West VS East.

Ok, I am not looking for the 'my country is bigger than yours' or 'we saved you in Europe' dribble that we normally get in threads such as these.

I want to have a real debate on reported statistics and facts not the 'We haz super duper Free Energy Weapons!'.

Here is a list of the major world strengths.

One one side we have the USA, Israel, UK, France, Germany, India, Australia, Italy, Canada, South Korea and Saudi Arabia. (The most likely countries to get involved in a war against Russia-China).

On the other we have Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, North Korea, Venezuela and Syria.

I will do a nation by nation overview and then West/East total.



USA:
Air Force: 18,000
Naval (Including logistical and transport): 2,300
Land Weapons: 56,000
Manpower (Active and Reserve): 1,500,000 A, 1,400,000 R = 2,900,000

Israel:
Air Force: 1,900
Naval: 64
Land Weapons: 12,500
Manpower: 185,000 Active, 550,000 Reserve = 735,000

UK:
Air: 1,600
Naval: 100
Land: 11,600
Manpower: 220,000 A, 185,000 R. = 405,000

France:
Air: 1700
Naval: 290
Land: 10,600
Manpower: 360,000 A, 420,000 R. = 780,000

Germany
Air: 780
Naval: 90
Land: 4,500
Men: 150,000 A, 350,000 R = 500,000

India:
Air: 2,400
Naval: 175
Land: 70,000
Men: 1,300,000 A, 1,750,000 R. = 3,050,000

Australia:
Air: 370
Naval: 50
Land: 3,700
Men: 60,000 A, 45,000 R. = 105,000

Italy:
Air: 1,000
Naval: 180
Land: 12,000
Men: 300,000 A, 40,000 R = 340,000

Canada:
Air: 500
Naval: 33
Land: 5,400
Men: 70,00 A, 40,000 R. = 110,000

South Korea:
Air: 1,500
Naval: 170
Land: 13,000
Men: 650,000 A, 3,200,000 R. = 3,850,000

Saudi Arabia:
Air: 1,200
Naval: 77
Land: 8,500
Men: 230,000 A, 25,000 R. = 255,000

TOTAL:
Air: 30,950
Naval: 3,530
Land: 207,800
Men: 12,965,000



Russia:
Air: 2,700
Naval: 230
Land: 91,000
Men: 1,200,000 A, 750,000 R. = 1,950,000

China:
Air: 5,200
Naval: 1000
Land: 47,000
Men: 2,285,000 A, 800,000 R. = 3,085,000

Iran:
Air: 1,000
Naval: 260
Land: 12,300
Men: 550,000 A, 650,000 R. = 1,100,000

Pakistan:
Air: 1,400
Naval: 11
Land: 16,400
Men: 620,000 A, 515,000 R = 1,135,000

Iraq:
Air: 1,100
Naval: 15
Land: 5,300
Men: 275,000 A, 340,000 R = 615,000

N. Korea:
Air: 1,650
Naval: 700
Land: 20,000
Men: 1,100,000 A, 8,200,000 R = 9,300,000

Syria:
Air: 830
Naval: 20
Land: 20,000
Men: 300,000 A, 450,000 R = 750,000

Venezuela:
Air: 300
Naval: 50
Land: 2,000
Men: 150,000 A, 780,000 R = 930,000



TOTAL:
Air: 14,100
Naval: 2,286
Land: 214,000
Men: 18,865,000.



So, as you can see the West has an overwhelming advantage in Air and Naval Firepower but that advantage is then whittled away in Land based weapons and then overwhelmed in Manpower.


With the above statistics, who would you back to win if war was declared tomorrow?
Keep in mind most of these nations have nuclear weapons and missiles capable of delivery so don't go 'Grr we'd just nuke the lot of them' because, lets face it, no country is retarded enough to actually use those weapons.

Unfurtunatelly, is no as simple as sum and subtract. There's a crucial factor that cannot be calculated easily: Strategy and Sagacity
There are several examples in history that technically inferior forces won battles they shouldn't because of a well thought strategy.
Besides that, there are many other factors linked to this, like the "surprise factor". Think about the german Blitzkrieg, small well trained and coordinated forces that were a real nightmare to a whole platoon...

The world's defence systems have evolved greatly since ww2.
Any assaults would be seen hours before they arrived and with the rapid deployment ability of most world nations it would counter most strategies.

