Friday, 24 June 2016

Russia and China vs. NATO. Who would be last man standing? Patriotism aside.


Posted by: TheRussian
In a full out war (non-nuclear) between Russia and China vs. NATO, who would win? Put your patriotism aside. If you want, use this website to help you make your decision: http://www.globalfirepower.com/
  • Russia and China
  • NATO
39%31 votes
61%48 votes
  • holding their ground with the help of nukes. yeah i don't think NATO has the balls to invade either country with ground forces.
    Posted by: snozberry
  • Because China is the rising world power...and China will not be fighting alone because Pakistan will be standing by China in any war...and Russia will be supported by India...so basically US and Nato, Israel Vs. China Russia India Pakistan North Korea Iran
    Posted by: SinoPak
  • Russia and China would win because with both of their powers combined all Russia has to do is invade all the NATO countries with China's support and then focus on the U.S.
    Posted by: NikitaLukhanin
  • Russia has the most powerful atomic bombs and the best jet (T-50) China has the most populist army in the world
    Posted by: AminOsku
  • I do not pick Russia and China nor do I choose the NATO alliance because a war between these two sides would be the end of the human race as we know it due to they both have advantages over one another NATO aka (USA) has a massive technological advantage along with more nuclear weapons when combined with its NATO allies but Russia and China have the advantage of numbers but the majority of Russian and Chinese troops are either ill trained or unexperienced compared to US troops who have been fighting wars for decades but a war between either side will involve the whole world because the US has many allies everywhere and this war will be short because the use of nuclear weapons will cause our destruction.
    Posted by: Lisen2Reason
  • Russia&China because these countries have strong military furthermore russia is going to use what she has if will be on pressure and modern weapons are made in russia and china
    Posted by: kondjenipaulo
  • Both Russia and China have many military equipments than the members of NATO. Also China has the biggest army in the world with a good GDP. Russia have no. 1 nuclear weapons in the world. So, I think they would win.
    Posted by: Popom
  • greediest nations the so called developed economy will do anything to get petroleum or natural resources.......US + Nato(blind followers) created Al-qaida ,taliban to fight Russia , now created ISIS to invade middle east nations.. they have to be termed as North Atlantic Christian Terrorist Organisation (NATCO) Russia nd China have power to do it nd other developing countries shud join defeat these evil forces .. let their greed end soon.. a peaceful world would prevail.
    Posted by: yalang
  • the nato is outdated oganisation it can stand against russia,chinaindiaand iran coalation.
    Posted by: Milan18kraken
  • Russia has strongest nuclear arsenal on the planet and China and Russia combined have biggest military on the planet. In the case of mentioned scenario west would face bigger economic crisis!
    Posted by: nicsoew
  • because i dont want to be slave of the american based bank cartels i dont to be deprived of the knowledge which i should know .....i dont want to be lied by media anymore ......i dont want to be a part of new world order
    Posted by: saptarshi.banerjee
  • russia and china will win the war. because they have huge nmbr of modern solider with modern equipment. they both have advance technology which,nato & us have.
    Posted by: olive11
  • Russia and China cause The Us is evil
    Posted by: Gods_justices
  • I think russia and china are clear winner since ... look at the size of the countries and the proud people. NATO consists of people who no more trust their governments and people running it.
    Posted by: sarah_paw
  • Russian and china couldn't fend all of NATO. That's like 30 or so countries and a good dozen are very powerful.
    Posted by: discomfiting
  • Really? Russia has litteraly NO chance. NATO and NATO affiliates crush the Russian military 100 times over. There is no realistic way Russia could compete militarily or economically with the west.
    Posted by: Jifpop09
  • Russia couldn't win if they were only fighting the US. Now factor in all of the NATO nations and it's pretty obvious what the outcome would be.
    Posted by: ararmer1919
  • The U.S. and Nato are way more equipped Putin is a coward he threatens with Nuclear weapons stand and fight like a man.
    Posted by: USA812
  • nato is 30 countries vs 2
    Posted by: sdufffhfhg
  • They are out numbered and out gunned in every capacity, not to mention brains. The Russians think standing behind their nukes substantiates there moves. Be careful, we've done it before.
