World War III, who would win?

[adelphi]

well china n russia have been getting cozy against possible imperialistic western superpower

http://www.etaiwannews.com/Editorial/2001/07/15/995162119.htm

no matter just enact the BR act with the heads of states and let em duke it out

 

[peonyu]

I think whats more hilarious is that some of you actually believe that in the event of a EU war of aggression that the UK would side with us. Really think about it, its one thing for the UK to help us out in iraq while getting rich off it at the same time, but its another thing entirely for them to be expected to suicide themselves by siding with us in a europe vs america situation. The UK would be the first place hit in such a war, they are only 30 or so miles off europes coast so they would be the front line...sorry but i dont see them accepting a alliance under those circumstances.

Now if the EU made it clear that they want to bulldoze england then thats different...

Canada though, as is already stated would definately HAVE to side with america. Just due to proximity and since we share the same continent.

 

[mooojojojo]

wow what a nice thread for boosting US macho-military self-esteem

but as already mentioned numerous times, it's pretty obvious that with the first sign of a real invasion / attack on the US (not a small terrorist act as with the twin towers), they will just fire off ballistic nuclear missiles to all the targets they have currently marked. this would mean Moscow in the first place. then Russia will send over their little nuclear fellas and it'll be pretty much over in a matter of hours. I can't even imagine how any of you can think of any other scenario.

this is what was so nice of the nuclear stand off. both the US and Russia were aware of the consequences and did not attack each other. now that the US pulled out of that treaty and are building that ballistic missile shield (don't know.. what was it called exactly?) no one would stop Bush or his follow-up them to say "Putin is a terrorist, he harrases the Chechenya, so we can every right to attack" thinking their cities are safe (well perhaps they'll know better), but I'm pretty sure that there are classified russian plans to overcome the shield (a 100 fake warhead missile is one thing that comes to mind, and this is in fact something in existance, so perhaps even better alternatives are available. perhaps there are stealth ballistic missiles? how do you intercept those to destroy them?). and even if this doesn't work, it's pretty much over for everyone except the US. the world won't be a fun place to live if the north american continent is the only thing left.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
wow what a nice thread for boosting US macho-military self-esteem

but as already mentioned numerous times, it's pretty obvious that with the first sign of a real invasion / attack on the US (not a small terrorist act as with the twin towers), they will just fire off ballistic nuclear missiles to all the targets they have currently marked. this would mean Moscow in the first place. then Russia will send over their little nuclear fellas and it'll be pretty much over in a matter of hours. I can't even imagine how any of you can think of any other scenario.

this is what was so nice of the nuclear stand off. both the US and Russia were aware of the consequences and did not attack each other. now that the US pulled out of that treaty and are building that ballistic missile shield (don't know.. what was it called exactly?) no one would stop Bush or his follow-up them to say "Putin is a terrorist, he harrases the Chechenya, so we can every right to attack" thinking their cities are safe (well perhaps they'll know better), but I'm pretty sure that there are classified russian plans to overcome the shield (a 100 fake warhead missile is one thing that comes to mind, and this is in fact something in existance, so perhaps even better alternatives are available. perhaps there are stealth ballistic missiles? how do you intercept those to destroy them?). and even if this doesn't work, it's pretty much over for everyone except the US. the world won't be a fun place to live if the north american continent is the only thing left.

I think you are living in the 70's-80's still. I seriously doubt if we had unknown assailants we'd hit Russia. Russia is a busted up nation right now, Communist Korea, China, Arab Nations are much more managed. I surprised we don't here more about S. America...there is a lot of money down there.

The assumption we launch they launch and then it's count the survivors is a little off now-a-days also. The biggest problem with the tactical scenario is Russia (and I am sure some other nations now) have 'planet' killer missiles, the US has more strategic ones. All it would take is one of 'their big ones' to hit to seriously compromise us, one of our's hitting would likely destroy a base/refinery/something localized.

Å

 

[duke]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: duke

Originally posted by: bolido2000

Originally posted by: beer
It is also worth mentioning that we control the only system of GPS sattelites. We grant other countries the use of them but I'm sure that can be revoked. The EU and Chinese could not use guided weapons, and that would be a huge problem.

