People act like Russia and China have an equivalent conventional force to America, they don't. America's military is more powerful than China and Russia's combined, and it's not even close really.
North Korea
- Thread starter terley
- Start date
People act like Russia and China have an equivalent conventional force to America, they don't. America's military is more powerful than China and Russia's combined, and it's not even close really.
Yeah aside from strategic missile capabilities Russia these days is more on par with the likes of Turkey than the US in terms of its active forces. Slight caveat there though they have a lot of older, but could still function with minimal work, military hardware in storage and a reasonable man power pool to draw from - if push came to shove they would take a lot of stopping.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,398
- Location
- ST4
Anyone want to wager on if it'll be China that brings down one of the DPRoK's missiles first? The DPRoK is basically like China's little lapdog, all yappy and excitable. But when that dog starts growling and snapping at passers-by you give it a swift slap around the chops to show it whose the boss.
Certainly a possibility - but those systems aren't 100% reliable and AFAIK China's are even less tested than the US and Russian systems - attempting to shoot it down and missing would be kind of awkward if the intention was to give NK a slap around the chops - one of the reasons the US probably hasn't hurried to intercept their tests.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
The current DPROK is far from a lap dog these days. Kim treats China little differently from the rest of the world
Not combined, the USA may be a solid #1 when it comes to military power but it's not greater than #2 and #3 if united. This is why things like NATO and the UN exist.
No it actually is, the US Naval doctrine is the same as the Royal Navies used to be, which is to be bigger than the next 10 navies combined. The largest airforce in the world is the USAF, the second largest is the US Navy. I don't think people realise how powerful America's military actually is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
USA's military might is indeed the strongest in the world and the power that one US Carrier Group is a match for many countries in the world.
But... your idea that America is more powerful then Russia, China and whatever else you want to include is very wrong.
USA would have a very tough time with just dealing with Russia, a battle between them two would result in pretty much a stalemate.
This crap has been debated before in this topic, I suggest more research into the Russian military and Chinas too.
Last edited:
Depends how you mean - Russia simply lacks the capabilities these days to match the US in a fight over a specific theatre - an attack on Russia itself would be another matter but a lot of what would result in a stalemate is the strategic missile capabilities - take that away and the active Russian forces aren't even close to a match for the US. (EDIT: That said I think western forces have become far too complacent and would likely suffer massive early losses that could have been avoided in the unlikely event Russia did go on a surprise offensive which would possibly result in giving Russia a far greater chance than otherwise).
I think that's the assumption, and it would no doubt occur if one country tried to invade and occupy the other, but both countries also know that a nuclear war means mutual destruction so I'm not sure that strategic nuclear weapons would be used in the first instance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Third US Navy Carrier Group is sailing to join the other two Carriers Groups in the area. That make three whole carrier groups in the area.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/2...ups-in-western-pacific-ahead-trump-visit.html
This is a crazy amount of force, but it could easy be to replace one of the other carriers like the Carl Vinson who has been over there the longest so far.
Trump is visiting China soon as well.
Could be nothing, but it could be something huge.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/2...ups-in-western-pacific-ahead-trump-visit.html
This is a crazy amount of force, but it could easy be to replace one of the other carriers like the Carl Vinson who has been over there the longest so far.
Trump is visiting China soon as well.
Could be nothing, but it could be something huge.
No one has the stomach for it any more - not that is necessarily a bad thing as such except in this case it is probably going to kick a messy war down the road to a horrifically messy one far worse.
Sure why not?? I mean look at the almighty crapstorm over in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Americans started.
How’s that going by the way?? Have the Americans left those countries??
Trump hasn’t got balls big enough to carry through his words. Even if he did, the American military commanders have already said they would ignore his orders pretty much.
Comparing Iraq/Afghanistan is like comparing chalk and cheese...the countries themselves were never a direct threat the western nations.
North Korea as a state however has openly admitted to wanting to destroy the US and South Korea, and while it may just be bluster is anyone willing to test that. As Trump has said, NK should have been dealt with years ago when they were 'less' of a threat and potentially an 'easier' conflict to win. Prolonging the regimes survival just buys them more time to strengthen their military and weapons at which point any preemptive attack would be disastrous.
While I'm not condoning a conflict which could cost hundreds and thousands of lives, action now could save future lives.
Or... or... maybe they'll get their nukes and feel slightly more secure, and not attack anyone.
Your talk of "lets attack them first!" is precisely the reason they feel so insecure.
We talk about preventing war, but who do you want to start a war right now? Us - the West. Is it any wonder countries feel threatened when the West has started two world wars, are the only ones to use nukes, and are the ones itching to start more wars? In the name of "peace"?
Let's face it... attacking them would already have catastrophic consequences. Realistically, all we can do is de-escalate. If that's even possible with Trump in charge.