WW3: Another Hypothetical (LONG POST)

[IrishHitman]

REQUESTING HELP TO MAKE THIS SCENARIO MORE REALISTIC:
The purpose of this scenario is not to represent diplomatic reality, it's designed to test the conventional military capabilities of the belligerents involved to the limit. As such, nuclear arms are off limits.

How do you see the following conflict playing out?
I particularly wish to see what military analysts think.

Again, this is in no way meant to be realistic, diplomacy wise. Such wars would not all happen at the same time...

2015:
The world's economy finally levels out after years of slow decline.
Resources are becoming harder to get, and drought starts to effect .
Water, land, oil, all becoming scarcer as the population of the world increases.

Irritation between the superpower's cultures and diplomatic mistakes lead to growing unrest. Militarisation of the EU, Russia, China and India, coupled with further US involvement after the victory of John McCain/Barack Obama (both advocate stronger military), causes suspicion between the global spheres of influence.

The Belligerents:

The European Union:
The Treaty of Lisbon and further agreements created a unified European military, capable of power projection. Common procurement of military equipment helped streamline the newly created EU corps. Turkey, Macedonia and Croatia ascended to the Union in 2013, Ukraine became a candidate country to the alarm of Russian Ukrainians living in the East. The EU became further involved in the Middle East, and increases it's military presence in Afghanistan. Allied with United States.

The United States of America:
After the victory of John McCain/Barack Obama, the US military budget was increased further, and the military expanded in size. Interference in Africa and the Middle East increased, prompting further military expansion by China, Russia, the EU and India. Maintained good, if not strained relations, with the EU, with common ICBM defences set up throughout NATO countries. Irritated at Chinese and Russian intervention in South American conflicts (Monroe Doctrine's legacy at work).

The Russian Federation:
Under Dmitry Medvedev, Russia continued its military reforms first started by Putin, and began to modernise its army, unnerving the EU. Increasing hostility between the two appears after displays of power by both. Russian oil sold to China in increasing amounts, although no willingness to enter into military alliance exist. Supports Russians in Ukraine against moves to allow Ukraine to ascend to the EU.

The People's Republic of China:
Military budget increased since 2009 have paid off for the Chinese, and the Chinese military has started to modernise its army and create a blue water navy after a failed attempt against Taiwan. Bitter about US presence in Asia, and the rise of EU power projection capabilities. Still faces problems with quality of equipment, although numbers are not a problem.
Trade with Russia increased between 2008 and 2015, benefitting both.
Despite this, China still views Russia as a possible threat, and as such is not willing to cooperate with them against the West.

Other Nations involved initially::
Neutral/Defensive:
- India: Defends itself against possible Chinese aggression.
- Taiwan: Incapable of offensive action due to the sheer size of China. Not strictly speaking a Western Ally.
- Ukraine: Ukraine defends itself against Russian aggression after more pro-Western policy decisions. Faces mutiny of Ukrainian units in the East.
- Chechen Republic: Rise at stricter controls over Chechen territories, although not officially pro-West.

Pro-Western alliance:
- Norway: NATO member, military alliance with EU.
- Columbia: In regional war with Venezuela and Ecuador with US support.
- Japan: Allied with US via Treaty, mindful of growing Chinese military influence.
- South Korea: Allied with US via Treaty, wary of North due to increased Chinese military presence.
- Israel: Alliance with US.
- Canada: NATO member.
- Australia: Major non-NATO ally, involved in Middle East.

Pro-Chinese alliance:
- Vietnam: Although not officially against the West, allows "volunteers" to join the Chinese.
- Burma: Heavily reliant on Chinese arms.
- North Korea: Allied with China.
- Iran: Buys weapons off China. Also pro-Russia.

Pro-Russian alliance:
- Belarus: Pro-Russian sentiment and wish for reunity.
- Venezuela: At war with Columbia. Also reasonably pro-China.
- Ecuador: Attacked by Columbia over FARC guerrillas. Also reasonably pro-China.

LEAD UP AND CAUSE OF WAR:
- Andes Conflict between Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador (threatens to spread elsewhere).
- Unilateral declaration of independence of Taiwan, failed invasion attempt by China, nuclear attacks halted by US intervention.
- Increased border skirmishes at the border of the two Koreas.
- China's growing need for farming land and oil.
- Russian and EU displays of power.
- Union of Russia and Belarus.
- Economic unrest at resources.
Main Asian Theatre cause:
North Korean missile launch at Japan, shot down by AEGIS.
Main European cause:
Belarussian Civil War

INITIAL FRONTS:
Western Allies vs. Russia
- Northern European Plain (Batlic States, Poland, Kalingrand Oblast)
- Ukraine.
- Finland, Norway, Murmansk oblast and Kalerian Russian Republic.
- Caucasus
- Black Sea

Western Allies vs. China:
- North Korea
- Taiwan
- South & East China seas
- Afghanistan

Others:
- Columbia

 

[Feanor]

Completely unrealistic.

