How would the US fare in the next world war?

You make a good point, the information in the public is considered "open source" information. What is known by the majority about governmental and militarily speaking is what "they" want us to know. In other words it is the information they really don't care if any one nows it, or not. Hence why many if not all Training Doctrine and Field Manuals are labeled with the so familar stamping;
DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for
public release; distribution is unlimited.

Almost encourageing isn't it, to know they are allowing the public to have and know this is allowable. With that in mind, it only makes sence, to me at least, that there is material labeled and with the not so familar stamping;
DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: This publication contains technical or operational information that is for official government use only. Distribution is limited to US Government agencies. Requests from outside the US Government for release of this publication under the Freedom of Information Act or the Foreign Military Sales Program must be made to Commander TRADOC, Fort Monroe, VA 23651-5000

DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or recontruction of the document.

That is the material certain individuals are allowed access to.
I imagine there are other types of "restrictions" for the stuff no one is allowed to know about. Those would be the "trump" cards our respective Nations hold very well guarded. The basis of such would almost surely be related to the readiness for World War, and even after said action contingencies.

Consider this search or google it even, Continuity of Government. Something that is a major factor in the out come of this threads topic.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by ADVISOR]

The discussion seems to be bogged down in capability rather than outcomes, so I'll plug in to what Advisor said. The ability of the various governments in any world war to actually survive that war would vary.

Assuming that conventional war came back in to style as per Cold War (large and heavy formations) doctrines, we would see a significant amount of dislocation on the part of all participating governments.

Given the relative vulnerability of today's industries to contemporary weapons, it would seem reasonable ot suggest that non-military infrastructure would go first, and be the last to recover. Does this mean we'd see a new era of underground factories?

Bearing in mind that most countries likely to participate in this fiction are now arming, it seems likely that everyone would suffer from the curse of past wars. They'd be forced to fight with what they had. New units and equipment might not come so fast when delicate factories can be destroyed by inter-continental weapons.

just a sugestion , but these speculative " pissing contests " would be more easily resolved to so e sort of meaningfull conclusion if some parrameters were defined by the OP , instead of vague open ended questions

i am not calling for an essay -- just a simple four sentence draft , detailing :

who ? - who are the key participents , thier allies -- who is staying neutral ?

when ? - obviously the availiable equimpent , ecconomic circumstances , alliences and doctrines of the key beligerants may make radical differences

where ? - you may think " where will a world war III be fought " is an idiot question . but the flash points [ and more importantly , thier distance from the beligerants `home turf ` ] and scope of even a world war will play a major part the strategy adopted

why ? - causus belli , nations dont just go to war at the drop of a hat --having a credible rational for the war you propose to analyse is most helpfull

because such rampant idiocy as " USN vs RN " questions are getting tiresome -- and just atttract trolls


just a thought , that will most likely be ignored , but at least i can say i tried

< logic is indeed dead >

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
we would see a significant amount of dislocation on the part of all participating governments.

That is some thing that can be seen today, and in the not so distant past. It is the new trend, so to say. Best shown by the current "US ARMY of ONE" saying. I've adopted it to say "Be all you can be, as an Army of one", but that is me. The warfighter, or advanced warfighter as it may be called, makes use of the Land Warrior system. It links the whole force together digitally, and globally if need be considering the UAVs and counterparts. This makes mass formation obsolete and even a liability. The mass/formation warfare is lost in the past, used today only in reenactments and ceremoniuosly through D&C or "drill and ceremony".

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Does this mean we'd see a new era of underground factories?
New units and equipment might not come so fast when delicate factories can be destroyed by inter-continental weapons.

That era, has been with us since those cold times. More so now however there is a reason to reinvigorate the "cold war programs", and the budgets that went along with them. The bunker busting "tests" being conducted for example, the 700 ton ammonium fuel tests is a key public display. Those budgets are going to get cut if not used for todays applications. Concepts included evidently, along with newer budgets and plans. It would seem that "under ground" is a given, and with technology, a big given. Which goes in a circle of course, deeper stronger deep facilities leads to more lethal and deeper hitting weapons etc.

Originally posted by Burginthorn
Not sure of exact dates, but didn't the U.S have the Stealth Bomber/Fighter fully fuctional by the late 1970s ?
And the Stealth didn't see service until the first gulf war.

