1.usa
2. China
3.Russia
4.UK
5.still debating
China might be number 1 but america has more advanced technology. China I dont think would be able to supply their massive army. They would however would be a hell of a defense. Russia has a better air force and maybe the most NW. Uk has some of the best trained men. Correct me if im wrong.
Strongest in terms of what?
If you’re talking about an all-out war, any country with a substantial number of ICBMs is essnetially as “Strong” as another. If the USA tried to conquer France, France has enough nuclear throw capability to reduce most of the major cities in the USA to a smoking ruin, which would effectively destroy the United States as a country.
So France is unquestionably in the top five, and in terms of all-out war there is really no difference that matters betwene the top five; any one of them could cause any of the others to cease to exist in its curent form. After that, the countries with nuclear weapons but without a substantial ICBM capability - India, Pakistan, Israel. (There is some question as to whether North Korea has a nuclear weapon or not.)
If you mean “Stronger” in some other way you might want to define your terms. “Strength” in military terms is often defined by the objective. Who was “Stronger” in 1971 - the United States or North Vietnam? Who won the war between them?
Ah you’re right. My apologies, military strength. NW excluded
I don’t know. I’d say Russia’s War Bears are pretty good against our infantry, and their Tesla Troopers can wreak havoc on our Guardian Tanks.
Are we talking raw numbers, military power that can be projected beyond a countries borders, military power used within a country, or something else? The answers vary depending on what you are talking about.
Regardless it’s:
USA
…
…
…
Germany/UK/France
South Korea/Japan
China/Russia
(not sure after this)
China would only make number two if you are talking about numbers of troops that could, in theory, be used if they were attacked. Other than that they aren’t going to be in the running. Neither is Russia anymore. And none of these countries, with the exception of the US can project any sort of large military force beyond their borders or territory (the Europeans can project power pretty much over most or all of Europe, so that sort of crosses national boundaries).
-XT
South Korea’s in the running, but Japan’s been demilitarized since WWII ended. Only in recent years have they developed their own independent defense forces in addition to U.S.A. occupation.
After the Falklands were invaded, the UK soundly pwn3d Argentina in a massive overseas operation halfway 'round the globe, without requesting assistance from the U.S.A. or our allies. So we’re not the only nation who can surgically strike a distant target.
Like I said, there are a lot of factors. I put Japan in more along the lines of ‘local non-nuclear defense’ than power projection. South Korea as well.
I’m not talking about a surgical strike, I’m talking about the ability to move a large enough part of your military any great distance using your own logistics capabilities to do something. You will note that I put the UK in second, yes? They have at least a limited capability to move armor, troops and supplies at relatively great distances and have a credible fighting force at the other end. But no one is in the same league as the US. This isn’t Rah! Rah! AMERICA! stuff…it’s reality. We spend more on our military than anyone else world wide, and we get more out of it. Simple as that.
-XT
China could beat the United States in a war quite easily. A war between the United States and China would go like this.
Step 1: China ceases to buy up U. S. Treasury securities and dumps its current stockpile of securities onto the open market. This causes massive panic in the financial markets.
Step 2: China stops all exports of clothing, food, computers, and other manufactured goods to the United States. Within a few days, Americans are running low on almost all basic necessities.
Step 3: China accepts the surrender of the United States.
Many Americans still fantasize about having an all-powerful military than can crush everybody and win every war in a few minutes. Amazingly enough, they believe this even after the spanking we’ve taken in the Middle East over the past decade. The Chinese, on the other hand, are smart enough to realize that tanks and battleships won’t determine the winner of the next major war. We live in a globalized world, with globalized markets and a globalized financial system. Whoever controls the markets and the financial system controls the world. China has that control. They actually manufacture things that we need. They provide debt financing that we need. They have us by the balls and the leaders of both nations know it.
What’s rather strange to think about is that smaller, weaker nations such as France, Russia, and Japan might actually be able to defeat China, while the United States has no hope of doing so.
You forgot
Step 4: China’s economy completely collapses and there are riots in the streets and all trade ceases.
Step 5: Starvation and financial collapse leads to revolution in China. Chinese leaders are dragged out of their homes and strung up like pinatas. Millions die.
The fantasy here is that China could do what you propose any time they want, and that only the US would be affected. Total fantasy. Such a move would destroy China as well as financial, economic and trade world wide.
