Theoretical debate as to the out come of a CONVENTIONAL (no WMD'S) war between the NATO nations, and pretty much eveyone else.
Go.
Go.
Ah, draw. Russia could probably take most of Europe, and the US could not definitively defeat China. Wait a few years for China to modernize, and NATO loses outright.
Indeed, the military of Russia is still considerable, but the issue is that there is no nation that has the sea lift capacity to mount any real sort of invasion of the US mainland.
Sure, but the US couldn't take China on it's home turf. Hence, draw. Having said that, maybe they could try heading down through Alaska. The problem then is supply lines. In the end, though, the thing keeping America safe is the global capabilities (or rather lack thereof) of it's enemies.
i cant believe you are discussing this NATO would own all.
Russia they are a shadow of the soviet days.
china is growing FAST they are the problem in your theoretical war.
Russia they are a shadow of the soviet days.
china is growing FAST they are the problem in your theoretical war.
No contest. NATO would wipe the rest out. European members of NATO, combined, are a significant force, and the US is a significant force. Russia, as has been mentioned, is much less than it used to be, and China would be at a significant disadvantage against combined NATO forces. I won't even bother mentioning the third world nations. Having fought with and against third world fighters, I can assure you that their most noteworthy feature is their desire to run away when bullets fly.
Yeah but Russia has that 3rd Shock Army which is "supposed" to be ready to rock at the drop of a hat, where NATO only has rapid reaction divisions. But there air force is wreaked and there pilots don't fly half as many hours as there NATO counterparts. I'm sure the European NATO members could at least hold the Russians at bay until the Americans arrived to chew them up! Russia's main advantage would probably be its submarine fleets which though much smaller than it was its still very good! (Anyone ever see there Typhoon class subs?)
China cant really attack anywhere, it would be like the phony war at the start of WW2! I doubt they could even reach Taiwan without the US pacific fleet sinking there invasion fleet, though in sure they could destroy it with there short range missiles etc.
Cheers!
PS: The Russians may have disbanded the 3rd Shock Army recently im not positive about that though.
China cant really attack anywhere, it would be like the phony war at the start of WW2! I doubt they could even reach Taiwan without the US pacific fleet sinking there invasion fleet, though in sure they could destroy it with there short range missiles etc.
Cheers!
PS: The Russians may have disbanded the 3rd Shock Army recently im not positive about that though.
Also remeber how much money the NATO countries spend on defense and militarys, I would expet that we have things that are truely amazing. Think about it, the first Stealth plane was made in the late 70s early 80s im pretty sure, think about what we have now.
If Russia and China would want to win they would need to take out the carriers and supply ships FAST with there Surface to Surface Missles.
I recomend you read Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy. WWIII without WMD's and very possible if this was the 80s.
I recomend you read Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy. WWIII without WMD's and very possible if this was the 80s.
3rd shock army, submarines, sure.
i pretty sure that the European countries can handle Russia all by there own.
ever heard of chalenger2, lepord2, leclerc, euro fighter , jas gripen, and so on and so on.
besides the Russian's can only manage to man a small portion of there fleet the rest is rusting at Murmansk
i pretty sure that the European countries can handle Russia all by there own.
ever heard of chalenger2, lepord2, leclerc, euro fighter , jas gripen, and so on and so on.
besides the Russian's can only manage to man a small portion of there fleet the rest is rusting at Murmansk
That would make for an interesting fight.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO wrote:
Founding members (4 April 1949)
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
France 1
Iceland 2
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
United Kingdom
United States
Countries that joined after the foundation during the Cold War
Greece (18 February 1952) 3
Turkey (18 February 1952)
Germany (9 May 1955 as West Germany; East Germany reunited with it on 3 October 1990)
Spain (30 May 1982)
Former Eastern Bloc states that joined after the Cold War, 12 March 1999:
Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
29 March 2004:
Bulgaria
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Hold on. What about the South Pacific, Austalia, Phillipeans(sp?), New Ginuea, ect... I think that should be counted along with NATO cause they sure as hell arent gonna fight for the Chinese and Russians and a bunch of drug and war lords.
Yer a lot of S.Pacific nations while not being part of NATO, have traditionally aligned themselves with NATO countries.
Excellent, thank all who have posted. This has been a very in depth, and still very civilized thread, keep fresh opinions comming!
humm...as Capt.Foley said, NATO and SEATO (Asian equivalent of NATO) members spend a lot of money to enhance their armies and technology (USA $402G, UK $49M, FR $37M, Japan $45M) cause they've got enough economical and financial power whereas Russia, which doesn't have the means to sustain a conflict except in oil terms, and China, which is too dependent from high-developed countries for now. Rumors say that Russian no longer maintain their military forces, aircrafts and vehicles, which are rusting in hangars, that's why they sell them, in addition they get money.