But its just like saying the same thing about the tank the car or the airplane. What they have in common is they were re-invented for different roles. The Stealth now has improved on the stealth from the 70s.

LO technology is no secret now and it would be extremly hard to improve fixed stealth. The way to the future is new technologies like radar cancellation technology or russian palsma stealth which still is newborn and thus has potentional for growth


Other governments also keep good secrets. What i hate about the internet is it is dominated by english sites and i would like to go to russian sites to know what they know

The unknown factor would definitly play a big part in any major global conflict were in. To Advisor, the war I'm talking about would be like a battle of armies instead of armed groups and such. Probably the biggest worry im seeing right now is what would happen to US strategic bombing forces, I think they would be gone fairly early on.

Guys lets keep this thread on track. Comments like people calling each other idiots are not going to be taken by mods, and doesnt help the discussion along any. Keep the flaming to a minimum.

Originally posted by Tony_Poremba
us weaklings defeated and repelled the British. who were C the considered #1 in their day. The battle of BAdr ... 250- 300 men vs a welled equipped 10,000 strong army and whooped their ass.

actaully america had huge help from france/spain/holland during the revolutionary war.

please learn real history and don't learn history by mel gibson's 'patriot'.

Originally posted by ludaChris
I agree the US and NATO allies would come out on top as you know. But the fact is, and this is addressing later posts as well, not just this one, the West would utterly dominate The Chinese have around 300 give or take a few of the J-11(Chinese production Su-27) The US has over 500 operational F-15's, over 2000 operational F-16's, I dont know the number of F-18's. not to mention the 30 some odd operational F-22's. The US would DEFINATELY own the sky in any conflict with China hands down, no contest. The US has the quantity and quality of fighters to own the skies in any conflict they could possibly be engaged in. I dont think it would be a very bloody air conflict no matter which way you slice it. The US would own the skies in East Asia hands down. No argument.

Yup.. they'd own a lot of scrap metal on the ground..
Going so far as saying that deep penetration strikes using stealth may work for the US & co. over china but that is NOT called 'owning the sky' as it were.
Esp. with all those 3.5+ gen a/c you mention. You're going to have to fly really high to avoid all those SAM sites on the ground. And thats not air superiority.
You can forget about helis..

Originally posted by shortmanx5

Huh you cant compare bagdad to basra, much smaller of a town. and when weere you guys out there talking to them. is this before or after they wanted you to leave. Great friends huh. Maybe because we have 100000 and you have 8000 so we are bound to make more mistakes than you. Thats horrible that they hit a wedding but thats what happens in war. Bad but a fact of life. Haha its because we have the missiles to fire might as well. Also how many planes and helios do you have there, that could also be why you never miss, you can miss if you dont fire.

i'm sorry for posting that last night, it was a little immature of me!!

i'm a proud lad and when someone 'downtalks' my country its human instinict to reply or downtalk theirs, it just seems (some) americans can give more than they can take and don't like the medicine thrown back in their own direction when someone says something back negative towards america.

few things in reply to your post though,

1) actually, we had 14,000 troops in iraq at one point (i'm not 100% sure on that actual figure though)...but yes we have something like 8,000 there now peacekeeping.

2) basra isn't a town, basra is iraq's 2nd largest city with a population of 2.5 million.

















[edit on 5-5-2006 by st3ve_o]

The 5 countries that always get forgotten in WWIII scenarios are Israel, India, Turkey, Pakistan, and Brazil. I don't think people realize just how large, and indeed capable, the militaries of these countries really are. Those 5 counties exceed the military size of all of Europe minus Turkey, in ground and air forces.

As far as the US Navy goes, let me point out just how superior the US Navy actually is in relation to the rest of the world.

If you add up the VLS on the 22 CG-52s, 62 DDG-51s, and 4 SSGNs, you end up with over 9,600 VLS cells, which combined with 400+ harpoons gives the Navy 10,000 missiles to launch. That exceeds the missile capacity on the 366 major surface combatants found in the world’s next 17 largest navies.

By 2021, you can also add the 7 DD(X)s (560 additional VLS cells) and 3 CG(X)s (384 additional VLS cells) that will be commissioned before retiring the first of the 22 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers currently in service.

