Who Do You Think Will Be Involved In World War 3?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

If you put politics into its different, but saying 61 years from China isn't correct, 61 years from PRC but not China. Its still part of China, not PRC I'm talking about. Right now its just a clash of who claims the title of China. ROC or PRC. Australia and New Zealand totally different story. The island of Tawain was always part of China but then the nationalist fled to an island of China called Tawain, still part of China for a stronghold. Then they started to settle. Up to this point they still class themselves as Chinese and real China, but with different political party.

The point is its has been distinct political entity for 61 years. New Zealand was originally going to be another state of Australia but they didn't join federation. Ethnically and culturally Australia and NZ are almost identical, but they are two distinct nation states with their own public institutions and national identity, just like PRC and ROC.

Geographically and ethnically Taiwan may be part of China, but it is in no way part of the modern Chinese state. If one state attacks another militarily its referred to as an invasion, which is the point.

Part of who's territory? Tawain is and island part of China. Your just mixing it up with politics. Tawain the island is called but its official name of the island from the nationalist is Republic of CHINA

What? I think you're misunderstanding what defines a nation state. Here's a clue, just because they may have the same word in their name does not mean they are the same political entity . You think North Korea is a territory of South Korea or vice-versa just because they both have the word Korea in their name?

Taiwan IS NOT part of the Peoples Republic of China; no PRC laws are applicable in Taiwan, no PRC authority reigns in Taiwan, there is no PRC military or civilian presence in Taiwan and the PRC's public institutions have no jurisdiction there.

In order for any geographic area to be considered a territory of any nation state that state needs to be able to impose a desired reality on it. Everyone may consider the Falklands as part of Argentina, I mean they are a few islands of the South American coast right? As if you would consider them part of the UK. The point is Argentina lacks the military ability to impose its laws and public institutions on that geographical area so in reality its not an Argentinian territory. The same applies to China and Taiwan.

 

[HKSDU]

The point is its has been distinct political entity for 61 years. New Zealand was originally going to be another state of Australia but they didn't join federation. Ethnically and culturally Australia and NZ are almost identical, but they are two distinct nation states with their own public institutions and national identity, just like PRC and ROC.

Geographically and ethnically Taiwan may be part of China, but it is in no way part of the modern Chinese state. If one state attacks another militarily its referred to as an invasion, which is the point.



What? I think you're misunderstanding what defines a nation state. Here's a clue, just because they may have the same word in their name does not mean they are the same political entity . You think North Korea is a territory of South Korea or vice-versa just because they both have the word Korea in their name?

Taiwan IS NOT part of the Peoples Republic of China; no PRC laws are applicable in Taiwan, no PRC authority reigns in Taiwan, there is no PRC military or civilian presence in Taiwan and the PRC's public institutions have no jurisdiction there.

In order for any geographic area to be considered a territory of any nation state that state needs to be able to impose a desired reality on it. Everyone may consider the Falklands as part of Argentina, I mean they are a few islands of the South American coast right? As if you would consider them part of the UK. The point is Argentina lacks the military ability to impose its laws and public institutions on that geographical area so in reality its not an Argentinian territory. The same applies to China and Taiwan.

I know Tawain isn't part of PRC, thats why I said ROC. Did you actually read my post? Australia and New Zealand key word going to be. Tawain was part of China. New Zealand never was. I didn't say Tawain is territory of PRC don't put words in my mouth. I said Tawain is part of China. North and South Korea, they are still Korean in the end and are Korea.

I studied the ROC and PRC debate at university for over 2 years now, I know clearly and well what I'm debating about. All the examples you give (except Korea) are totally different to this debate.

I'm not going to reply to your next post. Cause this is off topic already. You have your thoughts but I have my facts.

 

[Feanor]

Ok then in your usage of the term, China is not referring to a nation state but to an arbitrarily defined geographic area.

 

[HKSDU]

Ok then in your usage of the term, China is not referring to a nation state but to an arbitrarily defined geographic area.

Yes exactly.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I know Tawain isn't part of PRC, thats why I said ROC. Did you actually read my post? Australia and New Zealand key word going to be. Tawain was part of China. New Zealand never was. I didn't say Tawain is territory of PRC don't put words in my mouth. I said Tawain is part of China. North and South Korea, they are still Korean in the end and are Korea.

Then why did you dispute that describing an attack on Taiwan would be accurately described as an invasion? I think you likened it to the US attacking Texas:

How is it China is invading Tawain? You mean the mainland unifying an island of China (Tawain). Don't mistaken Tawain is Chinese territory. Not talking about CCP but China as a whole. Its like saying America is invading Texas.