 

[drandul]

Main European cause:
Russian invasion.

What is the reason of Russian invasion? I see nothing. Russia have all resources- land, mineral, energy, water. Only stable and frendly neighbors is the Russian interest.
Statisticaly how many military invasions initiated by Russia do you remember in last century? What I remember- Finland, Afganistan...How many invasions do you remember of Russian neightbours in to Russia ?- let me recall...Germany (WW1), Japan, US and GB (1918-1919 intervention), Germany(WW2), Japan, China (Damansky incedents).

 

[RubiconNZ]

What is the reason of Russian invasion? I see nothing. Russia have all resources- land, mineral, energy, water. Only stable and frendly neighbors is the Russian interest.
Statisticaly how many military invasions initiated by Russia do you remember in last century? What I remember- Finland, Afganistan...How many invasions do you remember of Russian neightbours in to Russia ?- let me recall...Germany (WW1), Japan, US and GB (1918-1919 intervention), Germany(WW2), Japan, China (Damansky incedents).

The installation by force of Communist leaders in Warsaw Pact countries was tantamount to such then as maintenance of the "Pact"
Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, each with around 200,000 troops, which in my mind is a invasion.

Not that I believe there is strong likelihood of Russia other countries now but the USSR was no good neighbor.

 

[swerve]

The installation by force of Communist leaders in Warsaw Pact countries was tantamount to such then as maintenance of the "Pact"
Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, each with around 200,000 troops, which in my mind is a invasion.

Not that I believe there is strong likelihood of Russia other countries now but the USSR was no good neighbor.

To the USSR, they were seen as akin to putting down rebellions. They were territories which had been informally assigned to Soviet influence at the end of WW2, & the USSR acted to keep them within the fold, much as Russia did with Chechnya in the 1990s.

Whatever you think of the morality or legitimacy of those actions, they're rather different from attempting to expand its borders by force.

 

[IrishHitman]

Completely unrealistic.

The purpose of this scenario is not to represent diplomatic reality, it's designed to test the conventional military capabilities of the belligerents involved to the limit. As such, nuclear arms are off limits.

You didn't read it, did you?

The purpose isn't meant to represent political reality, it is meant to test the capabilities of the armies, navies and airforces of the belligerents.

What is the reason of Russian invasion? I see nothing. Russia have all resources- land, mineral, energy, water. Only stable and frendly neighbors is the Russian interest.
Statisticaly how many military invasions initiated by Russia do you remember in last century? What I remember- Finland, Afganistan...How many invasions do you remember of Russian neightbours in to Russia ?- let me recall...Germany (WW1), Japan, US and GB (1918-1919 intervention), Germany(WW2), Japan, China (Damansky incedents).

If you want a reason for Russian invasion, there's several possibilities, mainly EU violations of Russian territory. Russia may have the resources, but the EU doesn't have all it needs. Bascially, Russia was aggravated by an ambitious EU.

The reasons for the war are not the point though, they're only there to serve as a political climate setter for the start of the war.

 

[Feanor]

You didn't read it, did you?

The purpose isn't meant to represent political reality, it is meant to test the capabilities of the armies, navies and airforces of the belligerents.

1) Armies are built around a certain political reality. They don't exist in a vacuum.
2) The time frame is too far off to be able to talk about specific capabilities.
3) Finally you have not provided any credible context for the war to take place in. It's one thing if Russia invades Ukraine over it's pro-western ties, in a modern day context. It's another thing if the international stage is completely reversed 5-6 years from now. Not to mention a major need in changing around the political systems of the nations to make the war even possible. Which then changes things like ability to tolerate casualties. Finally do you allow for unlimited war? Because then Russia can just nuke it's way through the European militaries (especially given their small size) or more likely hold the EU hostage to nuclear weapons, and thus gain a free reign in Ukraine.

