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

[Fayadi]

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.

China and USA produces about 50% of world coal production. There is a technology that is called Coal-To-Liquid which can convert Coal to Fuel. This will make the problem of crude oil unavailability a non-issue

 

[Aegis]

You need to factor in the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, which holds up to 727 million barrels of oil. Through conservation, rationing and the SPR I can see the US making up the difference. This would obviously hurt the economy, but it could be done.

 

[Steph]

As a reminder:

Oil consumption
1 United States 20,800,000 2005 est.
2 China 6,930,000 2007 est

Oil production:

1 Saudi Arabia 11,000,000 2007 est.
2 Russia 9,870,000 2007
3 United States 8,322,000 2005 est.
4 Iran 4,150,000 2006 est.
5 Mexico 3,784,000 2005 est.
6 China 3,730,000 2007 est.
7 Canada 3,092,000 2005
8 Norway 2,978,000 2005 est.
9 Venezuela 2,802,000 2006 est.
10 Kuwait 2,669,000 2005 est.
11 United Arab Emirates 2,540,000 2006

To
USA + Canada + Mexico + Venezuela = 18 miilions, still 2 millions short to cover the need of the USA.

And a good part of it in area were guerilla can seriously disrupt production.

And a side question... How many oil tankers are Americans?

 

[RedRalph]

1.) Hold down Tibet? RRW, the entire world as at war, they will just slaughter the damn Tibetians! Tibet is probably one of the most underpopulated and underarmed places in the world, it is of no importance to this scenario.

Apart from the fact that the Indians could invade through it unless its properly defended. The Chinese cant let their own country fall apart while attacking other countries you know... If Tibets rebels the Chinese HAVE to divert forces to deal with it. that would entail huge numbers, even if it was just for mass-slaughter. how muchmanpower do you think that would take?

2.) Missile attacks from Taiwan? What missiles? Not that such attacks would be effectual in the slightest, what missiles are you talking about?!? Taiwan will suffer the same fate as SK and Japan. It is isolated with no hope of reinforcement or support and is utterly dependant on maritime trade. It will be surrounded/ruduced/surrender within months with relatively minimal effort. You are not appreciating just how untenable some of your "allies" positions are, why you think they will fight to the death given the scenario is beyond me.

I was under the impression they had some serious missile aimed across the strait, no?

3.) Human wave tactics from the DRRK? WHAT?!?!?! The place is on the brink of starvation as we speak, they only think proping them up is Chinese support. They arn't going to do a damn thing.

Exactly how would they need Chinese support to send men across the border to be slaughtered? the Army, for the last time, IS NOT ON THE BRINK OF STARVATION. this is somethign the Chinese would HAVE to divert manpower to deal with.

4.) European forces are indeed a capable augment, but who is supporting them? Certainly not Europe. You realize the Bundswehr in its entirety is a SINGLE corps right now right?

Supporting them in what respect, supplies etc?

Vietnam's army is geared entirely for defense and is almost entirely conscripted infantry. What Vietnam would actually do is fortify its borders and sit there to prevent a Chinese attack.

Even if they did do that, yet again it diverts a large number of chinese forces away form Siberia. these diversions are, at this stage, beginning to add up.

Thank you for admitting that this war is betwen Europe/Russia and China/US for all intents and purposes. BTW, why do you imagine Russia is immune to internal unrest?

I dont, but not as much as China would have, and in territory its a lot easier to deal with. Plus they have the help of any other countries nearby to assist them (imagine the bizarre spectacel of Georgia helping out down trouble in Ingushetia.). so no real problem.

Also, see my edit about India. You are greatly exaggerating the the possibility and effect of unrest in China (especially since the areas most prone to it are least important to the war effort), it is almost impossible to exaggerate the potential for unrest in India.

By who? Pakistan, Iran etc are certaintly not going to be sponsoring trouble at this time. Au contraire, the Taliban etc would for once be on Indias side. No serious problem with unrest in India.

BTW, China has the means and the mindset to brutally put down unrest.

As would anyone else in this scenario.

Oh, so now the entirely unarmed, starving Tibetians are destroying Chinese corps left and right?

No, but they are diverting large amount of mapower there.

You realize that China could leave 1,000,000 soldiers in its southern borders and it would still outnumber Russia 4:1? Do you have any idea how easy it is to defend a place like the Himilayas?

Tell me this; what experience does China have with modern warfare? when did China learn to do anything other than throw hordes of men at an enemy? Russia actually has experience in modern era warfare, certaintly a hell of a lot more than China has.

Speaking of unrest, why are we pretending Pakistan is doing anything but imploding (which then has to be dealt with by an also impoding India)?

