If our world powers went head-to-head, who would win?

RallyPoint Team — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:33:43 -0500

If militaries around the world went head-to-head, these power houses would come out on top. Are you surprised to see any of the countries included?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 11:47 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 11:47:20 -0500

Besides being in the top 3 in ground, air, and sea. We have a few unequal advantages that no other nation has. We have an all volunteer force; meaning that we are all willing to die for the betterment of this great nation...at least I know I am. Second, don't quote me but If I had to make an educated guess, I would have to bet that we have more firearms per citizen than any other country. And If our air, ground, and sea forces were to falter, we would still have the capabilities to defend our nation.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 6 at 2015 1:06 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:06:48 -0500

I love infographics!

However... and I pause for effect... this is an incomplete picture.

Yes, China has the biggest ground forces. However the USA does have an "inactive" draft of any Male aged 18-26. In matters of National Defense, our ability to "double" our numbers is just staggering. Their ability to do the same doesn't come close.

When it comes to Aircraft, we have complete and total Air Superiority. Which brings us to the Seas.

Sure N. Korea has more Ships.... for about 15 minutes. That's where Air Superiority comes into play.

The Navy (used to) define Naval Superiority as Controlling not only the oceans, but the Air ABOVE the oceans, and the water BELOW the ocean. How long is the N. Korean fleet going to last against the US Air Force (Largest AF in the world), and US Navy (Second Largest AF in the World)?

That brings us to the real brass tacks. MONEY!!!

We spend A LOT of money. When it really boils down to it, you can't make comparisons between the amount of money two countries spend on "defense" spending. For one, China is able to do it cheaper. They just get more bang for the buck (pun intended) than we do. Two, a solid portion of our money is actually going to protect countries like Saudi Arabia & the UK. That entire Global Stability mission. We spend the money so they don't have to, which in turn reduced our cost over all. It's a semi-symbiotic relationship.

Response by SFC Steven Harvey made Feb 6 at 2015 1:15 PM

SFC Steven Harvey — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:15:39 -0500

I'd put our Navy against the N Korean Navy any day of the week regardless of their numbers. Excluding Air Power and ground troops too. Navy on Navy.

Ground war I agree with if its head to head. I had a Drill Sergeant in basic back in 1999 that said joking that China could create a human bridge across the ocean, invade one by one in California and we'd run out of ammo before they ran out of people.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Feb 6 at 2015 1:16 PM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:16:48 -0500

No one. We'd all lose. That's the point. War is a Racket. http://warisaracket.com/
Read the book, by 2-time Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC. YES, I did write TWO-Time.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 1:45 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:45:05 -0500

Numbers don't mean anything without quality. Quality of personnel. Quality of training. Quality of equipment. That's what really matters, and we've got that covered.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 3:50 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:50:50 -0500

"We got the bomb, and we're not afraid to use it." Thank you Dennis Leary.

-nuff said

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Feb 6 at 2015 11:02 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 23:02:12 -0500

No one would win.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Feb 6 at 2015 11:07 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 23:07:29 -0500

I would...because I am awesome!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 6 at 2015 11:43 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 23:43:10 -0500

First, nobody wins in terms of an all out conflict. Between the massive advancements in nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well as the proliferation of unconventional/guerrilla warfare...I don't foresee world powers ever engaging in invasion-style operations like seen in WW2. Most likely, it will be an attempt to bankrupt the other nations by forcing massive expenditures in terms of men/materials/equipment via "third party nations", similar to the conflicts of Russia and the United States in the Korean and Vietnam War to damage the economy and cause an internal collapse.

Also, the statistics on North Korea are somewhat misleading. Having 1000 vessels sounds significantly impressive considering the rest, but many are aging destroyers and frigates without significant benefit. Even the simple point of considering North Korea as a "major world power" is somewhat of a comical thought. North Korea is a danger only as much as China allows it to pose a danger. It is that "junkyard dog", able to run to the end of the leash to bark and snarl menacingly.

China steps in and drops economic sanctions and it can cripple the already fragile North Korean economy. In that sense, China is an often understated work player. Their role in the global economy and their abilities to tie in with Russia and North Korea both make them a capable opponent. This is part of why they are starting to strut a bit more powerfully and build up military posts in contested regions a bit more. My guess is that the preparations are in play for some serious muscle flexing within the region in the next 5-10 years.

