Poll: What do you think a real war between the East and the West would be like?

[lightningmagurn]

While numbers don't win wars, they certainly help, giving the East an advantage. On top of this, what makes you think the Chinese military is not as advanced or as equipped as the US military (note that I am not saying it is, I've done no research, I'm just wondering if you're basing it on anything solid. I think that, excluding WMDs, which wouldn't even be a war, they would just lead to an apocalypse, both sides would be fairly evenly matched. The US army has a tendency to overestimate itself (i.e. Vietnam), however with most of Western Europe behind it would probably stand a fighting chance.

Well, the Chinese military mostly uses Russian systems, which haven't advanced since the 90s, while American systems have been tested in combat for the last decade. Also, china has one, crappy aircraft carrier. The Chinese also would face a huge problem with mobilizing their army. Unless America tried a land based invasion of china (unlikely) the Chinese would have a hard time actually getting to the fight. Our planes beat theirs, our navy beats theirs. Land combat would also be bad for the Chinese. While they do have the numbers, we would have the equipment. This isn't to say that America and her allies wouldn't take casualties, but that America would be able to beat china in the long run. If the Chinese tried to invade, we would simply nuke their fleet at sea. If they tried an airborne invasion, same thing. They can't walk here.
On the other hand, they could certainly kill many Americans by funding a war in the DPRK. The Chinese would also have an advantage in that they have a highly unified population.

 

[Berenzen]

Assuming that nukes are out of the question, the war would be interesting from a history.

The major military alliance of the west is obviously NATO, a collection of countries that would be pulled into a war if someone initiated an attack against any member of them.

Russia and China both are not attached to any military alliances.

Honestly, if it came to a ground war, I would eventually say that it would be NATO that would win. The United States and their allies would have staging areas in Canada, the Philippines(Mutual Defense Treaty) and Japan(Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan).

If against Russia, their major defense against militaries- the desolate plains that have caused Napolean and the Germans to retreat- have been rendered less effective with modern technologies. In the end, I would have to give it to the West.

If against China, there would be issues, primarily with the economy, but between all of the U.S's military alliances, it is easily possible to match China, number for number, and retain the technological advantage.

The major battlefield would be in the field of cyber warfare. Both of the nations seen as the "Ultimate Bad Guys" are extremely strong in this front, China is constantly testing U.S. defenses. I couldn't make any calls in this regard, as there really aren't many records of the methods of cyber warfare that are being developed.

If both Russia and China allied in an offense against the West, it really could fall either way.

In the end, a war would be extremely detrimental everyone in the world, the moment the battle line are drawn, we would see a MASSIVE drop in the economies around the world. The U.S. would be see no more production plants, China would have few places to ship their export products, Russia would be unable to sell many of it's raw products.

At the end of the war, we would see a devastated world, moreso than anything that was left after World War II, and that was a war that destroyed much of Europe. This would be a World War that would probably number in the hundreds of millions dead, and cities across the world destroyed,

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think that most wars of the future will be Air and Navy wars. with that said, it looks like USA has the advantage of quality. FA-18 Hornets, F-22 Raptors... and China, and I have no clue about its Air force status, probably has lots of old, but still perfectly good jets. old MiG variants and the like. IF both sides pitted thier Air Forces without restraint, China would probably win, so long as they out numbered the American Jets on a large scale. No matter how good or technologicaly advanced, numbers will eventually smother it. Although the Navy is a different matter..........

If Russia did join in, then America would have a real problem since they also have a very strong Air force. the Latest MiGs and so forth, and Im guessing a powerful navy??

The two largest Air Forces in the world are the US Air Force and the US Navy. The US Navy is also by far the worlds most powerful navy.

Chinese numbers are irrelevant, they've only got one aircraft carrier, and are in no position to launch missions from it yet. They haven't gone and got themselves a force projection capability, because they're not about to declare war.

Europe wont be much good if this happens in the next decade, since thier economy is falling apart. look at greece and ireland for a start.

Not exactly. Place like Greece and Ireland, yeah, but they wouldn't contribute that much at the best of times. France and the UK are the important players, and (I suspect, not coincidently) aren't in such desperate positions.

