Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Let's say the US, European NATO members and their allies go to war against Russia, China and their allies. I'm not sure if countries like Brazil or India would get involved or who's side they would join.

Will they use nukes?

That's kinda THE decisive factor in which everyone loses.

The title says conventional warfrare, so I imagine not.

If it were to be a battle between NATO and post-communism nations (Russia, China, etc.) then I think the most likely scenario would be a land invasion of Finland and/or Ukraine/Poland by Russia.

A front ranging from north of Finland all the way to the black sea is a terribly huge front, though Russia does have quite the numbers and tech to support it in the short-run (they are the nation with the most tanks IIRC). If China allies with them they may not need to worry about their pacific front as much, but with technology allowing for easier amphibious landings you never know.

Since I don't have time to analyze this more (I love the topic btw) here's my assumptions/predictions on how it would pan out:
-Russia makes blitzkrieg/operation Barbarossa-like assault on eastern Europe
-Gains initial success and hits some NATO bases with strategic bombing, gaining a good amount of ground in the divided Ukraine region and even reaching Poland
-China engages Pacific forces, fighting the JDF in a series of Naval engagements. The JDF makes a few strategic bombing campaigns but does not commit to any amphibious landings
-European navies from Nordic, UK, and Middle European regions engage Russia in the Baltic and arctic waters; Russia enjoys moderate success with submarine warfare for a while, perhaps gaining an amphibious landing on far northern Norway/Sweden to help with the Finnish front

And pardon my Americanism for showing here but:

Once the USA mobilizes, it's basically a matter of how long until Russia/China loses. Even without Nukes a nations air force can inflict tons of damage upon both combat and strategic units. Having the largest supply of Aircraft carriers and the 1st and 2nd largest number of aircraft is something very important to allowing the USA to be effective in an overseas campaign. Regardless of European views on America, it is still THE military superpower. It's influence in a modern military engagement is decisive in a campaign. In the early stages of a war it will rely heavily on Polish, German, British, and Nordic contributions but once the USA arrives it's over.

I'd say the one way Russia could "win" is if they set their goals small and just try and invade not that much, like perhaps just Ukraine and Finland and the surrounding low countries. Poland's one of the few Euro nations that gives a shit about NATO and are still quite ready for a WW3 so they may experience a lot of resistance there.

I'm not sure what China's war goals would be and there's plenty of other factors. One that I'm particularly curious about is what effect would this have on militant Islamic extremists, and how would they engage other forces. If Russia could push them more against US forces in the region it could really help their middle flank and put pressure on NATO forces.

TL;DR: Russia may enjoy early success but is doomed to fail if they open a large front and engage the USA for too long

I'll engage in more talk about this later I really love this topic, gotta go play video games now.

What about China?

The US would win. The continental united states is practically un-invadable. Not to mention we have the largest fleet on earth and the highest number of aircraft carriers.

china is un-invadable too. their high population and diverse landscape means guerilla warfare would make occupation last very little and costly resource-wise, even if the US just breaks trough their defenses.

Nobody wins, everybody loses. Like in every war

First, I doubt China would want to get in involved. The Chinese government is all about keeping the masses happy so they don't start stirring up trouble and a large part of that is making sure their economy runs well. They're already under a great deal of strain from market forces. Attacking the West would guarantee a blockade and implosion of their export-based economy. What gain would they get? Mongolia's the land of nothing, they have enough Islam issues in Xinjiang to not want to touch central Asia, and South Korea and Japan would rebel till the end of time. The only real thing would be Taiwan, but I doubt they want to gamble their economy for a small archipelago.

Russia would face hard issues, too. Europe buys a lot of their oil. Invade NATO and that all dries up. They'd likely make quick gains in Poland and the Baltic States, but the element of surprise would be lost and the slow grind would begin. While the US scrambles to deploy, Germany, France, and the UK pick up the slack.

Russia has a pretty small navy and it would likely be nullified quickly. Turkey would mine the Bosphorus, cutting off the Black Sea, while the the Baltic would be secured by joint forces. If China did get involved, they're only real shot at gaining naval ground would be by leeching off the Chinese, but the US has the largest navy in the world (we have 10 supercarriers and another 9 that could be called aircraft carriers, China has one and it's a training ship).

There's also the realpolitik angle to look at as well. Both China and Russia have islamist dissident factions that I'm sure the CIA and our allies in the Middle East would love to exploit.

