How would the US fare in the next world war?

On a China Vs the West theoretical war front: -

One should always remember the number of 'China town's in the centres of most large western cities. These could be utilised as a pre-war base and perhapse even for a suprise first strike against the west in an attempt to cripple infrastructure such as airports, roads and governmental buildings.

regardless what any country does: around the world there are people like us that care about the world and don't want dumb ass governments to rule, and while they fight, we'll be the ones that know before it happends, and we'll be ready and people like us will win. if there are good gornments that do give a damb, they'll provale, because the good won't for settle for this #. plus gods got our backs; that can top any nuke, disease, gun, or whatever.
Peace out.
literally

if you read the bible, people from all walks of life win, but thats between you god.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Very poorly! Although the question has truncated all answers referring to the use of nuclear weapons - which would be a surety - as the US forces currently stand, they would fare badly in some areas, and good in others.
The problem with US forces is that they expend too much faith in technology, and not enough (or rather balance it out) with the best weapon of any army - the human body and mind.
British troops are superior to most of the US forces in 'looking the enemy in the eye' style combat; their training is based upon this, the pinnacle of which is the SAS soldier. The US's power lies in the ability to apply massive yeilds in short times, it is not trained enough for either attrition or occupancy, or longevity of combat. The American people do not stomach heavy losses, you can be assured your enemies do.
If you take away the technology, and bring it down to the gun, the knife and the boot, US forces would be decimated by an enemy determined to inflict losses unacceptable to the American people. This was Saddam's mistake, if he'd applied his forces in a 'chipping away' style war (guerilla warfare), as the current opposing combatants are doing in Iraq, he may have caused a stalemate. Saddam, however, was no Zarqawi or bin Laden. These two guys labelled as terrorists are not out to 'win' the war, they are out to inflict losses. Take no heed of their rhetoric, they simply want to cause hurt. They are not stupid enough to think they could win - what are they going to win? Nothing but a dent in the confidence of the American people in the trust of those whom run their country.
Hussein kept these two down, but they have been freed to do their worst by incalculable stupidity of western-leaders, and the American forces facing them do not have the training required to deal with them. They are a sore that is not going to heal too quickly.
British forces are trained for this style of combat, but even they will have no hope of overcoming them. Only two conditions win a war; the total capitulation and surrender of an enemy decimated beyond the capability of sustaing combat, or the changing of the mindset of the enemy during combat. Neither of these will ever be forthcoming in Iraq, or in any potential conflict with Iran, N Korea, et al.

The next world war will see the use of nukes, not to win the war, but to take one's enemy with you, or in the least to destroy as much of it as possible. Size and capability won't matter.

Regards

What abiased claim utter BS. The US troops don't suck without the technology it doesn't mean anything. Besides who says their tech advantage won't be there for the US in the next world war no one would win (nukes). We have elite special forces too (navy seals).

Originally posted by freeradical
On a China Vs the West theoretical war front: -

One should always remember the number of 'China town's in the centres of most large western cities. These could be utilised as a pre-war base and perhapse even for a suprise first strike against the west in an attempt to cripple infrastructure such as airports, roads and governmental buildings.

Wow...

Quoted: " What a biased claim utter BS. The US troops don't suck without the technology, it doesn't mean anything. Besides who says their tech advantage won't be there for the US in the next world war no one would win (nukes). We have elite special forces too (navy seals)."

I am confident of my comments as they stand. They are not biased or prejudicial, they merely state an opinion of observation. Here's another: without the presence of British forces, America's presence in Iraq would have no credibility whatsoever, militarily or politically.

Britain has two so-called 'elite' forces: SAS and SBS. However, the whole armed services of Britain are professional, and extremely well-trained. Their history, traditions, and experience from which they can draw upon have very few parallels in any other armed service anywhere in the world. This is not denigrating the men and women of other armed services, it is simply a case of the type of training and knowledge used in the making of the British soldier. This last paragraph is of course, unashamedly biased slightly.

Regards

^^^^ Yea that kinda was biased Î know Britain has the best traing but saying the US troops aren't well tranined and can't fight without their tech is untrue and biased and not to mention rude. Im not saying we're the best but some of our military(not all) is very well trained, the marines have an excellent rep for example but im not saying we're better than Britain training wise.

elysiumfire, you do not have on clue at all as to how U.S. forces are trained or what you are talking about.

errm.. waiting fro your replies mad scientist and chinawhite..

