SirWinkler

World War III.

128 posts in this topic

"If you weren't NPO and it was 1v1, I'd show you what America is about"

By that logic the revolutionary war wasn't a loss for the British. Always is a long time.

I simply want to sit down with FoxFire, 1v1 conversation without his band of NPO E-Thugs; and show him what America is about. What is wrong with that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iraq was never anything....

Im not saying America can be easily beaten. Im saying Russia is not Iraq. Nothing even remotely comparable. Were talking two entirely different levels of military. The Russians aren't afraid of us. And if you think they're pussies, consider they're war history and think twice.

Im saying you can love your country all you want and assume its that one never ending utopia that never existed..... I generally try to view the world as a whole without all the bias and ignorant human stupidity.

Its cool if you think your nation is the greatest, but when you start thinking its invincible, you're blinding yourself.

I never used the word fight, you used your imagination there bubba. And the US didn't lose Vietnam, we withdrew before it was claimed a loss. US will always be a world power, generic russia scrub.

Yeah, Iraq was a success too. Just look at how beautiful that.country is these days? I was considering my next vacation there, but Im not the desert type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never used the word fight, you used your imagination there bubba. And the US didn't lose Vietnam, we withdrew before it was claimed a loss. 

Why do you think we withdrew? (Hint: We were getting our asses whupped.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet.png

 

We withdrew from Vietnam because of a wrongly pointing cost to effect ratio in every statistic you can count in war.  That's called losing.  If you're waiting for the official rubber stamp to call it an official loss, then you're intentionally being obtuse.  We lost Vietnam in every way that mattered.  Don't take my word for it.  I got that arguement, word for word, from a man who was there. 

 

Back to the topic though, I'd be surprised to see more from Russia than small, short term wars with its neighbors and cold war tactics.  You're right, Fox.  They're not afraid of the US, but they're also not stupid.  They can calculate the costs of a full assault on their own, and have a much better opportunity to end up the economic winners of a cold war exchange.  Short of a major US diplomacy misstep,  I dont expect to see much more than that in the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tl;dr.

 

 

I'm not sure what I think about a WWIII. However, I will share something a former history teacher of mine, who served in West Germany during the 1980s, told me.

 

Generally, any conventional war between the US and USSR would have started along the Iron Curtain. US war plans in the 80s had accounted for the massive size of the Soviet armies. The US believed that the Soviets would have pushed back NATO troops as far as France at the beginning of the war as the US deployed troops to Europe (the US didn't have a sizable army in Europe at the time like the Soviets did). When US reinforcements arrived to the front lines, it was believed that NATO troops would push the Soviets back due to their overexpansion (Europe is obviously too big to control, see Nazi Germany).

 

At that point, NATO allies would have had to stop at preexisting borders. Advancing any further into the communist bloc would have, without a doubt, provoked the USSR to use tactical nukes against NATO troop movements. NATO would have responded with its own tactical nukes against Soviet troop movements. The nukes would have gotten bigger and bigger with each round, eventually reaching the use of ICBMs.

 

 

In short, any war between nuclear powers would most likely become nuclear, whether it started that way or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Europe can be controlled. (See EU/NATO)

Every EU nation might as well be NATO, since Thats their economy.

Also, Rome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Europe can be controlled. (See EU/NATO)

Every EU nation might as well be NATO, since Thats their economy.

Also, Rome?

 

 

Alliances like the EU and NATO are not the same as "controlling" Europe. Europe is too vast and multicultural to control under one single state.

 

Rome, on the other hand, became too large to control and administrate and collapsed due to barbarian raids from Germany and the Steppe. Given, there were a few other major economic and political issues at play, but controlling such a vast area certainly didn't help their disposition, militarily or politically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear Powered Robots gave the best response.

On another note. Lets assume super weapons didn't exist, And that this WW3 was purely conventional:

http://globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

^Read the "keep in mind" notes before questioning the rankings.

The US really blows every nation out of the water. I mean, there is no single nation that could take us in a conventional war near our own borders. Lets not forget the added boost front NATO.

In comparison to Russia:

http://globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

The only benefit Russia has is land based weapons. But this doesn't take technology into consideration.