Hence the EU launching their own GPS system in a few years.

I'm pretty sure the Russians also have their own GPS network in the sky.

Nope, they don't. This is one of the reasons the EU wants to launch one. The US has the only GPS system in the world, although they have it free for use as necessary

What does the EU have anything to do with Russia? The Russians do have GPS and it's called
GLONASS.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
wow what a nice thread for boosting US macho-military self-esteem

but as already mentioned numerous times, it's pretty obvious that with the first sign of a real invasion / attack on the US (not a small terrorist act as with the twin towers), they will just fire off ballistic nuclear missiles to all the targets they have currently marked. this would mean Moscow in the first place. then Russia will send over their little nuclear fellas and it'll be pretty much over in a matter of hours. I can't even imagine how any of you can think of any other scenario.

this is what was so nice of the nuclear stand off. both the US and Russia were aware of the consequences and did not attack each other. now that the US pulled out of that treaty and are building that ballistic missile shield (don't know.. what was it called exactly?) no one would stop Bush or his follow-up them to say "Putin is a terrorist, he harrases the Chechenya, so we can every right to attack" thinking their cities are safe (well perhaps they'll know better), but I'm pretty sure that there are classified russian plans to overcome the shield (a 100 fake warhead missile is one thing that comes to mind, and this is in fact something in existance, so perhaps even better alternatives are available. perhaps there are stealth ballistic missiles? how do you intercept those to destroy them?). and even if this doesn't work, it's pretty much over for everyone except the US. the world won't be a fun place to live if the north american continent is the only thing left.

I think you are living in the 70's-80's still. I seriously doubt if we had unknown assailants we'd hit Russia. Russia is a busted up nation right now, Communist Korea, China, Arab Nations are much more managed. I surprised we don't here more about S. America...there is a lot of money down there.

The assumption we launch they launch and then it's count the survivors is a little off now-a-days also. The biggest problem with the tactical scenario is Russia (and I am sure some other nations now) have 'planet' killer missiles, the US has more strategic ones. All it would take is one of 'their big ones' to hit to seriously compromise us, one of our's hitting would likely destroy a base/refinery/something localized.

Å

Russia does not field any "planet killer" bombs on its ICBMS. They largest they ever detonated was slightly over 100MT. IIRC it could only be delivered by bomber.

Historically the Russians have used higher yield weapons on their ICBMS (lets say under 10 megatons). The reason for this is thought to be less acurate guidance systems, so they compensated by increasing the power of the weapon.

Currently the U.S. ICBMS are armed with the 350KT warheads. Our current MX missile is able it hit within 50 meters of it's target IIRC.

I suppose the real question is how many of the Russian missiles are acutally operational.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Heh, this thread could be used as a prime example of how ATOT threads get off course so quickly

Edit: Just to clear up things, there are at least two nations in the EU - France and Germany - that you do NOT want to underestimate on the battlefield, if they put their mind to an effort. However neither nation currently has the assets to invade successfully.

Yes, let's not forget that merely half a century ago Germany had Europe on its knees - even with the US against that effort, I might add.

We did not have nowhere near all our cool toys now.

EU vs US = US handily, we could use Britain as a satellite nation to do retaliatory strikes...ala Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis

EU and Russia vs US = unknown, the Russian army is now a joke due to years of neglect but they have alot of bodies to throw into it and their equipment was the bomb...30 years ago.

EU, Russia and sending boats to China to pick up equipment and manpower vs US = The mother of all wars with all countries being totally decimated and the end of the world as we know it.

All the above of course without the use of long range or tactical nukes.

 

[freegeeks]

why is everyone saying UK is not in the EU

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
A lot of very ignorant people here. There is on way such a war could result in anything but a stalemate.

Last time this happened, it took the US, Britain and Russia over a year to bring down Germany alone, even when the US could operate out of the UK.

And now people are saying that the US along could mount an attack similar to DDay (but many many times larger) against Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Russia AND all the other european nations AND defeat them AND do this from across the Atlantic? Can you say insane?

