Who wins in unrestricted warfare between the United States and its allies and China and its allies?

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:34:23 -0400

WWIII has erupted. Most likely due to dwindling natural resources or because Miley Cirus is still making millions. Whichever. China and Russia form a mutually beneficial alliance and pull in a handful of meaningless fodder countries. The United States comes with NATO behind them. Land and sea operational fronts in India, Pakistan, Georgia-Azerbaijan-Armenia and Turkey, as well as along the Senkakus and the Pacific islands and Alaska. Slow build up to major battles to operational objectives. All out war. Do we get rolled by the massive size of the Armies and Navies we are facing or does our technology and industry win the day?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2014 12:41 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:41:48 -0400

I would think that as history dictates technology, discipline, strategy and tactics would win the day. Superior numbers have not been shown to be an automatic win. I would think that it would end in a draw or as a glass planet.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2014 12:44 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:44:44 -0400

I think we get rolled.

Just because there is such a larger pool of able-bodied people to pull from. Secondly, to win any war, a country needs the will of its people. Our country seems to have lost that somewhere a couple decades back. However, I also believe that because of our tech, the war would be a long and protracted one, with millions of casualties.

What do you think sir?

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Oct 23 at 2014 1:57 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:57:38 -0400

Who wins WWIII between China/allies and US/allies depends upon several factors individually and collectively. For example:
- Type of War (attrition, maneuver, revolutionary). China wins an attrition or revolutionary fight based upon numbers for the former and strategic patience for the latter. US wins a maneuver war.
- Environment (sea, air, land, cyber, space). US wins the sea and air. Stalemate in cyber and space. China wins on land.
- Instruments of national power (DIME). US wins diplomatically. Informational and military stalemate. China wins economically.
- Duration. US wins a shorter fight. China wins in a longer fight.
- Definition of "win". Decisive victory is beyond the capability of either side right now. Lower level win in terms of influence or negotiating power is a stalemate or a win for either depending upon how things play out.
- Put the above together and who wins depends upon which side is able to fight on terms that is to its own inherent advantages. US wins in a shorter, sea/air fight that has more wide spread diplomatic support. China wins in a longer, land based, economic fight. I could write a longer answer but this gets at the gist of the analysis that needs to occur to figure out who wins and the probability of that win. It is not a yes/no answer question.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 23 at 2014 5:07 PM

SGT Richard H. — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:07:51 -0400

Short & Simple. Nobody.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2014 5:16 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:16:42 -0400

The Brotherhood of Steel.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Oct 23 at 2014 5:26 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:26:08 -0400

If we are talking unrestricted warfare, we ALL lose as that will likely mean nukes are authorized and WILL be used.

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 23 at 2014 5:34 PM

SPC David S. — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:34:33 -0400

If we could cut off their supply to oil and we might have a chance. However I have a feeling that Russia and China would come storming in from the North to take the Arabian peninsula first then move on Europe. Israel's crazy ass would start duke nuking everyone and then all hell will break loose. However a resilient band of battle hardened cav troopers will draw upon their sabers and engage in a fierce melee and liberty will prevail.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2014 6:48 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 18:48:50 -0400

All China has to do is cash in our debt and our dollar becomes worth less than a cent. That being said as soon as economy collapses than so will Europe's then we come crashing down on them. We are China's biggest customer. War would be bad for customer relations.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 23 at 2014 9:02 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:02:58 -0400

If that Fat F--k in North Korea had any brains he'd stay out of it, let us duke it out and take over the remnants of what's left.

Response by CPO Tim Dickey made Oct 23 at 2014 9:30 PM

CPO Tim Dickey — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:30:39 -0400

Based on the original concept as defined two PLA COLs in the 1980's, I would say that we loose based on our willingness to take the high road in the context of currently agree upon conventions.

That said, if we fought asymmetrically and on the same terms as our adversary(ies), we would win if only based on the superiority of decentralized C2 and more fluid doctrine.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Oct 23 at 2014 9:34 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:34:26 -0400

This question really gets down to two variables: Time and Distance.

Distance. I'm thinking here of physical lines of communication. Where is the theater? Who can better support that theater? Red Teaming it, I propose That the Allied Communist Emerging Dynasties (ACED) do not launch a serious invasion of the continental US, but focus their efforts on the American Synchophant and Suckups (ASSes - it's more fun when your side makes the acronyms) located in Europe and Asia. This allows ACED to primarily sustain via ground assets (which can self-deploy!) and air assets overland (and out of strike range of ASS naval aviation assets). Secondary sustainment is via short-range naval assets (already home ported in the area). An area of special emphasis would be US bases and allies from Japan to India - depriving the US of local basing.

A decidedly secondary effort is attacks against CONUS. These attacks need only be actual and credible, not effective of sustainable. The intended target is the cognitive domain of the US population, so that it will demand a "Fortress America" due to risk aversion, thus giving ACED greater freedom of maneuver throughout Europe, Asia, and bits of Africa.

Under this scenario, every gain of territory by ACED places the US and ASSed at a greater strategic disadvantage.

Time. This is a tricky one. History has shown three things: 1. America is NEVER prepared for a war and it takes a few years to ramp up. 2. Once America HAS ramped up, its production is absurdly high. 3. The American public seems to have about a 3 year spine. As the ACED CCOS, I am betting that if I can keep American forces out of theater long enough to make significant gains, consolidate them, and impose a strategically favorable peace before US industrial might can be brought to bear. I am also betting that the US is not currently capable of fighting a major theater war against a peer opponent, and won't be for a year or two, reinforcing the impulse for a Fortress America. By the time the US is ready to swing into action, I have major gains, have imposed a peace, and can now politely starve the US of resources and staging areas to cement the wartime gains. If I can keep the US out of the theater in force for 3 years, I win.

