China+Russia+India+France etc vs USA+UK+Australia+Canada+etc

[mayanks_098]

So thats my weird question.
Lets face a hypothetical situation. There is a war between these two sides.
One is:
Russia+China+India+France+ all other natural(likely) allies

Other is:
USA+UK+Australia+Canada + all other natural/likely allies

Who do you think is gonna win?
You think US has the might to take on (virtaully) thw hole world in Russia-China-India-France etc?
Or you think these countries have already developed enough strategically capable of beating US in the battle of US vs ANY of the two from (RUSS-China-Ind)?
With and without nukes?
Which has the max firepower.
Give reason to support your views.

ofcourse you may come up with your own reasons for the grouping of the countries if you think mine was not appropiate,but i think its gonna be more or less the same,or Aus might switch from US to Russ-Sino-Ind side.

And most importantly,im not a war supporter.may the deadly weapons we make are never used.but i was just curious

BTW my vote goes to side with Russ+China+Ind.
Though there will be widespread destruction no doubt,but this side will be able to do more damage. i think.(Option 3 seems very relevant)
because.to counter US's nukes(if it arises) can be done with help of Russia.
And manpower,well India and Chinese forces have enough of it.

My views may be different than yours,because:
im not an expert so i might miss on something.
im not you,so say yourself politely,if interested

[dheeraj_kumar]

Command and Conquer - Generals, and Red Alert 2(Skirmish). Both of these games revolve around these two factions. :D good choice!

[gagandeep]

Well, Russia has the world's largest Nuclear Arsenal, even larger than USA's.......

[amd64_man2005]

What is UK doing in there??Uk will start off an ally for the US and then backstab US itslef..and sure guys..theres a world war 3 coming u..with crude oil prices soaring high everyone will want their share of supremacy...USA has huge oil reserves which they are not utilizing..instead they targeded iraq and destroyed all the oil firms...the only motive is to dry u oil for the future so that they get a monopoly in the sector in the coming years..hopefully...the world would rise to it..but the aftermath of the rise may be a war..

[kumarmohit]

The thing here is you just can not say becuase an actual war in never fought with the number of guns and bombs and people you have. Its a lot about the propaganda, how you impact people of the place where the war goes on and even ppl back home. Can you keep on production to carry on war effort?

And above all, the degree of experience you have in strategic warfare, maintenance of long and stretched supply lines.

In the above groups, no country except Russia (The French lost in WW2 unless the Brits and Americans saved their sorry selves) to a certain extent has exp. in strategic warfare. Barring Russia and PRC, most of the other countries are dependent on either Russia or PRC or the countries in other group for their military hardware.

On the other side, most of the countries in the USA UK grp are self reliant on military hardware. Plus United States has enough oil in its country and Canada that even Gulf supplies breakdown totally they can wage the war for a long time. Above all almost all the countries in the group have a lot of exp in strategic warfare that they gained in the two WWs.

While the second grp definitely has a high hand, it would be extremely difficult to say who wins.

[~Rahul~]

Anyone here played Rise Of Nations?

Side 1 with Russ,Sino,Ind will definately beat Side 2, And only Pakistan and North Korea (Rogue nations) depends on PRC for military equipment, PRC itself heavily depends on Russia for military equipment.

[praka123]

another world war -who will suffer?mother earth may get eliminated :rolleyes:

[krates]

nobody will win everybody will die !!!

[T159]

another world war -who will suffer?mother earth may get eliminated :rolleyes:
mother earth will resurrect again :D She ain't no n00b, we the people are n00b

Btw Canada will not back USA.

[uppalpankaj]

Can't say anything which side will win but mankind will definitely lose....

[MetalheadGautham]

am I the only guy who chose the last option ?

[T159]

^^u r hallucinating :D

[MetalheadGautham]

^^u r hallucinating :D
I was the first guy who did.

[T159]

^^yeah thats wat am sayin :D

[hellgate]

On the other side, most of the countries in the USA UK grp are self reliant on military hardware.Above all almost all the countries in the group have a lot of exp in strategic warfare that they gained in the two WWs.

so if they hav so much of xperience then wat do ya hafta say bout Vietnam War?

