Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

World War 3.... By Numbers

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ezekielken
 


Let's not forget the formidable Canadian Navy with it's canoes and sling-shots LOL
Yeah, I'll still have to insist that Canada in the global scheme of things is a minor military player.
We'll just move in to "keep the peace" after all is said and done.




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Team # 1 should have India on it India does joint-operations with the U.S military fyi....

www.deccanherald.com...@deccanherald.co.in
edit on 18-4-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I can almost 100% guarantee you that China would sit out any world war unless they were directly involved like being invaded or something. They have far too much to lose and everything to gain in the aftermath of a world war.

They would be solidified in my opinion as the only superpower left in the world. They may be communist but they keep proving themselves ahead of the curve in international relations and frankly they are too powerful to be trifled with and they know it.

We've studied China military and this scenario in school and it's rumored that China, if their back was to the wall could put out a 200,000,000 man army in around 2 yrs time. You can assume they wouldn't be armed with the latest technology of course but still even armed with just sticks that's alot of people to fight through.

It has also been rumored that China's industrial factories are built to easily be converted from consumer goods to military hardware on a moment's notice in the event of a major conflict. Alot quicker than what America did during world war 2.

The Allies would undoubtably eventually have mastery of the air and sea but as for ever knocking China out of a war by invasion would just not be possible in today's age.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Ah, okay China is almighty and invulnerable, your right I didn't take that into account.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by kro32
 


Ah, okay China is almighty and invulnerable, your right I didn't take that into account.


Like I said, China has thousands more soldiers in the armed forces than the United States.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by kro32
 


Ah, okay China is almighty and invulnerable, your right I didn't take that into account.


Well for all intent's and purposes they are. They also have nuclear missles and a very large country to the north that would more than likely fall on their side so yea I don't think allies would be able to do more than fight to a draw at best.

The only other option would be for all Allied nations to turn all their industry into the biggest war machine the world has ever know, which China would do also, and hope that in about 5-10 years they have enough to go over there and invade.

China being communist is far more able to isolate themselves and wait anything out that they need too. They don't have the qualms about sacrificing their people for the greater good so yea I think they have the upper hand in any world war.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Davian
 


China has some nice missiles, and a few good Russian destroyers. Despite their numerically superior army though they have to move them, which means they won't be able to get anywhere without going through Team 1's numerous and advanced guided missile ships and naval strike groups.

The Russians would be much more of a tactical asset to Team 2 than China. China's army may be nice, but they can't move it without being destroyed, they would have to move across and conquer the entire world before they thought about moving their army across water.

reply to post by kro32
 


Well I agree that no major nation would be able to invade another in any short time. None of them.
edit on 18-4-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by Davian
 


China has some nice missiles, and a few good Russian destroyers. Despite their numerically superior army though they have to move them, which means they won't be able to get anywhere without going through Team 1's numerous and advanced guided missile ships and naval strike groups.

The Russians would be much more of a tactical asset to Team 2 than China. China's army may be nice, but they can't move it without being destroyed, they would have to move across and conquer the entire world before they thought about moving their army across water.


Why would they have it by sea? They have no reason to invade the western hemisphere at all when all they need is within reach by land. Unless America and it's Allies can produce more military hardware and personal than China and Russia I believe they have the means to take over all of europe if they wanted too.

However China is sitting very pretty right now so the last thing I believe they would want is to risk that by getting sucked into a war that is basically going to be just a war of attrition.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by Davian
 


China has some nice missiles, and a few good Russian destroyers. Despite their numerically superior army though they have to move them, which means they won't be able to get anywhere without going through Team 1's numerous and advanced guided missile ships and naval strike groups.

The Russians would be much more of a tactical asset to Team 2 than China. China's army may be nice, but they can't move it without being destroyed, they would have to move across and conquer the entire world before they thought about moving their army across water.


I never said anything about China attacking the U.S., did I? I'm just going to show the U.S. military is not the 'monster' people make it out to be - which is China.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Davian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


This is a hypothetical wold war scenario where all nations are involved though.

China would not have the logistics capability to conquer through EU, even with Russia the US would be stopping them at every point with strike aircraft, that drastically outperform in missile range on the aircraft of Team 2. The EU also has some of the most capable aircraft comparable to China and Russia, China and Russia would be an even fight for the EU, without US help.

Team 1 would destroy Team 2's entire navy and air force unless they remained behind ground based air defenses. Then it would be a sub war, which Team 1 would win as well.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Davian

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by Davian
 


China has some nice missiles, and a few good Russian destroyers. Despite their numerically superior army though they have to move them, which means they won't be able to get anywhere without going through Team 1's numerous and advanced guided missile ships and naval strike groups.

The Russians would be much more of a tactical asset to Team 2 than China. China's army may be nice, but they can't move it without being destroyed, they would have to move across and conquer the entire world before they thought about moving their army across water.


I never said anything about China attacking the U.S., did I? I'm just going to show the U.S. military is not the 'monster' people make it out to be - which is China.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Davian because: (no reason given)


Of course you implied it. Why else would you state that China would be destroyed by sea. Where are you implying that they would be headed?

