This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

If each Continent had a war with every other Continent - who would win?

Id say it would depend on where Russia lies. And to the people that are on about USA not being able to take Iraq. If they were over there to do that that would have been done within days of the war starting years ago.

Assuming Russia is in Europe coupled with the probable siding with the USA. It would be a European victory. Asia may have man power but do they have the recources to move these men assuming no Nuclear weapons were used.

Reply 81

rob6709

7

Heres another thing to throw into the cycle. Chemical warfare. Biological warfare etc.

Reply 82

che666

11

americas, esp cause of the south americans, mexicanos, who would wana pick a fight with them sombrero funks

Reply 83

che666

11

CookieArun

The US have already won the battle with the taliban, and the taliban's say what more than 1000 RPG's? Cannot withstand a nuke that could put a giant hole in Asia. The taliban are weak, not strong after all the Taliban are an extremist movement, and your comparing a movement to a whole country a million times powerful. But i do agree that other Asian countries are so, so much more powerful.

& North Korea is five times less powerful than South Korea - South Korea have a million man army whereas North Korea has what 650,000 troops? In addition, North Korean soldiers suffer frm malnutrition and rarely train due to a scarcity of fuel and ammo. Most North Korean soldiers could not attack because they are needed to defend the entire DMZ and coastal approaches (they remember the 1950 landing at Inchon) while entire divisions must remain throughout North Korea to fend off heliborne offensives, food riots, and probable coups. South Korean active duty army can be devoted to the defense of Seoul. Also the modern South Korean army is backed by over 5,000,000 well-trained reservists who can be called to duty in hours. South Korea has twice the population of the North, thirty times its economic power, and spends three times more on its military each year. South Korean military equipment is first class whereas most of the North Korean military equipment is over 30 years old and much is inoperable due to a lack of maintenance. If war broke out, South Korea has a massive industrial capacity and $94 billion in foreign currency reserves to sustain a war, while North Korea has no industry and no money. As a result, South Korea is roughly five times more powerful than North Korea, so the North loses :cool:

what you on about, usa have beaten the taliban???? you retard, what are they still doing there, soviets dont wana f with the taliban, forget the americans, they just wana feel as if they doing something productive, whcih clearly isnt...

Reply 84

Joseph90

14

If nuclear weapons were involved, it wouldn't be about who has the most. No-one knows how many nukes countries have. It would all be tactical, putting the nukes in the right places in order to prevent the opposition from being able to launch any nukes back.

Countries having hundreds of nuclear weapons actually is a good thing, deterring any war. No country would dare fire a nuke knowing the other could fire hundreds back.

Reply 85

CookieArun

OP

14

che666

what you on about, usa have beaten the taliban???? you retard, what are they still doing there, soviets dont wana f with the taliban, forget the americans, they just wana feel as if they doing something productive, whcih clearly isnt...

Listen you imbecile, what i'm trying to point out is that the US could kill the taliban anyday of the ******* century.

Reply 86

CertifiedAngel

10

None it would be continous war between the continents with no clear winner and everyone would be under a totalitarian government :wink:

Reply 87

butthead7

europe followed by america. asia? they've got china , japan and the koreas and thats about it. europe have the uk, france , germany, russia, holland, spain, italy...we'd batter asia.

Reply 88

Physics man Craig

Antarctica has a Stargate, and thus wins for coolness...

Reply 89

rob6709

7

butthead7

europe followed by america. asia? they've got china , japan and the koreas and thats about it. europe have the uk, france , germany, russia, holland, spain, italy...we'd batter asia.

Agreed.

Reply 90

Smtn

16

I'm really not sure between Asia, Europe and the US. It's also impossible to decide as a 3 way continent battle(as it inevitably will boil down to) will never be fair on all. One continent will always get double-teamed to a certain extent. For that reason I'd hedge my bets with Europe, as I believe we potentially have the best diplomacy.

Food for thought :

Reply 91

Rich_183

15

probs China due to sheer population size!
and with the help of North Koreas military might every other coutry is pretty much doomed :frown:

Reply 92

JMonkey

3

Eurasia, it's a big continent. :wink:

Assuming it was conventional probably Europe, Russia's population is technically European. If it wasn't conventional then no one.

Reply 93

MIKE ESSIEN IS QUITE SIK

8

if we forget weapons and it was just normal beef, Africa would dominate...lol

Reply 94

rob6709

7

MIKE ESSIEN IS QUITE SIK

if we forget weapons and it was just normal beef, Africa would dominate...lol

Not Scandenavia?

Asia deffos.

Depends what you mean by 'win', is it when everyone dies? Or when people surrender? In which case it depends what they're fighting over.

Reply 97

Bagration

18

Spending and technology are no substitutes for experience, tactical and strategic genius, weather and terrain. Europe and the US have very little experience in fighting conventional wars since they have been engaged mostly in COIN operations since Korea. On the other hand, India, Pakistan, Israel, China, Iran, and maybe Russia have all had experience in fighting real conventional war. No doubt a world war would be asymmetric and symmetric, but in terms of combat experience the East would prevail over the West. Africa and South America would be no contest, they shouldn't even be in there.