It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


East versus West in a conventional war?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:44 AM
I would like your analysis on a possible scenarios and outcomes for a conventional war between the East and the West.

East: Russia, China, Iran, Syria
West: USA, Europe, Canada, Australia

How do you think such conflict would unfold? Which doctrines and weapons would be used? Where would be the main theatres and objectives? What would be the likely outcomes?

Please use realistic projections. Here is a guide on military strengths of different countries

Thank you

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:32 AM
That's quite a big question TheOracle.

The first thing would be the location of the war? Are you thinking about a global war or one focused in one area.

Also, what would be the background to a conventional war?

I certainly need more information as each of the countries mentioned has strenghts and weaknesses and this would govern their ability to wage a war.

Interested in why you feel China and Russia would engage with each other on a conventional war with the West.

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
That's quite a big question TheOracle.

The first thing would be the location of the war? Are you thinking about a global war or one focused in one area.

Also, what would be the background to a conventional war?

I certainly need more information as each of the countries mentioned has strenghts and weaknesses and this would govern their ability to wage a war.

Interested in why you feel China and Russia would engage with each other on a conventional war with the West.

Russia nd china are already part of a military alliance and being neighbours they rather avoid facing each other.
Main strengths of the East is attrition and massive air force.
For the East mostly technological and of course the US navy.
Theatres may stat in the middle east or europe.

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:15 PM
I not see a major conventional war starting in Europe. It could spread to Europe from elsewhere.

I still do not see China and Russia fighting together despite their military alliance unless there was a attack on both countries. Their alliance does not seem to be in the mound of Nato, where one is attacked, all are attacked. And I can not see a scenario where the West would to attack both Russia and China.

I would agree with a conflict starting in the Middle East, and it is here that I could see the major powers being sucked in.

If we start with a conflict in the Middle East, the West today is much better placed to maintain a conventional war as they already have the command and control elements in place, as well as forward operating bases and ports and airstrips to bring supples in. Many of the Western countries are already running supply operations to the Middle East.

While, in your scenario, Russia and China would have to move their command and control elements, and all their supply elements into place. While Syria and Iran appear to have close links with Russia and China, this is still going to take time, and this would give the advantage to the West in the short term.

So in the initial phase based on a conflict starting in the Middle East, the advantage would rest with the rest.

One major area for the military planners would be control of the air, and again the West have the advantage as the US has the largest number of aircraft carriers and could deploy these far enough away to avoid a direct threat but close enough to give the West major airpower.

Of course, Russia would have an advantage of land based airfields not too distance in mainland Russia. China would have to use provided airbases to enable its aircraft to be involved ans this will take time and reduce the effectiveness of their air capability.

While both Iran and Syria have some of the more update Russia aircraft, they do not have huge airforces and one would have to question the skill of the pilots against battle hardened Western pilots. Just think on the recent raid on Syria by Israel.

And one factor that you have omitted. Where is Israel in your mix. I can not see a major conventional conflict in the Middle East without Israel. At some stage, either Israel or Iran/Syria will attack each other. If you put what Israel can offer to the West, then the balance is again tipped toward the West.

Control of the high seas will be a major part of the resupply, and today, the Americans do have the largest deep water fleet and with their allies should be able to keep the major supply seas lines open. Of the East, only Russia has a serious fleet and could with it much larger submarine fleet, cause disruption to the sea lines. So control of the high seas would depend on if the Russia fleet and its submarines can cause more damage to the supply fleets before the West's anti submarine fleet finds and destroys them. So I would put the high seas element as even.

The ability to operate closer in-shore, via smaller and faster attack boats, gives the advantage to Iran, as its Navy has been designed and developed to operate in its coastal waters, where as a large element of the West's fleet is designed for deep sea operations. In the short term, the advantage would rest with Iran and the East, but I fear, the limited number of these fast attack boats would soon lose their advantage and be destroyed by the West's airforce and the supply of vast numbers of smaller patrol boats via the supply chain that would come.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:26 AM
Certainly one of the more interesting points would be a land campaign. If we assume that an invasion of Iran is a more likely starting point, any land campaign would only start after an air campaign, so in effect telegraphing to Iran and the rest of the East that a land campaign was on the way.