They would be so weakened from trying an invasion on the US that they would be ripe for the picking

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
why is everyone saying UK is not in the EU

The EU is just a fancy name for a disorganized non-productive partnership between nations that really don't like one another in a futile attempt of becoming the next superpower.

The UK would drop the EU like a bad habit.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: freegeeks
why is everyone saying UK is not in the EU

The EU is just a fancy name for a disorganized non-productive partnership between nations that really don't like one another in a futile attempt of becoming the next superpower.

The UK would drop the EU like a bad habit.

yip

you're talking out of your ass

that's all

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Being the military man you are, tell me how the US is supposed to invade Europe when it doesn't have the British isles as a base? I just can't see the happening.

Why do you keep throwing out that 'being a military man' nonsense.

There are many other places we could set up that would be better than the British Isles. Not to mention our sea-based platform of aircraft carriers and support ships are almost moving islands themselves.

Å

 

[GoPackGo]

If Russian/EU/Chinese troops somehow made it into Alaska, they would have a great challenge in first moving their troops through Alaska. They then would have to invade Canada. Its really a long way to go, Alaska is nearly half the size of 48...and guess what...its COLD. The death rate from the freezing cold would be huge.

Oh and the US has a couple of surprises for those invading ground troops....the air fuel bomb and the daisy cutter.... We could use B52s and wipe out thousands of them at a time.

They would also be bombarded with cruise missles and other bombs.

Fuel and Oil and such would not be a problem, if necessary fuel made available commercially would be suspended for the week or two the whole campaign would take.

US wins no problem.

 

[Netopia]

In Europe during the Cold War, I was stationed with a Pershing Nuke unit in Germany. We had many of those missiles (intermediate range... the one's I was with (P1a) only had about a 400 mile range) were pointed at the Fulda Gap... IN GERMANY... in order to destroy oncoming armor units.

I believe that if we were attacked somehow via Alaska as stated, we would simply nuke a couple of that largest units and wipe out tens of thousands of the enemy at once. Also... once the enemy sees that we are even willing to use nukes on our own soil rather than have them win... well... let's just say their boldness level will be significantly decreased.

Joe

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
and guess what...its COLD. The death rate from the freezing cold would be huge.

[snip]

US wins no problem.

I guess places like siberia and the like are like a summer in Jamaica then???

You thoughts of just doing bombing runs forgets about the US citizens that would still be in alaska.

Å

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Netopia
In Europe during the Cold War, I was stationed with a Pershing Nuke unit in Germany. We had many of those missiles (intermediate range... the one's I was with (P1a) only had about a 400 mile range) were pointed at the Fulda Gap... IN GERMANY... in order to destroy oncoming armor units.

I believe that if we were attacked somehow via Alaska as stated, we would simply nuke a couple of that largest units and wipe out tens of thousands of the enemy at once. Also... once the enemy sees that we are even willing to use nukes on our own soil rather than have them win... well... let's just say their boldness level will be significantly decreased.

Joe

The premise of this thread though is to not use WMD...no nukes....while I really don't doubt the US would nuke its own people....the riots would be insane, probably leading to an internal civil war over that kind of thing.

Å

 

[GoPackGo]

But are the EU and Chinese troops equipped for such endeavors, plus how much time do those troops in Siberia spend outside in an open and moving environment?

Guess what, massive invasion those citizens are either dead or in hiding...or are those thousands or millions of troops just going to leave those folks alone?

And guess what else? Those citizens that would be killed would be an unfortuante but acceptable loss for the greater cause of keeping our nation.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

cuz think how many people own guns in the us, that are not part of the milatary. that group of people would most def. join together and be another force to be messed with.

I don't think civilians with shotguns and hunting rifles are much match for a trained military that is occupying. Any hopes of playing at being in the movie Red Dawn will be quickly dashed when your guerilla tactics reward your family & friends with execution. Look at Iraq - a hell of a lot of people have guns there. A lot don't want the US there, and yet numerically a very small number of US soldiers have died compared to the potential, if the armed iraqis who hate the US were actually intent on doing anything about it.

i seem to recall a number of their trops and tanks or some such getting stranded in the ocean on freight vessels because the guys who owned the vessels wanted more money or something....

