Would the U.S. be on the winning side of WWIII?

Why do people assume WW3 would involve a global nuclear exchange? It may happen. But cooler heads may come up and stop before pressing that BIG RED button that read "Bad Mofo". If WW3 happens, it will definitely be bloody.

As for China, I have been watching them since the mid-90s. Its interesting to see their tactics since the Taiwan Scare. Not sure if any one remembers, but during the mid-90s China threatened to use military force to take back Taiwan. We showed up in force to prevent that and things just simmered down to nothing.

What really happened was China used the old trick US & Russia used back in the Cold War -- Cat & Mouse games. China's military leaders did that on purpose to see what kind of response Taiwan's allies would bring -- namely US and Japan. China's leaders estimated US would only bring 2 - 3 aircraft carrier groups. Instead, we brought 6 - 7 carrier groups. That was a huge eye-opener for China.

Since then, China has been arming themselves to counter just that -- US carriers. Check out their purchases and technology grabs. It all points to anti-ship and amphibious assaults. For years, China has been going from country to country to obtain carrier technology. Plus, they've been Russia's sugar daddy. China is buying, buying and buying hardware and tech from Russia.

If WW3 occurs, no doubt China will take advantage of it, especially when US is distratcted, and invate Taiwan. And, it doesn't help China and Russia have agreed US should not be the unchallenged Superpower. A couple months ago, China and US had their first joint military exercise.

Scary times lie ahead. But at least we know how to kick arse.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Unfortunately I don't remember where I read that. I do remember that what it said was that nuclear missiles might be the only way China can defeat the U.S. Navy, which it would absolutely have to do in order to beat us in a war.

I wish I could find a similar article :-(

There is no logical reason why nukes would not be ruled out. They've been used before and it only takes one country to start a nuclear attack for mutually assured destruction.

No doubt that the comedians who think that they are at the top of the tree feel that they have suitable protection in place for themselves.

I am just saying that WW3 doesn't mean an all-out nuclear attack by one or more countries. Most likely, WW3 would deal with tactical nukes.

For those interested in researching on China's military activities, go to:

Sino Defence

This site has interesting articles from troop to space technology.

reply to post by guppy


Thanks guppy.

Looks like there's some interesting things on this site.

Wow, I just read my first post and it teaches you one thing:

Proofread your posts before posting.

Especially the 2nd to the last paragraph (If WW3 occurs...). One misspelled word, and stating "China and US" instead of "China and Russia". My apologies. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Would the US and its Allies be victorious if WW3 broke out?

How is "winning" even defined anymore? An Army can win militarily and
still lose on the political front; Viet Nam or it can end in a stale mate like in Korea.
If you want my opinion on whether the US would lose militarily or if I think that the US could be occupied then I'd have to say nope, never happen.
We could lose politically though, in fact, as most of you know, we already are and I think that is just as important of a loss as a military loss.

Dont get to excited though as we are a very resilient Nation and will bounce back accordingly.
Every Nation has their ups and downs, just like people and its during your down times that you learn who your true friends are.
Dont worry, were also a very forgiving Nation and in a few years all of this hatred thats being directed at us will be forgotten by everyone involved, including us.
Well, maybe not towards the French, I never liked them

reply to post by Kr0n0s


Good point. What would define 'winning' these days in terms of war-or in this case WW3? After posting this topic I realized that 'winning' was probably not the appropriate word to use in the context of WW3. I should've clarified much sooner.

I would define 'winning' simply as, "Achieving the main objective.' Or in the context of this thread, "Accomplishing the mission which we and our allies laid out at the start of WW3."(hypothetically of course)

So, in order to determine if we'd 'win', we would first need to determine what our "main objective" would be in the event of a 3rd W.W. After some thought I found myself getting lost in the complexity of potential factors that would now drive this war, hence giving birth to multiple objectives.

Initially I would think, the main objective would be to eliminate Iran's nuclear facilities. Now this alone would not necessarily be a declaration of WW3. However those who may become involved as a result of our incursion-mainly Russia, China, and the EU-could potentially push us all into another world war.

So let's say this happens, what now determines a 'winner.' What would be the objectives at this point-objectives that if accomplished would determine a victor? Would it be to eliminate Russia, China(yeah right)? Maybe a cease fire. I don't know. But I don't feel that we stack up well. These are big countries with extensive military.

