People were arguing about 'who will beat who' in the coming World War

'America can do this' or 'North Korea can't do this'

Don't worry about what Iran's got or how quickly the U.S. could defeat Russia or the competence of Chinese soldiers etc.
Worry about a joint effort.
Thinly spread your U.S. forces across the globe and you're weak.
China, a formidable foe, backed by Russia, Iran, Syria, North korea, Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba and whoever else will side with Russia or China (they have a great deal of influence in anti-U.S. countries).
Now THAT, is a powerful military alliance.

European armies are basically ineffective because of their weak left-wing leadership (gone are the Alexanders, Winston Churchills, Napolean Bonaparts, Adolf Hitlers and Julius Ceasers) and will be no match for pitched battle against the war hungry soldiers of Persia. I'm sure the eastern Islamic nations can be influenced to combat Europeans.
Russia's military still holds the values it did in the Great Patriotic War and it also still has it's powerful leaders who conjure up visions of Ivan the Terrible, Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin. And Vladimer Putin takes no sh*t. Unlike Sarkozy, Cameron, Merkel etc.
Austrailia's military is ineffective because of it's size. It's small and cannot field the numbers it once could in the World Wars.
Chinese leaders are strong willed and they know the strength of their massive armies, and I bet are itching to test them. They're sick of being kept down by world powers for the last five hundred years. The Great Red Dragon is about to rise.
There's also no doubting the resolve of Islamic leaders. They have absolute faith in their armies and absolute faith they can defeat any opponent. Faith is a powerful thing. Persian warriors have been feared on the battlefield for centuries for a reason. They are formidable opponents and defended their territory from vastly more powerful armies many times.
What do you think of the resolve in European leaders? Let alone their countrymen. Too long have they not seen war that it will shock the populace, especially when the war is taking tens of thousands of lives every day like in the 40's.
Israel is the only effective ally of the U.S. and will require it's forces to remain at home. Israel can't send forces to Carolina to defend against Russian invasion because Iran and Syria will be knocking on the door.
U.S. forces will be there to defend Israel, and maybe in Africa to combat Chinese troops, maybe also in Europe to assist in the war effort there. How thinly can they spread. Trying to defend the world may cost them at home.

A full scale attack, worldwide, by axis countries, would have westernised civilisation on the edge of it's seat.

Now, you can say 'we'd win because of this" and "we'd win because of that", but the FACT of the matter is: a WAR is a WAR. And I believe, there is going to be a war.
The last big war took a concerted effort, of all the countries on Earth, for SEVEN YEARS, to defeat the aggressing countries. Sixty million people were killed.

Sixty million.

How long will this future war last? Your kids may have to endure suffering. How many people will this future war kill?

When was the last time you were surrounded by war?
If you're younger than seventy, and not from Africa or the Mid-East, chances are you've never seen war.

It's not like the movies. It's not a game. It's not just some thing to discuss the semantics of on an internet chat site.
It's real. It's not fun. It's not glorious. It's not Rambo or Jimmi Hendrix music.
It's loud, it's scary, it hurts and it takes people you love and it kills them.

Don't worry about who's capable of what, only worry that it's going to be a large war, a World War, and it's going to directly affect you and yours.


signature:

I don't think youd need to worry that far.

If any country attacked the west with just one nuke weapon, there would be more damage than you could imagine.

I am not just talking about the radiation effects but I think morale would be damaged and the will to fight lost.

Take for example the UK.
If one nuke was released over the south of the UK regardless of it's effected yeild, 90% of the population would be wiped out or very shortly would be.

Hence the will to fight would be lost.

However to answer your question, I don't think the west could win the next war.
Too much burocracy and wrangling to get anything done.

There is logic in your post that makes sense.
I would not want to fight a country like China (with the biggest army in the world).
Technology will not win a war if your over run by millions of troops.

However, I don't think the next war will be started by a large country.
It is likely to be a small country that wants to prove something starting things.

Then a larger country like Russia or China jumping in on the smaller countries side.

Thats what I could see happening.

The other way to fight a war would be through attrition.

It has been done before.
Again most of Europe could not run a war on attrition basis alone.
We just done have the money or the will power to do an effective attrition war (Afghanistan as an example).

America thinks it can, but financially it is screwed. people just don't realise it yet.

Originally posted by diddy1234


However, I don't think the next war will be started by a large country.
It is likely to be a small country that wants to prove something starting things.

Or a small country to take the fall while the larger powers slug it out behind the scenes (Vietnam anyone?)

