I think it's a common belief in the US that Russia and China are allied (maybe dating from the Cold War). As far as I know, this is very inaccurate -- they basically haven't liked each other since like 1960, but since neither one is a US ally (and both were communist states in the Cold War), people lump them together.

"Haven't liked" is a too nice way to put it - there were several armed conflicts with heavy casualties between USSR and PRC. Today I'd say China is more allied with Western countries rather than with Russia - many countries including USA have factories in China which do a solid contribution to their economy. On the other hand Russia has vast and scarcely populated lands, and 2 milliard Chinese are interested in it. 

 

All in all, I'd say no one will benefit from war, especially China. As I said, they almost never won wars, but always achieved their goals by other tactics. Economy today is valued much more than armed crusades - which is good for us, I believe 

I'm not sure about the Japanese, as they only have a small defense force. They'd have to be supplied with all the weapons and resources before they could play a major role if a war were to break out.

 

Japan would not be a manpower help, but more technologically. Providing the latest technology and more then likely even machinery/motor vehicles. 

 

Although Russia is a powerful nation, they're hated. Whilst they have a HUGE oil deal with China, both sides are suspicious of each other and aren't generally friendly at all. Despite many nations disagreeing and disliking each other if there was a threat of World War III, nuclear warfare or whatever you wish to call it, many nations would pack together to minimize the chances of war breaking out or escalating. There is no winners in nuclear war.

1.  

sad but true...some people just don't get it especially the op...mark my word russia will defeat the united states, china and russia are not enemies and they plan on dumping the dollar very soon

We can't do nothing, it was recently his birthday

August 4

I don't know why most people here are weighing nations individually. Its more than obvious that allies would jump in despite of how technologically advanced they are or how much manpower they got and thats whats gonna make a difference. I just don't want a situation like that to happen ever; given the technology we have, we'll most likely all end up blowing ourselves up and the survivors will have to start the society all over again which isn't exactly a pleasant thought.

 

China: has always sucked at wars, yes, but they're the main source of almost all of the international disturbance and tensions in the Asian Pacific region. According to the wiki, China has been claiming ownership of the regions which doesn't belong to them and has been provocating territorial disputes with the following countries: Hong Kong, Bhutan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Mongolia, Malaysia and Brunei. Not too long ago, they had a stand off with the States when they allegedly/illegally declared Japan's Senkaku islands a Chinese Air Defense identification Zone (ADIZ). Due to the US-Japan treaty, the US stood up and protested against the Chinese move but the Chinese don't listen. Similarly, they have claimed Philippine waters which caused the US to interfere again. They also gobble up Indian territory every once in a while and then add it to their official map.

 

Japan: These guys are smart. No kidding. They may not have the manpower, but they got the brains. I mean if they can produce the world's fastest trains on an island which receives 1500 earthquakes a year on an average, they're not your average Joes. If they can keep their nuclear reactors from blowing up their own country despite frequent threats of tsunamis, they ARE something. So the Japanese aren't something you wanna mess with. For the most part, they're peaceful people but provoking them will be someone's one hell of a mistake.

 

Russia: Some people here think Russia don't mean shit. Well, I would advise them to go read some shit about Russia. I mean the USA is tough talk I get it, but underestimating Russia is plain foolish.

 

The reason I talk about these countries above is because in a war-like situation, Asia has most of the superpowers (talking of quantity) and they may team up if required. Russia, Japan and India (optionally China) may team up against the West if anything happens (assuming UK, Germany, USA and the UK join forces).

 

Besides, every government has some well hidden secrets about their actual technology and what they're actually capable of doing one on one. Believe it or not, every year some whistleblowers sacrifice their lives trying to uncover this classified info in almost every powerful country. Its another thing that we never get to know about them as that news is suppressed by the government before it even reaches the media. So, who's got what will only come out when a world war starts. Which I never want to happen.

Edited August 6, 201411 yr by Troy

We'll whatever the case the last this country needs is a war besides wars cost too much money, and one more question, are we allies with Brazil?

