:25:25.9876130-05:00
How is NATO a common Foe? Considering how much China exports to European countries and the US they would suffer from the embargo placed due to war.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:27:28.9936130-05:00
US is China's only economic competitor. Russia is right next to China, if China was to be against Russia, they would take very heavy losses. Past friendly relationships between Russia and China. That's like, why did US and USSR combine in WW2? They were enemies, weren't they? Yes, they weren't friends but they had a common foe that they both wanted to eliminate.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:28:44.7940130-05:00
Guys, relax! I'm just having fun! I like debating war topics :)
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-29T10:28:52.0948130-05:00
China would take massive loses both ways, I am sure they would be neutral is such a conflict.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:29:23.6833665-05:00
@Mutt, I agree with almost everything you've said.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:33:53.2993119-05:00
They might be neutral indeed, BUT if they don't support Russia, then Russia will lose, be destroyed, and the world would no longer be bi-polar. US would dominate everything and China would stand alone.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-29T10:35:27.7576130-05:00
How would a war such as this start? The losses would be massive.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:37:02.4493119-05:00
They would absolutely be! They might start like the first two world wars, I don't know. I just created a hypothetical situation to see what people think. It would only take a tiny spark to get this thing started.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-29T10:38:46.5172130-05:00
Not really, considering the amount of nuclear weapons both sides have, the military sizes, etc. Such a war would be hard to start, and if started could be the last World War Ever Fought.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-29T10:38:57.2500130-05:00
Due to you know, everyones dead.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:40:45.6388130-05:00
It would be the last world war, at least for a very long time. If the nukes began flying then it's over. That's why I said no nukes. If the countries battled it out with "traditional" warfare.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-29T10:43:15.8044130-05:00
Well, I would think a draw, which would mean a NATO victory. Russia and the US have a " Dead Hand " as well. But I shall lean towards NATO for this one.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:44:43.9600130-05:00
Try not looking at the number of countries, but at the quality/size of their military. But it's okay, I completely understand your thinking.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-04-29T10:46:55.7009083-05:00
Oh well, its fun. What is that one quote about WW3 but WW4 will be fought with Sticks and Stones?
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:49:02.3740130-05:00
Haha, yeah, it's like "I know not what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"-Einstein
TheRussian says2014-04-29T10:49:17.7719297-05:00
And indeed, it is very fun
Seido says2014-04-29T11:03:24.9763260-05:00
I'm perfectly calm, I'm just getting a tad annoyed by your factual inaccuracies. In regard to the USA: the US invaded Iraq because it had been threatened by Sadam. Sadam had threatened to use chemical or nuclear weapons against the US. The US responded accordingly, albeit poorly. The US invaded Afghanistan as a response to 9/11. We had been attacked by Alqaueda. Alqaueda was primarily based, at the time, in Afghanistan. We responded to their attack. Vietnam and Korea were both in response to Soviet aggression. Am I saying that all of these wars were entirely justified? No, that's a different debate; however, in every one of these cases, the US was responding to foreign aggression. In regard to Eastern Europe, that's not what I said. I said that they would be able to hold back Chinese or Russian forces for long enough for the stronger members of NATO to respond. They might not be able to win against Russia or China, but they've been preparing for such a conflict for quite some time, and they all have armies. Russia likely wouldn't be able to wage a war against all of their Eastern European neighbors, and win too many battles. By the time they managed to break through some of their forces, the stronger countries of NATO would have had more than enough time to provide reinforcements to drive Russian and Chinese forces back. In regard to bases, two things. Firstly, the US has plenty of bases around the world that it has access too. Secondly, it has a lot of allies that surround both China and Russia that NATO forces can use as a means to attack Russia and China. Even if the US didn't have any bases in Japan, it could still send troops there and then use Japanese land as a launching point for attacks. In regard to the Slavic countries, you're right, some of them do have ties to Russia; however, not many of them are allied, or even friendly, with the militarily. After the Soviet Union fell, most of these countries left Russia, by their own volition, to become sovereign nations. Ever sinse, some of them have had poor relations with Russia as a result of the hardships that they faced under Soviet rule. In regard to Crimea, you're half right and half wrong. The Crimea itself is a strategic position, but Russia is showing no signs of stopping there. They seem to be making advances into the rest of Ukraine, which wouldn't just be for tactical purposes. And then you have to look at Russia's history. They have repeatedly tried to take control of the Eastern European nations surrounding them. Just look at what the Soviet Union did, and it already had just as much land as Russia does right now (or just about). So yeah, even though Russia has a ton of land as is, they have a history of trying to get more. And, as things stand right now, they're the aggressors. If the conflict you're describing was to arise, Russia or China would likely be the aggressor (most likely Russia).