Actually in this situation the Taliban might for once stop attacking the govt.

They already bought the tech RRW. I had to edit that btw, I wasn't being clear before.

they are still buying it Patroklos.

I said myself Russia has a tech edge did I not? However, after decades of whoring their engineers out to the highest bitter parity is not far away.

then why are China agreeing long-term deals to keep buying it?

Numbers are not facts now? Surfice to say they are in fact facts (heh) and that makes what I say educated speculation as opposed to just making things up on the fly like some others in this thread .

Numbers are facts; how you think those numbers would be used or how successful they would be is not facts. Pretty simple.

Off the top of my head I'd say the US and PLAN together would suffer 50% loses to destroy the relevant worlds navies. That would leave it with undisputed mastery of the seas though, so I don't expect Europe to oblidge us in that way and instead will turtle their fleets in the Med and in port, which of course means not breaking the blockade. That does constitute a fleet in being, however, and would mean having to keep our guard up.

And could the remaining 50% ensure that Europe, the ME, etc etc (the whole world basically) was blackaded?

Of course not, are you reading what I said. I clearly posted that one of the first things you would have to do (and only thing you can do actually) is isolate and control the med. You can't stop us from destroying the Suez canal, but at least you will have access to oil via the Caspian pipeline tankers and the Levant pipelines that way. That will give you access to a very small percentage of ME oil, but it is better than nothing.

Patroklos I already showed that most Russian oilfields are well well away form any potential fighting with China, why dont you acknowledge that? you were wrong on that one.

Concentrating airpower in Spain and Morocco and the difficult passage through Gibralter plus the Med being excellent grounds for Europe's brand of submarines means our subs won't be able to get in there, and until the inevitable reduction of Eurpean air assets take place you will be able to avoid most air raids into the Med as well.

I am reasonably confident, barring a complete breakdown of Indian society, that India along with Australia and some others will be able to close the Straits of Malacca to Chinese/US surface warships thus creating a safe zone in the Indian Ocean for a bit. That doesn't do much good besides secure Indian access to Gulf oil, but that will be at the mercy of US submarines.

OK

 

[eoc]

I think the world.
China's border is too long to protect. China cant fight both russia and India concurrently. Even if can, the Middle east can also invade China by climbing though the Himalaya mountains.
To America, wouldn't it reach too far from Japan to Euro? from South America to Africa? how could the logistics provided?

 

[Fayadi]

then why are China agreeing long-term deals to keep buying it?

There is a sharp drop in the purchase of Russian weapons from China since 2006. China could produce many high-tech weapons on its own now.

Tell me this; what experience does China have with modern warfare? when did China learn to do anything other than throw hordes of men at an enemy? Russia actually has experience in modern era warfare, certaintly a hell of a lot more than China has.

China fought the American army to a stand-still in the Korean war. It has fought a real war with a real superpower in the cold war. Russia has not.


One last time, Tibet is a peanut. 100,000 troops is enough to silence them. If their naughtiness got uncontrolled, we could send them to internment camp.

 

[AceChilla]

China and USA produces about 50% of world coal production. There is a technology that is called Coal-To-Liquid which can convert Coal to Fuel. This will make the problem of crude oil unavailability a non-issue

I don't know alot of that technology. If it works it seems like a good idea theoretically but practically the transition from crude oil to Coal to Liquid will be such an incredible massive time and moneyconsuming operation that it will not happen on in any short term scenario.

It will take years and years if at all to get the consumption levels the US and Chinese military will need in an all out power projection world war.

So I hardly think that that will be the solution to the sudden loss of all oil imports. Indeed there are stategic reserves but those will not be able to cover the suddes loss of imports either.

Without oil the whole US army machinery will come to a screeching halt.

 

[Patroklos]

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

If you think the sneak surprise sneak attack on our flank by Fiji will make a difference fine, but I would expect a reasoned arguement for that to be the case.

There could be some attack from India, Korea, Vietnam, etc to limit Chinese possibility of movement.

That wasn't discounted, in fact RRW and I just argued over three pages about what the character of each of those would be.

The areas I said are irrelevent or incapable of contributing for a reason. The biggest ones being geography and lack of maritime access.

Europe could send reinforcement to Russia.

Really? Perhaps you haven't noticed this, but in peace time with access to everything they could possibly want Europe is utterly incapable of deploying a few thousand troops to Afghanistan without being entirely reliant on US assets and logistics. The idea that their ability to deploy magically enmass to Siberia and then support themselves is beyond fantasy.

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.

