USA and China Vrs. World! (in a "fair war")

[Steph]

You're missing my point. The US is managing all of that with a DOWNSIZED military. It is not indicative of what they are capable of.

You are missing my point. They are doing that in only two countries, with no real armed forces opposing them, and with helps of local forces and allies...

Of course the US can do more than that. But they would also be facing a much stronger opposition.

 

[Patroklos]

Can you break that down to types? and how many does Germany, Poland, Ukraine, etc etc and all the other countries that would likely be participating have?

As I stated in the post, the countries I tallied were the UK/France/Italy/Spain/Germany/Greece/Norway/Sweden/Poland/Netherlands/Russia. They were picked because in terms of naval/air power they are the only ones with significant forces to speak of.

I tallied the ships by type, but the aircraft were so numerous in type and function I tallied the fighters and fighterbombers.

 

[Patroklos]

You are missing my point. They are doing that in only two countries, with no real armed forces opposing them, and with helps of local forces and allies...

Steph, we would be more than happy to be fighting Afghani armored divisions right now. The character of this OP war is state on state, asymetrical occupation examples are irrelevant.

China may be huge, the rest of the world is even bigger.

Which is only relevant if it is readily available to be used, and then used effectively. I have stated many times why other circumstances make this not the case for the ROTW.

 

[Fayadi]

Manpower fit for military service in India:
males age 16-49: 313,321,639
females age 16-49: 295,951,438 (2008 est.)

But you can't mobilize all of them. Because then you have NOBODY left to build your new tanks, grow food, etc.

Beside, here are the figure for India:
males age 16-49: 231,161,111
females age 16-49: 236,633,962 (2008 est.)

Pakistan
males age 16-49: 32,453,913
females age 16-49: 31,369,057 (2008 est.)

Vietnam
males age 16-49: 18,849,274
females age 16-49: 20,575,884 (2008 est.)

South Korea
males age 16-49: 11,282,699
females age 16-49: 10,683,668 (2008 est.)

North Korea
males age 16-49: 5,141,240
females age 16-49: 5,139,447 (2008 est.)

Japan
males age 16-49: 22.963 million
females age 16-49: 22,134,127 (2008 est.)

So, with just 6 of the neighbours of China, we reach a total of
males: 320 millions
females: 326 millions

vs for China
males age 16-49: 313 millions
females age 16-49: 296 millions

China may be huge, the rest of the world is even bigger.

I am using the 1/6 ratio of the population Nazi Germany used. Nazi Germany has a population of 70 million and it mobilizes 13 million troops. There are still ladies + old people who can build the tanks and grow food. Economy is quite efficient in modern age

 

[Steph]

Unfortunately, since WWI it has become very relevant.

Asymetric warfares have plagues the western powers during most of the wars : Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan...

You cannot just dismiss it and say " we won't count asymetric warfare because we have no real superiority there, so let's just count the American all mighty armies vs the Swiss guard. There we are sure to win".

You need to factor a global war, everywhere, at the same time.

 

[Patroklos]

Countries that are in the GDP top 40 are the ones that would give speed bumps to the invasion. The rest of the 155 are a joke. The rest of the 155 would be Spearman vs Tank.

More to the point, they would simply be ignored by BOTH sides. Europe and Russia (and India if it can keep it together) are not going to want to be bogged down with millions of underequiped/undermotivated/underfed/nonsupported conscripts.

 

[Steph]

I am using the 1/6 ratio of the population Nazi Germany used. Nazi Germany has a population of 70 million and it mobilizes 13 million troops. There are still ladies + old people who can build the tanks and grow food. Economy is quite efficient in modern age

Whatever numbers you are using, China population is still smaller than it's 5 neighbours, and you are not speaking of a highly automatized industry here, but one that rellies a lot on manpower.

And Germany lost at the end.

 

[Steph]

More to the point, they would simply be ignored by BOTH sides. Europe and Russia (and India if it can keep it together) are not going to want to be bogged down with millions of underequiped/undermotivated/underfed/nonsupported conscripts.

That's why we would use them as cannofodder to wear down your own troops, spare ours, and not have the burden to feed them

Why do you think France has the foreign legion? Because they are the first sent abroad, and if they die, it's not a French soldier.

We learnt that from the British, who hated Napoleon so much they were ready to fight him to the last Prussian.

 

[Patroklos]

Unfortunately, since WWI it has become very relevant.

