Modern War: Who would win?

[Alzar]

Oh my goodness, so many facts wrong...



Wait what? Turkey is a top 15 military for sure.... what's your definition of strong?

Turkish well i read that wrong and typed that right i wasnt thinking turkish at all i read turk and saw iran and thought turk somthing stan which arnt very strong as for others i may be wrong in my opinon though belgium has made some great rifles and french has started coming back as for skipping russia i have no clue.

[Oss Spy]

These wars have been fought before (except a couple)

but with modern technology and weapons, who would win now?


Germany VS France (France has the bigger army and the nuclear power due to Germany's army limits, Germany has the bigger economy and more capability to build nukes) France. France has the most underestimated army in the world.

USA VS China (without nuclear bombs) It depends on the front. If it came to an attrition war then China would definitely win. The US Navy, however, would easily sink the Chinese Navy.

China VS Russia (nuclear bombs in) Russia. Siberia has little infrastructure and...well...that's the only place China could attack. Russia would be fine without Vladivostok or Novgorod, as they offer little in the way of industrial capacity in comparison to the region west of the Urals.

USA VS Russia (no nuclear bombs) Depends on who is attacking where. A Russian invasion would fail miserably. See my note about China regarding the Navy.

South Korea VS North Korea South Korea's military budget is larger than North Korea's total budget. I'm sure that South Korea would win unless North Korea has some nukes (and they don't.)

Spain VS Mexico Mexico, possibly. Their troops/police force have experience in fighting drug lords.

Japan VS South Korea South Korea, due to Japan's restrictions.

Israel VS Egypt Israel

Britain VS India India

Switzerland VS Belgium (if that happened) Belgium

Pakistan VS India India

Turkey VS Iran Turkey

I've added in realism.

[Justvisiting]

It was posted a couple of times early on in the thread that neither Germany or Japan have armies.

1. They do - look up the Bundesheer and JSDF
2. As a recent example they have both fought in Iraq - I hate to stereotype but too many Americans ignorantly view that as 'their' war alone.

[acer5200]

It was posted a couple of times early on in the thread that neither Germany or Japan have armies.

1. They do - look up the Bundesheer and JSDF
2. As a recent example they have both fought in Iraq - I hate to stereotype but too many Americans ignorantly view that as 'their' war alone.

Bundesheer = Austrian.
JSDF = Japanese Self Defense Force

There's a difference between a military that can successfully mount a full scale offense and a military that can simply defend it's homeland. Japan isn't invading any neighboring countries anytime soon.

[powerwolf]

These wars have been fought before (except a couple)

but with modern technology and weapons, who would win now?


Germany VS France (France has the bigger army and the nuclear power due to Germany's army limits, Germany has the bigger economy and more capability to build nukes)

Germany, France is already agreeing with everything they are saying and bowing down to them

USA VS China (without nuclear bombs)
depends, if you say numbers china (but numbers mean nothing), but the usa does owe the a nice $800trillion+
and depending on the location, if it was china invading the usa, the usa wuld win if all the citizens joined in (and they would) so add around 80million more looneys (not all are) with guns into the numbers for defense

China VS Russia (nuclear bombs in)
Russia since the nukes are in they have over 40k inactive that could be made active in a short space of time.

USA VS Russia (no nuclear bombs)
usa, but it might be a little hard to defend Alaska while they defend the main land (thats if russia came to say hi the usa) hard one for if the usa was invading russia.. if the usa use their brains and attacked before russia winter turned up, then it would be the usa.. but if they attacked when the winter turned up it may end up like the Nazis did when they went to have a go, and we all know how that turned out

South Korea VS North Korea

no idea, cant be bothered to read up on them and how they did in history because everyone learns from mistakes and get better in time

Spain VS Mexico

i would have to take people words on them but i would say mexico, unless the spanish hacked them to death on a computer

Japan VS South Korea

SK. because japan only care about defense now

Israel VS Egypt

Israel because they would use nukes

Britain VS India

Britain, because they can get the job done with what ever they are giving, thinks about it, we are still driving jeeps fro the 1940's in afgan... but India is also peaceful well so they say :P and number and size don't mean nothing in war

Switzerland VS Belgium (if that happened)

Switzerland, they own the banks so more money to last for a long war, but wont happen they had fighting i mean both countries

Pakistan VS India

Pakistan would, the Taliban would help and make road side bombs while Pakistan launched nukes

Turkey VS Iran

Iran they are on a mission to build a nuke under a power plant they must be stopped since we all know they will use them.. first counties to get hit by them would be the greatest alliance UK and USA.. united shall we stand

I love the comments on Britain and India from others.. mainly the ones saying India would win because they have higher pop they are a bigger country blah blah blah..