-XT
i’m pretty sure HH Asquith, Raymond Poincare, Wilhelm II, and Franz Joseph thought the same thing some 100 years ago. sorry to say, global markets are not a very “new” idea.
and i’m sure china isn’t “scheming” to control the toothbrush manufacturing. they’re doing it by default. they lack the technology to mass produce technology and are churning out wal-mart items because that’s the only thing they can. believe me, if they could be fashioning silicon chips instead of happy meal toys? they would.
also, the financial deposits would be more important to crippling the US. than running out of… hand towels. mexico is a strong producer and the US itself still has large sectors of manufacturing.
but also, an act of war would void TBills held in Chinese hands… which would be “beneficial” to say the least.
anyway, the answer is US in any militant scenario.
as far as “corrections” goes, the OP can start by changing the thread title.
Given that they hold $900 billion in Treasuries and the US debt is $14 Trillion, I’d say the dangers of them attempting to ‘cash in’ are massively overblown.
Iii
My apologies, new to the forum thing. But in military strength.
I think you are the one here indulging in fantasy.
With due respect to those who have lost their lives, we have not taken a “spanking” in Iraq or Afghanistan; we have only failed to “spank” them. This is because we are not engaging in full-on, open war, which we presumably would be in the hypothetical situations posited in threads like this. Creative little fuckers like Al Qaeda can deliver critical strikes to us without much effort, but it will be a long time before anyone can touch us in 20th century-style open warfare (assuming that ever happens again).
I recall reading somewhere that manufacturing for the international market accounts for about twenty million Chinese jobs. Surely no one in China wants to lose those jobs, but it’s a hit they could survive.
The more important points are these. China is the world’s biggest export of stuff. The United States is the world’s biggest importer. Manufacturing stuff for export gives you power. Needing imports costs you power. This has always been true to some extent, but it’s true to a much greater extent now than before, because of much larger percentage of our stuff is manufactured overseas.
Also, there’s a difference in mentality between Americans and the Chinese. Americans have gotten the idea that we should expect a certain level of well-being, and that it’s the government’s job to guarantee that to us. This much is evident in the response to the financial crisis. The people of China have no such pretentions. If there were a war between the two nations, the Chinese people as a whole would be much more willing to endure economic sacrifices than the American people.
I agree that a war between the two would be quite painful for both countries, and that gives leaders in both countries a motivation to avoid it. However, that is not a guarantee it won’t happen. It’s been known for national leaders to plunge rashly into war that hurts their country badly based only on their own egos. The United States did so in Iraq eight years. Since it’s happened before, it may happen again.
China’s ownership of treasury bills would not be a major impact if we were engaged in a conventional war with China. Such a conventional war would be akin to (although probably not as serious economically) World War II, so that means the U.S. economy would be pseudo-nationalized already.
The United States is one of the (if not the) world’s largest producer of food. We are one of the (if not the) world’s largest exporters of food. We have the world’s largest manufacturing sector in terms of value of goods produced, and it’s grown over the last 20 years, not decreased.
China on the other hand, not too long ago was actually unable to produce enough food to feed itself, and thus required imports of food to feed its people. I believe they now produce enough food to feed themselves, but they do not have anywhere near the agricultural surplus that the United States has. So no, China shutting off trade with the United States would not in fact starve us.
Secondly, clothing doesn’t turn into dust instantaneously. America has enough clothes to get by for a long time. During World War II era rationing people made do with things a lot longer than you would realize. Of course, we also make some clothes ourselves and there are over 100 countries in the world that Americans buy clothing from.
Thirdly, globalization makes this whole part of your argument seem fairly ignorant. Even assuming the United States needs Chinese trade to feed its people and clothe them (something that is definitely not true on either count), assuming China stopped selling that stuff to us what would stop us from buying those same goods from whatever country China did sell them to? What’s China going to do, totally stop all exports, in fear that any of 150 other countries in the world might buy up her goods and sell them to the United States (achieving a profit by acting as middle man)? Well, get back to me after you’ve pondered what would happen if China decided to withdraw from the world economy and cease 100% of her exports.
There’s a reason Napoleon sought to deny all of Europe from trading with the British. It is because even 200 years ago it was understood that France could refuse to trade with the UK, but as long as the various German, Iberian, and Scandinavian, and Mediterranean states kept their ports open the UK effectively still had access to the full produce of the continent. That’s why there were attempts to control the high seas, to isolate the enemy from all trade. So unless China could close trade with everyone, they couldn’t stop us from getting her goods.
In the real world of course a conventional war between China and the United States is about as realistic as the movie The Core.
The United States, at least as of 2006, was the world’s largest agricultural exporter, with exports valued at $42.8 billion.
China, despite having a very large agricultural sector, isn’t even on the top 10 of that list. Which means that you can conclude the overwhelming majority of what they produce is needed domestically.
No one will argue the United States would suffer as shortage of television sets and other commodities, but food is not something we need China for, given we produce a huge amount of food and consume a huge amount of food but are the largest agricultural exporters in the world.
Remind me why our tax dollars are propping this industry up?
Because every state gets two senators.