[amd64_man2005]

Now China can't be trusted, it wil surely backstab India and after Us had fallen will try to conquer the world by force..i don't see this happening..well yea..if in the War of the Nations.. :D.. eurasia all the way.. :D

[mayanks_098]

The thing here is you just can not say becuase an actual war in never fought with the number of guns and bombs and people you have. Its a lot about the propaganda, how you impact people of the place where the war goes on and even ppl back home. Can you keep on production to carry on war effort?

And above all, the degree of experience you have in strategic warfare, maintenance of long and stretched supply lines.

In the above groups, no country except Russia (The French lost in WW2 unless the Brits and Americans saved their sorry selves) to a certain extent has exp. in strategic warfare. Barring Russia and PRC, most of the other countries are dependent on either Russia or PRC or the countries in other group for their military hardware.

On the other side, most of the countries in the USA UK grp are self reliant on military hardware. Plus United States has enough oil in its country and Canada that even Gulf supplies breakdown totally they can wage the war for a long time. Above all almost all the countries in the group have a lot of exp in strategic warfare that they gained in the two WWs.

While the second grp definitely has a high hand, it would be extremely difficult to say who wins.

Dude,like someone said, expirience isnt the only thing that counts like you said about the ammunitions and all.
The expirience of WW2,though can be helpfull, but IMO is too obsolete to give an edge with todays war fare. US still lost Vietnam.
US airforce, well it is amazingly superior, but China+Russia combined can tackle it.Whats the opinion of other guys? And army,well, side 1 has enough of man power.
I think it will boil down to a navy.The faster side 1 can bring down the US's mighty navy, sooner it will win.But its going to be like hell given the might and strong wide spread presence of US navy.
Though,any war is a loss for mankind and human rights.

Now China can't be trusted, it wil surely backstab India and after Us had fallen will try to conquer the world by force..i don't see this happening..well yea..if in the War of the Nations.. :D.. eurasia all the way.. :D

LOL
i am not sure they will even be capable of thinking it. Not because they cant beat India afresh, but, after beating US(if they could) they will have virtually way too less left to think of invading India. Beating this hypothetical side 1 wont be an easy job....:rolleyes:

[ax3]

so .... v all r gonna BLOWUP earth ..... with wars .......

[bikdel]

the grouping is very much a fasntasy hypothesis.....

the current war is againt terrorism ifyou ask me...

but for your question... Russian side will win.. why?
bigger country, US side cant attack so many fronts.. who said russia has less oil? it has much more oil than US .....

and siberian cold... it always helps russia to baffle its enemies..and china has the largest army and resources to create cheap yet hi-tech arsenals..... india has army, not much arsenal..... thats all i gotta say........

wheres germany?... yeah ww2 destroyed it but then again its better than france, etc...

but this is all waste.. we have UN now and situation is definitely better if not excellent than before... citizens have rights to rule out a war possibilty, human rights awareness is on the rise.... smaller wars may take place but WW3 possibility is ruled out....

[praka123]

but this is all waste.. we have UN now and situation is definitely better if not excellent than before... citizens have rights to rule out a war possibilty, human rights awareness is on the rise.... smaller wars may take place but WW3 possibility is ruled out....
leave middle east from your thoughts.they are going to be the reason for IIIrd world war if it ever happens :| for obvious reasons like oil shortage ,islamism and more.count KSA(saudi wahhabism) for trigger.

[MetalheadGautham]

leave middle east from your thoughts.they are going to be the reason for IIIrd world war if it ever happens :| for obvious reasons like oil shortage ,islamism and more.count KSA(saudi wahhabism) for trigger.
dude leave islam out of this :mad:

[The_Devil_Himself]

ha, kids and their fantasies.

[praka123]

islam and Islamism is different.read between lines :) I am NOT against Islam ,but against Islamism(read wahabbism,strong following of Islamic laws like shari-ath)

[rahimveron]

Gone through the end-time prophecies in The Bible,anyone ?