Canada's navy is a joke, as is their air force. Still, if they had to they could ramp up quickly, for the size.

Iraq is a terrible example since they weren't/aren't defending a comfy lifestyle/high standard of living/and far higher degree of personal freedom. Futhermore, there isn't a gun shop in my area that doesn't have semi-auto and full auto assault weapons, auto shotguns, rifles that kill@long distance, or lack of people who know how to use 'em They'd be handing out guns and ammo at such a point in time or getting looted for them if they didn't. Then there's the police who have a good arsenal in most areas now as well, particularlly urban areas. Executing families isn't going to stop us from fighting because many women and teens know how to shoot too, and you can bet many would when confronted by being subjugated by invading forces/raped/mudered/looted/ect.

In fact, it'd make Red Dawn look like a picnic compared to what they'd get for their efforts. They'd be facing the U.S. military augmented by a huge civilian base armed to the teeth and fighting for their way of life. Now, obviously this is debatable and neither of us is necessarily right or wrong, but being born&raised here I truly believe that you're underestimating what we can do when properly motivated :beer: Which I say as well to those who state we've gotten soft as a people. Japan thought we were a paper tiger once upon a time too, and found out the hard way what happens when you underestimate us. This ain't Athens vs Sparta, and we're armed and dangerous. Joe Bob can hit that deer from a couple hundred yards out through obstructing underbrush with dat dar rifle, and there's a whole lot of Joe Bobs and his kin folk 'round har! :evil:

I pray we all learn to live in relative peace and prosper together as a species, but if you bring the fight to us,you'll doubtless bloody our nose but good, but you'll find out that just makes us more angry........ and you wouldn't like us when we're angry

 

[freegeeks]

Iraq is a terrible example since they weren't/aren't defending a comfy lifestyle/high standard of living/and far higher degree of personal freedom. Futhermore, there isn't a gun shop in my area that doesn't have semi-auto and full auto assault weapons, auto shotguns, rifles that kill@long distance, or lack of people who know how to use 'em They'd be handing out guns and ammo at such a point in time or getting looted for them if they didn't. Then there's the police who have a good arsenal in most areas now as well, particularlly urban areas. Executing families isn't going to stop us from fighting because many women and teens know how to shoot too, and you can bet many would when confronted by being subjugated by invading forces/raped/mudered/looted/ect.

In fact, it'd make Red Dawn look like a picnic compared to what they'd get for their efforts. They'd be facing the U.S. military augmented by a huge civilian base armed to the teeth and fighting for their way of life. Now, obviously this is debatable and neither of us is necessarily right or wrong, but being born&raised here I truly believe that you're underestimating what we can do when properly motivated Which I say as well to those who state we've gotten soft as a people. Japan thought we were a paper tiger once upon a time too, and found out the hard way what happens when you underestimate us. This ain't Athens vs Sparta, and we're armed and dangerous. Joe Bob can hit that deer from a couple hundred yards out through obstructing underbrush with dat dar rifle, and there's a whole lot of Joe Bobs and his kin folk 'round har!

I pray we all learn to live in relative peace and prosper together as a species, but if you bring the fight to us,you'll doubtless bloody our nose but good, but you'll find out that just makes us more angry........ and you wouldn't like us when we're angry

Joe Bob <----> Leclerc battle tank








j/k

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I know your just having fun too freegeeks, and I know you're as proud of your people and their history as I am of mine All such peoples I believe, value their freedoms and the high cost at which it came, and that in the end I believe, will unite us, not set us at each others throats :beer: What goes on now is petty bickering between great nations, but the foundations of our associations are solid and will withstand the bit of chipping away at it that all sides have been doing to it :sun:

As to the tank vs Joe Bob, it would be tank vs tank, Joe Bob&G.I. Joe vs invading soldiers, and we'd have home field advantage :evil:

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
wow what a nice thread for boosting US macho-military self-esteem

but as already mentioned numerous times, it's pretty obvious that with the first sign of a real invasion / attack on the US (not a small terrorist act as with the twin towers), they will just fire off ballistic nuclear missiles to all the targets they have currently marked. this would mean Moscow in the first place. then Russia will send over their little nuclear fellas and it'll be pretty much over in a matter of hours. I can't even imagine how any of you can think of any other scenario.

