Who would win in a war 2

[Ryan Miller]

Another poll about war. This time, it is Saudi Arabia and Iran. But first, here are a couple of rules.

Rules​

1. No allies included that means the US won't be helping out Saudi Arabia or vise versa

2. By win, I mean until the military of one side is completely destroyed, or one side voluntarily surrenders

 

[Tevron]

Saudi Arabia, sheer monetary strength, a very large % of their GDP is military in comparison to most of the world, and their GDP itself is higher than IRAN, so they likely would have better equipped soldiers on the battlefield, which makes a lot of difference in conventional warfare.

 

[Bhuto]

Iran cause a lot big army than saudi. Also Iran has a lot stronger navy than saudi (33 submarine vs 0 submarine) and you expect this war must be spread in seas as well. So clearly Iran will be on winning side. 

Anyway you can check this list for better economic and military view http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp  
Iran is #21 and Saudi #24 they are close but still Iran is stronger than saudi (just a bit)

 

[Angevin]

Persia

 

[RedFive]

Who wins a war between Saudia Arabia and Iran?

The industrial war machine, oil companies outside of the Middle East, and in particular Putin, sorry... I mean Russia.

A war in the Middle East disrupts a huge portion of the global oil source and oil prices would skyrocket.  Russian GDP would suddenly skyrocket thanks to increasing oil prices and their largely dependent government success tied to simple natural resources like oil, natural gas, and coal - all of which would see increased demands in a world where typical oil suppliers would be engaged in war causing limitations on their output.  Clearly, this would mean huge profits for Putin and friends...  sorry, I mean Russia.  It happens every time I think of Russia.

Anyone else thinking of a shirtless Putin on a horse?  What a stallion... the horse that is.

Red

 

[Pope John Paul II]

Saudi Arabia since they have better equipment and technology and bought lots of western equipment. Iran also has good military but I think Saudi Arabia would still win.

 

[White Death]

The massive oil fields would benefit Saudi Arabia, since they could trade it for weps and shit

 

[Tevron]

Iran cause a lot big army than saudi. Also Iran has a lot stronger navy than saudi (33 submarine vs 0 submarine) and you expect this war must be spread in seas as well. So clearly Iran will be on winning side. 

Anyway you can check this list for better economic and military view http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp  
Iran is #21 and Saudi #24 they are close but still Iran is stronger than saudi (just a bit)

I think population is way too high of a factor in this ranking system. the number of engaged combatants is far less relevant than it once was.

 

[Rin]

Hard call. I'd say by default it will be white peace. So what matters more is that who would win in a long, brutal, zero infra war. Interestingly, if the question was US vs Iran on Iran home soil, I'd bet on Iran. US doesn't have very good odds of invading Iran without Saudi help.

First, it depends on what exactly you mean by no allied help. Iran has world class homegrown military tech. Without being able to buy allied weapons, Iran wins easily. With allied weapons purchase, Saudi has the cash to get some good American weaponry.

Saudi appears to have better military tradition. Soldiers are a part of their lifestyle; they have no police. And they have had some recent military conflicts, although nothing huge.

But what really matters is how long they can keep the war machine going. Saudi's economy is more unstable, 90% reliant on oil and tourism (pilgrimages). While Saudi is self-sufficient on many parts, Iran has more fertile soil and variety of resources. If both sides face embargoes, Saudi would be completely fucked up. Saudi also has a larger % of economy dedicated to military. Although both maintain about the same size of forces, Saudi's military budget is 8x higher.

So my bet would be on Iran.

 

[Bhuto]

Hard call. I'd say by default it will be white peace. So what matters more is that who would win in a long, brutal, zero infra war. Interestingly, if the question was US vs Iran on Iran home soil, I'd bet on Iran. US doesn't have very good odds of invading Iran without Saudi help.

First, it depends on what exactly you mean by no allied help. Iran has world class homegrown military tech. Without being able to buy allied weapons, Iran wins easily. With allied weapons purchase, Saudi has the cash to get some good American weaponry.

Saudi appears to have better military tradition. Soldiers are a part of their lifestyle; they have no police. And they have had some recent military conflicts, although nothing huge.

