In an all-out war, who would win between the U.S. and U.K. against Russia and China?

Question

OK, i get the point that no one will win in a nuclear war, everyone loses. So, let's modify my question. In a non-nuclear conventional war, who would win?

I meant U.S./U.K. vs. Russia/China; not U.S. vs. Russia and U.K. vs. China.

Answer 1

Halliburton.

Answer 2

I believe that technology and airpower would reign supreme. The Unites States and Britain have the edge in those fields, so It's really no contest.

The United states has UCAV's, the Umanned Combat Arial Vehicles. These things in collaboration with the most advanced fighter jets in the world. Our Black Op's aircraft, like the Aurora Bomber and A-12 Oxcarts, not to mention the largest fleet of bombers in the world, all supersonic capable with laser guided bombs, and the largest conventional explosive weapon, the M.O.A.B! the (mother of all bombs) weighing in at 12,500 lbs! Oh did I mention the Stealth Bomber! and the Stealth Fighter! the LHX Commanche (also stealth) and the Apache attack chopper with doppler radar (longbow!) it's really no competition. I haven't even touched on Britain's Stealth Navy battleships, with trimeran hull configuration and turbine engines, not to mention that the allied planes need almost no runway, or have VTOL, vertical take off and landing, it really blows everything china and russia have, out of the water!

OKay fine I'll give it to Russia with their amazing Typhoon Sub, but without nuclear clearance, they are just sitting there.

China has manpower, but it's no match for upper atmosphere bombing.

There's the russian Sikorsky Su-27 with thrust vectoring engines, but the US has that now, and has already imployed it on the latest fighters.

The russians were supposed to have the first super cavitating torpedoes, but now the US has better ones.

there's really nothing that russians or china have to compete with us, except the chinese satellite killing rocket.. !

-We'll have that in a few months, and even if we don't do it, we don't need satellites we have global hawks drones and spy planes like the sr71-blackbird and u2, and possibly even the switchblade!

If it did erupt into a satellite war, then the US could employ project thor, the space needles or some equally technically challenging weapon.

Answer 3

The US military has the ability to project force efficiently and effectively. Very few militaries in the world can do this to any degree, much less the degree the United States does consistently. Force projection essentially means the US has the ability to deploy and sustain military forces virtually anywhere in the world. Russia would have a difficult time doing this; China simply cannot do it and lacks the transport forces, amphibious and air, to effectively move military forces in a short time period.

Information technology is also overlooked. The US military can effectively communicate with military units in contact with the enemy much more effectively the ANY potential advisory. This is done through GPS, digital links, and a myriad of other systems. Information on the battlefield is key, and gives a tremendous advantage to any military.

Air support. The United States Air Forces are the best in the world and our taught to dominate the battle field from the air. This domination is key to US streategy, to such a point that the US army lacks substantial air defense protection, at least on a tactical level, because US air power is so predominate.
There have been advances in fighter planes recently from China and Russia, what the nay-sayers seems not to realize is that the idea of the US is not to engage these forces in dogfights, the idea is to dominate, which is why air superiority fighters are fielded in US use. The idea is to get them before they can get close enough to engage in a dog fight.

The modern US military was born essentially to fight the Russians on the fields of Europe, fight heavily outnumbered, and win. The tactics developed for the combat forces bear all of this in mind. For example, on engagement on the tank crew qualification course has: one stationary tank target, one turret tank target, one moving tank target, and a squad of troops. A typical tank crew can destroy these targets-while moving-, and at night, in around 30 seconds. So one tank can essentially destroy a Russian tank platoon (same size as old Soviet Union).

The most important factor of all is the fact that the US military is professional, all volunteer force that is relatively well paid; the same can be said of the UK. The Russian and Chinese militaries are conscript armies that have historically fought poor on the offensive. Many soldiers in these armies do not feel obligated to fight as they are treated very poorly.

The US military can do things others simply cannot, and our rivals, at least in the global arena know this, at this point they simply cannot hope to dominate, and are a pale shadow when compared to US military power.

Answer 4

Well seeing as the U.S. and U.K. have the most advanced militaries in the world, and the fact that China's army is large doesn't mean its all that good. Russia's pretty much gone sober with the whole arms race thing. And China virtually has no navy. The U.K. can handle Russia, while the U.S. would go in and blockade and bomb the hell outta China.

Answer 5

Timothy got it right. Nobody wins an all-out war between two nuclear powers.

I think Carl Sagan put it best. A nuclear war is like two people standing in a room filled with gasoline up to their knees, arguing over who has the most matches.

Answer 6

cockroaches

In a conventional war, the rest of the world would "win" because Russia, China, Great Britain and the USA would be devastated.

Answer 7

I would take the USA and China is round one then the USA winning the whole pie.

Answer 8

Cuba. When America is weakened they'd take over south America! probably...not....

Answer 9

Everybody would lose whether it was nuclear or not.

Answer 10

we would as long as we have a leader that has a pair