Numbers in a army does not mean the country is strong, nor does the size.. do have to remind you that it was great Britain that had a empire for 200 years? yes that little country many of you are saying could not defeat India because India is such a huge country with more pop.

Britain has not been invaded since 1066.. and no don't say we are invaded now by the Muslims and being slaves to Islam, not going to happen for a very long time, there is only 1.6% of the uk that is Muslim...

if you actually go look into history the united kingdom has always fought ore numbers and bigger countries than themselves..

numbers mean nothing, size means nothing.. for all we know their could be a tini little island that is smaller than the united kingdom, that is planning a nice big war and has a really small but awesome armed force (army,navy, air force)

and yes i know many of you will be angry and will probs flag this

[JonnyAngel]

Germany VS France
USA VS China (without nuclear bombs)
China VS Russia (nuclear bombs in)
USA VS Russia (no nuclear bombs)
South Korea VS North Korea
Spain VS Mexico
Japan VS South Korea
Israel VS Egypt
Britain VS India
Switzerland VS Belgium
Pakistan VS India
Turkey VS Iran

If you don't want to read in-depth into analysis as to why I support my position, go to the bottom of & read my conclusions there

Germany Vs France - First Off, As partners in the EU, as well as in NATO, the likelihood of a German-French war is extremely small. However, in the event of war, It would be a good one...Nuclear Weapons barred. France has several hundred nuclear devices as well as the means of delivery- Germany does not. Moreover, Germany cannot- it is illegal for Germany to possess nuclear arms, and it is banned in their constitution. Germany has a better economy, as well as more people available for service. Moreover, Germany has (in my opinion) better military technology in several areas. I would take a Leopard tank over a Leclerc tank nearly anyday. In terms of immediate firepower, however, France has a significant advantage. With more aircraft, better navy, and more troops ready for action immediately, France has a distinct immediate advantage. The winner of this war, In my opinion, would be the person to strike first. If Germany has time to prepare and build it's forces, they would go in with the advantage. However, If France ever chose to use its Nuclear Arsenal, the war wouldn't take long to end.

US Vs. China- This would be, certainly, an interesting battle. American military technology is superior to Chinese technology- and the US has a good deal more of it. However, China has the significant military advantage- they have, nearly, double the United States' population in people fit for service (618million to the US's 310million or so total population). It really depends on who is attacking whom and where. A Chinese Invasion of America would be utterly preposterous. Their navy is no match for the US's, and that is the only way they would get their massive manpower over. One way that has been proposed to disable america would be a Nuclear blast in the right location delivered via ICBM to cause a Electromagnetic pulse effect, which, theoretically, could disable nearly every electronic device in the United States. However, not only does this violate the stipulations of the battle, but, be assured that if a Nuclear device was heading towards America that Americans wouldn't sit and twiddle their thumbs waiting for it to hit. With Literally anywhere from about 64-128 Nuclear warheads on every Ohio Class Missile Submarine (14 of them are active duty, scattered across the world), thousands of Aircraft based nuclear devices on aircraft carriers, airbases, etc., not even to mention the 450+ Active Peacekeeper III ICBM's in hardened missile silos across the US, a nuclear strike such as that would not go unanswered. However, a US invasion of China wouldn't fare much better either. It would be a situation similar to the one seen in Korea during the Korean war; there are so many of them to shoot that the forces simply don't have enough bullets/weapons to kill all of them. In conclusion, a US Chinese war would be very hard and loss intensive for either side in the event of an invasion on either party's home soil, and if Nuclear weapons are allowed, both sides will end up killing each other- leading me to conclude that both conventional and nuclear confrontations will lead to a stalemate.

