I've always heard that China and Russia were super-power countries. If this is true, how do they compare to America. Could either one stand up to America in a war?

Honilov, generally speaking, the US is considered the only superpower today, because our military and economic power far exceeds that of any other nation on earth. The Soviet Union used to rival us, but its collapse has left Russia unable to be the influence to its region that it once was, and today it has far less economic influence than it did as the leader of the communist bloc.

However, Russia and China are both very strong powers. Both have nuclear weapons and are large enough nations to be economically substantial. To me, the most important thing to be aware of is their nuclear power.

According to the BBC, the US has 10,000 nuclear weapons. Russia, by contrast, has 20,000 nuclear weapons. China is estimated to have 400 nuclear weapons.

With even 20 long-range nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (which China has), a country could be a serious threat to the world, and most certainly could "stand up to us." Russia, with 20,000 nuclear weapons, could destroy us. Together, Russia and the US could destroy the world several times.

By the way, I learned something very interesting from this site. There are many countries around the world that have willingly given up nuclear weapons programs. Some have even eliminated their entire nuclear stockpile. We should follow their lead. 10,000 nuclear weapons won't protect anyone. If terrorists get their hands on a bomb and attack us, I suspect that we'll all suffer the consequences. Nuclear war involving the US, China or Russia would not leave many people alive on this planet.

P.S. In case you're curious, here are the stats on the other nuclear powers, according to the BBC:

France: 350 nuclear weapons.

UK: 185 nuclear weapons.

India: estimated 45-95 nuclear weapons (and not a member of the Non-Proliferation treaty)

Pakistan: estimated 30-55 nuclear weapons (and not a member of the Non-Proliferation treaty)

Israel: a possible 100-200 nuclear weapons (its weapons are undeclared and it is not a member of the Non-Proliferation treaty)

Russia and China appear to be in the midst of forging an alliance that could be quite formidable.

I am reminded of the Cold War concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). While we could obliterate our enemies twenty times over, rest assured that they can likely destroy us at least once!

Our strength now lies in advanced weapons systems and superior training, and we have no naval equal. The United States is not to be taken on in a conventional war. However, history has taught us that attacking a nation such as Russia is a poor idea. The Germans in World War II, among others, learned this lesson the hard way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coldfuse:

I am reminded of the Cold War concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). While we could obliterate our enemies twenty times over, rest assured that they can likely destroy us at least once!

---

What terrifies me is that the deterrence factor of MAD only works if both sides fear death. Our current opponents in the world are willing to destroy themselves if, in the process, they can destory us as well.

If terrorists were to attack our country with a nuclear weapon today, even a small "dirty" one, I have no doubt that Bush would respond in kind. This would set off an unspeakable kind of war.

I think just having nuclear weapons is immoral. To me, nuclear weapons are the ultimate terrorism - no matter whether it is a small group of fundamentalists or a perfectly legitimate government fighting to "defend" the country. The use of nuclear weapons defends nothing, though. There is no honor in using them even in retaliation for their having been used against us, any more than there would be honor in flying a plane into a building full of civilians in Saudi Arabia in retaliation for September 11.

Something to remember- In the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was Nikita Krushchev who backed down rather than face mutual destruction. The US so often looks at that incident without realizing that, had Krushchev not turned the Soviet ships around, Kennedy was surely going to start a war. The politics of the time wouldn't let any US president back away from a Soviet threat, let alone a Democratic president. Krushchev prevented that war. I mention this to illustrate that having the power to destroy isn't related to having the wisdom not to destroy.

Thanks for the responses, and I was thinking more about the nuclear power. I had heard that both countries had a lot of nuclear weapons, and that Russia has secret weapons. Eventually, it will probably come to nuclear war. All we need is a few hot-headed people.