In the short term, I would not see Iran's air defences holding up long term to a massive Western air attack. The West would lose aircraft in this first phase, but it it very differcult to protect command and control from cruise missiles and remote weapons systems. Some aspects of command and comtrol have to be visability and above protect. In the early days, one of the objectivies of any Western air campaign will be to take out as much of the air denfense system as possible.

One of the abilities of Iran to defend itself which depend on how quickly support could come from Russia and China. Certainly, Russia could have air assets available to protect airspace and could very quickly have air defence assets in country in hours if not days. Iran does have some of the more modern equipement and if Russia was to supply equipement with its own military, this could be some of its most modern and would take a toll of Western aircraft. So the question here, would the West be able to dominate the air and I think in the short and medium term, this would be unlikely. Again, the key aspect is the nearness of Russia and its ability to have aircraft in the air 24 hours a day with secure repair and maintenance facilities.

This begs, a further question of the West wanting to hit mainland Russia, to take out it command and control and air bases. I can not see Russia sitting back and letting US planes attack Russian soil without wanting to hit back at US soil. This will escalate to nuclear war.

So, let out continue to assume a land campaign based in the Middle East and that Russian soil is not attacked.

Based on today, Iran could be invaded from Iraq. At least this would give the West a ground base to support operations from. The West would certainly penetrate some way into Iran while they prepare a defensive battle plan, and they may be happy to concede some ground. In a straight fight between West and Iranian land forces, you would expect the West to come out on top as the US and the UK have a huge number of battle hardened troops, but Iran would fight with unc-conventional means and the US has found it harder to adjust (just look at Iraq)

Again, Iran would be looking to support from Russia, China and Syria. Russia would certainly look to get ground troops available quickly and would support Syria in this objective. Syria would also look to get troops over land.

China could use Russian airspace most of the way. I think in any major campaign, Russia will care little about Georgia and Azerbaijan, and would just use their airspace and ground to supply Iran and move troops.

Once Russia and China have serious numbers of ground troops available in Iran, and with ground troops would come air defense, the ground campaign would stall.

The next question is just how interested the West was in holding part of Iran?

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 05:16 PM
My analysis is very simple.

If the West attacks them, other than knocking out their facilities the West will NEVER be able to actually conquer those two places (russia and china). In a ground war, we would easily loose. We will totally decimate their navy and airforce but on the ground we can never win. If you think Iraq is bad now, then that scenario will be 1000 times worse.

If the East were to attack the West, they would never be able to pull get any traction on their attacks and they would be easily routed in all spheres, air, land and sea. Even if a combined Russian and Chinese force did a massive Normandy style landing in the Western USA or in Eastern Europe they will quickly routed while we will still have enough men and material to actually strike an offensive on them. In terms of logistics these East is terribly behind the West. The west can put a small army in any corner of the world in a few days but the east that task is impossible. The EASTern militarys are excellent defense armies but poor offensive armies for long distance missions.

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:42 AM
Nukes go up.

Nukes come down.

Mass human extiction occurs over the coming months due to the nuclear winter.

If the gene pool of any survivors fail then we wait for a big rock to hit Earth.

Panspermia all over again.

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 11:52 AM
The OP stated that this was based on a conventional war and you could then see that the conflict could escalate to a nuclear exchange.

Based on the idea that the conflict may start in the Middle East, I would not Russia or China using nuclear weapons unless there was a ground invasion of Mother Russia or China.

The extent of the Russian influence sphere has not led to a nuclear exchange, I would accept that the world might be a more dangerous place but that is not just to the break up on the Warsaw pact.