It will be interesting to see how the global politics game plays out.
v/r,
CPT Butler

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Feb 7 at 2015 12:19 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 00:19:57 -0500

Yes we have the ability to recall vast numbers of inactive military members plus the draft. This would take a little time. I just wonder how the new Chinese anti ship ballistic missile will effect the current standard? I believe our subs are a good ace which will dominate the card table and they are unequaled in their capacity.

China has made great advances in aviation, but I wonder how truly tested it is. As stated earlier some have the numbers, but do they have the will, the backbone to make the full commitment. The U.S. fighting force has proven itself time and time again when the chips seem down, it digs deep and finds that second will which really makes the difference.

My only fear is how the political arena will tie our military's hands and not let our military leaders do their jobs.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Feb 7 at 2015 1:37 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 01:37:01 -0500

Missing an important one. Who dominates space. Meaning satellites. How effective is the modern millitary force without satellite communication, gps, etc.

I've heard China is really working on satellite killers.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 1:45 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 01:45:32 -0500

Here is a the average NK Soldier looks like, not too worried. Throw a few Big Macs, we'll be good.

Response by SPC Larry Buck made Feb 7 at 2015 2:16 AM

SPC Larry Buck — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 02:16:22 -0500

Yeah north Korea... They can't roll out a missle truck and not get bitched at, one of their border guards sneezes and interest peaks, how the hell could over 1,000ships move unnoticed, and really make an impact since silent sneek is reason to have them.

Response by SSG John Bacon made Feb 7 at 2015 2:42 PM

SSG John Bacon — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 14:42:34 -0500

I think the number for Sea power is a bit skewed. North Korea calls every boat from a dingy to a garbage scow a Naval Ship. Not to mention the quality of the builds. Also they fail to take into account America's secret Ground force... Hunters!

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 4:02 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 16:02:50 -0500

This infographic is hilarious. Does the Nork's rowboats really count as a fleet?

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Feb 7 at 2015 4:05 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 16:05:09 -0500

More important than hardware and numbers is when, where and why we are fighting.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 4:17 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 16:17:04 -0500

Two other points I think need to be considered: Technological superiority, and Innovative superiority: Both of these are things that the U.S.A excels at.

Yes, Japan and S. Korea are tech power houses, however, that technological advantage is only there because the US developed it initially. China is perhaps a close 3rd or 4th. N. Korea, well - their tech is all borrowed or stolen - so they have no ability in that realm if China doesn't allow it to happen.

Innovation is America's biggest and best feature though - During WWII, America came up with more innovations than any other country except perhaps Germany... This is what made our opponents fear us so much.

I think, in a knock-down, drag out fight, with no nukes, N. Korea would quickly fall to S. Korea until China gets involved. Other countries in the Asian hemisphere would probably quickly fall to China - with exception of Australia.

America would hold it's own, and probably over the long run, eventually prevail.

Most of Europe would initially fall to Russia, but eventually would stabilize along the Franco-German border until America was fully engaged in all aspects, at which time Russia would start getting it's ass handed back, and would retreat to WWII lines at which point they would sue for peace along the Polish-German border.

If China and Russia went to war with each other at any point during their engagement in Europe, they would lose Europe, and much of their eastern territory to China.

The mid-east would degenerate into tribal warfare, with Israel being the only stabilizing force, but without American help/intervention, would eventually fall after great loss of life - to the last man. Israel would be more likely to use nukes against Iran and would do so immediately if Iran launched even one nuke at Israel.

N. Korea is the most likely country, along with Iran, to use nukes if they are losing or even as the initial strike. America would only do so as an absolute last resort, or as a response to someone else using nukes.

China would use nukes as an initial strike, or as a counter-strike, but is less likely to do so unless they are desperate.

Similar to the US, Russia would also only use nukes as an absolute last resort, UNLESS they thought they could do a "limited" attack - with only one or two nukes on strategic targets that they thought the US would not react to... which would be a mistake, because I do think we would launch nukes - though that is also dependent on the resolve of the sitting president to do so.

