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

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

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.

Supporting them in what respect, supplies etc?

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.

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.

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.

As would anyone else in this scenario.

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

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.

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

they are still buying it Patroklos.

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

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

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

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.

OK

 

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?

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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

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

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.

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.

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!

 

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.

 

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

 

Finally someone willing to comment on this!

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.

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?

 

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

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

 

touche

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

 

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.

 

Yet again, that is not true.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 ******** 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.

They have no such ballistic missiles.

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.

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?

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?

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...

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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:

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.

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

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?

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.