Only if you intend to do some occupying. Please explain why you think this would be the case.

Asymetric warfares have plagues the western powers during most of the wars : Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan...

Yet not so much Korea or WWII or Gulf War I. Or in other words, wars more likely to resemble the on in the OP in character.

You cannot just dismiss it and say " we won't count asymetric warfare because we have no real superiority there, so let's just count the American all mighty armies vs the Swiss guard. There we are sure to win".

Nonsense, the invasion of Switzerland let alone its occupation is entirely unnecessary and not desired. In fact, there is no reason for a single US/Chinese soldier to set foot inside Europe.

You need to factor a global war, everywhere, at the same time.

No, we don't, and nobody has yet to give a good reason why we should.

 

[MobBoss]

You are missing my point. They are doing that in only two countries, with no real armed forces opposing them, and with helps of local forces and allies...

Of course the US can do more than that. But they would also be facing a much stronger opposition.

Step...please read my earlier reply to your point.

In a all or nothing world war situation, we wouldnt be holding back, or trying to occupy like we are in Iraq. We would just level entire cities and move on.

Again, you simply cannot use those wars for comparisons like that. What would be a legitimate insight would be how the US military utterly dismantled the Iraqi Army (still one of the larger armies in the world in 2003) in only a matter of days. And over the last 6 years we have only gotten better at that.

 

[Patroklos]

That's why we would use them as cannofodder to wear down your own troops, spare ours, and not have the burden to feed them

Good luck 1.) getting that cannon fodder anywhere relvant and 2.) feeding/maintaining them while already scraping the bottom of the barrel for your own forces.

Why do you think France has the foreign legion? Because they are the first sent abroad, and if they die, it's not a French soldier.

Except the FL has equivalent or better training than the regular French forces. In fact they are regular French forces!

BTW, did you discuss your cannon fodder idea with your "allies?" I revise my position, I say we just wait it out until half the world switches sides

 

[Steph]

My post was ironic in case you don't get it.

Regarding "why should it be a global?": because that's the scenario of the OP.

USA and China vs the World. Not USA and China vs Europe.

 

[Patroklos]

Step...please read my earlier reply to your point.

In a all or nothing world war situation, we wouldnt be holding back, or trying to occupy like we are in Iraq. We would just level entire cities and move on.

Again, you simply cannot use those wars for comparisons like that. What would be a legitimate insight would be how the US military utterly dismantled the Iraqi Army (still one of the larger armies in the world in 2003) in only a matter of days. And over the last 6 years we have only gotten better at that.

This is a good point. Perhaps we should bother to devestate the militaries and infrastucture of some irrelevant powers and then purposely NOT occupy them, because then supporting their populations in the aftermath will be extremely taxing on the relevant powers. Well, if they intend to maintain their alliance anyway.

 

[Fayadi]

Whatever numbers you are using, China population is still smaller than it's 5 neighbours, and you are not speaking of a highly automatized industry here, but one that rellies a lot on manpower.

And Germany lost at the end.

If you think China lacks machinery you are so wrong..

I know Germany lost at the end. But that is not my point. Me giving that 1/6 ratio is to refute your point that China+USA could not mobilize 250 million troops. Well it has been done before, it can be done again. Our scenario and Nazi Germany's scenario both involve total war. In a total war, mobilizing 1/6 of the population for combat duties is doable.

 

[Patroklos]

My post was ironic in case you don't get it.

As sarcastic as you were being, unfortunetly it also proves my point.

Regarding "why should it be a global?": because that's the scenario of the OP.

USA and China vs the World. Not USA and China vs Europe.

Just like in a pickup game of football, there is no reason to spend time worrying about the last scrawny picks.

Just because they are included in the scenario, doesn't mean they are relevant to it. Unless you think taking out Fiji is particularly important to the US/China in this case?

 

[Aegis]

You are missing my point. They are doing that in only two countries, with no real armed forces opposing them, and with helps of local forces and allies...

Of course the US can do more than that. But they would also be facing a much stronger opposition.

Well the argument was being made that the US simply does not have the manpower to wage multiple campaigns simultaneously and they were using Afghanistan and Iraq as an example. The flaw with that example is that today's military is just a smidgen of what we are capable of deploying. Using today's military and rotation practices as an example, I would agree that currently we are stretched a bit, however if the US fully mobilized itself, they could project more power and handle more simultaneous theatres of war than pretty much all of Europe and Russia combined.

