WW3: Another Hypothetical (LONG POST)

[USArmyStrong89]

The United States navy could realistically blocade the Straits of Mellaca where 80% of China's oil supplies goes through. China's sea lanes of communication with the Middle East is highly vulnerable to America's carrier strike groups. Given there is already a carrier strike group stationed in the Persian gulf and in the Strait of Hormuz. US virtually controls all international shipping lanes between the Middle East and Pacific.

Theoretically, the United States could deprive the Chinese state of oil and force them to look elsewhere for oil. In realistic terms, in case there was ever a war with China, the Chinese navy can do nothing to stop the American navy from blocading regular oil shipments to China. China would be forced to look at the Russian Far East for oil.

I see a situation where if resources such as oil is scare, the Chinese war machine would go against a friendly neighbor to meet its demand for fueld supply.

 

[Feanor]

So Russia would have absolutely no reason to get involved in the first place. With oil revenues sky rocketing, and China and the USA at war, Russian leadership would have to be suicidal to get involved in that kind of a mess.

Dr Freud please elaborate I believe that the saturation, followed by nuclear strike scenario to still be the most likely for sinking a carrier. If you have another likely one please present it.

 

[Atilla [TR]]

So Russia would have absolutely no reason to get involved in the first place. With oil revenues sky rocketing, and China and the USA at war, Russian leadership would have to be suicidal to get involved in that kind of a mess.

Dr Freud please elaborate I believe that the saturation, followed by nuclear strike scenario to still be the most likely for sinking a carrier. If you have another likely one please present it.

Yeah but Russia is so ambitious that they would try to take over Georgia, and Turkic countries.

 

[USArmyStrong89]

Ugh, No. China and the Russian Federation are the only two nations that have successfully developed supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles that are essentially carrier destroyers.

I think these Sizzler missiles are low flying and fast and I believe they are deployed with the Soverremenny Class destroyers that China bought too.

These are essential carrier destroying missiles. If China can blow American carriers out of the water, they will have a less difficult time invading Taiwan, which, in itself is a nearly impossible task given the logistics, manpower, number of amphibious craft, lack of air superiority, lack of naval projection of the PLA army, navy, and airforce.

 

[Feanor]

Yeah but Russia is so ambitious that they would try to take over Georgia, and Turkic countries.

Maybe in the wet dreams of some Russian ultra-nationalists. Reality is, the current Russian government is interested in profits not conquest. That means selling weapons to all sides involved, and staying well clear of the actual fighting.

 

[drandul]

Yeah but Russia is so ambitious that they would try to take over Georgia, and Turkic countries.

What are those "Turkic countries" ? I'm not well informed. - sorry -I know Turkey and part of Ciprus only? Georgia- as I remember all previouse history was tring to protect herself against Turkey- that's why Georgea signed Treaty of Georgievsk with Russia about protection?

There is only one case for Russia to be involved in global military conflict - danger of invasion (agression) on her theritorry. Other reasons are only fictions (I realy hope so).

 

[IrishHitman]

Let me requote. We have a major Arab-Israel war and you expect Saudi oil to ship as usual? Take a look at the production charts again. Take Middle east out and you just have your strategic reserves.

Back to my point. In that scenario, the bulk of US Army, Navy and part of the Air force is stucked in the Middle east. Most other players have their main focus there as well.

For example... A couple of tactical nukes on the oilfields there and you have most of the western armies looking for a gas station.

Saudi Arabia is going to be taken out by whom?
Israel?

 

[Dr Freud]

Using a line of subs acting as intelligent mines in the likely path of a cbg is doable. the 650 mm long range wake-homing torpedo is nicknamed "carrier-killer" torpedo.

 

[swerve]

What are those "Turkic countries" ? I'm not well informed. - sorry -I know Turkey and part of Ciprus only? Georgia- as I remember all previouse history was tring to protect herself against Turkey- that's why Georgea signed Treaty of Georgievsk with Russia about protection?
...

Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzia & Turkmenistan are Turkic, in that they speak related languages. They're also mainly Muslim, though tending (like Turkey) to be liberal. Georgian is an unrelated language, & Georgia has been Christian for about 1500 years. It is definitely not a Turkic country.

 

[Chrom]

So Russia would have absolutely no reason to get involved in the first place. With oil revenues sky rocketing, and China and the USA at war, Russian leadership would have to be suicidal to get involved in that kind of a mess.

Dr Freud please elaborate I believe that the saturation, followed by nuclear strike scenario to still be the most likely for sinking a carrier. If you have another likely one please present it.

Technically, 1 or may be even 2 CBG's can be sunk without nuclear weapons. But in most realistic scenarios USA will field much more than that to prevent such outcome.

Plus, the direct attack of such scale against nuclear capable foreign vessels make the question of using tactical nuclear weapon rather academic anyway.

 

[Dr Freud]

Yeah, any sane (as in gouvernment) will not use nukes, i dont believe 2 nuclear capable powers will use them. the question is more when a terrorist organisation will blast a dirty bomb, and where.

 

[IrishHitman]

Yeah, any sane (as in gouvernment) will not use nukes, i dont believe 2 nuclear capable powers will use them. the question is more when a terrorist organisation will blast a dirty bomb, and where.

I don't doubt that whoever would lose, would launch their nukes before the end..

 

[ASFC]

I don't doubt that whoever would lose, would launch their nukes before the end..

Depends on how they are losing. If you get a situation where Command Control does not collapse in the losing country, then it will be down to their political ambitions as to how they end the war.

