Could Russia and BRICS defeat America and NATO IF NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS were used
although this situation is near impossible I think it will be fun to see redneck Americans defend what they do not know
Side Score: 22
Side Score: 14
In world war 2 the Germans were winning at the beginning of the war. They hard the largest most well organised army in the world. The USA holds the position of pre world war 2 Germany. The Germans lost, in any protracted war victory or defeat come from 3 factors in no particular order; Population (the BRICS nations are a clear winner here), Industrial Capacity (USA has been funding the industrial capacity of the BRICS nations for well over a decade now China and the other BRICS are where the factories lie) and Resorces (the USA is all but out of oil and minerals while there are vast amounts of mineral wealth in Siberia & China). If the war goes on for more than a few years the USA & NATO have no chance.
People will say no without thinking it through, Russia won war against Georgia in two years. America brags of its "powerful" army but when put to test they miserably fail, in the middle east they can't even hold themselves together! more Americans died in the Iraq war by suicide than any other cause!!! talk about low moprale. Russia is immediately thought of as weak but think about Napolean Bonaparte saw poor performance from the Russians so he invaded his frenchie ass was sent home on a platter, same with gehngis khan and Hitler. what keeps you from thinking this will not happen to America? All i am saying is that America is not as safe as she thinks.
I'm not sure why you believe the US army is untested, considering the fact that the they win most of their wars. Even Just recently, the US invasion of Iraq (then considered one of the world's most powerful armies) was won in a matter of months, with over 30000 Iraqi deaths to around 200 us. Also, the fact that you use Napoleon's botched invasion of Russia as an example, clearly without knowing that his loss was due to the cold and NOT Russian might, shows your true lack of knowledge on the matter
1. Russia won a war trying to get a small peice of land in Georgia. Other then that, they did nothing. By the way, the war only lasted nine days, not two years. That shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Iraq has lasted 11 years while US soldiers serve up to 5 tours. No wonder why some commit sucide. Russians was kicked out of Afghanistan. 14,000 of Russian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan after 9 years. US has currently been in Afghanistan for 11 years.
2. Russia was in two different states back then. During Napoleon, Russia was ruled by a Czar. During Hitler, Russia was a socialist state. Let me mind you, if it wasn't for the Allies, Russia would have not survived the cold winter and food shortages. Ever heard can of spam. The US droped food for Russians. They lived off spam throughout Stalingrad.
It does not matter how long the georgian conflict was and just because russia had a different name and way of operating its government does not mean that it was a different nation. China is the oldest nation to date if what you said about Russia bieng three diferent nations was true China would be only 66 years old! And do not forget that although 14000 soviets died in th afghan war 1.3 million afghans died. Btw the soviets left by choice. also the soviets had 9 years to kill well over a milion more afghans than america did in 11. lets not also forget that in this situation brazil, China, India, Pakistan, some of east Europe, and most of Africa would side with BRICS, NATO would not stand a chance
Coast Guard - 1,000,000,
Total 75,000,000 personnel
6000 speed helicopters
Paramiltiary-6,000,000 Coast Guard - 1,000,000,
Total: 55,000,000 personnel
7000 speed helicopters
Military wise easy. The US is already too far outstretched with unsuccessful current unsuccessful campaigns in Iraq and Afganistan. They're losing a key ally with what's happening with Pakistan.
They don't have many allies in South America where anti American Imperialism sentiment is huge.
Generally people in the US will not support a War on this scale not to mention the people in UK as well. France will give up in a day lol. I don't think it will even be close.
But why ould there need to be any military conflict? The US, UK, France are all broke economically they are in debt. China and India are two of the strongest performing economies in the world. Stop utilising the dollar crush their currency focus on trade and development regionally with out any US or Europe ties. China to call on all debts outstanding to the US. Russia being the third largest supplier of Gas to Europe cancel that and focus on Asia which has a much larger population. NATO is fucked!
