Russia Vs USA who would win?

Okay, think what you just said. You basically said, any country that has a few nukes can defeat Russia, USA, China etc? Imagine ermm.... for example...South Korea they have nuclear weapons (from USA), does that mean, SK can defeat USA, Russia, China, etc?

Without a doubt, USA and Russia are the most powerful countries on the planet, and we would never want to seem them go into a war against each other, never.

-Both of these countries own around 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons, with Russia having about 10k (52%) and USA about 8k. Not sure if these statistics are correct or not tho, (just read about it)

- Both of these countries can blow up the planet over 300 times.. (roughly)

- USA have modern technology, and are more developed with potentially more troops

- Russia are more experienced when it comes to wars. (everyone is disagreeing with this. Soviet Union contained most of the Russians, who were involved in WW2 and in Afghanistan)

Without allies, or any nuclear weapons (of course) who would win?

If they had sufficient nuclear weapons to strike valuable and strategic targets then yes, but it is highly unlikely.

Fair enough, so Russia can defeat USA too?

And France with Britain at the same time?

It is possible that Russia would defeat the USA, but unlikely. Likewise for Britain and France V Russia, Russia again likely losing. If it was NATO v Russia, then it is almost certain that Russia would lose (not definate though, just probable)

I cannot imagine Britain and France defeating Russia when Britain are still fighting the taliban.

I cannot imagine Britain and France defeating Russia when Britain are still fighting the taliban.

Without a doubt, USA and Russia are the most powerful countries on the planet, and we would never want to seem them go into a war against each other, never.

-Both of these countries own around 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons, with Russia having about 10k (52%) and USA about 8k. Not sure if these statistics are correct or not tho, (just read about it)

- Both of these countries can blow up the planet over 300 times.. (roughly)

- USA have modern technology, and are more developed with potentially more troops

- Russia are more experienced when it comes to wars. (everyone is disagreeing with this. Soviet Union contained most of the Russians, who were involved in WW2 and in Afghanistan)

Without allies, or any nuclear weapons (of course) who would win?

Could beat that with a bit of wildfire.

No money to exploit it.

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Russia tried to follow Turkey into the EU some time around 2030 or 2040, when they realise China utterly dwarfs them and is going to treat them more like a vassal than a partner when that is the case.

They have the money, it is just poorly managed and many people take a lot of it for themselves.

that wil never happen, to think that it will shows a distinct lack of knowledge in Russian history and current affairs. While there is a push to make visa free travel easier, greater trading co-operation etc, Russia joining the EU as a junior partner would never happen not when they are basically the leaders of CIS and other organisations in Asia and the Middle East.

They have the money, it is just poorly managed and many people take a lot of it for themselves.

literally Google 'the 10 military powers' and every single one of them I guarantee will feature India in the top 10 and most probably the top 5, and Pakistan nowhere to be seen

I've seen those lists, I view them as relatively inaccurate. If you look yourself Pakistan consistently appears in the top 10 or 15 on those lists as well.

While Pakistan's ownership of nuclear weapons means it can never be really defeated by India, it's absurd to suggest they're comparably powerful. India's economy is nearly 8x as large as Pakistan's in total and nearly twice as large per capita. Its economy is also growing twice as fast. In 2030 or 2040, Pakistan will be like Serbia or Portugal relative to India's France or Germany.

I agree. I was merely refuting the suggestion that Indian military prowess matches that of countries such as Russia and the UK. At the moment it is nowhere near.

While Pakistan's ownership of nuclear weapons means it can never be really defeated by India, it's absurd to suggest they're comparably powerful. India's economy is nearly 8x as large as Pakistan's in total and nearly twice as large per capita. Its economy is also growing twice as fast. In 2030 or 2040, Pakistan will be like Serbia or Portugal relative to India's France or Germany.

Well you weren't agreeing to that earlier. And why is it absurd that the Indian military couldn't match ours? Genuinely I don't know but everywhere i've looked (a lot of googling top 10 military powers) suggests that India would come out the better of the two.

I don't disagree with you entirely (see my post from before on this topic) - but you're assuming India's economy will continue to grow at a rapid rate, continuously, unabated.

That's what people thought about our economy not so long ago (and they turned out to be completely wrong). The fact of the matter is that nobody knows where an economy like India will be in 20-30 years time. I already mentioned about how India has very recently climbed the "top 10" ranking rapidly, due mostly to its massive military spending in the last few years. In any case, a lot of those lists are inaccurate and are based solely around publicly provided/partial numbers and they never really give the whole picture.

Not only that, I am firmly of the view that India can't and won't continue to grow at such a rate. Its importance, power and influence is hugely overrated at the moment for a number of reasons. That said - people laugh at me because I doubt China's economic power and position too, although not to the same extent as India's.

In comparison, although Pakistan is in a battered state - it really can't get much worse for them. If the conflict in and around it comes to an end, they have every chance of growing their economy at a rapid rate.

People forget Pakistan's GDP growth exceeded that of India's all the way up until 2005 (I think) where it was overtaken - after 4 years of being involved in heavy conflict and security issues on two of its 4 neighbouring borders.

Both, India's socio-economic problems and the infrastructure difficulties it faces are often overlooked.

I know this makes it sound one-sided, but I'm merely pointing out what is possible at the other end of the scale.

The factors that favour India greatly are that America appears to be switching its allegiances from Pakistan to India more openly and that will benefit them greatly. If India solves some of its social problems and uses the good times that it is experiencing now to put solid foundations in place, it will achieve great things as a county. Otherwise, it will remain a mediocre country.



As I said above and in my previous post, the numbers on paper don't mean much. India would not last long if it attacked Russia. It doesn't matter that it has spent approx $40bln on its military recently (the reason I suspect it features near to the UK/France/Russia in those lists).