If any conflict between the West and the East led to a nuclear exchange, it would be unlikely we would be here to post about it.

posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 03:32 PM
Now that I've read all the posts in this thread, I think the question is too broad. China and Russia have too many divergent interests to be on the same side at this time.

posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 04:54 AM
Well the NZ government would the price for downgrading if I may use that term the NZDF to a peace keeping force and taking half baked anti nuclear stance . For the sake of discussion I will take Nukes out of the picture. In short it would be a very short unlike WW2 there would be insufficient public support and manpower to fight a war in Europe , Asia and Oceania.

Bear in mind people cry foul over the relatively low amount of causality's that have come from the Iraq war. If a war isnt over in three months it will lose US public support. So I concluded that unlike in WW2 the US would be brought to the table very quickly because unlike sixty years ago there would be no public support for re taking lost ground. If WW2 was fought today the axis would win for the reasons I have outlined .

There are economic issues as well you bet your boots that the hawks would refuse to pay higher taxes to pay for the war. Even if there was sufficient public support for a long conventional war the US lacks the industrial capacity it once had and long supply lines are open to attack.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by xpert11]

posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 01:50 PM
the odds are low that we'll see a world war in the 21st century. I do think we are likely to see several REGIONAL conflicts. Chief among hese might be China vs. the U.S. and Japan.

Consider this:

If China made their play for Taiwan in hte next 2-3 years, world opinion might be against them (China)...but...who's actualy gonna fight for Taiwan?

If you are the next President of the United States, you're gonna think twice before moving American warships within range of Chinese air, anti-ship, and submarines.

With U.S. prestige being at an all time low, many governments will consider military action to settle old scores. The African nations aren't afraid of NATO. The Iranians don't fear the U.S. The Chinese don't fear anyone.

the potential outcomes of these regional wars could set the stage for a world war, but its unlikely that anyone reading this post now will be of figning age when that conflict comes to pass.

posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 12:07 AM
Well I don't think that we see another global war like we saw in the last century rather I am exploring ideas as requested by the author of this thread. India is the key player that has been overlooked in this thread.

India is a stone throw away from China and Russia and has a potentially large industrial base . India could side with enemy the allies or remain neutral . It is my belief that the US relationship with India will define the future as much as the War on Terror .

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 08:23 PM
I think that scenario is in the Book of Revelations.

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 09:31 PM
I think the Western forces would be able to push deeply into Eastern lands much like Hitler's, and before that, Napoleon's forces. After initial success the Western armies would bog down and wear out due to the vast territories and limitless reserves of willing cannon fodder that they would be facing.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 10:27 AM
Thank you xpert, for pointing out the Billion Pound Indian Elephant in the world!

We also have ignored the 2nd MOST likely Starting fuse in a 3rd World War, the South American Theater. Hugo Chavez looks to lead an Anti-American coalition out of the South.

So, lets start to do this... Starting year... 2008(ish)...

Here the Rules, No Nuclear Weapons... No Biological... No Chemical...

Types of Warfare:

Sea Battles: West... The US Air Force Sea Carrier Groups will have power over the Globe, Meaning they will be subject to attacks 24/7 where every they are, but these should have complete sea control which should let the US have control of the Seas
Aerial Battles: This SHOULD be dominated by the West... The US Aircraft Carrier is the Key, and The New F-22 will never be shot down in Combat
Land Battles: West...The Axis may have superior Land Forces when it comes to number of forces, but the InDestrucable US tanks will Win Everywhere, and they are deployable Everywhere.
Media Battles: Axis... Our US media is a sick twisted society that would turn on our Forces in a second... this is a sick truth
Court: Battles: Axis... The West will have to be civil, the enemy will not
Internet Battles: Axis... Because the west has so much on Tech, so much relies on easy accessible info, The Chinese have been hacking US Intel For Years...

The West: US, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Most of the UN, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Columbia, Mexico, Brazil, Most of the West Indies, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Canada, Greece

The New Axis: China, Russia, Iran, Syria, N Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, New South/Central American Socialist states (its Hugo Chavez Fantasy [and Castors life goal]), And Other Islamism States of... well... groups... Parts the Philippines and Indonesia, South Eastern Countries, under China Influence

The big thing is what India would do, and I honestly have to say that they would be with the west. They are A British Colony, and now a New (1950) Republic. But looking into is, India has not been a big US or Western World Supporter... more of a Eastern Swiss... they could go either way... if they are attacked by the Axis First they go to the West, and they have massive Air Fights over the Himalayan’s... The only way I could see India fighting with Russia/China/Iran is if the West Attacks them, unless they still hate the West for the whole colonization deal...