    Posted by: 1Monster
  • The fact of the matter is, with 28 separate countries, NATO is the clear winner. As well armed and large Russia and China are, they simply do not have the military strength to take down NATO in its entirety. I am assuming, of course, that all of NATO is involved in the war at once, and Russia and China are allies.
    Posted by: S_acu_L
  • Super NATO
    Posted by: Teadx66
  • i vote nato for their unity as 1 (1 for all and all for 1) if enemy attacked 1 member of nato they attacked all of the members.
    Posted by: asharie
  • It will be a long and bloody war and might end up with the destruction of the world or major countries destroyed but i think Nato will win the war but again in cost of lives no clear winner
    Posted by: Napoleon11a
  • The countries that are in NATO have been working together and training for the next world war since NATO was created. With the tech advantages and carrier groups holding the choke points, I don't see how China and Russia could hope to defeat NATO. Plus the US armed forces has been in far more wars than China or Russia. That equals more experience. Those are just a few of the many reasons NATO would prevail.
    Posted by: Bradzkrieg
  • The U.S.A has more aircraft carriers and weapons that we don't even know about so even know Russia and china allies will be more of infantry attacks but the us can put planes any were in the matter of minutes so if they do drop nukes hopefully everyone know that the us can shoot those down with no problem.
    Posted by: trevonreason17
  • OK, we have to be realistic here, forget what you read and hear through the media, and just use logic. First and foremost the United States of America (US) has a military budget that is greater than all the countries on the planet' budgets combined! That should be your first clue who has more military strength. The US has more soldiers, double, triple and sometimes up to 10 times the equipment that Russia has. That is before we even discuss NATO. If a war starts there will be no winners as Putin will be faced with either cooperating with the New World Order or using nuclear weapons. Let us hope and pray that the Lord comes to us before choices like this have to be made.
    Posted by: heny12fromct
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 05:21 AM
If you take a look at the website that I provided, you will realize that other than the US, there are pretty much no other significant members of NATO. The military of the European NATO members is very weak.
Jifpop09 saysApril 29 2014 05:36 AM
Over half of the NATO countries can take on Russia alone. Now factor in the US, which spends 60 times more on military then russia
Jifpop09 saysApril 29 2014 05:53 AM
The scenarios extremely unlikely also. China will support Russia, but it wont go to war for them. As already shown for dropping support in Ukraine.
discomfiting saysApril 29 2014 02:19 PM
Therussian said put patriotism aside and ironically is the only person that votes russia-china. >_> so much for putting that patriotism aside.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 03:28 PM
Yes, I put it aside. Look at the website I provided! You will realize that the NATO country's military (other that US) is nothing.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 03:29 PM
I'm looking at real military numbers, not "Hey, NATO has a lot of countries so it wins."
Muttl200 saysApril 29 2014 03:32 PM
Numbers isn't everything TheRussian. You must also take account military tech, as well as their current generals. After all, you want people making the right choice that could win a war. Not a flawed plan that will just get more than most of your men killed.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 03:33 PM
NATO countries include Albania, Iceland, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Greece...Are you joking? They have no military. Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway...They are nothing. The only real members of NATO are: US, France, Turkey, UK. Russia alone could take on France, Turkey and UK. Combined with China, NATO would stand no chance. Let's be honest. Look at the numbers: http://www.globalfirepower.com/
Muttl200 saysApril 29 2014 03:33 PM
Though many/some of those small NATO countries don't have very much of what I said.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 03:35 PM
Russian weaponry combined with sheer Chinese manpower and industry would destroy any opponents.
discomfiting saysApril 29 2014 03:38 PM
Russia would barely even stand a chance against America alone.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 03:38 PM
Like I have said, take a look at the website I provided. In fact, I would be glad to debate a US vs. Russia war with you.
Muttl200 saysApril 29 2014 03:39 PM
Germany is also a part of NATO. And I'm pretty sure if all these counties needed an army, they'd just draft a few thousand men into the military. Unless that site counts that. I didn't have time to look.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 03:40 PM
Russia would take heavy losses but would reduce the US military to nothing. With help of Chinese industry, losses of armored vehicles etc. would be quickly repaired.
discomfiting saysApril 29 2014 03:41 PM
I looked at your site but also looked at more than one source of information because to simply look at one thing and take it as 100% fact, is stupid.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 03:42 PM
Alright, look at other websites then. No matter how you look at it, Russian land forces alone would overpower US land forces. In fact, it would probably be able to keep ALL of NATO's land forces at bay.
