1. Firaxis celebrates the "Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month", and offers a give-away of a Civ6 anthology copy (5 in total)! For all the details, please check the thread here. .
    Dismiss Notice
  2. We have selected the winners of the Old World random draw and competition. For the winning entries, please check this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

USA and China Vrs. World! (in a "fair war")

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Eukaryote, Jun 19, 2008.

?

So who would win this crazy war?

  1. United States and China.

    47.4%
  2. The world

    52.6%
  1. Eukaryote

    Eukaryote Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    3,239
    Location:
    Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
    This is a poll to see who you all think would win in a war, a war being fought with the whole world heart pumping their hardest to win.

    The superpower USA, with the highest military spending and second highest military personnell in the world. Teamed up with them would China who have the highest miliatary personnell in the world and would be capable of summoning millions more soldiers to fight, while having the fourth largest military spending power in the world. We all also know that both these countries have massive production power. The total estimated population of this side is 1,626,228,000.

    On the other side, is every single other country on the planet. That's about 191 other countries working together (depending on your definition of "country.") This side will have about 4,973,712,000 people on it making it have about 3.05 time the number of people as the USA/China side.

    Now, to make this more interesting, as well as less grusome, I have decided this would be a "fair war," meaning that neither side would use nuclear weapons, biological weapons, poison gas, death camps, or torture (however, interrogations, using "truth serums" such as sodium pentothal* would be allowed.) I am aware of the fact that this situation would be very unrealistic, but I didn't want this to be about nuclear war or be too depressing of a subject.

    To wrap this up, it's a war that everybody fights and the whole world is fouccusing on. It's between the USA/China team and the entire rest of the world. Who would win?


     
  2. SirLamphead

    SirLamphead Prince

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    The World definetly.
    The American military is overstretched right now.
    China has too much border to protect.
    The World would win hands down.

    Now maybe India, China, and US would have a significantly better chance.
     
  3. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    No one. Good luck trying to occupy each other's territories.
     
  4. Patroklos

    Patroklos Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,721
    The US and China. It would be a minor effort for China to hold down all of Central Asia and the resource rich areas of Russia. America can easily starve South America, Australia, Japan, and Korea and if China is successful against Russia then Europe as well. Africa is useless.

    India would suck, but I don't see them cabaple of mounting an invasion throught the mountains into China, just like I don't see the reverese. However, it would be relatively easy to starve india for oil.

    Basically China and the US just divide the world and let the parts wither at the vine.

    Not at all necessary.
     
  5. Eukaryote

    Eukaryote Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    3,239
    Location:
    Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
    Really? Please elaborate on this.
     
  6. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    China try to hold down Central Asia would be similiar to Russia in Afghanistan, good luck with that. FYI, America imports a lot of resources from South America. Europe would be tough to invade and leaving them alone would only mean a buildup and dissemination of their advanced technologies.

    How? They'd get it from the middle east unmolested.

    That's poor military strategy. You can't sit back and let a more numerous and larger enemy grow.
     
  7. Patroklos

    Patroklos Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,721
    Its what the news said, so it must be so!

    Whats the USAF and USN overstretched over again?
     
  8. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    dosent Russia dwarve China in terms of tanks, and wouldnt China v Russia essentially be a tank war?
     
  9. scy12

    scy12 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    5,181
    Easy the world. It will just outproduce them and destroy them before they can destroy it due to the sheer size of the rest of the world.

    Russia it self is easilly a match for China and in addition to the rest of the world (Australia ,etc)both China and US are toast.
     
  10. Brighteye

    Brighteye intuitively Bayesian

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Location:
    Oxford
    It's interesting. The US and China are very dependent on oil and coal imports. I wonder if China would survive without Australian coal, and the US without middle eastern or South American oil.
    They'd certainly have to focus very much on conquering these areas first, and both Australia and Arabia are relatively inaccessible to either country.
    South America would be the first option for the US, to grab oil, leaving Europe and India free to ramp up production and armament.
     
  11. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    OK, but them aside, do you think the ground forces are stretched?
     
  12. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    I'd like to see you invade a country and win a war with just ships and planes.
     
  13. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    Are we discounting guerilla warfare etc?
     