China depends on US and European consumerism for their growth. When the US and Europe went into a crisis china's growth started to stop. Their GDP growth is horrible they soon have to balance and if they continue like this they would create massive debt. They rely on export and investment as their source of growth same can be said about India. Russia's trading partners with the exception of china and Poland are all US allies or NATO members making them US allies anyhow! No one wants war guys...
People have used this argument for years. that Russia China and United States are too economically intertwined to do combat. However, United States keeps antagonizing both Russia and China. Many Asian nations are planning to dump the US dollar, countries like China are refusing to take on any more US debt. the United States and Russia are putting sanctions on each other, further antagonizing one another. with the United States bombing Syria, I believe all it will take is the US to start bombing Assad and this could turn into a full scale war.
Also one thing to notice the US has never been a battleground. UK, France and Germany haven't since world war one despite being in mary wars since. A war on this scale would def make them be a battle ground. people who live in these countries live far too comfortable lives and will not war at their door step at any cost.
Part 1 Before considering who would win, there are some other things that would have to be determined first. There would not be a war between NATO and BRICS, without allies being involved. To consider the victor, you would have to add these following countries and perhaps more to each respective side. To NATO: Indonesia, Australia, Philippines, S. Korea, Japan, Thailand and possibly Israel. To BRICS: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, N. Korea, Syria, Iran, Bhutan, Burma, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela. All of these are possibilities. Logistically, you would have to figure that the battle would be taken to India and China in the Pacific. Russia would probably take the battle to Europe. Brazil and the South American allies would be irrelevant in the early stages of the war and the NATO alliance could hold them in check until Russia and China are dealt with. India would not get involved unless they were directly attacked by NATO leaving Russia, China and their allies to deal with the problem. Besides that, NATO could covertly set off a nuke within India and provoke India into a nuclear war with Pakistan to keep them occupied.
Part 2 on to the war itself. The naval and aerial battles would be fierce. the USA holds the technological advantages, but Russian S400 batteries and Chinese anti ship missiles equal things out. The Korean peninsula would be a blood bath of millions. Russia would take but not be able to hold much of eastern Europe. Russia and China would make the war a very costly one for NATO and its allies and in the end Russian/Chinese manpower would be too great for any successful western land invasion. not to mention the financial factor involved, because if these countries were to go to war with each other the world economy would be devastated. NATO could succeed in small ways, like pushing Russia out of Europe and keeping n. Korea out of the South. However, on the grander scale, Russia and China would make the war so costly for the west that the west would have no choice but to back off.
Part 3 the x factors and the end stage. America has a deserved reputation for doing whatever it takes to win a war even if it seems inhumane to some. As well, I would not put it past Russia or China to take extreme measures to win as well. This could include from both sides: unleashing biological weapons upon the others civilian populations, utilizing small tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield (i.e. nuclear torpedoes, nuclear artillery), utilizing chemical weapons, targeting of orbital satellites, EMP weapons, acts of terrorism and as a last resort if worse came to worse utilizing each other's full nuclear arsenal. The civilian death toll would be catastrophic, even for places that would not be directly involved in the war such as Africa. Our way of life as we know it would be forever changed. There should be a third point of view in this debate. #1 NATO defeats BRICS, #2 BRICS defeats NATO and #3 neither side wins and everyone loses, because in the end I believe that would be the true outcome.
First of all, this scenario is completly unbalanced. Of course Brazil, China, INdia and Russia could defeat USA, UK and Canada. They're some of the biggest countries around with some of the highest populations.
Second, while it's unbalanced it's also outrageously unlikely, India is part of the Commonwealth why would they declare war on Britain, likewise why would BRIC soley declare war on Britain out of all the other European nations? Chances aare they would declare war on Europe as a whole.
"Of course Brazil, China, INdia and Russia could defeat USA, UK and Canada. They're some of the biggest countries around with some of the highest populations."
I think judging the outcome of such a war requires a little more sophistication than simply adding up population counts. Even adding up each side's number of soldiers, tanks, airplanes, etc. doesn't even begin to do the matter justice.