Comrade_Silly_Otter saysApril 29 2014 03:46 PM
No.. You have to keep in mind that Russia would have little economic power. The US has military bases all over the world and could act instantly. Not to mention Drone strikes could deal massive damage.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 03:48 PM
Drones are expensive and are not produced in sufficient numbers to deal any real damage. Plus, Russian AA systems such as the Tor-M2 are very good at eliminating drones. Russian economy? It may not be as powerful as that of the Us, but that still doesn't negate the fact that Russia ALREADY has a very powerful standing army.
Seido saysApril 29 2014 03:49 PM
TheRussian, you're right, the majority of NATO doesn't have a huge military; however, enough members of it are powerful enough to take on both China and Russia. The US has a larger enough military that it could easily destroy either Russia or China, and it could likely destroy them both if it had long enough. But, for the sake of this scenario, let's just say that it can only take on one. That leaves the rest of the strong NATO countries to take on China or Russia, depending on who the US doesn't target. That means that the UK, France, Germany, and Turkey to take on one country or the other, and they'll all likely be receiving enormous support from the US itself. In the end, it would be a disastrous battle, but the NATO forces would end up winning. And yes, I have looked at the numbers. Just because Russia and China have large infantries doesn't mean they would win. The NATO countries, particularly the US, overwhelm them where it matters: technological warfare.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 03:52 PM
I agree that infantry no longer solves the dispute. BUT, Russia's dominance on land (along with help of China) would be crucial. China's air force will help make up for Russia's lack of it, and the combination of Russian and Chinese subs and mine-warfare boats would protect the coastline from NATO attack, negating their advantage on the seas.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 03:54 PM
Russia alone has more tanks than all of NATO members combined. Russia alone has more MLRSs than all of NATO combined. Russia and China's combined artillery would be devastating NATO's ground forces.
Comrade_Silly_Otter saysApril 29 2014 03:57 PM
You have to remember this, Russian navy can't do anything. Drones and Cruise Missiles can preform Surgical Strikes. A war as such could never take place due to the sheer amount of Nuclear weapons the US and Russia have.
Seido saysApril 29 2014 03:59 PM
You seem to be under the impression that the NATO forces are taking the offensive in this battle which innately puts them at a disadvantage. Knowing the history of the disputes between the West and the East, that likely wouldn't be the case. We're more likely to see a fight in which China or Russia try to attack Eastern Europe or parts of Asia. This would mean that they'd either be attacking NATO forces on their own turf, which would negate much of what you just said, or it would mean that they'd be fighting against Japan's forces and South Korea's forces as well. If we are to assume that the NATO forces are the aggressors though, we must take into account their ability to use the countries surrounding both Russia and China as bases for their armies. Russia and China do not have any countries that are allied with them that border the more important countries of NATO (other than themselves, depending on which countries we're talking about). Contrarily, NATO forces would have access to places such as Japan, South Korea, Eastern Europe, among other countries that directly surround both China and Russia. This would end up negating the ability of Russia and China to setup and use most of the defenses that you just mentioned, as NATO forces would be reaching them through allies territory.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:00 PM
Russian can do a lot. It would help keep NATO's European members locked in Europe and covering Eastern Russia from the US. Yes, US has cool missiles but so does Russia and China. In fact, Russia has a larger arsenal of missiles than the US. Http://www.Armscontrol.Org/factsheets/missiles Let's not consider nuclear war. In case of nuclear war, no one wins.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:00 PM
Russian Navy*
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:03 PM
Both NATO and Russia have an aggressive war history. I can debate that NATO, esp. US, is more aggressive, but let's consider both options. Even if Russia/China was to attack, if planned, Russian land forces would overrun all of Europe. This is unnecessary because Russia already has a lot of land to cover and doesn't need any more. That's also why I consider Russia's attack unlikely. After destroying Europe, Russia/China would be free to focus on the US and UK.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:05 PM
Because of the fact that Russia is a giant piece of land, enemy Navy would not have a very large impact. Supplying NATO troops would be very difficult (esp. If deep in Russia) because it is a very large piece of land. Lot of distance to cover to supply troops.