Like I said I hope cooler heads prevail.



[edit on 28-10-2007 by PhotonEffect]

as long as humans continue to kill eachother, there are no winners...as long as humans think in a competitive way of winners & losers, us & them...& don't realize that we are ALL one big (domestic violence) family all Actually related....as long as we continue to hate instead of love eachother....& as long as control & power freaks continue to 'play out' their agenda's....we are ALL losers......GB

Oh. So this is just intended to be another U.S. vs. Iran thread? Why even ask then? It's been discussed a thousand times, and I think the general conclusion is that the U.S. and its allies would bomb Iran back to the stone age but have it's carrier fleet sent to the bottom of the ocean by Iran's cruise missiles (and those of their allies). Then the U.S. would move in its ground troops and utterly obliterate Iran's ground forces and government, after which Iran's militias would begin a drawn out campaign of guerrilla warfare which the United States could never hope to win because Iran would be funded, trained, and armed by the vast majority of Asia.

Couldn't you have just done a search?

Thanks for the post mattifikation.

Originally posted by mattifikation
Oh. So this is just intended to be another U.S. vs. Iran thread? Why even ask then?

Nope, not at all. This is just an opinion thread based on current events. More specifically that of the rhetoric being spewed by Bush, Putin, and Ahmadinejad, which as you know has escalated in recent weeks to now include the threat of a 3rd world war. I want to know what people think.

It's been discussed a thousand times,

Really? What's been discussed a thousand times? WW3?

and I think the general conclusion is that the U.S. and its allies would bomb Iran back to the stone age but have it's carrier fleet sent to the bottom of the ocean by Iran's cruise missiles (and those of their allies).

Okay. General conclusion amongst whom exactly? And bomb Iran back to the stone age while they sink our carrier fleet? What are you talking about?

Then the U.S. would move in its ground troops and utterly obliterate Iran's ground forces and government,...

Well that's been my point, I don't believe we have enough troops to pull off a stunt like that. We're bogged down elsewhere.

...after which Iran's militias would begin a drawn out campaign of guerrilla warfare

You mean Iran funded militias specifically, for example Hezbollah in Lebanon, or the Mahdi militia in Iraq.

which the United States could never hope to win because Iran would be funded, trained, and armed by the vast majority of Asia.

Actually Iran does the funding, training, and arming of militias. Since when does Asia fund Iran?

Couldn't you have just done a search?

Right.

To answer your original question again, no this is not another Iran vs US thread. Specifically this is a question of who would prevail in a WW3 scenario. And it will have to include a discussion of Iran because any possibility of WW3 starts there. But it goes well beyond that in terms of who would ultimately be involved.

Bush is playing the WW3 card, IMO, to make his problem with Iran the world's problem.
He's making countries choose sides. So I want to know what people think. I speak from the US perspective because that's where I'm from, but it doesn't mean I believe in Bush or his policies.

All I ask is that people present an opinion based on the question posed and the situation at hand without resorting to bashing the thread.

Thanks again for contributing.



[edit on 28-10-2007 by PhotonEffect]

There is no way that we or anybody else could occupy China or Russia, at least not without the cooperation of the citizens of those countries, the land mass is just way to big.

The days of a country submitting to their victors in War are long gone. The US was able to occupy Japan after WW2 because their leaders instructed the citizens to and we showed them a bit of respect, same with Germany.

What I want to know, still, is this.. Do the other Nations of the World really want a World where the Russians are the dominant power?
Do you think that theyve changed that much since "pestroiska" began in the 90's? I dont!
In fact I believe that the whole freedom thing was just a move on a chess board, Putin is a smart man and I think things are already beginning to reverse over there. So dont be fooled by the Russian Bear.

I know people consider us Americans to be arrogant but consider yourself lucky that there are not more Russians on this board because the few that I've met on the internet and in person are 10 times worse, especially my new sister in law.
My brother met a Russian girl online and just married her a few months ago, shes the most annoying bitch that I've ever met, way worse than any of his past wives.

Also, there is NO way that we could go back to isolationism, it damn near killed us back in the 20's and 30's and ironically enough it was WW2 that actually started us on the path to becoming a super power.