Seido says2014-04-29T11:04:25.5990918-05:00
And yes, this is quite fun. Sorry for taking so long to respond, my computer ran out of battery, lol.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-29T11:09:07.8016130-05:00
Russian, this is literally the stupidest hit I ever heard. You must be completely delusional to think that Russia alone could beat the US. Or Russia and China could beat them alone either. Russia and China are still fighting with some WW2 tech. Nearly every NATO country is equipped with some kind of high scale arsenal, courtesy of the US, France, and Britain. If were talking NATO alone, leaving out the substantially large military power we have over Russia, then we must surely factor in the large trade advantage. Nearly all the NATO countries are economically self sufficient. China and Russia aren't. China makes a huge chunk of its income with exportation to the US and Britain. Russia, only has two important exports. Oil and minerals, and they only go to Germany and the Balkans, where they are then redistributed. Losing their oil is not a huge disadvantage, as NATO can easily distribute it among the other nations, Germany itself already looking for foreign sources in Africa. Russia and China's economy will collapse within two months of combat, Russia in a even shorter time. That is if China will help ot Russia will ever get out of its current recession.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T11:09:12.8598915-05:00
Haha, no problem
TheRussian says2014-04-29T11:11:29.0752130-05:00
Jifpop, I see that you are quite intelligent and have very definite claims. Would you like to debate US vs. Russia/China?
Muttl200 says2014-04-29T11:13:02.7258915-05:00
Not to mention I'm sure the US is able to out produce Russia. Though I'm not sure if the USA can out produce China.
Seido says2014-04-29T11:13:25.7046915-05:00
By the way, off topic, @Jifpop09, where did you get that information about the libertarian party and the constitutionalist party for that poll you made about what should be done for the military?
TheRussian says2014-04-29T11:14:30.5500130-05:00
Russia has the resources and technology, China has the manpower and industry.
Muttl200 says2014-04-29T11:15:17.6190915-05:00
Ohh this is going to be fun to watch. If you two both decide to debate be sure to post a link to it here.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T11:15:48.3784130-05:00
I will :) I really hope he accepts.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-29T11:19:24.1298156-05:00
Taking a look at NATO's military record, shows that Russia has no chance. His logic, is that size is the underlying factor in a military. Saddam had one of the largest armies in thee middle east,, and we crushed it 2 times with little to no casualties. About 30,400 people died in the Gulf War, and 30,000 of them were Iraqi. Then we fast forward to the coalition invasion of Iraq, with a death toll of 11,190. Once again, 11,000 of them were Iraqi soldiers. These wars were fought with a portion of NATO alone. Russia doesn't have a good navy or airforce. We would never even have to touch ground. Same with China. Have you seen the PLV navy? Absolutely pathetic
TheRussian says2014-04-29T11:19:52.4716130-05:00
He has commented a couple of times on my war debates and I've wanted to debate Jifpop himself for a while now. A great opportunity has come up.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T11:25:08.7148130-05:00
Saddam's army? You cannot compare his army with that of the US. You cannot win a war "without even touching the ground". That's what Germany tried to do in WW2 with Britain and it failed.
Seido says2014-04-29T11:28:35.8204130-05:00
The German strategy failed for a few primary reasons. Firstly, the British had a highly trained air-force, one of the best in the world at the time, that managed to fend of German forces. Neither Russia nor China have such an air-force that could accomplish such a goal. Secondly, the US (and other members of NATO) have much more advanced and massive air-forces that could easily accomplish the goal that Germany was unable to. We have better planes, bigger bombs, better plans, and we're up against a weaker foe in regard to air forces than Germany was. Its a false comparison.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T11:34:55.6049761-05:00
I agree, Russia/China don't have the air force to try that. They would be using their air force to directly support land forces and help fend off enemy air force.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-29T11:35:37.5976130-05:00
Russian, we thought several wars without touching the gorud, and they all succeeded. THe reason Germany lost, is because Britain had a better airforce. His strategy, like yours, was to throw a bunch of low grade tech planes at london. But better technology won the day in the end. It is 100% possible, to fight a war with never even engaging Russia. If it was a land war, then they would lose all the same.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T11:37:19.3252130-05:00
You have made big exaggerations. Other than US, no other NATO members have a "much more advanced and massive air force". Bigger bombs? The US has no more than 100 active bombers. This is insignificant.
