How do you think today's US Army will do against a real army from a 'developed' country like Russia or China?

Question

This isn't an anti-American question so don't start with insults. I'm asking this as a serious question.

By 'real' army I mean a developed nation just as strong sending well funded and well armed troops at the today's American Soldiers. The strongest army in the middle east that would attack the US I think is Iran and even that country for all intents and purposes would be a cake wake for US/Israel.

Again, I'm not suggesting they'll lose but the US army for as much effort as Iraq required the US been hasn't really been in an all out Superpower vs Superpower free-for-all in ages (nor have Russia or China)

I think it would be about 50/50 between the US and Russia but Americans would see violence and death tolls like most of us alive today have never seen inflicted on American Soldiers. I think the American would be strong in the fact that it would have so much international support and ways of politically hurting Russia but I honestly think it would be a struggle because Putin will NOT allow a US/Russian Conflict to result in only Russian cities being leveled to the ground -- He will bring the fight to north America.

So you do think it would play out? I say they'd pound each other until it wasn't worth any civilian lives anymore.

Answer 1

Well, when we whipped Iraq's *** in the first gulf war, they started out with the world's fourth largest army, they outnumbered us 4 to 1, and they were using fairly modern Russian-made equipment. I think to say that Iraq did not have a real army is insulting all around... unless you want to say that the US has the only real army. We just recently witnessed the clusterf___ that was the Russian army in Georgia. I'd pit the US army against them any freakin' day.

Answer 2

They would defeat them, we have many weapons and technology that hasn't been deployed in either Iraq or Afghanistan, but is being held for an occasion such as this. The Russians were bogged down in Afghanistan for years in a war that ended in a stalemate between the two countries.

Nobody knows the Strength of the Russian Army since no-one can get a straight answer out of the Kremlin. However in the 1990s, Russia got billions of dollars from the United States in order to keep the Mir Space Station going, while American Astronauts complained about shortages of food and everything else while they were training in Russia.

If this is any indication of how other systems are maintained in Russia then they are in bad shape. There have been stories floated that military personnel haven't been paid and the Navy is in disarray with ships literally falling apart around the Navy.

There is no way that Russia would ever be able to defeat the United States, with our technology and resources it would be a grave mistake, plus our early warning systems are far more superior to the Russian version any day of the week.

Answer 3

I can't speak for training in those two nations but I can tell you that our weapons systems are technologically more advanced than Russia or China... we have also spent trillions more money into our weapons development than either nation for the last 20 years.



Could we win a war today against either power? I doubt it as long as we are mired in Iraq and Afghanistan... our supply lines are way too overstretched to match up and we actually don't have the troops to fight a long struggle in nations of that size and with those populations.



We could never fight nations that large without heavily committed allies that would expect heavy casualties and shared serious responsibilities.



With or without using nuclear options we would at best have a stalemate if we had a conflict with Russia or China. Even the most optimistic scenario would have us scattered around two very large land areas fighting a insurgency that would be impossible to contain without a much larger military.

Answer 4

there is not any military to boot funded because of the fact the U. S.. Out of worldwide protection tension expenses the U. S. spends a million/2 of it. The Russian protection tension is mediocre at suitable, they have previous weapons, previous radar/early warning structures. pondering the U. S. army might Obliterate the Russian army and that the F-22 is an remarkable fighter we would have Naval and Air Superiority. The M1 Abrams is a tank which could purely be matched via tanks fielded via US allies (Challenger-uk, Leopard-Germ, etc.). How ought to we lose until eventually it grew to become Nuclear yet then with the doctrine of huge retaliation no one might win. China falls beside Russia. (Plus china purely has some nukes) additionally remember how conflict works, with the better army an embargo ought to decrease off effectual oil and different components needed to maintain such a huge military able to even making a dent lively. On yet another be conscious Iraq did no longer require plenty attempt what we pay attention at present is terrorism we won the war in a count number of days. to boot we dont pay attention something approximately Iraq anymore on the information because of the fact there is rarely an incident because of the fact we are so proficient at guerilla conflict. only because of the fact we've regard for human existence and dont use our superiority to point homes doesnt mean we won't combat a war. (Germany could no longer produce sufficient protection tension kit because of the fact we've been bombing the hell out of them, or did you think of we've been only blowing up random homes?)