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Indeed you are correct when say that the 'Air Lift' capacity was tested to the limit in the 62' war, but that itself was a saving grace and helped the Indian Army regroup and push the chinese back in the eastern sectors, namely Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. The combination of American C-119Gs and Soviet An-12Bs flew (again as you correctly mention) round the clock sorties from airstrips 17000ft and 15000ft respectively with the latter even lifting AMX-13 light tanks to the frontlines in Ladakh. It is this that prevented the chinese from human waving deep into Indian territory.

The PLA only stopped when they declared a unilateral ceasefire. Their lines of communication were overextended, it wasn't the Indian Army which stopped them at all. As a matter of fact teh Indian 4th division was pretty much routed. Indian Army command was poor to say the least.

The IAF had little ability to defend cities, not because of inferior forces, but because of the inept command structure which was to long and incapable of dealing with micro- strategy.

They could either defend tehir cities or provide CAS, they couldn't do both. They were fearful that teh PLAAF would attack their citiesd in retaliation.

The IAF had along with those canberras (which you oh so wrongly belittle, ask the English on ATS, Waynos??

) 4 squadrons(100 a/c) of French Ouragons(Toofanis to the IAF) stationed at Hashimara and Tezpur, which could have been (if deployed) immediately moved to Chabua and Jorhat for CAS/interdiction(behind enemy lines) in the eastern front.

The question is would this air support have been very effective and how would the CHInese of retaliated.
Also there were only 57 Ouragons.

Compare this to PLAAF numbers in the region..I have found NOTHING and am assured that there were NO a/c in or around the region and NO infrastructure to support the same in 62. It would've taken months to establish bases and ferry a/c from the east and Manchuria.
Anyways any attempt to bring any a/c incld. MiG 15s would have been scuttled by IAF raids escorted by gnats very capable of taking on MiG-15s. Hey a 'starfighter' killer can take on anything aye?

The PLAAF was not even mentioned in officialk plans, they were not going to be used. However in 1962 without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, this would not have been known.

Despite the withdrawal of support
after the rift with the USSR, the IB felt that the PLAAF would be capable of
undertaking missions at night as far as up to Madras, without interference,
due to our lack of night interceptors.7 Operations against Indian forces could
also be undertaken from Chinese airfields in Tibet, Yunnan and even Sinkiang.
The IB inputs indicated that the PLAAF already had MiG-21s supplied by the
USSR before the rupture. They also had night interception-capable MiG-19s
as well as MiG-17s. It was felt that this would make it difficult for our Canberras
to operate.


According to the official Indian history
of the war published by the MoD in 1992, the PLAAF was estimated to have
about 1,500 frontline fighters of the MiG-15, MiG-17 and MiG-19 class (refer
Table-1).9 The PLAAF had only six airfields in Tibet. The mainland airfields
were too far away to be effective. Because of the elevation, aircraft operating
from Tibet would be able to carry less weapon and fuel loads. As a result,
PLAAF capability to bomb Indian airfields would be extremely limited. The
PLAAF would also find it difficult to sustain operations from these airfields,
which still lacked adequate facilities.


The official history gives Indian Air Force strength as 559 fighters and
fighter bombers (Table-2).10 These included aircraft like the French Ouragan
and Mystere, the Hawker Siddeley Hunter and the Gnat. The Hunter and the
Gnat were among the most modern subsonic aircraft at the time. Of the
Chinese aircraft, only the MiG-19 was comparable in performance. Most IAF
aircraft were based in the western sector and would have been able to support
Army operations in Ladakh. However, two squadrons each of Ouragans
(Toofanis) and Vampires were also based in the eastern sector at Tezpur,
Bagdogra, Chabua, and Jorhat. Two squadrons of Hunters were also available
at Kalaikunda, close to Calcutta. Apart from these airfields, many second
The 1962 India-China War and Kargil 1999 335
World War strips used in the Burma campaign were still available. 11 Unlike
the Chinese airfields, the Indian airfields were at sea level; aircraft would be
able to operate easily. We must note here that the official history was written
with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight.

www.idsa.in...

The question still remains, how effective would INdian air support have been. There is no disouting they could hvae provided it and in hindsight, teh PLAAF would not hvae interfered, as far as we know.

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Here's another: without the presence of British forces, America's presence in Iraq would have no credibility whatsoever, militarily or politically.

Hmm and you think Britain is more credible than the US sure...
Gee well I guess all those other countries in their don't hvae nay credibility either. Britain may hvae a higher profile only because they are the 2nd largest contributor with regards to soldiers in Iraq.

