I'm well aware of the F22 and I'm also aware of the failed F35. Not all of America's fighters are F22s, only about 200 are. God of the skies? While it's an amazing fighter it isn't the only God of the sky, there's the Russian T-50 Pak FA program which is to enter service in 2018, that could be rapidly sped up if there was a war. The T-50 is the F22s rival and it is superior to the F22 in numerous ways.
And what does China actually produce? ...bunch of crap that's what. They really don't produce a lot of cars or other heavy machinery, most of that comes from Japan and South Korea
The eurofighter is superior to the F22, the same way the T-50 will be superior to it. Americans like to overestimate how good their equipment and technology is.
One, in war, there are no winners, only the lucky. Two, in GNW, there would be no winner (global nuclear war). Why? The United States government vowed many years ago that democracy would prevail and if it was going to end, they would end the world by blowing it up. The US government's philosophy is the democratic way of life is the only humane way of life. All other forms of governments enslave ppl (like the USA did). (Humm interesting) more like hypocritical. Three, China owns more land in the USA than the citizens that live there.
That's false information, the Eurofighter repeatedly beat the F22 at the 2012 Red-flag exercises. So either the eurofighter is way more than half as capable, probably superior, or American pilots are very poorly trained. In which case no amount of technology will win you air superiority.
lol ...nearly every credible source says the F-22 is a better war machine ...besides the French helped develop the Eurofighter so I'm sure it has a "War Runner" option built into the controls... ....prob similar engineering to the tank the French military developed the one with 9 gears (1 goes forward, the other 8 in reverse)
That's like me saying the F22 probably was designed to go so slow that by the time it arrives to the battle another country has already won most of the war for them, since it was created by America.
To be fair, after it uses its maneuvering thrusters, the pilot might aswell get out and walk it'll be going so slowly. See, IF the f22 can get first strike, and hit the target (it's American after all, it might hit its wingman) it will win. If it misses, uses thrusters and hits target, it will win. If it misses, uses thrusters and still misses, it's toast.
You cannot beat them without occupying them. How can u claim victory over sumthing without being able to grab hold of it?
You can claim victory over something without occupying it if your objective is something else and not occupation, but considering the victory conditions weren't listed in the op I'll just assume that the objective is either occupation or total annihilation.
Yeah good point, i would consider total annihilation enough to be considered a win in this situation too but the victor still would need ground forces to verify annihilation of a countries populance after the bombs drop. I don't see the US being able to nuke them before they get to slug sum nukes back & the aftermath will result in a race to rebuild not a US hunting competition & a fight between what's left surviving in the holes & crevices of all countries involved.
This is a ridiculous argument. It's not cut and dry saying US would win. Yes they spend more on their military than like the next 25 countries combined,but their forces are spread all throughout the world. China for instance has a larger military personnel wise and they are consolidated to their region of the world. Similar to Russia. If the US were to suddenly go to war with them,they would struggle because they would have to abandon all other locations they are currently stationed in. They are the most technologically advanced so they have that going for them at least (The US)
generations ahead eh? That you know of. But no one truly would know sweet nothing unless they were involved there. Idiot
How old are you? You really have no clue how war works. You force a country into unconditional surrender is how wars are won. Occupying territory has zero to do with victory. Bomb the piss outa someone till they surrender and meet your terms just like we did japan. This isnt medieval times, you dont have to put a boot on a ground to defeat someone in this era, I assumed that was understood by anyone over 12 but guess not. What is your obsession with ground troops? You keep.bringing them up even though ive proved you wrong like ten times now.
Really not sure what the hell this even means but a simple google will give you military statistics. Moron
This whole argument is pointless anyway. Yes america has weakened its alliances alot around the world under obamas disastrous foreign policies. But if we warred china and Russia it definately wouldnt be alone. With the backing of our allies wed def win if you take nukes out. Would be a horribly bloody war with huge death tolls though and lets hope never happens . Nukes will never be out of the equation so lets just say if OPs war ever does happen we all will lose. I actually heard a scary theory one time that sevearl scientists supported. That if enough nukes hit on one side of the planet at same time it could be enough impact to knock our planet off its axis bad enough to end all life here immediately. Thats terrifying