This might be a Great Debate, already answered, etc., rather than GQ, but here goes.
I’m sure there have been studies done on just about every potential scenario, so I’m directing this question to those familiar with same or at least are knowledgeable on the subject.
MINUS nukes, political considerations, common sense, etc., what is the conventional wisdom on the current US military v. the top ten most capable current militaries, according to Jane’s or whomever, i.e. US v. China, US v. Russia, etc.
In other words, if the US decided to invade India or Great Britain decided to invade the US, etc., what are the expected results?
something tells me that “conventional wisdom” in Washington and in Beijing on this issue is pretty divergent. Although the Chinese don’t necessarily trumpet their opinions with the same fanfare that Pentagon does.
Incidentally, what was the conventional wisdom about the likely outcome of a possible France-Germany conflict back in 1938?
From what I understand, the US spends slightly more on our military than all other nations combined. I don’t know if we get the same bang for our buck as everyone else, but I’d expect it would at least not be too much worse.
The USA spends a ridiculously large sum of money on its military.
No single army could successfully invade the USA. This doesn’t even count the ridiculous amount of rebellion that would come from the American public as soon as the first foreign trooper landed on US soil.
As for the USA invading another country? We’ve already demonstrated that it’s nearly impossible to invade an occupy a small, relatively backward nation, much less a more populated (like India) one.
Sorry, that is why I mentioned the independant Jane’s. NK of course probably thinks it can take anyone, so that is why I’m interested in CW, not a particulary country’s assessment.
Going in one direction, no country could invade the US and win. Most countries would have the problem of supply lines, i.e., having to get troops and everything they need across an ocean. Canada and Mexico don’t have that problem, but their armed forces would be no match for the US.
Going the other way, US has supply line problems too, but they can handle a small military power like Iraq or Afghanistan fine, if everyone else cooperates. But:
(1) China’s too big, and here numbers of military would outgun the US.
(2) India might be easier, especially if China and Pakistan cooperate, but other countries would likely come to help India, askng why the US is invading a country that is peaceful, neutral, and no threat to the US.
(3) The last country to win a war with Russia was Japan, and Japan did not invade Russia. If Hitler and Napoleon can’t do it, why would the US be able to?
(4) Canada and the major European countries belong to NATO. Before the US invaded, it might want to get out of that treaty. However, the treaty would still bind the other members: could the US defeat a united Western Europe plus Canada?
But hasn’t China always been “too big?” Has fallen to just about every major invader? Mongols, Colonials, Japanese (but for the US in WWII), MacArthur (but for Truman in Korean War)?
I think you are missing a key point of mine. “Conventional wisdom” has no way to know for sure how some important aspects of a great power war would play out. E.g. American conventional wisdom says that air carriers rule. They are a vital component of the American continental defense plans as well as foreign wars of aggression plans.
Well, will that particular component work out in “real war”? Or do the Chinese have weapons and/or tactics that could actually defeat the carrier groups? Are such weapons/tactics even feasible in the first place? If you want an answer to this question, who are you going to ask? You can google for the Chinese “assassin’s mace” strategic concept, but what conventional wisdom is going to tell you whether they do or do not have a workable assassin’s mace now or in the near future?
Likewise, satellites play a big role in smooth functioning of American military. Chinese did lots of work on anti-satellite weapons. How good are they are at it? How much damage would their attacks against American satellites do to American war effort? Again, who is going to tell us, even if they had some sort of answer?
Do you see what I am getting at? This is not like “let’s count their cavalry and our cavalry and see who will be bigger Mongol chieftain”. There is a lot of key info which is simply not available that could swing the balance one way or the other.
Incidentally, the conventional wisdom in 1938 was that France-Germany conflict would be a slow, fixed front lines war in the vicinity of the Maginot line. That’s why the French built that line in the first place. The Germans, obligingly, built their own Siegfried line parallel to that, although on much smaller scale.
It’ll always come down to home court advantage, if the US is the hinge.
A perhaps easier question to answer is if the US and it’s enemy agreed to meet up on an isolated continent and duke it out. Equal supply lines, no need to worry about civilian insurrections in held areas, full political freedom. In that kind of military-vs-military conflict, the US would probably beat most comers.
There are some exceptions that would be interesting. In the case of Russia, the US could beat them at this point in time because the Russian war machine is outdated and their factory capacity is very low. In 10 years? Hard to know. Currently they don’t have neither the war economy nor the politcal enviroment necessary to instate a full WWII-style draft.
China is an open question. With very strong nationalism and factory capacities, they may not field the tech that US has, but could instate a draft that would mean the US would be outnumbered at least three to one. Wikipedia estimates that the US has aproximately 1,5 million people in their Armed Forces, with an additional 120 million listed as “Fit for service.” Due to the political enviroment and history, the US would be unlikely to be able to instate a fully fledged draft since this isn’t a Home Defence scenario. If we estimate that the US is able to mobilise and arm aproximately a third of it’s potential, that would put US numbers around 40-42 million soldiers. In reality, the number would probably be less than half of that, since the US is in a state of economical crisis and has a vast outstanding debt to China itself.
Chinese Armed Forces (People’s Liberation Army - PLA) lists aproximately 3,5 million people currently serving in their armed forces, with the potential to mobilise another 820 million people listed as Fit for Service. Of course, logistics on that scale is an absolute nightmare, so most of the non-service personell would probably only enter into the war at a later stage. Their training level would be on conscription basis and the tech available would be rudimentary.
If you’re in any way implying MacArthur was going to defeat the Chinese had he not been stopped for political reasons, you’re expressing a fantasy, not analyzing a military situation.
Nonsense. Over human history thousands of nations have been successfully “invaded”. We recenlty picked a few that had a fanatic terrorist and guerrilla population. (*Because *they had a fanatic terrorist and guerrilla population). The USA had very little problem occupying Germany and Japan, note.
Back to the OP. Note dudes that the OP specified "MINUS nukes, political considerations, common sense, etc.," In general, the USA would have a logistics nitemare in Russia and China. We likely could not invade either. If we take Gukumatz’s idea of war in a neutral area, we could kick either nations ass, but the cost in casualties and money would be tremendous.
Still, that’s less than 20 rounds per Chinese opponent, from an entire year’s production, for the entire world market. Take the American share of that, and then account for the fact that most bullets in warfare don’t hit people, and we probably don’t have enough bullets.
Expensive, if you’re gearing up production too much, but not difficult. You could retask factories to make rounds in a month, and easily quadruple the yearly production.