If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
hypothetical world war 3, pick sides
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I had an intresting conversation last weekend amongst friends, its all imaginary O.K ? But lets say world war three is about to break out, between two sides, side one captained by America, side two captained by China. Each country is allowed 7 countries to fight with, which they can pick, but they must be allies to an extent. How do you see the two sides panning out ?
I'm intrested to see how close our final decision is to your more educated opinions.
I'm intrested to see how close our final decision is to your more educated opinions.
0
Comments
America
Britain
Germany
Russia
Israel
Australia
Possibly India
(left France out on purpose, the Germans will conquer France early on to prevent the inevitable of French assets being taken by the enemy
Axis:
China
Pakistan
Korea
Vietnam
Iraq
Iran
(can't think of a suitable 7th candidate).
If this war were to happen now, and if nuclear weapons were not used on a mass destruction scale then the Allies would win easily. Even without the vast pool of manpower provided by India we would probably be able to beat the Axis easily.
Our forces have superior conventional and special forces. Our tanks have been made to withstand all but the most powerful warheads. The bulk of the Middle Eastern and Asian arsenals are made up of ex-soviet era weaponry. The main battle tank being the T-55, T60, T-72. The T-55 and T-60 are not powerful enough to take on any Allied tank one to one. One of the most powerful allied tanks currently being the British Challenger 2, that boasts Chobbam Armour with layers of Titanium, Steel and Kevlar included. It also boasts the largest main armament of all the Allied tanks and it's fire control system rivals that of the Abrahms with the ability to hit an unilluminated target the size of a football, in pitch black conditions from a distance of 5 miles, whilst moving.
The Axis forces boast no piece of weaponry that even comes close to this. 1 shell from any Allied tank is capable of piercing the Glacis plate of all the Axis tanks with the exception of the T-80 which can withstand 2-3 hits.
Our Airforces, whilst small are technologically superior. Our ground attack craft are capable of penetrating deep into enemy airspace and knocking out vital communications, SAMs and headquarters before escaping undetected. These attacks can then be followed up with sorties by regular ground attack craft supported by air superiority fighters. As our jets enter the next generation, they are able to boast faster speeds, and more all round capability, with designations like "ground attack" and "air superiority" being scrapped for jets that can do anything.
Then we move onto our naval forces. The UK's fleet alone is larger than any of the above country's fleets with the exception of China's. However ours would be supported by the US, German and Russian fleets.
Then finally we have general troop quality. The bulk of all the troops in the Middle East and Asia are conscripted. Poorly paid, poorly trained and unready. Most conscripts have less than 2 years service, and very little combat experience. In comparison the bulk of British, German, Russian, Israeli and American troops all have combat experience and have recieved superior training (with the exception of russia).
The enemy wouldn't stand a chance in hell of beating us
The US would certainly get UK and Israel, then France (reluctantly), India, Germany, Canada, Australia and most other European countries.
South America would remain mostly neutral, and so would Africa although I could see many in countries like Nigeria and Yemen wanting to be in league with the China/Iran lot.
At the end of the day it wouldn't matter much which side you're on since some 15,000 nuclear warheads would probably be used, resulting in the death of 90% + of the earth's population. I guess Switzerland is a good country to be allied with, since it has the most nuclear shelters per 1,000 population in the world.
Airbases, Barracks and other military installations all have hardened nuclear shelters that can withstand most nuclear blasts.
BTW, you like your tanks don't you?
Ask me something about any current MBT and I should be able to answer, as long as it isn't classified information that I don't know
Tanks that run on petrol or gas are more likely to explode when hit in the engine.
Oh, I don't know, I'm sure he'd get pretty pissed off about it
As for the sides, you will never get China and Russia to side together. That would be like the US and Iraq getting together next week...
Then you've got to decide whether it would be a slaughter or not. Only one country in the East has nuclear weapons capable of reaching our country, China. All the countries in NATO have strategic weaponry capable of destroying many of the countries discussed above.