I've always been concerned about the fact that the next war will be two small countries being pulled by the larger ones, and where such a fight would take place, and then it would just turn into a giant free-for-all with no clear winners.

Another point (and a good one) is the raising of parallels drawn between games such as Modern Warfare or COD, I have begun to notice (and suspected for a while) the amount of gore and blood being beamed direct into our minds and the minds of our children is having a desensitising effect, so that when the real stuff starts to happen, people will consider it to be just like the game and "cool", so when it all comes down people won't be so horrified to see the realities, until of course they are on the front lines and the truth kicks them in the face.

The nuclear reality is another key factor here, and it's not just a question of who will use them first, but when and why. It would take little more than a handful of nukes to destroy a country's infrastructure and people, even a large country like the US or China, yet it only takes a single hand to enact a retalitory strike, and game over (pardon the pun), no one wins.

the third world war is going on right now.it is the rich against the poor.weather modification,earthquake machines ,plagues and disease.while the rich ride in the branson taxi to the russia hotel in space,looking down on those stupid peasants.wait in see,when the population gets down to sweet number.all the bad things in nature will end .and the gods/billionaires will rule their kingdoms.while the surviving sheepel will blame it all on global warming.we will be so greatful bill gates came down from heaven and saved us.

If it came down to a large axis attacking, I don't think Europe would just sit back. We've seen with Libya that France at least still has some appetite for intervention, the UK has been a constant US ally, aswell as several smaller countries, and while the EU leaders are currently soft, they would harden, or the electorate would elect leaders if peace in Europe was threatened. A combined US/EU and a few other western friendly countries like Canada/Australia/Japan maybe Colombia would be a match for the Sino-Russian alliance you've mapped out. If Europe mobilised to war levels, they'd be as powerful as the US, look at world war two, Germany alone nearly defeated Russia, and arguably may have done so with some good luck and less commitment required on their other flanks (ie rescuing Italy). And thats assuming that the Chinese and Russians would ally, long term the Russians seem to be looking towards closer ties with Europe

reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ


As a people, we Brits (specifically English element) have always historically been known to like a fight - even the Romans commented on it (and we aren't fussy, each other will do when their is no one else around).

I am both immensely ashamed and proud of this fact!

Therefore our continued love of being involved in a 'scuffle' does not surprise me in the slightest. I also genuinely believe that when we have the next major global conflict, Britain won't be too far away from the centre of it........

reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ


Also, look at the Kursk offensive in WW2. The Soviets hammered the axis powers - how? They were given the full German battle plans, troop numbers, etc by the UK after the cracking of the Lorenze cipher machine by the boffins at Bletchley Park. So the turning point, as it was deemed in the USSR itself, was won because it was handed to them on a plate by the Brits - and that is not to play down the heroism and sacrifice of the Russian troops involved.

This hacking also introduced the worlds first fully electronic programmable computer

reply to post by Flavian


Might be a good thing in one sense, I remember reading an article that one of the reasons the Anglo-Saxons were able to take over England was because the relative peace brought to England during the Roman years had diminished the natives ability to fight, the Saxons were more battle-hardened. On the other hand, if a war doesn't really affect the security of your country and you get involved anyway you're putting your own citizens at risk

reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ


Unfortunately very true - look at Pakistan. We always used to have fairly good relations with Pakistan before the Afghan war and now we have to worry about British-Pakistani terrorists!

reply to post by diddy1234

Now now dont just make things up by saying this.... Take for example the UK.
If one nuke was released over the south of the UK regardless of it's effected yeild, 90% of the population would be wiped out or very shortly would be
An average nuke would wipe out say 30 mile radius and yes the rest of us would have to deal with increased cancer rates, but it would kill 90% of us? don't think so...
The japanese dealt with two bombs on citys and they have people living there now.
I know we dont want any bombs going off but one bomb would not kill 90% of us Brits.

Last time I checked, Canada was still an allie of the U.S.

Canada has an extremly well trained armed forces. eoplel like to make light of the canadian military but in truth it is very well respected by american soldiers who have trained or served with them.

reply to post by manontrial


If the US appears weak it is only because they are strong. Read the art of war.

humm ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones .
This we can win a world war thing will be the death of us .
The us puts a nuk in every major city in china and every major base .That million strong army just dwindled to 1000 . now china chucks a few nuks back and russia adds in some for good messure .
now NY DC LA SN and ten other citys along with quite a few bases are tost . Of corse no one misses these citys lol.
anyway so the US now lunchs every thing its got NUKS cems bio and russia does and china does and france and so on .rivers of blood anyone .
two hours later 3 billion people are dead and over the next year 1.5 billion more will die without any one fireing a shot .20 years down the road theres maybe 500 to 750 million people world wide
Who won again???