Some of you Euros can bitch all you want about us but it IS a fact that if we did not exist in the capacity that we did, one that was able to stand up to the USSR for the last 40 years, some of you guys would be like little sputniks, satellite country's of the USSR.

Now for those that want "proof" to what I am saying, I say the burden is on you to prove me wrong because I have history to back me up and thats all that I need.

Im sure that IF WW3 did break out and Nukes stayed out of it then it would probably end in a stalemate, with many dead on both sides.
We would probably end up right back in the 50's, a HUGE step backwards for the entire World!
So what's the point?









[edit on 10/29/2007 by Kr0n0s]

Maybe the greatest military commander in our history was also a prophet when he said that the US and Great Britain would someday rule the world

On 25th April Patton created more controversy when he made a speech using obscene language to an audience that included a large number of women. At the meeting he also said it was the destiny of the United States and Britain to rule the world. This remark upset Allied leaders and Karl Mundt in the House of Representatives complained that Patton had "managed to slap the face of every one of the United Nations except Great Britain."

Patton

*sigh*

All I was saying is that I've already been through threads about U.S. vs. Iran, U.S. vs. China, U.S. vs. the whole world (no kidding), and the U.S. vs. every other country we might ever feasibly go to war with. And I've only been here a few months! I'd say half those threads I've read are about the U.S. vs. Iran. You'll find these threads if you use the search feature on this site.

Okay. General conclusion amongst whom exactly? And bomb Iran back to the stone age while they sink our carrier fleet? What are you talking about?

That's the conclusion amongst the members of this site, which is exactly whose opinions you are asking for. If you read the threads that have already been created, you'll see that people have already posted their opinions about everything you've asked, including George Bush's threat of WWIII, and including "what I am talking about" when I mention Iran sinking our aircraft carriers. As a recap, they have awesome cruise missiles from Russia, which we can only counter with laser beams that aren't done being developed yet.

Initially I would think, the main objective would be to eliminate Iran's nuclear facilities.

If this isn't a thread about the U.S. vs. Iran, why would you think that would be our main objective? You contradict yourself, I'm sorry. I know there are many triggers for World War 3 but you have singled out an Iran conflict.

You mean Iran funded militias specifically, for example Hezbollah in Lebanon, or the Mahdi militia in Iraq.

If they're funding militias in other countries that are causing us problems, just imagine how much trouble they'd cause once they formed their own guerrilla army. It'd be like trying to stop a termite infestation by stepping on them.

As for contributing my thoughts to your question, I've already done that on this thread and many of the others before it. I'm not trying to bash your thread, I'm just saying that what you seek is already here.

Right.

Actually, second button from right. That is, if you're on the home page.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by mattifikation]

reply to post by mattifikation

If this isn't a thread about the U.S. vs. Iran, why would you think that would be our main objective? You contradict yourself, I'm sorry.

I think you took me out of context. I was speaking hypothetically in response to another posters question about how to define 'winning' in a war scenario. See above.

I've seen the threads you speak of. And I am familiar with the search feature too. From the couple I'd read thru none seemed to specifically address who would prevail in the event of WW3. Which is why I started this thread, to get an organized response to specific question re: WW3. And you, after having been through all the others, still decided to post your opinion here. And again I appreciate it.

Just so we're clear, here are some of the more popular of the bunch:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
or
www.abovetopsecret.com...
or this one, an older thread from May
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Notice that Iran seems to be involved in every WW3 discussion. So yes I can see why you might think that this one would be no different. However you can't avoid mentioning Iran when discussing WW3, since leaders of that country and ours have both brought it up in public.

I'm not trying to bash your thread, I'm just saying that what you seek is already here.

Ok thanks. I get very defensive sometimes. And you're right the answers probably lie within, but they're scattered across many threads as by-products of the topic. I'm was looking for a specific opinion to a specific question based on the more general discussion. But I guess to arrive at that specific answer some will need to discuss the topic all over again. It happens a lot on ATS.

I think the BIBLE is right. The only book that can predict the future. It says the home of the Jews (Isreal) will be attacked from the north (moscow). It will cause great damage but there main ally (USA) will help them defeat the evil(Russia).

