Why do americans think they can beat russia and china in a conventional war?

Why do americans think they can beat russia and china in a conventional war?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4424320/Russia-able-neutralise-warships-report-claims.html
thetrumpet.com/16266-chinas-new-gold-backed-oil-benchmark-to-deal-blow-to-us-dollar
medium.com/war-is-boring/russia-claims-its-bomber-jammed-u-s-destroyer-8b58c9b56515
defensesystems.com/articles/2017/05/12/fakeew.aspx
popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26167/russia-secret-e-weapons/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

We don't. That's just posturing

They can't even beat talibans or Vietnam.

They only rely on nukes fear to establish dominance.

They DO have a bunch more aircraft carriers than anyone else, and since the next war will be one where trade and economy are essential, it will help a lot that they master the seas. But if China makes a landing, yes they're fucked.

he said conventional war, red tape isn't included.

Depends on where the battle is actually taking place. An an actually nuclear war would be interesting. I'm sure the US or Russia would have some sort of black budget/highly classified tech that would negate/minimize the effect of nukes.

they're the same strenght retard.

Because it will never happen so we can make up any scenarios to delude ourselves.

All 3 superstates are unable to take take each other down even if 2 of them ganged up on the 3rd.

It also depends if you have french ""allies"" or not

Nah, China still has to scuttle away when the American navy shows up. We see it happen about once a month in the South China sea.

Pardon?

They could deal with Russia in about a week, and then blockade China until they beg for mercy.

u ve got a vivid imagination

The Chinese wouldn't be able to leave Asia, we'd have them pinned against the coast while we firebombed their cities like we did to Japan

>Chinese don't have misile capabilities to strike american cities
Chinese entire strategy is defensive newfag.

We killed like a million if their combatants and lost a few thousand.

War is hard nowadays politically and getting positive world opinion.

When will mods rangeban congolombian posters?

...

yes, we are a BLACK country
but what does that have to do with anything?

>Russia
hunny...

fuck off mate, you are counting all the kills made by south vietnamese and your allies while only counting american losses.

but that would bring you in range of their ballistic missiles

What are Russians going to do about it? There's plenty of friendly harbors for (technologically and numerically superior) American ships, not so much for Russian ones. Russia cannot hope to defeat the American fleet in open waters in a million years.

The russians can't even protect their high-hanking officers from ragheads, imagine them agaisn't the USA.

stop :^)

i don't think that is russia or china's objective. they want area denial in their sphere of influence, not supremacy in open waters.

i am morbidly curious to know how a modern war would turn out between the most technologically advanced nations. nobody really knows what would happen and how the weapons would interact.

It's not the 19th century any longer where you have to sail up to someone's port to blockade it. Weapon and information tech have gotten so far, that it's very feasible to blockade most countries from open waters. Even though Russia got plenty of land routes available to them, it is still going to cause a massive drain on their economy.

Whoever is the aggressor would automatically be the loser. It’s impossible to pull of a successful occupation of any of those 3 countries.

The side who’s goal it is to simply reject occupation wins since that’s so much easier to achieve.

Russia's only strength is that it is impossible to conquer by land. Their disposable population is a plus too. Besides those two things, Russia is pretty weak.

China's only strength is its population. It would probably be easier to beat China in a conventional war than Russia, as they can actually be invaded by land.

I was talking about Afghanistan/Iraq

at what distance? ballistic missiles are already in thousands of kilometer ranges and can be fired and forgotten.

the effectiveness of a blockade is reduced the further you have to patrol away from the ports. not withstanding china and russia have land access to africa, europe and central asia.

war would drastically reduce everyone economy, but everyone would be focused on war production anyways. the only trade that would happen are in commodities to war furnishing.

you guys did not kill millions of combatants in iraq and afghanistan, civilians maybe, but certainly not enemies.

>Their disposable population is a plus too.
>least populous of the trio
Hmmm...

The one real change is how little capturing land will matter in a war of this age, and how purposeless infantry whose traditional role it is to occupy land will be. The prized "objectives" will become hacking data of the other side, sending special forces to dismantle nuclear silos or factories of the other side, and ruling from the oceans. You could probably win without even reaching the enemy's capital nowadays..

Historically, Russia has been very keen on sacrificing its population.

You forget that the US got access to some of the most advanced surveillance systems on earth. You don't need the fleet to physically confirm targets in enclosed waters like the Baltic sea. Helicopters, fighter jets, drones, submarines, aircraft based surveillance systems and satellites can all do the job and all of them would no doubt be used. Furthermore, the US got plenty of allies that themselves have access to advanced surveillance systems, including permanent installations in the area.

Ballistic missiles against a fleet formation won't do shit. AEGIS BMD equipped ships would easily deal with soviet era ballistic missiles and THAAD installations would rapidly be deployed in surrounding allied nations.

>not withstanding china and russia have land access to africa, europe and central asia.
Yes, and I recognized that in my first post. But it's still much slower and more expensive than transporting by sea. That's why blockading is still a very powerful tool.

>war would drastically reduce everyone economy
Absolutely. The thing is though that in an economic war against Russia, the US could win without even realizing it was at war in the first place.

