+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 226

Thread: World War Three

  1. #196
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Feb 05
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
    You won't win a nuclear war, period. And with that small number, you're better off with the big clunkers (2-4 megatons) aiming for maximum city kill rather than the small more accurate counter-force warheads (~120 kilotons).

    Completely agree with all of this statement. Nuclear wars are unwinnable, the best a nation can hope to do is survive relatively intact. And with few nuclear weapons, you don't need pinpoint accuracy because you'll be aiming for cities with the ones you do have anyways.

  2. #197
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Feb 05
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by essay
    I noticed one article in wasington post,the main theme is that japan government vows united with usa to protect tawain from probable chinese attack ,when taiwan derail far away from tolerance of mainland.Do you think china has capability to win the war .

    I know I'm not OoE, but I feel the need to respond to this one anyways. How can China hope to conquer taiwan with the United States against them? One CVBG can sink China's navy, and a couple of more would suffice to shoot down it's airforce. Plus, I don't really see how China has the amphibious capacity to land and supply troops on Taiwan, even without American opposition. China could most certainly hurt the Taiwanese, but actually achieving the conquest of the island? Not without nuclear weapons, and even then the United States would have to be neutral. You will note my initial scenario had China matching the United States in a regional conflict that did not really involve naval power thirty years from now. China would be playing to American strengths in a conflict like this, and by doing that you are bound to lose.

  3. #198
    Regular
    Join Date
    27 Dec 04
    Posts
    99
    Some very good post.

    In general it seems most posters think a great power nuclear war is unwinnable and that as a result no sane power would wage one. It also seems by this line of thinking that another world war is precluded and that in the remote chance a world war occurred it would be posturing at the expense of the conventional forces until one side agreed to a negotiated settlement without facing occupation or regime change.

    I think the horrors of a nuclear war do preclude most countries especially democracies from waging such a war but I don't think it inevitable that we will not see such a conflict.

    I don't think a great power, especially a democracy will allow itself to be the loser in a "world war" after so much blood has been spilled without using their full arsenal. I also think that the scale of slaughter a conventional war can lead to especially if one nation did not care about civilian and collateral death won't look that different than a nuclear war.

    The idea that nuclear weapons deter war assumes that the bluff to use them will never get called. In our Taiwan scenario we can see a series of escalating bluffs that are called. Each one leading to a more horrific response and backing each leader into a corner.

    The U.S. bluffs the Chinese buildup by deploying a carrier battle group.

    The Chinese attack Taiwan anyway calling America's bluff to defend them.

    America's bluff fails so they attack Chinese forces with U.S. submarines and carrier based aircraft calling the Chinese bluff.

    The Chinese nuke the American carrier battlegroup calling America's bluff.

    The American's nuke a mainland Chinese military base calling the Chinese bluff.

    The Chinese announce that either America withdraws or they nuke Los Angees, the known, "Does America care more for Taipei or LA?" question.

    If America does not withdraw China nukes LA calling America's hand again.

    At that point the American people scream for vengence. In a manner of a couple hours this becomes an all out war of nuclear annihilation.

    A sane man wouldn't make these decision but history shows many times where a perceived quick victory turns into a national tragedy and events have a tendency to move the players in ways never anticipated. Each step of such a tragedy would seem like the last play before victory until all was lost.
    Last edited by antelope; 18 Feb 05, at 21:37.

  4. #199
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by essay
    I,m essay.I ,m very happy to see you here,General.
    Why you pay great attention on the development of chinese military power.I
    know that your play a important role in china defence.com.I admire your wide knowledge on world affairs and your deep insight on political issues.As one member of indian high ranking officers,i think there have numerous excellent generals,just like you, in indian army.I noticed one article in wasington post,the main theme is that japan government vows united with usa to protect tawain from probable chinese attack ,when taiwan derail far away from tolerance of mainland.Do you think china has capability to win the war .
    Please tell me some your insights about it.
    You got alot of things wrong about me. Hitesh already pointed out to you I am no General and I am Canadian, not Indian.

    As for the Mainland-Taiwan issue, I really doubt the PLA seriously think that they can win. They've been trying alot of innovative thinking (meaning bad engineering) to overcome alot of hurdles. The cargo ship based artillery for one. They've got alot of things to solve before even seriously considering taking on Taiwan. At best, this is a work in progress.
    Chimo

  5. #200
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by antelope
    The idea that nuclear weapons deter war assumes that the bluff to use them will never get called. In our Taiwan scenario we can see a series of escalating bluffs that are called. Each one leading to a more horrific response and backing each leader into a corner.

    The U.S. bluffs the Chinese buildup by deploying a carrier battle group.

    The Chinese attack Taiwan anyway calling America's bluff to defend them.

    America's bluff fails so they attack Chinese forces with U.S. submarines and carrier based aircraft calling the Chinese bluff.

    The Chinese nuke the American carrier battlegroup calling America's bluff.

    The American's nuke a mainland Chinese military base calling the Chinese bluff.