Britain has two so-called 'elite' forces: SAS and SBS. However, the whole armed services of Britain are professional, and extremely well-trained. Their history, traditions, and experience from which they can draw upon have very few parallels in any other armed service anywhere in the world.

Hmmm ok, this would be why HItler wiped the floor with you at Dunkirk ? As for being teh best trained, that's very debatable - I would say that it's far from fdact. Take the Australians for example, they are extremely well trained, to the point where the SASR is arguably far more versatile and effective than 22 SAS.

This is not denigrating the men and women of other armed services, it is simply a case of the type of training and knowledge used in the making of the Australian soldier.

Originally posted by freeradical
One should always remember the number of 'China town's in the centres of most large western cities. These could be utilised as a pre-war base and perhapse even for a suprise first strike against the west in an attempt to cripple infrastructure such as airports, roads and governmental buildings.

Same panick mongering that led to interning the Japanese population in the US in WWII.

The U.S. will go the way of every other empire. Affluence and a sense of entitlement will lead to a breakdown traditional morality. As people accept immoralities like violence and promescuity as the norm, there is a lack of cohesion in the family (95% of men in maximum security prisons come from mom-only families). Since families form the basis for community, and communities the foundation of the nation, immorality brings about the downfall of the nation.

The U.S. is economically and morally bankrupt. It's only a matter of time.

-S

Originally posted by Daedalus3
errm.. waiting fro your replies mad scientist and chinawhite..

Wait

VERY LONG POST coming up

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
elysiumfire, you do not have on clue at all as to how U.S. forces are trained or what you are talking about.

Very True the Us is very well trained just because they use alot of tech doesn't mean their training sucks. Our marines have made legends in WW2 against the Japanese and other conflicts. All Soldiers have to be trained to survive without guns and fight dirty it's common sense. The army isn't stupid to only rely on tech. Not to mention our navy seals and Delta force rival the SAS.

I am, without a doubt sure that the United stes of America would Fare well in the Next world war due to its power projection capability and the amount of troops that are ready. Currently there are over 100,000 troops in Europe and 100000 in Asia ready for light operations. The U.S Arms budget is currently aprox. 400 billion dollars and 2 trillion dollars from FY1998. The U.S armed forces consists of a 2 million man war-machine in contrast of China's 3 million man army, consisting of poorly equiped and poorly trained boyscouts they call soldiers. America will definitely win Air superiority no matter the front and on today's info The U.S can fight 2 major conflicts on 2 major fronts The U.S airforce is the best in the world and the Abrams tank would put up a stiff resitance against other tanks like the T72 or T 62 or T80 if so the M60's owned my Iran.
Things are looking good militarily but the problem i forsee would be in the United states itself, probably all of the money that will be used in the war will come from taxpayers and they wont be happy. An American Man would complain why he has to give some of his earnings to help rebuild some poor third-word asian country.
I forsee total U.S domination and its strength would be flexed. The red white and blue will prevail.
P.S Every war is interconnected, the soviet union and America became enemies after wwii and the weapons of the fallen soviet union armed the terrorists. ww3 will be won by America and its allies it will be fought under the banner of liberty and to protect World interests!

[edit on 15-5-2006 by Gembelindo]

Savonarola's comment (that empires such as the U.S. eventually crumble) reminded me of the 2004 edition of "Addicted to War", a book published by the U.S. group Veterans for Peace. Here is the link to more info about their book, published in paperback in a quick-reading graphic novel-type format:

www.addictedtowar.com...

That book is probably also available at various libraries around the world.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by FutureLibrarian]

ARGH, would you guys please stop with the ":::insert elite spec ops::: are just as good as 10 of :::insert elite spec ops of someone else:::"

Spec Ops differ in what they do. If one Spec Ops was all you needed for everything, the Brits wouldn't have the SAS (Special AIR Service) and SBS (Special BOAT Service). Then there's the Royal Marine Commandos. And probably others I am unaware of.

In the U.S., there's the SEALs who specialize in combat diving, the Pararescueman (who specialize in rescuing), the Special Forces (who specialize in infiltrating foreign enemy cultures and also teaching foreign forces, building rapport, etc...), the Marine Force Reconnaisance Marines who specialize in reconnaissance and other things, etc....they are all elite, none can really be more elite then the other except in what they're trained in.

I would bet $$$ if you put a SAS soldier, SEAL, Pararescueman, and Royal Marine Commando all on a rifle range together, you wouldn't even know who was who.