 

[IrishHitman]

1) Armies are built around a certain political reality. They don't exist in a vacuum.
2) The time frame is too far off to be able to talk about specific capabilities.
3) Finally you have not provided any credible context for the war to take place in. It's one thing if Russia invades Ukraine over it's pro-western ties, in a modern day context. It's another thing if the international stage is completely reversed 5-6 years from now. Not to mention a major need in changing around the political systems of the nations to make the war even possible. Which then changes things like ability to tolerate casualties. Finally do you allow for unlimited war? Because then Russia can just nuke it's way through the European militaries (especially given their small size) or more likely hold the EU hostage to nuclear weapons, and thus gain a free reign in Ukraine.

1. The political reality is hypothetical in this scenario, not non-existant.
2. Seven years isn't a particularly long period away, it would just mean that current projects under development would be in use. Figures for possible expansion, new projects, modernisation targets are easily available. I chose 2015 as it is the year that Putin set for returning the Russian military to its place as a true military powerhouse.
3. The international stage is constantly evolving. China and the EU are growing in influence, Russia is somewhat static and the US is losing influence, if not very slowly. Of course I can't say for certain, but it is fair to say that the trend would continue. Again, the possibility of the war is pretty much nil, but the context in which it is fought in this scenario is plain as day: The Western (initially, Eastern EU states and South Korea) democracies are attacked by Russia and China separately, but the West is somewhat responsible for it in the first place. Toleration of casualties is a factor that needs to be taken into account. The EU would initially have relatively good toleration due to the perception of the public that Russia attacked and vice-versa. The PRC has no problem with that, as they are totalitarian. The US would have the biggest problems though, as they only enter the war in defence of allies, not their own territories...

As for nukes, they're out of the picture because the scenario is designed to test conventional forces. Furthermore, the anti-ICBM missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, and the threat of mutually assured destruction would no doubt deter nuclear attacks anyway.

Also, what part of "unified EU military" don't you understand?
The "relatively small" EU countries add up to a population of over 500 million people, and over 2 million active personnel in the top 15 EU countries alone (not including Turkey, I may add).

 

[Rooivalk]

And in this entire situation South Africa sits Safely down South with a military strong enough to ward off any invasion by any African country and a navy strong enough to keep our oceans fairly clear of any aggression (unless one of the super powers has a over 2 dozen ships they have free to try and secure a pretty much pointless piece of ground on the map) or do we also have a part in this whole role play.

 

[swerve]

...
If you want a reason for Russian invasion, there's several possibilities, mainly EU violations of Russian territory. Russia may have the resources, but the EU doesn't have all it needs. Bascially, Russia was aggravated by an ambitious EU....

Come off it! The EU violating Russian territory? And for our next trick, Russia invades Finland in response to Finnish aggression. No - wait! That was 1939.

I understand this isn't meant to reflect reality, but merely set the stage, but wouldn't it be better to set the stage on this planet, not another one?

 

[Stryker001]

Russia will be in a position to cause civil unrest in the EU without leaving Russian territory via control of resources; this also allows military budgets of EU members to be limited. The missile defense system means nothing as the Russians can deploy nuclear suitcase bombs in the EU. Why the suitcase were developed in the first place detonation deep behind enemy lines, Syria, Iran and the Islamics get the blame and war breaks out between them and the EU, while the Vodka is cooling in the fridge.

To prevent such a nuclear deployment would mean the EU would need to militarize their boarders, costing even more resources.

A Chindia alliance is likely if the Communist gain power in India and the Chinese Communism model is adopted in the future.

 

[RubiconNZ]

To the USSR, they were seen as akin to putting down rebellions. They were territories which had been informally assigned to Soviet influence at the end of WW2, & the USSR acted to keep them within the fold, much as Russia did with Chechnya in the 1990s.

Whatever you think of the morality or legitimacy of those actions, they're rather different from attempting to expand its borders by force.

I guess to clarify or modify my response as more aimed to the

US and GB (1918-1919 intervention)

definition of invasion, but I do agree they are different to expanding borders by force like the others mentioned.

 

[IrishHitman]

Come off it! The EU violating Russian territory? And for our next trick, Russia invades Finland in response to Finnish aggression. No - wait! That was 1939.

I understand this isn't meant to reflect reality, but merely set the stage, but wouldn't it be better to set the stage on this planet, not another one?

I don't mean tanks rumbling across the Russian border, this isn't 1941 after all.
And I doubt the EU parliament will be as united as the German Reichstag in accepting an offensive war against Russia...

I meant things like increased aerial flybys over and near Russian airspace (not necessarily intentional), increased military presence in the Baltic States, military aid to Ukraine, clashing interests elsewhere in the world. Getting in Russia's backyard and making a racket, in layman's terms. The action is, of course, mutual. Economic downtimes generally create aggression if there is no internal source to be blamed for it.... Perhaps I should have used Russian sphere of influence rather than territory..