It's all hypothetical - so I may be completely wrong - but I do have some analysis background - so maybe not... :)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2015 6:41 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 18:41:55 -0500

I say the toys don't mean anything, neither does the man power... Boils down to morale and willingness to fight.. Remember a bunch if rebel farmers that defeated an extensive, well trained and armed professional military... Yeah the farm boys beat them back and we became the United States... A man defending his home will fight harder than the most well trained highest paid Soldier... The Alamo for instance, they were out numbered and out gunned, yet did a lot of damage... And if fire power and man power were the real answer well not to rub salt in a wound, but then ISIS would be a JV team and no threat... It boils down to what are they fighting for and why, and that will determine the winner more so than numbers...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2015 2:25 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 02:25:36 -0500

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 3:31 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 03:31:25 -0500

Who wins the ground war?
Who owns the skies?
Who dominates the seas?
Who gets one cross the lips?
Big Dummies

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Aug 30 at 2015 9:35 AM

SGT Scott Bell — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 09:35:39 -0400

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Aug 30 at 2015 10:18 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 10:18:31 -0400

Nobody would win. The destruction would be over whelming, the financial costs would probably have a great effect. I'm afraid it would lead to some type of WMD usage which would probably get expanded. Look what the past years of war with someone who's not on the list has cost us.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Sep 22 at 2015 11:45 AM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:45:30 -0400

LOL... Let's just nationalize the john boat fishing fleet.. Since, apparently, numbers are all that matter, that should keep us on top.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Sep 22 at 2015 12:13 PM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:13:57 -0400

Really, North Korea's Navy against ours. That wouldn't last as long as the last Ronda Rousey fight. Forget that our Navy has advanced weaponry, not a fishing boat with an AK 47. This thing is ridiculous. Our sub force alone would cripple them before the first carrier group arrived.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Sep 22 at 2015 12:22 PM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:22:54 -0400

New North Korean battleship!

Response by PO2 Peter Klein made Sep 22 at 2015 10:24 PM

PO2 Peter Klein — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 22:24:20 -0400

Nobody wins! We all loose big time.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Sep 22 at 2015 11:45 PM

SrA Daniel Hunter — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 23:45:28 -0400

The numbers and spending do not tell the whole story. North Korea with 1000 row boats and U.S. with only have 200 Destroyers so the U.S. would lose?

Response by LCpl Steven Fiore made Oct 29 at 2015 5:09 AM

LCpl Steven Fiore — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:09:39 -0400

I honestly was surprised at how littler Chinese active personnel compared to our active forces are. I figured they would be double ours. key word on that one is active. The air superiority is just staggering....staggering. As far as ships go, if the aircraft get qualifiers, ships should as well.

Obviously stats won't mean anything and can't conclude who would win. I am a bit surprised about some of these numbers though. Actually made me feel a lot better about our current military vs the worlds.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 30 at 2015 3:43 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:43:11 -0400

The Navy numbers are interesting, but it is not qualitative.

Response by Cpl Julio Rosa made Oct 30 at 2015 11:08 PM

Cpl Julio Rosa — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:08:35 -0400

Intelligence is what really wins wars these days. Can we have a graphic on which countries poses the best resources for intel gathering?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 1:11 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 01:11:07 -0400

That's cute!

Response by 2d Lt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 2:02 AM

2d Lt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 02:02:47 -0400

This is unbelievably juvenile and oversimplified. America's Navy would decimate N. Korea's Navy because while they outnumber our vessels, our advanced weapons delivery platforms and Aircraft Carriers alone give us a nearly a highly decisive advantage. Their ships are old, poorly maintained and manned by inadequately trained conscripts. Certain Naval aircraft have a specific mission of hunting down subs and ships.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2015 5:23 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:23:40 -0500

wow thats pretty scary

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Nov 9 at 2015 5:37 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:37:10 -0500

All would lose. Nukes, anyone?

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Nov 9 at 2015 5:40 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:40:00 -0500

Total mass destruction

Response by CAPT Tom Bersson made Nov 9 at 2015 6:16 PM

CAPT Tom Bersson — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 18:16:04 -0500

We win.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 9 at 2015 8:03 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 20:03:48 -0500

The quantity and quality of the men/units at the point of contact is what really counts, not mere numbers.

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Nov 9 at 2015 10:19 PM

PVT Robert Gresham — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:19:15 -0500

Sgt Kelli Mays I hate to be a gloom bringer, but all China would have to do to win a war is surrender 50,000 personnel a day. The very act, and the logistics, of processing such a flood of prisoners would quickly overwhelm the US forces that could be committed to the action. I hope they never catch on to that idea.