I can see what you are saying but all nations have early warning systems and contingency plans for any attacks so 'surprise' attacks wouldn't really work in modern times unless you can successfully cloak an entire army while it prepares itself for war.

Why so many duplicate threads on here these days?

Originally posted by Trajan
The world's defence systems have evolved greatly since ww2.
Any assaults would be seen hours before they arrived and with the rapid deployment ability of most world nations it would counter most strategies.

I can see what you are saying but all nations have early warning systems and contingency plans for any attacks so 'surprise' attacks wouldn't really work in modern times unless you can successfully cloak an entire army while it prepares itself for war.

Really think so? Think of 911, OKC...

My thought is that the NATO forces have a large superiority in technical terms, especially aerospace and naval matters and we have extremely well trained, disciplined, and motivated ground forces. China and Russia have a lot of men, yes, and have the capacity to produce a lot of AFVs and other vehicles and articles of war, but in my opinion they lack the tradition that produces the first class warriors of the west.

That is not to say that they will not be able to create a modern army, it will just be more difficult for them because they have had little experience in the matter. I predict teething problems.

That said they have a hell of a lot more potential troops and China has a scary industrial output and Russia has a scary amount of resources. In addition to that we are economically dependent on china to such an extent that we buy many components necessary for our war machine from them. So they have economic superiority, which is important. They also would have the support of a lot of the world due to the abuses that the west has inflicted on them, so in many places in the world they will have large political support. They would also have the support of terrorist organizations that would try to operate in enemy countries.

We also have our troops scattered to the four corners of the Earth and if say Russia and China were able to cut off our forces in Afghanistan and other places things could turn for the worse quite quickly. Although the quality of our soldiers is in many cases an advantage, that means the we have relatively fewer of them and each one lost is even more of a blow to our fighting ability than it would be for China or Russia. Thus a war of attrition would be in favor of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization).

As for India, I don't know if they would join us, as in your scenario they would have two nuclear armed neighbors who they are now at war with. I think they will try to remain neutral.

Anyways, to summarize, if WWIII started tomorrow the NATO forces would have the initial advantage, but in the longer term, the SCO will probably be on top.

Where does this war take place? Is it a war of occupation, meaning are they trying to take and control their enemies land? Or, is this a mythical battle where they suddenly amass all their units in a straight line and square off? It is so hypothetical... It's like who would win in a fight, Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris's beard? You could debate it for centuries because it will never happen.

War just doesn't happen, especially today. There is always a build up and preparation of forces that takes time and is highly visible. The smarter nation/army would not let their armies build up their forces into a threat if war was on the horizon.

Originally posted by thecrippler

Originally posted by Trajan
The world's defence systems have evolved greatly since ww2.
Any assaults would be seen hours before they arrived and with the rapid deployment ability of most world nations it would counter most strategies.

I can see what you are saying but all nations have early warning systems and contingency plans for any attacks so 'surprise' attacks wouldn't really work in modern times unless you can successfully cloak an entire army while it prepares itself for war.

Really think so? Think of 911, OKC...

TOTALLY irrelevant. Hijacking a plane, and blowing up a truck under a building have absolutely nothing to do with actual military movement and detection. Both the truck and the plane are already in friendly territory, so how exactly would they be spotted? They wouldn't, and they weren't.

That has zero relation to another nations Navy, Air Force, and ground troops suddenly appearing on your land. It just wouldn't happen that way.

Anyway, as for the OP's question:

You need to be more specific. What kind of war are you talking about? Proxy wars? In a proxy war nobody really wins or looses, as you aren't playing with your own territory, so it doesn't matter.

An invasion force? Totally impossible for either side. China doesn't have the logistics to get enough men, jets, and boats to the US to mount any sort of invasion. Hell, even with the US military completely standing down, and not putting up a fight at all, it would probably take years for China's tiny navy to transport enough troops all the way over here.

And how are they going to gain air superiority? Their ability to launch jets from sea is almost non-existent. They would have to sail their entire air force over to Mexico or Northern Canada and launch strikes from there.

And where are all their supplies coming from while they are doing this? Food? Ammo? Replacement parts to repair damaged aircraft, tanks, ships, etc.

