If WW3 happened, which countries would be fighting?

I'm not 'an idiot or hypocrite or deluded' I think that out nation states kill people to make us secure, I am ok with it. American interests in the Middle East are clear. Afghanistan was supporting terrorists, now they are not and those terrorists are dead.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(U.S.–Philippines)

"The Manila Declaration was a formal affirmation of defensive ties between the two countries that date back over a century. The declaration states that "The Republic of the Philippines and the United States reaffirm our shared obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty. We expect to maintain a robust, balanced, and responsive security partnership including cooperating to enhance the defense, interdiction, and apprehension capabilities of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America today commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Philippines-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty"

yes there is a dispute between China and the Phillipines over the Spratleys etc- but I dont' know why you think that China would ever consider 'invading' the Phillipines themselves.

America would back the Phillipines, and China can't support any such invasion.

American air power could arrive in the Phillipines in hours, not days and air power is all that it would take to shut down such an invasion.

The thing about having a single airfield on a small island as your only forward operating base is that that is the only thing that needs to be taken out. Cruise missiles from American attack submarines would have that out of action immediately.

But as I said before- I see no reason why China would do any such thing, which could result in its entire economy being shut down.

 

So is the US going to keep doing nothing while the Philippines lose islands to China? I am not talking about the Chinese invading the Philippines, but taking islands off them. The Philippines will not take it for long, they could be the ones start the war. Then which side would the US back?

 

I don't know- probably neither- as long as the maritime corridors are kept open.

This will likely simmer along as it has been for years now.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know- probably neither- as long as the maritime corridors are kept open.

This will likely simmer along as it has been for years now.

 

I admit that one slipped by me. I knew about the Chinese incursions on Japanese claimed islands. Those seemed to make bigger news. The US has a major base on Guam. It's 1500 miles away but for aircraft that's not a very far flight.

Anyway there are plans to re-open either the former Subic Bay Navy Base or Clarke AFB in the Philippines. If the Filipinos think they are under attack, I'm pretty sure they will play the American card.

 

Refering to the OP, it is rather hard to "pick sides" unless there is an idea what the "touchstone" is that would start off this "war".

And that would have great bearing on what nations joined in, and what side they would end up being on.

As for the US, I would count it "Neutral" unless the nation itself was attacked. That has traditionally been the stance of the US in such global conflicts, and it would likely be the same in the future. We never really got involved directly in the Napoleonic Wars, and came to the party late in both WWI and WWII. Why would WWIII be any different?

As for a lot of the countries I have seen listed, I think most would try to sit it out if they could. For example, Cuba. Yea, Cuba might jump in and side against the US, if it wants to commit national suicide. If that happened, I predict a lifespan of 45 days for the Communist government. Then after about 2 months of combat and a quick overthrow of the government they would move on, allowing the Cubans to kill off each other as they decide who will be in charge when it is all over.

As for NATO, I would not count them out. As we have seen the last 2 decades, they have quickly become the de facto force in the world when trying to settle affairs. Much more so then the do nothing UN has been. It is no surprise that pretty much every international involvement the US has been involved with the last 20 years has been an official or unofficial NATO one. And as such, NATO has the largest force of combat experienced military to call upon in case of conflict.

 

Clarke AFB is under 700 feet of pumice thanks to Mt. Pinotubo.

Subic is a shambles of disrepair.

 

Unless Russia ships nukes there. Then, there would be nothing that anyone could do.That happened before.


I return to this thread and see that people still speak of Air and Sea offensives, with no mention of nukes.
Again, if it were not for Nukes, the west and soviets would have started WW3 many years ago. Nukes stopped it.

If anyone invaded Russia, they would consider using nukes, so the Antagonist would have to be deranged to actually go through with it. The same goes for the US, China, UK, France, Pakistan.

Conventional wars between Great/Superpowers will never happen again - Fact. History has proven it.

 

They tried that once before, and we all know how that turned out.

And if they did, do you honestly think they would give control of them over to Cuba in the first place? Or that they would be willing to commit suicide over Cuba?

