Sino-American War

Who'd win?

Other urls found in this thread:

ft.com/content/3de69ce0-7570-11e5-933d-efcdc3c11c89
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

China

India would be on China's side. Why the fuck would they fight China, which is literally right next to them? Which will send tanks and shit in to kill them all?

What the fuck does India have to gain from that?

But if India, China and Russia band together (as developing economies, all with nuclear weapons, all with massively expanded militaries after the days of colonialism, all AMBITIOUS nations with expansionist dreams), they'd have EVERYTHING to gain, because together they could pose a REAL threat to the West.

Are you retarded?

fix'd

No but you are.

India would never, ever fight for the West. We inhabited their country for a couple hundred years. They fucking hate us.

Why the fuck would they open up a military front with China on their northern border? Why?

They might be neutral, but they would never ever fight China for literally no fucking reason.

China invaded northern parts of India couple decades back. They have beef.

We're team China now.

Russia would either be "neutral" arms dealer or side against China and try to get some land out of the deal. Maybe a nice chink of Manchuria?

For fuck's sake, why are Bulgarians all fucking Russophiles?

You do realise you're part of fucking NATO, right?

>we

speak for yourself nigel

Maybe to get a nice chunk of the Himalayas?

>?You do realize they freed us from 500 years of t*rkish slavery and genocide when no one else in the West gave a flying fuck, right?

Fuck NATO and fuck you.

Bulgaria and Russia bros forever.

have poms always been this dumb? this post is just embarassing honestly, you should delete it.


US military industrial complex would defeat china. NATO would easily crush them

Interesting, didn't know that.

Russia and China are buddies, and they both hate the West.

Putin was the only major foreign leader (I think) to attend China's 75th anniversary of Victory in Japan parade last year (it was fucking huge, they shut down factories in Beijing for like four days beforehand so the skies would be clear)

Russia had a similarly massive parade for the same event

Both nations are militaristic and vengeful and they would fucking LOVE to knock the West down a few pegs.

>Russia and China are buddies
neighbors, not buddies. Russia would stab China in the back if it thought it could get something out of it, like more far land.

How can you expect us to take your posts seriously if you don't even know about the Sino-Indian War of 62 or the tension between the two countries?
Fucking hell China even openly backs Pakistan which is de facto at war with India through many skirmishes since the two have split from the British Empire.

If you ever studied Chinese history before then you'd know for certain that China would lose. China has a long history of losing to foreign powers on its own soil. Chinese history has always been a cycle of China growing big and arrogant, thinking itself invincible, and then paying the price for its hubris by being conquered and suffering through periods of foreign rule and domination.

A militaristic China is just a bad idea. China's strengths were always in its culture, philosophers, and merchants, not its warriors. China is going in the wrong direction, and I see another Chinese dark age coming.

t. Chinaman

You're British diaspora, Nigella.

Unless you're a frog, in which case fuck off out of the Queen's land, Pierre.

Meh. Maybe I guess.

Go drink your filthy rakia and wallow in fucking poverty and filth you degenerate east european gypsy scum

Stay mad, Sadiq.

Russia and China together would pose a very strong threat. Add in India and it would be even stronger.

Also, Russia has more nukes than the US.

Russia + China have more nukes than US + UK + France.

Maybe. Why do you keep posting climate maps by the way?

Interesting. I know of the India-Pakistan hatred of course. Didn't know China backed the pakis though.

>Chinese history has always been a cycle of China growing big and arrogant, thinking itself invincible, and then paying the price for its hubris by being conquered and suffering through periods of foreign rule and domination.
I'm not saying China would WIN. I'm saying they will fight though, which corroborates with what you're saying.