I have read that the russians have dupped the West into thinking that they are no longer a threat and as such our attentions have moved away from them. The simple fact is that whilst the West has been shrinking its military power the Russians have been expanding it on the QT. The recent events in Georgia was a shock to many as they had the Russians penned as a bunch of spear chuckers.

As for would the US be on the winning side I would say no, at the moment the US is very vunerable and it would not take much to bring it to its knees, cut off the oil and cash flows and it would be struggling but that could be said of any nation. But the main problem facing the US is the attitude of its people, despite the very belicose statment sof many Americans here on ATS the reality is that most Americans have no stomach for war. And their eenmies no this, why do you think the Goverment plays down the casulties in the ME both military and civillian. They have learnt from Vietnam, that public opinion can loose wars.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
I have read that the russians have dupped the West into thinking that they are no longer a threat and as such our attentions have moved away from them. The simple fact is that whilst the West has been shrinking its military power the Russians have been expanding it on the QT. The recent events in Georgia was a shock to many as they had the Russians penned as a bunch of spear chuckers.

As for would the US be on the winning side I would say no, at the moment the US is very vunerable and it would not take much to bring it to its knees, cut off the oil and cash flows and it would be struggling but that could be said of any nation. But the main problem facing the US is the attitude of its people, despite the very belicose statment sof many Americans here on ATS the reality is that most Americans have no stomach for war. And their eenmies no this, why do you think the Goverment plays down the casulties in the ME both military and civillian. They have learnt from Vietnam, that public opinion can loose wars.

I disagree.

The Russians aren't a threat. The the U.S. military budget is greater than the combined military budget of every country on Earth. The U.S. military is dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan with "kids gloves" and you haven't seen anything close to what awaits the world should you pose a threat to our survival. As it is currently, The American is the only country PROVEN in combat, no other country should or could even pretend to possess the Battle Hardened forces of the American. 7 years in and on two fronts we have engaged the enemy and we're about to implement a Surge. Our appetite for War is insatiable, as we know what we are fighting for and you are still convinced that it is for Oil.

World War III could begin as soon as this Saturday and the American has already won. The Shah, the Khan and the Whore has just issued a five day notice to Fain and it expires on Friday, the war will probably formally begin as soon as next Monday. The punk [-SNIP-] Shah will receive his judgement and settlement and leave the rest of you suckers to swing in the wind. Go on go out to the battlefield talking about that crazy [-SNIP-]...I dare you!!

At this point in time...to defeat America one would have to passed through the entire Asian world to do it. The defenses of America are more than mere brick and mortar, but are life itself. You [-SNIP-] obviously have no clue to what has truly befallen you.

Mod Edit: This post received a warn penalty for circumvention of censors - Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/26/2008 by Gools]

THe United States hasn't been on the winning side of a war since before WW1.

The Victors get the spoils...that is the dictum of war.

Only Americans can be so naturally stupid that they finance and bleed for war after war after war after war..ad naseum...and then bring home no spoils. Then to top this off..America continues on in ignorance..with almost no one catching on to this ignorance and stupidity.
On top of all that ..we have the ignorance to build up the economy and infastructure of the nations against whom we fought and they become our economic competitors...puttiing us out of work and shifting markets away from our products.

You have to go to school and be publically educated in institutional stupidity to not understand and loose sight of this concept about war.

Translation...we lost the wars or are actually fighting these wars for someone elses profits..not necessarily someone American.

We have lost so many wars..since WW1...it begins to be another blurr.

Get ready to pull out of Iraq..and have the country and its resources turned over to a hostile government...all the resources put into storage...off the market....as planned. All those lives and moneys wasted...by design. However...the infastructure of Iraq...was brought into the 21st century at public expense in moneys and blood...by design.

To me ...we havent won a real shooting war...in a long long time.
After awhile you can see them coming.

Orangetom

Originally posted by bruxfain

World War III could begin as soon as this Saturday and the American has already won. The Shah, the Khan and the Whore has just issued a five day notice to Fain and it expires on Friday, the war will probably formally begin as soon as next Monday. The punk a$$ Shah will receive his judgement and settlement and leave the rest of you suckers to swing in the wind. Go on go out to the battlefield talking about that crazy [snip]...I dare you!!

Sorry for the short post, but.... what in the heck are you talking about?



[edit on 26-11-2008 by mattifikation]