World War III, who would win?

Wouldn't even be competition. Nato has a clear advantage with bases everywhere and the US is smart enough to stay in wars which keeps our soldiers highly trained with real world experience, everyone else is newbs in comparison playing training games.

Fortunately, China's economy currently relies on U.S. and Europe to consume their manufactured goods, so this scenario is a relatively low probability occurrence.

That said, NATO would be up shit's creek if this were a ground war, on sheer troop numbers alone. I think that would nullify much of the technological advantages for NATO. As Killzowned mentioned, NATO would have a definite advantage in staging is concerned, having bases all over the globe.

Honestly, I think it would be a stalemate.

How can you not know which sides Iran and Pakistan would take? Pakistan would likely fight on the opposite side of India and Iran would definitely not fight on the side of the U.S.

I think we can agree that nobody is that stupid to use nukes. Using nuke is automatic loss for everyone and results = everyone dead. It is like blowing earth up. If someone uses nukes then with a day this president/dictator is killed by own people.

Anyway, i agree that NATO has advantage with bases but the problem is that Russia and China has bigger army and land. If you bomb Europe then its dead. Tight and small but if you look at russia then look how big it is. So wide and same thing with China.

Looking at that map, obviously Cuba would win

I think all we would really have to do is take China and the rest give in by being surrounded and china should be pretty easy.

Well it really depends. India is democratic country which means he mostly would help NATO. Also it´s Europe and USA who is helping India right now. Yes there are rich and poor people in India but i think rich people wanna have their capitalism than communism.

Israel helps NATO, Iran however helps Russia and China because Russia supports Iran with weapons.

Why are you leaving Europe out in your troop count? Anyways, assuming no nukes are used, NATO wins hands down. In this day and age, just having more boots on the ground doesn't win you the war.

If we take China down then USA debt is gone. Then USA owns to China nothing. However the bigger problem is that when China loses war, they open their national borders and those china people take world over. Billion people still :)

Lol, troop numbers don't mean squat, and they certainly wouldn't "nullify" NATO being able to dominate the skies and then bombing the hell out of the Chinese and Russian troops. This war would be easy for NATO.

Of course USA >>> all. We have the worlds greatest military.

That's really stupid to ask here since like 95% of people over here are from NA/EU
Besides you didn't listed many factors like: when the war will happen, why it would happen, where it would happen! the relations between allies at the moment, the relations between 3rd countries, the economy at that point and many many more....

World war 3 will be between Islam and Zion, the stages are already being set today.

NATO = USA AND EUROPE

USA without Nato is nothing :)

This thread is confusing and doesn't make sense. Is the conflict between blues and reds on that map or just between NATO and Russia and China? Why the **** are India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Algeria leaning red on that map while Pakistan, Afghanistan and most of Africa and South America are blue?

Mostly though everyone gets nuked to death.

Nobody.

The world will be a nuclear field. Imagine a Nuclear bomb hitting Washington? That will affect everyone in America in one way or another. Hundreds of millions people dead?

America is the most likely target for such a scenario because most of the world hates it

Not sure but the world would most likely look like Fallout after all the damage is done.

The technological gap between the U.S. and Russia/China, isn't as large as one might imagine.

If we're talking about a full nuclear exchange it's obvious nobody would win.

NATO.

Never underestimate human stupidity.

@Master_Live: Or desperation. Nukes could be a viable option in extreme circumstances such as 1973.

Err...no. The numbers are actually fairly even.

NATO would win. The US and Western Europe have the technology capable of overpowering the outdated tech that China and Russia use. And doesn't China only have one aircraft carrier...from the Cold War era? L to the O to the L.

However, if nukes enter the picture, then everyone loses.

Agreed. A good example of this is the Winter War that took place in early WW2 against Finland and Russia. Long story short: Russia got its ass kicked.

Also, we must consider that the US is pretty much the only country able to put a sizable force on another continent in a short time. They could probably just take on Russia together with Europe without China being able to do much about it. If we look at the economy, we can see that the US and other NATO countries all have rich populations and would be able to buy each others products, while the Russian and Chinese populations are relatively poor, and wouldn't be able to do so. Not to mention that Russia isn't even able to produce anything high-tech without help from other countries, except for weaponry, and that most goods that China produces come from western factories, which would obviously close when the war starts. So yeah, this would pretty much be anal rape.

No Nukes? NATO could **** everything over twice and back. Plus most of south east asia would probably side with the US and Western Europe.

