World War III?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

World War III?

Post by Johnnythewizard on Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:01 am

Will it happen? How far in the future? How will it start? Who will be the major players? Where will it be fought? What weapons will be used? Who will win?

I have my own theory:

Sometime within the next 10 years, North Korea will strike against South Korea, provoking Japan and NATO to intervene. At this point the EU would be falling apart, but members of NATO would still remain in NATO. This would become a World War if China were to intervene (which could happen merely based on popular support), because that could result in the war expanding. India would likely join the side of NATO to combat China, and so this would result in Pakistan joining China's side. Because of Turkey's position in NATO and the US and Pakistan, Iran could be seen joining China. China might take a risk in securing Mongolia for the sake of resources.

This, could actually mean that Russia might join NATO's side, perhaps conditionally. The conditions might be that Ukraine and Belarus can't join NATO, but regardless Russia's force would be strong against China.

However China could possibly find an ally in Indonesia and Southeast Asia, likely Vietnam and Cambodia (possibly Thailand) and there is the small possibility that Brazil might side with China, along with possible other Latin American countries (Venezuela, Cuba, and Mexico come to mind.) If Mexico joins, it would technically be suicide due to a direct border, but it could happen through false promises (such as the ones in the Zimmerman Telegram).

As for Africa/the Middle East. While Iran's majority are Shia Muslims, most of the Islamic world are Sunni muslims, so Iran would not be a reason for those nations to join China's side. However on the the other hand, it's very likely that there are anti-European sentiments in some parts of Africa, but it's hard to tell what side those nations would join.

Regardless, China's (Prosperity Pact?) wouldn't last very long pitted against the New Allied Powers, and would likely crumble. After the war, we would likely see the restoration of an ROC, and the end of Communism in the world. The war could bring a rise back to conservatism against Socialist ideals (or is that just wishful thinking?). Regardless, it's likely that this will go much differently and could possibly never happen.

Notice I never brought up nukes? Well only North Korea's crazy enough to use them. There's too much at risk to be using nuclear weapons.

Now I want to hear your theories!





avatar
Johnnythewizard
Pedes

Posts : 21
Join date : 2017-07-26
Location : United States

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: World War III?

Post by DuceMoosolini on Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:28 pm

I think WWIII is a very unlikely scenario, but here's an overview of how I think it might go.

Possible flashpoints (descending likeliness):
--Korean Penninsula
--Syrian/Iraqi airspace
--Iran/Israel
--Kashmir
--South China Sea
--Ukraine/Baltics
--Taiwan
--Senkaku/Diaoyue

Assessment of major nations:

USA--Current hegemonic superpower. Militarily powerful with an unmatched navy. Greatest risk is cyberattack and general complacency.

Russia--Regional hegemonic power. Powerful nuclear arsenal and decent military and navy. Greatest weakness is a lack of infrastructure and a weak oil-based economy.

China--Regional hegemonic power. Immense army but weak green-water navy. Current carrier force insufficient for adequate defense. Powerful economy. Greatest weakness is the navy.

Iran--Growing power. Recently freed from sanctions due to the Iran Nuclear deal, allowing it to build a military. Unlikely to win a conflict against a great power, but will likely retreat into the mountains for guerrilla warfare.

North Korea--Pariah state. Weak military but high manpower. Navy's strongest asset is its 70 submarines. Will collapse under a land invasion, but can still do serious damage to the South. Nuclear missiles will be based on mobile trucks, making preemptive elimination of launch capacity unfeasible.

NATO--Most powerful current military alliance. Greatest risk and weakness is discord among members and a general unwillingness to be proactive. Much more likely to join a war against Russia than China.

Assessment of major unaligned nations:

Russia and China: Whether they ally each other or not strongly depends on the specifics of the war. Both have an interest in countering America, but their interests are otherwise different.

Mexico: Will almost certainly support the US, if not directly.

Brazil: Has little to gain from siding militarily with either China or Russia. Will probably not directly fight for the US either.

Venezuela: Unknown due to extreme risk of regime change and future unrest. Likely neutral.

Cuba: Unlikely to risk open war against the US.

Nigeria: Probably neutral, but I think their democratic nature would tend them towards the US.

Iran: Has close economic ties to Russia and has an interest in being hostile to the US.

Saudi Arabia: Will always oppose Iran. Current US ally, but that can change.

India: Has strategic reasons to be hostile towards China and friendly to the US. Neutral at worst.

Ukraine: Unknown due to the evolving nature of the conflict against Russia. Currently would side against the Russians.

Turkey: Has strategic interests in supporting Russia, regime change notwithstanding.