If you get what happened to Germany at the end of the Second World War, and Command and Control collapses, you might get a Commander who takes control of all the nukes and locks them up until he surrenders, or you might get a situation where the Commander feels all is lost and they launch. (and this is before I mention that this situation would be a prime opportunity for any terrorists to try and steal some nukes from the losing country due to a lack of security).

 

[Atilla [TR]]

Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzia & Turkmenistan are Turkic, in that they speak related languages. They're also mainly Muslim, though tending (like Turkey) to be liberal. Georgian is an unrelated language, & Georgia has been Christian for about 1500 years. It is definitely not a Turkic country.

Also same people and culture.

Georgia is not an enemy of Turkey, and maybe before Soviet Union yes but never again.

 

[Dr Freud]

What i meant was, two nuclear capable powers will not escalate to a full blown war in the first place

 

[Feanor]

What i meant was, two nuclear capable powers will not escalate to a full blown war in the first place

Exactly.

Technically, 1 or may be even 2 CBG's can be sunk without nuclear weapons. But in most realistic scenarios USA will field much more than that to prevent such outcome.

Plus, the direct attack of such scale against nuclear capable foreign vessels make the question of using tactical nuclear weapon rather academic anyway.

It all depends on how far BMD systems evolve.

 

[RubiconNZ]

What i meant was, two nuclear capable powers will not escalate to a full blown war in the first place

I don't know why you believe that, just for example taking into account 2 of the more capable nuclear powers (ICBM's) suppose one nation takes the gambit of using a tactical nuke. Do you really believe that nations building nuclear weapons are building them so they will never have to use them? I certainly would not be comfortable painting all nuclear capable nations with such a broad stroke.

Would the other reply in kind?
Is that in this globalised day and age acceptable?

But retaliate they must, lest the same or other nations think they could act with impunity, now nuclear retaliation generally is that of disproportionate response, do you believe that one of the big 5 if hit with a single warhead would reply with a single warhead?

The other nation would then be faced with a use or lose situation with its nukes, because any nation who used it first strike would surely lose the right to retain such weapons on a world scale.

Now I am not saying that this is a guarantee but I would think it would be more realistic than using the word never.

 

[IrishHitman]

Depends on how they are losing. If you get a situation where Command Control does not collapse in the losing country, then it will be down to their political ambitions as to how they end the war.

If you get what happened to Germany at the end of the Second World War, and Command and Control collapses, you might get a Commander who takes control of all the nukes and locks them up until he surrenders, or you might get a situation where the Commander feels all is lost and they launch. (and this is before I mention that this situation would be a prime opportunity for any terrorists to try and steal some nukes from the losing country due to a lack of security).

Perhaps that's another factor we could put in.
Commander psychology.

 

[chris]

Saudi Arabia is going to be taken out by whom?
Israel?

Let me explain again. We have your scenario and a two options for middle east (ME from now on). One is a major US presence, with full army, full navy and a part of the air force trying to keep oil production and shipping as usual. The other one is a major Israel-Muslim (Arab, Persian) war, without major US presence (except a couple of carrier battle groups to keep the Gulf open). In the first case you have the bulk of US forces tided up in the Gulf.

In the second case, you have some countries directly involved and some in a neutral stance due to an ally status with the US. Saudi Arabia is our case study.

Muslim uprising against the ruling elite for doing nothing. Shi'a uprising in Iran's favour in both Saudi Arabia and Iraq (btw, they live on the oilfield locations. Iran blocking in some level, shipment through the Gulf straights (only escorted ships may pass). Don't tell me that ME production goes as usual.

As for the nukes. If I'm in war with the west, then nuking some critical oilfields in the ME is a priority target. If I can mask it as a terrorist attack, then it is fine by me. Any of your other players can do it, as long as they have secured their oil needs.

 

[IrishHitman]

Let me explain again. We have your scenario and a two options for middle east (ME from now on). One is a major US presence, with full army, full navy and a part of the air force trying to keep oil production and shipping as usual. The other one is a major Israel-Muslim (Arab, Persian) war, without major US presence (except a couple of carrier battle groups to keep the Gulf open). In the first case you have the bulk of US forces tided up in the Gulf.

In the second case, you have some countries directly involved and some in a neutral stance due to an ally status with the US. Saudi Arabia is our case study.

Muslim uprising against the ruling elite for doing nothing. Shi'a uprising in Iran's favour in both Saudi Arabia and Iraq (btw, they live on the oilfield locations. Iran blocking in some level, shipment through the Gulf straights (only escorted ships may pass). Don't tell me that ME production goes as usual.

As for the nukes. If I'm in war with the west, then nuking some critical oilfields in the ME is a priority target. If I can mask it as a terrorist attack, then it is fine by me. Any of your other players can do it, as long as they have secured their oil needs.

In the first case, only about half the US forces would be in the Middle East, as is the case now. Secondly, the 7th Fleet in Japan as well as the other half of the land forces currently resting would be more than adequete to defend Japan and South Korea.

As for Muslim countries rising up during the war, I don't see it happening with the exception of Iran. With Turkey on it's northern border, and troops still in Iraq, Shi'a Muslims could rise if they wished, but they would be brutally put down. Israel would also do much to insure that it's neighbours don't get ideas.

In the second case, the US 5th Fleet would still be present in the Gulf, Turkey and Israel would still exist, therefore making the point of US non-involvement in the ME moot. It would certainly be harder to stabilise the region, however.