United States and European Union vs China and Russia. Who would win? (no nukes)

Posted by: Bernal

  • U.S and EU alliance

  • China and Russia

71% 15 votes
29% 6 votes
  • USA and the EU both have larger economies than China and Russia, the US military is large enough to solo Russia and China combined. And add the military of the EU on top of that, i'm pretty sure the US and EU would win. Though this war is very unlikely, especially considering how reliant we are on China for trade. Not to mention the other effects it would cause.

  • We have TEN TIMES the military spending or russia and china combined!

  • Even though China has about 1 Million more troops than us, with all the EU troops combined, we outnumber them!

  • This one would probably have a slight edge over the other. However last time China fought the US was in Korea so its really difficult to speculate what would happen.

  • I think the black bank would fund this side. He who has most funding wins..

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Vox_Veritas says2015-10-29T03:57:06.5933692Z
Ten times is a definite exaggeration.
Jonbonbon says2015-10-29T04:00:30.5620617Z
Eh, it's harrytruman. He's not the one that goes about spewing accurate figures.
harrytruman says2015-10-29T04:02:06.2157746Z
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Yes, you are right, but not very much of one, we have 588 Billion, china has 129 Billion, and russia has 70 Billion, adding up to 199 Billion, so we have Three Times.
Sarai.K82 says2015-10-29T04:13:16.8414710Z
I tend to agree with triangle.128k's analysis. Plus, by taking Nuke's off the table, you immediately give the west a huge tactical advantage as the US conventional weapons tend to outmatch most Chinese and Russian conventional weapons systems (I'm not saying they suck or that all of our systems outmatch all of theirs).
Pigzooka says2015-10-29T04:16:18.8175831Z
This is absolutely ridiculous.
Vox_Veritas says2015-10-29T04:38:18.2103254Z
Russian and Chinese weaponry is becoming fairly sophisticated, BTW...For instance, I've heard that the T-50 is superior to both the F-22 and the F-35 and the T-14 Armata is superior to the M1 Abrams. The Chinese economy has managed to surpass that of the U.S. in terms of PPP, and NATO nations (some EU nations are not with NATO) would probably only be willing to wage war against China; the U.S. would be largely on its own when it came to dealing with China, which is developing cheap anti-ship missiles which makes our huge aircraft carrier investment largely useless. Bottom line: do not underestimate either nation, and especially not both combined.
Vox_Veritas says2015-10-29T04:40:11.4187997Z
Also, even if the U.S. military is stronger the American public has much less of a stomach for war. If a single US aircraft carrier sunk we'd rush for the negotiating table, and this'd probably be the case even with someone like GWB in office.
Vox_Veritas says2015-10-29T04:41:28.7163042Z
*only be willing to wage war against Russia
58539672 says2015-10-29T19:53:09.2874309Z
@Vox_Veritas The T-50 and other stealth based fighters are still prototypes and have never actually seen combat. The United States is still the only nation to actually use stealth technology in warfare, so saying that an untested plane is better than the well tested one is speculation at best. I have no doubt the T-14 Armata is a formidable tank, the Russians are very good at tanks, but it is also untested in combat. But if you actually look at its specs, some interesting questions come up. One, the M1A2 weighs 68 t while the T-14 only weighs 48 t, and the Armata costs half as much as an Abrams. This is interesting because it means that the T-14 has significantly less armor, similar to the T-90 in fact. Two, Russia has only 20 T-14s while the US has almost 1100 M1A2s. Third, the T-14 is a 5th generation tank created in 2015 while the M1A2 Abrams is a 4th generation tank created in the 90's. The US is already making their 5th generation tank, the M1A3 which will be finished in 2017.
58539672 says2015-10-29T20:00:39.3248853Z
Also, I wouldn't underestimate the American peoples thirst for vengeance. We used the mere mention of one of our ships being attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify a war in Vietnam. And of course their is 9/11 as an example. If an aircraft carrier is destroyed with its 5000+ crew, it will be nothing more than a rally call to all Americans to come down on the perpetrator like the wrathful hand of God.
mmkk162 says2015-10-29T21:59:18.2876195Z
About 1/4 of china's force are ladies.
BlackFlags says2015-10-30T01:41:43.3134841Z
I definitely believe Russia and China could win depending on what war objectives they were going for and if they were smart in how they fought. Both nations have advanced technology, while NATO nations are a logistical clusterf*ck
Kreakin says2015-10-31T21:00:53.0046253Z
@UtherPenguin "Every time Russia gets involved in a war, someone's country collapses." You mean Russia collapses when the world turns on them again?

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.