Muttl200 says2014-04-29T11:38:06.0981954-05:00
@Seido they also won due to the newly invented Radar.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-29T11:40:19.8855106-05:00
Russian, its like talking to a wall. Bombers are expensive, and for good reason. They can level a city is one strike.Stop acting like a idiot and show some common sense. NATO has more land forces, better tech, bigger ships, and an airforce that could take Russia off the map in one sweep.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-29T11:41:45.1336130-05:00
Not to mention, you only singled out one plane type. Calling 100 bombers insignifigant is something a fool would say. Stop giving one sentence responses, and start using some actual logic.
Seido says2014-04-29T11:44:02.7256130-05:00
Also going to point out that the source that you gave us to use says that the US has around 3 times the air-force of China and Russia combined. That's excluding the air-forces of the other members of NATO, and the fact that the technology of most of NATO's air-force (particularly that of the US) is leaps and bounds ahead of Russia and China.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-29T11:46:17.9366946-05:00
The Russian and Chinese airforce is also using pre 90's tech. China and Russia are using old vietnam war rifles. It can't compete with a army of fully automatic wielding armored juggernauts that comprise NATO.
Seido says2014-04-29T11:48:08.4100130-05:00
Well said, Jifpop.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-29T11:52:13.2520130-05:00
Last point that should be made, is that 9 other countries are all seeking NATO membership. In the case that a war was imminent, they would simply be ascended. Having Armenia, Macedonia, Georgia, Ukraine, Bosnia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Kazackastan, ect. Will if not utterly destroy Russia ALONE, then I'm pretty sure the rest could come in and sweep them off the face of earth.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T12:13:07.4626262-05:00
Jifpop, I am tired of debating on here. Please accept my challenge so we can debate in a more organized and "official" environment.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T12:15:05.5435889-05:00
@Jifpop. Yes, I only singled out one type simply because another commenter mentioned "bombing Russia into submission". Russians do not use "vietnam era" weapons, and NATO's land forces are far inferior to that of Russia. We are not debating with countries that might be in NATO, that adds too many variables. We work with what is now.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T12:16:17.6004508-05:00
The NATO forces are not "juggernauts". I don't even know where you got that assumption.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T12:17:33.3628130-05:00
I have edited my debate challenge to make it "NATO vs. Russia/China"
TheRussian says2014-04-29T12:21:26.7388130-05:00
And don't call me an idiot Jifpop. I am not. Bombers need to be in great numbers to have a serious impact.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-29T12:52:08.4734922-05:00
Sorry man, you lost this debate, and repetition is not helping your case. Good debate, an accept the loss.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T13:01:06.8756058-05:00
This is not a debate, this is silly arguing in comments. Why have declined both of my debate offers?
Seido says2014-04-29T14:15:47.8297799-05:00
He has declined your offers because he believes that the debate is over with. All of us have been debating this issue for a day now, and we see you as being incorrect in regard to this issue. As such, we don't see any reason to waste more time to debate you formally. Why would we if we believe the time for debate is over?
TheRussian says2014-04-29T14:35:52.6876130-05:00
Haha, alright, your choice. I will say that you should open your eyes and learn your history.
Seido says2014-04-29T14:39:51.3911431-05:00
Just going to point out that everyone is in agreement except for you. This is, for the most part, a rather intelligent community. Perhaps it is you that needs to wise up and learn the facts, and not everybody else.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T14:42:37.1644130-05:00
You may be right, and that is a valid point but the majority is not always right. The majority once thought that the Earth was flat. I know my facts, have done my research, learned my history and have debated this as well. I have made my conclusions.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T14:43:54.7672550-05:00
Your "everyone" is 9 people. Nevertheless, I suppose we can agree to disagree? Hahaha
Seido says2014-04-29T14:45:23.1016130-05:00
I suppose so. We're all just theorizing anyways, and its not like any of us have access to all of the information that there is for such a conflict. For all we know, any of the governments in this fight could have a super-weapon that could sink the others into the sea. No matter what though, the debate was fun.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T14:46:12.7408130-05:00
Hahaha, I agree. That's probably the only statement in this entire comment section that I've agreed with.