But what really matters is how long they can keep the war machine going. Saudi's economy is more unstable, 90% reliant on oil and tourism (pilgrimages). While Saudi is self-sufficient on many parts, Iran has more fertile soil and variety of resources. If both sides face embargoes, Saudi would be completely fucked up. Saudi also has a larger % of economy dedicated to military. Although both maintain about the same size of forces, Saudi's military budget is 8x higher.

So my bet would be on Iran.

By any chance you did any course on International Relations ??  
I think this the best explanation possible   

 

[Tevron]

Hard call. I'd say by default it will be white peace. So what matters more is that who would win in a long, brutal, zero infra war. Interestingly, if the question was US vs Iran on Iran home soil, I'd bet on Iran. US doesn't have very good odds of invading Iran without Saudi help.

A bit beside the point, but the US would decimate the Iranian military in a week with air superiority alone. Air combat is the most important type of combat when it comes to destroying an enemy's military. I think you're undervaluing the gap between the US and the rest of the world by a lot.

 

[Pope John Paul II]

A bit beside the point, but the US would decimate the Iranian military in a week with air superiority alone. Air combat is the most important type of combat when it comes to destroying an enemy's military. I think you're undervaluing the gap between the US and the rest of the world by a lot.




 

A10s go brrrrrvt

 

[Bhuto]

A bit beside the point, but the US would decimate the Iranian military in a week with air superiority alone. Air combat is the most important type of combat when it comes to destroying an enemy's military. I think you're undervaluing the gap between the US and the rest of the world by a lot.

you can't take all your airforce in one place in like 1  month like whatever airforce US have they will not move 50% of it to fight iran cause they have other works to do as well like protecting EU, a few other nations, securing homeland and etc. 
 

Also they as well need a lot big base near iran to do that afganistan will not be that base surely same is for pakistan so alone saudi can't give shelter to this much of airforce. Also there are treaties / foreign relations to prevent US-Iran direct conflict. If US want they might use saudi for proxy war in iran if they sense threat but they will never go for direct war. 

 

[Tevron]

you can't take all your airforce in one place in like 1  month like whatever airforce US have they will not move 50% of it to fight iran cause they have other works to do as well like protecting EU, a few other nations, securing homeland and etc. 
 

Also they as well need a lot big base near iran to do that afganistan will not be that base surely same is for pakistan so alone saudi can't give shelter to this much of airforce. Also there are treaties / foreign relations to prevent US-Iran direct conflict. If US want they might use saudi for proxy war in iran if they sense threat but they will never go for direct war. 

I'm just saying that US military superiority is being greatly diminished here. The US decimated Iraq's standing military in less than a month, and in a straight 1v1 there are few (if any) nations that could win a conventional war against the US, and Iran is certainly not one of them.

 

[Rin]

By any chance you did any course on International Relations ??  
I think this the best explanation possible   

The middle Eastern stuff is something I'm more familiar with than others lol

And I underestimated Iran's recent military experience - they've been engaged in aggressive wars against IS for a while now.

A bit beside the point, but the US would decimate the Iranian military in a week with air superiority alone. Air combat is the most important type of combat when it comes to destroying an enemy's military. I think you're undervaluing the gap between the US and the rest of the world by a lot.

Possibly, but America couldn't even beat Vietnam. And they had way more trouble with Iraq and Afghanistan than they should have, both of which were unstable. Iran is one of the world's major powers and one that got there without allies. America hasn't been able to decimate the military of anyone in recent wars, and Iran has way more land, defenses, and national unity.

I did underestimate the US's air superiority on its own - ~19 aircraft carriers. And while they lost in Vietnam, they won a naval war vs Japan, which had more pride, better navy and air.

 

[Tevron]

Possibly, but America couldn't even beat Vietnam. And they had way more trouble with Iraq and Afghanistan than they should have, both of which were unstable. Iran is one of the world's major powers and one that got there without allies. America hasn't been able to decimate the military of anyone in recent wars, and Iran has way more land, defenses, and national unity.

I did underestimate the US's air superiority on its own - ~19 aircraft carriers. And while they lost in Vietnam, they won a naval war vs Japan, which had more pride, better navy and air.

These hypotheticals are about fighting conventional armies though, not insurgents like in Vietnam. The military forces of Iraq were decimated. The insurgent forces are not directed by military personnel, so I rest my case.