Comrade_Silly_Otter saysApril 29 2014 04:07 PM
Same going into Europe, and into Russia. You have to remember NATO surrounds Russia, and can push them into their own country, and bomb them into submission. The US has Military bases all over the world, and could easily move troops to counter a Russian Charge into europe.
Seido saysApril 29 2014 04:12 PM
That's amazingly unrealistic. The US actually doesn't have much of an aggressive past. It usually attacks in response to having been attacked. So, no, the US and NATO wouldn't have any reason to attack Russia and China unless they did something first. The only situation in which I can see NATO being the aggressors is if they try to take on North Korea, in which case you could still argue that North Korea was the aggressor based on nuclear threats and breaking international law. And are you kidding me about Russia? They don't need any more land? Are you paying attention to the crisis in Ukraine at all? Russia literally invaded Ukraine and took it, by force, for themselves! And then there's the fact that they're also the fact that under Putin, Russia has shown extremely aggressive tendencies towards the West. It took Jordan, and is showing no signs of stopping with Ukraine right now. And also, just look at the past. They tried to take all of Europe in the past! Not aggressive? You have got to be kidding. And in regard to China, you need only look at what's happening with Japan, what might happen in Hong Kong, and what likely will happen in Taiwan to see a reason for China to go on the offensive. And in regard to taking all of Eastern Europe or all of Asia, no, they couldn't. Eastern Europe might not be as strong as Western Europe, but it would still be able to hold off Russian or Chinese forces long enough for the US, the UK, France, Germany, and Turkey to respond to their aggression. In addition, most countries within NATO have been preparing for such a situation for decades! And have had similar experiences with dealing with situations like that from back during the days of the Soviet Union. Russia and China wouldn't have a chance to do half of what you're talking about before they got their asses kicked by the stronger countries of NATO through the aforementioned methods.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:12 PM
Yes, US has military bases all over the place but: a small part of them are anywhere near Russia/China. Even less have a significant force. Almost none of them would be a serious threat. "Bombing into submission" would not work. We saw how Germany tried to do that to UK (dense population) in WW2. It did not work at all. The effect would be even less significant with Russia. Plus, NATO does not even have very many bombers. It is not a sufficient force to turn the tide of the war. It would be a small nuisance, soon to be eliminated by Russian/Chinese air force and AA systems.
Comrade_Silly_Otter saysApril 29 2014 04:16 PM
In the case you are going, Russia is going offensive into Europe, this means NATO can flank around through Japan and Alaska into Russia. NATO and the EU should be a large factor is defending the European countries, and in such an invasion they would meet heavy resistance.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:20 PM
@Seido. First, please relax. I am just having fun debating this. Now, you say US is only aggressive when attacked? It has never been attacked. The US has never had a real war on its soil. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea? Have you forgotten all the countries the US has invaded? And no, Russia/China would not have "their asses kicked" by Eastern Europe. Not only are many countries in Eastern Europe slavic, have ties with Russia, but they have no military. They would be quickly overrun. They would be no challenge. You mention Crimea? Russia didn't take it because of territory. Russia took it because of tactical advantages. Don't get mixed up.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:22 PM
Flank around through Japan? They would be stopped by China. If not stopped, then slowed down enough until Russian reinforcements arrive.
Comrade_Silly_Otter saysApril 29 2014 04:23 PM
Also, supply a reason why China would Help Russia in WW3?
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:24 PM
Because why wouldn't 2 of the 3 most powerful nations in the world combine to defeat a common foe?
Comrade_Silly_Otter saysApril 29 2014 04:25 PM
How is NATO a common Foe? Considering how much China exports to European countries and the US they would suffer from the embargo placed due to war.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:27 PM
US is China's only economic competitor. Russia is right next to China, if China was to be against Russia, they would take very heavy losses. Past friendly relationships between Russia and China. That's like, why did US and USSR combine in WW2? They were enemies, weren't they? Yes, they weren't friends but they had a common foe that they both wanted to eliminate.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:28 PM
Guys, relax! I'm just having fun! I like debating war topics :)
Comrade_Silly_Otter saysApril 29 2014 04:28 PM
China would take massive loses both ways, I am sure they would be neutral is such a conflict.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:29 PM
@Mutt, I agree with almost everything you've said.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:33 PM
They might be neutral indeed, BUT if they don't support Russia, then Russia will lose, be destroyed, and the world would no longer be bi-polar. US would dominate everything and China would stand alone.