Conventionally speaking, nothing can be compared to NATO, the world knows this. So nobody is going to make a move.

A good example of this is North Koreas annual dick waving.

Shaman, very well said. :P

All Russia has to do is force OPEC, maybe through threats to embargo at least the US. Spain and Italy can't go to war, economy too bad.

 

And when OPEC embargos the US, the US is in deep trouble. Unlike last time, the US has a bigger population which means more vehicles which means more people are using gas. The US military can't fight a war without oil, we all know that.

 

A Russo-American war would be fough in the far east, Alaska and the Middle East. It all depends wether NATO can defeat Russia before they get utterly screwed over economicly.

Edited by Eisenbergjr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Russia has to do is force OPEC, maybe through threats to embargo at least the US. Spain and Italy can't go to war, economy too bad.

 

And when OPEC embargos the US, the US is in deep trouble. Unlike last time, the US has a bigger population which means more vehicles which means more people are using gas. The US military can't fight a war without oil, we all know that.

 

A Russo-American war would be fough in the far east, Alaska and the Middle East. It all depends wether NATO can defeat Russia before they get utterly screwed over economicly.

 

gr-oilprod-300.gif

 

Try again.

 

An OPEC embargo would not effect the US as devastatingly as you think it would. (Also, Russia isn't part of OPEC, but I suppose you are suggesting Russia will influence them.)

 

 

On the topic of a Russo-American war, the US can beat Russia (or China, for that matter) anywhere in the world except Russia (or China), hands down. The US has a indisputable global military presence. Russia and China do not. The US can impose its power just about anywhere in the world. Russia and China just can't. Russia's military, particularly its Navy and Air Force, is just too far outdated since the USSR (a strong air force is needed to perform even the most basic modern military strategy, Blitzkrieg).

 

China's military, on the other hand, is speaking for itself during the search for the missing Malaysian jet. China supposedly sent the best ships they have to search for the jet; yet, they have been unproductive, and even counterproductive at times, during the search. Those ships that are searching have to be resupplied by Chinese navy supply ships rather than by foreign ports -- China lacks allies and friendly ports in the area. If they can't keep their ships supplied during a humanitarian effort, how could they keep their ships supplied during an all-out war against a military hyperpower?

Edited by chrisford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've looked at how much the US owes China and other countries. My conclusion is that Russia and China can influence countries to force the US, although not right away and so much at a time, can drain the US of 1767 billion dollars. That money could have went to buying oil, paying soldiers, producing, and possibly other things.

 

You should also know the President of the US, also the top general I believe is a idiot. Who knows how Obama could screw up a war.

 

I also took a look at some infographs, and looks like the US cannot invade, but rather protect Canada a lot. Russian bombers can bomb Canadian oil rigs/wells very fast, as they can go from European Russia to say, one of the coasts in a extremely short time. We're talking about minutes here. This forces the US to help Canada, through protecting from bombardment and invasions. And the US military is streched out because of having to be in Europe, Canada, Middle east bases, and SE Asia. This is how Rome fell, streched out armies. The same can happen for the US military, being so streched out in the world that Russia can pick off armies one by one.

 

Oh and, the Russian military has been modernizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets all face it. faster space ships are becoming reality. different nations been working on new engines for space ships, and new ideas for space exploration. its true no ones actually doing anything in space... but we will all be robots in space soon enough... and in that respect the next world war wont be a world war... but a war of the worlds.. oh see wut i did thar... i know crappy but still.

 

serious?

 

 

war as we know it has become somewhat obsolete. or more so war in the World War sense... or the good guy - bad guy sense. we may see some sort of corporate warefare, like we have been seeing more recently... or we will see what we have been seeing the last 30 years.... different nations pretending to like each other while screwing each others interests over in other countries... we all got interests... we most people want everyone elses stuff as well as their own.

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

then to reply to the man above me. The president has so little military or political power its stupid. we all know that. the United States spends 460 Billion a year(back in 2010) on the military budget. and we can also assume that the US has decided to spend more in the last 4 years, although i wouldn't be surprised with the American populous if we spent less... but not much. that military budget is bigger than Russias, Chinas, most of Europe, and Japans Combined... the US dosn't need soldiers anymore like most of the world still does... the US dosn't need a single living person to defend against a missle attack or air attack on North American Soil. i mean... the US ignorantly is the only nation not to sign the "no weapons in space" agreement or whatever it was called.