Originally posted by manontrial

China, a formidable foe, backed by Russia, Iran, Syria, North korea, Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba and whoever else will side with Russia or China (they have a great deal of influence in anti-U.S. countries).
Now THAT, is a powerful military alliance.

Overall, this is a pretty fanciful analysis...but let's just pick it apart a little.

China, is not (yet) a particularly formidable foe...sorry to tell you. They don't have the aircraft, or the navy, or the troop transport required to mount a serious conventional threat to the U.S. or its combined allies. Russia has impressive raw numbers of men and equipment, but the bulk of their forces are not what one could call modern.

Iran...fought to standstill by Iraq...a force that the U.S. picked apart in a number of days. One shouldn't buy into the "mother of all battles" rhetoric. Syria...about as formidable as Libya was (and it was pounded to a pulp in mere weeks by a small NATO aerial force that was fighting with it's hands tied behind their backs).

North Korea...a weekend war with South Korea would them off the strategic table. Palestine...really? Venezuela...please. Cuba...you must be joking.

European armies are basically ineffective because of their weak left-wing leadership (gone are the Alexanders, Winston Churchills, Napolean Bonaparts, Adolf Hitlers and Julius Ceasers) and will be no match for pitched battle against the war hungry soldiers of Persia. I'm sure the eastern Islamic nations can be influenced to combat Europeans.

Do you think this war would be fought like some Middle Ages tilt between swarms of men battling in an open field with swords and shields? The "war hungry soldiers of Persia" are no match for NATO's equipment and technology. This is just some kind of romantic and archaic notion you have.

Russia's military still holds...and Vladimer Putin takes no sh*t. Unlike Sarkozy, Cameron, Merkel etc.

I would agree that Putin is a dangerous man. But do not for one second sell short the Europeans, backed by North America and Australia...if the Russians were to start something. Let's not forget that it took almost the entire world to overcome Germany alone in the not so recent past...so Russia should have no illusions about Europe as a foe.

Chinese leaders are strong willed and they know the strength of their massive armies, and I bet are itching to test them. They're sick of being kept down by world powers for the last five hundred years. The Great Red Dragon is about to rise.

Dream on...

There's also no doubting the resolve of Islamic leaders. They have absolute faith in their armies and absolute faith they can defeat any opponent. Faith is a powerful thing.

Saddam Hussein had absolute faith in his "armies" too. Reality check...this is not the 13 Century.

Israel is the only effective ally of the U.S....

.

Maybe you have forgotten about England, France, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, India, South Korea, Italy, Turkey (ok...maybe). etc.

Israel can't send forces to Carolina to defend against Russian invasion because Iran and Syria will be knocking on the door.

A Russian invasion of America? Are you serious? Assuming they even had the troop transport capability...which they do not, exactly how far across the Ocean do you suppose this armada would get before they were akin to French Fries? One more time...this is not the 13th Century - or even the 20th Century - any more.

It is a nice story you are telling, but I am afraid it is not based on any kind of facts or reality.

^This post sums up this thread very neatly.

How come all of the doom mongers that enjoy describing (very far fetched) WW3 always mention China and Russia's "mentality to win" as if the soldiers of the western soldiers don't have the same attitude?
How come they make sure to remind everyone the limitations of the west while "forgetting" the same limitations apply to the other side as-well?

While I don't want to repeat what was written in the post above mine, I must add my input on some of the thing OP said that really ticked me off:

China, a formidable foe, backed by Russia, Iran, Syria, North korea, Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba and whoever else will side with Russia or China (they have a great deal of influence in anti-U.S. countries).
Now THAT, is a powerful military alliance.

Lol, seriously. What kind of cheap propaganda/moral boosting is this supposed to be? You might as-well wipe everyone other than Russia China and NK.

Palestine - WTF? A semi-nation under a blockade which does not possess even a single tank, aircraft, or a helicopter? How is this supposed to be a part of a "THAT POWERFUL MILITARY ALLIANCE"?
Syria - Syria is incapable of invading Israel, let alone participate in battles halfway across the globe. Even if they had the logistics, their army is nothing more than rubbish. See for yourself. Their less-than-one-thousand-outdated aircrafts airforce is not something formidable in any sort of way
Iran - See Syria. The only western allied nation Iran can somehow threaten is Israel, by using it's long range ballistic missiles and nothing more. Aifroce is a joke, ground forces are seriously outdated.
Cuba/Venezuela - Cuba isn't even ranked top 55 in world military powers, and Venezuela is ranked 47.