In order to invade and occupy JUST the US alone, not to mention Canada or Europe, China would have to land in the tens of millions of troops into the USA, and then keep them constantly supplied. Again, like I said, the logistics are MIND BOGGLING and it's impossible.

No, I'm not some flag waving USA nationalist, America couldn't invade China either.

America's military doesn't have enough man power to invade and occupy mainland China. The US could possibly gain air superiority over China, but that's pointless if you don't have enough men to hold the ground.

So either way you look at it, America is NOT going to get invaded by China, China is NOT going to get invaded by America. The only thing that will ever happen, as I've said in other threads, is that both sides might wage silly little proxy wars. Other than that, nope, not going to happen.

reply to post by James1982

TOTALLY irrelevant. Hijacking a plane, and blowing up a truck under a building have absolutely nothing to do with actual military movement and detection. Both the truck and the plane are already in friendly territory, so how exactly would they be spotted? They wouldn't, and they weren't. That has zero relation to another nations Navy, Air Force, and ground troops suddenly appearing on your land. It just wouldn't happen that way.

Yes it is relevant. The point is: NORAD is not half as efficient as most people think. It has security flaws and it can be even disabled, at least crippled.

An invasion force? Totally impossible for either side.

No it ain't. Nothing is impossible. Again, 911. Nobody ever wondered that it would happen and an attack in American soil was "impossible". Do not underestimate your enemy, EVER

China doesn't have the logistics to get enough men, jets, and boats to the US to mount any sort of invasion.

How can you tell? Some military secrets are unknown even to top officials, so, how could someone like you or I ever wonder what do they have or not?

Hell, even with the US military completely standing down, and not putting up a fight at all, it would probably take years for China's tiny navy to transport enough troops all the way over here.

In the "D day", more than 160.000 troops invaded europe, with a, so called, old technology. It is completelly feasable that 3 times this number can be landed in less than one day, with today's technology.

And where are all their supplies coming from while they are doing this? Food? Ammo? Replacement parts to repair damaged aircraft, tanks, ships, etc. In order to invade and occupy JUST the US alone, not to mention Canada or Europe, China would have to land in the tens of millions of troops into the USA, and then keep them constantly supplied. Again, like I said, the logistics are MIND BOGGLING and it's impossible.

Wtih this one I have to agree. The supply logistics for such a huge platoon, will be a nightmare. But again, never underestimate the enemy. It can be very hard, but never impossible.

And I agree, that invasions for so to speak, are really a last resort in military actions. There are several other alternatives before this is done.

And remember, I'm debating the arguments, not you personally.

Originally posted by thecrippler

Yes it is relevant. The point is: NORAD is not half as efficient as most people think. It has security flaws and it can be even disabled, at least crippled.

I still maintain 9/11 doesn't have any bearing on the defense capabilities of the USA against a foreign Air Force. The planes responsible for the attacks of 9/11 were domestic airliners, which are already cleared to fly over the US, those charged with defense of the nation aren't looking at domestic jets, they are looking for foreign jets to violate our airspace and come in for an attack. A terrorist attack, like that of 9/11, can slip by, but it's impossible for a full fledged air invasion from another country to just "slip by" our defenses, unless they are in possession of some sort of extremely advanced stealth the likes of which have never been seen.

Even if an attacker did possess such advanced stealth, I think it's unreasonable to think they would have a large enough fleet of such jets and bombers to inflict any sort of serious damage. Assuming they aren't using nuclear weapons, which would be better delivered by missiles than bomber aircraft anyway.

Basically, in order for there to be a large scale, successful attack from another country's air force, then we are in the realm of fantasy, conspiracy, and make-believe. There is nothing to indicate any nation on earth possesses such craft, so it's very reasonable to assume such an attack wouldn't be successful.

And to restate my point about 9/11 not being relevant, we KNEW where the planes were, that wasn't an issue. The issue was knowing which ones were hijacked and where they were going, and what kind of threat they were. If there were a large number of aircraft from another country violating our airspace there would be no question on if they were a threat, and they would be attacked immediately. And if you are still of the opinion that the US being vulnerable to attack from civilian airliners somehow translates to being vulnerable to attack from foreign military aircraft,then think about the fact that I'm sure the government, post-9/11, has beefed up such security quite a bit.

