Thread: World War Three

Originally Posted by dalem

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

Would you have been so confident in the Clinton era? Republicans may be kicked out of the White House someday(God forbid).

Originally Posted by dalem

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

Think like a politician. You want to lower taxes, and get re-elected (assuming that Russia is still a democracy). They aren't always the best at planning ahead.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

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.

So what are those people going to do? Stream across the border and raise Mao placards? You are placing China and its tenfold population in the role of attacker.

And if you know your history you would know that the Russian people are rather passionately offended when invaded. They would eat the Chinese for breakfast, lunch, and dinner if defending the Rodina.

-dale

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Ah, thank you for illustrating that difference for me. I did not know about that. Something similar could, and probably would be done by Russia. However, would that be sufficient to make up for the disparity of forces that potentially exists in theater?

Are you talking NATO-WP or Sino-Russia?

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Think like a politician. You want to lower taxes, and get re-elected (assuming that Russia is still a democracy). They aren't always the best at planning ahead.

This is one of the things you are getting very very wrong. In the scenario you outline for me, I don't think like a politician; I think like a Russian, and I win.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

So what are those people going to do? Stream across the border and raise Mao placards? You are placing China and its tenfold population in the role of attacker.

And if you know your history you would know that the Russian people are rather passionately offended when invaded. They would eat the Chinese for breakfast, lunch, and dinner if defending the Rodina.

-dale

What were the American's going to do to Germany? Make pretty speeches? We were hardly a military heavyweight before entering WWII or WWI. We built quickly, and crushed the Germans using superior numbers and industry in both instances (although WWI was slightly more complex than that). Also, Germany had a very fine professional armed forces. That did not help them emerge victorious, it just made the wars last longer.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Are you talking NATO-WP or Sino-Russia?

How about we stick to the less hypothetical situation in NATO-WP. Would those two brigades have made a big difference in whether Nato held or not? Would they have been the decisive element? Let's say 1979, before most of American re-armament.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

What were the American's going to do to Germany? Make pretty speeches? We were hardly a military heavyweight before entering WWII or WWI. We built quickly, and crushed the Germans using superior numbers and industry in both instances (although WWI was slightly more complex than that).

You're certainly jumping around quite a bit in this discussion. I know a great deal about the U.S. Army that was created to fight WWII, and I know a great deal about how it fought and helped defeat Germany, and it was a great deal more than simple numbers and factories.

There is no useful comparison to be made here.

-dale

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

How about we stick to the less hypothetical situation in NATO-WP. Would those two brigades have made a big difference in whether Nato held or not? Would they have been the decisive element? Let's say 1979, before most of American re-armament.

In 1979, the Soviets were damned busy with Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by dalem

You're certainly jumping around quite a bit in this discussion. I know a great deal about the U.S. Army that was created to fight WWII, and I know a great deal about how it fought and helped defeat Germany, and it was a great deal more than simple numbers and factories.

There is no useful comparison to be made here.

-dale

In terms of economics there most certainly is a similarity. Looking at the sheer number of tanks, airplanes and ships that the United States and the Soviet Union were able to produce, and compare those to Germany's armament output, and it is difficult to see how Germany could have won. In the vast majority of protracted conflicts, it is the strength of the national economies that makes the difference.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

In 1979, the Soviets were damned busy with Afghanistan.

Yeah, but I'm trying to think of a time when things would have been fairly even. In the 60's and early 70's we were involved in Vietnam, and the US army was being severely damaged psychologically by that conflict. In the 80's, I don't think the Soviet's really had a chance anyways after Reagan's rearmament program. Anything before Vietnam, and we're looking at nuclear use from the get-go (please correct me if I'm wrong with any of these assumptions, it's been a while since I've looked at the WP-NATO power balance).

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Yeah, but I'm trying to think of a time when things would have been fairly even. In the 60's and early 70's we were involved in Vietnam, and the US army was being severely damaged psychologically by that conflict. In the 80's, I don't think the Soviet's really had a chance anyways after Reagan's rearmament program. Anything before Vietnam, and we're looking at nuclear use from the get-go (please correct me if I'm wrong with any of these assumptions, it's been a while since I've looked at the WP-NATO power balance).

You're looking at the wrong thing when talking about holding off the WP and REFORGER. REFORGER was intended to drive the Soviets back. Holding the line falls to two brigades, the 11ACR and the 4CMBG.

I think that it's important for everyone to remember that in a protracted conflict there is a big economic element. Very strong armed forces can make up for some disparity, but asking a country to beat another country with 10 times it's population and 5 times it's national income in a protracted war is a little unrealistic. In a short war it is most certainly possible, but if each side has the will to fight to the finish, and neither side is capable of rapidly conquering the other, the side that has 5 times the economy will win.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

but if each side has the will to fight to the finish,

And does that mean nukes?