The whole question asked in the title of this debate is much too vague to be able to answer it with a simple yes or no, because victory depends on what either side would actually hope to achieve in a war. If the question was "Could Russia and her allies force the U.S. to surrender in a conventional, non-nuclear conflict?" then the answer to that would have to be a flat-out NO, no chance in hell. On the other hand, if the question was "Could Russia defeat an American attempt to invade and conquer Russia?" then the answer to that would be, hell yes, it could!
The U.S. is the only nation on the planet that not only has a very powerful military but also has the ability to project a substantial share of that power to almost any point on the globe. Its navy, by virtue of technological prowess, operational experience and sheer size, is second to none. Other navies may match or even outperform the U.S. Navy in certain aspects (for instance, some believe the Brits have the best submarine force in the world), but none of them could hope to take on and defeat the U.S. Navy to the point where they would achieve naval superiority (let alone supremacy) in the American hemisphere. Without naval supremacy, an invasion of the U.S. becomes outright impossible. Even if the Chinese army were 100 times as large as the American one, as long as America dominates the seas, none of that matters.
Now China (and Russia) may very well already have the ability to keep the U.S. Navy at a respectful distance from its own shores ... both have growing numbers of very capable, modern aircraft with anti-ship missiles as well as large numbers of modern, land-based anti-ship missiles. They also have a relatively small (but growing) number of capable frigates / destroyers / cruisers and submarines which, while probably outgunned in a blue-water confrontation against the U.S. Navy's carrier battle groups, can pose a serious threat to American forces that come too close to Chinese / Russian home waters.
Both China and Russia also have quite large, reasonably well-trained and equipped armies well-able to defend their homeland from the well-trained and equipped but not-that-large-anymore U.S. Army / U.S. Marine Corps. Again though, while these armies are very fearsome opponents in a regional conflict, neither have the ability to project their power very far from home let alone the Americas.
Brazil is not powered military and the USA,UK or Canada would beat it easily. Russia, India, China, Brazil and South Africa are undeveloped so UK, USA and Canada would beat it because of they have more military power. It is a kind of a stupid question because the BRICS isn't exactly an ally. Is just the countries that are evolving more, but they wouldn't have reasons to make an ally just because of that.
The future of America is foretold in the bible by the word of God . Despite the iniquities of America at present day .When the time comes God will fight on the side of America .Ezekiel Prophesied
Russian and Chinese Communism
"And the Word of the Lord came unto
me, saying, Son of man, set thy face
against Gog, the land of Magog, the
chief prince of Meshech and Tubal,
and prophesy against him"
The "land of Magog" is the land of the
"Mongols." Mongolians, of course, are the
Race from Asia occupying most of Russia
and all of China. "Meshech" is the most
ancient name of Moscow, probably origi-
nating in the people of Meshech driven
north by the destruction of Tyre.
"Gog" is the "chief" ruler in Moscow in
the land of the Mongolians, and Moscow
rules China, in spite of the attempt by
secret Communists in America to make
Americans believe there is a "Moscow-Pei
ping split" or disagreements. Magog" has
a further significance, for in
as used in the original Greek, it means
"an anti-Christian party. It is hardly
arguable that that is exactly what
Mongolian or Asiatic Communists are.
God goes on in
say, thus saith the Lord GOD: behold,
I am against thee, O Gog, the chief
prince of Meshech and Tubal.”