And yes China can go anywhere they want before the Allies would have enough resources to stop them for a bit except I imagine the western hemisphere.

And believe me that they have quite a bit more than just a few russian destroyers. I'm not gonna look it up for you but they just launched their first major aircraft carrier which was reverse engineered from ours so I think their navy along with their submarines could sink maybe a couple of our ships.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I don't have to look it up, I already know they have a few old Varyags.

I am implying that in a world war, Team 1 (AKA mostly the west) would control the air and sea and eventually Team 2 would not be able to move.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by kro32
 


I don't have to look it up, I already know they have a few old Varyags.

I am implying that in a world war, Team 1 (AKA mostly the west) would control the air and sea and eventually Team 2 would not be able to move.


It's not old dude it's brand new. Newer than anything the u.s. has

And the west or team 1 as you call it does not have anywhere near enough aircraft to stop the movement of a chinese army. Don't forget that China has enough air defense to put some hurt into allied airpower without knocking it completely out. Team 1 would need to start producing more aircraft to replace the ones lost to China fighters and anti-air weaponry.

It's no doubt that Team 1 has the superiority in air but they will take losses and trying to stop an army of China's size with limited bases in the area it is not enough to stop them I'm afraid. And don't forget that China supposedly has that new missle designed to take out aircraft carriers.
edit on 18-4-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


It's not exactly brand new, especially when you consider how modular US vessels are. Look up the MEKO 200, though it is not a US vessel, you will understand.

The US has several Iowa battleships on reserve, and considering adding advanced long range gun tech to them. In the event of world war 3, where a group of guided missile cruisers all but nullify missile technology, one of these ships along with a flotilla of Aegis cruisers could effectively nullify any battle group in world that relies on missiles. This is a pipe dream, and would only happen in the hands of a brilliant military commander, but it's what I would do.

One of these with a few Ticonderoga could eliminate any naval battle group on earth:


To be fair, I'll add a picture of the awesome Russian destroyer I'm talking about (The Chinese don't have the same missiles that make it awesome).


All pics are public domain. Someone pm me how to add sliders?
edit on 18-4-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Davian
 


Right china had boasted to be able to field an army of 200 million, which is also the number used in the 6th trumpet war in the bible.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Interesting topic...I couldn't pick a team, because between Korea, Japan, China, Russia and US...(and more that I'm not aware of I'm sure), despite being on different teams, you have to remember all of these places have technology that could wipe out a whole country.

EMP's: Electronic Magnetic Pulse; could wipe out power for miles;
destruction of satellites would prevent anyone from "communicating" or "seeing" anything, we would all be fighting blindfolded,
Neuclear bombs and missles; I think everyone knows or has imagined or seen a movie depicting how that would end, then there would be the "aftermath" where it would end up being survival of the fittest...

I agree, there would be no winner, only death and suffering for the survivors.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
LOL-India, China and Pakistan will NOT be on the same side.



Originally posted by II HAL II
Just for kicks lets see what would happen if WW3 broke out and every country with a military became involved...

First you have to pick a team... Team 1 - I will call the Home Team (as it includes my country) and Team 2 can be called the Away Team.

If WW3 were to break out, how would these teams look and who could be called upon to help? I've gone for the following teams.... but I may be wrong on some counts -

Team 1 (Home Team) Members -
Albania[2]
Angola[4]
Antigua and Barbuda[5]
Argentina[6]
Armenia[7]
Australia[8][9]
Austria[10]
Bahamas[12]
Barbados[12]
Belarus[15]
Belgium[16]
Belize[17]
Bolivia[19]
Bosnia and Herzegovina[20]
Botswana[21]
Brazil[22]
Bulgaria[24]
Cameroon[28]
Canada[29]
Cape Verde[30]
Chile[33]
Colombia[37]
Costa Rica[38]
Croatia[39]
Cyprus[41]
Czech Republic[42]
Côte d'Ivoire[43]
Democratic Republic of the Congo[44]
Denmark[45]
Dominican Republic[47]
Ecuador[48]
El Salvador[50]
Equatorial Guinea[51]
Estonia[53]
Ethiopia[54]
Fiji[55]
Finland[56]
France[57]
Gabon[58]
Gambia[59]
Georgia[60]
Germany[61]
Ghana[62]
Greece[63]
Guatemala[64]
Guinea[65]
Haiti[68]
Honduras[69]
Hungary[70]
Iceland[71]
Ireland[76]
Israel[77]
Italy[78]
Jamaica[79]
Japan[80]
Kenya[83]
Kosovo[84][85]
Kyrgyzstan[87]
Laos[88]
Latvia[89]
Lithuania[94]
Luxembourg[95]
Madagascar[96]
Malawi[97]
Malta[100]
Mexico[103]
Moldova[104]
Mozambique[108]
Netherlands[112]
New Zealand[113]
Niger[115]
Nigeria[116]
Northern Cyprus[118]
Norway[119]
Panama[124]
Papua New Guinea[125]
Paraguay[126]
Peru[127]
Poland[129][130][131]
Portugal[132]
Republic of Macedonia[134]
Romania[136]
Senegal[140]
Seychelles[142]
Slovenia[146]
Somaliland[148]
South Africa[149]
Republic of Korea[150]
Spain[151]
Sri Lanka[152]
Sweden[154]
Switzerland[155]
Togo[162]
Trinidad and Tobago[163]
Uganda[167]
Ukraine[168]
United Kingdom[170]
United States[171]
Uruguay[172]