Does China have little chance to win against the US and their allied ?A US pre-emptive first-strike on China, prior to eruption of
major hostilities, would offer the best chances of confining
the conflict to Chinese soil. Such a strike would be aimed
at long-range missiles, air power, air defenses, and
communications. It would employ tactical nukes, cruise
missiles, stealth weaponry, electronic counter-measures, and
would be preceded by electronics-destroying radiation mega-pulses.
the russians let all their aircraft rust in a hangar. in the mid 80's russia built a state of the art space shuttle but then soviet disbanded and it never got up flying, but the thing about this little thing is that they thought that the us shuttle was able to drop nuclear bombs so of course they wanted to make their able to do that to, so russia actually got 2 of these shuttles that can drop nuclear bombs from space by sweeping down through the atmosfeare and pull up again but itself. but of course these little beaties is just lying in a hangar and rusting up like all the other hardware they got.
I'm not sure about that because its illegal to weaponise space, its part of that none proliferation treaty I think! Though I did see this weird space thingy on Sky News which was supposed to be the Soviet Unions answers to Reagan's Son of Star Wars anti ballistic shield (Was that what it was called?) but to Union collapsed before it was working and it to is rusting in some hanger!
I read Red Storm years ago and taught it was pretty good, but the Soviet Union was having a massive oil shortage in that book, the best book ive ever read on this sort off topic is "Total War 2006" its all about a war in the middle is and eastern Europe involving all the old superpowers.
And Herr Smitty Russia still has 80 active nuclear subs, Akula and Typhon classes are still top notch (when there not sinking like the Kursk) submarines. And with regards there tanks I think that argument is still going on in another thread so I wont start it again! But ill end with this:
"Quantity is a quality of its own" - J.Stalin. (I stole that off some guy in these forums, Sorry:))
Cheers!
I read Red Storm years ago and taught it was pretty good, but the Soviet Union was having a massive oil shortage in that book, the best book ive ever read on this sort off topic is "Total War 2006" its all about a war in the middle is and eastern Europe involving all the old superpowers.
And Herr Smitty Russia still has 80 active nuclear subs, Akula and Typhon classes are still top notch (when there not sinking like the Kursk) submarines. And with regards there tanks I think that argument is still going on in another thread so I wont start it again! But ill end with this:
"Quantity is a quality of its own" - J.Stalin. (I stole that off some guy in these forums, Sorry:))
Cheers!
how do you define conventional war???
cause if it came to a war between NATO on one side and the rest of the world one the other side, (and by the way - are they fighting as one team or several individual countries?) then there's no such thing as conventional warfare.. every individual army has it's own sets of SOP's. (standard operational procedure), that will tell them how to fight in different situations..
a lot of people were concerned about russia and china.. but the rest of the world includes atleast 3 more continents - south america, australia and africa - and if you compare there SOP's, do you then think they're alike at all? most of the world are swarming with rebels and insurgents forces all over + the countrys regular armed forced.
think about it - how many troubles have viet cong, that sri lanka tiger-group, the IRA, the ETA and the grosnyj rebels by themselves caused, to way superior armed nations like russia, USA, england and spain...
and that's just a few of the groups I've mentioned..
they all fight non-conventional warfare, and because of that, the main countries doesn't really know how to deal with them once and for all..
but if it came to a NATO vs. the rest of the world, they would team up, with the mother country while there's a war going on - for two reasons.. 1) survival. 2) getting good will from the population after the war is over.
most people consider the entire africa as third world countries . but if they could stand op together, they would be a feared opponant due to the amount of soldiers they could raise, but also because of there way of thinking. how often have we heard of some local goverment-army knifing down a whole village???
and finally how well do you think that either of the sides will adjust to be fighting both regular thinking armed forces AND rebels, insurgents, etc at the same time??
there is one piece of information we need - what are they fighting over???
eg. is it a huge oil pocket in the underground somewhere, so that they have a certain spot somewhere in the world to defend ( a flag if you will ) or is it because the can't agree on something, and there's no fixed battlefield, but fights could take place all over the world??
NATO would be outnumbered by.... a lot.. but they do have a big advantage.. they're used to working together in a war..
take africa. they could never stand up and fight as one nation or treaty organisation.. not as long as they got so many civil wars all over their continent..
and a lot of the regular forces all over, would need goverment officials of all kinds to unite their efforts and missions.
if a war would break out, one of the first things that would happen is, that NATO would take out those high ranking officials and high ranked officers in order to break down, the enemys ability to operate efficient.
that would go both ways, both NATO has trained in how to keep fighting and communicate with each other in case that event happens.
this is just the military point of view.. in case of a real war, you would have to consider the economic, religious, etc points of view as well...
this is just my thoughts, while I'm waiting for the mapload to STOP FREEZING at 62 %....
cause if it came to a war between NATO on one side and the rest of the world one the other side, (and by the way - are they fighting as one team or several individual countries?) then there's no such thing as conventional warfare.. every individual army has it's own sets of SOP's. (standard operational procedure), that will tell them how to fight in different situations..
a lot of people were concerned about russia and china.. but the rest of the world includes atleast 3 more continents - south america, australia and africa - and if you compare there SOP's, do you then think they're alike at all? most of the world are swarming with rebels and insurgents forces all over + the countrys regular armed forced.