TheRussian says2014-04-29T16:22:54.8100829-05:00
Well hey, thanks to everyone for the fun debate and sorry for being a stubborn bonehead. My two favorite things to debate are Russia and war, so it was a great opportunity to debate both :P
boomph says2015-03-31T21:35:29.4715976-05:00
China chased the US out of North Korea. Russia defeated Hitler and Napoleon. When last did America win a war? In a conventional conflict, the US would lose quickly. With nukes - everybody loses
merica21 says2015-04-26T22:25:05.8084088-05:00
In a world war China has the men to add to russias military and china has 800 million people in its man power you might say india also has alot of people but they are not trained and have old tec navy russia is getting close to having a navy more powerful then the usa also china now nuclear bombs russia would not hold back they have more nuke then every one even the usa and theres are more powerful and advanced they would nuke all of nato obliterating them only france Britain and the usa have nukes in nato so now usa sends nukes china has the worlds best anti missile systems so they would block the nukes north Korea would nuke south korea and then start to invade the west coast russia would continue to nuke nato to make sure they never come back china would send men to help invade the usa russia and china would ultimately win they have the bigger bombs tsara Bomba and a 100megaton nuclear bombs that stalin talked about china has more people in there army then even the usa population they have the resources the tec they also discovered 300 trillion$ worth of gold Dimonds in russia which will be used for its economy so china russia would win even if you dont agree do your own research
TheRussian says2015-10-21T04:10:22.9041601Z
Sad that so people make so many dumb claims and think that the majority is always right...
yalang says2015-11-06T17:19:50.7325931Z
Greediest nations the so called developed economy will do anything to get petroleum or natural resources.......US + Nato(blind followers) created Al-qaida ,taliban to fight Russia , now created ISIS to invade middle east nations.. They have to be termed as North Atlantic Christian Terrorist Organisation (NATCO) Russia nd China have power to do it nd other developing countries shud join defeat these evil forces .. Let their greed end soon.. A peaceful world would prevail.
Enlightened76 says2015-11-25T12:40:46.2155043Z
Wars to stop wars should be fought. Wars to destroy other counties must. Never be started. It's easy for man to destroy what GOD has created never thinking though if he should. Both sides could easily destroy one another but Han what did you give up, everything and what did you gain nothing but grief and death. Who would want to bring this record to their GOD.
nickm1213 says2015-11-25T20:36:00.3547844Z
Russia and China stand no chance against NATO. Everyone underestimates the power of France, UK, Italy, etc. The military of Nato is far more powerful than two countries not to mention other countries not members of Nato would help. Don't get me wrong Russia and China are rising superpowers but along with UK and Brazil are also rising superpowers who in fact are allies with Nato.
nicsoew says2015-12-04T12:58:35.3006035Z
Russia has strongest nuclear arsenal on the planet and combined with China they have far more soldiers and war economy. Some people mentioned 28 NATO countries - that is in fact bad as leadership would be divided and armies of 28 countries would never fight as one. Not to mention that nuking all small countries would be their end in the conflict.
IbrahimAlYahyai says2016-03-03T20:44:11.9755854Z
In short, Israel would win!
