The NVA springs to mind..

Seriously, the question is flawed because the term DEFEAT is ambigious. To deny the military objectives of the USA could be defined as defeat. And then if the politicians are silly when setting up objectives it can prove quite easy to defeat the us. Example, IDF in Lebanon last? summer?. Or the US in Iraq. When the people that define victory dont think things through, defeat is quite likely, no matter your capabilities, imho.

hey 'flyboy' the U.S. is getting teir &*# wooped by a load of guys with a stolen home made rocket launcher or bomb. sometimes technology doesnt allways make the difference e.g. the F4 phantom got is &*# kicked in vietnam and this was one of the most advanced fighters ever.

Were did we get are a** kick?

First of all I'd like to mention that a couple of you guys need to get your facts straight.

The F-4, was hardly one of the most advanced fighters ever built, it wasn't even equipped with a Vulcan cannon until later in the war when they decided to wake up and use their head and put a gun pod on it. Not to mention the fact that its engines were big noisy, gas guzzling pieces of crap, in reality the plane was not that amazing, cool looking yes, but no were near the standards we have today.

Along with that the reason that we sustained so many loses in the air during Vietnam was because it was fought with a political agenda and no common sense. For instance when a SAM site was being built U.S. fighters were not allowed to attack it because the government was worried there might be Russian or Chinese advisers there. So after it was up you would go in and lose at the very least one plane if not 2 or 3.

Next, Russia's military would have NO CHANCE against our military. Their navy is basically nothing right now, their army, were should I begin, cannot even be considered more than 30% PROFFESIONAL, they have NO NCO corps. Their air force is made up of cold war era aircraft. They have jets that date back to the 60's in service if not even earlier than that. Not to mention the fact that all of their equipment has been sitting around for almost 20 years. The newest thing that is actually going to be done is a 200 billion dollar military modernization plan that Putin just put in place and that won't even cover the whole military. Also Russia does not have the 8,000 nuclear weapons one of our friends seems to think they have, much of their nuclear arsenal was reduced from the SALT and the SALT II treaties, and they have around the same as us if not a bit less. Overall, they are absolutely no threat to us.

China wow, they have a large force, I'll give you that much, but they are not nearly as well trained as us and their air force is crap so basically it would get blown away and then they would be screwed right off the bat. In case you all don't remember that we have the F-22, we will soon have the F-35 JSF, we have the B-2 and the B-1B. How many countries have been able to sustain intensive combat without air support.(Yes, I know Vietnam, but as I said that was fought in the wrong way). Overall, China really cannot compare.

As for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. If we all live to see the release of such weapons god help us all. Any how the U.S. has come up with extensive counter missile technology, we also have the ability to release a crazy amount of firepower on any country that wishes to do the same, so as said before, it acts as a deterrent. However, I am confident that if China or Russia wished to release nuclear weapons our counter attack would be swift and decisive and destroy our enemy with ease.

Just some food for thought with that subject, China isn't that big, we knock out a couple strategic locations and the whole country is shattered, and one nuclear weapon in the right place could kill off 40% at the least of their army.

Russia could beat america but it would be hard and gruelling. and the only way they could do this is throught there experience in wars. america has never really been a good influence on wars and they were in iraq and look what good that did. Still though England has the most robust best trained and well equiped not the best equiped but with everything good enoguht to be effective. the person who started this debate hasn't properly looked into american ideolgy politics and there military. out of all the people here firstsgt_cap has the best knowledge the f4 was pretty crap and he is right in saying u need 2 get your facts straight. he is right on the way they fought wars and that russia is terribly armed and that they barely have a navy they have less than 50ships! China again he is correct massive but ultimately rubbishly armed. However what i have said about england may not be true and what he has said about america may not be true. Its not what you have or how much you have but its how you use it that counts check out the commandos raid on st. naizaire they were wildy outnumbered most were killed or captured but the raid was a succes rendering the tirpitz useless. they were out numbered by they had 100s and the germans had 10s of thousands. SO i say again its not what you have or how much you haves its how you use it so bear that in mind if your reading this.

---

VULCAN VICTOR VALIANT elegant DESTRUCTION!!!

any1 of yall ever read Crush Depth by Joe Brown? The setup of that story may be alittle far fetched but it does show how you could overestimate your strenth. yall know that china and russia and other countries can shoot down satilites right? now lets assume they shot all of them down. now lets say a cruise missle hits the bay bridge between newport news and the eastern shore in VA. that would ruin alot of the local economy. lets say a lot of our navy was destroyed in a nuclear blast at sea or torpedoed with nuclear armed torpedos like in the book. we would be on our knees. technology is one thing. but with new high tech technology comes a price. and all that technology has a weak spot. the internet for example. we hear all the time of people hacking it. lets say someone hacks the transportation department network. all mass transit would come to a standstill. And what about Iraq and Afganistan? we are facing an enemy that has 40 year old weapons, simple tactics and homemade road side bombs. we should've beaten them by now but we havn't. so technology may be great but it doesn't always give you the upper hand.

---

If you are going thru hell, keep going.
-Winston Churchill

Im not saying they would but sweden would have a good chance as they have a decent air force and an incredibly well equiped and well trained army they also have some stealth ships in their navy how james bonds that!

---

'The distant flash of lightning howling through the thunder' ex RAF ligthning pilot recalling lightning of 1973 through thunder

Sweden would not have a good chance..............there are few military's in the world that would even have the ability to wage war for more than a couple weeks. Look at Iraq, the military crumbled...........and they had a large combat experience air force and military in general..............

Your probably right there well trained and equipped but they would ultimately be outnumbered

---

'The distant flash of lightning howling through the thunder' ex RAF ligthning pilot recalling lightning of 1973 through thunder

Numbers don't nessicarily mean anything, they would be overwhelmed by the massive amount of firepower we can bring to bear.