I am certain that European, Pakistani and Iranian forces combined would overrun Afghanistan and Iraq, but the US doesn’t need that area to win.

Your point that we would be facing stronger opposition is true, however I do not see the US involved in a land war. I would expect this to be a naval and air superiority war, one that the US would win. The US & China wouldn't have to occupy a nation; they only need to bring it to their knees.

Unfortunately, since WWI it has become very relevant.

Asymetric warfares have plagues the western powers during most of the wars : Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan...

You cannot just dismiss it and say " we won't count asymetric warfare because we have no real superiority there, so let's just count the American all mighty armies vs the Swiss guard. There we are sure to win".

You need to factor a global war, everywhere, at the same time.

To be fair in regards to Vietnam and Afghanistan, both of those countries were being backed by larger countries (USSR, China & USA, respectively).

 

[Steph]

No, but there is no reason why the word would just wait for China USA to invade Siberia for instance.

There could be some attack from India, Korea, Vietnam, etc to limit Chinese possibility of movement. Europe could send reinforcement to Russia. The bases and refinery could be attacked by "terrorist". If you want to cut European oil, you need to cut the supply from the North Sea and Russia.

Or course you have the navy to do it. But you cannot be everywhere at once. If you spread forces, you may become vulnerable. If you decide to focus everything on the middle east, you leave time to Europe, Russia, Japan to reinforce.

You are the strongest now partly because you have kept building a huge army all these years while Europe decreased their forces, as threat were not as important, or at least not the same kind.

Still, we have enough armies left, and with better training, to be a more difficult nut to crack than Iraq. If you wait to long, we can rearm.

If you don't occupy, you let the ennemy live to fight again later.

Germany could be finished in WWII only after it has been entirely occupied. Bombing did not finish it off alone.

 

[bender19]

One factor that most haven't considered, if the American theatre of war.

The USA needs oil it doesn't have enough, the solution advocated is to invade Canada/Mexico, sensible enough. However all oild assets would be destroyed and have to be rebuilt, production would be delayed by the time taken to defeat the enemy militaries + reconstruction time. America needs to make up a 13.2 million barrell a day shortfall, Mexico and Canada adds 6.9 million. Venezeulla adds 2.8 million another 1.1 million in Ecuador and Columbia, sTrinidad and Tobago and Peru add another 0.2 million. Obviously this is well short of what is necessary. The economy in a war footing needs alot more oil than normal as resources are switched from a services economy to a manufacturing/military economy. More importantly to carry out all these invasions, occupations and maintenance of trade lines would require 1000s of aircraft and fleets which most people assume will simply be deployed to fight Europe. The next obvious issue is that the rest of the American continents would begin funneling soldiers and low tech munitions into these war zones. The likes of Argentina, Brazil etc could produce enough low tech weapons to arm the continent regardless of the number of Amercian aircraft deployed. So millions of soldiers flood into Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezeualla hitting American oil production and supply lines. It'll be Vietnam only in 6 or 7 theartes against a more populous enemy, with better resources than the Viet Cong and with less airpower being available.

 

[Steph]

To be fair in regards to Vietnam and Afghanistan, both of those countries were being backed by larger countries (USSR, China & USA, respectively).

And to be faire, assymetric warfare in this scenario would be backed by every country save China and USA.
If we manage to invade China (not likely, but well, let's suppose), I'm sure the Chinese would but the same kind of asymetric warfare, backed by the US.

And don't forget... Mexico has already put millions of would-be asymetrical warfare fighters on the very territory of USA. You are screwed!

 

[AceChilla]

I think the point made by Patroklos that such a war will be one that will ultimately depend on the avalaibility of resources is a good point.

However that leads to the conclusion that "the world" is in a much more favorable position than the USA and China. China and the USA rely only exclusively on importing their oil. Neither China or the USA has those resources within it's own borders.

The main places where oil can be found; South American, the middle east and Russia will have to be attacked, occupied and defended.

South American oil supplies could be occupied by the US however the insurgency that will follow will be a guerilla war in the South American jungle/moutanous region which will not be easy to win at all. The middle east will most logically be controlled by European forces since geograpically they are in the best position to do so. And Russia can defend it's territory against China with the help of Europe and all other Asian countries including Japan.

This will starve China from oil and will make the US rely solely on South-American oil which they will have to extract from an occupied terretory and a hostile population. Which leads to the conclusion that the US and China will most probably lose.