They have no need for an amazing navy, as they would really have no use for it. Hell, the US barely has any use for it. What country would in this day and age? A plane can fly across the pacific in hours, who the hell needs an aircraft carrier to be a moving target for fifty aircraft? It's not like the US could just park offshore and send out planes without repercussion or retaliation like they did in Iraq.

So, people build and maintain aircraft carriers why?

Combat aircraft tend to have MUCH lower range thant long haul transports, in the range of 500-1000 miles. You can extend that with tankers, but it's a long scary trip back to re-arm and get back in the game.

 

[KarlMonster]

The US has been preparing for war with the East since WW2. EVERYTHING we've done since then aside from the current War on Terror has been to curb the rise of power in both China and the Soviet Union. The result? The USSR collapsed completely and most of it's military technology has dilapidated to the extent that barely any of it holds up to anything the US has today. China is struggling to catch up, but they've only just now succeeded in acquiring a half-built aircraft carrier, whereas the US has an equal number of aircraft carriers to the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD (11). And we're BUILDING BETTER ONES. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford_%28CVN-78%29] And as many very smart men have said over the course of history, controlling the seas is the most crucial aspect of any major war, and it doesn't hurt to control the air as well (which we would).

... especially when you've got the best tech on the planet backing you up. And I'm not even factoring in the support from our Allies in Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. We would literally kick the shit out of China and Russia's armed forces if such a war occurred. Brush this off as bravado and hoo-ha if you want, but I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't think this is the case.

Pleased to meet you.

Actually, the world today is the result of an interventionist United States that just couldn't leave well enough alone. The Soviet Union pretty much self destructed on its own. We were plenty happy to encourage the arms race; but if we won it, did we get anything at all from the billions spent on the 'Star Wars' or SDI program? The CIA succeeded in toppling a Western-style Iranian democracy in favor of a puppet dictator, created an unnecessary war in Viet Nam, and a number of other unsavory things that don't get talked about much.

Our last unnecessary wars were undertaken by an administration that couldn't be bothered to pay for anything. A direct result of which is that the fantastic army and navy - that I hear so much about in this thread - is about to be under-funded. That will mean that a number of active duty ships will be mothballed. The brand new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is an exercise in how to build the world's most expensive aircraft. I happen to know that between politically-skewed contracts, over-ambitious designers, and cool new technologies, the cost of the new aircraft is at least 300% in excess of a more reliable design. Simply put; right now, this country hasn't yet paid for the last war, and literally cannot afford a new one.

China, as the largest foreign investor in the United States, as it owns most of the U.S. National Debt in the form of Treasury Bonds, which they use to peg their currency to the dollar. Should the two go to war, a global financial crises could result. Whether or not that happens is up to China's discretion. I suspect that China would err on the side of caution and not destabilize the US dollar. Few Americans know that China also has a large national debt; our news media is very self-interested compared to real journalistic media such as the BBC.

Others here have mentioned that China has little real ability for force projection. They're quite right, up to the point where they make the assumption that China 'needs' to do any such thing. There is nothing in the United States that China wishes to take by force. Particularly not when they can do so through economic means, espionage, cyber warfare, or simply copying patents from the U.S. Patent Office website. China has no issue whatsoever with staying on its own turf. They just fudge the maps every few years to assert that their borders are farther out than everyone had thought. Can't blame them for that, here in America, that's called 'redistricting.'

What China does have is the world's largest air force. And that's why the United States would lose. In most every previous engagement since WW I, air superiority determined the outcome of the conflict. In a Sino-American war, that advantage goes to China. There is no conflict unless the US projects its force, and China has the manufacturing power to replace its entire air force in a matter of days. The U.S. would have to invade China's airspace and consistently beat their aircraft and surface to air missiles. It would be like Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union, but played out at sea. The US Navy of volunteer sailors and Marines would be overwhelmed simply through attrition. Not to mention that foreign wars get unpopular fast in this country, sapping any credibility that future war-mongers might have.