As for the comments of bikdel, I cant stop smiling in sarcasm to your views and so much faith in The United Nations :) You have Iraq on your face and yet you pretend The UN has any powers? Its all in the Preamble of The UN whcih is only implemented by wasting ink on the answer sheets in the exams. Its a farce in reality!!!
USA slapped every non-agreeing member of The UN and went ahead with its illegal invasion of Iraq and you still think people have Human Rights, and UN is capable of stopping power-intoxicated nation like USA?:rolleyes:

[bikdel]

leave middle east from your thoughts.they are going to be the reason for IIIrd world war if it ever happens :| for obvious reasons like oil shortage ,islamism and more.count KSA(saudi wahhabism) for trigger.

bold letters matter ;)

[mayanks_098]

Gone through the end-time prophecies in The Bible,anyone ?

As for the comments of bikdel, I cant stop smiling in sarcasm to your views and so much faith in The United Nations :) You have Iraq on your face and yet you pretend The UN has any powers? Its all in the Preamble of The UN whcih is only implemented by wasting ink on the answer sheets in the exams. Its a farce in reality!!!
USA slapped every non-agreeing member of The UN and went ahead with its illegal invasion of Iraq and you still think people have Human Rights, and UN is capable of stopping power-intoxicated nation like USA?:rolleyes:

exactly what i wanted to say after seeing that comment from bikdel.
UN is a failure when it comes to matters involving US.

[FilledVoid]

Either way everyone loses. War is no solution to anything. Of course there are times when its a last resort though.

[karmanya]

I don't see the merit of going to all out war. China and India togethor can ruin America in the blink of an eye. And I'm not bull shitting. Consider China's foreign reserves. China Has over 1 trillion american dollars. If it places those on the currency market, then america's economy goes bye-bye.
India will be needed to support china, lets face it china will be loosing a trillion dollars which will have serious impacts on its economy.

[madjeri]

I don't see the merit of going to all out war. China and India togethor can ruin America in the blink of an eye. And I'm not bull shitting. Consider China's foreign reserves. China Has over 1 trillion american dollars. If it places those on the currency market, then america's economy goes bye-bye.
India will be needed to support china, lets face it china will be loosing a trillion dollars which will have serious impacts on its economy.


Well lets consider....

china did this.....ok...which country in the world would fight a far knowing that it would make them atleast half time weak....

what u said is doable..but no one in sense would ever think to do..so this could not be even considered....

and india supporting china???to overcome 1 trillion dollar......u do know that it would be about 42 trillion rupee right..last time i heard we are not so good in that money reserve area..we have a good amount..not for squander.....

[karmanya]

Yes because a war with Russia+China+India+France on one side and USA+UK+Australia+Canada is enitrely plausible.

[abhijangda]

i am suuporting side1 of China+Russia+India. First, thing China may become worlds superpower leaving USA behind. Coz its expanding its power. IInd Russia is or may be the worlds IInd superpower and IIIrd India has such technologies and manpower. So, I thinkg that this group will win. But remember that India is a peaceloving country and it hasn't attacked any other country from centuries. So, India may not take part in this war. Remember after Independence in the times of cold war. India makes alliance with other countries like Egypt etc. (It was Non-Aligned Movement.). So there are man chances that it may not take part in war.

[ax3]

1 BOMB & whoosh goes EVERYBODY ....... 2 dust .......

WOW ...... T2 kinda effect .........

so is 2012, THE END of US ???

[ssdivisiongermany1933]

Thread creator doesn't know that france is an major ally of USA and one most prominent member of NATO and other military alliance ....

[~Rahul~]

Well China still keeps bullying us because of the 1962 debacle, and the Chinese cannot be trusted.

[phuchungbhutia]

Nobody can be trusted and china is economically better placed . . Problem with our india i think is its capitalistic views which dissatisfies its huge population . . If it had been totally communist then may be with the workforce like our we could ve bettered even china . . And maybe thats why cpm is so strong in poor and populated states . .

[Aberforth]

Hate to point that out, but the OP's alignment is completely unrealistic, considering the current geopolitics.

