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

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.

Short & Simple. Nobody.

The Brotherhood of Steel.

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?

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.)

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

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

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.

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.

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.