?

Japan: These guys are smart. No kidding. They may not have the manpower, but they got the brains. I mean if they can produce the world's fastest trains on an island which receives 1500 earthquakes a year on an average, they're not your average Joes. If they can keep their nuclear reactors from blowing up their own country despite frequent threats of tsunamis, they ARE something. So the Japanese aren't something you wanna mess with. For the most part, they're peaceful people but provoking them will be someone's one hell of a mistake.

Japan also doesn't have that big a defense industry. Nor do they have a very large military, and the US provides a substantial amount of Japan's security.

 

Russia: Some people here think Russia don't mean shit. Well, I would advise them to go read some shit about Russia. I mean the USA is tough talk I get it, but underestimating Russia is plain foolish.

Well, by definition underestimating someone is a bad idea, but Russia is not in anywhere near the sort of position the Soviet Union was in.

The reason I talk about these countries above is because in a war-like situation, Asia has most of the superpowers (talking of quantity) and they may team up if required. Russia, Japan and India (optionally China) may team up against the West if anything happens (assuming UK, Germany, USA and the UK join forces).

Not a chance. Many countries in Asia are very much not allied with each other. Russia and China are not allies; they are closer than they were in the Cold War, but tensions still exist. China and Japan have approximately negative chance of an alliance -- Japan has an alliance with the US (there are over 50,000 US troops in Japan, more than in any other foreign country), and Japan and China do not like each other. Russia and Japan are not allies in the slightest (Japan has among the highest percentages of the world of citizens who view Russia unfavorably). India has border tensions with China. In terms of superpowers, China might be becoming a superpower (though having power in the area around China does not make them a superpower; superpower requires global power, so you need to be able to have significant influence around the world); Russia is also a regional power, but as of now not a superpower; India is not a superpower, nor has it ever been (as it doesn't have anywhere near the requisite degree of global influence). Size alone does not make a country a superpower; the UK was a superpower in the era of the British Empire, although the UK itself is fairly small. Superpower status has to do with global (not regional) influence.

Japan also doesn't have that big a defense industry. Nor do they have a very large military, and the US provides a substantial amount of Japan's security.

I know. Will address this issue.

 

Well, by definition underestimating someone is a bad idea, but Russia is not in anywhere near the sort of position the Soviet Union was in.

True. But then again, as you say, being a superpower is not about size. And we all know that Russians have definitely got the guts.

 

Not a chance. Many countries in Asia are very much not allied with each other. Russia and China are not allies; they are closer than they were in the Cold War, but tensions still exist. China and Japan have approximately negative chance of an alliance -- Japan has an alliance with the US (there are over 50,000 US troops in Japan, more than in any other foreign country), and Japan and China do not like each other. Russia and Japan are not allies in the slightest (Japan has among the highest percentages of the world of citizens who view Russia unfavorably). India has border tensions with China. In terms of superpowers, China might be becoming a superpower (though having power in the area around China does not make them a superpower; superpower requires global power, so you need to be able to have significant influence around the world); Russia is also a regional power, but as of now not a superpower; India is not a superpower, nor has it ever been (as it doesn't have anywhere near the requisite degree of global influence). Size alone does not make a country a superpower; the UK was a superpower in the era of the British Empire, although the UK itself is fairly small. Superpower status has to do with global (not regional) influence.

You ignored my brackets in the words "(optionally China)". There's a reason why I wrote it like that. I stated it in my post that the Chinese are picking fights with everyone so clearly, they're not going to be allies with anyone, but just in case, you know. Nothing in this world has a 100 percent guarantee. At the end of the day all everyone craves for, is survival, and before that, victory. So, like I said. You never know.

As for the other part, you're weighing all nations individually which I am avoiding as of now. I made it very clear in my previous posts that when allies step in, you are dealing with an entirely different scenario. Lets up the stakes and look at the big picture: Do not forget that Russia, China and India have the largest armies besides the USA, and none of the western countries are in the top 10 list of the same. Now Russia and Japan have the technology and China does the bulk of manufacturing for the globe so there goes another point to Asia. I'm not saying that all other countries are worthless, I am just replying to you in your style.

