World War 3 MegaThread.

[Agema]

Ever since WW2, nobody has bet their country's future on the war saying conventional. Proxy wars, sure. Bit the big one? You want to be really, really sure that the enemy has invested massive amounts of time and effort on weapons they won't use when it's time to.

World War III isn't going to happen any time soon, it's not worth worrying about. There are flashpoints for potential major regional wars, but not a world war.

• Europe could decide to get properly involved in Ukraine, but the most it will likely do is restore Ukraine's territorial integrity to 2014 (not necessarily including Crimea), with that border a very hard, red line it will not cross. Russia might bluster and threaten and moan, but won't fire nukes over it.
• There's potential for conflict in the Middle East, but there are no parties involved with anything like the will and power to get it beyond the Middle East.
• There's a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan which the USA and other allies join in to defend, but it's never going to go beyond the Far East Pacific rim. China simply does not have that sort of power projection.

The only possibility of a world war then is a sort of co-ordinated assault on US interests by the above: so perhaps China (and NK against SK), Russia and Iran conspire to all have hostilities at the same time. But Iran can and will be resisted by Sunni nations in the Middle East, and doesn't have the logistical power to go far even were it successful. Europe can handle anything Russia might aspire to do, and so in reality the USA would barely be distracted from tackling China/NK. What other conflicts would there be? India and Pakistan could butt heads, but it would mostly be their own separate squabble as they have no strong loyalties to the other antagonists and little meaningful way to inconvenience anywhere else.

I don't really get this fascination people have with dreaming up World War III scenarios. It perhaps made sense in the Cold War, but the world has moved on.

 

[Gergar12]

World War III isn't going to happen any time soon, it's not worth worrying about. There are flashpoints for potential major regional wars, but not a world war.

• Europe could decide to get properly involved in Ukraine, but the most it will likely do is restore Ukraine's territorial integrity to 2014 (not necessarily including Crimea), with that border a very hard, red line it will not cross. Russia might bluster and threaten and moan, but won't fire nukes over it.
• There's potential for conflict in the Middle East, but there are no parties involved with anything like the will and power to get it beyond the Middle East.
• There's a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan which the USA and other allies join in to defend, but it's never going to go beyond the Far East Pacific rim. China simply does not have that sort of power projection.

The only possibility of a world war then is a sort of co-ordinated assault on US interests by the above: so perhaps China (and NK against SK), Russia and Iran conspire to all have hostilities at the same time. But Iran can and will be resisted by Sunni nations in the Middle East, and doesn't have the logistical power to go far even were it successful. Europe can handle anything Russia might aspire to do, and so in reality the USA would barely be distracted from tackling China/NK. What other conflicts would there be? India and Pakistan could butt heads, but it would mostly be their own separate squabble as they have no strong loyalties to the other antagonists and little meaningful way to inconvenience anywhere else.

I don't really get this fascination people have with dreaming up World War III scenarios. It perhaps made sense in the Cold War, but the world has moved on.

These aggressor powers only chance to win is to coordinate. If they fight one at a time, the US/NATO/EU will clobber them. What will happen is that they will all happen simultaneously, Russia will send fresh troops to Ukraine, China will invade, North Korea will invade, and Iran will have Hezbollah, and itself fire ballistic missiles at Israeli population centers while Israel is fighting in Gaza, and then it to top it off Chinese forces in Tibet, Pakistan, and Myanmar and other possible Southeast Asian countries will gang up on India.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I read about a landlord who murdered a child who happened to be Palestinian after Oct 7. Asian elders are getting murdered left and right after COVID-19 in the most progressive cities in America.



The first one is still there is just gone below the surface, war hysteria via Ukraine and Gaza is there and will get worse with a WW3, and number three has less to do with Biden and more to do with poor business, and political leadership.

One more thing I would like to add, it's very likely Biden is balancing his funding from multinationals and large corporations and his base and voters by letting companies price-gorge somewhat in exchange for winning the elections. We need the campaign contributions from liberalish companies and billionaires if we are to beat Trump so it's a give and take.

I didn't say there's no such thing racism, I said it's the lowest it's ever been.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/31/us/anti-asian-hate-crimes-2022-fbi-report-reaj/index.html

A war in the Ukraine or Gaza is nothing like WWI/II or the Cold War.

 

[CaitSeith]

The only other job would have been like a warehouse worker or a manager at a small business.

And what's wrong about a job like that? It may be a modest job, but at least it's an honest one.

 

[Gergar12]

And what's wrong about a job like that? It may be a modest job, but at least it's an honest one.

Low pay, and long hours.

 

[Thaluikhain]

These aggressor powers only chance to win is to coordinate.

And if they do all co-ordinate, they don't win, because they are better off now than if they started a world war. Secondly, those sorts of coalitions rarely form like that anyway.