Comrade_Silly_Otter saysApril 29 2014 04:35 PM
How would a war such as this start? The losses would be massive.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:37 PM
They would absolutely be! They might start like the first two world wars, I don't know. I just created a hypothetical situation to see what people think. It would only take a tiny spark to get this thing started.
Comrade_Silly_Otter saysApril 29 2014 04:38 PM
Not really, considering the amount of nuclear weapons both sides have, the military sizes, etc. Such a war would be hard to start, and if started could be the last World War Ever Fought.
Comrade_Silly_Otter saysApril 29 2014 04:38 PM
Due to you know, everyones dead.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:40 PM
It would be the last world war, at least for a very long time. If the nukes began flying then it's over. That's why I said no nukes. If the countries battled it out with "traditional" warfare.
Comrade_Silly_Otter saysApril 29 2014 04:43 PM
Well, I would think a draw, which would mean a NATO victory. Russia and the US have a " Dead Hand " as well. But I shall lean towards NATO for this one.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:44 PM
Try not looking at the number of countries, but at the quality/size of their military. But it's okay, I completely understand your thinking.
Comrade_Silly_Otter saysApril 29 2014 04:46 PM
Oh well, its fun. What is that one quote about WW3 but WW4 will be fought with Sticks and Stones?
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:49 PM
Haha, yeah, it's like "I know not what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"-Einstein
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 04:49 PM
And indeed, it is very fun
Seido saysApril 29 2014 05:03 PM
I'm perfectly calm, I'm just getting a tad annoyed by your factual inaccuracies. In regard to the USA: the US invaded Iraq because it had been threatened by Sadam. Sadam had threatened to use chemical or nuclear weapons against the US. The US responded accordingly, albeit poorly. The US invaded Afghanistan as a response to 9/11. We had been attacked by Alqaueda. Alqaueda was primarily based, at the time, in Afghanistan. We responded to their attack. Vietnam and Korea were both in response to Soviet aggression. Am I saying that all of these wars were entirely justified? No, that's a different debate; however, in every one of these cases, the US was responding to foreign aggression. In regard to Eastern Europe, that's not what I said. I said that they would be able to hold back Chinese or Russian forces for long enough for the stronger members of NATO to respond. They might not be able to win against Russia or China, but they've been preparing for such a conflict for quite some time, and they all have armies. Russia likely wouldn't be able to wage a war against all of their Eastern European neighbors, and win too many battles. By the time they managed to break through some of their forces, the stronger countries of NATO would have had more than enough time to provide reinforcements to drive Russian and Chinese forces back. In regard to bases, two things. Firstly, the US has plenty of bases around the world that it has access too. Secondly, it has a lot of allies that surround both China and Russia that NATO forces can use as a means to attack Russia and China. Even if the US didn't have any bases in Japan, it could still send troops there and then use Japanese land as a launching point for attacks. In regard to the Slavic countries, you're right, some of them do have ties to Russia; however, not many of them are allied, or even friendly, with the militarily. After the Soviet Union fell, most of these countries left Russia, by their own volition, to become sovereign nations. Ever sinse, some of them have had poor relations with Russia as a result of the hardships that they faced under Soviet rule. In regard to Crimea, you're half right and half wrong. The Crimea itself is a strategic position, but Russia is showing no signs of stopping there. They seem to be making advances into the rest of Ukraine, which wouldn't just be for tactical purposes. And then you have to look at Russia's history. They have repeatedly tried to take control of the Eastern European nations surrounding them. Just look at what the Soviet Union did, and it already had just as much land as Russia does right now (or just about). So yeah, even though Russia has a ton of land as is, they have a history of trying to get more. And, as things stand right now, they're the aggressors. If the conflict you're describing was to arise, Russia or China would likely be the aggressor (most likely Russia).
Seido saysApril 29 2014 05:04 PM
And yes, this is quite fun. Sorry for taking so long to respond, my computer ran out of battery, lol.