Edited August 6, 201411 yr by Troy

I know. Will address this issue.

 

True. But then again, as you say, being a superpower is not about size. And we all know that Russians have definitely got the guts.

 

You ignored my brackets in the words "(optionally China)". There's a reason why I wrote it like that. I stated it in my post that the Chinese are picking fights with everyone so clearly, they're not going to be allies with anyone, but just in case, you know. Nothing in this world has a 100 percent guarantee. At the end of the day all everyone craves for, is survival, and before that, victory. So, like I said. You never know.

As for the other part, you're weighing all nations individually which I am avoiding as of now. I made it very clear in my previous posts that when allies step in, you are dealing with an entirely different scenario. Lets up the stakes and look at the big picture: Do not forget that Russia, China and India have the largest armies besides the USA, and none of the western countries are in the top 10 list of the same. Now Russia and Japan have the technology and China does the bulk of manufacturing for the globe so there goes another point to Asia. I'm not saying that all other countries are worthless, I am just replying to you in your style.

All everyone craves for is greed, power, and wealth.

sad but true...some people just don't get it especially the op...mark my word russia will defeat the united states, china and russia are not enemies and they plan on dumping the dollar very soon

No offense man, but it seems like you're drowning in American propaganda. Let me ask you this, what leads you to believe that Russia would so easily blow over the United States?

The US has about twice the population fit for military service that Russia has. Russia does *not* have a large population - it has only half the population of the US, with a dip at the teenage years (which is where people are entering an age where they could reasonably serve in the military). You may be confusing Russia with the substantially larger Soviet Union.

Actually measuring the force power of each militaries, Russia and the US are usually equal. It measures variables such as the size of all the services (AF, navy, etc), training, technology, leadership.

Actually measuring the force power of each militaries, Russia and the US are usually equal. It measures variables such as the size of all the services (AF, navy, etc), training, technology, leadership.

Source? The US active-duty military is larger than Russia's; the reserve is smaller, so Russia has more total troops, *but* Russia has conscription and the US does not, and the US has far more room to expand the military.

And let's not forget NATO. If Russia were to declare war on the US, first they would have to take care of NATO countries in Europe (which means my homeland would get hit first). Russia could easily stomp the NATO in Europe, but that would give time for the US to mobilize and send troops.

 

Also, Russia supplies most of the natural gas and oil to the EU - a war with Russia would mean civil unrest due to lack of heating and, to a lesser extent, power, for western Europe.

 

However, to defeat Russia is almost impossible due to harsh winters and a huge territory.

So I'm guessing we're not allies with Brazil or other Latin America countries.

However, to defeat Russia is almost impossible due to harsh winters and a huge territory.

USSR successfully defeated itself

 

For everyone who doesn't follow our news - today mr.putin banned import of all food from countries which supported sanctions against Russia. We have huge inflation, many budget issues, and people can't eat pure propaganda. Don't think about military solutions - today wars are won economically

Of course, I meant to defeat it militarily.

Attempting to militarily defeat (i.e. defeat and occupy) a nuclear power is also not something one would expect a sane leader, especially not one who leads a nuclear power themselves, to do.

Every president will be like this. Read on the "Military Industrial Complex". Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of this in his farewell speech. Our legislative branch, our armed forces, arms industry, and economy get addicted to going to war. It'll find ways to go to war, and stay in war because of this. It's one of the only true ways this country makes money.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/world/asia/afghanistan-us-troops/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2013/09/06/3897e436-170a-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/obama-troops-iraq_n_5545435.html

 

You were saying?

 

Really? That's interesting, didn't know that American economy depends so much on military industry. 

It's a love triangle basically lol. They all circulate money to eachother.

Really? That's interesting, didn't know that American economy depends so much on military industry.