Who Would Win - A Hypothetical Situation

In a hypothetical scenario in 1945, who would win a one-to-one war between U.S. and the USSR?

As other answers have stated, America’s possession of nuclear weapons combined with the manpower shortages in the Soviet Armies would make it extremely likely that the U.S would win in a one-to-one war between the two nations at the end of WW2. The US was not even in total war mode yet economically, and had taken minor losses when compared to the Soviets. However, it would not be an easy war, since U.S troop numbers in Europe circa. 1945 was at around 1.9 million, and 6.4 million for the Soviets. However, the total Allied numbers(UK, French, Canada, etc.) were at 4 million, making the numerical superiority around 2:3, or 1:3 if they don’t participate (unlikely.) War wound probably take 4–6 years, seeing a defensive war being fought by the Allies until their troop numbers reach optimal capacity for an offensive. A declassified plan (Operation Unthinkable) shows that the Allied may resort to reequipping Wehrmacht soldiers in order to make up the difference. Eventually, the Soviets will become exhausted, and the Allies will go on the offensive.

Hypothetical Scenario: Who would win a cricket match between the teams who has all 11 players as bowlers vs. all 11 players as batsmen?

Interesting Question. Thanks for the A2A Sudarshan RajagopalanTo answer the question on who will win the game between 11 batsman and 11 bowlers, We should take a few external factors in to consideration, which includes but not limited to the pitch, the format of the game and the toss. I have tried to explain the result in various scenarios below.Flat Tracks:Test Match : It will be really tough even for the world’s best bowlers to take wickets in a flat track, So in a flat track , there are lot of advantages for the batsman side. But it should also be noted that it would also be tough for them to take the wickets of 20 tailhanders. So the match would either end up in a draw or a win for the batsman side.ODI : Limited overs international on a flat track should be a cake walk for the Batsman Side. Toss does not matter in this scenario. Either chasing down a total or setting target, in both the scenarios batsman team will win the game easilyT20 : Though anything can happen in a T20 and we have seen a lot of good batting performances by the bowlers in T20. Batsman side will have a slight advantage in a T20 game irrespective of the track.Green TracksTest Match : Any test match in a Green track is a bowler’s game. Only a quality bowler can use a green track well so it will be really tough for the batsman side to remove 20 tailhanders, but it will be comparatively easy for the bowling side to take 20 wickets. There is no chance for a draw.ODI : Limited overs international in a green track should also be a bowlers game. It is always hard to score runs against quality bowlers in a green track, But comparatively easy to score runs against part time. So this will be a huge advantage for the Bowlers side.T20 : T20 is not always a batsman game. Scoring against good bowlers in a green track is always tough irrespective of the game. So the Bowler side will have a better chance of winning a T20 in a green track.Turning Track :Irrespective of the format of the game, The hypothetical cricket match between Batsman and Bowlers will be a very interesting one on a turner track. Though not having a proper wicket keeper might affect the Bowling side, it will be a game where both team have equal chances.The batsman team will definitely have a few good part time spinners and we know what good part time bowlers can do in a turning track and it is easy for tailhanders to take chances against spinners. So the team which grabs the chances will win the game in a Turning track.

Hypothetical Scenario:Who would win in a battle between an army of Spartan Hoplites and Medieval Knights?

Spartans were trained warriors, since childhood they were prepared for battle. Their armour was boiled leather or bromze and they carried large, strong shields. They fought in phalanxes, with their three meter long spears overlapping. They carried short swords for close combat.Knights were heavily armored, of course equipping 5000 knights fully would probably result in the person equipping the army being completely bankrupted. Since they are uncounted they would have no lances, and would fight with massive swords or maces. Shields of all types were common. Knights were noblemen, and while they tended to have training, the Spartans would be stronger, fitter and very experienced.Conventionally wisdom says that in a fight between a spearman and a swordsman, the spearman wins, however, another answer pointed out that the bronze spearheads would have difficulty penetrating the Knights armour. This is a valid point, but many of the doru actually had iron heads.Most Knights would have found themselves out of sorts on a large battlefield, medieval battles were rarely large, whereas the Spartans have tactics suited to massive battles.With all other things considered, I would say it's a tight battle: it's rarely easy to guess at a battle with even numbers. But the Spartans would likely win.When you consider the Spartans ace in the hole: mobility, they are guaranteed to win.The Knights would be unable to execute any tactics but sit and wait, while the Spartans, un encumbered by extremely heavy armour, would be able to move the battlefield, break, engage and maneuver at their convenience. The Knights would simply be too heavy to attempt to move any distance quickly and expect to fight.

Hypothetical Scenario: Who would win in all out gunfight between American drug dealing street gangs and ISIS militants?

As much as I have become disillusioned with the overwhelming and increasingly ridiculous nature of the "what ifs" on Quora, such as this one, it seems pretty clear that Isis would wipe the floor with any drug gang, even the Hell Angels who are pretty  badass. ISIS is a group of true believers showing little fear and have significant knowledge and skill with advanced military weapons and tactics. Drug dealers are weasly little cowards who shoot and run away to their hidey holes. It would be a blood bath.

Who would win in a hypothetical scenario, Gil-Galad or Elrond?

Ceteris paribus, I think Gil-galad would win.Gil-galad was born in F.A. ~450, while Elrond in F.A. 532. Age means something, because Elves grow stronger and wiser as time goes by.Elrond himself admits that it was mainly thanks to Gil-galad and Elendil they won at the Battle of Morannon. “I was at the Battle of Dagorlad before the Black Gate of Mordor, where we had the mastery: for the Spear of Gil-galad and the Sword of Elendil, Aiglos and Narsil, none could withstand.”Gil-galad dueled Sauron himself, while Elrond stood by his side. This implies Gil-galad was not only higher in the political hierarchy, but also better in combat.When Celebrimbor learned that Sauron had forged the One Ring, he decided to hide Narya, Nenya, and Vilya. He sent Nenya to Galadriel and the other two (Narya and Vilya) to Gil-galad. This speaks volumes of the respect Gil-galad commanded among the Elves in the Third Age—and given that the Three were powerful and invaluable, I don’t think this respect had only to do with his royal office. It was Gil-galad who later gave Narya to Círdan (who passed it on to Gandalf) and Vilya to Elrond.

In a hypothetical scenario, who would win between ancient humans and the forerunners, assuming the flood wasn't involved?

Forerunners will still win because of their sheer numbers, area of control and even well technology super weapons.Ancient humanity will last a long time before going out though, but if the Forerunners really became desperate then ancient humanity gets devolved or becomes extinct in a few weeks and or mere days.Forerunners were just too powerful of a foe for even the ancient humans to face but yeah, that’s my response.