No nukes, like you agree to no ball shots... but when yur on the ground bleeding out of yur face.... yur gonna throw a straight punch to the babymaker out of desperation. WW3 means we all die.

Depends on the cause, if the west perceived this as a just war (as in Russia and China are just trying to bully everyone, are evil and attacked first etc.) there's no chance Ru/Chi could win. The EU could easily beat Russia up with the quality and quantity of it's troops, while the US can use their stupidly large navy to cripple china's trade, stage invasions all over it's coast and generally just mess around with it. Combined EU and USA invasion of China and game over.

Meanwhile if the west doesn't perceive the war as just it could very quickly cause the people to start revolting at the probably enormous casualties the war would cause. I mean this would probably end up in the hundred million dead mark or even more. Historically it's pretty evident that western democracies just can't hand large scale casualties very effectively if the cause isn't correct.

nato easily. china may have a lot of people but u.s. and rest of nato technology will trump that. russia will be trying shoot nukes but they are pretty much surrouned. and would be hit from every direction.

either way china wont do shit as u.s has a basically owns 40% of their market

You guys underestimate the Chinese military. While the West would still win (look at the US's freaking military budget) the Chinese military is designed to counter the United States. They will go down but it would take a lot more effort than most people realize.

Probably NATO just because the US alone takes up half the worlds military budget. The actual size of an army doesn't matter nearly as much as it used too, so the large standing armies of China and Russia wouldn't be much of an advantage. NATO has a fairly sizable technological advantage. Plus, the U.S. Navy is by far the most powerful in the world and could effectively cut off their enemies.... So says an armchair general.

I have no idea. Unseen things could happen during a war and change the outcome.

First you would have to define "win". NATO has been at war for the last decade, even if it has been mostly counterinsurgency there is still something to be said for experience in a combat environment. NATO's collective navies are also unmatched, the U.S. has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. Naval power cannot be underestimated.

Allies are important in any large war....but this is about as ignorant a statement as I have seen. Reality would be more like "NATO is nothing without the USA". I would not even go as far to say "nothing", but your comment was just absurd. Look at defense spending of the US vs. the world, that says it all right there.

Scotland.

@vfibsux Well, to be fair, without NATO the US wouldn't have nearly the same amount of influence in the world as it has today.

The United States has been one of the most influential countries in the world since its existence. I am not talking here as some American pounding his chest, I am speaking facts. The US is certainly losing that influence and is not as influential as it was even 20 years ago. In the end I appreciate our NATO partners, but the U.S. shares the bulk of the weight in all things when it comes to NATO, everyone knows it.

@vfibsux Since its existence? After ww1 yes, but when it was founded it didn't really have much influence at all. It was mostly overshadowed by the European nations at the time. And I know that us contributes the most to NATO, but that wasn't really my point. My point is more that without NATO you wouldn't have all those bases in Europe from which to send supplies etc. to Afghanistan for example, which would greatly reduce their capabilities.

That is a valid logistical point, however that could be said of ANY country in the world, but not every country in the world has the combat agility the U.S. does. The U.S. hands down has the best logistical capabilities in the world with its air mobility and navy. Also we do not only use NATO member countries for this purpose.

Look, this is kind of a silly debate anyway. NATO exists for a reason, and the U.S. belongs to it for a reason. I just can't hear things like the U.S. is "nothing" without NATO, I think that is a ridiculous statement.

Australia...nuff said LoLoL : )

USA

Nobody would win, and the world would be destroyed.

America doesn't spend the majority of its federal budget on defence for nothing... They are preparing for stuff like this, unlike some of our enemies who are too busy trying to build their economy.. Plus the wars now a days would be economic rather than the old fashion soldiers

I hope that WWIII will be win by humans.

WW3 would mean the end of the world - which is probably why there will never be a WW3.

The technology behind nuclear weapons today is scary beyond imagining. If Russia decided to point all its nukes at the U.S. and fire the U.S. would be completely wiped out - no way they could stop even half the missles from impacting. Of course they'd be assuring their own destruction as well - which is why they're not going to do it. And neither will the U.S.

Godzilla

The mole rats would conquer the planet after the post-apocalypse nuclear fallout. We will all be slaves to the mole rats.

All hail our new Mole rat masters.