Russia does not have anything that the United States wants. In fact, if the United States were to be given control of Russia free of charge, it would still be a losing proposition. Graft and corruption are very deep-seated, and most authority figures - plus the famous 'oligarchs' - feed off of the machine. Imagine 10 Bernie Madoffs in each province. Russia doesn't much care about the United States either, save for its leadership role in NATO. Putin really just wants to be left alone to sell natural gas to Europe through a marketing strategy called extortion. Yes, he'll fuck with Georgia and other Baltic states once in a while. He does it because he knows he'll get away with it, and he knows that there is very little that NATO will do about it. The European Union cannot even save their own currency; they aren't going to mess with Russia.

Here's the bottom line. The United States cannot win a fair fight against an opponent of the same size. The Union very nearly lost our Civil War, and since that time we have been beating up on smaller countries, with or without justification. Additionally, the U.S. is constantly developing fantasy weapons, rather than practical ones. I wish I was making this up. We even tried to develop a vertical take-off version of the F-35. Anyone who has seen the actual footage of that should realize what a stupid idea that was. Our forces had to re-write the manual at least once in the last ten years, just to train soldiers to fight an insurgency. It is as if we didn't learn anything from Viet Nam.

There's a very popular (though seldom spoken) idea over here that WW II was all about the United States vs. Germany. That's not quite what happened. I would argue that we merely enabled the Allied forces to fight on more fronts, with more supplies, and we brought superior long range bombers to the conflict. I would even allow that the United States caused the Allies to win the crucial air war over Germany. The air war was crucial to crippling German industry.

That last part is something that we cannot do to China. China is much larger, with more people, and a much more stable political system than we have. Not to mention that China has a notorious neighbor, with a 'million-man' army, that would happily lend China a few hundred thousand guys.

A much more likely conflict is another U.S. Civil War.

 

[Apollo45]

I notice the thread says "Western powers", not just the US. If it were China and Russia versus the US, then it would be an interesting fight to say the least. In the end, it would come down to air superiority, and the US has that covered almost completely. If waged correctly, neither China or Russia would be able to even land on US soil without starting in Alaska and moving through Canada; not the best plan considering the amount of land they'd have to cover, the terrain of said land, and the logistics of keeping their troops supplied. Once they got to the US, they would have to deal with a military and a civilian militia with a culture where many people live, breathe and drink gunpowder.

Now, a US invasion would likely turn out just as poorly. That would come down to much of the same things; could we land our troops? Where would we land? Would we be able to supply our men? And so on. In terms of invading, China would be a helluva lot easier than Russia because we wouldn't have to march through either Siberia or Europe to get there, although it would likely be easier to use our European allies to get to the populated portions of Russia (which I'll get in to a bit later). From there it would come down to timing; would we have to deal with the Russian winters? Or could we take advantage of poor weather in China and keep their masses of troops from getting supplies? And so on. Either way, it would be horribly bloody and long, and it's likely neither side would actually win largely due to the oceans between us and them.

Now, if we're considering it the Western Powers vs Russia and China, that could get more interesting, but it only increases the likelihood of the Western powers winning (Although I'd like to point out that Russia, or at least the populated portions of it, are largely considered Western). If we consider that Russia would focus on Europe while China focused on the US, we'd get a scenario where the States could split their forces much like in WWII, using a strong force in the Pacific to keep the Chinese from crossing while we worked on the Russians. Once the Russians were taken out - via a combination of European and American troops - we could focus on China, which would be more complicated because of their distance from Europe and the natural barriers provided. If the Japanese or South Korea considered themselves on the side of the Western powers we could use one or both as a staging area and move through like that, but if we couldn't we'd have to take islands with smaller forces, set up bases and the like, the move larger forces in slowly. In the end, like any other war, it would be long and costly. In either scenario, however, so long as the war is waged properly, I think the US/Western Powers have the advantage.

 

[Thaluikhain]

- The best navy in the world (UK - no, that's not boasting, it really is a simple fact - we've always been one of or the best naval powers thanks to us being an island nation).

The US Navy is far more powerful than the UK navy. The US has 11 carriers, for example, the UK has two, but not planes that can be launched from them.

What China does have is the world's largest air force. And that's why the United States would lose. In most every previous engagement since WW I, air superiority determined the outcome of the conflict. In a Sino-American war, that advantage goes to China. There is no conflict unless the US projects its force, and China has the manufacturing power to replace its entire air force in a matter of days.

