WW3: Another Hypothetical (LONG POST)

[IrishHitman]

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?

Alot of the realism concerns are valid, and I'm open to suggestion to make the scenario more realistic (More realism = better predictions).

But sentiments like "your dilussional" aren't exactly constructive.

Mods, any chance I can get that personal attack nuked?

 

[Stryker001]

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?

Yeah but we do live in the same world, don't worry about the pun.

It is not me who is nasty when people speak of the Russian Federation; you are really referring to Corporation KGB. People think the Bolshevik mind is simple, but cunning none the less. During the cold war the suitcase were deployed behind enemy lines.

The missile defense shield increases the chances of the EU becoming more aggressive in annexing former Russian states into the EU and NATO. It makes these newer members more likely to cause a conflict in which their fellow NATO members would be required to respond. Geopolitical conflicts that were previously limited to two nations, has the potential to develop into a larger event.

Business exactly the point, the EU to pressure Russia not to increase pricing to a level that cause EU members fiscal problems via the use of the missile defense shield, if the tap is turned off due to a pricing dispute. We can hit you but you cannot hit us scenario. So all I am saying is that regardless of the shield the EU could still be target by Russia, and so we agree any one state conduct such an operation.


The Middle East

Anyway that what the Syrian reactor was for, be interesting after the fact to see where they sources the uranium from, after the fact, probably North Korea. Not for ballistic missile purposes, delivered in a very conventional fashion, I wonder who the luck recipient was going to be. Lucky the US and the Israeli’s took it out. The next reactor would be constructed underground, but to have success they will have to move their nuclear operations to a third country. A nuclear response would have to be authorized by the UN.



India

Do not be so sure than India will not form a stronger alliance with China in the future, anti-American sentiment is high and India will not be told who to deal with, hence the Iranian gas pipeline deal. The PRC needs to seriously strengthen its anti-US coalition.

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...

Only talking about a city not a whole country. So the response would be a city or conventional warfare and perhaps the start of world war three.


Off-topic.
Speaking of business, back in the real world the Russians and the US have signed a civilian nuclear agreement in regards in regards to all aspects of the civilian nuclear enterprises, the Australian’s could have been a cosignatory to such an understanding.

 

[IrishHitman]

Only talking about a city not a whole country. So the response would be a city or conventional warfare and perhaps the start of world war three.

It would cause launches globally, resulting in the near-destruction of the human race...

 

[Feanor]

Irish the BMD systems in Europe are nowhere near what's necessary to stop a Russian nuclear attack. As long as Russia can overwhelm the BMD and incinerate dozens of European cities, the EU won't go to war. Morever the Russian military doctrine specifically stipulates that nuclear weapons are to be the main deterrent, and could even be used pre-emptively in a first strike. So a response to an EU attack is likely to be a nuclear strike. The Soviet axe theory still holds strong among Russian military leadership.

 

[IrishHitman]

Irish the BMD systems in Europe are nowhere near what's necessary to stop a Russian nuclear attack. As long as Russia can overwhelm the BMD and incinerate dozens of European cities, the EU won't go to war. Morever the Russian military doctrine specifically stipulates that nuclear weapons are to be the main deterrent, and could even be used pre-emptively in a first strike. So a response to an EU attack is likely to be a nuclear strike. The Soviet axe theory still holds strong among Russian military leadership.

Even with mutually assured destruction still on the table?
Jesus, scratch that, I fully expect Russian commanders to invade Finland.
Idiots...Willing to put the world at an end like that..

 

[Chrom]

Even with mutually assured destruction still on the table?
Jesus, scratch that, I fully expect Russian commanders to invade Finland.
Idiots...Willing to put the world at an end like that..

You know, if my country leaders do not ready to use nuclear weapon even in the face of foreign forces taking my capital - then these leaders do not deserve they place.

I mean, Bush threating to use nuclear weapon in case someone ambushes his army in distant Iraq... now, imagine what he do if Chinese army conquer Las-Vegas and threat New-York...

 

[kato]

Morever the Russian military doctrine specifically stipulates that nuclear weapons are to be the main deterrent, and could even be used pre-emptively in a first strike.

Same for France btw. Though they have nowhere near the numbers for it.

 

[eckherl]

You know, if my country leaders do not ready to use nuclear weapon even in the face of foreign forces taking my capital - then these leaders do not deserve they place.

I mean, Bush threating to use nuclear weapon in case someone ambushes his army in distant Iraq... now, imagine what he do if Chinese army conquer Las-Vegas and threat New-York...