Team 2 (Away Team) Members -
Afghanistan[1]
Algeria[3]
Azerbaijan[11]
Bahrain[13]
Bangladesh[14]
Benin[18]
Burundi[26]
Cambodia[27]
Central African Republic[31]
Cuba[40]
Guinea-Bissau[66]
Guyana[67]
India[72]
Indonesia[73]
Iran[74]
Iraq[75]
Jordan[81]
Kazakhstan[82]
Kuwait[86]
Lebanon[90]
Lesotho[91]
Liberia[92]
Libya[93]
Malaysia[98]
Mali[99]
Mauritania[101]
Mauritius[102]
Mongolia[105]
Montenegro[106]
Morocco[107]
Myanmar[109]
Namibia[110]
Nepal[111]
Nicaragua[114]
Democratic People's Republic of Korea[117]
Oman[120]
Pakistan[121][122]
Palestine[123]
Philippines[128]
Qatar[133]
Republic of the Congo[135]
Russia[137]
Rwanda[138]
Saudi Arabia[139]
Serbia[141]
Sierra Leone[143]
Singapore[144]
Slovakia[145]
Somalia[147]
Sudan[152]
Suriname[153]
Syria[156]
Republic of China[157]
Tajikistan[158]
Tanzania[159]
Thailand[160]
Timor Leste[161]
Tunisia[164]
Turkey[165]
Turkmenistan[166]
United Arab Emirates[169]
Uzbekistan[173]
Venezuela[174]
Vietnam[175]
Yemen[176]
Zambia[177]
Zimbabwe[178]

I'm not too sure who India would side with so I've chosen the away team due to it's location.

Ok now for the numbers -

Active Military Persons for the Home Team - 7,403,334
Active Military Persons for the Away Team - 12,966,438
Difference in favour of the Away Team - 5,563,104

I would say the Home Team have the technology advantage so this would close the gap but would it be enough?
My Predicted Outcome - Draw

HOWEVER.... these figures do not include Reserves or Paramilitary figures. Lets see what would happen if these were taken into account

Total Military Persons (Incl Reserves & Paramilitary) for the Home Team - 25,213,982
Total Military Persons (Incl Reserves & Paramilitary) for the Away Team - 65,212,393
Difference in favour of the Away Team - 39,998,411

With the Away Team having circa 40 Million more trained persons than the Home Team, I would say my predicted outcome would be a big lose for the Home Team.....Booooo.


MVP's (Most Valuable Players) -

Home Team -
Brazil - 1,667,710
Israel - 749,550
Republic of Korea - 8,691,500
Ukraine - 1,214,825
USA - 2,455,837

Away Team -
China - 4,585,000
Cuba - 1,234,500
Egypt - 1,344,500
India - 4,768,407
Iran - 2,833,000
North Korea - 9,495,000
Pakistan - 1,434,000
Russia - 21,476,000
Syria - 747,000
Republic of China - 1,964,000
Turkey - 1,041,500
Vietnam - 5,495,000

So in a war of 90 million people, only 25 million would be on my side.... eeeeek.

This of course does not take into account military spend... but is it worth looking at? after all, look at Afaganistan or Vietnam. There is also the fact of equipment being available and leadership to consider.

Have I picked the correct teams?

Figures used are from 2009.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Regardless of numbers most of the Chinese tech is junk compared to the U.S. Within a short amount of time the Chinese Navy will be gone, as well as the airforce. Then the U.S. just has to worry about power plants, no power means, no arms, munitions or anything.

Link According to this and most other estimates U.S. military spending currently is between 5 and 6 times higher than China's. This would prove a massive leg up.

As for China's AA abilities, I have to seriously question their ability to detect U.S. stealth tech, granted they can detect bombers, but why not just have smaller craft render the SAMS impotent first.

Another question to consider is how fast could the U.S. take out China's fuel distribution? My guess is that due to bases in Japan, vital installations would be crippled within hours after a conflict.

Although, personally I think China's too smart to get involved little to gain and a lot to lose. As mentioned previously it would be in a position to dominate the world after the war.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 


I've posted stuff like what you did before, about how nuclear escalation is almost a certainty, especially once a nation possessing them gets backed against a wall.

Bottom line, most of this discussion is simply based on the assumption that they won't be used, NWO and etc.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by II HAL II
 


You are thinking it all wrong, you are assuming there will be 2 teams, I'm leaning more to 3 or 4, Also, you have to add that China and Russia (the biggest "away team" players) have advanced technology which is designed to defeat home team members., and do not count Colombia, we have some scary problems here to even join a war of that magnitude

I'm also on the "away team" side, its time for the "home team" to fall
edit on 6/5/2011 by mbartelsm because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join