Originally posted by thecrippler

No it ain't. Nothing is impossible. Again, 911. Nobody ever wondered that it would happen and an attack in American soil was "impossible". Do not underestimate your enemy, EVER

OK, I won't say impossible. I will say it's so unlikely as to not worth mentioning. It's not completely impossible that a pebble sized meteor will come flying down from the heavens and strike me in the head, killing me, but it's so incredibly unlikely there is no point discussing or worrying about it.

As far as the 9/11 comparison, again I don't think it applies. People DID think and KNOW that a terrorist attack on American soil was not only possible, but probable. The trade center was ALREADY attacked not too long before 9/11, so another terrorist attack on American soil wasn't thought impossible or improbable as you say.

As far as not underestimating your enemy, your right on that one. But I don't consider what I'm arguing to be underestimating China, just being realistic. Someone could say that China has starships more powerful than the Enterprise in Star Trek and possesses strong force fields, light sabers, and anti-matter weapons. And if I say "No, not likely" that's not underestimating them, that's just being realistic.

We can only speculate the strength and ability of a country based on what is known to the public, whether we are talking about the strength of China, the US, or anybody else. It's very likely that China has weapons and abilities that aren't released to the general public, but the same goes for the US. If you compare what is known about the US, and what is known about China, the US has a more powerful military. So it would stand to reason that since the US's public power is greater than China's public power, the US's "secret" power would also be superior to China's. Whether or not this is factual we have no way of knowing, but it's a logical way to assess things since we have no other ways of knowing anybody's true capabilities.

Originally posted by thecrippler

How can you tell? Some military secrets are unknown even to top officials, so, how could someone like you or I ever wonder what do they have or not?

Refer to what I just said a few lines up. In this case, though, they would need a whole lot of secret aircraft carriers, landing craft, etc. Things such as aircraft carriers are nearly impossible to hide. You need a huge dry dock to assemble them. They aren't submarines, so they are on top of the surface at all times, easily viewable to satellites or spy aircraft. If they have them, anyone looking would know, and likely make it public just so they could say "we caught china with some aircraft carriers they were trying to keep secret"

Continued in next post...

....Continued from previous post, damn character limit

Originally posted by thecrippler
In the "D day", more than 160.000 troops invaded europe, with a, so called, old technology. It is completelly feasable that 3 times this number can be landed in less than one day, with today's technology.

Technology isn't the main issue with such large troop landings, again it goes back to logistics.

Lets look at D-Day since you used it as an example. The landing party came across the English Channel from Britain. The storming of Normandy was considered a HUGE undertaking, compare that to storming the beaches of the US's West or East coast, and D-Day looks like two friends coming back from a day of surfing.

As I said, the landing party came across the English Channel, a VERY tiny small little sliver of water for them to cross, compared to crossing an ocean like China would have to do. They also were coming from friendly territory, from Britain, which had solid supply lines to the landing party, and going all the way back to America.

So not only did the Allies have it easy in the sense that they had strong supply lines, and didn't have to cross much water at all to make landfall, but they were also landing on a small portion of land, compared to the entire West coast of the USA.

So say China managed to land 3 times the troops that where there on D-Day, they would land nearly half a million troops on the West Coast. They came all the way from China, The troops traveled across an ocean, packed tight in little landing craft for days and days and days while making their voyage. They have used up a ton of supplies, as it takes awhile to cross the ocean via ship. So there are convoys of supply ships going back and fourth from China to the attacking fleet to keep them fed while making their journey. And it still takes them a lot of time to get over here.

So, while all of this is happening, the US isn't going to know? Somehow they aren't going to notice thousands of ships with hundreds of thousands of troops headed for our shores? They would see them. And the Chinese would be easy pickings. Our navy could attack them (especially considering the military is going to move 60% of our entire Navy to the Pacific over the next 8 years) Our aircraft carriers could launch drones, bombers, and jets to attack them. Our subs could attack them. We could attack them from the air with attack planes launched from any one of our many bases in the pacific.

It just wouldn't work. Such a venture would be exponentially more difficult than the attack on Normandy. The logistics just don't pan out, and logistics are what win and loose wars.

Originally posted by thecrippler

Wtih this one I have to agree. The supply logistics for such a huge platoon, will be a nightmare. But again, never underestimate the enemy. It can be very hard, but never impossible.