 

not to say thats right, or good... but hey... the US just wouldn't pay them back... why would China attack one of their greatest customers... lol. i am not defending obama mind you. i just don't think calling someone who got billions of people to vote for him is an idiot is an accurate statement. Obama did some what stand aside on the most recent Russian/Russian territorial stuff.

 

 

Obama or not. its going to take something different to bring the US down from our high horse. Empires always fail though like you said.

Edited by kiosixos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will not be a third world war. Globalization has made nations far more interdependent on each other than ever before, and MAD continues to be a powerful deterrent.

Just because a World War would be unreasonable, doesn't mean it won't happen. There is always that one guy who can't share the sandbox.

 

Adolf-Hitler.jpg

 

On that note, Europe may be in for interesting times

 

 

adN2M0Z_460s-e1394106966155.jpg

Edited by MurderMostFoul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I know is ww3 would happen but not anytime now(at least 15-30 years). Some technological advances are made that can reapeal nukes?Maybe just find and shoot em in the air.If it does happen,the economy would have changed a lot.maybe China would have equalled,if not bypasses the Usa(there's just 3% gap).And probably the centre would be middle east because of there oil,maybe north-south Korea,india-pak,or someone like the second Hitler.

Main players would be Nato,Sco,India,but then who knows?

Edited by Varun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree wih Varun on all points. Maybe the US can launch a star wars like satellite in the future and that nuclear detterence Russia and China has becomes moot. But i might add another organisation that might be Major players: ASEAN

ASEAN is a type of EU that binds the South East Asian nations together, the middle East and Ukraine will be a major playing field if there is to be WW3 yes but China has the Same dilemma that Germany has faced during the 1st world war. Their lack of self suffiency that crippled Germany in the First world war and will cripple China if they fail to keep the Malacca strait open (which WILL be closed by the US in a world war three acenario)

the South China Sea will be a massive battleground between ASEAN, US, and China since China needs to keep their applies going, the US is doing the exactly opposite, and ASEAN will try to keep their sovereignity intact.

Vietnam is going to be a hellhole for China due to the heavy jungle environment and once other ASEAN countries have send their forces into Vietnam, it will ve even more difficult for China to win the 3rd world war.

I wouldn't say that we can win against China alone. But One of our member countries, the Phillipines is allied with the US and they will surely call the US if China goes to far in "bullying" their south East asian neighbors.

And the US cannot refuse since it would mean a near total break of trust since now their allies think that if the US couldn't keep it's word with a historicall ally, they cannot keep their words with their conventional allies as well and that would ruin the US diplomatic stance in the world since their allies won't take the US seriously anymore.

Edited by Ax3hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skimming the posts above, I noticed some proposing a new SDI.

 

On that note, the US does have the capacity to shoot down ICBMs inbound from countries with small arsenals, say, North Korea, but the US (and any other country, for that matter) would succumb to a full scale nuclear attack from any of the major nuclear powers (MAD applies in any case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with a star wars like satellite is, China is close of having the same capability, technology, and knowledge to counter the US with their own star wars like satellite. The last thing you want is to weaponized space. (Just for reference nations that could developed a star wars like satellite is US, China (soon, if not already, hard to tell), Russia (has had since 1980s but never the wealth to do it), India (soon) and Israel (soon) )

ASEAN is a failure and powerless unlike the EU which had been affective against the USSR, ASEAN has a history of failures and successes, the biggest problem is despite common interest in peace in Asia, Nations like Vietnam and the philippines cant agree on any response, its either not enough, too little, or not the right time (due to receiving a massive Chinese investment for example) etc.

These nations simply cant act alone, and are losing faith in the US and its ability and willingness to protect them (With cutting defence, cancelling summits due to domestic problems, And little if any response from the US in the south china sea, with china slowly taking over island by island since 2007)

 China has has been a chipping of Philippines sovereignty since 08 and now Vietnam is under siege with still no response from the US. (oh and the Philippines did come calling for the US to help stop china chipping away from their sovereignty and their request never been answered)

They are disorganised and disagree on to many issue and have dispute among themselves as well.  