China vs Russia (nuclear weapons in)- This battle isn't as hard as the others to "predict". Russia is massive- their population might be significantly smaller then China's, but, they are more then x2 the size of China. Moreover, the more Important areas of Russia, that is, the European half of Russia, is on the side furthest from China. Moscow, Volgograd, St. Petersburg, as well as the Ural region cities such as Novograd, Omsk, etc., are far away from China. While the Chinese do have Nuclear devices capable of reaching these areas, Russia has many, many more. From Road Launched ICBM's/IRBM's such as the SS-27 Topol or RS-24, to hundreds of hardened Silo ICBM's, to Submarine launched MIRV's such as the R-29, and a good deal of Aircraft launched devices, it wouldn't take long for Russia to coat China with nuclear devices. In the event of a Russian Nuclear first strike, China would have little left. However, in terms of a conventional war, Russia would be a bit more hard pressed to conquer China. China would stand little chance in this. Russia has often demonstrated it's ability to withstand invasion, from the Napoleonic Conquests to World War 2, Russia has proved that it doesn't go down without a fight. The sheer logistical needs of a conventional Chinese invasion force are unimaginable. In order to bring their huge numbers to bare, they would need to cross rough terrain in order to reach the largest areas. Whether their invasion come through the Caucus region, up through Kazakhstan, or over the Siberia, any invasion force would face rough weather, including "General Winter" (the ultimate victor in the previous wars), Scorched Earth and unending civilian and military resistance. Just like the Nazis, their logistical needs would be their undoing and the attrition would, eventually, destroy them. Russia has the best chance of winning either a conventional or nuclear confrontation with China, in my opinion.

US Vs Russia - With nuclear weapons, the world would become nothing more then a Nuclear wasteland...if we weren't finished off by the blast and radiation/fall-out, be assured that the ensuing Nuclear winter would finish any survivors off. This is the threat that kept a war such as this from happening during the not-so-Cold War. With tens-of-thousands of nuclear devices on both sides, only a few hundred of which from both sides being enough to cause a nuclear winter and possibly billions of deaths- Nuclear weapons are a scary reality. This is why we are going to assume a conventional war- and, possibly, theater nuclear weapons (short-ranged missiles with very low yield, artillery devices, etc.). A war between the US and Russia would be, certainly, an interesting one. The US surface navy would quickly end the Russian's surface navy- the Submarine force would be a different story however. The US, practically speaking, surrounds Russia. Between it's European Allies, bases in the Middle East, Europe, South Korea, Japan, as well as Alaska, the United States could launch a multiple front assault on Russia. Russia, however, would be far more hard-pressed to do that. Even with a potential base in Cuba, or an invasion through Alaska, Russia would need a significant amount of logistical support and a powerful Navy. Basically, a war between the United States and Russia would ultimately be a war between The European Union/NATO, possibly South Korea and Japan, and the United States against Russia and any allies they recruited (Iran and North Korea perhaps?) This war would, inevitably, become a global conflagration. In terms of man power, Air-power, naval power, and even ground power, the United States has Russia beat. I would take a F-22/F-35 and M1-A2 over a Su-35/MiG-29 and T-90 anyday. The United States and its allies have the production means and technology to win against the Russians + their allies, however, the cost of the war in terms of manpower and equipment, not to mention other repercussions, would make this war a near impossibility. If Russia were to ever invade, the war would likely be only a defensive one.

South Korea Vs North Korea - North Korea has a large army, there is no ignoring that. However, their Army, in terms of technological supremacy, not to mention training, pails in comparison to S. Korea's. None of this is to mention the fact that the United States is allied with S. Korea and has 30k troops in S. Korea and 40k in the neighboring country of Japan. A North Korean Invasion of South Korea would be hard-fought, however, S. Korea would ultimately triumph assuming no other countries got involved.

Spain Vs Mexico- I'm not even going to get started with this one- it's utterly preposterous. Neither of them have a significant navy, so, if the two of them were to ever declare war about the best they could do is glare at each other from either side of the Atlantic ocean. If a EU Country/NATO country such as Spain were to ever invade a country such as that, preposterous by itself, the United States would likely get involved. Again however, I laugh at the idea of a Spanish-Mexican war.

Japan Vs South Korea- This is another very preposterous/funny proposal. Japan has a limited offensive army, and since both have US troops stationed in them, I find the idea of a war such as this very, very outrageous. However, since both have a limited navy and are very defensive, the war would likely end in state-mate.

Israel Vs Egypt- This one is easy...Israel all the way. Israel, in the Yom Kippur war, the Six-Day war, and the Suez Crisis, has demonstrated that it can beat enemy forces even when severely outnumbered. With "unconfirmed" nuclear weapons, and new delivery systems such as the Jericho V ICBM (rumored to be Nuclear Capable), they have the advantage there. While it has never really fought a large-scale war of invasion, Israeli troops are far better trained, have much better equipment (such as the US provided F-15SE and the Merkava Mark IV) , and are certainly much more passionate about their cause. This war would be lopsided in my opinion, the Israelis are surrounded by millions of Arabs- and they know that the Arabs hate them (and vice versa)- so, their country is prepared as such. Their forces, large for such a small country, are arguably some of the best trained troops in the world (overall) and have the capability of tackling much larger forces.