People seem to base "who's better" by "who has the better training," yada yada, no amount of training preps those soldiers totally, a lot of it is on-the-job training. People all think initial training is what makes the soldier, initial training just gives the basics. An infantryman graduated infantry training, goes to a unit and sees they really know nothing, and get most of their training at their unit. An infantryman goes into Special Forces training and gets lots of training, now they know a lot more maybe then their other infantryman, however, they get to a Team, and now they still know nothing in comparison to the experienced team members, it's a "mouth shut, ears open" type of thing. SEALs, even after all their training, have to do a trial run with a team for awhile before they are officially a SEAL. Special Forces soldiers are trained in a foreign language, weapons tactics, their MOS, etc....but they still get loads of on-the-job training in which they learn all about the culture of their area, they perfect their language and learn new ones, they improve their shooting skills, improve their mos skills and learn more, etc....

Then there's the "who's tougher" argument which is really lame. You can only put a man through so much to prove who's the toughest. Navy SEALs have to go through 5 days with only a few hours sleep for part of their training. Then they have a bunch of other training, including a bunch of reading.

I would think any SEAL, SAS, SBS, Royal Marine Commando, Special Forces soldier, Ranger, Pararescueman, etc....are all pretty equal in terms of toughness. And a load of that is mental toughness, which is kind of reliant on the individual anyhow. You can't really train someone to gut their way through being cold, tired, hungry, wet, miserable, and so on. If you could, then everyone could be in Spec Ops.

That's why the Spec Ops have such rigorous indoc tests; so they can separate the true hard@$$es from the boys and then train them up.

As for the U.S., I think the U.S. will fare absolutely fine in the coming century. The way some people talk, you'd think the U.S. economy was ready to crumble or was weak (nevermind this is the only nation that can support the world's most powerful military and still feed its people with the best food, provide the best medical care, the best education, etc...).

There's a reason the rest of the world, in general, has crappy militaries. Because their econmies only allow them to provide so-so health care OR strong military. In the case of North Korea, two-thirds of the population is starving to support their military. In the case of European countries, the military is crappy to support the people.

Look at Germany. Crappy military. Everyone knows the Germans traditionally are darn good soldiers AND engineers, but their economy just can't afford it

[edit on 15-5-2006 by WheelsRCool]

The new (June 2006) issue of Popular Science magazine (they do have a website at popsci.com but this article is in the print version only, sorry) features a 9-page article which asks, "Is the 'wired war' strategy working in Iraq?" Their premise is that combat on the world's first networked battlefield provides important lessons for the planning of any future war. The authors are Noah Schachtman and David Axe: Noah Schachtman is the editor of DefenseTech.org and David Axe has covered the Iraq war for the Village Voice and the Washington Times. The publisher of Popular Science magazine is Time4Media.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by FutureLibrarian]

Originally posted by mad scientist


They could either defend tehir cities or provide CAS, they couldn't do both. They were fearful that teh PLAAF would attack their citiesd in retaliation.

But the PLAAF did not have the reach!!
Those airfields in tibet were 100s of kms away from the conflict zones. And to provide continued CAS in hilly areas you NEED to have the distance advantage. The IAF had that.

The question is would this air support have been very effective and how would the CHInese of retaliated.

aww.. c'mon!! after the detailed post I constructed, is there any doubt that such a magnitude of fighters/air power if deployed would NOT have turned the tides of the war, much less just be 'effective'..??!!

Also there were only 57 Ouragons.

My sources (online/offline) give a number closer to 100 if not 100 exactly. I'll get back to you on that. Point is, we're talking about approx. 10 to 12 sqdrns of state-of-the-art fighters stationed(not even deployed) barely a 100-200km from the battlezone. It ain't rocket science!!

The PLAAF was not even mentioned in officialk plans, they were not going to be used. However in 1962 without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, this would not have been known.

Believe me. It was WELL known. Anyways a few deep photo-recon Canberra sorties would've cleared that up.And that bit you've quote about the PLAAF being able to bomb Madras, well idsa is a reputed institution, the finest minds work there, but these is really perplexing!!
Madras is a cpl of 1000km away from the Chinese mainland!!
As for the night attack capabilities of the MiG 17 and MiG 19: again where in blazes would they have operated from?
Also the MiG 17 versions operated by the PLAAF were day fighters in the 60s as far as I know.

The question still remains, how effective would INdian air support have been. There is no disouting they could hvae provided it and in hindsight, teh PLAAF would not hvae interfered, as far as we know.

Again, I fail to understand how such a fighter force CANNOT be abolsutely havoc wreaking, much less just plain 'effective'.