Im not under estimate the U.S, im sure if enemy country would attack the USA they would have a hard time but saying that nation like Russia, china would be nothing more than push overs is an understatement, the wars im talking about is the Vietnam and the Korean war (no one won that war lol superpower count even defeat a poor and third world china) and yes my bad i forgot about the gulf war.
They wouldn't be "pushovers" by any means, but the outcome would never be in doubt. Short of unleashing a nuclear holocaust on the entire world (I'm honestly not sure that China could even do that much), ensuring their own defeat as well, there is nothing that Russia or China could do to defeat the US in a conventional war.
The Vietnam War was not a conventional war; it was a guerrilla war, which is an entirely different scenario. As it was the US could have still won the war, but the things which are often necessary to defeat a guerrilla insurgency - namely, concentration camps and vicious counterinsurgency measures, including brutal reprisals - were things that the US was simply unwilling to do. The occasional war crime, yes, but large-scale near-genocide of communist sympathisers? No, that was far beyond what the US was willing to condone to win that war, especially when it became obvious that the Domino Theory wasn't accurate. That the US was capable of doing this if willing is shown by their success in combating both communist and nationalist insurgencies in The Philippines during their rule there.
Korea was a conventional war, and it is a war that the US did win. North Korea invaded South Korea with the intent of conquering it. They failed. That is a victory for South Korea. Most people accept that the war was a stalemate, however, on the grounds that US General Douglas MacArthur also invaded North Korea after it had been pushed out of the South, prompting a Chinese entry into the war. But this was due to MacArthur's negligence and incompetence, something I've never been shy to mention on these boards. It must also be noted that, again, the US had the capacity to win the Korean War outright, uniting the country. They were simply unwilling, as in Vietnam, to do what was necessary; in this case, to nuke China, which didn't have nukes of its own at the time.
Also, the US is far more absolutely powerful now than it was in 1950. It is capable of inflicting far greater damage on China now than then. And a war with China would almost certainly
not involve a land-war in Asia, which is a piece of conventional US military wisdom that has existed since WWII, if not earlier. WHile China is more powerful now than during the Korean War, any war with the US would undoubtedly be on US terms, not Chinese ones. The US could dictate the time and place of the conflict, and due to its naval supremacy it could keep the PLA out of the war entirely.
China's navy is the second largest navy and the Chinese have modern Air defenses not only that but has missile they could use to stop any bombing raids, and the Chinese forth generation jet(no doubt that Russia would give China aid and a couple forth generation jet as well note Russia has said it will replace all its migs with the forth generation jet ) fight would be more than a Much for the Us bombers.
Excuse me? The Chinese have no blue water navy at all. Literally none. They have a few aircraft carriers in development, but they're behind India in naval strength and technology, let alone the US. This claim of your that China has the world's second-largest navy is a "fact" on par with the "fact" you reported in another thread, that after WWII the RAAF was the "world's largest air force." I think the US, USSR and UK may have liked a word with you on that one, fella.
American missile technology is incapable of defending against bombing raids by American aircraft. Chinese technology is vastly inferior in this regard. It's possible that China is capable of shooting down old Soviet planes, but they are incapable of shooting down US planes in high numbers. Missiles are also useless against other missiles, which is what the US will use first, to knock out any existing countermeasures that might ave been capable of destroying their bombers, before sending in their bombers.
There was a thread on the joint Russian-Indian fourth generation jet not long ago. The consensus was that it was already behind modern US developments. It would not be a match for US planes, and China couldn't produce them in large enough quantities to make a difference anyway. Also, why would Russia give China, its main rival now, comparble military technology? Especially given the Russian partner in this development is India, which also considers China a rival, and the US an ally?
you do know that Chinese has smart bombs too you know
They're considerably less "smart" than America's.
When you look at the debt of the Us and the debt caused by fight terrorist and now look at The Debt of China, the Us debt has a vastly lager debt, so a war with China would and could push the us in to bankruptcy because a blockade cost more that just attacking your enemy
The Chinese economy is
interdependent with the US. That is, if one goes bankrupt or suffers an economic collapse, so does the other. According to a lot of different sources - I don't know if they're completely accurate or not, you'd need someone with ore economic knowledge than I for this, like JerichoHill or Masada - China owns more US currency than the US does. The collapse of the American dollar would crush them, and an American blockade of China would cause considerable depreciation in its own currency. A pretty vicious cycle that, which guarantees that neither side will go to war with one another except in the most egregious circumstances, such as a war over Taiwan.
Ahovking, you are displaying a shocking lack of knowledge of military, geopolitical and geostrategic matters. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; most people don't know jack about geopolitics. But those people also don't start ridiculous threads on the subject that have no basis in reality. I know nothing about fly fishing, so I don't start threads about it and claim knowledge that I simply don't have. If you want to be taken seriously on these boards, and not have your threads become running jokes - as has happened to several other posters here - then you should either learn about the things you're discussing, or stop discussing them and focus on other issues. It's okay to ask questions if you don't know something, but trying to bluster your way through conversations without the requisite knowledge just makes you look like an ignorant fool.
).