As for Finland etc, the battles there would mainly be naval and defensive...
I just can't see Russia invading Finland, and making the same mistake twice.

Can we get back on topic?

@ Rooivalk: If you see South Africa joining the war on any side, by all means, you may add them. However, I simply don't see them being involved at the start.

 

[swerve]

Russia will be in a position to cause civil unrest in the EU without leaving Russian territory via control of resources; this also allows military budgets of EU members to be limited. The missile defense system means nothing as the Russians can deploy nuclear suitcase bombs in the EU. Why the suitcase were developed in the first place detonation deep behind enemy lines, Syria, Iran and the Islamics get the blame and war breaks out between them and the EU, while the Vodka is cooling in the fridge.

To prevent such a nuclear deployment would mean the EU would need to militarize their boarders, costing even more resources.

A Chindia alliance is likely if the Communist gain power in India and the Chinese Communism model is adopted in the future.

I don't want to live in your world. It's a very nasty place.

Now, about this suitcase bomb idea: the Russian leadership is well aware that others can do it to them as well as they can do it to others, & that any highly sophisticated suitcase bombs going off inside the EU would be likely to be traced back the them. Nuclear explosions leave traces, y'know, & these days the source is may be identifiable. Also, what's Russias motive? What businessman tries to kill off his customers?

India can't adopt "the Chinese Communism model", as it no longer exists. China now has a form of politically authoritarian semi-etatist capitalism. In the highly unlikely event of a communist takeover of India (which communists, BTW? India has several varieties, mostly at each others throats), they'd be most unlikely to follow either Chinas current politico-economic model, or its previous one, & whatever model they adopted, it wouldn't make India & China friends. Ever noticed how friendly China & Vietnam are? Or the USSR & China were in the 1960s, 1970s & 1980s?

 

[IrishHitman]

Even in this scenario, nuclear weapons going off would be impossible.
The concept of mutually assured destruction still applies, regardless of the method of nuclear delivery...

Not to mention that Russia would probably want to keep the Europeans alive for the most part, so that they have markets after the war...

 

[swerve]

I don't mean tanks rumbling across the Russian border, this isn't 1941 after all.
And I doubt the EU parliament will be as united as the German Reichstag in accepting an offensive war against Russia...

I meant things like increased aerial flybys over and near Russian airspace (not necessarily intentional), increased military presence in the Baltic States, military aid to Ukraine, clashing interests elsewhere in the world. Getting in Russia's backyard and making a racket, in layman's terms. The action is, of course, mutual. Economic downtimes generally create aggression if there is no internal source to be blamed for it.... Perhaps I should have used Russian sphere of influence rather than territory..

These things do not start wars, & the "sphere of influence" you speak of hardly exists in Europe. The Baltics are part of the EU & NATO, for example. Russia & the EU don't really have clashing interests elsewhere in the world. The areas of conflict (e.g. around the Caspian) are over access to resources consumed by Western countries, i.e. over whether Russia gets a cut of the money we pay for those resources. That is not a motive to fight. It's like Brazil declaring war on China over access to Paraguayan soybean production. The Russians have the same story as us about golden eggs, & we're their goose - as they know very well.

No, it has to be an existential threat (which the EU is not going to make), or some border state (e.g. Belarus) collapsing into anarchy & fighting sort of accidentally starting as a result of both sides intervening to try to sort it out.

As for Finland etc, the battles there would mainly be naval and defensive...
I just can't see Russia invading Finland, and making the same mistake twice.

Can we get back on topic?..

Happy to, once we've established a semi-credible basis.

 

[IrishHitman]

No, it has to be an existential threat (which the EU is not going to make), or some border state (e.g. Belarus) collapsing into anarchy & fighting sort of accidentally starting as a result of both sides intervening to try to sort it out.

Happy to, once we've established a semi-credible basis.

Ok then, how about I edit it to include civil war in Belarus over the Union of Russia and Belarus? EU interest comes in over Polish minority in the West?

Might as well make the scenario agreeable if it will FINALLY spur actual military conversation.

 

[XaNDeR]

No offence Irishman but your dilussional

 

[IrishHitman]

No offence Irishman but your dilussional

Nope, just drunk.
You, on the other hand, need to learn to spell dilusional.

See? Personal attacks are easy to make.
Now, keep criticism to the post itself.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Seems to me that there has been a lot of arguing and personal attacks rather then discussions about a hypothetical WW3. Can't we get back to the main topic?