Answer 5

Hopefully we will never find out. I don't know. We actually probably have a better military than the Russians, most of what they have is Soviet stuff from 50 years ago or something. Ours is a little bit better. But China would be different, manpower alone could overrun us.



But I don't see it happening. And if we ever got into an out and out war with Russia, even though we've reduced the nuclear weapons, we both still have them, a lot. I'm afraid sooner or later it would come to that.



I'm afraid your last sentence is right, but we pray this never happens.

Answer 6

Unfortunately our troops would lose. Not because of lack of strength or tactical know how. But because of politicians, lawyers, and arm chair generals deciding the moves of our troops, instead of those qualified.



There's been a big fight over the use of "approved" bullet proof vests that don't do as good a job as one made by a independent company. It's construction causes the bullet to be deflected away and the force of the bullet is absorbed instead of transferred.



Isreal has offered a device they have that detects IED's but Pentagon lawyers wouldn't allow our troops to have it because of the advantage it would give against the enemy. Other times, Predator drones found groups of hundreds of people from al-Qaeda and the Taliban gathered together. There was an opportunity to bomb all of them to Allah. Instead, they were let go.



I doubt the people back here have the resolve to stick out a major war. All we'd be hearing about is our soldiers being baby killers and other PC anti-military nonsense.

Answer 7

Well, assume a non-nuclear confrontation.



I think the US has better planes, bombing, subs, stealth technology. We spend about twice as much as China on defense (we are first, China is second).



We could bomb them all day and night, but they are such a large country it would certainly be a challenge.



China's army in terms of humans is much larger, and I think their ability to produce could be increased. They have tremendous reserves.



We have a lack on industry, thanks to free trade started by Reagan, and actually import many things in our military FROM CHINA. This gives us an incredible disadvantage if we look at long term survivability. Also, we would instantly be no longer able to finance our deficit, since I think the Chinese are financing a good deal of it. We would immediately need to increase the money supply dramatically, increasing inflation, and the world would probably dump our currency, it now being worthless. Chinese imports would end, Walmarts would go out of business and we would stuck with soaring prices, no more cheap goods and huge real fall in purchasing power.



I think the war would end up in a stalemate. China could not make a successful landing, and although our supply lines would be more secure since we could find small friendly countries for bases, if China went on a 'war footing' and started drafting large proportions of her population (like during the communist revolution), it would be hard if not impossible for troops to hold much ground.

Answer 8

One on one, the US most likely. Our military technology is ahead of either. To chancy to try due to Nukes.





For Dan: We were cleaning the clocks of Japan in WW II. Truman

bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring about a quicker end to the

war to SAVE LIVES. Estimates were that 200 to 250 thousand Allied

lives and over 1 million Japanese lives would have been lost if an invasion of the Japanese home islands had occurred.

I know, major oxymoron, killing to save lives.

Answer 9

I wondered about this and this is why we probably have wars like Iraq and Afghanistan to fine tune our military



I don't care about if its for OIL or Bin Laden revenge.



war is just war and it can never be justified unless you are being

directly attacked like Israel.



Then the Hamas have hid with the Palestinians boobs that voted them in..in the end



MIGHT MAKES RIGHT

Answer 10

When you are talking Superpowers like China, Russia, and the US you are not talking about ground war . . you are talking Nuclear War . . and there would be no winners at all . . in fact . . by the end . . there would be nothing left at all. This scenario has played out in the minds and in the backrooms of all the superpower countries . . and all reached the same conclusion . . there is absolutely no way to 'win' a nuclear confrontation.



Nuclear warfare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare



MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Answer 11

The way to get good at warfare is to practice it. If big boys fight they throw bombs expect mass death. Street to street urban warfare we would have the upper hand against anyone. chemical and biological weapons we all loose game over for everyone.

Answer 12

You're forgetting that the Soviet army was defeated in Afghanistan, they didn't even do as well as our forces already have done. I've served in the military and saw my share of combat so I can tell you first hand that the American military is a very well trained and well prepared fighting force capable of taking on any army n the world.

Answer 13

Let us hope we do not find out.

Wars with all the ugly new toys would not be pretty.

Why hook Israel and the US we don't want them associated with us.

Terrorist Israel fighting side by side our soldiers. Scary thought that is.

Answer 14

Bad, bad bad news.



Russia: Could engineer an embargo of the US by oil producing nations.



China: US war materiel and supplies are contracted out to China.



