Which country can compete against America's military power ?

China is considered to be having great military power after America , so i think China can be a challenge for America . What you guys think ? :)

Russia could still nuke everyone back to the stone age by themselves...

China and Russia are visible ones. Look for the countries with ABMs, and the best NMDs.

With Nuclear weapons, it doesn't matter. The days of two big countries going to war is over. Sure there's still civil war going on throughout the world, but none of those third world savages have access to weaponry that can cause serious damage.

China doesnt really have the military other than numbers. Russia would be the biggest challenger.

China and Russia come to mind. North Korea could even pose a threat. Also, Great Britain and many other European powers could probably take us on.

The US Military is nearly as large as the military of the entire European Union. So it'd take every country in the Union to even match our numbers.

It's all irrelevant though, because Nukes are the great equalizer.

Nukes aside there is no single country that can beat us now. Numbers, navy, tech, we own. china and Russia might have the numbers but they cant compare to our weaponry. Maybe if the entire European union got together to attack us they could start a war but so far the only strategy to take us is to wear civilian clothes and hide behind innocent people and hide in bushes and holes.

Currently: none

Future: China

Russia or China, but you'd be a fool to even attack America.

Without nukes, no other country even stands a chance. Our military budget is half the world's. You think we spend all that cash for nothing?

North Korea could even pose a threat.

brickdoctor

Lolololol. Seriously dude? They're still using WW2 technology. If they ever started a war they'd be wiped off the face of the Earth faster than you could blink.

[QUOTE="brickdoctor"]

North Korea could even pose a threat.

metroidfood

Lolololol. Seriously dude? They're still using WW2 technology. If they ever started a war they'd be wiped off the face of the Earth faster than you could blink.

Yeah, I feel North Korea's time is coming to an end. They survive off the threat of China backing them up but I feel China is close to abandoning them and once they do I'm sure South Korea will be more than enough to reunite the countries by force.

China has absolutely NO power projection, even with it's second-hand ex-Soviet carrier in drydock. As such, it's essentially a gigantic sitting target for the American navy/air force. Russia is the greatest contender, and even then it only stands a real chance if America stupidly decided to invade said country.

the one currently successful in invading and conquering the US is... Mexico.Uesugi-dono

[QUOTE="Uesugi-dono"] the one currently successful in invading and conquering the US is... Mexico.Silverbond

In a straight war, like WW2? None...

The US does not have the largest standing army, but we possess military technology that would put most countires to shame. We also have a voulenteer military force, which means our soliders are often better trained, better equipped and above all willing.

China and Russia are the only correct answers

To date China needs a navy. Its no use having a billion chinese if you have no viable way to get em to the US. Russia doesnt have the money for a protracted war with the US anymore. In the realm of the nuclear no country; China and Russia included, would dare strike at the US first because we still have thousands of warheads and we like to target civilians and expensive things. For the US the oceans still provide the best defense so that means our greatest threat, and the one currently successful in invading and conquering the US is... Mexico.Uesugi-dono

lol these ocians mean also they arent able to invade continental powers like china, russia and europe. Look how hard it was for usa to defeat japan just because warfare was on air and water while soviets defeated japan so easy. The whole usa military is based on invading weak countrys like irak. America cant invade the eurasian world like china and russia cant invade the american world.

I say only russia, but not that great either. Of all the other countries with a large enough force and the right tech, russia is the closest, but still behind

Didn't China just recently invent their first stealth plane? Something we did in the 1960s? I'd say Russia, even though they wouldn't do much without nukes. Their choice of weapons are very outdated.

I'm not sure but I do know one thing. The next war between two major powers will not star with gunfire. It will start with a cyber attack.

[QUOTE="brickdoctor"]

North Korea could even pose a threat.

metroidfood

Lolololol. Seriously dude? They're still using WW2 technology. If they ever started a war they'd be wiped off the face of the Earth faster than you could blink.

The United States depends on "Power Projection"...so it's not so much another nations ability to overthrow the U.S. militarily but to overcome it economically and psychologically. It really just comes down to how well the U.S. can control the world's perception - which leaves you in the predicament: Does might make right? "Right" is obviously in a constant state of flux so you can't really say.