Maybe the lines aren't drawn, but it's easy to guess that Iraq won't be on our side
In 1975, you would have put Iran on the US side. Things can change, and very, very rapidly.
Construct the list with the basis that world war 3 will start tomorrow.
I've just thought of something though, why the hell would China want the Middle Eastern countries on its side? They wouldn't make any sort of difference...hmm *ponders*
What we might have is a war with a large number of participants in either the Korean peninsula or over Taiwan...in which case:
Allies:
United States
UK
China (ROC)
Korea (ROK)
Thailand
Australia
New Zealand
Opponents
China (PRC)
North Korea
Possibly Vietnam (unlikely)
Turns out that the Russians destroy Birmingham in order to threaten the USA, which is their downfall...the US obliterate Minsk, and all their allies turn against them in fear.
So there:p
Whoever has the French on their side is a sure loser!
Birmingham, Alabama, or Birmingham UK?
I was kinda hoping for the latter.
Well, as long as you do it in term time, and my parents aren't there....
Otherwise....
I'm still wondering if thats serious or said in jest
Why are you confused? Its true.
PS, world war three will not be fought along such defined lines. IMO it will be a worldwide breakdown of societies and many civil wars wracking the world.
We wont have another war like WW2, Two groups of countries against another group of countries.
But, it wouldn't be like that. A war of attrition is not one the US would win. Especially against us, the Chinese and the Russians.
We have the nuclear technology, China and Russia have resources. Oh, and the Persian Gulf is still the major source of US oil.
Hmm.........
What so every single country in this world declared war on America they'd beat us all ? Bollocks.
Well it depends what you mean by win and beat us all...They could hold off the entire world and knock most of the globe into the stone age...Obviously they couldnt take over and occupt every other nation..
This scenario has been done before by Janes and the other military analysts. Feel free to go and read up before dismissing it out of your strange hatred of the US and bizarre, totally unrealistic sense of national pride.
Fair point.
I can't imagine that been the case. The world is too big for that. They are a massive super power, but I doubt they are that big just yet.
Mate, you can imagine whatever you like....I think the worlds military analysts know more about the subject than you or me...
America would have no problem holding off the rest of the world...How many carrier groups do they have now? 11 or so? They could quite easily defend their coasts from naval attack...Any airforce in the world capable of taking on the USAF over American soil? I dont think so...5 billion soldiers dont mean a thing if they are stuck on the other side of the pacific/atlantic.
America could quite easily defend herself from the rest of the world.
Their bases around the world...Fine destroy the bases, but assuming this war didnt happen in an instant, the troops on those bases would be able to start guerilla operations..There are about 140,000 American soldiers in Europe, including 12,000 here in the UK. Can you imagine the damage that even 1000 saboteurs/guerillas could cause in the UK?
How exactly are they going to fill mexico and canada with masses of troops? Canada? How? Are they gonna walk across the icecaps? NATO already relies heavily on the US to move troops around. Canada would be annexed in days, ditto mexico.
Every single naval vessel gathered around the US coast? Facing up against the hundreds of thousands of nuclear and non/nuclear missiles and artillery on the US mainland AND the 11 carrier groups AND the vast forces of the USAF...The Royal Navy is the only navy in the world that could even dent the US navy and even they would be wiped out in short order due to strength of numbers alone. Nobody else has a navy worth mentioning.
Shower their major cities with nukes? Where from? Chinas missiles can only just reach the west coast...Im pretty sure that most of europe cant hit the east coast. Nuclear subs? Maybe but as soon as they launch they will be destroyed.
Every air force gathered around the area? Are you serious? How exactly? The US carriers carry 90 planes. Ours carry 17 each...The only other euro power with a carrier is france and they have a single nuclear carrier which can barely limp across the atlantic. China has no carriers, Russia has no working carriers....How exactly are the worlds airforces going to travel the 3000+ miles to get to US airspace?
Attack power plants and infrastructure? With what?
Sorry mate but it just couldnt happen...The US is far stronger than you imagine.