So I don’t think ASEAN is a issue for China, the US and allies (Australia, Japan, EU etc) closing Malacca strait is a problem that won’t be solved any time soon which is why energy trade with Russia is being expanded and increases in reserves.

In a world war, Vietnam, Philippines wont be much help they are to underdeveloped, and risk direct military occupation from China, so I would think they would choose to stay neutral in face with their little faith in the US. 

Edited by Ahovking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Russia has to do is force OPEC, maybe through threats to embargo at least the US. Spain and Italy can't go to war, economy too bad.

 

And when OPEC embargos the US, the US is in deep trouble. Unlike last time, the US has a bigger population which means more vehicles which means more people are using gas. The US military can't fight a war without oil, we all know that.

 

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=US#pet

 

US oil production has increased by 50% since 2005, and is still growing, while US oil consumption has decreased by 10%. The US currently imports 2 million barrels per year from OPEC, and 2.5 million from non-OPEC countries. Production only needs to grow another 15%, or consumption shrink another 10% (or some combination thereof) and the US will be able to meet all of its oil import needs without OPEC at all. This can occur within a few years, though even if a complete OPEC embargo occured today, it would only reduce US oil supplies by 12% of total consumption needs.

 

I agree with the following points that other people have brought up in this thread, which, in my opinion, render tactics/equipment/geography/culture/religion/ideology largely irrelevant to whether war will break out between major powers:

 

1.) MAD is a strong deterrent that makes direct war between major powers insane (Anti-missile and anti-satellite weapons could eventually negate or overcome MAD).

2.) Globalization creates interdependence and reluctance to go to war. I would add that this not only affects grand strategy by policy makers, but the preferences of elites who do not want to see their vast wealth destroyed in a cataclysm (No end in sight to this).

3.) In terms of conventional capabilities, NATO is unequaled by any other existing or feasible alliance, and it would not be worthwhile to try to form such a coalition as long as the first two conditions hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you effect an completely isolated,super-secret,economically worse than Africa nation with an enemy at it's border with any sanctions?And they got that mad dictator.Ya,am talking about north korea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you effect an completely isolated,super-secret,economically worse than Africa nation with an enemy at it's border with any sanctions?And they got that mad dictator.Ya,am talking about north korea

 

Well for once. South Korea might try to get a conquest casus belli sometime in the future :awesome

 

OOC: if anyone gets the reference  :laugh:

Edited by Ax3hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be pretty much like the previous war,but China's stronger,us will take some time,and if Russians also join,it will be an win,but do not know if china and Russia would enter the war.And it can be pretty soon,with North Korea testing missiles and big figures visiting the South.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be pretty much like the previous war,but China's stronger,us will take some time,and if Russians also join,it will be an win,but do not know if china and Russia would enter the war.And it can be pretty soon,with North Korea testing missiles and big figures visiting the South.

 

For one we have India on our side (they have quite a history of rivalry. China and India) and India has been making pretty big strides in their military

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya

 

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/pentagon-notifies-harpoon-missile-sale-to-india/article6172859.ece

 

 

besides that we also have Japan, South Korea, and the EU/NATO (if you want to count Russia) joining in IN the event someone in Asia/Europe decided they want to start world war 3.

 

 

And there's also the MAD threat that everyone's been talking about. The threat might persist but even during world war 1 people say it wouldn't happen due to the incredible dependency Europe has with each other (and it happened) so i wouldn't want to really put MAD as the ultimate blocker for another world war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's sum up events.Un,NATO warns n.k. for eating something.The South starts preparing.The north launches an surprise attack.They win initially win,but then South starts funding and pushes back.Meanwhile,China(probably)gives aid to north.They get the upper hand and would take Seoul.By this time,Japanese soldiers have arrived to the aid of their allies,while us and Japanese planes bombard their cities.India,though maybe not declaring war on china,tries to block their oil passage.China sends in their own fleet,and calls upon Pakistan.India and Pakistan get into their on rivalries,and China declares war on India.Great clashes in the Indian Ocean.Nato sends troops to aid India and S. Korea,meanwhile tensions rise in Arabian Peninsula.Russia has to decide one side now.China asks them to come join them as they have an alliance(sco) while they do not want to go to war with NATO.Russia is the wildcard.Probably a game changer.I will take them neutral.Korea has fallen,but aerial clashes will be still active till us soldiers arrive.They are looking for point where they can land.Indian Ocean clashes still active.Pakistan has captured some land with Chinese help,but indian standing artillery is put up in large no. on the border,and armies are about equal as China has to spare troops at 2 fronts.NATO troops have also arrived,and will probably now start hitting back.An terrorist organisation in Syrria asks for death of Jews(sorry just an assumption,I do not know on that topic)and attacks Israel.The country starts gathering forces and pushes them back.what do you guys think?and opinion on Russia's role

