|08-21-2012, 10:00 AM||#11|
Lords of Boxingscene
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Meet me at Vito's with Noodles
Quoted: 2405 Post(s)Rep Power: 369
Total Points: 20,000,000,000,000,001,811,939,328.00
|08-21-2012, 10:02 AM||#12|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the obtuse and obscene
Quoted: 1095 Post(s)Rep Power: 382
Total Points: 17,589,671,574,860,011,520.00
If you're just going by sheer size of active duty military personnel then hypothetically Russia, India, and China would be the obvious choices. However, given all 4 nations' (US included) nuclear capabilities you'd have to account for the possibility of the war going nuclear, and smaller land masses like China and India would not be able to sustain a full-scale war after a few well placed nukes.
So I'm going with the Ruskies.
|08-21-2012, 10:10 AM||#14|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Quoted: 0 Post(s)Rep Power: 20
Total Points: 20,590,847,640,819.74
If you strictly mean land armies meeting on one massive field. The Russians have many more tanks. Many of them are poorly maintained or outdated but they outnumber the Americans in that category by a very significant margin.
They'd probably still lose. Their army is not in the best shape.
If you mean air-force included, absolutely no-one, and it wouldn't even be close.
You could combine the Chinese, Russian and Indian armies and air-forces together and they would not stand a chance.
Won't bother mentioning navies. The US navy is larger than every other navy put together in terms of tonnage at sea, in service. On the whole, a lot more advanced too.
|08-21-2012, 10:13 AM||#15|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On the EU northern borderline.
Quoted: 1098 Post(s)Rep Power: 554
Total Points: 2,308,976,837,674,238,464.00
|08-21-2012, 10:14 AM||#16|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quoted: 7 Post(s)Rep Power: 25
Total Points: 107,849,984.26
|08-21-2012, 01:26 PM||#18|
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quoted: 0 Post(s)Rep Power: 0
Total Points: 21,638.38
A prime US army got chin-checked by China in the Korean war.
A prime UNDEFEATED US Army got brutally humiliated and taught a harsh lesson about WINNING WARS in the vietnam war. A vietcong colonel reminded (insulted) his american counterpart by saying... WINNING BATTLES DOESN'T NECESARILY MEAN WINNING WARS.
The US army isn't built for a long campaign. Fact.
|08-21-2012, 01:32 PM||#19|
NSB War Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quoted: 0 Post(s)Rep Power: 35
Total Points: 1,910,689,166,026.09
You got invaded & occupied by the spanish.
Then the japanese.
Then the americans.
You're lucky its 2012, otherwise china would have owned your arse by now unless you come crying to big brother U.S. so we can carry your hand while you walk the street & re install military bases.
Be quiet you fool.
|08-21-2012, 04:20 PM||#20|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quoted: 0 Post(s)Rep Power: 11
Total Points: 113,620,819,604.56
no one really. Right now a war of 4-5 years, US wins. Simply because typical military veteran advantage. After 5 years, the opposition gains veteran status and it gets really messy. Therefore, if there is a war between Russia vs USA, the first years America would win, veteran army>army. After a couple of years it negates to something like veteran army-newcomers=
|Share This With Friends|
|army, beat, head|