[JonnyAngel]

Britain Vs India- This one is also an easy one, (not to mention rather absurd)... it depends on who is invading whom. Neither side would win in an invasion of the other. Neither has a significant navy, or any logistical means of launching any form of large scale invasion. Both, however, do have nuclear weapons. However, and slightly ironically, neither has the means to reach one another with said nuclear weapons from hardened silos on their home ground. The Agni-V Missile, said to be nuclear capable and recently tested by India, has a (rumored) 5,000 mile range- nowhere close to reaching Great Britain. Moreover, Britain has no long range ICBM- their long range missiles are limited to American Built Trident Missiles on board their Vanguard Class Ballistic Missile Submarines and they are the only long range capability they have; however, since India can't reach Britain with Nuclear arms, Britain would win in a nuclear confrontation. As I already said, however, neither party would be able to successfully invade the other, and there is certainly no reason to for either side to. I will say though, that in terms of capability, Britain certainly is more able to stage such an invasion; but, this invasion would certainly not be enough.

Switzerland vs Belgium- This is another preposterous war. Not only are both NATO/EU Members, but, when was the last time Switzerland participated in a war and was not neutral? Belgium or Switzerland, providing the problems of crossing over Germany/France to get to Switzerland and the fact that they are allies were removed, Switzerland would probably win. Surprising? Not really... however, this war still makes me laugh.

Pakistan vs India- This is more difficult to assess. With Nuclear arms in play, the battle will, most likely, end in stalemate as both sides would, virtually, destroy one another (a reoccurring theme throughout). In a conventional war, however, I would argue that India would probably come out victorious. While the occupation of Pakistan, and it's conquering, would prove to be disastrous to their forces (due to partisan resistance, such as that of the Taliban, not to mention forces like it that could rise up), the Indians have a distinct leg-up over the Pakistanis in manpower, equipment, and, obviously, potential personnel. Pakistan is in no way capable of, without nuclear arms (in my opinion) conquering India, however, India might be capable of conquering it without nuclear devices. The war would, most likely, come down to a war of attrition- one that India could fight much better then Pakistan could.

Turkey Vs. Iran- This would be an interesting war if it was country on country and no-one else was involved. Obviously, that is not realistic. Turkey has the advantage over Iran. They have more troops, more people, a better economy, and, most importantly, are an ally of the West. The United States is be the largest of these allies. Incirlik Airbase, located a mere few hundred miles west of the Syrian border, is home to a US military unit, as well as several thousand troops; reinforcements would not be far behind if there was ever an attack. In my opinion, the Turkish could beat the Iranian army even without US/European help. However, with the addition of US/European forces to the mix, an Iranian invasion would be met with severe repercussions. Not only would the US 6th Fleet, Stationed in Italy, likely become involved with the conflict (sending reinforcements, running sorties, etc) but the 5th Fleet, the Fleet stationed out of Bahrain in the Middle East, as well as the forces stationed in Kuwait, would likely be quick to respond with a counter-strike in the event of a full out Iranian invasion of Turkey, or, a joint invasion of Iran. The Iranians would never be so daring as to try an invasion of Turkey by itself as long as the United States and others are allied with them.

CONCLUSION
Here are my conclusions:

Germany vs France- Depends on who strikes first/who has more time to prepare. If Nuclear weapons are allowed, France would have little problem annihilating the Germans.

US vs China- Neither party would be able to conventionally conquer the other. China doesn't currently have the ability to provide for the logistical needs needed to bring their massive population to bare, and lacks the Naval strength to deliver and defend all of these troops across the pacific ocean. The United States, while technologically superior, doesn't have the manpower to conquer China conventionally.

China vs Russia- Russia doesn't suffer as many logistical needs as China would. From their bases along the border/Eastern Russia, Russia would be able to launch without too much hindrance. With most of the Russian infrastructure on the other side of the Urals, however, China would be hard pressed to meet the logistical needs of getting their army there.

US vs Russia- Likely, the United States would win this. Superior in manpower, technology and position, a conventional war would be costly but would likely ultimately favor the United States and its Allies. This war, however, could quickly go nuclear and/or involve many other nations.