 

[Satinavian]

These aggressor powers only chance to win is to coordinate.

No, their best chance is to keep the conflict from escalating and the US military out of it. As long as their own army is the biggest actually fighting, they have a decent chance to win.

 

[Gergar12]

No, their best chance is to keep the conflict from escalating and the US military out of it. As long as their own army is the biggest actually fighting, they have a decent chance to win.

The US military will get involved in Taiwan, and Israel no matter what due to alliance commitments and congressional inertia. India and Ukraine are debatable, but some US assistance will occur.

And if they do all co-ordinate, they don't win, because they are better off now than if they started a world war. Secondly, those sorts of coalitions rarely form like that anyway.

And yet when they do occur we get world wars out of it.

-----------------------------------

The US military has in total around the same number of staff/personnel as China or Russia. But that's not important, what is important is the air, naval, and land assets such as your bombers, 5th gen jets, destroyers, aircraft carriers, attack helicopters, tanks, IFVs, rocket artillery, mobile guns artillery, and various anti-air, and ship capabilities on truck-mounted launchers backed up your logistics such as trucks, cargo-planes, heavy lift helicopters, and your mobile lift units like VTOL planes, regular troop transport helicopters and so fore. Then there's ammunition. If all of those are spread out between 2-4 conflicts the start of the war will be a mess. The US can fight 2 wars/conflicts at the same time, but if it gets up to 3-4 we will start to see casualties in the thousands to tens of thousands in the starting stages of the war. Yes, we will win in the long run, but there are ways to shorten that. For example, if China/Iran/Russia/North Korea sue for peace after making strong gains, then the jackasses in the UNGA will turn against the US, not to mention social media like Tik Tok, Facebook, and X turning the tide and forcing Biden/Trump to concede those gains. This is why I am particularly incensed at how TikTok is still here, and why US regulators are not clamping down on X.

 

[Satinavian]

The US military will get involved in Taiwan, and Israel no matter what due to alliance commitments and congressional inertia. India and Ukraine are debatable, but some US assistance will occur.

Which is why Iran won't start a proper war with Israel and hasn't done it even with all the reasons Israel gave them in the last months.

And sure, assistance will occur. But that is a far cry from actually having to fight the most overblown army on the planet that alone accounts nearly forty percent of all military budgets worldwide ( without its allies).

As for Taiwan ... are you sure the US will keep its commitments regardless who gets elected ? And what would happen, if China manages to secure a fast victory before the US can properly mobilize ?
China is prodding and posturing and looking for weaknesses, but it will not start a proper invasion if it believes that means full out war with the US. But if it believes it can do it without such a war (by e.g. bribing pres. Trump to look the other way), it might be different.



Yes, if Iran, China and Russia wanted to fight the US in a war, it would make sense for them to ally. But they really really don't. And even if China misjudges, attacks Taiwan and gets the US involved, the others wouldn't join that war.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yes, if Iran, China and Russia wanted to fight the US in a war, it would make sense for them to ally. But they really really don't. And even if China misjudges, attacks Taiwan and gets the US involved, the others wouldn't join that war.

This.

And yet when they do occur we get world wars out of it.

Neither world war came about due to factions combining to attack the current top dog. Unless you count the coalition against Napoleon as a world war, and that one was defensive.

 

[Gergar12]

This.



Neither world war came about due to factions combining to attack the current top dog. Unless you count the coalition against Napoleon as a world war, and that one was defensive.

The UK was the top dog in both wars, and the US in the Cold War.

Which is why Iran won't start a proper war with Israel and hasn't done it even with all the reasons Israel gave them in the last months.

And sure, assistance will occur. But that is a far cry from actually having to fight the most overblown army on the planet that alone accounts nearly forty percent of all military budgets worldwide ( without its allies).

As for Taiwan ... are you sure the US will keep its commitments regardless who gets elected ? And what would happen, if China manages to secure a fast victory before the US can properly mobilize ?
China is prodding and posturing and looking for weaknesses, but it will not start a proper invasion if it believes that means full out war with the US. But if it believes it can do it without such a war (by e.g. bribing pres. Trump to look the other way), it might be different.



Yes, if Iran, China and Russia wanted to fight the US in a war, it would make sense for them to ally. But they really really don't. And even if China misjudges, attacks Taiwan and gets the US involved, the others wouldn't join that war.

No US president is going to let China beat them at AI via semiconductors from Taiwan and South Korea. If that were to happen US bombers would airlift out TSMC engineers, and bomb those factories to the ground, and also air forces react pretty fast believe it or not.

