Thread: World War Three

Originally Posted by dalem

I still disagree. In the hypothetical we are discussing I think you are requiring the Russians to be Very Stupid, and I don't think that's a wise assumption. The Russians have had, and still do have, many many problems, but stupidity is NOT one of them. And as far as the simple expense of adequate preparedness, I think that they would find the spare change for that kind of thing.

-dale

NATO never did. We conducted exercises of course, and increased readiness at the same time the Soviets were doing exercises, but we rarely shifted large numbers of divisions to Europe as a response to Soviet activity. Moving those numbers of troops is not spare change, that is a lot of money, and Russia simply does not have it. Russia, in my opinion, would be dumb to shift forces every time Chinese forces went on an exercise in Manchuria (the costs wouldn't be worth the potential benefits year after year).

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

NATO never did. We conducted exercises of course, and increased readiness at the same time the Soviets were doing exercises, but we rarely shifted large numbers of divisions to Europe as a response to Soviet activity. Moving those numbers of troops is not spare change, that is a lot of money, and Russia simply does not have it.

WHAT? Do a google on REFORGER.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Still not realistic. Would the US yield Alaska to the Russians? Why would the Russians yield Siberia to the Chinese? Which again leaves a short and bloody conflict and that advantage still belongs to the Russians.

If they had no choice? In a long war, Russia would lose. There is only so long that a nation can keep fighting before it's economy collapses. It's chance is to either nuke China, or decisively defeat them right off the bat. And also note that I concur with your statement that the most likely form of conflict is a border skirmish. I am not saying that this scenario is likely, but it is a hypothetical situation, and it may occur in the future (under slightly different circumstances).

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

WHAT? Do a google on REFORGER.

I know about reforger. Did Nato activate it every time the Warsaw Pact conducted an exercise?

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

If they had no choice? In a long war, Russia would lose. There is only so long that a nation can keep fighting before it's economy collapses. It's chance is to either nuke China, or decisively defeat them right off the bat. And also note that I concur with your statement that the most likely form of conflict is a border skirmish. I am not saying that this scenario is likely, but it is a hypothetical situation, and it may occur in the future (under slightly different circumstances).

You're not understanding. The US would not yield Alaska without a fight up to and including nukes. The Russians will not yield Siberia without a fight up to and including nukes. You cannot erase nukes from the equation in wars of national survival and Siberia is vital to Russia's national survival.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I know about reforger. Did Nato activate it every time the Warsaw Pact conducted an exercise?

We had one every two years, co-inciding with theirs (or theirs co-inciding with ours).

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I know. This original scenario was assuming no nukes, because that is the only way that one could map a convential war out. Given a couple of decades, China could probably build it's nuclear forces up to a point where it will have second strike capability, but as of right now Russia would obliterate them as soon as it seemed like an invasion was actually taking place. As you will recall, my original scenario envisioned 30 years in the future, and by that point China could have a much larger nuclear arsenal, thus reducing the Russian nuclear advantage. Also, what started the current conversation was whether China was stronger than Russia in terms of great power status. In a long, drawn out, conflict I would still say absolutely (the economic disparities ensure Chinese victory, if nothing else does). Such a conflict would not occur with nuclear use however, therefore such a scenario automatically assumes no nukes.

Even discounting nukes, the Russians have a long way to fall, and the Chinese a long way to rise, before China could make a serious play for a piece of Russia. Can Chinese kill Russians? Sure - like OeE points out, a little border skirmish. But the hypothetical you envision involves so many "coulda-woulda-shoulda"s that it's difficult to treat as anything but fiction.

For instance, without nukes in the picture, what are we, the U.S., doing while all this is going on? Picking our nose? We like Russia a lot more than we like China, and we wouldn't want to see the scenario you describe take place. It might not be as Clancy-esque as "The Bear and the Dragon", but I can easliy see us sending a CVBG group, sinking China's navy and smashing a few ports.

-dale

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

We had one every two years, co-inciding with theirs (or theirs co-inciding with ours).

We shipped over, was it two divisions(?), every two years to counter Warsaw Pact exercises? I do not recall such large bi-annual deployments in any of my reading.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

NATO never did. We conducted exercises of course, and increased readiness at the same time the Soviets were doing exercises, but we rarely shifted large numbers of divisions to Europe as a response to Soviet activity. Moving those numbers of troops is not spare change, that is a lot of money, and Russia simply does not have it. Russia, in my opinion, would be dumb to shift forces every time Chinese forces went on an exercise in Manchuria (the costs wouldn't be worth the potential benefits year after year).

What OeE said: "What?!?" Do you know what REFORGER is/was?

And look at what you are typing! Which is more expensive - moving some troops across Russia or losing a big chunk of the Motherland to the Chinese?!?!?!?

-dale

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

If they had no choice? In a long war, Russia would lose. There is only so long that a nation can keep fighting before it's economy collapses. It's chance is to either nuke China, or decisively defeat them right off the bat. And also note that I concur with your statement that the most likely form of conflict is a border skirmish. I am not saying that this scenario is likely, but it is a hypothetical situation, and it may occur in the future (under slightly different circumstances).

Are you joking now? What's next? "Kick the door in and the whole rotten edifice will collapse!"?

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Even discounting nukes, the Russians have a long way to fall, and the Chinese a long way to rise, before China could make a serious play for a piece of Russia. Can Chinese kill Russians? Sure - like OeE points out, a little border skirmish. But the hypothetical you envision involves so many "coulda-woulda-shoulda"s that it's difficult to treat as anything but fiction.

For instance, without nukes in the picture, what are we, the U.S., doing while all this is going on? Picking our nose? We like Russia a lot more than we like China, and we wouldn't want to see the scenario you describe take place. It might not be as Clancy-esque as "The Bear and the Dragon", but I can easliy see us sending a CVBG group, sinking China's navy and smashing a few ports.

-dale

I agree that an American alliance with Russia would probably be in our best interest. But while we like Russia more, we have far more trade with China. Which side would an American president jump in on? We have far more to lose economically by fighting China than we do by fighting Russia, and so where the US would stand is not clearly defined.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

We shipped over, was it two divisions(?), every two years to counter Warsaw Pact exercises? I do not recall such large bi-annual deployments in any of my reading.

Then you don't know Excerise REFORGER as opposed to Operation REFORGER. Exercise REFORGER is train and test the LOG aspects by usually by shipping/flying two brigades from the US and the readiness of the equipment upon arrival.

Originally Posted by dalem

Are you joking now? What's next? "Kick the door in and the whole rotten edifice will collapse!"?

-dale

Hardly. It's simple numbers. China's economy is roughly 5 times larger than Russia's, and it has almost 10 times as many people. Germany was no pushover during WWII, but it was still crushed by superior American and Soviet industry.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I agree that an American alliance with Russia would probably be in our best interest. But while we like Russia more, we have far more trade with China. Which side would an American president jump in on? We have far more to lose economically by fighting China than we do by fighting Russia, and so where the US would stand is not clearly defined.

Let me type this again: Nowadays we like Russia more than we like China. If such an unlikely set of circumstances were to occur and Russia asked for our help I am sure we would give it. (As long as a modern-day Republican is in office, that is. )

-dale