France is a key NATO ally and Western bloc country, hence the French would never ally with the SCO East bloc countries like Russia or China that are essentially anti-thesis of NATO. India and China would never align on one side, as both these countries have clash of interests when it comes to international politics. India sees China as its biggest adversary while China sees India as its third biggest rival.

A more realistic alignment would be: -

Russia + China + Kazakhstan + Iran + Cuba = Side 1
US + UK + France + Australia + Pakistan = Side 2

India would have to choose between its two 'evils', Pakistan one one side and China on the other. It might motivate India to either remain neutral or choose the lesser and more familiar adversary. India chose to remain neutral during the Cold War, so it is quite likely it will do so again, in the face of imminent extinction that a US vs Russia war would bring.

About the question, who will win the war? Well if things go nuclear, the answer is pretty simple - no one. Russia, which has the largest and deadliest nuclear stockpile would completely obliterate the United States and burn most of its NATO allies to ground while the US would be able to destroy most of Russia and its SCO allies. In the end there would only be rubble and glass expanses, and perhaps an end to human civilisation.

[madjeri]

^^^....

to be honest...let it be done..my wish

[ssdivisiongermany1933]

other combo may be ...India + Israel + USA and China +pakistan+Iran

India : PakistaN
iSRAEL : iRAN
USA : China ... 3 in 1 archrivals ...always tend to show inferior each other

[praka123]

India is a neutral(so called) nation. India should lead the world.for that ,unfortunately democracy cant help.

[T159]

u guys really want another war ! lolz...good luck :rolleyes:

[~Rahul~]

other combo may be ...India + Israel + USA and China +pakistan+Iran

India : PakistaN
iSRAEL : iRAN
USA : China ... 3 in 1 archrivals ...always tend to show inferior each other

Yup India and Pakistan are archrivals, But they cannot be compared at all,

India's sheer size, economy, military, population, tactical capablities are miles ahead of Pakistan.

Same way China also cannot be compared to the USA.

[swordfish]

Never expect anything from french people.. they will leave whatever important work on lunch time :D evan war..
Second.. France and UK can not be on same side because of their own culture..

SO combo could be..

India + Israel + Russia
Us + Pakistan + China (may be)

[Aberforth]

India is a neutral(so called) nation. India should lead the world.for that ,unfortunately democracy cant help.
India, as one of the most corrupt and ethically bankrupt countries in the world, is hardly a country that should (or could) lead the world.

Never expect anything from french people.. they will leave whatever important work on lunch time :D evan war..
Well, they know they are unlikely to win the war so they might as well enjoy to the hilt by having good food and making passionate love. :p

France and UK can not be on same side because of their own culture..
They will be on one side when a powerful nation threatens both their countries, like Germany did in WW2 or USSR did in Cold War.

[ssdivisiongermany1933]

Never expect anything from french people.. they will leave whatever important work on lunch time :D evan war..
Second.. France and UK can not be on same side because of their own culture..

SO combo could be..

India + Israel + Russia
Us + Pakistan + China (may be)

they will even look for out for dating their enemy's women's tooo

[T159]

^^thats not dating its *aping

[nix]

China is the most untrustworthy and selfish country of all times. they are funding genocide in tibet and africa. its no secret. they claim our lands too. india is the only country in the world which can afford to give away land. no country has given away land as easy as india did and continues to do so. china should also be included in the axis of evil. they are indirectly controlling the govts of burma and taiwan and attempt to do so in india too through the left parties.

russia is again a shady , secretive society like china where capital punishment is done on a daily basis. corruption is rife in that country.

india as you know, is weak from the inside. thats why we cannot even dare to challenge pakistan. forget pak, we cannot even question a country like bangadesh, which had returned our dead soldiers in a very disrespectful way. terrorists are again pouring in from the bangla border. islamist extremism is rampant tthere.

france: better placed that the above mentioned countries. they have the guts to condemn china's inhumane acts. i applaud nicholas sarkozys decision to critisize china over the tibet issue.

there is no reason why we should even be thinking about a force to counter the US. The US is a free society and they are a responsible superpower. right now, if china invades us, US will help us. the way it did help kuwait. russia will not help us.

i tellyou, the US is the best country.

what india should do, is band along with the US, UK and Aus and the japs etc to counter the chinese threat.

