Which military do you think would win?

Question

America vs. China
America vs. Russia
America vs. Iran
Brittain vs. France
Germany vs. Russia
Israel vs. Terrorists

America, Israel, Brittain, Germany vs. China, Iran, Russia, France

*answer questions in order

Answer 1

I did not include nuclear weapons, because I think they shorten the answers to Nobody.

1) AMerica vs. China

While it would depend heavily on who started it with what objective, the US would win mainly because the Chinese military doesn't have the broadcast capability to do much damage to the US homeland, whereas the opposite is not true. In other words, their massive army is useless because it's stuck in China, and Amerca wouldn't land ground troops. Also, while the US gets a lot of products from China, the Chinese economy is dependant on America and its Western allies buying these things, as well as on food from the US to offset its own shortages. US wins. It would just turn into a brief naval war, with America winning with losses. An extended airwar, with America winning with heavy losses. Followed by America bombing China until they ask for terms.

2) America vs. Russia. Again the US wins though its harder because a lot of US fuel comes from Russia. The war would be over before that would become a military problem though because Russia's army budget is way down and its equipment is aging and most of its equipment would break and not be able to be maintanenced. Also Russia gets a lot of food from the US too. Same scenario as above. Russia's submarine fleet would get lucky a few times and conventionally bomb a few American coastal cities.

3) America vs. Iran. No question here. If there's no American desire for regime change that necessitates an occupation, US wins easy.

4) Britain vs. France: Britain. France's military budget is low, like most European countries; and England has a superior fleet.

5) Germany vs. Russia: Without help from allies, Germany goes down hard with Russia winning by shear numbers.

6) Israel vs. Terrorists: Live in Israel. Was in the warzone last war. Terrorists win. Last war IDF was completely impotent, and couldn't even slow down the fire rate of Hezbollahs kassams. They ended up trying to saturation bomb southern lebenon and just ended up running out of ammunition while the rockets came in more and more, most fired in one day were on the last day of the war.
Kassams can't even be aimed at targets as big as cities from those distances, and most landed harmlessly in open fields; but now that Hezbollahs backers saw they are an effective fighting force; they will send better stuff.
Bottom line, if the Kassams would have been Seersuckers, this country would be ashes. Terrorists win.

Answer 2

America vs. China ..... if a NUKE exchange, the USA. if a land war, that depends upon which side of the Pacific the war is fought. The one with the shortest supply lines will win.

America vs. Russia USA. Russia is in bad shape. Their ships sink all by themselves. But the "win" will not be worth it.

America vs. Iran Same was with China.

Brittain vs. France Brittain. France has a history of fast surrenders.

Germany vs. Russia Germany because it is still in NATO

Israel vs. Terrorists If the USA would butt out and let Israel fight the wars like it wants to do, Israel would win easily.

Answer 3

You are looking at the question wrong.

War is not like a football game where both sides line up on the field and one side is stronger than the other. There are a lot of variables involved that you aren't considering here.

For example, you say "America vrs. China". Well WHERE? The Chinese lack the naval capability to invade Tiawan, they aren't about to come storming ashore on the beaches of California. That being said, while the US has the naval and logisitical capability to deploy and support a few hundred thousand troops in mainland China, the number we can support and deploy over there is nowhere NEAR the number it would take to defeat the Chinese Army. (aka the PLA). The Chinese would outnumber us something like 10:1, we would be lucky if ANY survivors got off the beaches and back to the American fleet. So a lot depends on things you aren't considering here, like logistics.

(Napoleon once said "Amatuers talk tactics. Professionals talk logisitcs.")

Israel vrs. Terrorists is another example. ANY competent professional military force can rip through an Arab army like a hot knife going through butter. America proved that in 2003 and in 1991, and the Israelis proved it in 1948, 1967, 1972 and 1980. That is WHY the Arabs decided to become terrorists. They learned that if they go head to head with an American Army or the Israeli Army they will get squished like a bug. So instead they attack unarmed women and children who can't fight back. The unarmed women and children they CAN kill, and they figure if they just kill enough innocent people who can't fight back eventually the US and Israel will get sick of all the killing and give them what they want. That's their strategy

Something similar is going on in Iraq, and would happen in Iran if we went in there. The Iraqi Army didn't stand a chance against the US, but the insurgency has proven much harder to stamp out. The Iranian Army would probably put up a slightly better fight than the Iraqis did, but they wouldn't last two months against the full power of the US military.

