The U.S. and allies would most likely win a war against Russia/China.

My opponent first presents the fact that the US spends a ton of money on its military. It spends more than the rest of the world combined. Does that mean that the US could take on the world? Of course not! That simply means that the USA's military is expensive to maintain. All the military bases, for example. The US spends $650 billion on military, and out of those $650 billion, over $170 billion go just to maintain the military bases around the world. Just paying the countries for allowing to keep military personnel there. The military defense budget is not a valid way to compare the military of different countries. For example, Russia spends $87 billion on military. Wow! That must mean Russia doesn't stand a chance! Well, Russia alone has more tanks in its arsenal than all of NATO combined. Yet only spends $87 billion on military. Like I said, money is not a valid way to compare the military strength of nations. http://www.laprogressive.com... http://www.globalfirepower.com... "The U.S. maintains a number of bases around the world, some of which sit very close to China and Russia. For example, bases in Bulgaria, Germany, Kosovo, Japan, and South Korea would make it very easy for the U.S. to strike Russia and Chinese targets swiftly and efficiently." The same could be said back. Russia and China could easily overrun these bases. "Compared to the U.S., Russia and China lack similar bases which would give them an easy acess to the American homt turf." Russia and China would not necessarily need access to the American turf. They could simply defend and win a war of attrition. "In terms of aaerial assets, the U.S. 13,169. Russia has about 3,880 and China only has 1,900. In addition to NATO'S aaerial assets, the advantage goes up 6-1 in favor of the U.S./NATO in a war scenario." 5,000 of those 13,000 US planes are transport aircraft. Transport is good, but they are not capable of waging battle and are easy targets. That brings the US number down to 8,000. Out of those 8,000, another 2,700 are trainer aircraft. Also good, but not capable of waging battle. That leaves the US with only 5,700 battle-ready aircraft. Not nearly as much as our original 13,000. Now, with that in mind, let's compare the battle-ready air force of Russia/China vs. NATO. That leaves Russia/China with 3,600 battle-ready aircraft, and NATO with about 7,250 battle-ready aircraft. Suddenly, it's not 6-1, but barely 2-1 in favor of NATO. http://www.globalfirepower.com... http://www.globalfirepower.com... http://www.globalfirepower.com... http://www.nato.int... "Tawain, Japan and S. Korea together pose a military threat to China." 1. Taiwan is not in NATO. 2. Taiwan has a very weak air-force. 3. Japan is not in NATO. 4. S. Korea would not pose an aerial threat to China. 5. S. Korea is not in NATO None of the countries you mentioned were even in NATO. "In terms of sea dominance, the U.S. has ten modern, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, while Russia and China combined only have a total of two." Chinese have invented a missile called the DF-21 that can take out an entire aircraft carrier by itself. This will turn the tables and will not allow for the active use of air-craft carriers. http://www.usni.org... "Though Russia has modern air defenses, it would be constantly attacked by U.S. and its allies fighter jets and missiles." Indeed Russia does, and air raids will not pose a very big problem because of systems such as the S-400. A single S-400 missile system is capable of simultaneously locking onto 36 targets, and guiding 72 missiles. It also has a range of 600 km, meaning it can see the targets coming in from very far away. http://www.ausairpower.net... "with its air and sea advantage, the U.S. could launch airstrikes and missile strikes against Russia and Chinese targets 24/7 from the Atlantic, Pacific, 6th, or 7th fleets." 1. I don't see how the Atlantic Fleet would be a problem for Russia and China. 2. Russia could utilize choke points such as the Bosphorus Strait and the Gulf of Finland to keep NATO's Navy at bay. 3. As for the Pacific Fleets, China could keep the US fleets away from Russian and Chinese shores, considering that China's Navy could challenge the US fleets located in the Pacific. Of course, Russia would help as well. "The U.S. has enganged in every type of ground warefare in the last 20 years. From jungle to mountains, and desert to urban, the U.S is used to every type of warfare environment." The US has not fought a single developed country since WW2. All of the countries where the US Forces have been since WW2 are underdeveloped and did not stand a chance. Fighting against a professional army will be a shock for the US Forces. I would like to note that my opponent has not provided any sources for his arguments. My opponent has mainly focused of air and sea superiority, but has conveniently left out land. l Let's examine the ground forces, shall we? Russia/China without a doubt have more manpower. That is out of the question. ____________________ Russia/China_______ NATO Towed Artillery:______10,800___________5,200 SPGs:_________________ 7,700___________ 2,900 MLRSs: _______________5,500 ___________3,000 Tanks: _______________24,650__________ 15,300 Let's also not forget that not only do Russia/China have an enormous numerical advantage, but the Russian T-90 (most modern Russian tank) is superior to the US M1A2 Abrams (most modern American tank). http://www.globalfirepower.com... It is obvious from the above that Russia/China have virtually undisputed dominance on land. It so happens that the most important fighting happens on land. You cannot win a war only through air or by sea. My opponent tries to assert NATO's dominance on sea, but even that is not completely true. Although defeating NATO's Navy is a daunting task, it can be done. 1. Aircraft carriers, the symbol of US Navy, can now be eliminated with a single missile. 2. China has a mining warfare force of 119 ships (largest in the world), and Russia has a mining warfare force of 34 ships (2nd largest in the world). This means that Russia/China would be able to mine their coasts and gulfs, making them unapproachable for NATO's Navy. 3. Russia/China have a total of 132 submarines, which will take a heavy toll on NATO. http://www.globalfirepower.com... http://www.globalfirepower.com... Although NATO has an advantage in air-force, the NATO planes will take heavy damage from surface-to-air missile systems such as the S-400 (mentioned above). Now let's take a look at resources and logistics. It will be very easy for Russia and China to transport troops and machinery because they will be transported over their own territory. NATO, on the other hand, will have to ship their forces long distances which will be difficult and more expensive. While Russia produces enough oil to supply itself and China, the US only 8,500,000 bbl while consuming 19,000,000. This means that the US (along with NATO) will have to dedicate much more money just to keep its machines running. Russia/China would easily win a war of attrition. Another problem for NATO is that most of NATO countries get their natural gas and oil from Russia. Once the war starts, many European NATO members will be left without oil or natural gas. http://www.globalfirepower.com... I look forward to my opponent's response.