Thank the Lord for that immediate
notification that He is against the Asiatic
“And I will turn
thee back, and put hooks into thy
jaws, and I will bring thee forth and
all thine army, horses and horsemen,
all of them clothed with all sorts of
armour, even a great company
with bucklers and shields,
all of them handling swords: Persia,
Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of
them with shield and helmet: Gomer,
and all his bands; the house of
Togarmah of the north quarters, and
all his bands; and many people with
Three things are stated:
against Gog, ruler of this confederation,
God can control Gog's movements, and
Gog has a great army, which includes
Asiatics and Black Africans. Ethiopia was
the ancient name for Africa in Ezekiel's
The Jewish emblems of the nation in
Palestine offer us no evidence, but on the
Great Seal of the United States an eagle
holds a banner which reads,
Latin for "Out of
many one." The eagle is the symbol of the
God of Israel as shown in
Deut. 32:9-12, Isaiah 40:31, Jeremiah
48:38-40, 49:20-22, Hosea 8:1, Rev. 12:
The fulfillment of many other prophe-
cies to Israel are in the history of our Race
in the last 1900 years. Christ came to "the
lost sheep of the house of Israel," and we
have become the great Christian Race, the
"multitude" of people and the "many
nations" that were promised to come from
the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
(Genisus 13:16, 15:5, 17:5-6, 17:19,22:
17,24:60, 26:4, 28:3,14, 32:12, 35:11,
48:1-19, and others.)
I can go on for another 1/2 an hour with biblical verses on this subject but I will leave you who read this with this ,
When it is referred in the versus about the mountains of Israel they are referring to America and not Jerusalem .
Yes ,Russia will invade America but God will intervene and Russia will be defeated as was the Egyptian Army in the flight of Israel of old . This is for told in the bible by the word of God .
in the bible over here it actuly talking about isreal ,, God will protect isreal not america,,,bible says it clearly dont translate it worng im a comunist but i belev in bible that it is 100 % corect ,, but your idea is wrong,,, you really ehter are drunk or you have a bad translated bible ,, read king james,,
US and NATO consist of various nations, note that US, British, France, and other western nation have a bit better technology and each country have own strategies, location, army and many of them have own aircraft carrier. Sure BRIC have numbers, but only China and Russia have real powers there. So I vote No.
No SCO can never NATO and allies
Firstly I'm Indian and I know how much India hates China there is border dispute on going .with China claiming all of Kashmir .pleaz search about sino Indian border dispute
India is world no 4in terms millatry and 3rd in terms economy so India and us choose one side they will win please search top 10 milatry powers and also search about SCO if you don't know what is it
This situation assumes that none of the allies of NATO and the BRIC will join the fight. And India would fight with NATO not against, if this did happen these would be the sides, NATO and allies- U.S Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Rep, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, U.K, India, Japan, Indochina, Saudi Arabia, Israel, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, South Korea, Argentina, Australia, U.A.E, Mali, Niger, Qatar, Egypt, New Zealand, Indonesia, Central America, Philippines, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Taiwan VS China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Leb, Cuba, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Iraq, Belarus, South Africa, Venezuela, Libya, and Chad. If these nations go to war I think NATO would be able to beat the other side, They have more members and have better strategic placing. Europe and north America would attack Russia from both sides during the summer, Japan and south Korea would fight north Korea, India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Indochina would fight china and Pakistan. Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, Qatar, Egypt would fight Leb, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria, North America would fight Cuba and give supplies to Argentina to fight Brazil and Venezuela. Mali, Niger, Egypt and South Sudan would fight Sudan, Chad and South Africa. I think NATO would be able to win in all of these engagements and destroy the Eastern powers.
India might not join USA. Recently there has been a lot of disputes between India and USA. India is close to USA just for money and job. But when it comes to military support it has always been close to Russia. India will never fight Russia. Whereas, Pakistan will be in support of USA as they get all their arms from them secretly (its no secret, but they think no one know, very funny). Japan might not go for war as it knows china near by may destroy them in a week or two and America will not be able to help them fighting their own battle. In the end the war will go on like, India VS Pakistan, China & Russia & all Muslims brotherhood countries(Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan) using brazil's help VS Britain and all sister countries and America. Japan & Indonesia VS China again, Israel VS Palestine, South Korean VS North Korean. Now the list of countries acting as the cheerleaders (not fighting only dancing and acting like they are a part of one, I love this countries), South Africa, Australia, Sri-Lanka, Mexico (oops caught in the middle). Its funny to discuss and it would never happen and the outcome can be never know. but, come on who are you guys kidding at the end BRICS will win.