The US Marines have as many people serving as the entire British Army...
While some countries can compare with the training of their soldiers on an individual level, and some countries have larger militaries on the whole, America possesses one of the largest militaries on the planet, it also fields one of the most technologically advanced. As a Brit, I'd rather stay on their good side, to be quite honest.

Maybe if every European country pooled it's resources together...

The US Marines have as many people serving as the entire British Army...
While some countries can compare with the training of their soldiers on an individual level, and some countries have larger militaries on the whole, America possesses one of the largest militaries on the planet, it also fields one of the most technologically advanced. As a Brit, I'd rather stay on their good side, to be quite honest.

Maybe if every European country pooled it's resources together...

Doom_HellKnight

ummm ... China , India have very large military manpower . But U.S has advanced warfare technolgy ( nukes ETC ) which is a great advantage over manpower :)

I'm sure South Korea will be more than enough to reunite the countries by force.

Jolt_counter119

Didn't China just recently invent their first stealth plane?

DevilishStyles

above all willing.

heysharpshooter

i dont think there is any country that can compare to the US in terms of military.

Im not sure if this is a good or bad thing. But it sure is a sad thing, considering the amount of money that goes into warfare that could be used for other things.

Its not all about military power, the Vietnamese beat the U.S. even though the U.S. had better hardware.

Any country can compete with the U.S.'s military.

After all, you never said they had to win.

Its not all about military power, the Vietnamese beat the U.S. even though the U.S. had better hardware.

tenaka2

Well war has changed. No country can beat people who are willing to do whatever it takes.

All they can do is have a symbolic victory, but the conflict wont stop because of that. Just look at the middle east. First there was "mission accomplished" and now the killing of Osama. They already "won" the war twice :P

Its not all about military power, the Vietnamese beat the U.S. even though the U.S. had better hardware.

tenaka2

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Its not all about military power, the Vietnamese beat the U.S. even though the U.S. had better hardware.

LJS9502_basic

You can't really seperate the two, I was just making the point that despite superior military hardware the U.S. still lost the war.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Its not all about military power, the Vietnamese beat the U.S. even though the U.S. had better hardware.

tenaka2

You can't really seperate the two, I was just making the point that despite superior military hardware the U.S. still lost the war.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not really. The politicians did.LJS9502_basic

You can't really seperate the two, I was just making the point that despite superior military hardware the U.S. still lost the war.

but war is a combination of the two. So i dont see your point here.

He simply said that military power isnt everything, and hes obviously right.

Its the guys in the suits who control the barbarians on the field.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

You can't really seperate the two, I was just making the point that despite superior military hardware the U.S. still lost the war.

Half-Way

but war is a combination of the two. So i dont see your point here.

He simply said that military power isnt everything, and hes obviously right.

Its the guys in the suits who control the barbarians on the field.

Not really a combination of the two though the politicians did start meddling in the day to day business of war which causes problems...as well as the media of course. Anyway to say the military failed....which he did is not correct.

LJS9502_basic

I was just making the point that the country with the superior military lost the war. The thread title was 'Which country can compete againt America's military power ?'

Obviously the vietnamise did and won. However that was a long time ago so the same may not be said today.

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Sure you can. They aren't the same. The US military did not fail. The politicians failed them. LJS9502_basic

but war is a combination of the two. So i dont see your point here.

He simply said that military power isnt everything, and hes obviously right.

Its the guys in the suits who control the barbarians on the field.

sounds to me like he said "Vietnam beat the US" meaning the country won the war, which is true.

And he said that "Its not all about military power" before that, meaning that he wasn't saying the military failed.

He wasn't specific, while you went on the specific side and separated politics from military. Which almost never happens in modern day wars anyways.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

but war is a combination of the two. So i dont see your point here.

He simply said that military power isnt everything, and hes obviously right.

Its the guys in the suits who control the barbarians on the field.

Half-Way

sounds to me like he said "Vietnam beat the US" meaning the country won the war, which is true.

And he said that "military isnt everything" before that, meaning that he wasn't saying the military failed.

He wasn't specific, while you went on the specific side and separated politics from military. Which almost never happens in modern day wars anyways.