Posted on Oct 23, 2014
Who wins in unrestricted warfare between the United States and its allies and China and its allies?
9.2K
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 >1 y ago
Responses: 20
7
7
0
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.
- 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.
(7)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Well put, sir. I think we play down China's capabilities, both in diplomatic realms and in military realms. The chances of a significant Sino-Russian alliance of any meaningful kind is highly unlikely and if we thought the diplomatic treaties of 1918 were complicated, the complexity involved in the current global OE both with formal and informal agreements and relationships, puts those that started WWI to shame. I'll have to stop now, my SAMS twitch is starting. I'll start making citations and foot notes.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
I still hesitate at a Sino-Russo alliance. They dislike each other as much if not more than they dislike us.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
SGT Richard H.
COL (Join to see) I think an all out (unrestricted) world war would ultimately turn nuclear, Sir. Despite nuclear reductions over the last few decades, I think there's still enough nuclear weaponry to assure mutual destruction to a fairly high degree. It'd be pretty hard to determine a winner in that.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Distinct possibility. I've been thinking about a nice piece of property in North Dakota.
(1)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
My nephew (Air Force Security) is going to be stationed there next, I think. Guess what he'll be guarding.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I'm going to have to go with SGT Richard H. on this one, sir. As soon as I saw the word "unrestricted" in your post, my thoughts turned to CBRN. If nobody holds back, then there's no world left to win. Everybody loses.
(3)
(0)
4
4
0
COL (Join to see)
I love how they always show the Knights and not the Scribes. No one ever puts that in the BoS recruiting posters.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Just like they always show the pilots, not the personnelists in the Air Force recruiting videos.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
COL (Join to see)
That's true, but it's also a shame, sir. Personally I'd much rather be a Scribe. Sure you get to blow things up as a Knight (and who doesn't enjoy that?), but as a Scribe you get to play with all the nifty pre-war tech, figure out how it works, how to keep it running, etc. Sorry, but being able to shoot a laser beam isn't nearly as cool as being able to build one.
Lt Col (Join to see)
Wait, the Air Force has non-pilots??
That's true, but it's also a shame, sir. Personally I'd much rather be a Scribe. Sure you get to blow things up as a Knight (and who doesn't enjoy that?), but as a Scribe you get to play with all the nifty pre-war tech, figure out how it works, how to keep it running, etc. Sorry, but being able to shoot a laser beam isn't nearly as cool as being able to build one.
Lt Col (Join to see)
Wait, the Air Force has non-pilots??
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google