That doesn't even include how the US Navy is often cited as being the 4th most powerful air force in the world today, behind the USAF, Israel, and the UK. As China, Russia, and India continue to modernize their support aircraft, that will likely change. France and Germany could also effect that ranking in a decade, assuming they increase and not decrease the size of their Air Force's.

Interesting discussions, but I think like anything it depends where the battle is fought, and which side countries like South Korea, France, Germany, Japan, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, and India fight on, not China or Russia so much, at least in a conventional war...today anyway.

I agree with ignorant_ape there should be some guidelines.

If nothing else at least a time line of probable world war.

And also some definition as to what "world war" means in this discussion (as was stated earlier it could be described as the world war on terrorism right now)

I think the only possible major world war in the very near future would be China , Iran , North Korea against the US , UK , Australia , and other allies.

If your talking 25 years in the future well there are so many things that can happen by then that it will just be wild speculations creating more pissing contests.
"I CAN PISS MORE THAN YOU" , " BUT I CAN PISS MORE ACCURATE " and so on




[edit on 5-5-2006 by Heckman]

You know what Im sick of reading when I come on here, is this crap about US V Britain or the USA V the E.U. (this is not going to happen in my lifetime), What gives you the idea that it is gonna happen, slaggin each country off either it be the UK or USA doesnt do anyone any justification.... we are allies and I hope it continues.... so stop the slaggin match off geeeeeeeeeeeez...

Have ya all considered maybe the next war the usa faces could be from the south americ continent, whith brazil, venuzwalia, mexico argentina? has anypneput any thought on that. Most of them countries are in dispute withthe usa arent they? Just a thought anyone got any onpinoin on this??

Has anyone mentioned the US helicopter gunship aspect? Because yea when it comes down to any ground battle scenario involving either tanks or troops and no real jet or high flying aircraft activity save for the odd airstrike, then the US cleans house. Helicopter gunships can annihilate tanks, and can bring hell on earth to fielded troops, with little option of counterattack for either unless the money is there for an effective anti-air defense net.

That is the US strong point, as US helicopters, are mech warrior assault suits that can fly, zipping in and out launching heavy strikes and support from distances. No other military really has this, like, really really has this.

I just want to bring up a small point of helo assualt, if they were to be used in the same tactics they were in iraq, you might be looking for trouble, in iraq multiple apaches were shot up or damamged and grounded for several days at points, due to massed ground fire or lucky shots, going up against a nation like Eu countries or britain in that regard would likely be looking for serious trouble if you used those same tactics.

3 choppers for a thousand dead is nothing man. Especially considering that in most cases they would proioritze the recovery of the gunship and get it back...

Dont know if thi belongs in this thread by immapost it anyways letme know if it doesnt:

Russian Media Warn of New Cold War: Question anyone worried about this?


MOSCOW - A Russian newspaper said Friday that Vice President Dick Cheney's harsh criticism of Moscow's human rights record signaled the start of a new Cold War.

The Kommersant business daily compared Cheney's speech Thursday in neighboring Lithuania to Winston Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Mo., saying in that it "marked the beginning of a second Cold War."

Churchill coined the "Iron Curtain" expression in his 1946 speech that warned of Soviet expansion.

Asked to comment on the comparison, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov refrained from criticizing Cheney. But he condemned Thursday's conference in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, which brought together pro-Western Eastern European leaders.

"There are forums that create an impression ... that they are convened ... for the sake of uniting against someone," Lavrov said.

The government-run newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta belittled the venue as a gathering of nine small nations trying to rival the Group of Eight.

Rossiyskaya Gazeta said the countries were trying to establish themselves not by "defending normal relations with our country, but rather through efforts to exaggerate and use the contradictions existing between Moscow and some of its partners in the West."

Former Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev said Cheney's speech "looks like a provocation and interference in Russia's internal affairs in terms of its content, form and place."

Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin expressed annoyance that Russia had not been invited to the conference of former Soviet republics and allies.

Cheney accused Russia of cracking down on religious and political rights and using its energy reserves as "tools of intimidation or blackmail."

His criticism — some of the Bush administration's toughest against Russia — came just two months before President Bush joins his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg for a summit of major industrial powers.

Cheney warned that Russia's backsliding could harm Moscow's relations with the United States and Europe.