I would say no, no and no. Of course, I also find it hard to think of a situation where the US and Russia would be on opposite sides in anther World War.

 

Don't think WW 3 will happen anytime soon. And if it will, it would be US vs China conflict for dominance.

With US removing it's missiles from Turkey, which was the main reason to deploy soviet missiles in Cuba. Of course later it was claimed as another US "victory".

 

Yep. Military stalemate and no talk of any conventional military action - Just people asking "who would launch first?"

They didn't have to before. It still had the desired outcome.

I could easily see Russia siding with the Chinese if they were to start a war with the west. Culturally, geographically, economically and politically they are far more similar.

 

Yes, that's why I was surprised when I read that we were thinking of reopening them. The reason we pulled out in the first place was that the cost of making them usable again outweighed the geopolitical advantages.

 

If you notice, I did not try to infer anything other then the fact that the missiles almost tripped off a nuclear war, and both sides have learned a lot since then. Like not to antagonize each other. I seriously doubt that Russia would want to do anything like that now over Cuba.

 

Now, no. But this topic is about "WW3". Cuba is an enemy of the US, close to the US mainland - Any belligerent would capitalistic on that... Just as the Soviets did.

 

Ooooh...... and Blind, but the idea was for you to choose!

More Keich, how can genocide make you safe?

Howe does assassination lists benefit your " Democracy".

As a teacher, perhaps you should change your career! Perhaps, growing up, into the real world of AIPAC ownership of your "democracy"!

Afghanistan started fighting your American paid mercenaries, as anyone who has any love for their nation there forefathers not to mention their sovereign integrity!

Unless your an American and an educator!

Wisen up!

Ooooh.... They are called freedom fighters!


Regards
Highlander

 

Yes, I'm not sure if my role as a teacher is too important here. I mean, four year are are renowned for their lack of understanding of terrorism.

So, I get it , we see the world in a different way ( I guess prescriptionist vs descriptionist might describe it well enough). But I think one must accept that the world is a horrible place full of people who would kill you. Killing them is horrible, but better than being killed.

 

But the Soviets have been gone for over 2 decades now.

 

My friend,you're no educator, a closed book is just that ..... closed!
I would of thought an educator requires to be open minded, to be analytical, obviously your bigotry is getting in the road of your ignorance... of honour, duty, empathy and other such nice things devoid in your thinking what little there is!!

Regards
Highlander

 

Bottom line as far as I am concerned with this thread is that no one has provided what I consider a plausible train of events that would lead to a "World War" in today's environment.

Regional yes very possibly, but a truly global war seems far fetched for the near future.

 

For once I'm with SFJEFF.

Nobody has posited a plausible casus belli.

 

But I really wonder if you have anything to say, other than calling me names.. Will 'poo poo' head be the next thing that fine mind of yours comes up with?

Clearly we disagree, I think that it is the nature of human being to form groups, and in their rational self interest to support these groups. I think that my friends, family, and myself are best secured via the power of my own nation state. I also think that this involves killing other people at time.

 

But China exists. Assuming this hypothetical WW were to break out, it would almost certinly feature the EU, USA and China as headline acts. China could take advantage of Cuba just as the soviets did.

 

I dunno, I still think a US-China confrontation over Taiwan is a plausible scenario.

 

Yes, I assume that it would like something like:

China attacks Taiwan, thinking it can win a quick victory with a surprise attack, but instead gets bogged down in a conflict with the USA. Europe joins on the USAs side. Russia worries about America control of the area if China fell, so joins in on the side of China. MENA states join according to expectations, etc.

 

China simply cannot tolerate a prolonged war with Taiwan.

Look at a map. Taiwan is close to the big export ports of Canton and Hong Kong. China's manufacturing heartland is the Pearl River Valley and most of its stuff goes out through those ports. Taiwan does not directly interdict those ports but just the proximity would cause insurance rates on the ships to go through the roof.

Even if the US remained neutral and kept importing Chinese stuff, would the Chinese "go bare" on insurance for their exports?