Ohhhhhh, the majic special forces! If I can avoid buying into that fantasy when we have by far the best and most special forces on the planet, I would appreciate it if others could avoid falling into that video game induced fallacy.

Or course you have the navy to do it. But you cannot be everywhere at once.[/qutoe]

Thats the point Steph, I don't intend to be everywhere at once. Weren't you just discussing my intention to ignore whole areas of the globe.

It isn't about being everywhere, it is about being in the right places.

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.

Where have I ever talked about spreading forces? In fact, besides Siberia, what other land campaign have I advocated?

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.

I have no intention of cracking you. I intend to let you wither on the vine.

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

False. Again, you are operating under the false assumption that this is some ideological stuggle that requires total victory. There is no reason for you to assume this. All that has to be done is inflict battlefield defeat and/or economic woe to a degree that is beyond a countries threshold to accept.

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

Oh please? Germany was begging for peace from 1942 onwards through multiple channels. WE decided on unconditional surrender.

 

[Patroklos]

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.

1.) There is no reason to think the infrustucture would be destroyed. Why do you assume this?
2.) Rolling into Canada and Mexico would be even easier that doing it to Iraq. For one their forces are far less in number and second both are right next door in cas you hadn't noticed

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.

Your numbers are based on peace time consumption. War time consumption for all parties will be FAR less.

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.

False. For one manufactoring of the type you are imaging is not an issue as has been previously discussed. Two, I would be willing to be a serives economy actually uses more oil, though less of other rescources.

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.

Luckly for America we have these thousands of aircraft and the most robust auxillary fleet in the world. And I don't believe anything should be deployed to 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.

You obviously did not read the thread.

South America is welcome to produce as many frog poison blow guns as they want, they have no way of getting them to a relevant theatre.

The whole point is NOT to invade everyone!

 

[RedRalph]

I have to say Patroklos, I think you overestimate the ability of the US and China to inflict misery on the entire rest of the world, and I think you underestimate how much of that misery we could take before surrendering. The US would suffer total and utter economic collapse in this situation (as would large parts of the world), and I struggle to believe the US population would stick it as long as everyone else. I just cant see how the most pampered natuion on Earth could also be the most resilient. Its going to be a lot further drop in living standards for your averagge American than it is for the ROTW.

 

[RedRalph]

1.) There is no reason to think the infrustucture would be destroyed. Why do you assume this?

Now come the flurk on, man. you dont think the Mexicans and Canuck would destroy the wells and pipelines in this case? Wishful thinking.

 

[Patroklos]

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.

Finally someone willing to comment on this!

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.

That is not true, the US has significant oil producing capacity, just not enough to supply current demand. It does, however, have more than enough to satisfy military demand, the problem comes with the economy.

However, this weakness you point out is MORE true for Europe and India for example.

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

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.

You forgot Canada and Mexico, both within easy reach of the US. Recalculate.

 

[RedRalph]

You forgot Canada and Mexico, both within easy reach of the US. Recalculate.

the wells and pipelines have been destroyed when you get there, what do you do next?

 

[Aegis]

I have to say Patroklos, I think you overestimate the ability of the US and China to inflict misery on the entire rest of the world,

I think the US is currently doing a great job of that already.

the wells and pipelines have been destroyed when you get there, what do you do next?

Probably not, if the US starts with Canada & Mexico in a rapid first-strike.

 

[RedRalph]

I think the US is currently doing a great job of that already.

touche

Probably not, if the US starts with Canada & Mexico in a rapid first-strike.

War wouldnt come out of the blue. If there was even a weeks warning they could be destroyed.

 

[Patroklos]

USA + Canada + Mexico + Venezuela = 18 miilions, still 2 millions short to cover the need of the USA.

And a good part of it in area were guerilla can seriously disrupt production.

So you are saying we only have to reduce our oil consumption by 1/10 to presecute this war. THATS AWESOME! Thanks Steph, I didn't want to spend the time researching that to prove my point, good thing you did!

Lets try this again.

Oil consumption:
Europe 14,500,000 est.

Oil production:

1 Saudi Arabia 11,000,000 2007 est.
2 Russia 9,870,000 2007
3 United States 8,322,000 2005 est.
4 Iran 4,150,000 2006 est.
5 Mexico 3,784,000 2005 est.
6 China 3,730,000 2007 est.
7 Canada 3,092,000 2005
8 Norway 2,978,000 2005 est.
9 Venezuela 2,802,000 2006 est.
10 Kuwait 2,669,000 2005 est.
11 United Arab Emirates 2,540,000 2006

Norway+Russia = 13,000,000, that leaves 1.5 million barrels needed.