Hey? Does not both the USAF and the air power of the US Navy individually have more planes than China?

And, "rebuild entire air force in days"? No. Really, that's not going to happen.

 

[Spitfire-IX]

we already had a war between east and west, it was called the cold war. and if we have another between the USA and allies vs China and allies, it will probably the same thing lost of nothing dotted with small proxy wars.

 

[Nalbis]

There will be no next full out war, because when it occurs the only thing that will happen is a big red button will be pressed by multiple nations.

 

[Broady Brio]

I'd like to know what side North Korea would take. They might just capitalise on this chaos and become the dominant country. But hey, this is only a "What if?" situation.

 

[Andothul]

They would never win but they definitely have the capacity to wage a long brutal war that could last up to a decade.

Again America has too much money and military might for for either of those countries, if we couldn't defeat them we could simply outlast them.

 

[Varanfan9]

I doubt it. Most of the start of the war would be aerial and naval combat and since the US has the better of both of those they would dampen the numbers significantly. I doubt China or Russia could even get to the US and even if they did the US citizens would even be putting up a fight against them. There was a Japanese general in WWII who said "I would never invade the US. There would be a rifle men behind every blade of grass"

 

[Robert Ewing]

Read the fallout lore, it covers it quite nicely, and for me is the most likely scenario.

The West will suffer cataclysmic casualties that we will probably never recover from any time soon, but will ultimately win.

 

[KarlMonster]

What China does have is the world's largest air force. And that's why the United States would lose. In most every previous engagement since WW I, air superiority determined the outcome of the conflict. In a Sino-American war, that advantage goes to China. There is no conflict unless the US projects its force, and China has the manufacturing power to replace its entire air force in a matter of days.

Hey? Does not both the USAF and the air power of the US Navy individually have more planes than China?

And, "rebuild entire air force in days"? No. Really, that's not going to happen.

I don't know, does it not?

I will admit that my statement was not well researched, so I willingly retract my statement about the world's largest air force.

However, there isn't particularly good information on any of these groups. To be sure, 'aircraft' includes everything. It was difficult to find recent data. I would suggest that China's numbers are low because of old data, limits of intelligence, and year-on-year spending increases. US numbers should be high, owing to budget cuts, attrition, and a famously delayed replacement aircraft. China has a minimum of 1650 fighters;

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Power_Report_2009.pdf

Wiki alleges that USAF has 2132 fighters, but I didn't like the Wiki references. Other data says there are 1256 active duty fighters;

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2011/May%202011/0511facts_figs.pdf

The US Navy has as many as 1180 tactical fighters, but probably less owing to budget cuts and attrition (I hear rumors that there's a war somewhere);

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4640512

However, the point that I should have stressed - but actually didn't - is that these hard numbers make no difference whatsoever. [With the possible exception of USAF flying all its fighters and bombers to Alaska, then conducting a prolonged long rage air war from there. Regardless of how many planes the Navy has, is each carrier going to have over 100 planes in the air? I did remember to say we can't afford any of this, right?] China has no incentive to project force to our shores, as we are (stupidly) one of their best customers. We have ... excuse me ... American Democrats have no incentive to project force against China, since it is a larger country, a net importer of resources, managing the various provinces would be impossibly difficult - even the Chinese can't seem to do it, and there tends to be a lot of annoying people who do not speak English.

Furthermore I admit that I was cheerfully overlooking the complexity of modern aircraft when I made the statement "matter of days." That I also willingly retract. I will, however, substitute the word "months". The advantages of the Chinese government are its single-mindedness, and access to a lot of state-subsidized, if not outright state-owned, manufacturing. China is also unfettered by lobbying groups and starry-eyed generals who absolutely have to put the latest and greatest technology into all new fighter aircraft. The F-35 costs an obscene amount of dollars, and its components are being made by small technologically specialized firms who are literally struggling to develop all the fancy components in time. China cares nothing about IP and could conceivably convert any old factory over to making aircraft. It would take weeks just to create redundant tooling, but that is much faster than the United States could do in a similar situation. For example, how long did it take the US to supply its troops with adequate body armor?

 

[Thaluikhain]

However, the point that I should have stressed - but actually didn't - is that these hard numbers make no difference whatsoever. [With the possible exception of USAF flying all its fighters and bombers to Alaska, then conducting a prolonged long rage air war from there. Regardless of how many planes the Navy has, is each carrier going to have over 100 planes in the air? I did remember to say we can't afford any of this, right?] China has no incentive to project force to our shores, as we are (stupidly) one of their best customers. We have ... excuse me ... American Democrats have no incentive to project force against China, since it is a larger country, a net importer of resources, managing the various provinces would be impossibly difficult - even the Chinese can't seem to do it, and there tends to be a lot of annoying people who do not speak English.

Oh yes, I agree absolutely, raw numbers mean little, and there is currently no good reason for either side to want a war, though it's likely to happen eventually.

Furthermore I admit that I was cheerfully overlooking the complexity of modern aircraft when I made the statement "matter of days." That I also willingly retract. I will, however, substitute the word "months". The advantages of the Chinese government are its single-mindedness, and access to a lot of state-subsidized, if not outright state-owned, manufacturing. China is also unfettered by lobbying groups and starry-eyed generals who absolutely have to put the latest and greatest technology into all new fighter aircraft. The F-35 costs an obscene amount of dollars, and its components are being made by small technologically specialized firms who are literally struggling to develop all the fancy components in time. China cares nothing about IP and could conceivably convert any old factory over to making aircraft. It would take weeks just to create redundant tooling, but that is much faster than the United States could do in a similar situation. For example, how long did it take the US to supply its troops with adequate body armor?

I agree with alot of that, but I still don't think it's feasible to up and create a manufacturing system for reasonably modern fighter aircraft.

Yes, I've head alot of negative things about the F-35, however the US is still producing Super Hornets and f-16s, and retains the facilities to build older, but still not yet obsolete aircraft (the F-22, for example).

Though, yeah, alot of politicking to get things done, not sure how efficient the Chinese system is.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

First off, I want to say that people who say that the US wouldnt be able to out produce China is a lie. While normal manufacturing has moved overseas, our weapon companies keep everything in the states, and for very good reasons. Now then...

OT: I am actually writing a WW3, Tom Clancy style, story that I have gone into much reseach of new weapons being made by America, Germany, Britian, Russia, China, both Koreas, Japan, Isreal, Iran, and others. Hers how it stands...

Russia would not stand a chance. Thier military hasnt upgraded since the 1980's, and any new stuff they only have like 20 models of said new things. They rely on old conscript tactics. Thier factories are outdated. Thier weapon designers cant come up with any new designs. Their strongest point, which is thier WMDs, would be useless in a real war. They would get udderly stomped.

China on the other hand, would pose more of a threat, but will ultimatly lose. I do not forsee a war on the Chinese mainland, but rather a shootout in N. Korea or Taiwan, with arming rebels in Tibet. The only thing I would be worried about is if they got thier factories converted. Then they could barely outpace the US in full war mode, but "Quality" has alway beat "Quantity" in the real world.

And The US has "Quality" in some things, and both in others. We not only have the largest airforce, but the best trained pilots and best planes. The majority of the Chinese Air Force is made up of the J-10 Vanguard (or "Fighting Dragon" to the Chinese), which has VERY short legs, obsolte radar, poorly trained pilots, and little weapons capacity. It would barely be able to fight an F-16 or F-15, let alone an F-22. The US Navy is COMPLETELY unmatch, in subs, capital ships, and standard class vessels, along with having more transports. The only area that Chinese are better is with tanks, which should be able to fight an M-1 Abrams and, unfortuantly, win. However, Chinese CAS is non-existant, and thier helicopter gunships are obsolete.

In summing up.
US vs. Russia...completly one-sided.
US vs. China...less one-sided.

 

[FamoFunk]

It would be a bloodbath, that's for sure.

True statement here.

I think they'd but up a seriously good fight, I don't think we give them enough credit about it. But I don't really know much else about how a war would pan out and millatery stuff.

 

[Dawns Gate]

I hope I never find out.