OH boy - I knew it was just a matter of time before someone decided to throw a dig at the U.S. Amagine my surprise Chrom that it would come from you.

 

[Chrom]

OH boy - I knew it was just a matter of time before someone decided to throw a dig at the U.S. Amagine my surprise Chrom that it would come from you.

I like to give US as example - because it is THE (self proclaimed) Greatest Democracy Blessed By God Himself. In the same time, it is perfect example what even generally good country with sane government, if given enough power, use this power for not very good deeds, to put it mildly.

I like to give US as example to what could be realistically expected in todays relations between countries.

 

[USArmyStrong89]

The European Union is purely a political and economical organization. The constitution of the European Union does not state member nations must defend each when attack. In fact, member states are responsble for their own territorial defence. In the case of a Russian invasion of the European continent, most likely, Article 5 of the NATO constitution (of which 21 out of the 27 nations of EU are NATO members), which states that any attack on a member state will be considered an attack against the entire group of members would be invoked.

In conclusion, belligerents would clump European nations under a more correct organization banner, the EU cannot be a military belligerent because it was never designed to be a military alliance. NATO was designed for mutual defence against an external party, in which case fits your scenario because of the hypothetical nature of a Russian invasion. Article 5 of NATO would be invoked, not Article Unknown in the EU charter because it doesn't exist.

So essentially, by default, if Russia invades a member of NATO who invokes Article 5, United States would become a belligerent on the side of NATO due to the obligation for mutual defence due to the NATO alliance. So this is what it should be:

Pro-Western:

NATO members (essentially all the military powerhouses in EU that matter)
Major Non-NATO allies (Japan, Austrailia, Egypt, Israel, South Korea, Jordan, New Zealand, Argentina, Bahrain, Phillipines, Thailand, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan)
United States of America

And if the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance or the Rio Pact with South and Central America did not fall apart, The entire Western Hemisphere would be pro-Western as well. Too bad Rio Treaty doesn't really work anymore.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The European Union is purely a political and economical organization. The constitution of the European Union does not state member nations must defend each when attack. In fact, member states are responsble for their own territorial defence. In the case of a Russian invasion of the European continent, most likely, Article 5 of the NATO constitution (of which 21 out of the 27 nations of EU are NATO members), which states that any attack on a member state will be considered an attack against the entire group of members would be invoked.

In conclusion, belligerents would clump European nations under a more correct organization banner, the EU cannot be a military belligerent because it was never designed to be a military alliance. NATO was designed for mutual defence against an external party, in which case fits your scenario because of the hypothetical nature of a Russian invasion. Article 5 of NATO would be invoked, not Article Unknown in the EU charter because it doesn't exist.

So essentially, by default, if Russia invades a member of NATO who invokes Article 5, United States would become a belligerent on the side of NATO due to the obligation for mutual defence due to the NATO alliance. So this is what it should be:

Pro-Western:

NATO members (essentially all the military powerhouses in EU that matter)
Major Non-NATO allies (Japan, Austrailia, Egypt, Israel, South Korea, Jordan, New Zealand, Argentina, Bahrain, Phillipines, Thailand, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan)
United States of America

And if the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance or the Rio Pact with South and Central America did not fall apart, The entire Western Hemisphere would be pro-Western as well. Too bad Rio Treaty doesn't really work anymore.

Excellent point. Any EU vs Russia conflict becomes Russia vs NATO conflict, and we all know how that pans out. There has been a few interesting threads on that very possibility.

As for an India China alliance....nfloorl: India and China are RIVALS, clearly. The most likely possibility by 2015 is a loose east/south aisan military alliance between the US, Japan, India and Australia designed to contain China militarily. That is a much more likely scenario than some India acting against its strategic interests and entering into an alliance with china as a lessor partner.

 

[Feanor]

Even with mutually assured destruction still on the table?

Yes. And it does miracles as a strategic deterrent (given the atrocious state of the Russian Army).

Jesus, scratch that, I fully expect Russian commanders to invade Finland.
Idiots...Willing to put the world at an end like that..

Why invade Finland? What does Finland possibly have that Russia could need in a conflict?

 

[Dr Freud]

I wont touch this topic, but someone forgot to mention the russian occupation of some northern japanese islands at the end of ww2, despite having a non aggression pact. they still havnt left..