Note 10 million of that comes from the middle of the biggest battlefield the world will have ever scene. I leave you to speculate on what that will do for deliviery effectivness.

 

[RedRalph]

Note 10 million of that comes from the middle of the biggest battlefield the world will have ever scene. I leave you to speculate on what that will do for deliviery effectivness.

Yet again, that is not true.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Really? Perhaps you haven't noticed this, but in peace time with access to everything they could possibly want Europe is utterly incapable of deploying a few thousand troops to Afghanistan without being entirely reliant on US assets and logistics. The idea that their ability to deploy magically enmass to Siberia and then support themselves is beyond fantasy.

Do you really believe those things you say?
Maybe you haven't noticed, but the only country besides the US seriously involved in the Afghani war is BG. Germany is not even willing to officially name their involvement a "war" but a simple "peace mission".

And I really would love to see - only one time - a proof for all the wisdom you have to share militarywise.

The Middle East and Africa alone are full with ressources, enough to cover a major war. And while those countries will willingly share them, the US has its hands full getting control over the Americans. Meanwhile China is pretty much occupied fighting Russia and India.

And lets say the USA manages to bomb down any thread of resistance on their own continent - which I imagine it eventually could. This will be enough time for Europe to pay attention to their neglected military and to finally compete very well with the US-American one. Not to mention all the Asian and some African countries equipped with European know-how.

And regarding your theory, that the USA will simply cut off Europe from any supplys - good luck. Because there would be far more necassary then to destroy some major habours. And that may friend will be hard enough giving the lack of a good operational base.

I know, the US-spending on military is enormious and their is no doubt about it. It is the most powerful army in the world. But every strategian of the US-military would laugh tears if he read this thread and your overwhelming trust in the capacitys of it is just beyond any reality.

 

[MobBoss]

As a reminder:

Oil consumption
1 United States 20,800,000 2005 est.
2 China 6,930,000 2007 est

Oil production:

1 Saudi Arabia 11,000,000 2007 est.
2 Russia 9,870,000 2007
3 United States 8,322,000 2005 est.
4 Iran 4,150,000 2006 est.
5 Mexico 3,784,000 2005 est.
6 China 3,730,000 2007 est.
7 Canada 3,092,000 2005
8 Norway 2,978,000 2005 est.
9 Venezuela 2,802,000 2006 est.
10 Kuwait 2,669,000 2005 est.
11 United Arab Emirates 2,540,000 2006

To
USA + Canada + Mexico + Venezuela = 18 miilions, still 2 millions short to cover the need of the USA.

And a good part of it in area were guerilla can seriously disrupt production.

And a side question... How many oil tankers are Americans?

Step, just like in WWII under a full mobilization, there would be a rationing of resources to give primary emphasis on the war effort.

Again, you cant take information like that and apply it to a full world war situation under which the rules of consumption would radically change. Its simply not going to work like that.

 

[Patroklos]

Apart from the fact that the Indians could invade through it unless its properly defended. The Chinese cant let their own country fall apart while attacking other countries you know... If Tibets rebels the Chinese HAVE to divert forces to deal with it. that would entail huge numbers, even if it was just for mass-slaughter. how muchmanpower do you think that would take?

I am not exactly sure why you think it is possible to prosecute a serious military campaign across the Himilayas. I am also not sure why you think the a rebellion of the Tibetans would in any measurable degree hinder the token defense required to repel an invasion across the Himilayas.

As for numbers, the population of Tibet is 2.87 million. That inludes the 25% that are ethinic Chinese. This population is 2.26 per square mile. The people are unarmed.

Now contrast that with Afghanistan, which has 32 million peole at 119 per square mile, is armed to the teeth, and has no friendly ethnicities as residents. While trying to rebuild there and NOT brutally surpressing the populous and actually carring about what happens to them we are using 50K in troops. What do you think that means about garrisoning Tibet just enough to keep logisitcs open to mountain defenders?

As for defending against India, assuming they would be so ******ed to make the attempt (and that they are not occupying Pakistan or themsleves in civil war). I imagine 50-100K is far more than adequate to hold the frontier. That makes no noticable dent in the Chinese to Russian force ratio, something that in and of itself should tell you something.

I was under the impression they had some serious missile aimed across the strait, no?

They have no such ballistic missiles.

Exactly how would they need Chinese support to send men across the border to be slaughtered? the Army, for the last time, IS NOT ON THE BRINK OF STARVATION. this is somethign the Chinese would HAVE to divert manpower to deal with.

Their army is not on the brink of starvation because all Chinese aid is funneled to them. If there is no Chinese aid, then they ARE starving to death.