Both countries have armies 3-5 times the size of ours and nukes too.



I suggest we sharpen our diplomatic skills . . . .

Answer 15

Since the libs think an Army should never fight, you won't get serious answers from them.





We would have kicked China's *** all up and down that Great wall until Bubba sold them missle technology.



Russia learned how to defend Hinds against Stingers, so they may give us a run for the money.

Answer 16

You and I both know, the real problem is we don't fight wars anymore. We fight PR battles. If those in charge would let the military leaders do their jobs, while letting the soldiers do their jobs, then it would not be a contest. but when you must please cnn, nbc etc. your hands are tied.

Answer 17

There is a good chance if the USA were to find themselves in a face to face with China, or Russia they would find a potential for loss.



Especially with our troops being taken out in the middle-eastern wars and conflicts, we just really don't have the manpower we used to have before all that mess started.



Differences may be in mindset. Americans have a different mindset than either Chinese or Russian soldiers, who are drafted and brought in as children. Our military, at this moment, is strong by choices of good young men and women. We believe that we have something very great to fight for. Our inalienable right to freedoms that China and Russia do not afford to their servicemen nor to their citizens.



If we were in mano a mano combat with either of those two formidable adversaries then we would most assuredly have a great fight on our hands, and we could lose.

Answer 18

The fact is that there is no developed nation "just as strong." They may be developed but they won't be as strong. But such a conflict will likely not arise with both sides having nukes.

Answer 19

Oh you mean a developed army, one that stays strong and doesn't have the inconvenience of a democrat president coming in and minimizing it by half every 8 years or so and cutting the funds for it, causing it to become weak. I can see how that may be a problem for the US.

Answer 20

you are mistaken.. because you are basing your assumptions on your understanding of american soldiers.. NOT on world soldiers...



the us would probrably inflcit 2-3 to one causualties on russia... meaning we would lose 1 soldier for every two to three we killed...



if that were true.. we would lose.. they out number us by closer to four to one...





comparisons of this nature are meaningless because they assume that all militaries think the same.. which simply isn't true... for example.. in the ground war against russia to all intents and purposes germany won EVERY major battle.. but they lost the war...



russia didn't fight using germanies rules.... to figure who would win/lose in any given engagement on a scale of nations you must first strive to understand the goals and concepts that guide the militaries of those countries.

Answer 21

That's why it's called M.A.D. - Mutually Assured Destruction. Sort of like wheelchair rugby....no winners, only survivors.

Answer 22

I think America would win but obviously there would be higher casualties and it would take longer.



Now, the thing that shoots holes in your set-up is that most "DEVELOPED" countries have nukes, and if America is kicking their butts conventionally, don't you think nukes would start being used?



And then we're ALL hosed.

Answer 23

I say we're too spread thin to actually do anything at this time. The only resolution against the countries you listed would involve nukes... no clear winner there, and tragedies for all.

Answer 24

I think we could take Russia, but I would hate to live in the country that pissed off China enough to attack. Whoa.

Answer 25

do you remember what we did against Japan?



we could not win the war in the traditional way so we nuke em

and to make sure they all death we nuke them twice



by the way Russia is already moving



WWIII,2009-2010



Russian Destroyers Dock At Havana Port

http://wcco.com/national/russian.warships.cuba.2.891865.html



2 Russian strategic bombers land in Venezuela

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=389&sid=1475782



U.S. jets escort Russian bombers off Alaska coast

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/us.russian.planes/index.html



Russian bomber buzzes U.S. aircraft carrier

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/11/russian.bomber/index.html?iref=mpstoryview



Russian warships arrive in Havana

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081219/118956130.html



Russian navy fleet arrives in Venezuela

http://english.china.com/zh_cn/news/international/11020308/20081126/15206171.html



U.S. presses Russia on sale of missiles to Iran

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/12/23/20081223iran-missile1223.html



RUSSIA WARNS AMERICA OF WORLD WAR III 2009/2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDie9OHsZ1I&feature=channel_page

Answer 26

We would probably be more successful than in Iraq and Afghanistan because there would be a defined enemy, and no guessing on who we're supposed to be fighting. Why do you think we were so successful in WW1 and WW2?

Answer 27

No question, preempt the little bastards, Nuke the hell out of their ***. They plan to do the same to us. That's their military strategy. You can not win a land war against anyone stronger than Venezuela. Get prepared.