The Other Question marks Turkey, I don’t know what the Turks would do. They have Not Been the most friendly country since the US & other forces entered in 2003, and would not let the US led forces us Turkish soil, or Airstrips to land forces. SO I would have to say they go to the Axis.

Some of the theaters of war are:

Middle East: Think maybe there might be fighting in Israeli soil. Or maybe that part of earth... sounds familiar... And a US led Iran Land Invasion Air Bombings, then Tanks,

Eastern Europe/ Balkans Area:
This would seem the place a Land force would come on against the west, possibly against Northern Countries, and Former Socialist states that MIGHT go Pro-West.
The Countries that are Not In the EU would most likely be invaded.

China May look to Attack Australia and take The East Indies, That Means that there will be Air and sea battles on in this area, between the islands.

In South America, Chavez is looking to lead an Anti-American Campaign, and wood is the candidate for Axis Countries to give weapons to, the Modern Castro... Fighting would be in the Caribbean, and around the Canal, which should be under Western Control.

The US really does have the Forces to Fight the Entire World, if it Came Down to it EVERY borderline Country would Join the Side of the US... and the US would use their Air force to destroy everything...

Using the Link, adding up the Power of the Countries here is the Score:

991 European Top 7 power (minus Turkey Russia) + Swiss

1929 Axis (Russia Turkey China N Korea Iran)

2488 US Alone, 2695 with is American Allies

Less then 100 for Anti-West Forces in Southern America

617 for Israel Alone

5312 For ALL Western Forces Vs 1929 Axis, or 2493 With India...

Either way, Its the US and its Allies winning, in every theater of war... now if they have the Political and emotional will...

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 11:47 AM
We (the West) would lose simply because we dont have the stomach to handle the amount of casaulties that would result from a "real war". If the American public cant even handle 4,000 dead how well do you expect them to handle 400,000 or even 4,000,000?

The East on the other hand does not really have that issue because of cultural differences where its about the good of the country rather then me me me me like in our culture. Remember that over 7,000,000 Russians were killed in the "Great Patriotic War against Fascism" from 1941 - 45 and that # does not even include civilians.

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by ChrisF231

But ChrisF231, in the context of a global war, the feelings on the people to losses would be very different to the losses being incurred due to actions in the Middle East. I think it is fair to say that many people are unhappy with the reasons for going to war in the Middle East, and hence, are very concerned at the increasing losses.

But the point of this thread was a war on a global level between the East and the West. And I think TKainZero has summed up the sides about right. And with xpert11, India is an interesting question as to which side she would fall, and I would not see India remaining on the fence. Her industrial powerbase would be too much for one of the parties to leave intact, so India either defends her self or gets destroyed. I am afraid in the global conflict there will be very few neutral countries, as the world is so much smaller.

I think the more interesting question in this region. Which side would Pakistan back?

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
reply to post by ChrisF231

I think the more interesting question in this region. Which side would Pakistan back?

I belive Pak would be against India, and that would decide what side... So it would be on either Pak or India to choose its side, and then the other would likly choose the other side... of course, this could be the opening shot of WWIII as well, and a nucular exchange over Kashmir could start a War, with the West Backing the side that is hit by a nuke...

One such secnerio would be for Anti-American forces to take military control of Pak, and then use the countries nuke for any purpose, this would send India to war with Pak, with the West which would unilaterly condem the actions of using a nuke first.

Chris, the US populace can't stomache 4000 Dead Americans in Iraq, cause they are dieing in a Miliarty Police type courty, where they are being forced to police the streets of a forgin city, as they try to rebuild one min, and fight an enemy the next... Americans have no stomache for the method of this War... not War itself....

new topics


log in