Posted on Oct 23, 2014
Who wins in unrestricted warfare between the United States and its allies and China and its allies?
11.4K
77
58
7
7
0
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?
WWIII
China
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 20
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Even the most committed personnel have to come to the realities of numbers. The last time we faced off with China, those conscripts held their own pretty well. There were many contributing factors as we faced the CHICOM Army in Korea however, beyond pure numbers.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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
“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
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
I think we'd beat on each other for some time before it came to nuclear weapons, but if that were the end state, I'm not sure either side wins. Those who remain uncommitted become the bigger winners. Those states who are powerful enough to fill a vacuum made by great powers destroying themselves. Not sure how that would play out.
(0)
(0)
CPT Ahmed Faried
I always imagine some long forgotten Country or Continent rising out of that dystopian world when the so-called First World nations have destroyed each other. Most Asian nations will be in the fallout range so that rules them out. Canada and Mexico will also be in the fallout range. My vote is on Sub-saharan Africa or South America.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Generally concur with all. I'm not a naval expert, but I find it hard to bite off on the aircraft carrier being that vital in a battle in modern warfare as we know it today. It is certainly vital for power projection in an offensive capactiy to strike land from the sea, but that can be done with surface to surface missiles now. The aircraft carrier isn't as invulnerable as it used to be with the advent of super-sonic wave skimming missiles. You don't need to spend an uber-billion dolars on an aircraft carrier when you can build 30 corvettes carrying 18 missiles each for the same price. China's submarine fleet isn't anything to ignore either, though they may be aging. The economic impact on both sides would be terrible, but I don't know who could bear it better. Who knows what would happen with our national debt, a large chunk of it owed to China. The conventional Army wouldn't have the staying power against a force the size of China and we would have to see a massive draft akin to WWII...and where are we going to find patriots like that?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
WWII would be a counter argument. The Germans had the technological advantage up to the end and got rolled by cheaper, faster made, and well manned machines. Theirs were expensive, but much more capable. If they were able to produce the TIGERII (and it's other highly superior machines) in massive numbers, we never would have won that fight without dropping an A-bomb on Berlin. That and they also ran out of military age men to fight. Numbers count for something. Relying on technology is often doom.
(3)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Valid points, however, I think that you underplay the value of solid military leadership the US had/has as well. Numbers will only get you so far and numbers have to be transported to make a difference. There is the Bering Straight which would be the closest, though probably not the most efficient. That can be shored up, which leaves CONUS as having to be air or sea approached. South America would be a launching point as Venezuela and a few other countries wold love to march through; however, again, I think we can mitigate that by annexing Mexico and shoring up at the choke point. The Chinese have been stealing technology for a long time and have jump started their capabilities by a couple of decades; however, stealing still means you are behind the curve. The Russians have numbers but they produce inferior product and operators, so I think that the numbers game only gets them both so far. We would not stand toe to toe with them, as we learned as far back the Revolutionary War we do not play by others rules. I think that a conflict of that scope would stretch the collective psyche of our military leaders and allow the U.S. to do what I believe we do best which is improvise overcome and adapt. I still believe that a conflict initiated by either of them would end in a draw. A conflict initiated by US would end in Planet Glass.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
On the point of sheer numbers, the Russia of today is not the USSR of Stalin. Nor is the China of today Chairman Mao's China. Will they still be willing (the populace that is) to use human wave tactics that was really the ONLY advantage that the USSR had in WW2 and China had during Korea? The Revolution is long over and I don't see that mindless fervor coming back any time soon. I am inclined to say no.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
Of course being completely land-locked, it won't change the balance much.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
"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.
-Albert Einstein
In short, no one wins.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Would this turn into one of those scenarios where only the cock-roaches survive?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
No surprise there. China has advanced their submarine fleet since 2001 with little information coming out to the public. I think that our Navy would be severely challenged.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sir, I tend to agree with you there. I also believe that we would be hindered by our own ROE as well as a lack of "will of the people". Our potential enemies development of more advanced tech would likely tip the scales.
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
I think our potential adversaries (conventional) are doing better than anyone gives them credit for. Do they have the same technological marvels we have on the scale we do...no. That being said, you don't need them if you counter it with mass and the RIGHT kind of technology.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google