Depends on who's territory the fight is happening. Any of those three would absolutely win with home field advantage.
The whole world is getting nuked before the U$ loses a full scale peer conflict, though, unfortunately.
I'm not disagreeing with you per say. Homefield advantage isn't nearly as big of an advantage as it used to be. The logistical train the us has had extensive experience using over the decades and the strides made in surveillance are just insane.
Yes there is the population, time to fortify and all that. But the big factors of being far from home, not having resources, and not knowing what you are walking into are not nearly as bad as it used to be.
If the United States has to cut China out of logistics and China has to cut the United States out of logistics, that would be very hairy, but I see this as the United States using hard power to undermine its soft power in the long term. I hope that the people in charge of nukes in the USA can't or don't start a nuclear war in that situation.
Russia, because every time you crack a Russian defence fortification it turns out there is another, smaller one inside
Russia can't even win against Ukraine.
Overextend, turn your enemy into insurgents, attempt to kill every one
over tenof the "military aged males", cause a global financial crisis, as a million people die due to your shit pandemic handling pull-outThe US is worse than Ukraine. They send their vassals to death without a second thought but with an inevitable betrayal. Yet if they ever fought a war in their own land for once, they'd quickly lose the will and ability to fight.
I have some bad news for you about the current condition and borders of Ukraine
china. wasn't there a war game simulation run by the US military against hypothetical chinese military where they literally had to change the rules because the US kept losing or something?
Lmfao libs found this real offensive huh.
🧻🐯
All their antiwar stances and war guilt is just performative.
At this rate? The other factions of the US military.
No debate really. Obviously China has the most diverse set of weapons and shit and the infrastructure and funding and such to support it.
Given their track record, any guerilla military force with a few assault rifles, apparently.
The honest answer is China, but I would hope the US crumbles from within before it ever comes to that. While I have no doubt that the US would be crushed, I also have no doubt that the loss of life (nevermind the environmental fallout) would set humanity back decades. That's assuming the US didn't resort to nuclear weapons as a last gasp.
Depends on what the nature of the conflict is.
In the event that Taipei declares independence and the US comes to its aid, I can't see them outmatching the PLA in conventional kinetic warfare. The US could use nukes, but this would invoke a nuclear retaliation from the PRC - less about the US wins and more about everyone loses.
As another commenter has stated, all three countries that you have listed would successfully fend off an American invasion if they fought in their home field.
If no nukes, China would mop the floor with USA, like complete annhilation to the point where they would have PTSD Vietnam*million and never think about daring to go to war ever again because their whole military would be destroyed.
If nukes are used, Russia woud delete USA off the map in like 30 minutes.
An American civil war.
Iran would be another Iraq for the US. So regardless of what the 20 year outcome of the hypothetical Iran-US war was, the current political party in charge of Iran would be dead and the installed US puppet government would be considered illegitimate by all the other political sects.
Russia and China would win on their home turf, and get absolutely destroyed in all possible ways if they tried to invade the US in this ridiculous Tom Clancy scenario the OP has concocted.