Indonesia: Uncertain, but would probably throw in with the US.

Assessment of Military Strategies:

Preemptive strike by NATO or the US is highly unlikely. Preemptive strike by opposing forces is likely to utilize cyberattacks, destruction of military satellites, and infiltration tactics. Major targets would be overseas military bases, carriers, submarines, and possibly missile-defense ships.

Warfare against China is unlikely to see any invasions outside of Guam and possibly Hawaii, Taiwan, and Japan. A direct invasion could trigger a nuclear retaliation, and neither side would risk this. Most direct combat would take place between opposing navies.

For hostile forces to best the US in naval combat, they would need to neutralize the US carrier strike groups and US nuclear submarines. Cyberattacks could disable Aegis systems in the strike groups and certain Chinese missiles are capable of penetrating defensive weaponry, but I am unaware of a way to counteract submarines, as they are currently almost impossible to locate.

War against China would likely conclude in a white peace after several years of cautious stalemate.

War against Russia would almost certainly begin over an attack into the Baltics or Ukraine, but one must not discount the possibility of a confrontation over Syria and Iraqi airspace. The Baltics would likely be occupied quickly, and Ukraine has little chance of fending off Russia. I doubt Putin would dare push farther. Instead, I believe he would prefer a bloody status quo which forces NATO to the table out of exhaustion. However, this could backfire, as the Russian economy does not seem stable enough to support a war lasting longer than a year or two. It would be a race between Russian economic collapse and NATO's loss of will.

In terms of ground forces, NATO is superior, especially with US firepower. However, I do not expect any complete victories. The Russians won't be pushovers. There will also be no major push into Russian territory. NATO would not be willing to spend that many lives.

A war with Russia would also open the probability of a front in the Arctic with uncertain outcomes. A war with Iran would likely draw in Russia, but would also involve a US counterinsurgency in Iran which would either drag on or end indecisively.

War with Russia most likely ends with NATO making political concessions, like barring Ukraine from NATO.

War with North Korea would begin with a Korean provocation, most likely an invasion into the South. Preemptive strike is unlikely given the political situation in the US and South Korea, although a NorK attack is also unlikely given the impossibility of success.

The fall of Seoul is possible but unlikely. Artillery from the North would kill hundreds of thousands in the South. A US counterattack would push the North back, aided by planes from the Japanese islands. The speed of this counterattack depends on political will in the US and general defense readiness.

I do not believe the US would attempt an invasion into the North, but I could very well be wrong. Destruction of North Korean launch capacity would be impossible, as Kim's strategy will almost certainly involve mobile missile trucks. The risk of an actual nuclear launch is low unless the US fully invades the North. China would almost certainly be neutral, as they dislike and distrust Kim too much to do any dying for him. In the event of a war, Chinese spies may even intervene to force regime change, although this is unlikely. Regardless, the Chinese would make every effort to reign in the North, especially when they are flooded with North Korean refugees.

War with North Korea ends with US victory, possible de-nuclearization, and improbable regime change. China would not allow reunification, and South Korea would not want it.
avatar
DuceMoosolini
Centurion

Posts : 113
Join date : 2017-07-11
Age : 19
Location : Kansas, USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: World War III?

Post by Mr Trolldemort on Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:53 pm

Notwithstanding that any major war would most likely involve nuclear warfare and potential destroy the world extremely quickly, here's how I think the war would plan out depending on the area it starts

1. North Korea: USA will not invade unless an actual invasion from North Korea happens. The US knows China will only fight back if the USA starts the war, but the moment NK does something giving the US a valid casus beli, they will do nothing but hope the regime change is in their best interests. If this happens, South Korea will most likely be devastated from missiles being launched, but the war will swiftly end and North Korea's communist regime will be overthrown and unification plans would be put in place with negotiations between China, the US and South Korea. Russia stays in the sidelines. The world doesn't die (for now)

2. Middle East: ISIS is on it's last legs now, and soon the civil war in Syria will be solely focused on the government under Assad against the opposition, with the Kurds as their own faction intending on preserving their new power. This means both Russia and the US will increase spending to support their respective sides, which could lead to an actual intervention to secure a victory. This of course would cause even more tensions and probably end up as another Vietnam war, escalating the tensions between the nations and domestically, especially in America. If neither side backs down, a full on war would occur (AKA nukes kill everyone) but if not, whoever backs down loses the conflict and Syria becomes a puppet of either Russia or the US but remains destabilized. It will also be a major blow for either side and hurt them internationally.

More to come...
avatar
Mr Trolldemort
Centurion

Posts : 195
Join date : 2017-07-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: World War III?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum