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

[dyre]

Assuming neither side is willing to annihilate the other's civilian population (nukes, carpet bombing), the invading force would lose. Occupying hostile countries is so 20th century. The US would win any pitched battle (both sides choose a battleground and bring all their troops / tech), as they generally have been winning pitched battles since WWII, but wars aren't really fought in pitched battles anymore.

 

[Trivun]

Wel, let's see. If nuclear weapons were used, there wopuld be no winners, only losers, and that's that. So if nuclear weapons are NOT used, then we have:

West:

- One of the best armies in the world for training, including the top intelligence and special ops forces (the UK).
- One of the best armies in the world for actually equipping their troops, plus the best military technology thanks to DARPA (the USA).
- 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).

East:

- Two armies with the most troops, thnks to obscenely large populations and country sizes (Russia and China).
- One navy that has a very lacklustre military due to lack of pride and lack of effective technology, and leaking rusty abandoned submarines (Russia).

Yep, I'd say we in the West have no chance... [/sarcasm]

 

[Maclennan]

besides, Russia has been more west since the wall fell and it became Russia, so if anything, they'd sit this one out or proclaim neutrality the same way china did in the Korean War.

China did fight in the Korean war, they fought as reinforcement of the north in several battles against the Allied forces in the last months of the war. China also committed 850, 000 troops that never made it to the front lines before they reached a cease fire agreement.
Their joining the war was the main reason that an armistice was reached and they were key, as important if not more then the Soviet Union, in determining the current border and demilitarized zone. North Korea was seen as a key buffer state by China against American diplomatic intrusion.

Oddly this happened so quickly where no one really wanted it to devolve any further and start another long and bloody war* so soon after the WWII that they never actually declared peace, just a cease fire.

edit: spelling mistake

As I understand it, china had laid the claim that if the US crossed its borders or brought the war just a bit to close to its home it would attack them. It made the same claim to NK. Russia would do similar if not just outright say they're with the west, and would likely do the same tactic.

China didnt mobilize ina full force till the US got too close to a certain river, and once the leaders saw china was serious, they decided to hurry up with the armistice.

Although they never fully declared war they did have ground troops and equipment fighting in North Korea. The Soviet Union also had troops unofficially in North Korea during the war, primarily pilots of mig fighters. While neither was officially committed to the war, both communist powers did have combat troops and equipment in field. Russian government figures and combat vertens have confirmed this. The official Chinese position is that they had no troops in the Korean war but trophies of war from have been recovered which are parts of Chinese combat uniforms including the Chinese flag.

China used the 850,000 troops as a power play to force the wests hand to give up on reuniting Korea under a diplomatic government. They did use a river as half of their proposed border and to continue as a straight line on a north east heading from the rivers source, the front line had already passed this point so land was returned to the North.

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

The USA is stretching it's economic power thin by occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. They could never, even with all of W-Europe at their side, occupy Russia or China. If they were to invade they would be bled out and would loose a war of attrition. But that would be a hollow "victory" for the Eastern powers as this whole thing would take place on their soil. The other way around (China/Russia invades USA W-Europe) would end much the same. No one could win that kind of a conflict.

 

[Jacco]

It's a silly notion.

you can't just sit here and ask "who would win in a fight, country x or country y?". particularly if both countries are nuclear powers. the question is so vague it's meaningless.

As I told another poster, this is a question of what it would be like, not whether it would or could happen.

You fail to understand what he's getting at.

He's saying it wouldn't be like anything anybody can have any knowledge of, because in order to happen, conditions would have to change to such an extent that we're dealing with a world completely different from our own. War is so much more than just a comparison of weapon e-peen sizes. There are political and economic aspects to it as well. Who would win? Well what are they fighting for. Is there a shortage of energy supplies? Seriously hampers the US. Is it a shortage of food? That hurts china. Has Russia turned back to aggressive communism to deal with ecological disaster? Then what other countries are affected and who allies with who? Is the nuclear option on the table? If it's for economic dominance, then the US can't afford to nuke China.

If all you're looking for is an armament comparison, you don't understand war and are asking the wrong question.

I'm not asking for armament comparisons. I'm asking WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE. How would it happen? Why would one side be the victor? What factors go into why Russa and China would win or lose?
these are all things other posters have been answering. I've seen replies from the economic side, the military side, the geographic side, etc. The politics mean nothing as this theoretical war has already broken out.

 

[demoman_chaos]

I'm not saying the U.S. would lose, but we would have very heavy casualties. We are not prepared to defend the millions of people that live by the coasts. And I'm not sure our tech gives us as much of an advantage as we think. Look how long and difficult the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan have been despite fighting a much more ill-equipped opponent.

Against an organized force, we are unbeatable almost. We wasted one of the largest militaries in less than a month during Desert Storm. When it comes to fighting organized armies, the US is undefeated.

As with the Roman legion, going toe-to-toe is pretty much suicide. Also like the legion, we aren't fit for fighting a guerrilla war. The vast majority of our losses in Vietnam were not from enemy combatants but from traps. In the Middle-East, there is no real opponent. We are fighting small bands of guerrillas that we throw under the same name when they really aren't. Most of the bombers are not Al-Queda or Taliban, they are just given that name by us.

 

[guitarsniper]

The likely war with China would be mostly naval and island-based, because it would likely be a war over Taiwan in the Formosa Strait. Compared to china, the US submarine force is light-years ahead, and could hunt down their navy with impunity. Assuming that nuclear weapons never come into play that alone, coupled with SLCMs (submarine-launched cruise missiles) to take out land targets would mean that the west would take out the chinese relatively quickly. doesn't matter how many people you have if you can't find the other guy.

 

[Edible Avatar]

Ever read Red Storm Rising? It's fiction I know, but a very interesting take on how a Soviet v. NATO engagement could possibly go down. The best laid tactical plans don't survive the first round being fired.

That sounds interesting, i'll have to look it up.
I read a couple contingency books published in the 80's, and what shocked me the most was that the US had hundreds of small green baret teams and weapons caches set up in France and Germany. The idea was that when the T-58s and BMP-2s rolled past, the green barets would meet with predesignated males, and they would equip and train them to fight the Soviet supply lines, blow up bridges, rescue downed airmen, etc. Later i found documentation that the Soviets planned to keep the majority of their paras and Spetznez behind their own lines commited to counter-insurgency, appearently out of fear that this would happen.

My personal thoughts on the subject? It's a toss up.
Accumulatively speaking, Europe has a small military (and a even smaller military budget), although i believe that together they would be able to at least halt a Russian incursion into Europe (Russia's military is still sadly corrupt, and i don't believe they have adopted the effective NCO model for their military yet(correct me if i'm wrong)). China would be a push-over for the U.S. Navy. For the past 60 years, they've pissed off the Vietnamese (1979), the Indians (1960 border dispute), and the Taiwanese (obvious). They have no good allies and we have military forces right across the pond. I say it'd be a turkey shoot with Tomahawks and SAMs, with air superiority (if we hit them while they're on the ground) to ensure it goes smoothly. Of course there are semantrics involved, but I'll leave this where it's at.

 

[cthulhumythos]

don't we have enough nukes to blow up the world? well not literally, the world's pretty big, but don't we have enough nukes to really ruin everyone's day?

now, i'm not going to pretend i know what i'm talking about (i'm looking at you nearly everyone posting here) because i have in no way actually researched the subject at hand. that aside, aren't we bros with russia? they aren't the soviets anymore, they just have a large country.

anyway, america's fighting a few wars right now, so that doesn't exactly help us. we do however, have hells of the firepower, and so if anyone launched an attack us (the US) i think the retaliation would be disproportionate to say the least. also we have all those friends in europe. i think the west would win. but i know next to nothing about the east and i live the west, so my opinion is worth next to nothing. the only thing i actually can be sure about is that it would absolutely fuck up everything.

 

[Jacco]

The likely war with China would be mostly naval and island-based, because it would likely be a war over Taiwan in the Formosa Strait. Compared to china, the US submarine force is light-years ahead, and could hunt down their navy with impunity. Assuming that nuclear weapons never come into play that alone, coupled with SLCMs (submarine-launched cruise missiles) to take out land targets would mean that the west would take out the chinese relatively quickly. doesn't matter how many people you have if you can't find the other guy.

I agree. This is one of the reasons I think, as it stands now, that the US and her allies would pretty much stomp the East in an actual war. That being said, the Chinese are pretty crafty. Ninjas do indeed hail from there. =P

 

[Todd Ralph]

I can settle this right now. China has no force projection. He'll it's blue ocean navy consist of less than 35 ships with it's most high teck one being the ukranian aircraft carrier is it's most advanced piece of tech. The minister of defense in china even announced that china is 20 years behind the US. China does however have a decent brown water navy which consists of small anti ship patrol boats and light cruisers

 

[Undead Dragon King]

The fortunate thing for the United States, if it came to WW3, is that it's got an ocean on either side. If China or Russia would want to invade the US, it would have to send it's army either across the breadth of the Pacific, and then it would basically be a repeat of the Pacific theater in WW2, or it could do things the "Fallout" way and invade Alaska. Alaska's vulernable to both, but it's not at all heavily populated, and then the invading army would have to either run a bloody gauntlet shipping troops down the coast, which would leave them vulenerable to sea, air and ground attack, or they could try to traipse through the vast northern Canadian wilderness to try and attack the Great Lakes, which would be terribly ironic since the Russians would be facing the same problem that they've given all of their invaders. Either way, they would have a very tough time with a full land invasion.

A Russian invasion of Western Europe, of course, would play out as a high-tech version of 1943-1945, even if you discount nuclear weapons. A Russian invasion army could definitely be targeted by a tactical nuclear strike or ten, and then it would lead to all-out nuclear war. That is why every nation's been fighting proxy wars since 1945. Any nuclear nation fighting another will just have the prospect of warheads dropping. And, really, no one wants Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

[Timedraven 117]

Well In all case s the US would win. WE have the strongest Navy, (AS in we are so powerful that if you were to combine the 2-5 on the list we would still be higher by a lot.) Our military force would be well motivated and much better trained then the opposite forces, (US gets less training then they did in WW2 and they only got 6 weeks/months ((Sorry don't know the exact number)) But we still kick their ass) WE have superior tech, (our weapons are top notch and in much better hands then the Chinese or russians.)

Now for whatever reason they attempt this (Like for say they get so angry so quickly they just attack,) WE would win. Russia's economy is FUBAR, china's is so dependent on American debt that when they declare war we declare all the debt void. Russia's manufacturing went to hell when they started to spend it all on weapons after WW2 and not on renovating the factories. And china would probably not even get all the resources they needed.

Now terrain. The Americas are highly defendable. WE have 2 close nations to our north and south as buffers. We have the aforementioned best navy making a naval incursion suicidal. And a attack by air would not be able to provide enough war materials to the soldiers on the ground including armor and reinforcements. Plus we have a varied topography with 2 mountain ranges, surrounded by allies/oceans and the center is plains. Now for Russia.... The terrain offers no advantage to a modern war. Even in WW2 the Germans were only halted in the cites when previously they were doing blitzkrieg attacks taking huge swafts of flat tundra and plains with ease. Now we have faster troop transports and more effective defense systems. China, well i have no idea but in all honesty when we start to invade from the coat lines and cut all trade with other countries they will have to surrender.

Now politically America has the scene, even if we attacked first, (Which is unlikely) we have a good hold in all other countries. Right now, China is looked disfavourably upon and we would probably be doing Russia a favor seeing how we would probably correct the government and hopefully fix as much corruption to actually get the people to like us instead of their own government.

 

[Deathmageddon]

China is too economically dependent on the West to allow a war like that. I don't know about Russia, but last I heard, they haven't been quite so scary since communism fell.

 

[Todd Ralph]

guy.

I agree. This is one of the reasons I think, as it stands now, that the US and her allies would pretty much stomp the East in an actual war. That being said, the Chinese are pretty crafty. Ninjas do indeed hail from there. =P

Actually that's japan

 

[Jacco]

Actually that's japan

You're right! My bad. Thanks for the correction.


Everyone is assuming it's just the US I'm talking about. I was thinking along the lines of the western powers (UK, Canada, France, Germany, etc) as it was in World War II.

 

[LongAndShort]

Ignoring all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and comparing in a straight up conventional war between the 'East' and the 'West'?

Fuck yeah they'd stand a fighting chance. Russia spent most of the Cold War with a standing conventional military superiority over Nato and can mobilize for a total war better and faster than most of the west would be able to. Only the USA out of NATO has serious power projection capabilities and the Russians are very good at devising cheap, mass-produced countermeasures for those capabilities. And let's not forget that the stupid Russian conscript stereotype that is often used stopped being deserved by the time they won at Stalingrad. As for China, well it may have been 60 years ago but they ground the mighty American military machine to a halt in Korea, and they're stronger now than they were back then.

Nevertheless I do believe the west would ultimately, bloodily triumph, at least it would if a war took place in the next twenty years. After that, probably play it by ear.

 

[Metal_Head]

ok im not an expert on these things, but here i go.

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??

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. so yes, the combined might of Russia and China will probably triumph against USA.

of course there is still the problem of logistics and actually getting there. the pacific ocean separates CHina and america and the closest Russia gets is Alaska. but then if they continue down, Canada will get drawn into it. also, treaties with Americas Allies will take effect, so actually, I have no idea.

this is presuming that neither side is dumb enough to use nukes

 

[Mordereth]

-snip

Brazil is certainly an up-coming force in the world-

But it isn't self-sufficient. It doesn't have enough high-tech facilities to keep the goods coming or all the raw resources to keep the materials in stock to keep living like they are now without other major countries.

-

I think Nuclear War is really impossible because the economy has become global- all of America's plastic shit is made in China (although some are trying to break that dependency), the majority of the random metals\metalloids used to make cell phones so small come from Nor'Western Africa, and ye olde Soviet weaponry comes not only from Russia but also certain countries in the middle east- which means Brazil would be out of bullets, traditional communication devices, and plastic- one of the staples of modern society, look around your desk- hell at your desk- and I'll bet you need more than two hands to count all the plastic.

Interesting what you said about Nuclear War though; I'll admit, I was always fuzzy on how "Nuclear Winter" worked and just sort of took it for granted. Even the wikipedia article doesn't make it look like any sort of certainty.