"Russia has a choice to make. And there is no question that a return to democratic reform in Russia will generate future success for its people and greater respect among fellow nations," the vice president said.

Should we all be worried about this or is it just seom russian newspaper blowing off steam????

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Sure economy sucks

?
The economy is actually doing almost as good as it's ever done. We're starting to reach late 90s numbers again.

gas prices are nuts

Yeah but compared to the rest of the world (mainly Europe), we're not doing to bad...

along with global relations going down hill

Eh, global relations change every week....

The US "would" do well compared to others, in the "next world war". The one after this err.. that I agree with Einstein, and am not so sure about.

As many posters already stated it really depends on a bunch of things....


OP

Now, the reason I think this is because all of our systems were made to counter a major force vs a major force war, like what was probable in the Cold War. These systems would still work for a major force, but in the end it would end up being a huge guerrilla war because it has been proven time and time again that the US really doesn't fare well in that kind of war.

We're talking about a WW here. Meaning the military would have less restrictions. Guerrillas vs. a for the most part unrestricted US military? It wouldn't even be fair. Vietnam and Iraq weren't as smooth because of politics, not because of anything military.

Anyway, I just don't see any WW popping up anytime soon. Not with the way the world is today. China is too busy trying to become a superpower, why would they risk that? Russia has no reason to start a world war. And the US would risk losing it's dominance.
I can't think of a realistic scenario of how WW3 would be started...

I just want to ask, why the hell do people say the US is worse at fighting a guerilla war than anyone else? Who is good at that? Can Britain fight this guerilla war in Iraq better? Perhaps China? Maybe Russia or India? I seriously doubt it. If anything they would all do worse. For one cold-bloodedness and savage indiscriminate murder of civilians and enemies alike in any occupied land is not a good concept anymore like stated previously. For one, if an invading army just goes in murdering everyone in sight (genocide) then you will be more likely to fight a higher number of units because they have no one to work with or recieve mercy from.

I think the US is doing a hell of alot better a job in Iraq considering the situation than anyone else could.

As far as a world war goes, I do not believe the USA can simply invade China or Russia without problems. For if you send your entire force just to be able to penetrate on large nation, somebody else is going to send their to your weak spot. I do however believe America can continue to defend its assets in the Asian Pacific (Japan, South Korea) from a Chinese invasion long enough for the fools to say their sorry. Hell we may even be able to gain a few new islands out of it.

Besides the thing about a war between two huge powers is that all the jobs are returned to the citizens of the nation. So thats going to make a huge workforce that can produce large numbers of war machines and essentials in much quicker timeframe.

A war in the middle east is another story, and the more likely scenario at this time. It would be a neverending mess unless one decides to begin genocide, and that would be pretty darned hypocrytical and immoral to do. Would not be long before you gain many enemies for doing that.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Vietnam and Iraq weren't as smooth because of politics, not because of anything military.

just a question here, i hear a lot of excuses by americans on ATS saying the vietnam loss was down to politics, yet in vietnam the americans dropped more bombs than what was dropped in the WHOLE of WW2 put together

in the past i did some research around the net about the true reason why america lost in vietnam and ive come up with this:-

1) many troops had low morale (counting days)
2) desertion rates were high
3) serious drug problems
4) underestmation of the enemy (could not stop the movement of the vietemnise).
5) poor intellgence
6) wasn't prepared for gorrilla warefare tactics
7) vietnamese conducted a 'peoples war' in which everyone played part
8) the american govenment didn't fully know the culture of the vietemnise, it was believed that they could buy the people (ie: - give chewing gum, pop, ice cream) etc.
9) wasn't prepared/and could not cope with the high casualties (injuried and fatalitys)
9) and last but not least, america wasn't prepared for a 'JUNGLE WAR'.


now if you put 'politics' down to poor intelligence and lack of understanding of a culture, then i understand what your mean by 'politics' as your government let your troops down!!

but when you drop more explosives (on one nation) than what was used in the WHOLE of WW2, then i believe politics is just an excuse i'm afraid.












[edit on 5-5-2006 by st3ve_o]

Everyone's country and everyone's military gets criticized. You can always find someone to take the opposing view. Much of the gripe against America's armed forces comes from the fact that we tend to use ours more routinely than do other countries. In many cases, no destinction is made between our troops and our leaders.