Who would you say has the strongest collective military between these?

I know most are unlikely, I was just curious to know how the unlikely may measure up.

I have had some really good answers on here, including from you.

 

I appreciate my scenario's are a bit leftfield, however, for me, it is more testing to consider the not probable, to asking, 'who do you think would have the edge between the US and Iran', as aside from it being a mismatch, Americans on here get too partisan over it.

Even with v hypothetical, as a few of you guys have done, it is still possible to measure all the key areas, and make a call, based on that, right?

Do you think it is almost impossible that there could be another large scale war, that starts between two or more countries in Europe, or do you think that it is naïve to think the winds cannot change again? If you even feel it may just be plausible, what do you think would be the most likely trigger, and who do you think would be at the forefront of it?

To that same sort of end, do you think it almost impossible that there could be a civil war on a large scale, in the US, or do you think there is a chance that could happen, inside say 25yrs? Again, what do you think would be the most likely trigger there?

 

Actually, I see it as highly unrealistic, like most of the others listed. Because with few exceptions, almost every conflict has something in common. And normally that is shared borders in some form.

Germany Vs. France, China Vs. Vietnam, Argentina Vs. England, North Korea Vs. South Korea, USSR Vs. Afghanistan. This is almost always how wars are fought. This is because there is really only one nation on the planet with the capability to transport enough troops and equipment to a battlefield that is not directly connected to their own country. And also because most nations fight over resources, be it oil, mining, or land for food production (territorial expansion). And it is really hard to "control" a new part of your nation when it is separated by hundreds or thousands of miles.

Now granted, several hundred years ago things were much different, with the concept of creating "colonies" which would then be settled by your own people, and then over generations become citizens of your country (British, Spanish and French colonial model). However, in the 21st Century, that is a completely dead and unworkable concept.

So today, unless the nations are either fighting over a distinct cassias belli (say response to an attempted assassination or some other act of war), they are not going to fight a war. I find the idea of Iran and Pakistan fighting to be ludicrous, since the nation of Afghanistan sits between them. However, I can see a limited war (predominantly air strikes with some naval actions in the Gulf), in the event say Iran is caught trying to have Asif Zardari (the President of Pakistan) assassinated. But short of that, I really can't see these two countries fighting.

Logistics are simply to important in modern warfare. And unless you have a country like the US, no country is really going to have the capability to go to war with another unless they share a common border. Even the UK had to draft civilian vessels to take back the small islands of the Falklands in order to move troops there (HMS Queen Elizabeth II, SS Canberra, M/V Atlantic Conveyor, etc) and their forces are not even as strong now as they were then (in terms of sealift and airlift capacity).

So simply looking in terms of logistics, I see pretty much every one of those match-ups as impossible. And trying to compare the military of different countries is really an impossible task unless you take into account those logistics and other concepts such as doctrine, training and equipment used. This is why I myself look into the past military history of a nation, and use that to gauge how well they would do in future conflicts.

For example, in a war between the US and Iran, I predict that the US would win quite easily. Why? Well, look at the past history of both Iran and the US.

Iran mostly uses a variant of the old Warsaw Pact doctrine. Mass tanks and artillery and try to brute force your way through the enemy. And yes, they have a lot of them, but that tactic is proven to be a failure. In a 10 year long war, the most they could achieve with Iraq was basically a stalemate. Both sides used similar tactics, and neither side could make any real advances upon the other.

Iraq on the other hand did fight 2 wars against the US, and both times was soundly trounced in short order. This and other conflicts have shown that such a doctrine against a more flexible and dynamic doctrine like the US uses simply does not work.

In fact, this idea has so interested me that I think I am going to create a new thread for it.

 

Okay, fair enough, but have a bash at these one's anyway, to the best of your ability. Factor OUT nukes, since I tend to find that spoils it a bit.

Again, I KNOW these are very leftfield, but it is Sat, I am having a spliff, so have a go.

China v All of Europe combined (but not Russia or Turkey).

US v China AND Russia combined.

Japan v N Korea

S Arabia v Iran

 

If you were a POW of ANY nation, you can even use your own for the sake of the story, which nation, based on all factors, would you LEAST relish being a POW of, and which would you feel that at least some level of humanity and survival would be assured?

Do you believe that now, and historically, some armies and states have been more ethical than others, even in conflict, thus today, which armies would you consider to be least and most likely to adhere to something close to what we may consider a standard?