Jifpop09 saysApril 29 2014 05:09 PM
Russian, this is literally the stupidest hit I ever heard. You must be completely delusional to think that Russia alone could beat the US. Or Russia and China could beat them alone either. Russia and China are still fighting with some WW2 tech. Nearly every NATO country is equipped with some kind of high scale arsenal, courtesy of the US, France, and Britain. If were talking NATO alone, leaving out the substantially large military power we have over Russia, then we must surely factor in the large trade advantage. Nearly all the NATO countries are economically self sufficient. China and Russia aren't. China makes a huge chunk of its income with exportation to the US and Britain. Russia, only has two important exports. Oil and minerals, and they only go to Germany and the Balkans, where they are then redistributed. Losing their oil is not a huge disadvantage, as NATO can easily distribute it among the other nations, Germany itself already looking for foreign sources in Africa. Russia and China's economy will collapse within two months of combat, Russia in a even shorter time. That is if China will help ot Russia will ever get out of its current recession.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 05:09 PM
Haha, no problem
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 05:11 PM
Jifpop, I see that you are quite intelligent and have very definite claims. Would you like to debate US vs. Russia/China?
Muttl200 saysApril 29 2014 05:13 PM
Not to mention I'm sure the US is able to out produce Russia. Though I'm not sure if the USA can out produce China.
Seido saysApril 29 2014 05:13 PM
By the way, off topic, @Jifpop09, where did you get that information about the libertarian party and the constitutionalist party for that poll you made about what should be done for the military?
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 05:14 PM
Russia has the resources and technology, China has the manpower and industry.
Muttl200 saysApril 29 2014 05:15 PM
Ohh this is going to be fun to watch. If you two both decide to debate be sure to post a link to it here.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 05:15 PM
I will :) I really hope he accepts.
Jifpop09 saysApril 29 2014 05:19 PM
Taking a look at NATO's military record, shows that Russia has no chance. His logic, is that size is the underlying factor in a military. Saddam had one of the largest armies in thee middle east,, and we crushed it 2 times with little to no casualties. About 30,400 people died in the Gulf War, and 30,000 of them were Iraqi. Then we fast forward to the coalition invasion of Iraq, with a death toll of 11,190. Once again, 11,000 of them were Iraqi soldiers. These wars were fought with a portion of NATO alone. Russia doesn't have a good navy or airforce. We would never even have to touch ground. Same with China. Have you seen the PLV navy? Absolutely pathetic
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 05:19 PM
He has commented a couple of times on my war debates and I've wanted to debate Jifpop himself for a while now. A great opportunity has come up.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 05:25 PM
Saddam's army? You cannot compare his army with that of the US. You cannot win a war "without even touching the ground". That's what Germany tried to do in WW2 with Britain and it failed.
Seido saysApril 29 2014 05:28 PM
The German strategy failed for a few primary reasons. Firstly, the British had a highly trained air-force, one of the best in the world at the time, that managed to fend of German forces. Neither Russia nor China have such an air-force that could accomplish such a goal. Secondly, the US (and other members of NATO) have much more advanced and massive air-forces that could easily accomplish the goal that Germany was unable to. We have better planes, bigger bombs, better plans, and we're up against a weaker foe in regard to air forces than Germany was. Its a false comparison.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 05:34 PM
I agree, Russia/China don't have the air force to try that. They would be using their air force to directly support land forces and help fend off enemy air force.
Jifpop09 saysApril 29 2014 05:35 PM
Russian, we thought several wars without touching the gorud, and they all succeeded. THe reason Germany lost, is because Britain had a better airforce. His strategy, like yours, was to throw a bunch of low grade tech planes at london. But better technology won the day in the end. It is 100% possible, to fight a war with never even engaging Russia. If it was a land war, then they would lose all the same.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 05:37 PM
You have made big exaggerations. Other than US, no other NATO members have a "much more advanced and massive air force". Bigger bombs? The US has no more than 100 active bombers. This is insignificant.
Muttl200 saysApril 29 2014 05:38 PM
@Seido they also won due to the newly invented Radar.
Jifpop09 saysApril 29 2014 05:40 PM
Russian, its like talking to a wall. Bombers are expensive, and for good reason. They can level a city is one strike.Stop acting like a idiot and show some common sense. NATO has more land forces, better tech, bigger ships, and an airforce that could take Russia off the map in one sweep.