think about it - how many troubles have viet cong, that sri lanka tiger-group, the IRA, the ETA and the grosnyj rebels by themselves caused, to way superior armed nations like russia, USA, england and spain...
and that's just a few of the groups I've mentioned..
they all fight non-conventional warfare, and because of that, the main countries doesn't really know how to deal with them once and for all..
but if it came to a NATO vs. the rest of the world, they would team up, with the mother country while there's a war going on - for two reasons.. 1) survival. 2) getting good will from the population after the war is over.
most people consider the entire africa as third world countries . but if they could stand op together, they would be a feared opponant due to the amount of soldiers they could raise, but also because of there way of thinking. how often have we heard of some local goverment-army knifing down a whole village???
and finally how well do you think that either of the sides will adjust to be fighting both regular thinking armed forces AND rebels, insurgents, etc at the same time??
there is one piece of information we need - what are they fighting over???
eg. is it a huge oil pocket in the underground somewhere, so that they have a certain spot somewhere in the world to defend ( a flag if you will ) or is it because the can't agree on something, and there's no fixed battlefield, but fights could take place all over the world??
NATO would be outnumbered by.... a lot.. but they do have a big advantage.. they're used to working together in a war..
take africa. they could never stand up and fight as one nation or treaty organisation.. not as long as they got so many civil wars all over their continent..
and a lot of the regular forces all over, would need goverment officials of all kinds to unite their efforts and missions.
if a war would break out, one of the first things that would happen is, that NATO would take out those high ranking officials and high ranked officers in order to break down, the enemys ability to operate efficient.
that would go both ways, both NATO has trained in how to keep fighting and communicate with each other in case that event happens.
this is just the military point of view.. in case of a real war, you would have to consider the economic, religious, etc points of view as well...
this is just my thoughts, while I'm waiting for the mapload to STOP FREEZING at 62 %....
Do the Philipines and New Guinea even have armies? I was under the impression that the Philipines, at least, relied largely on western nations (US) for protection.Capt. Foley wrote:
Hold on. What about the South Pacific, Austalia, Phillipeans(sp?), New Ginuea
And as for Australia, we'd get owned pretty quickly. Human swarm from Asia, it'd all be over.
As to the comments on Russia no longer being militarily strong: consider that the size of their current army is *nothing* compared to the size of the militia units they could amass. And even if Europe could take those, consider that they'd have to deploy units to Middle East/Africa to capture oil reserves. And the human wave coming up from South America would force the US to deploy units down there. In the end, it would come down to the fact that NATO doesn't have the force of arms to defend itself *and* it's oil interests at the same time.
numbers dont mean shit in a modern warfare.
I would like to meet an equalent to MEC in the Norwegian winter, -30 deg C and 1 meter of snow. They wouldn't survive a week, much less be able to fight. But again, I wouldn't be very efficient in the african deserts.
The idea is that there has to be a front, NATO can't walk over the entire earth? And in such a lineup the tech of NATO will have a advantage. ARTHUR to name one.
The idea is that there has to be a front, NATO can't walk over the entire earth? And in such a lineup the tech of NATO will have a advantage. ARTHUR to name one.
Noone wins , cause whole planet will be destroyed by nuke disaster . Stupid topic , hope this will never happen ...
Vietnam put the lie to that. Iraq is doing it again. Every time somebody becomes technologically advanced, and thinks they have the market cornered, they learn that a large, determined enemy can *always* defeat a technologically advanced one. After all, no matter how advanced a cannon is, it can still only hit one target at a time.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
numbers dont mean shit in a modern warfare.
Please read the topic, this discussion was about what would take place if nuclear arms and other WND's simply didn't exsist.Longbow wrote:
Noone wins , cause whole planet will be destroyed by nuke disaster . Stupid topic , hope this will never happen ...
Interesting that someone brought this up, is it still a common belief that the US lost the Vietnam conflict?Bubbalo wrote:
Vietnam put the lie to that. Iraq is doing it again. Every time somebody becomes technologically advanced, and thinks they have the market cornered, they learn that a large, determined enemy can *always* defeat a technologically advanced one. After all, no matter how advanced a cannon is, it can still only hit one target at a time.
North Vietnamize losses in that time were over 5 million, which is just what they ADMIT to having lost, while US losses where one tenth-ish of those numbers. We didn't pull out because of losses, the war becoming unpopular, or any other half baked theories, we left, because we had established a peace treaty with Nothern Vietnam, a treaty they coincidentally broke as soon as American forces had left the country.
At any rate, this is off topic, please remain focused.
Last edited by =JoD=Corithus (2006-05-21 01:06:57)
UK,France and Germany and Europe could all invade Russia.No Problem. I don't think China is a problem. They Need the US ,UK,Europe for Trade if they don't have these tradepowers they would stop having trade growth and be a third world country. And About the Middle East. If US pulled out of Iraq and got Iraq to get a army again,US and Iraq could invade Iran easily. Europe Could Help too. I Think that the War on Terror is more important. Karma +1 for me Karma +1 for u