this is what was so nice of the nuclear stand off. both the US and Russia were aware of the consequences and did not attack each other. now that the US pulled out of that treaty and are building that ballistic missile shield (don't know.. what was it called exactly?) no one would stop Bush or his follow-up them to say "Putin is a terrorist, he harrases the Chechenya, so we can every right to attack" thinking their cities are safe (well perhaps they'll know better), but I'm pretty sure that there are classified russian plans to overcome the shield (a 100 fake warhead missile is one thing that comes to mind, and this is in fact something in existance, so perhaps even better alternatives are available. perhaps there are stealth ballistic missiles? how do you intercept those to destroy them?). and even if this doesn't work, it's pretty much over for everyone except the US. the world won't be a fun place to live if the north american continent is the only thing left.

I think you are living in the 70's-80's still. I seriously doubt if we had unknown assailants we'd hit Russia. Russia is a busted up nation right now, Communist Korea, China, Arab Nations are much more managed. I surprised we don't here more about S. America...there is a lot of money down there.

The assumption we launch they launch and then it's count the survivors is a little off now-a-days also. The biggest problem with the tactical scenario is Russia (and I am sure some other nations now) have 'planet' killer missiles, the US has more strategic ones. All it would take is one of 'their big ones' to hit to seriously compromise us, one of our's hitting would likely destroy a base/refinery/something localized.

&Aring;

I don't agree.

The US still considers Russia a major threat and you can see that for yourself if you follow its foreign miliratry politics. Currently the US is building bases all around Russia, and most of those have been created after the end of the Cold war. Those include bases negotiated through political means - say Bulgaria (where I live), as well as bases taken by agression - Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. And please spare the fighting for freedom argument for those last three. PERHAPS you had a reason to invade Afghanistan, but I can assure that practically everyone outside the US kinda doubted that one. But attacking Yugoslavia and Iraq, just because the US was not comfortable with their leaders and claiming it 'war against terror' is pure bullhsit.

Russia may have been a busted nation after the Cold war (mainly because of internal traitors and nation-wide robbers), but it has been on a rise in the last few years.

And thinking that the US doesn't have powerful nuclear warheads is naive. Maybe they're not parading them, but you can be sure there are such missiles and they are launch-ready. It's just not nice from political perspective for the freedom loving american population to think their leaders have the means to kill the entire world population.

Also - it's North Korea, not Communist Korea

Originally posted by: K1052

I suppose the real question is how many of the Russian missiles are acutally operational

I suppose enough to make damage so big that no one would like to step in a real conflict with Russia.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak Being the military man you are, tell me how the US is supposed to invade Europe when it doesn't have the British isles as a base? I just can't see the happening.

Why do you keep throwing out that 'being a military man' nonsense. There are many other places we could set up that would be better than the British Isles. Not to mention our sea-based platform of aircraft carriers and support ships are almost moving islands themselves. &Aring;

Did you never play harpoon? Without the UK, Iceland and Greenland, you are screwed!

Seriously, I think its safe to say that neither the EU invading the US or the US invading the EU would be anywhere near possible without a massive nuclear bombardment first.

 

[CPA]

US's superior force and technology + Canada's one tank = massive victory against those Euro woosies and their Russian caviar eating compatriots.

 

[cmdavid]

All this talk of war makes me wanna play RISK!!!

 

[steveeast112]

Russia's firepower is almost scary. They still have many nukes operational, plus their ground forces are still some of the most powerful in the world. If Russia was mobilized for war, along with the EU and perhaps China, they would no doubt win. Why? Because Russia has more oil than the US and Canada and Venezuela combined. Also, the Arab nations would have no problem screwing the US over and selling their oil exclusively to the EU and Russia. Plus, even if we were talking about a conflict involving nukes, we have to look at the logistics. The US right now has about 11000 nukes. Russia has about 7000. France has about 3000. UK has about 1500. China has about 500. EU + China + Russia = 12000 nukes. US = 11000. Whereas The EU and Russia only have to bomb North America, the US has to bomb about all of Eurasia. It makes a big difference.