Jifpop09 saysApril 29 2014 05:41 PM
Not to mention, you only singled out one plane type. Calling 100 bombers insignifigant is something a fool would say. Stop giving one sentence responses, and start using some actual logic.
Seido saysApril 29 2014 05:44 PM
Also going to point out that the source that you gave us to use says that the US has around 3 times the air-force of China and Russia combined. That's excluding the air-forces of the other members of NATO, and the fact that the technology of most of NATO's air-force (particularly that of the US) is leaps and bounds ahead of Russia and China.
Jifpop09 saysApril 29 2014 05:46 PM
The Russian and Chinese airforce is also using pre 90's tech. China and Russia are using old vietnam war rifles. It can't compete with a army of fully automatic wielding armored juggernauts that comprise NATO.
Seido saysApril 29 2014 05:48 PM
Well said, Jifpop.
Jifpop09 saysApril 29 2014 05:52 PM
Last point that should be made, is that 9 other countries are all seeking NATO membership. In the case that a war was imminent, they would simply be ascended. Having Armenia, Macedonia, Georgia, Ukraine, Bosnia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Kazackastan, ect. Will if not utterly destroy Russia ALONE, then I'm pretty sure the rest could come in and sweep them off the face of earth.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 06:13 PM
Jifpop, I am tired of debating on here. Please accept my challenge so we can debate in a more organized and "official" environment.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 06:15 PM
@Jifpop. Yes, I only singled out one type simply because another commenter mentioned "bombing Russia into submission". Russians do not use "vietnam era" weapons, and NATO's land forces are far inferior to that of Russia. We are not debating with countries that might be in NATO, that adds too many variables. We work with what is now.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 06:16 PM
The NATO forces are not "juggernauts". I don't even know where you got that assumption.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 06:17 PM
I have edited my debate challenge to make it "NATO vs. Russia/China"
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 06:21 PM
And don't call me an idiot Jifpop. I am not. Bombers need to be in great numbers to have a serious impact.
Jifpop09 saysApril 29 2014 06:52 PM
Sorry man, you lost this debate, and repetition is not helping your case. Good debate, an accept the loss.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 07:01 PM
This is not a debate, this is silly arguing in comments. Why have declined both of my debate offers?
Seido saysApril 29 2014 08:15 PM
He has declined your offers because he believes that the debate is over with. All of us have been debating this issue for a day now, and we see you as being incorrect in regard to this issue. As such, we don't see any reason to waste more time to debate you formally. Why would we if we believe the time for debate is over?
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 08:35 PM
Haha, alright, your choice. I will say that you should open your eyes and learn your history.
Seido saysApril 29 2014 08:39 PM
Just going to point out that everyone is in agreement except for you. This is, for the most part, a rather intelligent community. Perhaps it is you that needs to wise up and learn the facts, and not everybody else.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 08:42 PM
You may be right, and that is a valid point but the majority is not always right. The majority once thought that the Earth was flat. I know my facts, have done my research, learned my history and have debated this as well. I have made my conclusions.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 08:43 PM
Your "everyone" is 9 people. Nevertheless, I suppose we can agree to disagree? Hahaha
Seido saysApril 29 2014 08:45 PM
I suppose so. We're all just theorizing anyways, and its not like any of us have access to all of the information that there is for such a conflict. For all we know, any of the governments in this fight could have a super-weapon that could sink the others into the sea. No matter what though, the debate was fun.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 08:46 PM
Hahaha, I agree. That's probably the only statement in this entire comment section that I've agreed with.