Kaehler says2016-03-16T05:50:38.2300247Z
Russia would kill it self in a war since they're economy is weak
MarkoSerbia says2016-03-27T10:30:44.3181814Z
I know. The answer is Mr President Vladimir Putin will stand last in front of Withe house drinking Coca Cola and Flag of Russian Federacion will be on top of withe house.
trevonreason17 says2016-05-05T13:46:42.2434064Z
The us has 10 possibly more that is top secret aircraft carriers with the most planes that can be anywhere in minutes and with the most highly trained men on the ground Russia and china would have to use nukes. But the u.S will shoot those down and end it in a month, no problem. Don't forget they spend billions on the budget so the may have more up their sleeves.
heny12fromct says2016-05-30T17:09:17.2349055Z
OK, we have to be realistic here, forget what you read and hear through the media, and just use logic. First and foremost the United States of America (US) has a military budget that is greater than all the countries on the planet' budgets combined! That should be your first clue who has more military strength. The US has more soldiers, double, triple and sometimes up to 10 times the equipment that Russia has. That is before we even discuss NATO. If a war starts there will be no winners as Putin will be faced with either cooperating with the New World Order or using nuclear weapons. Let us hope and pray that the Lord comes to us before choices like this have to be made.
dsfsadf says2016-06-12T06:24:08.9279770Z
RUSSIA could steamroll NATO forces in just 60 hours, a leading US defence official has warned amid rising tensions with the west.
dsfsadf says2016-06-12T06:25:17.3656157Z
RUSSIA could steamroll NATO forces in just 60 hours, a leading US defence official has warned amid rising tensions with the west.
sarah_paw says2016-06-17T11:35:02.9688701Z
I think russia and china are clear winner since ... Look at the size of the countries and the proud people. NATO consists of people who no more trust their governments and people running it.
sumer_jam says2016-08-12T22:43:57.1615821Z
Lets sit back and take a look at the history which will clearly give us a clue who is going to win. US + NATO or Russia + China. US has never fought a war with a country which is as powerful as itself. The strategy followed by US is - first it backs sanctions and then CIA gathers intel, reports that the army of that particular country is ill-equipped. Then they create a false case to get support for the war and then they invade. Glaring example Iraq,Afghanistan, Libiya currently Syria. So far if using nuke against Japan is concerned then it was just a fluke...The scientists who worked on these weapons were German thus if Germany was not defeated by the Russian then US + NATO + Russia would have been a history along with entire Europe and maybe Asia. Secondly US invaded Vietnam, an agricultural based country and ultimatley took an epic beating at the hands of Vietnamese people which was backed by China and Russia jointly. US adventure in Iran were failures and so much that recently Obama administration has paid $300 million as a ransom. One guide to war -rule book by US army clearly states 2 things. 1. Never attack Moscow as its not worthy, Napolean and Hitler had to face a crushing defeat. 2. With Chinese + far east countries never engage in land. These are recent engagements that are worth mentioning. Russia + China. China has attacked India, vietnam and also won but took an epic beating from Japan in 2nd world war so much so today also they don't miss the opportunity to show how there martial artists are able to defeat the Japanese and its always in movies. Besides China economy is huge and US feels the heat and since China and Russia has signed a deal to deal for Russian oil and gas in Yuan, US ass is on fire as this is the begining of fall for the petrodollar. China on the other hand is able to shoo off the US in the South China sea and at the same time successfully shot down US fighter jet few years ago that entered into its airspace which means air attacks on Chinese terriority will not be a cake walk for the US as compared to Iraq. Russia on the other hand is no doubt more superior then US in air, better in ocean. Everyone knows the Cuba missle crisis and americans normally think they kicked out Russian missles from Cuba but don't know that Russia too kicked out US missles from Turkey. 4-5 attempts were made to kill Castro by the US government but Russians were always there to blow it. During Gulf war, when US was engaged with Iraq, each and every minute by minute information about US army was available to the Russians. Today, Putin in Russia has been trying to do his best which Russians might not know but the world recognises him and his power. In Kosvo war i remember a video how UK + NATO soliders stopped as Russian tanks stopped their path once Russia decided to intervene. In Syrian war Putin made an entry and US + NATO were pissed off as the first air raids were not done on ISIS but on US backed rebels...Even so in Crimea US propaganda didn't work when people there supported Russia and decided to join Russia, US+NATO are just looking like a bad bad girl here and their media tells that Russia annexed Criema which americans are unaware of...These are just brief events. Russia + China have one advantage and that is such an advantage that NATO + USA will never be able to over come whatever they do and that's the size of the area they have to focus and at the same time the biggest advantage Russia and China have is that they will have is to focus on a small area..Looking at the world map by the sheer size of Russia it will give NATO + US army generals run for their money and on top of it..That area is unknown till now. Besides China and Russia are linked wherelse NATO and US are apart so logistic won't be easy for them during the war by air or water. So with all the logic and fire power if we look then NATO + US will get an epic beating by Russia and China.