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia is the wildcard Varun. Syrian militants is proabably chanting death to the jews already so they should be no problem, with India on the allied side China needs to spare troops in the Korean peninsula (they are unlikely to just roll over South Korea due to US troop presence in both South Korea and Japan) with heavy fighting there with both South Korean and US troops. 

 

We also need to count the US bases in Guam, The Phillipines, Hawaii, Diego Garcia, Saipan (US planes and bombers has really long ranges) and the US 7th fleet which will be flying sortie missions day in day out to neutralize any air and industrial power China has (the Industrial power being unlikely) as they did with Germany in the 2nd world war. We might see the Chinese rendered crippled like Germans due to their heavily pummeled airforce and maybe a D-day like attack through either the Korean peninsula and through Manchuria/ through Vietnam (the 1st one being more like since Manchuria can be plainly described as tank country due to the flat plains it offered)

 

Also given the fact the rebels in Xinjiang and Tibet will be openly revolting at this point (and Indian troops trying to come in through Xinjiang) makes China even more hard pressed to spare their troops on 2 fronts. On one front against a highly technological armies of South Korea, Japan, and the US and the other through the treacherous terrains of the Himalayas and the Tibetans to fight an increasingly lethal army. This makes the dedication of Russia to side with China's side ever more important.

 

But it's highly unlikely since Europe has a highly technological and Brutally efficient army at their disposal (courtesy of the cold war) and will try to push through Moscow. 

Edited by Ax3hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one we have India on our side (they have quite a history of rivalry. China and India) and India has been making pretty big strides in their military

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya

 

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/pentagon-notifies-harpoon-missile-sale-to-india/article6172859.ece

 

 

besides that we also have Japan, South Korea, and the EU/NATO (if you want to count Russia) joining in IN the event someone in Asia/Europe decided they want to start world war 3.

 

 

And there's also the MAD threat that everyone's been talking about. The threat might persist but even during world war 1 people say it wouldn't happen due to the incredible dependency Europe has with each other (and it happened) so i wouldn't want to really put MAD as the ultimate blocker for another world war

 

There's a difference though between interdependence and MAD; interdependence is "our economies are intertwined so war isn't very fun for anybody!" and MAD is "If we go to war, most people will die!"

 

The worst weapons of mass destruction that existed during WWI were chemical, and could only be effectively deployed within artillery or mortar range (i.e. at the front lines).  MAD, as such, didn't exist prior to nor during WWI, or even WWII. Even then, decision-makers prior to WWI each vastly overestimated how quickly their nation would defeat their enemy, and much of the carnage then was due to their eagerness to attack without regard to the advent of such new defensive technologies as the machine gun; but this is not what MAD is. MAD didn't truly exist until nations gained the capability to truly destroy one another simultaneously; this occurred with the advent of the nuclear weapon and its proliferation into the hands of more than one nation (the Soviets tested their first bomb in 1949, and probably took a couple more years to build up enough of them to do grievous harm to the West).

 

Today, the major powers possess globally-reaching nuclear-tipped ICBMs with combined explosive power to destroy the entire surface of the Earth many times over, and it is fear of this that makes today's situation very different from that of a century ago.

 

And if, for whatever insane reason, a war broke out between the US and China, it would take more than dislike for India to jump into that bloodbath; they would need some credible guarantee that they wouldn't wind up glassed, and of course there can be no such guarantee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now