TheRussian saysApril 29 2014 10:22 PM
Well hey, thanks to everyone for the fun debate and sorry for being a stubborn bonehead. My two favorite things to debate are Russia and war, so it was a great opportunity to debate both :P
boomph saysApril 1 2015 03:35 AM
China chased the US out of North Korea. Russia defeated Hitler and Napoleon. When last did America win a war? In a conventional conflict, the US would lose quickly. With nukes - everybody loses
merica21 saysApril 27 2015 04:25 AM
In a world war China has the men to add to russias military and china has 800 million people in its man power you might say india also has alot of people but they are not trained and have old tec navy russia is getting close to having a navy more powerful then the usa also china now nuclear bombs russia would not hold back they have more nuke then every one even the usa and theres are more powerful and advanced they would nuke all of nato obliterating them only france Britain and the usa have nukes in nato so now usa sends nukes china has the worlds best anti missile systems so they would block the nukes north Korea would nuke south korea and then start to invade the west coast russia would continue to nuke nato to make sure they never come back china would send men to help invade the usa russia and china would ultimately win they have the bigger bombs tsara Bomba and a 100megaton nuclear bombs that stalin talked about china has more people in there army then even the usa population they have the resources the tec they also discovered 300 trillion$ worth of gold Dimonds in russia which will be used for its economy so china russia would win even if you dont agree do your own research
TheRussian saysOctober 21 2015 05:10 AM
Sad that so people make so many dumb claims and think that the majority is always right...
yalang saysNovember 6 2015 05:19 PM
Greediest nations the so called developed economy will do anything to get petroleum or natural resources.......US + Nato(blind followers) created Al-qaida ,taliban to fight Russia , now created ISIS to invade middle east nations.. They have to be termed as North Atlantic Christian Terrorist Organisation (NATCO) Russia nd China have power to do it nd other developing countries shud join defeat these evil forces .. Let their greed end soon.. A peaceful world would prevail.
Enlightened76 saysNovember 25 2015 12:40 AM
Wars to stop wars should be fought. Wars to destroy other counties must. Never be started. It's easy for man to destroy what GOD has created never thinking though if he should. Both sides could easily destroy one another but Han what did you give up, everything and what did you gain nothing but grief and death. Who would want to bring this record to their GOD.
nickm1213 saysNovember 25 2015 08:36 PM
Russia and China stand no chance against NATO. Everyone underestimates the power of France, UK, Italy, etc. The military of Nato is far more powerful than two countries not to mention other countries not members of Nato would help. Don't get me wrong Russia and China are rising superpowers but along with UK and Brazil are also rising superpowers who in fact are allies with Nato.
nicsoew saysDecember 4 2015 12:58 AM
Russia has strongest nuclear arsenal on the planet and combined with China they have far more soldiers and war economy. Some people mentioned 28 NATO countries - that is in fact bad as leadership would be divided and armies of 28 countries would never fight as one. Not to mention that nuking all small countries would be their end in the conflict.
IbrahimAlYahyai saysMarch 3 2016 08:44 PM
In short, Israel would win!
Kaehler saysMarch 16 2016 05:50 AM
Russia would kill it self in a war since they're economy is weak
MarkoSerbia saysMarch 27 2016 11:30 AM
I know. The answer is Mr President Vladimir Putin will stand last in front of Withe house drinking Coca Cola and Flag of Russian Federacion will be on top of withe house.
trevonreason17 saysMay 5 2016 02:46 PM
The us has 10 possibly more that is top secret aircraft carriers with the most planes that can be anywhere in minutes and with the most highly trained men on the ground Russia and china would have to use nukes. But the u.S will shoot those down and end it in a month, no problem. Don't forget they spend billions on the budget so the may have more up their sleeves.
heny12fromct saysMay 30 2016 06:09 PM
OK, we have to be realistic here, forget what you read and hear through the media, and just use logic. First and foremost the United States of America (US) has a military budget that is greater than all the countries on the planet' budgets combined! That should be your first clue who has more military strength. The US has more soldiers, double, triple and sometimes up to 10 times the equipment that Russia has. That is before we even discuss NATO. If a war starts there will be no winners as Putin will be faced with either cooperating with the New World Order or using nuclear weapons. Let us hope and pray that the Lord comes to us before choices like this have to be made.
dsfsadf saysJune 12 2016 07:24 AM
RUSSIA could steamroll NATO forces in just 60 hours, a leading US defence official has warned amid rising tensions with the west.
dsfsadf saysJune 12 2016 07:25 AM
RUSSIA could steamroll NATO forces in just 60 hours, a leading US defence official has warned amid rising tensions with the west.
sarah_paw saysJune 17 2016 12:35 AM
I think russia and china are clear winner since ... Look at the size of the countries and the proud people. NATO consists of people who no more trust their governments and people running it.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)