[praka123]

china -sleeping dragon :rolleyes:

[T159]

^^like this
http://images.elfwood.com/art/j/o/johntex/never_wake_a_sleeping_dragon.jpg.rZd.156830.jpg

[Aberforth]

they will even look for out for dating their enemy's women's tooo
They may look out, but they are unlikely to find dates among the enemy's women. Unless of course, she is a spy or a double crosser.

China is the most untrustworthy and selfish country of all times. they are funding genocide in tibet and africa.
China, like any other powerful country, looks for its own interest. China doesn't fund any genocides in Africa nor did it attempt to meddle in the politics of countries it does business with. As for what China is doing to Tibet, is it any different or any more than what we are doing to North East or Kashmir? The only difference is, the North Easterns don't have the political significance to command billions of CIA propaganda dollars.

.... corruption is rife in that country.
Which again, is less than in India. At least a Russian can expect a passport or an export license without paying bribes to at least three officials, like they do in India. Murderers and rapists can be expected to be prosecuted without a trial lasting a minimum of 20 years.

india as you know, is weak from the inside. thats why we cannot even dare to challenge pakistan. forget pak, we cannot even question a country like bangadesh, which had returned our dead soldiers in a very disrespectful way. terrorists are again pouring in from the bangla border. islamist extremism is rampant tthere.
India is militarily the second most powerful country in Asia, we can easily overrun Pakistan in a matter of days. The problem is not that Indians are weak, the problem is that our political leaders lack the political will to have an aggressive foreign policy against countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh. We overran Pakistan in 1971, when Pakistan's military was backed by the United States. We made one of the largest mass surrenders in history by taking 90000 Pakistani soldiers captive in a single battle.

france: better placed that the above mentioned countries. they have the guts to condemn china's inhumane acts. i applaud nicholas sarkozys decision to critisize china over the tibet issue.
Sarkozy knows as well as any sane person does, criticism will do nothing to change the Chinese government stance on Tibet.

right now, if china invades us, US will help us.
Not really. US cares only about its own interests and if there is a China vs India war, US back out. Attacking China is less in its interests than China attacking India is. In fact, in the 1971 War against Pakistan, the US sent USS Enterprise armed with nuclear missiles to strike Indian cities if India goes ahead with its plan to liberate Bangladesh. It is only because of a Russian nuclear submarine from Vladivostok that tailed the Enterprise on Indira Gandhi's call for help, that millions of Indians didn't become victims of a nuclear holocaust.

At present United States is the biggest arms supplier to one of the most anti-Indian countries on the planet - Pakistan. It is also the biggest trade partner with the biggest military threat to India - China. Its all about politics and business, if you trust US to help against China, you might as well move all Indians to the Maldives. :)

...the way it did help kuwait. russia will not help us.
US didn't help Kuwait. US protected its strategic economic and military in Kuwait from Iraqi attacks. If Iraq took over Kuwait and US didn't do anything about it, they'd have lost military bases, the goodwill of Arab oil leagues like Saudi Arabia and also risked their strategic influence in the Middle East. If the Middle Eastern region were rich with avocados instead of petroleum, Kuwait would have been an Iraqi province and Saddam would have been the US recognised President of Iraq.

i tellyou, the US is the best country.
US may be the best country for Pakistani and Saudi Arabian interests, but definitely not for us Indians.

[~Rahul~]

@ nix ,

India weak from within?? LMAO,

Cmon if India were "weak" like you mentioned would we be able to maintain our territorial integrity and sovereignty surrounded by many hostile nations?

And the only reason the pakis, the banglas and the chinks treat us like this is because of our gutless and spineless politicians and government, we have quite a potent military and we can easily overrun the pakis and banglas, and can even bring the chinks to their knees,

We must be aggressive to our adversaries, else they walk all over us

First those CPI ba$tards must lookout for India's national intrests instead of worrying about what the chinks think.