Because they could afford to, and even then it was largely a meme, like with the "soviet hordes charging at random" stereotypes. Nowadays it would be much more cautious. Also, there were lots of Ukrainians, Ruthenians, Poles, etc... to sacrifice then.
You see they've become more cautious in how many losses they let themselves pile on in the Chenchen wars where they pulled back when too many dead Russians had mounted.

Russian tech is more advanced than whatever garbage the US has.

>Conventional warfare
>Between modern armies

Not going to happen. The future is missiles, aerial warfare and all that good stuff

for every ballistic missile the aegis shoots down, a decoy can be used instead, how many decoys can be resupplied by land versus how many can a fleet resupply by sea? the numbers are not in favor to the sea because of supply distance and the possibility of supply lines from the sea being intercepted. a ballistic shield must shoot down every incoming missile or else there is no point, you want to roll the dice and shoot only 50% of the missiles to save on interceptors and hope the ones that connect are decoys?

satellites can be destroyed, you cannot rely on them for logistics. satellites have no defensive maneuvering capabilities.

>>Yes, and I recognized that in my first post. But it's still much slower and more expensive than transporting by sea. That's why blockading is still a very powerful tool.

the effectiveness of a blockade is questionable as i said, you'd have to establish a perimeter of thousands of kilometers to be out of orange of missiles and bombers from the coastline.

>>Absolutely. The thing is though that in an economic war against Russia, the US could win without even realizing it was at war in the first place.

i very doubt economic warfare would get russia to capitulate given their history.

>Russian tech is more advanced than whatever garbage the US has.

The US might be able to pull off successful invasions of Russia or China while failing to pacify the population.

However neither Russia or China could ever come close to touching the US mainland.

I believe Chinmerica already lost the war of subversion.

now for the balkanization plan to be properly implemented.

Shall there be a Best And Worst america in our life time?

only time will tell.

Because they can.

The same was said about France until WWI came around

The real reason why Russia suffered so many casualties during WW1 and WW2 was because Russia itself was threatened. Not because of incompetence. Russia literally fought its very survival. In contrast, the recent wars that Russia has been involved in are irrelevant compared to previous wars, therefore they have suffered far less losses.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4424320/Russia-able-neutralise-warships-report-claims.html

>tfw a single russian jet can shutdown an american carrier
yeah, lmao indeed.

>The US might be able to pull off successful invasions of Russia or China
>Russia or China could ever come close to touching the US mainland.
Literally wrong on both accounts

>Being this delusional
France got fucking steamrolled in the early stages of WW1. Joining the French military almost meant certain death. Don't you mean WW2?

>satellites can be destroyed
Satellites are notoriously difficult to destroy and generally speaking require an aircraft firing a missile towards it as it is just underneath it. The baltic can easily be surveyed without ever flying over Russia.

And even if that does happen, there are, as mentioned, still plenty of other options.

>for every ballistic missile the aegis shoots down, a decoy can be used instead
Maybe you missed the point about allies? Essentially all of Western Europe is an ally and would be able to support US ships. In the pacific both South Korea and Japan are more than up to the task.

It's completely irrational to go on the assumption that the US would have to resupply from their mainland.

>you'd have to establish a perimeter of thousands of kilometers to be out of orange of missiles and bombers from the coastline
You don't have to be outside of that range. Why do you think that. US has enough power projection to establish air supremacy anywhere at sea.

>i very doubt economic warfare would get russia to capitulate given their history
That's literally what happened in 1991.

is there a country who's government,military and agencies is more infiltrated by international spies and saboteurs more than the USA?

it's a fucking shitstorm circus of scandals after scandals in the US.

just fucking get a fucking Nero 2.0 to burn Rome down for fuck sakes and start over.

Why tho? Seems like a valid Sup Forums related thread to me. If you can't stand it, stay within /lat/ limits with the underage

We will never know because of MAD.

Oh boy another thread where extremely unknowlegable keyboard warriors attempt with the best of their might to convince themselves the United States isn't really that powerful.

Also you would know that military tech is a good 20 years ahead from commercial tech/what 'facts' you can pull up from the internet.

They can certainly btfo russia, not sure about china tho

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4424320/Russia-able-neutralise-warships-report-claims.html

>le usa is powerfull because that's what my goverment funded propaganda tells me
sure boy.

you can't even beat the talibans and ISIS.

Kek, they don't know better, but you will find convincing arguments on why the world is rather a multipolar (or bipolar because of CHINA) than unipolar with a single hegemon, the US. Had a lecture a couple of days ago with a specialist in IPE (Internationa Political Economy) in my uni and it he spent most of the time unlatching US power to explaing why it is the sole power in the world.

your lecture was run by a fucktard who knows nothing about the current state of the US.


and probably less about history.

>US
>Bankrupt
wew

No, you guys are in denial, that's all. I too wished the US wasn't the hegemon, but they are.

>he thinks the US can pay 20 trillions of debt
the entire economy is a ponzi scheme fucktard.

USA military is superior.

however China economy is superior.
China surpased USA in PPP.