 

[Chrom]

I wont touch this topic, but someone forgot to mention the russian occupation of some northern japanese islands at the end of ww2, despite having a non aggression pact. they still havnt left..

The non-aggression pact was canceled according to international law 3 months before USSR attack Japan. So Japan was well aware of incoming USSR attack.

Also, this can be viewed as continue of 1939 conflict.

Small territorial gains as result of big conflict is such trivial thing in 20th century, what i dont even want to comment that.

 

[USArmyStrong89]

My question is this:

Given:

*India has a strong military relationship with Russia via its importation and exportation of military equipment and technology. T-90s, Su-Flankers, etc..
*India also has a strategic partnership with the United States via its agreement for a civilian nuclear cooperation contract, The United States reaffirmed its goal to help meet India's defense needs and to provide the important technologies and capabilities that India seeks.

Where does India's obligation lay? Definitely not with China, with United States or Russia? I do think India will side with the United States. Pakistan would more likely side with China, and go against India.

 

[kato]

Why would anyone need to choose sides? In a US - China conflict, India would likely sit back. There isn't really an obligation for them to choose.

Perhaps try and take the Chinese-governed part of Kashmir after the conflict has gone on a bit and Chinese lines are stretched, but they wouldn't openly side with anyone.

 

[Feanor]

India will do their best to dodge getting involved in any major foreign conflict.

 

[USArmyStrong89]

Any armed engagement with India involved would be a lot of bloodshed. WW2, Japan was getting ready to prepare for invasion against India after achieving terriorial acquisition of the Burma Road. I can't understand, why would the Japanese ever consider fighting the Indians? :shudder Thats like Operation Barbarossa 2. lol

 

[IrishHitman]

The European Union is purely a political and economical organization. The constitution of the European Union does not state member nations must defend each when attack.

Eh, wrong.
EU common defence has been around since the Nice Treaty.
With two exceptions, Ireland and Denmark. If a sovereign state attacks any member of the EU, you can be pretty sure that the others will help.

Why invade Finland? What does Finland possibly have that Russia could need in a conflict?

It was a joke, which you should have realised considering the lack of motivation for a repeat of the Winter War. Even Russians aren't that naive..

As for an India China alliance.... India and China are RIVALS, clearly. The most likely possibility by 2015 is a loose east/south aisan military alliance between the US, Japan, India and Australia designed to contain China militarily. That is a much more likely scenario than some India acting against its strategic interests and entering into an alliance with china as a lessor partner.

Who said anything about a Chinese-Indian alliance?
I certainly didn't unless someone's been editing my thread.
They have history of rivalry in the Himalayas anyway, they're quite hostile..

Yes. And it does miracles as a strategic deterrent (given the atrocious state of the Russian Army).

The point of the European front is that the Russian army is at least decent again. Although, it would probably still face corruption and the continuing problem of bullying. They can't fix tradition..
Anyway, nukes are out simply because this is a hypothetical conventional war.

Where does India's obligation lay? Definitely not with China, with United States or Russia? I do think India will side with the United States. Pakistan would more likely side with China, and go against India.

It would most likely stay out of a conflict, except unless China attacked.
Which considering China's growing population despite it's One Child Policy, and the World Food "Crisis", is possible. Likely? Well, that's a matter of opinion. India would most likely not take sides in terms of the NATO/EU/US vs. Russia conflict, and may even buy from both sides, as it does currently.

ALL SUGGESTIONS FOR MORE REALISM WELCOME.

 

[Kosovo=Serbia]

Listen my scenario

American guy, who sit behind big red button is pissed off, his girlfriend left him with handsome Chinese guy, and he push the button, China response,
Russian button guy is drunk, to him it look like the US nukes are for Russia and he fire back, but he is so drunk, he push wrong button and sent nukes to Korea.
Korea is not ready yet, they even not refuel rockets, but they most to respond,fire Nukes at Russia, but, but, but ..... oh no, there is no enough fuel to reach Russia, it drops in sea, big boom, and BIG Tsunami as consequence,
Japan, Indonesia, Australia, India and all Oceania are under watter,
Of course, US survive without any victims, like in movie, and of course
blame "Iran nuclear program" and blow it up. African tribes eat each other,
Since all oil deposits and rigs are destroyed, (Middle east Russia and etc)
US are in energy crisis and in next few hours every US citizen dies.
New South America alliance go in war with Canada for US territory
and EU people dies of boring.
In the end only Eskimos and penguins left to fight for future world domination.



No, there will no be WW3, at least not for some 300 years !!!