Who has the most powerful military?

[Zyvexal]

you guys keep saying the Chinese have huge numbers, that's true, but we also have very good training. It won't just be a zergling rush, it might not be a wave of ultralisks, but at least waves of hydralisks. yeah?

[Master Holton]

Originally Posted by Zyvexal

you guys keep saying the Chinese have huge numbers, that's true, but we also have very good training. It won't just be a zergling rush, it might not be a wave of ultralisks, but at least waves of hydralisks. yeah?

He complemented Hydra.



Get him.

[Horus Voss]

China and Russia are pretty big and hard to invade too if you're the US.

[SickLaxBro]

Originally Posted by Horus Voss

China and Russia are pretty big and hard to invade too if you're the US.

Yes, but there are many more places from which you can invade from. A land invasion is much easier then invading by sea.

Numbers won't really mean anything when nukes are flying. We should be debating who has the better nuclear bunkers.

[David Ben-Gurion]

The Chinese have nuclear bunkers built out of cheap plastic and dried up rice so I will give the point to the US on that one. I'm not counting Russia because they suck.

[killer04]

Most likely these countries will never go to war with each other. None of them have enough resources to invade the other with out alerting them. The easiest would be China and Russia, but I think thats some nasty terrain.

[MeltedLazerz]

Russia has the most nukes, but they're so disorganized and the gov is so shitty that they'd get crushed. US has more nukes and is harder to invade than China, though I would agree that it would turn out to be a pretty even fight.

Also, I would say that they're all highly interdependent and don't want a big war and so most likely wouldn't go to war.

[tom the pit leader]

1984 was basically about why Russia, America, and China could never win a conventional war with each other. Russia has climate to defend it, China has the people and cultural mindset to hold off an invasion, and America has 2 oceans. The reason there hasn't and won't be a WW3 is because even without nukes, no super power could win.

If our armies fought in some neutral arena like Africa or central Asia, I think American equipment is the best, but culturally we don't have an overseas slugfest in us. We'd pull back and play defense.

Between Russia and China, Russians have better tech for now, and better training, but lack the numbers to fight a human wave. China however lacks the water and food production to fight a long war, because they import so much food from America and the rest of the world.

[DanDesade]

This is MAD (mutually assured destruction)

[IronsightSniper]

Meh, even though Russian equipment is statistically superior to U.S. or Chinese equipment(who are licensed to reproduce them anyways), Russia under vast economic neglect of their armed forces, they simply can't spam their modern equipment to the Front lines. America has fair equipment and good training, and not to mention the power of our economics, but in the longer runs, we are bound to be outpaced by Russian technology and Chinese front line armaments, simply because the growing economic strengths of Russia and China would allow them to further develop and arm their militaries. Anywho, everybody is saying China would win by sheer numbers, in the sense that they would utilize them in human wave attacks, but that is simply untrue. I admit that I have done zero research in regards to Chinese personal body armor, but I doubt that a Human wave tactic would be used. As I've said before, there is a Triangle to military victory, on one side to victory, is Men and Equipment. On that note, China and Russia both are evenly matched. On the other, is Strategy and Tactics. On that note, Russia and U.S. are match. And on the final side to Victory is logistics, on that note, the U.S. and China are matched. Therefor, it's a neutral war, and everyone's gonna die. War is bad, lets have sex.