I'm pretty sure that if World War 3 actually happens, it won't be America and the NATO members against Russia and China, it'll probably be all of us against a nuclear ISIS (or some other Islamic terrorist group) caliphate that spans the breadth of the Middle East.
And knowing about their penchant for suicide bombings, prepare for many nuclear 9/11s if that happens.

Russia, china and any other allies of theirs. As long as no nuclear weapons are being used at all of course, China has a much more numbers in military personnel and Russia can easily compete with the U.S forces. Also don't forget about North Korea who is just waiting with an itchy trigger finger to attack at a moment's notice on U.S while they do go to war with the others. Could they handle a war on two fronts?

This is just what I believe, but yeah overall I would think Russia and china would win and do hope they would.

What about China?

China is a large deciding factor in this, they tend to be split between the east and west so they could go either way with enough leverage. China doesn't really have much to gain by engaging in a naval/amphibious war with Japan, nor by crossing the Himalayas to invade India, at most they may have eyes on the middle-east for oil but that land has often been proven to be more trouble than it is worth plus China doesn't really have any grievances with any factions from that area (except maybe ISIS). They still have sufficient technology and numbers to compete with the larger military forces of the west or east, but not by their lonesome.

The continental united states is practically un-invadable.

Not necessarily, a land invasion through Mexico may be disastrous. There are plenty of nations within South America that would be itching to take a swing, though Mexico is on fairly good terms with us (for now) so an avenue exists but is currently closed. Navy-wise it would be PRETTY DAMN HARD to get through our navy, but hey if Pearl Harbor can happen once it can happen again.

china is un-invadable too

The Mongols and Japanese have done it before and they can do it again (maybe)! Though honestly why even invade China? Invading through Mongolia for Russia would be irksome to say the least, since that's basically extending their front to a all of Russia's borders. While invading China by sea could be ideal for NATO nations with the aid of allies in the area (S.Korea, Japan, Australia, etc.) and the fact that most of China's key cities are near the Pacific Ocean makes them vulnerable to a westward assault. It would be difficult for Russia to mobilize against China, but not so much for NATO. A campaign could be successful here but it would deteriorate from the European front. That being said, an occupation is a whole 'nother story. xTSGx put the China's perspective better than I could.

Nobody wins, everybody loses. Like in every war

Oh you take Gandhi's nukes away and suddenly he's back to spouting philosophical proverbs again.

I’m pretty sure that if World War 3 actually happens, it won’t be America and the NATO members against Russia and China, it’ll probably be all of us against a nuclear ISIS

deducts points for missing the "no nukes" stipulation
I don't think the west and east will ever ally to get rid of the wild card militant Islam. We're struggling to get this to happen during a time of relative peace with Russia and China, I highly doubt it could happen during a time of war. Not to mention the strategic value of having your foe fight another front is invaluable to both parties in a wartime scenario. The Nazis knew that with the Finns despite the Finns not really being "allies" with the Reich.

Also don’t forget about North Korea

N.Korea is a joke. They're one SEAL raid away from being destabilized.

Could they handle a war on two fronts?

I dunno, if the US went to war with Russia, China, and N.Korea there is a high likelihood that would be mostly fought on one front seeing as they're all along the Pacific Ocean. The front would be a long one sure if you go from California all the way to Alaska, but it's not like you can invade ALL of that at once, especially not unnoticed. Having the stalwart Canadians nearby also helps a bunch too, they wouldn't be alone in such an engagement.

Now someone discuss the geopolitical ramifications of a third non-nuclear World War. I'm excited and eager.

the japanese

they did, then they were forced to attack america because they needed more oil to even hope to continue the operation, and on top of all they needed tons of pogroms and mass executions to curb any insurgencies, a.k.a they invaded it but they couldnt occupy it forever.

Not to say they also relied on the cultural revolution between communists and nationalist, as well as a fast offensive attack the chinese didn't react to in time

nowadays china is fully united and prepared for anything

the mongols

china 10 years before the mongol occupation

population: 360 million people

china now

population:1.357 billion

I’m pretty sure that if World War 3 actually happens, it won’t be America and the NATO members against Russia and China, it’ll probably be all of us against a nuclear ISIS (or some other Islamic terrorist group) caliphate that spans the breadth of the Middle East.
And knowing about their penchant for suicide bombings, prepare for many nuclear 9/11s if that happens.

and im pretty sure you are a retard, ISIS members are getting mowed down by coalition soldiers faster than they can get more members, they will come and go just like all other islamic groups, they simply don't have the neccesary equipment, support nor training to become anything more than another insurgency that is used by the media to spread fearmongering.

and yes this goes to all "nuclear caliphates", there wont be nothing of the sorts, if you really want to kill muslims en masse then im sorry but you won't ever see all of arabia becoming a coalition against the west.