  14. Eukaryote

    Eukaryote Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    3,239
    Location:
    Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
    Of course not. Guerilla warfare can be as much a part of it as the leadership decides.
     
  15. Patroklos

    Patroklos Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,721
    1.) Hardly, becuase the Chinese (and anyone else for that matter) is not trying to control anything, but rather just deny it from others and strip the place clean. They can burn the cities to the ground for all they care. Surfice to say the Chinese are more than capable of denying those resources to Russia or Europe, which is the point.

    2.) America does import a lot from South America, but more to the point so does Europe, which would then be denied that. South America, like Africa, can stew in its own juices, its not about to invade anyone else or project any power, so we just have to issolate it from Europe and that part of the world is out of the equation.

    3.) Europe is totally dependant on the ME for oil. It is totally within the power of the USAF and USN to interdict every significant trade route from that area. With China holding down Central Asia and Russia, and the US interdicting SA resources and denying them productive access to the North Sea, Europe is screwed.

    4.) Build up? Do you even know what you are talking about? This isn't 1943, you can't turn out an F-16 from a Smart Car factory. For all intents and purposes all sides will fight pretty much with what they have at the start, especially with everyone's economies and resource availability screwed.

    A half dozen US submaries could shut down the SOH, no problem, and there isn't any way you could keep them let alone a carrier from parking there for the duration of the conflict (assuming we just don't bomb the production points ot oblivion in the first place).

    The more numerous they are, the easier it is to starve. Europe can't survive with out oil or food imports, Japan is even worse off. America can. In fact, we have enough food to support China as well.
     
  16. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    19,403
    Location:
    Canberra
    I think the point about resource dependency is a good one.

    Patro mentioned cutting Australia off but rather than starving us you're really just taking a bunch of food, coal, uranium and other primary resources off the world market. Assuming you even manage to get a blockade going around half a dozen cities separated by thousands of kilometres.
     
  17. dwaxe

    dwaxe is not a fanatic

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,506
    Location:
    The Internet
    The world is just too big.

    And with the United States' immigrant population (legal and illegal), civilian morale would be negative, with all the riots.

    But then again, I can steal more tv's in those riots...
     
  18. Patroklos

    Patroklos Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    12,721
    Look at the terrain of Siberia and ask again. The fact is China is more than capable of at the very least making resource production from Siberia spotty. The fact is Russia's military is a hollow shell even today, any look at Jane's will tell you the story.

    God, this fallacy has been disproven in a dozen threads. What power has the only long range bomber fleet that isn't a joke? America. So whose high tech production faciilities are immune to harrassment? America. It would take a week of bombing at most to destroy every drydock capable of producing warships and ever aviation factory capable of producing high tech aircraft in Europe. But that is almost not important, because Europe is probably in the most precarious position resource wise anyway.

    Please explain why you think this.

    The US is not dependant on anyone for coal, and actually has a significant oil production capacity, at least enough to keep its military rolling (unlike Europe).

    South America ramp up armaments? :lol:

    Of course they are stretched. Anything being used to any degree is stretched, the question is if they are overstretched. The vast majority of our army is sitting at home in America.

    Like I said, the point is NOT to invade other countries. I am not sure where you got the idea this would be an ideological deathmatch where one side has to burn down the others capital to win.

    One, we don't need your uranium. Two, we don't need your coal. Three, we don't need your food. Four, we really don't need anything other than constant use resources like oil, natural gas, food, etc. Like I said, with the lead time modern weapons systems require for research/build and the fact that even the most favorable conditions anyones economy can hope to be in in such a conflict is crap, we will be fighting with what we have. China and the US easily have more relevant weaponry themselves than the rest of the world combined.

    And your cities being separated by a thousand miles is irrelevant. The number (fewer) and size (larger) of relevant merchant vessels are such that a DDG can hold done hundreds of thousands of square miles of sea zone itself, a carrier far more.
     
  19. Mirc

    Mirc Not mIRC!!!

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2005
    Messages:
    15,825
    Location:
    Düsseldorf, ->Germany, E.U.
    Nobody. . .
     
  20. Hadesspirit

    Hadesspirit Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    TURKEY
    Definitely.
    The war won't bring welfare to anyone.Inversely,just death and poverty.
     

Share This Page