>A militaristic China is just a bad idea. China's strengths were always in its culture, philosophers, and merchants, not its warriors. China is going in the wrong direction, and I see another Chinese dark age coming.
If by "going in the wrong direction" you mean "they will try and fight", then I agree. All the signs are there:

>Official history books in China date the start of the country’s modern era to 1840, the year of the first opium war and the beginning of what they describe as the “century of humiliation” at the hands of foreigners, led by Britain.
ft.com/content/3de69ce0-7570-11e5-933d-efcdc3c11c89

Add that to their massive military displays like the one last November. China is nationalistic, militaristic, autocratic, and feels like it's been snubbed by the West for over 100 years. They want to get their own back. Desperately.

Would you rather an ethnic map?

in a nuclear war no one would win. in a non-nuke war NATO would easily win. you underestimate just how powerful the USA is. there is reason all these countries are terrified of them.

Yes okay. More informative when talking about geopolitics than climate.

Climate tells you a lot about the countries that are in them.

>in a nuclear war no one would win.
Why do you say that? People always have this assumption that nukes would result in entire countries being destroyed, but I don't agree. A single nuke can only destroy a couple miles in radius. And yes, the US and Russia each have about 7,000 nuclear warheads. But can they fire 7,000 nukes at once? I doubt it. And the first places they will each go for are the other's nuclear launch sites.

So it would only result in annihilation of military capability and major cities. Vast swathes of flyover country would be left alone.

Someone would win because someone would end up with more military capability than the other. The one who gets knocked into complete submission first will be the loser.

>in a non-nuke war NATO would easily win. you underestimate just how powerful the USA is. there is reason all these countries are terrified of them.
China's military is pretty big and growing rapidly. Russia's has always been pretty powerful, which is why the Cold War was such a thing for such a long time.

I think each of them would put up a fight just by themselves. But together, they could be a massive threat.

Once the U.S. or Russia gets involved actual number of nukes doesn't matter because either country has enough to destroy society. The only nuclear scenario I could think of that wouldn't involve either U.S or Russia is if India and Pakistan got into a nuclear conflict l, even then they both have over 100 missiles which would cause severe environmental damage anyway.

I imagine you're maybe 19?

I suppose it does. It's interesting. But it doesn't explain geopolitical differences.

russia has lots of shitty, outdated, falling apart soviet missiles. USA has a large stockpile of functional modern ICBMs. in terms of realistic nuclear power they are unmatched

You actually have no concept of the fluidity of relations between countries. I imagine you're 18?

Iran will be a key ally of Russia in WWIII.
Belarus, Armenia, Kazkhstan and Tajikistan are all bound by treaty to assist Russia in case of aggression.
Ukraine would be the main front in Europe.
Syria has more Russian troops now than ever before, so it will be another front.

climate effects crop yield, crop yields effects people, people effect politics. Russia would love to have northern china's crop land.

I wish everybody would just stop being retards.

Nuke the muslims and let the Negros die from hunger.
And the world will be a better place already.

china would lose vs the us alone but if you say china against the whole world, china obviously wins

>Once the U.S. or Russia gets involved actual number of nukes doesn't matter because either country has enough to destroy society
But it matters a lot. It means that Russia is just as powerful as the US in that area. That's massive. Other countries might be beaten into a situation where the US says "you're on the ropes now, and we have way more nukes than you, so you better surrender or we'll obliterate you". Russia is the only country that can say to that "we have slightly more nukes than you. You wouldn't dare."

>comparing shitty russian nukes to americas

Nope I'm 25 but congrats on making the same joke twice.

Hm. Fair enough. I think China currently have the most powerful nukes though with the Dongfeng 5 (5 Mt). The most powerful US nuke is the B83 (only 1.2 Mt).

Makes sense.

True. You have a good point. Also, that image really nails it home why India has such a large population. I guess China too, although its cropland doesn't look much bigger than Russia's. Maybe the temperature is the difference? Russia's a pretty harsh climate, so I guess crops and people find it harder to survive there.

There is a lot more nothing in Russia than China.

The largest US nuke is 1.2 Mt and the largest Russian nuke is 800 Kt, so they're not completely incomparable.

The largest Chinese nuke is 5 Mt, which would fuck them both in the ass.