North Korea vs South Korea- South Korea. With its US allies and superior technology/training, the war would likely be hard-fought, but barring support from, say, Russia/China, the South Koreans could overcome the North Koreans.

Spain vs Mexico- Not happening, simply silly.

Japan vs South Korea- see above

Israel Vs Egypt- Israel. With superior technology, manpower, spirit/determination, and vastly superior training, the Israel's have already proven time and time again that they can beat not just Egypt, but Egypt and it's allies.

Britain vs India- Neither side would win, as neither side could, or would, launch an invasion that would be anywhere near to the size it would need to be to be successful. The logistics involved for either side are inconceivable.

Switzerland Vs Belgium- Again, not happening. However, Switzerland would probably win a war like this, especially if it was on their home soil.

Pakistan vs India- India would likely win. Even though it would be extremely costly/difficult, India outnumbers and outguns India in more ways then one.

Turkey vs Iran- Turkey. Even by itself, Turkey could win against Iran. However, with US/European Support, the battle would be all the more easy for Turkey to win.


War is never fun, however. All of these situations would result in millions dying and, likely, a major confrontation such as nearly any of the *realistic* war mentioned above not only has the potential to break out into a global war, but also to become nuclear- which instantly puts millions, even billions, at risk of demise. There many, many political and military factors keeping nations such as these from going to war and hopefully, it can stay that way.

[acer5200]

Iran they are on a mission to build a nuke under a power plant they must be stopped since we all know they will use them.. first counties to get hit by them would be the greatest alliance UK and USA.. united shall we stand

I love the comments on Britain and India from others.. mainly the ones saying India would win because they have higher pop they are a bigger country blah blah blah..

Numbers in a army does not mean the country is strong, nor does the size.. do have to remind you that it was great Britain that had a empire for 200 years? yes that little country many of you are saying could not defeat India because India is such a huge country with more pop.

Britain has not been invaded since 1066.. and no don't say we are invaded now by the Muslims and being slaves to Islam, not going to happen for a very long time, there is only 1.6% of the uk that is Muslim...

if you actually go look into history the united kingdom has always fought ore numbers and bigger countries than themselves..

numbers mean nothing, size means nothing.. for all we know their could be a tini little island that is smaller than the united kingdom, that is planning a nice big war and has a really small but awesome armed force (army,navy, air force)

and yes i know many of you will be angry and will probs flag this

Because India would totally attempt crossing over 15 or so countries who are allied with Britain to invade Britain, right?

No. No they wouldn't. Another thing? This would never happen. Because India would have to face all of Europe and North America. And then Pakistan because they already hate each other. India would never attempt to invade Britain, and Britain would never attempt to invade India again. Nukes? Both countries have an NFU policy. Yes, you're right about Britain winning... but only if it were a real life situation and politics+distance were applied. Otherwise, India would completely steamroll Britain. Hypothetically without outside help and if they were neighboring. Otherwise, not a chance in hell.

As for the invasion comment? France, France, France, Spain, France, Germany, Germany. Not in that particular order and maybe not as many times, but you get the drift.

Oh and btw? Post flagged for bringing up religion.

[Digger Walters]

Britain has not been invaded since 1066.

As for the invasion comment? France, France, France, Spain, France, Germany, Germany. Not in that particular order and maybe not as many times, but you get the drift.

Righto. Here enters the strange guy with his comment... Now you say England hasn't been invaded since 1066 which is wrong. But Acer the closest somebody (to the extent of my knowledge which may not be adequate) has come to conquering England (which I think Powerwolf is getting at) would be the Scots. William Wallace, Robert The Bruce, Bonnie Prince Charles and the likes of them. Albeit at different times throughout History these were the closest anybody got since William the Conqueror. Also on the sly side the Nazi's did invade Britain but didn't get very far (The Channel Islands the only part of Britain to be occupied in either of the World wars.)

But hey I could sit here and blab on about wanting a squadron of Spitfires of a Division of Anzac's, of a Division of Scots and yada yada yada. But the fact remains that Britain has not been conquered by an outside foe since 1066. Britain has been invaded and lost territory but not conquered and yes before you try to add they have been defeated. Yes they have been defeated but those bloody Pom's bounced back.

[MrHyde]

Goodness Gracious, I know these will never happen. Modern countries are too dependent on each other to really fight, as well as these being fantasy for the most part.

JonnyAngel thanks for those answers.

PS. Funny thing on the Mexico and Spain lol.