sumer_jam says2016-08-12T22:44:27.5037766Z
Lets sit back and take a look at the history which will clearly give us a clue who is going to win. US + NATO or Russia + China. US has never fought a war with a country which is as powerful as itself. The strategy followed by US is - first it backs sanctions and then CIA gathers intel, reports that the army of that particular country is ill-equipped. Then they create a false case to get support for the war and then they invade. Glaring example Iraq,Afghanistan, Libiya currently Syria. So far if using nuke against Japan is concerned then it was just a fluke...The scientists who worked on these weapons were German thus if Germany was not defeated by the Russian then US + NATO + Russia would have been a history along with entire Europe and maybe Asia. Secondly US invaded Vietnam, an agricultural based country and ultimatley took an epic beating at the hands of Vietnamese people which was backed by China and Russia jointly. US adventure in Iran were failures and so much that recently Obama administration has paid $300 million as a ransom. One guide to war -rule book by US army clearly states 2 things. 1. Never attack Moscow as its not worthy, Napolean and Hitler had to face a crushing defeat. 2. With Chinese + far east countries never engage in land. These are recent engagements that are worth mentioning. Russia + China. China has attacked India, vietnam and also won but took an epic beating from Japan in 2nd world war so much so today also they don't miss the opportunity to show how there martial artists are able to defeat the Japanese and its always in movies. Besides China economy is huge and US feels the heat and since China and Russia has signed a deal to deal for Russian oil and gas in Yuan, US ass is on fire as this is the begining of fall for the petrodollar. China on the other hand is able to shoo off the US in the South China sea and at the same time successfully shot down US fighter jet few years ago that entered into its airspace which means air attacks on Chinese terriority will not be a cake walk for the US as compared to Iraq. Russia on the other hand is no doubt more superior then US in air, better in ocean. Everyone knows the Cuba missle crisis and americans normally think they kicked out Russian missles from Cuba but don't know that Russia too kicked out US missles from Turkey. 4-5 attempts were made to kill Castro by the US government but Russians were always there to blow it. During Gulf war, when US was engaged with Iraq, each and every minute by minute information about US army was available to the Russians. Today, Putin in Russia has been trying to do his best which Russians might not know but the world recognises him and his power. In Kosvo war i remember a video how UK + NATO soliders stopped as Russian tanks stopped their path once Russia decided to intervene. In Syrian war Putin made an entry and US + NATO were pissed off as the first air raids were not done on ISIS but on US backed rebels...Even so in Crimea US propaganda didn't work when people there supported Russia and decided to join Russia, US+NATO are just looking like a bad bad girl here and their media tells that Russia annexed Criema which americans are unaware of...These are just brief events. Russia + China have one advantage and that is such an advantage that NATO + USA will never be able to over come whatever they do and that's the size of the area they have to focus and at the same time the biggest advantage Russia and China have is that they will have is to focus on a small area..Looking at the world map by the sheer size of Russia it will give NATO + US army generals run for their money and on top of it..That area is unknown till now. Besides China and Russia are linked wherelse NATO and US are apart so logistic won't be easy for them during the war by air or water. So with all the logic and fire power if we look then NATO + US will get an epic beating by Russia and China.
corossion says2017-04-23T20:32:14.1529944Z
The Russians latest addition to its nuclear arsenal is the "super nuke" SATAN 2. Its claimed to be able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France. Its also combined with stealth and evasion capabilities to easily outmatch any anti missile site.
corossion says2017-04-23T20:33:11.1397944Z
The Russians latest addition to its nuclear arsenal is the "super nuke" SATAN 2. Its claimed to be able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France. Its also combined with stealth and evasion capabilities to easily outmatch any anti missile site.
Pr0toXbrady says2017-12-19T17:14:36.6297154Z
NATO would win because participating in NATO is U.S, Germany, France, Albania, Czech Republic, Poland, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, Croatia, Portugal, Iceland, Norway, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, etc that should be enough evidence that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea does not have enough of anything to take on almost 1/4 of the worlds countries because NATO also has sponsoring states as well which are South Korea, and Japan

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.