Who would win in this scenario

Posted by: emporer1

WW3 ( the scenario of it that will never happen ). Someone told me that they thought the US could beat China,Russia,North Korea and Iran all at the same time with no allied help. What do you think?

35 Total Votes

No winners, just a nuclear wastleland

12 votes

Both sides would be totally destroyed by nuclear bombs.


The USA would beat them all

11 votes

Those four countries would lose and be either destroyed or invaded.


Russia, China, North Korea and Iran would win

6 votes

The US couldn't beat all of them at the same time without help. The Americans would either face invasion or nuclear destruction.


Russia alone would destroy the US

3 votes

North Korea could win on its own

2 votes

China alone would beat the US

1 vote
1 comment

Iran would win the war with America on its own

0 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
tschuk says2015-05-22T16:16:14.9517252-05:00
None of these countries can take out the U.S.A on their own. It's actually hilarious to see Iran on here, it's like saying a annoying wasp poses a threat to a grizzly bear. The China, Russia, and Iran problem is a bit more scary. That would be two world powers versus one. Iraq would get it's but handled by Israel, however Russia and China still pose threats. I think America would still win, however it won't come out with a couple of bruises. That may be more of Patriotism on my part though
Russia_The_almighty says2015-05-22T16:29:32.2483400-05:00
@Utherpenguin Only because their citizens are brainwashed. At least a big portion. NK could never beat the USA on its own even with the happiness of China.
UtherPenguin says2015-05-22T16:34:41.4170672-05:00
@Russia_The_almighty Did you just question the integrity and the unity of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (praise Juche)? This is why the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has cut ties with Russia.
Russia_The_almighty says2015-05-22T17:02:29.0842268-05:00
@Utherpenguin Happiness alone does not win a war. In the Vietnam war America could really have not given a care for the protesters. Answering your question, yes, yes I did, and I have no regrets.
Jonnykelly says2015-05-22T19:31:52.9272316-05:00
Don't forget about the millions of heavily armed American Citizens (I am proudly one of them).
Emilrose says2015-05-22T19:46:24.3207978-05:00
@tschuk, I'd say it's definitely patriotism..But seeing how the U.S is in fact run by banks, maybe it would be in with a chance.
Russia_The_almighty says2015-05-22T20:35:32.3886243-05:00
@Oreo222 Population can be bad if you can't feed them. AKA have America preventing food from entering their country.
Russia_The_almighty says2015-05-22T20:39:13.7801804-05:00
@atom824 Iran doesn't have strong military. Better than NK, but still pretty bad. BTW if we didn't pay China money, all we would have is a wounded reputation while China would have 1.6 trillion dollars gone.
Vox_Veritas says2015-05-22T21:25:47.8341656-05:00
Okay, the U.S. is powerful, but not that powerful.
Vox_Veritas says2015-05-22T21:29:01.6101355-05:00
Now, with help from NATO and MNNAs we could do it.
PericIes says2015-05-23T00:50:19.5775532-05:00
Non-nuclear war U.S. wins. More and better weapons than all of them put together, a larger economy than all of them put together, more military spending than all of them put together, a larger army and population than all but China put together, larger and better navies and air forces than all of them, *much* better power projection than all of them (bases all over the world), a better armed populace than all of them (in case it's invaded), a more geographically defensible location than all of them (would have to cross an ocean to get to it unless you're Canada or Mexico, plus Russia is the only one of those countries with semi-adequate power projection), etc. A dude left a comment up there on the vote that some nations have larger navies than the U.S. That is because they have a lot of skiffs/patrol boats. Those are almost irrelevant in a global conflict. They don't even count, really. That's like duct taping a machine gun to a canoe and saying it's an official part of the navy. When I say that the U.S. has a larger navy, I'm referring to aircraft carriers (of which it has 10, more than any other country), destroyers, cruisers, submarines, etc. No idea where he got better marine landing craft from, and, honestly, even if they did have them, air superiority neutralizes any attempted marine landing. Nuclear war everyone loses. China, Iran, and NK largely superfluous here, but the U.S. and Russia put together comprise almost all of the world's nukes. Russia has a bit more, but the U.S. has better ones, plus it has a missile defense system. However, the larger amount of targets the U.S. has to shoot at, combined with the larger amount of missiles coming at it even the odds and everyone comes out on bottom. I should also point out that while China's large population would be an asset if the U.S. were trying to occupy China, it is of no use abroad. China has very little power projection, and if it can't get all those people to the fighting, their number is irrelevant. The U.S. needn't occupy China to win, and, being stretched as thin as it would be, it likely wouldn't try to.
58539672 says2015-05-23T09:06:27.8266438-05:00
China's economy is also completely dependent on trade with the US. The US navy can simply blockade all Chinese ports which in turn would cause their economy to collapse. North Korea and Iran are so minuscule to the other three players that they really shouldn't be on this list. The only complicated opponent is Russia and the US has several different invasion plans already set-up to be used at a moments notice. Got to love paranoid America during the cold war.