I also keep mentioning that I hope the US minds its own business, and that it is indeed fearsome, and I would truly regret having to use nukes in the face of US imperialism.

Were I Blue team, I would argue technology overmatch, global reach, superior training, global public opinion, and power of international institutions and alliances. As the Red Team leader, I call BS.

(I think Red Team has this one.)

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 24 at 2014 8:21 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:21:08 -0400

COL Private RallyPoint Member , LTC Paul Labrador
Could this eventuality change your position?

CNO Warns of Advanced Russian Submarine Development

U.S. national security officials are concerned about the pace and intensity of Russian submarine development.,U.S. national security officials are concerned about the pace and intensity of Russian submarine development, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert said Thursday.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 24 at 2014 11:18 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:18:20 -0400

Would this turn into one of those scenarios where only the cock-roaches survive?

Response by PO1 Ron Clark made Oct 24 at 2014 11:21 AM

PO1 Ron Clark — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:21:38 -0400

The PC answer is nobody! However I was in the United States Military, I have personally witnessed it's slow resolve and might! I am still in shock and awe of it! I would have to say the US and NATO aided with the advanced technology of today and tomorrow! I am probably wrong but, no one's right all the time!

Response by SPC Bryan Guzman-Piedra made Oct 25 at 2014 2:06 PM

SPC Bryan Guzman-Piedra — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:06:56 -0400

Let us for a second set aside the nuclear option and boil it down to "conventional means".

China has roughly 10 million members in service today with another 4-6 million reserve members. On its face these numbers look intimidating. Looking at capability leave the Chinese military looking not so good, however.

China has one aircraft carrier. The Admiral Kuznetsov class multirole carrier was transferred to China roughly 14 years ago..But China did not take official delivery of it until late 2011 due to logistical issues and damage to the ship from a storm while in route to China.

They have since started to retrofit the ship and fix it up...But it is still a long way away from being useful in blue water operations.

Why bring this up? Because projection of power is very important. Being able to get manpower and supplies to the battlefield and maintain those lines is paramount to winning a war. China cannot project military power beyond its immediate region. Its navy is incapable of supplying the HUGE logistical nightmare that is their ground army, and their airpower is woefully inadequate in the same role.

That said, China also hasn't seen conflict since the Korean war. Their military is untested in battle, and they have few if any with combat experience of their own.

The US, obviously, does not share ANY of these problems.

Now lets talk allies. Russia is a very capable force. But they too are lacking in the projection category. They are a decade, AT LEAST, behind in technology, and their existing equipment is falling apart. While they have made some headway in missile technology, when it comes to ship building and land warfare assets Russia is stuck in the Cold War. They do not have the communications network that is a hallmark of the US military, and still have a large army they have to equip and feed.

Now...NATO is a disaster. Most nations in the NATO alliance aren't even contributing the 2% GDP requirements to their militaries requisite of membership. The Czech military doesn't even have ammunition to train with, let alone conduct defensive military capability for the requisite 30 days. Germany's self defense forces have at least a third of their military hardware NMC, and the vast majority of Europeans are more concerned with having unemployment benefits that will last them their entire lives than they are about bolstering their military capabilities. The Front Line nations of Eastern Europe are highly dependent on US equipment and personnel as proven by the response of Poland and others to the attempted annexation of Crimea in Ukraine. NATO, as of today, is incapable of countering Russian aggression in the region and Russia knows it. In a war against China and Russia, the US would be on its own, generally speaking.

How can the US fair? Technologically speaking, very well. The chances of Russia and China getting close enough to hurt us in combat are remote. If they sent ships, they would be sunk well ahead of time. Aircraft would not stand a chance either. A full on ground battle would depend entirely on logistical constructs for the Chinese. If we can establish air superiority, they would fall apart rather quickly. We are not talking about Korean war era technology here. Wave attacks would not work very well for them.

Russia would do better. While they have a well trained and tested army, they are not well equipped and well supplied. Technologically speaking they aren't too far ahead of China either.

Generally speaking it is my opinion that we would win a conventional war. But we do not live in conventional times and any war with China or Russia would result in global disaster.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Mar 12 at 2015 4:35 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:35:50 -0400

Unrestricted warfare would eventually lead to a nuclear exchange. With China and Russia's combined the US and NATO will be vastly outnumbered both in terms of nukes, and war-fighting capability. The "winner" by a few tens of millions of people will be the Russian/Chinese Alliance.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” - Albert Einstein

THe winner will inherit a world that is essentially useless. I read Best Defense and Global Security so these hypotheticals are of great interest to me. Great topic Sir

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Mar 12 at 2015 4:44 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:44:13 -0400

We'll run out of bullets before they run out of people...

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 16 at 2015 1:47 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:47:33 -0400

I believe after a long battle the U.S. and our allies would win as we have soldiers who are committed. They are not conscripts who act like robots.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 9 at 2015 3:52 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 15:52:32 -0400

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

-Albert Einstein

In short, no one wins.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2016 4:40 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:40:23 -0400

Interesting question, though I would modify it slightly to put Armenia on Russia's side. Russia maintains a large military base there and the two countries enjoy more than 140 years of good relations despite shifting political and social systems.

Of course being completely land-locked, it won't change the balance much.