Ok so

Total military personel (active + reserve): USA 2.2 MIL. ; RUS 3.1 MIL. ; CN 5 MILL

Total military budget (per year): USA 600 BILL. ; RUS 76 BILL. ; CN 126 BILL

So military budget of US is 3 times higher than russias and chinas combined

but russia and china have 4 times more troops.

Also consider real life applications. ak47 is 4 times cheaper than m16, same goes for tanks. Those little resources which are actually needed for military production, are traded for using russias many natural resources (like gas). So realistically, even tho russia alone spend 8 times less on military than US, everything is much more cheaper and what isnt, is simply traded for. Since natural resources of USA doesnt come close to those of russia, US is left with few options for trade, so it must spend money instead.

So if USA have only 3 times the budget of Russia and China, while rifles and tanks in Russia are 2-4 times cheaper, together with massive russian natural resource exchange for military production purposes, it costs in total around 4 times more to "suit up" soldier in US, than in rus.

Now add to this conclusion the fact that China with Russia together have 4 times more troops (which, like stated before, individually cost 4 times less). So 1 american soldier must kill 4 enemy soldiers, and suiting up those 4 enemy soldiers cost the same as suiting up single american soldier.

Also many people don't understand the difference between new military technology development in US and Russia. In US, majority of field is dominated by private companies developing new technology prototypes using their own resources. After prototype's developed, it is offered to different US military branches and if accepted and tested, a contract is signed for a specific amount. We all have seen a glimpses of modern tech models US have. Per year US government releases about a dozen or more statements about different upgrades and models they're buying. This is not to say that US government doesn't develop secret weapons. It does, but majority of field is filled with this type of action.

In Russia its different. Majority of a field in military development is dominated by government scientists, working on a contract all year around, receiving monthly wages. The benefits of this type of system are obvious.

1. Private companies in US must fund their initial prototype and its development themselves, while in Russia scientists can focus on actual product instead of worrying about starting capital.

2. Private companies in US receive money only when prototype is bought, so they are interested in creating working prototype as fast as possible, while in Russia, gov. scientists can take their time and again, focus on a prototype, since they receive money on a monthly base.

3. Since majority of tech. dev. in US, is made by private companies, they are interested in profit. They must lower the price of a prototype by using cheaper materials so they would out-compete other companies and profit by selling their prototype. In russia, this problem doesnt exist. Gov. scientists dont need to make any compromises on materials just to get prototype to cost less. Since they receive monthly wages, they dont need to out-compete anyone, therefore prototypes are made not for profit, but for efficiency. This is not to say US doesnt employ scientists. It does, but, in comparison, on much smaller scale than russia.

As far as quality of equipment goes, it's almost as good as equipment used in US (only 4 times cheaper). If you compare stats of a standard issue equipment of both countries, you will see that, in general, american equipment is only little bit better, while costs 4 times more. To get that15% or so advantage the costs are doubled. Same goes for most of technology used in US military. All military technology currently used world wide is based on same,earths previous historical prototypes. There are little place for national-diversity in design of currently used tech. So its not like in games, where huge difference can be observed when comparing 2 different pieces of modern tech from different countries. I am saying this as physicist. All rifles are basically based on few universal models, which gets modified by nation to nation, therefore base difference is small.

And my last point- After soviet union broke down, russia claimed all its debt, foreign lands and all the nuke soviet union produced. On top of that, when US started to build anti-missile net around Russia, Putin simply tripled production of nukes, as a counter measures. As of now, Russia alone owns more than a half of all the nukes there is on globe. If you add china and north korea to formula, US is facing huge majority of all the nuclear technology produced currently on earth. Reason for this, is again, Russias natural resources. Most of materials russia needs are produced/gathered in russia, like uranium. Nuke technology is expensive and requires specific materials. USA have no where near as much natural resources as russia, therefore US can obtain required materials mostly by spending actual money.

In this article, I talked mostly about positive aspects of russian military and negative aspects of US military. This is not to say, that russia dont have any negative aspects or that US dont have positive ones. I also did not include psychological analysis of average soldier and their leaders in both armies. American soldier is more likely to come from a good background, from un-abusive financially stable family and with good record. Russian soldier is more likely to be bullied from childhood, having used drugs at some point or another, being involved in criminal activity in the past, and generally coming from abusive, poor families, therefore learning to survive alone from early childhood. As far as psychology is concerned, people like that are more likely to perform better. I could go on and on, because this is such a vast topic but I will stop now. Thank you.

That's ok, so who wins?