emporer1 says2015-05-23T22:23:40.2672500-05:00
People are underestimating Iran and NK somewhat. On their own they would have problems reaching the US but with China and Russia they are are force to be reckoned with. The US was the world's dominant power, in WW2 and the early cold war. Military size is a factor. US Military: aprox, 1,500,000 Chinese Military: aprox, 7,500,000 NK Military: aprox, 7,000,000 Iran Military: aprox, 2,500,000 Russia Military: aprox, 1,475,000 and rising fast. Those numbers include the nations reserves. NK and China also have larger navys and more advanced amphibious landing forces ( I know, I found that difficult to believe at first to ). Not to mention that Russia alone has more nukes. The US has a far better air force and a stronger economy but how long would that last once the bombs started dropping. Especially since Russia and Iran control so much oil and gas. I think 1 of those countries alone would be hard pressed to win. However the coalition would defeat the US most likely. Either that or everybody would be destroyed.
58539672 says2015-05-23T23:27:46.9963210-05:00
@emporer1 North Koreas Navy doesn't even have enough fuel to keep all their ships at operational status. They've been rationing oil for years now. Plus their ships are running on soviet era tech. Most of Chinas fleet is green water attack craft (like corvettes) that are incapable of effectively fighting a blue water navy. They also only have one aircraft carrier (that they couldn't even build themselves) compared to the US' 14 or so. As for your amphibious assault argument, you are completely wrong on all levels. An amphibious assault craft (which is like a mini carrier when you look at it) is the only ship capable of transporting an effective ground invasion. The US has close to 12 of them and North Korea and China have a total of 0. Russia has 4 being built and is the only one on the opposition capable of having any. A Chinese admiral even testified that the Chinese navy is between 30 and 50 years behind the US in terms of strength. The US navy is capable of wiping out the combined navies of all these nations, which prevents any invasion on American soil. As for nukes, their are three different groups that need to be discussed. Deployed (can be used at a moments notice), On stand-by (can be deployed in 1-3 weeks), and Mothballed (deployed in more than a month). Although Russia has more nukes mothballed, the US has more deployed and on stand-by status. In this conflict, Russia is the only enemy that has a chance. NK and Iran don't even matter and China is a nuisance at best.
emporer1 says2015-05-23T23:37:41.6811734-05:00
@Pericles the US has 10 air craft carriers ( seen as the most important navel vessel ) but NK has around 400-500 submarines ( considered second most important ) I think that a huge swarm of submarines ( many of which are old but some are new age ) could seriously cripple the US Navy in the Pacific, especially with Russia and Chinese backing. US would be (sadly) stretched far to thin to successfully counter attack and invade these four nations in Asia. Both sides would likely be stuck in a drawn out deadlock in the Pacific for a very long time. A successful invasion of NK is nearly impossible as it has incredible AA coverage and would make it hard for the US to utilize it's powerful air force. I personally believe that the war would last year's but that the US would likely be forced to overstretch and it's resources would deplete to fast. Either the coalition would win with an extreamly damaged nation and economy or the two sides would use nuclear bombs and destroy each other. NK and China have militaries too large to easily counter once they have landed. With Russian support the NK military could be far more effective ( kind of like in the movie Red Dawn ). At the very least, Hawaii is screwed.
PericIes says2015-05-24T01:28:17.7775809-05:00
@emperor1 Your first comments made me believe that you were simply an ignoramus, but now I' thinking that you might be a troll. I am, however, still leaning towards the former, so I will make it my burden to attempt to educate you. North Korea does not have hundreds of subs. They have 70. Their technology is obsolete and I would be legitimately surprised if even half of them were in working order. Korea's military is less than 700,000 strong, not 7,000,000. China's navy, with the somewhat notable exceptions of a single pseudo-modern aircraft carrier and a handful of semi-adequate submarines, is veritably nonexistent aside from a number of river-policing boats which, while plentiful, are not suited for war. Iran's navy isn't worth mentioning, and it does not border the Pacific anyway, which is where your argument is centered. Russia has a rather more adequate navy, but it is focused on the Atlantic and is still nowhere near up to par with the U.S. No idea what you're talking about with the Korean A.A. Guns. Source or it's fake. Re: "...Since Russia and Iran control so much oil and gas." The U.S. makes more petroleum than Iran and does not get much from either Russia or Iran. The size of China's military is irrelevant for two reasons. One, they are poorly trained. Giving a citizen a gun and telling him which way to point it does not make him a soldier. Two, power projection. China's power projection is almost nonexistent. As I've pointed out in my last comment, if China cannot get their soldiers to where the fighting is, they're useless. The only way they can do so, as a result of their lack of adequate means of power projection, is if the U.S. invades and tries to occupy China or a portion of it. It wouldn't do this as a result of how thin it would already be stretched. Where I got the numbers for North Korea. I'd be interested to see your source. http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=north-korea