    The Chinese announce that either America withdraws or they nuke Los Angees, the known, "Does America care more for Taipei or LA?" question.

    If America does not withdraw China nukes LA calling America's hand again.

    At that point the American people scream for vengence. In a manner of a couple hours this becomes an all out war of nuclear annihilation.
    The Chinese ain't stupid. They've faced nuclear annihalation before when facing the Soviets. They know they can't win. But that's not the intent of the bluff. The Chinese want to buy time with their bluff. They want the Americans to spend a couple of minutes, hours, days deciding whether the Chinese are actually bluffing or not (or do they take that chance). The Chinese never hoped to defeat the Americans. They just want to delay them long enough for the ground action on Taiwan to be decided.
    Chimo

  6. #201
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,530
    Country: United States
    Well, here we go: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/18/us.japan/index.html

    U.S., Japan to address China's growing military

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- China's growing military and its threat to Taiwan will be primary topics of conversation when foreign and defense ministers from the United States and Japan meet Saturday, State Department officials said.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will hold talks with their Japanese counterparts at the State Department as part of a regular formal dialogue on the U.S.-Japan Security Alliance, a cornerstone of U.S. national security interests in East Asia.

    The Washington Post reported in Friday's editions that Saturday's discussions will include a focus on Taiwan as a new security concern. The paper also suggested a communiqué issued after the talks would call for Japan to take a greater role in coordination with U.S. forces in Asia.

    The talks come as the United States considers how to realign the nearly 50,000 U.S. forces in Japan.

    State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters Friday afternoon that any discussions about Taiwan or about a greater role for Japan would be "within the scope" of the two nations' mutual security treaty.

    "We and Japan are allies," Boucher said. "When there are tensions in some parts of Asia -- whether it's North Korea, the Taiwan Strait or some other part of Asia -- we talk to Japan about it."

    China views Taiwan as a renegade province that must be united with the mainland, by force if necessary.

    Although U.S. policy recognizes Taiwan as part of China, the Bush administration has been increasingly concerned about China's threat to use force against Taiwan, should it move toward independence.

    The United States does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but has pledged to protect it and provide arms sales through the Taiwan Relations Act.

    Rice said Friday that "the cross-strait issue is an issue of concern in the Asia Pacific" and that stability in the region depends on a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue.

    "We have cautioned all parties that there should be no attempt to change the status quo unilaterally," she said. "That means no attempt by China to change the status quo unilaterally, no attempt by Taiwan to change the status quo unilaterally."

    A senior State Department official said that while the United States has consistently talked with Japan about the tension across the Taiwan Strait, "we are going to note this in public this time because we want others to know that we are both concerned about it."

    Officials have also warned about China's aggressive military buildup. On Wednesday, CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that China's military buildup not only tilts the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait, it threatens U.S. forces in the region. (Full story)

    Boucher said that China's emerging military and economic power in Asia is seen as positive -- for example, in the World Trade Organization and in the U.N. Security Council.

    He said there are areas of concern, such as China's threats against Taiwan and Beijing's export of missile technology.

    "We support the emergence of China in the region and on the world stage in many areas, as it's doing," Boucher said. But he added, "we also expect China to play by the rules, to adopt the various standards of conduct that other responsible international players use."

    The senior State Department official said that while China's main goal of expanding its military might is to intimidate Taiwan, it is also trying to demonstrate its power in the region and operating in areas where the United States has operations, "which is not a good thing."

    The official added that Japan is concerned about moves by China, such as a recent incursion into Japanese waters by a Chinese submarine.

    Saturday's talks will also include the North Korean nuclear issue. The United States is working with Japan, China and Russia to persuade North Korea to return to six-party talks aimed at ending its nuclear program.

  7. #202
    Regular
    Join Date
    27 Dec 04
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
    The Chinese ain't stupid. They've faced nuclear annihalation before when facing the Soviets. They know they can't win. But that's not the intent of the bluff. The Chinese want to buy time with their bluff. They want the Americans to spend a couple of minutes, hours, days deciding whether the Chinese are actually bluffing or not (or do they take that chance). The Chinese never hoped to defeat the Americans. They just want to delay them long enough for the ground action on Taiwan to be decided.
    In your opinion if China did attempt to invade China and America intervened either during the invasion or after it was a fait accompli do you think the Chinese would accept military defeat at the hand of America losing Taiwan again and the war would simply end or turn into a "Cold War"?

  8. #203
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    Tough question. 1st, the PLA does not believe complete outright military victory is possible and in fact, not even practical. From what we have been able to deduce, they're aiming to defeat one of the three RoCA corps and then negotiate from at least a position of equality. Such a negotiated settlement would be very hard for the US to unilaterally intervene upon.
    Chimo

  9. #204
    Patron scotsboyuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Feb 05
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
    Tough question. 1st, the PLA does not believe complete outright military victory is possible and in fact, not even practical. From what we have been able to deduce, they're aiming to defeat one of the three RoCA corps and then negotiate from at least a position of equality. Such a negotiated settlement would be very hard for the US to unilaterally intervene upon.
    The end of your post is perhaps the most interesting; do you feel that the U.S. would be able to garner enough international support to work against such a negotiated settlement?
    "I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC

  10. #205
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    No, for the very reason that if the RoCA decided to fight on, they could kill any PLA invasion force. Therefore, any negotiated settlement would be one of choice and not of duress.
    Chimo

  11. #206
    Banned jon_j_rambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Nov 04
    Posts
    261
    Then I guess it's nuclear winter?