This question should be left for a customized hunger games simulator. Personally I think that some kind of European-African alliance, led by Vatican and Namibia, would slowly conquer the entire world. The final battle would be fought in Pearl Harbour, just because some über-patriotic Americans get triggered every time Google doesn't change it's logo on the date of the previous battle. Happy now?

the napoleonic wars brought us republics and civil rights as well as killing feudalism and despotic monarchies, not all wars are depressing "everyone dies for nothing" type of meme, in fact that wasn't a thing until ww1

The issue these days is that both Russia and China are so economically dependent on the world trade and their own economic strengths that any major conflict would just be an economic suicide. No economy, no support.

China's dependent on it's continual imports and exports of it's own goods, in fact, just a simple naval blockade of China's waters would effectively shut them down. They can saber rattle all they want. They can launch all the rockets they want, The fact of the matter is, within 3 months you'll have a Chinese population that suddenly is now unemployed, producing nothing, and having their own economy compromised. They'd rebel sooner than try to fight the US.

Same with Russia. You don't even need to invade Russia, or anything of such. Just tactical strike their oil pipelines and infrastructure and the vast majority of the Russian economic and industrial powerhouse is lost.

Economics, trade, and the almighty the pursuit of economic wellbeing is essentially the biggest deterrent to any actual large scale conflict.

At WORST WW3 would be one of tactical strikes, economic attrition, and proxies.

Yeah, those 6 million folks sure died for a good cause
The French population suffered long-term effects through a low male-to-female population ratio. At the beginning of the Revolution, the numbers of males to females was virtually identical. By the end of the conflict only 0.857 males remained for every female. Combined with new agrarian laws under the Napoleonic Empire that required landowners to divide their lands to all their sons rather than the first born, France's population never recovered. By the time of the First World War France had lost its demographic superiority over Germany and Austria and even Great Britain.
and don't even let me start on the scorched earth tragedy
It doesn't matter who "wins", it always ends the same, countless deaths and ravaged land.
No matter how you look at it, war always brought destruction. You give me a lecture in history? I'll give you one in humanity.

it didint matter who won, because by effort the ideals of the revolution spread, if anything it was more of a sacrifice by napoleon to forcefully reform the entirety of europe and bring in the power of the masses.

>b-but france lost 6 million people ;(

a great loss to them but one that future generations thrived on, we certainly did win once the ideals of the revolution allowed oppresive systems to fall

or would you have prefered feudalism to last until the 20th century?

>It brought us republics and civil rights

I'm pretty sure you know that republics didn't come from those wars and existed beforehand. Firstly, there were wars that actually did more to kill feudalism like the English Civil War, nearly 200 years prior. And civil rights in most cases came after the 2nd World War, and were movements not wars.

The Napoleonic Wars was a pretty poor choice for your point, as it was a war that caused a ton of damage to Europe. There were plenty who considered it this way, such as the Duke of Wellington, who cried after reading the list of the dead at Waterloo.

Also with cases like the American Civil War, in which yes it was responsible for abolishing slavery, such things had been achieved before peacefully. William Wilberforce didn't wage war to do that.

it didint matter who won, because by effort the ideals of the revolution spread, if anything it was more of a sacrifice by napoleon to forcefully reform the entirety of europe and bring in the power of the masses.

>b-but france lost 6 million people ;(

a great loss to them but one that future generations thrived on, we certainly did win once the ideals of the revolution allowed oppresive systems to fall

or would you have prefered feudalism to last until the 20th century?

Considering that Napoleon became a monarch himself and there were plenty of European countries that remained as monarchies doesn't help your point. Feudalism was already in decline by the 1400s.

While I agree that war does have positive consequences, but the cost of human lives in most cases outweigh that, especially when alternative methods exist.