The problem is Iran is full of mountians, and the Iranians would just fall back to the mountians and stage terror attacks out of there. It could take a decade to root the last of the Iranian insurgents out of their caves. It would all depend on how angry the American public was, how much they supported the war, and how long they would be willing to stick it out.

Right now, I don't think the American public is up for a long war in Iran. If however the Iranians were to use a nuclear weapon, (either on Israel, the Europe, or the US) then yes, the American public would be so angered and scared and horrified that the war wouldn't be over as long as there were still two Iranians left alive to breed.

So the question isn't as simple as you make it seem. There are a lot of other factors involved that make it impossible to answer. Things like economics and political will. During the Vietnam War the US had the military capability of invading North Vietnam, but we didn't because of political reasons. (We were afraid it would start WW III if the Chinese or Soviets came in to help the North Vietnamese, and we didn't want to take that risk.) Similarly the reason Germany surrenedered in WW 1 was that the British blockade had caused the German and Austrian economies to colapse, and people were starving to death. The people finally had had enough, revolted, and made the military surrender. The same thing happened in Russia in 1917.

So "Who would win" is not as simple as "who has the better Army?" We can't really answer your question.

Answer 4

America - China does not have a great offensive capacity in it military
America - Russia weaponry has never been a match for US equipment and their millitary has suffer a great deal of decay and is only in the last few years turning around.
America - Iran has not major capacity to strike the US and US force would overwhelm Iran
Britian - France has been in a major conflict in years - otherwise this would be a drawl
Russia (but I would be routing for Germany) - Germany's military is mostly a defensive force and really has limited offense capabilities since the end of WW2
Israel - Israel wins every round and knows it must - the terrorists survive on world opinion rather than actual military victories.

The last combination would never happen - France wouldn't go in war against a Anglo-American alliance - there is too much strong blood between the US and France ultimately.

Good Luck!!!

Answer 5

America vs. China - Neither
America vs. Russia - America
America vs. Iran - America (but would be hard)
Brittain vs. France - Brittain
Germany vs. Russia - Germany
Israel vs. Terrorists - Israel

Answer 6

America
America
America
Britain
Russia Only because Germanys army is so much smaller
Israel definitely
America, Israel, Britain, Germany

Answer 7

1. America
2. America
3. America
4. Britain
5.Germany
6. Israel

Answer 8

We have the power and technology to win wars. But the politicians are too scared to use the full force of the military. War is brutal. To win a war you have to go all out. In WWII we firebombed entire cities, we dropped atom bombs. We killed a LOT of people, but we won. Now the politicians want to be able to win a war, but at the same they don't want to look like the bad guy. We shouldn't even go into a war if we aren't willing to use the full force of the military. In Vietnam 58,000 of our soldiers were killed. No telling how many Vietnamese were killed and we still lost. Remember Somalia in the 90s? We were going to go over there and help the starving people. We were going to stop the warlords from stealing all the food and stop terrorizing the citizens. We were going to be the heros. Well, we got into a few fights and some of our soldiers died and we killed some Somalis, then we just left without accomplishing our mission. Such a waste. Notice how the politicians don't even talk about "winning" the war, they talk about "ending" the war. Unfortunately the only way to truly win a war is to be brutal and think "I'm going to kill you before you kill me". If you don't have that attitude you shouldn't even go to war.

Answer 9

Except for France it depends on where the war takes place. France issued a surrender notice just because you asked the question.

Most of these militaries, except for the US, do not have the ability to deploy a large force out side of its borders.

The larger conflicts would go nuke and there would be no winners. If that happened the people living in huts in Africa would have it better than the rest of the world.

Answer 10

America
America
America
Britain
Russia Israel
America, Israel, Britain, and Germany but just barely.