Supporting them in what respect, supplies etc?

Everything a modern western army needs, which is significant. They can't do it by themselves in Afghanistan, why do you think they can in Siberia?

Even if they did do that, yet again it diverts a large number of chinese forces away form Siberia. these diversions are, at this stage, beginning to add up.

RRW, Russia has less than 500,000 trained and ready soldiers. Europe is breaking its back to put 10K in troops on the ground in Afghanistan under the best of conditions. Are you trying to tell me that within a timeframe that matters Europe is going to provide the 1,000,000 troops deployed a continent away to make the force ration just 1:2 in China's favor (assuming no US troops are there)? This sounds realistic to you?

I dont, but not as much as China would have, and in territory its a lot easier to deal with. Plus they have the help of any other countries nearby to assist them (imagine the bizarre spectacel of Georgia helping out down trouble in Ingushetia.). so no real problem.

1.) Is China's striff somehow not in country? Just what ethinic division are you harping on exactly?
2.) Why would Georgia lower itself to that, or are you again forgetting to remember ethnic stife goes between allied countries too...

By who? Pakistan, Iran etc are certaintly not going to be sponsoring trouble at this time. Au contraire, the Taliban etc would for once be on Indias side. No serious problem with unrest in India.

Wait wait wait. So you go on and on about the currently relatively benign ethic striff in Tibet, but are now oblivious to the near collapse inducing unrest in Pakistan RIGHT NOW? What, do you think that will get better and not worse under the riggers of WWIII?

As an honest question, are you at all aware of the severe CURRENT unrest within India right now?

As would anyone else in this scenario.

Hardly. China's populous already doesn't care about oppressing the Tibetians. You might get European armed forces to oppress people (not that they would be much good at it), but their citizens are sure as hell not going to be alright with it.

No, but they are diverting large amount of mapower there.

This has been debunked already. The numbers are irrelevent relative to the already catastrophic force ration disparity in China's favor in Siberia.

Tell me this; what experience does China have with modern warfare? when did China learn to do anything other than throw hordes of men at an enemy? Russia actually has experience in modern era warfare, certaintly a hell of a lot more than China has.

They do? Please tell me how many armored divisions they destroyed in Afghanistan again. How many wings of aircraft?

As to when Russia did have experiance in modern warfare, WWII their tactics very much could be described as throwing hordes of men at the enemy

The only nations with any large scale experiance fighting modern armies are the US and the UK.

Actually in this situation the Taliban might for once stop attacking the govt.

Please tell me you know that the Taliban is not causing the unrest leading to the current shakiness of the government, and rather it is myraid of other Indus valley related Islamic groups and social striff within the various strata of greater Pakistan society.

they are still buying it Patroklos.

Thats because a disparity still exists RRW, AS I JUST TOLD YOU.

then why are China agreeing long-term deals to keep buying it?

What part of disparity exists do you not understand? The UK still buys tech from the US, does that mean that if UK and US armored division meeting head to head one is overwhelmingly superior to the other?

Numbers are facts; how you think those numbers would be used or how successful they would be is not facts. Pretty simple.

Which of course is exactly what I said, thanks for agreeing!

Now, that you have admitted my speculation stems from an undertanding of actual reality as opposed to you just making assumptions based on what you want to be reality we can begin to modify your position to reflect reality

Tell us about those Taiwanese missiles again... :mischeif:

And could the remaining 50% ensure that Europe, the ME, etc etc (the whole world basically) was blackaded?

RRW, in the absense of any significant naval counter we could do it with 25% or less. Which is exactly why the ROTW forces would never let that happen.

Patroklos I already showed that most Russian oilfields are well well away form any potential fighting with China, why dont you acknowledge that? you were wrong on that one.

No you did not, because you failed to account for where Russian forces are actually located. If China were to attack tomorrow they would penetrate very deep. Hell, since in all probabiluty they would win against the Russian army anyway (did you bother to look up numbers? I did...) containing a Chinese invasion is not a forgone conclusion for the Russians.

Of course even from China itself, given Russia is outnumbered 10:1 in aircraft if the US dedicates significant assets to the theatre (which it would), all those oil fields are well within striking range.

Guess what North American oil fields are vulnerable to attack from Russia or Europe. Go ahead, guess

OK

Oh come on, why is it whenever I make a prediction favorable to your side you accept it as valid, but never the other way around?

the wells and pipelines have been destroyed when you get there, what do you do next?

I have exactly zero confidence in either Canada or Mexico practicing scorched earth on their own soil. In all reality both will probably fold before hostilities were required.