Anyway for the question, I'm the camp that these hypothetical Allies would be the "victors", but i think that the majority of countries wouldn't be able to really absolutely decisively destroy each other

I’m pretty sure you know that republics didn’t come from those wars and existed beforehand. Firstly, there were wars that actually did more to kill feudalism like the English Civil War, nearly 200 years prior. And civil rights in most cases came after the 2nd World War, and were movements not wars.

The Napoleonic Wars was a pretty poor choice for your point, as it was a war that caused a ton of damage to Europe. There were plenty who considered it this way, such as the Duke of Wellington, who cried after reading the list of the dead at Waterloo.

Also with cases like the American Civil War, in which yes it was responsible for abolishing slavery, such things had been achieved before peacefully. William Wilberforce didn’t wage war to do that.

i should have been specific in that it brought constitutional republics

it was my bad to mention civil rights, as i should have said civil code, with the napoleonic one being the most popular thanks to the french occupation of many european lands.

(really most of my mistakes come from slip ups in my english)

in on itself the napoleonic wars didint abolish the feudal system, what it did was create a longstaying effect on the areas napoleon ravaged trought, which in turned caused the spring of nations that on the short term did little, but on the long term put the final nail on the coffin of feudalism.

feudalism was dying, napoleon and all subsequent revolutions inspired by him sped up the process faster.

In a conventional war Western Europe has no chances against Russian numerous, technologically advanced military, gg. I'm not so sure about the Pacific front, but once again, Russia and China would probably prevail over America and its allies.

I, for one, would welcome our new Slavic overlords.

The Battlefields are most likely similar to past World Wars, as the places its most likely to break out would be Eastern Europe (most likely due to Russian aggression), The Middle-East (most likely due to US, Israel, Russian, or Iranian aggression or another Arab-Israeli conflict), and The Pacific/South-East Asia (most likely due to Chinese aggression, possibly North Korean aggression but its possible China wouldn't back them up). It's possible that a Nation attacks a South American nation, in which case the US would almost definitely get involved, and most other North/Central/South American states would ally together.

Allied Nations (Good Guys)
Major Players: NATO, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, Philippians, and Israel
Combined Assets: 14 Aircraft carriers (out of the 19 total in the world), ~7400 Nukes, ~20 million current troops (depends on if you count active, reserve, and paramilitary)

Legion of Doom (Bad Guys)
Major Players: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and Syria
Combined Assets: 2 Aircraft carriers, 7500+ Nukes, ~15 million+ troops (but China has the ability to raise a MASSIVE army)

Non-Aligned (Guys that could go either way)
Major Powers: India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Latin America, Various Arab States

"feudalism was dying, napoleon and all subsequent revolutions inspired by him sped up the process faster."

AT the cost of one of the most devastating wars Europe fought until WW1. Just because it sped something a long doesn't justify the cost.

The Mongol Invasion brought East and West closer together, it obliterated the Muslim stranglehold on the silk road, and opened up trade and knowledge. At the cost of hundreds of millions of lives, literally, 10% of the entire human population wiped out. For what? Speeding up something would have happened anyway?

It's so damn easy to sit with our history books and distance ourselves from the HUMAN element of the wars of the past, and only see the positive changes.

Until those realities come roosting at home, I guess.

If NATO and their allies went to war with Russia, China, and their allies, I think (based on what I know) it would go something like this:

-Russia would undoubtedly try to make some gains in Eastern Europe, putting most of their attention on Ukraine. After securing Eastern Europe, I think they would probably launch a full scale invasion of Europe, but this would probably be a stupid move because NATO has some of the most powerful nations in the world (e.i. the United Kingdom, the United States), so the chances of them actually going forward with it and succeeding is low IMO.

-China would try to advance on South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, and probably conquer the South China Sea, getting most, if not, all of the countries involved in the dispute. I doubt that they'll get far with South Korea, but Japan might be a different story since they have less active and reserve personnel than South Korea. The United States and her allies would come to their aid, eventually pushing the Chinese back to the mainland.

-I think the alliance system would be designated as the "Western Powers" (United States, NATO, and their allies…) and the "Eastern Powers" (Russia, China, and their allies…).

-I believe a major ally to the Eastern Powers would be Iran. Other allies would probably be North Korea and probably a Balkan country, no one in specific.

-For the Western Powers, some power allies would be Saudi Arabia, India, Australia, maybe New Zealand, and much more to name here.

How it would end, I don't know yet, but this is what I think would happen if World War III were to happen.