Such a mighty alliance you made up there.

European armies are basically ineffective because of their weak left-wing leadership and will be no match for pitched battle against the war hungry soldiers of Persia.

What the hell does this even supposed to imply? That simply because some European governments are left wing, the soldiers aren't "up for it" against the "war hungry soldiers of Persia"? What does one suppose to pick up from that sentence, that Persia's soldiers are all beasts while European soldiers are weaklings because their governments are somehow leaning to the left? What kind of BS assessment is this?

Russia's military still holds the values it did in the Great Patriotic War and it also still has it's powerful leaders who conjure up visions of Ivan the Terrible, Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin. And Vladimer Putin takes no sh*t. Unlike Sarkozy, Cameron, Merkel etc.

In a global catastrophic event such as WW3, "takes no sh!t" means absolutely nothing. There will be no sh!t to take as sh!t has already hit the fan.
The fact that Putin is stiffer than Sarkozy or Merkel may mean something for the citizens of these countries, but mean absolutely zero in terms of military and fighting. It's almost as if you are implying that Putin wants to see his country winning more than Sarkozy, Cameron or Merkel, which is absurd to say the least.

Austrailia's military is ineffective because of it's size. It's small and cannot field the numbers it once could in the World Wars.

Ooooh, so Australia's army is ineffective, but Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and PALESTINE are all effective and mighty? HAHA this is so funny. I hope you'll come up with more threads like this one. 100% Comedy.

There's also no doubting the resolve of Islamic leaders. They have absolute faith in their armies and absolute faith they can defeat any opponent. Faith is a powerful thing.

Yeah, faith can win wars for you... NOT.
I'm sure the Islamic nations had plenty of faith when they outnumbered Israeli army in previous wars. Did it help them? Well, why not ask Syria and Egypt? Still missing the Golan Heights? Egypt still tankful we returned Sinai?
Saddam had plenty of faith, Tojo had plenty of faith, Ghaddafi had plenty of faith.. No reason to even continue.

Persian warriors have been feared on the battlefield for centuries for a reason. They are formidable opponents and defended their territory from vastly more powerful armies many times.

Please write the many times it has defended it's territory, in what we call the modern area, against "vastly more powerful armies". I am somehow skeptic you will find anything other than the war with Iraq, which the USA ripped apart in weeks if not days, not even using it's full airforce capabilities.
And Persian warriors are feared by whom exactly?

Israel is the only effective ally of the U.S.

LOL! So I suppose the combined armies of France, UK, Germany are nothing compared to Israel? Haha.
As an Israeli I am honored by that statement. As a person I am ashamed I am even replying to such an ignorant remark.

...Continued in the following post.

Israel can't send forces to Carolina to defend against Russian invasion because Iran and Syria will be knocking on the door.

Oh, and I suppose Syria, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba will all be there for China when it's bombed, yes? This is what I was talking about at the beginning of this post. You say "they are limited for this reason" yet this limitation somehow does not apply to the countries you are rooting for. Very selective opinions you got there.

U.S. forces will be there to defend Israel, and maybe in Africa to combat Chinese troops, maybe also in Europe to assist in the war effort there. How thinly can they spread. Trying to defend the world may cost them at home.

Again, this one sided limitation. So US sending troops all over the world is crippling itself while China does not?
This does not even make sense considering US army has far better logistic support than China by miles.
Also, why would US fight the Chinese in Africa?



And ofcourse, a doom monger cannot complete his task without several moral boosting slogans..

The Great Red Dragon is about to rise.

A full scale attack, worldwide, by axis countries, would have westernised civilisation on the edge of it's seat.

Now, you can say 'we'd win because of this" and "we'd win because of that", but the FACT of the matter is: a WAR is a WAR. And I believe, there is going to be a war.

Seriously, this quote does not even make sense. Read it again, and tell me if you think it makes sense. It implies the wrongdoing of comparing armies in cases of war, and adds the fact that war is war. Seriously man, what.

When was the last time you were surrounded by war?
If you're younger than seventy, and not from Africa or the Mid-East, chances are you've never seen war.

You're probably not 70, so tell me buddy, when was the last time you've ever seen war?


This was fun!