And I agree, that invasions for so to speak, are really a last resort in military actions. There are several other alternatives before this is done.

And that's the main issue. Everything else comes in second. China and the US are too far apart, combined with China and the US both being so huge and too populous that the force required to invade and occupy it would need to be so large the logistics would break the back of any army attempting it.

Originally posted by thecrippler


And remember, I'm debating the arguments, not you personally.

Screw you and go to hell, I'm debating YOU CUZ I HATE YOU

Hehe I'm just joking around. Absolutely no hard feelings or anything man. I enjoy debates of this nature and like having my ideas challenged as it gives me a chance to strengthen and refine my opinions

The premise behind this concept of how you're all approaching this war is fatally flawed. The numbers, strength, and spending on conventional and unconventional weapons and forces only matter if those are the terms upon which the war is fought. I think both sides are smart enough to realize militaries are just deterrents at this point in a war of this scope, and the real battles are likely to be fought on other grounds.

If there was ever truly a war between the dominant powers of the East and West in opposition to one another, I think the real winner would be who could better defend their information networks and their infrastructure.

China trying to invade the west coast of the United States would be an insanely expensive and almost indefensible undertaking, but it doesn't need to do that to destabilize the United States. A team of operatives could poison water supplies, destroy key generating stations, and disable the primary public infrastructure which is outdated driving the cities and citizenry of the country into chaos. A well-organized strike would not be public, and could be made to appear random, such that the US would be so busy chasing said actors, they wouldn't respond.

Their cyber attacks could be used to obtain key information, compromise vital systems, both for the civilian and military sectors. To get creative, imagine sending a nuclear reactor into overload. I don't know if it would or would not be possible, but you'd have millions of Americans potentially without energy, and simultaneously afraid.

If you want to get really nasty, you introduce items that hurt their staple crops. If China uses primary rice, and the United States corn and wheat, introduce genetically modified seeds into the US farm population that terminate fertility when blended. Get creative.

If you're going to attack the west, the key is to not give one focal point for attacking, to exploit the relative softness of the civilian populations, and to recognize the integrated nature of their economies, energy delivery systems, and communications can be disrupted leading to massive unrest.

Conversely, the strategy of the west toward liberalization is and has been to induce the people of the east to seek their material wealth, and encourage political reform as a means to destabilize the regimes while having sufficient military force to discourage any sort of adventurism.

I will say this much: a third world war fought on a global scale if it was fought between two sides determined to win would look nothing like what we've seen in the past, and anyone who thinks they will be able to just live and get by, whichever area they live in, will be very wrong.

I daresay that's why it won't happen, unless it has to do so. And the only reason that I see that would cause such a war is if the energy supplies came under monopolistic control with no other resources available. At that point, these prelude wars over supplies and pipelines will appear nothing more than little skirmishes of the bigger conflict ahead.

reply to post by cassandranova


I absolutely agree with you on this. My main point was that the whole attack-invade-occupy model of warfare that dominated the past would never happen between such large and powerful countries such as the US and China, for the very reason that nobody would win.

Your notion of how battles will be fought between such countries in the future is more accurate, in my opinion.

reply to post by cassandranova


I think Sun Tzu would support your analysis, as he said "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting". If they could keep our country from functioning and reduce it to famine and chaos then they wouldn't have to invade us at all before we start begging for mercy.

USA is the mammoth, the rest of the worlds a bunch of puppies.... all bark n no bite

Originally posted by dayve
USA is the mammoth, the rest of the worlds a bunch of puppies.... all bark n no bite

Well that was a bad analogy, Mammoths went extinct

And some puppies grow up to be rottweilers and pitbulls

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by dayve
USA is the mammoth, the rest of the worlds a bunch of puppies.... all bark n no bite

Well that was a bad analogy, Mammoths went extinct

That analogy was pretty damn bad.....

Not to sound like a Marxist, but I actually think the idea of struggles between countries isn't quite right. I think what you'll see is the agreement between a technocratic elite across borders in broad scope through business, professional classes, academia, and government, pushing for greater international integration, and borders becoming just different places to operate for them.

I see them in acting in their combined interest to protect a status quo where they can live quite happily while poor people and middle class people are stuck playing a game that is older between nations. Borders may change, wars will be fought, but the governmental and corporate bureaucracies will always have their comfort levels.