Trump says he wanted to bomb Russia for invading Ukraine, and China if they invaded Taiwan. Also, "sanctions from hell" would hit China and China would likely have a 50-year embargo on them if they did. Which would plunge the world into a Cold War and a depression at best, and a World War at worst. Plus Trump is so thin-skinned he may overreact and start nuking Chinese surface vessels formations. Randall Schweller who was my professor told me this. Had he wanted to have been nat sec advisor in 2016 he would have gotten it. He told me that China doesn't have enough second-strike capability for a 'revenge attack'

 

[Agema]

These aggressor powers only chance to win is to coordinate.

It's not going to happen though, is it?

Iran can stir up trouble, itself and through its proxies, but it can't stir up enough to require the USA to put in much effort. Russia cannot stir up enough that Europe cannot easily contain. (Russia isn't going to pick that fight, because if Europe does get properly involved in Ukraine, Russia loses all its territorial gains.) India is a red herring, because India poses no threat to China/Russia/etc.'s war aims so it's pointless to even attack.

Thus however you want to look at it, all the USA really has to do is defend the Far East, which it is perfectly capable of doing.

 

[Gergar12]

It's not going to happen though, is it?

Iran can stir up trouble, itself and through its proxies, but it can't stir up enough to require the USA to put in much effort. Russia cannot stir up enough that Europe cannot easily contain. (Russia isn't going to pick that fight, because if Europe does get properly involved in Ukraine, Russia loses all its territorial gains.) India is a red herring, because India poses no threat to China/Russia/etc.'s war aims so it's pointless to even attack.

Thus however you want to look at it, all the USA really has to do is defend the Far East, which it is perfectly capable of doing.

I am not saying they even have over a half of a 100% chance at succeeding I am saying they will cost the US more starting casualties, and same to our allies. Also, Iran could get a nuclear weapon, and then they could lob missiles at Israel a lot more than they are now and create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Russia has a strong starting position with its shell production, and Europe would have to pound its head into the snow a few times before it gives up but would suffer deaths from Russian shelling.

A few things could have solved this. Had Obama not axed the F-22 and a bunch of weapon programs, and had George HW Bush been elected a second term, and had George W Bush not been elected we wouldn't have to waste so much time fighting people who didn't have a competent military.

Obama accused of nuclear U-turn as guided weapons plan emerges

Plan to spend $10bn on updating nuclear bombs goes against 2010 pledge not to deploy new weapons, say critics

www.theguardian.com

 

[Thaluikhain]

The UK was the top dog in both wars, and the US in the Cold War.

A) Was the UK the top dog in both world wars?

B) Neither world war came about due to a coalition forming to attack the UK.

 

[Agema]

I am not saying they even have over a half of a 100% chance at succeeding I am saying they will cost the US more starting casualties, and same to our allies.

They aren't going to do it. No-one starts an unnecessary war that they think they will lose.

If you don't think they have even half a chance, assume they think they don't have half a chance. Well then they aren't going to piss tens of thousands of their people and eye-wateringly vast billions of hardware down the drain, tank their international reputations (even further), humiliate themselves in the eyes of their own people, etc. Obviously they aren't.

 

[Gergar12]

They aren't going to do it. No-one starts an unnecessary war that they think they will lose.

If you don't think they have even half a chance, assume they think they don't have half a chance. Well then they aren't going to piss tens of thousands of their people and eye-wateringly vast billions of hardware down the drain, tank their international reputations (even further), humiliate themselves in the eyes of their own people, etc. Obviously they aren't.

That's what they said about Putin. And China is not rational given their stupid diplomacy and wolf warrriorness.

A) Was the UK the top dog in both world wars?

B) Neither world war came about due to a coalition forming to attack the UK.

A. Yes they had the biggest navy and had colonies(Note I think Colonies are inefficient except for recruiting foreign legion-style troops).

B. No it was to challenge the status quo powers of which the UK is one.

 

[Agema]

That's what they said about Putin.

Er, no, it's not the same.

Putin thought he would win. He believed the Ukrainian army would crumble, maybe even that the Ukrainian people would embrace his invading troops with open arms. He thought the West would do little more than ineffectually gripe as Russia reasserted dominance over Ukraine. Here we are years later, and honestly Putin still thinks he's going to win - just after expending vastly more time, material and lives than he originally planned to.

 

[Gergar12]

Er, no, it's not the same.

Putin thought he would win. He believed the Ukrainian army would crumble, maybe even that the Ukrainian people would embrace his invading troops with open arms. He thought the West would do little more than ineffectually gripe as Russia reasserted dominance over Ukraine. Here we are years later, and honestly Putin still thinks he's going to win - just after expending vastly more time, material and lives than he originally planned to.

The same thing would happen with Taiwan.

 

[Silvanus]

The same thing would happen with Taiwan.

They'd categorically fail too, and empower their enemies?

 

[Gergar12]

They'd categorically fail too, and empower their enemies?

Hopefully. Then the US would gain deterrence credibility with the rabble rousers of the world.