PericIes says2015-05-24T01:31:02.7210113-05:00
If you'd like to challenge me to a debate on the subject, emperor1, I would gladly accept, given that the terms are reasonable.
emporer1 says2015-05-24T02:00:00.3848454-05:00
@Pericles the 7,000,000 number is counting reserve forces. I am also aware that the US does not receive much oil and gas from Russia and Iran. I was sighting that as a means to prove that the coalition could remain operational for an extended time period before depletion. NK technology is terrible there is just alot of it. Also I got the submarine numbers off of Global Firepower. I do not know if it has been updated since I read it or not. They are old soviet Era subs but if they can still operate thy contribute. I merely see a long drawn out war where both sides deplete each others resources to dire levels. That is if the Russians and US don't destroy each others sides with nuclear bombs. I will check global firepower again for sub and navy stats. Sorry to have come off as a troll.
emporer1 says2015-05-24T02:02:13.7526650-05:00
@Pericles sorry, 70 NK subs. Global firepower. I am confused with myself now.
emporer1 says2015-05-24T02:09:17.1522601-05:00
Most of my sourcing in previous statements were varying media articles. I apoligize as I need to make sure to hold on to my sources more often. I swear I legitimately did get those stats off of other sources though.
emporer1 says2015-05-24T02:12:22.4260120-05:00
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a11906/this-is-what-air-war-over-korea-would-look-like-15293363/ NK AA forces over North Korea.
emporer1 says2015-05-24T02:28:40.7437081-05:00
I'm just going to sum up and then stop talking. The war would probably be a drawn out and their wouldn't be a 'winner' for years. Most likely ( personal opinion ) the Coalition ( battered and bruised ) would win. However in the end it is my belief that the Coalition would (with its now depleted forces) be hard pressed to maintain full control of the US after victory due to the heavily armed and patriotic population which would probably organize large scale resistance. Again though, the possibility is high that each side would just destroy each other. I am not pleased that the Coalition is capable of that, I just believe that it is. The US is A world power for sure. However I still don't think It is THE world power. And if I'm wrong and it is, this Coalition would it self be A world power. I think that initially the coalition would win. After that and in the rebellions that follow however, who knows what would happen. In conclusion, my opinion is that the world would be ruined for centuries to come. No matter the outcome everybody would be battered and bruised. All of the above is statement of opinion and not argument. There are endless possible outcomes for this scenario.
PericIes says2015-05-24T02:52:48.8930516-05:00
In regard to your source about the allegedly "incredible" North Korean AA, the second paragraph is literally "That's not to say it's impenetrable. The U.S. Air Force has faced much of this hardware before, and prevailed—it's just not easy. And last week, the U.S. began to fly B-2 practice missions over the Korean peninsula, just to remind North Korea what the American Air Force can do." Furthermore, the article even admits that the majority of said AA is Soviet era technology. Furthermore, the Koreans cannot detect stealth aircraft, such as the aforementioned B-2, for example. I rest my case. Also, Korean military even counting reserves is nowhere near 7,000,000. More like 5,000,000. Global Firepower as source. Plus, you know, only a handful that are used as display pieces receive semi-adequate training. The last thing that I would like to address is your claim that the U.S. is not "THE world power." Presently, the U.S. is the world's economic, cultural, political, and military hegemon. Granted, China will likely surpass the U.S. as the world's largest economy within 25 years, but that has absolutely no bearing on who is top dog *now.* It is the only nation left that retains superpower status, making it, by definition, THE world power.
58539672 says2015-05-24T14:44:12.9080413-05:00
@emporer1 The only way for the coalition to even land on the American continents would be if they defeated the US Navy, which they are not capable of doing. North Korea and Iran's Navy are either so obsolete or so small that they would not change the outcome in the least. China has a lot of ships, but few that are capable of fighting deep within the Pacific. And again, they only have 1 aircraft carrier. The Russian Navy is the strongest of the opposition and would still lose to the US. They also have only 1 aircraft carrier and most of their ships are only now being modernized, something the US did back in the 80's. And all four nations together don't have an amphibious assault force capable of landing a large enough invasion force even if they beat the US Navy. Also given the advantage of things like GPS satellites (which are mostly owned by the US), no fleet can really move without being detected. The most likely scenario is that the US would use its aircraft carriers and superior submarines to wipe out any enemy vessel in the Pacific within a year.

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.