  12. #207
    Patron
    Join Date
    05 Feb 05
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by Commando
    Technically the people say the cold war was world war three.

    But world war three to me is the next world war where their are countries against countries invading and defending their land.

    Im not to sure if their will ever be a world war three.

    What do u guys think?
    I think world war three ought to be defined as the first to involve massive use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and in which hundreds of thousands, or millions, of innocent human beings die as a result.

    I fear world war three began on 9/11/01, but perhaps we can manage to nip it in the bud by killing lots of terrorist morons before they can mount some more serious attacks, this time involving wmd (including nuclear).

  13. #208
    Lord High Hullabalooster Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    11,551
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Avenger
    I think world war three ought to be defined as the first to involve massive use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and in which hundreds of thousands, or millions, of innocent human beings die as a result.

    I fear world war three began on 9/11/01, but perhaps we can manage to nip it in the bud by killing lots of terrorist morons before they can mount some more serious attacks, this time involving wmd (including nuclear).
    I subscribe the school of thought that says the Cold War was WWIII. Makes a lot of sense. Technically 9/11 was the start of WWIV, maybe. I don't think NBC weapons are a necessary criteria - we could Arclight Damascus tomorrow and Teheran next week and kill upwards of 50,000 people with simple iron bombs.

    As far as someone using them on us, well, I've been anticipating that for 10 years now. It's not that I can think of a scenario where it HAS TO happen, rather, I can't think of any reason why it would NEVER happen, you know?

    -dale

  14. #209
    Regular
    Join Date
    27 Dec 04
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by dalem
    I subscribe the school of thought that says the Cold War was WWIII. Makes a lot of sense. Technically 9/11 was the start of WWIV, maybe. I don't think NBC weapons are a necessary criteria - we could Arclight Damascus tomorrow and Teheran next week and kill upwards of 50,000 people with simple iron bombs.

    As far as someone using them on us, well, I've been anticipating that for 10 years now. It's not that I can think of a scenario where it HAS TO happen, rather, I can't think of any reason why it would NEVER happen, you know?

    -dale
    Personally I think the first "World War" happened during the 1700's during the the days of conflict known in America as the "French and Indian War". I do not subscribe to the Cold War being refered to as a world war. I think this is simply a way to rewrite history so that a series of indecisive or American defeats in regional wars can be spun as merely battles in a larger victorious conflict. The Soviets didn't "loose" a war. Their country naturally fell apart economically as communism tends to do over the long term. You can make an argument that military competition between America and the Soviet Union in fact encouraged the kind of sacrifice needed in a communist nation to endure longer than it naturally should have. Contemporary Cuba and North Korea are perfect examples of both the failure of communism economically and the ability to militarize your internal situation by focusing on an external enemy to prolong your bankrupt regime.

    Whether the "war on terror" turns out to be the early stages of a larger world war has yet to be seen. If Iraq and Afghanistan end this conflict than it definitely is not a "world war". If they are dominos that lead to wars in Iran, Syria, and possibly North Korea than maybe this will yet turn into a world war, especially if you subscribe to the theory that the war on terror is fanned by China and Russia in an attempt to weaken and string out America in preparation for a much larger conflict at some point in the future.

  15. #210
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Feb 05
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by antelope
    Personally I think the first "World War" happened during the 1700's during the the days of conflict known in America as the "French and Indian War". I do not subscribe to the Cold War being refered to as a world war.

    I've always been of the belief that a World War is a war that impacts the rest of the world, and involves the total committment of nations involved (therefore completely involves the entire population). Hence the conflict from 1914-1918 was the first World War, because it was the first total war. The Seven Years war, while global in scope, was not a total war in the manner that much conflict has been this century. World War II was properly named, and we have not had a WWIII yet, because there has yet to be another total war. While the Cold War was global in scope, it was neither one conflict, nor did it consume the entire energies of either population in the way that WWII or WWI did. The same holds true for the situation that we find ourselves in now.

    Just my two cents.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 04 Jun 11,, 20:09
  2. ‘US had designs on Iran before Iraq invasion’
    By Ray in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01 May 08,, 18:29
  3. Is the world getting better?
    By ArmchairGeneral in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: 28 Jan 08,, 03:48
  4. A View from the Eye of the Storm
    By tim52 in forum International Economy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 14 Feb 06,, 05:03
  5. Why we are losing the war on terror
    By lulldapull in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 20 Nov 04,, 05:55

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts