I think it is a numbers game. China FTW!
I think it is a numbers game. China FTW!
China by a landslide. If Americans were to kill 2 Chinese every American the Chinese killed China would still have hundreds of millions of people left after the entire US population was wiped out.
I don't think the size of the population in general matter. It's more about how many people can take the life of another person in hand to hand combat.
Very few people can do that and then repeat the task over and over again.
In the end, somebody would cheat and invent a weapon.
China no question about it. I mean does anyone want to go up against a nation that produces the best martial artists in the world? Bruce Lee and Jet Li both came out of China for ***** sake!
The average Chinese dude is small and weak! They stand no chance in 1 on 1 combat. Maybe if they swarmed the opponent they would have a shot.
Also the country that camps the hardest would win. Everyone would duke it out and then the team who chilled would sweep the competition. Geographical location means a lot too.
It is all a numbers game. China FTW
Can you use animals?
Your rules do not allow weapons, but there is nothing to prevent hi tech defensive body armour, helmets and other defense measures. Even fortifications and armoured vehicles would appear to be allowed.
Under those circumstances, it is difficult to see anyone gaining a decisive victory on the battlefield, but perhaps the war can be won though economic power. China would appear to have an advantage here.
First, this is assuming the countries have some say in how many to send into the Continentago. Not everyone is going in there at once--there needs to be some structure to maintain food supply chains and waste management. Otherwise everyone dies at the same time of starvation and dehydration.
With China and India's populations being so huge and similar, they are the only two capable of winning. But I am going with India on this one.
They simply have a younger population. Who wins in a hand-to-hand fight, a 20 year old or a 55 year old? A 20 year old Indian can probably take out a couple 40 year olds, especially if he is conditioned and has had skills training since 12 to enter the Continentagon. India is also currently growing their population at a much greater rate, meaning as the battle continues, their reduction in population from deaths will be much less than China's.
The collective culture of China may aid them because if they all get on the same page I bet they could ramp it up again, but I think India's head start is too much to be overtaken.
Countries like the United States and those in Europe would have a decent impact because our average height is 5 inches more than the asian countries, but it's not enough to overcome the swell of people. India or China could kill the physically stronger populations by simply dropping a day's worth of feces on their base. This may be considered a weapon, but others would call it smart waste management.
Whatever nation has the largest population of rednecks would win ........ 'cause we consider our guns a part of our anatomy!
It's a food and fuel game along with a numbers game.
There are few countries with supply chains as sophisticated as the US military or US corporations. Some EU nations have the logistics but not the numbers. That goes a long, long way.
India can't move food 3 miles without half of it spoiling and their roads are terrible. Chinese industry is good, but it's agriculture is lacking. Russia fails on both counts. Japan has no resources. Forget Africa and South America, no competent governments of consequence.
This is a clear US win. But not an easy one since it would end up being a long war of attrition with China. An Army fights on it's stomach though, so the outcome is inevitable.
Ummm....remember when Canada destroyed the White House. I think that adds a delusion of how the US could stand a chance against much stronger countries with much higher populations.
China by far.
Brothers J wrote:
George Carlin on the American Dream
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
I always feel lucky I was a contemporary of Carlin and got to watch his stuff evolve.
If every country was allowed the same number of fighters, I'd go with one of the Pacific Islands.
BIGNOOB wrote:
The average Chinese dude is small and weak! They stand no chance in 1 on 1 combat. Maybe if they swarmed the opponent they would have a shot.
And the average American is obese. How many U.S. adults could even handle a long march carrying a backpack?
China wouldn't stand a chance. The war would start with US teaming up with Japan and India to eliminate them. Americans take the command and the Japanese and Indians do the dirty work.
Russia and Europe will crush each other.
Israel will wipe out a billion of Arabs and other Muslims by themselves, but there won't be many Jews left after that.
The whole of Africa will die when they don't get no charity money from the West.
In the end we'll only have to fight South America. No big deal.
@Brothers J
Greece: People retire at 45, no one pays taxes, corruption is through the roof.
France: Lost their empire, did not succeed in any war of the 20th century, socialist country.
Egypt: Two years since Mubarak and it's already a borderline dictatorship again.
These are the countries you look up to?
That argument is a new low even for Letsrun.
Get real.
Wrong thread dude. It's who would win in a world war without weapons, not who do you look up to.
The one with the most money.
Legally, the hands and feet of marshal arts experts are considered weapons, so half of China would have to sit out, making the numbers more even.