USA only has a 9% share of world manufacturing.
China has 30% world manufacturing share.

USA consumption is 70% of GDP while less than 10% of it's GDP is manufacturing.

China owns the US and is not even a metaphor.
They literally own the biggest share of american real state.

you got it, broke as jew'd bolsheviks

stick a fork in that pig she's well done.

>US owns the international currency
>US has the most developed financial sector
>US is capable of projecting power like no other

Manufacturing means fuck all, it's similar to using Russia's agricultural capablities during the industrial revolution in Britain, it meant fuck all as well, the power was in industry. The real power lies in finance and the US has the international currency, why do you think they made so many interventions in the ME? To protect their currency.

Making a real post rn

There is a war right now, but it's more of a struggle that exists on all fronts, civilian, military and economy all included.

While China catches up militarily, too long has the USA neglected it's own civilian and certain economic needs, bipartisan agreements ensure only the military can proceed properly, healthcare reform is unable to be enacted, and both Republican and Democrat parties seek to implement policies to eliminate each other.

This results in a low score in trust for the American government in the long term, and the trump administration is only making America's more questionable allies question her more, while increasing chinas outlook from the world's perspective.

America feels entitled to the world, but the cold war has ended, the world has many choices now: that is enough to cripple america

Bipartisan agruements*

>being stuck in 2010 still
thetrumpet.com/16266-chinas-new-gold-backed-oil-benchmark-to-deal-blow-to-us-dollar

read some news that aren't 10 years old m8.

I know China has been buying gold, however, the dollar is still the international currency as of today. When this changes, we can start arguing about the US not being the hegemon.

in it's current state of corruption, it's only a matter till this fucking dying empire finishes just like the USSR.

you don't seem to understand the big picture.

since the last crisis, the BRICS have been making an alternative economic system to the western one.

Most of the thirld world, which are basically the countries that export the commodities jumped on the board to this newer system, since most of latinoamerica and most of africa depends on china buying their commodities in exchange of Chinese building infraestructure in their countries and making bussiness with china.

Even the arabs are now starting to turn around to China, since the US betrayed the arabs making them being liable to being sued because of 9/11.

China just bought 5-10% of Aramco, the oil national company of saudi arabia.

The rest of the world wants to be outside american sanctions, so they're building an alternative system to the US sanctions.

Sure, the US is the reserve currency, but China just made those gold contracts last month, and next year there will be much more shit going on.

Even cryptos now are starting to explode into mainstream.

So yeah, the dollar is finished, nobody cares about it.

guess who has all the factories and gold?
is not the US.

Literally only Americans are butthurt about a chinese superpower.

I am too.

The South Vietnamese killed a million*

why?

It wouldn't even be a competition. As long as our greatest allies stick with us we would BTFO both of them no doubt.

Because China is an authoritarian shithole

China is doubtful, russia yes.

This claim was first ever made by bunch of pro-russian media. There is still no proof that anything close to this happened at all and there is all the proof against it.

The claimed electronic warfare system wasn't even installed on the aircraft and the manufacturer itself confirmed that that system the media claimed responsible is not made for that.

medium.com/war-is-boring/russia-claims-its-bomber-jammed-u-s-destroyer-8b58c9b56515
defensesystems.com/articles/2017/05/12/fakeew.aspx
popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26167/russia-secret-e-weapons/

...

>War is hard
HAHAHAHAHAHA! It's fucking easy, just don't be an arrogant cunt.

>A yank with a degree from Detroit told me otherwise so you're wrong, okay.

You're powerful, but not the most powerful anymore. That title goes to China. Plus, your economy is only made by great by foreigners who would rather see America destroyed than see a penny deducted from their bank account.

>Aircraft carriers matter
What is this, the 1980s?

Defenses won't matter when their missiles won't launch
>newfag
I've been here longer than you've been alive, Ecuador ;^)

France is an unreliable ally

>I'm sure the US or Russia would have some sort of black budget/highly classified tech that would negate/minimize the effect of nukes
Pretty sure the US has been developing anti-ballistic missiles since at least the 80's, stuff that hits the rocketbody or uses EMP's to smoke out warhead's detonators

americans only managed to defeat primitive native americans and poor third world asians and sandniggers

the british and spanish army kicked their ass, so did germany, and russia is more technologically advanced than these are and are still having conventional wars unlike pussy americans who only use drones, they would annihilate usa

russia has been committing war crimes in the caucasus worse than those in balkans and NATO hasn't done anything to stop it because they can't play world police with russia

>mfw we live in a 1984-brave new world abomination
Just end it now big bro

>spanish army kicked their ass
>so did germany
Very nice bait if I may say so myself

You do know that fire bombing cities does fuck all against underground missile silos, right?

it's not bait it's facts anyone can see by looking at the k/d ratio of those battles, like the battle of el caney and san juan hill in cuba, usa won but the outnumbered spaniards had a better k/d ratio, germany had a better k/d ratio in the western front too although they lost

Firebombing wouldn't be the only thing we'd do, I brought that up because an user said if the Chinese made a landing we'd be fucked. They'd never be able to make it across the Pacific, not even to Guam

It is bait and you know it