This is where you confuse justification for a politico-military action and geography; you know when you referred to Mainland China invading Taiwan not the PRC? Either you are talking about PRC acting militarily or you are talking about a geographical area which does not exist in the political sphere; a geographical region cannot act politically or militarily, states do that . That’s like saying North America could invade Mexico. According to your logic the US could attack Canada and it wouldn’t be called an invasion because they are both part of North America, just the south unifying the north.

It is nothing like saying the US invading Texas because they both form part of the same nation state. Taiwan was NEVER part of the current political entity which inhabits mainland China, the ROC has always been a separate state with its own institutions, even when it controlled most of the mainland.

If you meant that any military action launched by the PRC cannot be accurately considered an invasion because of the regions geography I dealt with that in your first reply:

Geographically perhaps buy politically? It’s like Australia invading New Zealand. There is a fully functioning nation state in Taiwan with liberal democratic public institutions, a capable and independent military and a coherent national identity. Its called the Republic of China.

You didn’t address any of the fundamental points raised in that post. I’ll break it down for you; it doesn’t matter if Taiwan is geographically part of the region we all know as China, the term invasion commonly describes an action taken by a nation state which is a fundamentally a political (geopolitical) entity. The two political entities involved here have never been part of the same body; they have always been two separate and detached nations, just like Australia and New Zealand.

The PRC may indeed have a legitimate geographical claim to Taiwan, but it will have to dispossess another nation state in order to enforce that claim.

I studied the ROC and PRC debate at university for over 2 years now, I know clearly and well what I'm debating about. All the examples you give (except Korea) are totally different to this debate.

Then why are you having trouble comprehending the basics? Like the difference between a geographical region and a nation state?

I'm not going to reply to your next post.

I don’t understand why you would come here to a forum, post a clear opinion on a topic and then have a cry when someone challenges your post. Newsflash bud, this is what forums are about, exchanging and challenging ideas and opinions. You made a clear claim as to the sovereignty of Taiwan; I disagreed so now you're not going to continue the discussion? What did you think would happen, everyone would automatically agree with you?

Cause this is off topic already. .

Mods is this OT? I mean the definition of Taiwanese sovereignty has significant ramifications for the justification (and thus likelihood) of any US intervention in the event of conflict, which could feasibly lead to WW3. Seems pretty on topic to me.

You have your thoughts but I have my facts

Right....

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Ok then in your usage of the term, China is not referring to a nation state but to an arbitrarily defined geographic area.

An arbitrarily defined geographic area which acts in the politico-military sphere?

 

[HKSDU]

This is where you confuse justification for a politico-military action and geography; you know when you referred to Mainland China invading Taiwan not the PRC? Either you are talking about PRC acting militarily or you are talking about a geographical area which does not exist in the political sphere; a geographical region cannot act politically or militarily, states do that . That’s like saying North America could invade Mexico. According to your logic the US could attack Canada and it wouldn’t be called an invasion because they are both part of North America, just the south unifying the north.

If you meant that any military action launched by the PRC cannot be accurately considered an invasion because of the regions geography I dealt with that in your first reply:

I don’t understand why you would come here to a forum, post a clear opinion on a topic and then have a cry when someone challenges your post. Newsflash bud, this is what forums are about, exchanging and challenging ideas and opinions. You made a clear claim as to the sovereignty of Taiwan; I disagreed so now you're not going to continue the discussion? What did you think would happen, everyone would automatically agree with you?

Right....

Canada was never part of America. Nationalist and Communist party existed in China, Nationalist got pushed onto one island of China called Tawain always was part of China. You keep saying how I'm having trouble understanding what your saying but I don't. I understand your thoughts, but your neglecting and not understanding mine. I'm not crying when someone challenges my opinion but I'm not going any further on this thread, I will if their was a thread dedicated to this matter. Stop putting words in my mouth, no need to be so rude when addressing someones post.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Canada was never part of America. Nationalist and Communist party existed in China, Nationalist got pushed onto one island of China called Tawain always was part of China.

OK, I’ll say it again. Taiwan was and is part of the geographical region called China, the nation which now controls that island once controlled the majority of the region we call China, but the current mainland Chinese state (the PRC) never controlled Taiwan. Taiwan was never part of modern China though once a power controlled both geographical areas, Canada and the US were actually once both part of the UK. But in essence this is all beside the point.

I still think you're getting mixed up on this whole geography thing. Nation states are not geographical entities, they exist in geographical space but they are not fundamentally defined by their geography. Look at North America again; the central part of North America was once part of various native nations, then Spain the UK and France, now its controlled by Canada, Mexico and the United States. The geographical boundaries of these nations have shifted over and over again, but the states themselves for the most part have persisted even if their geographical boundaries have radically shifted. If the US and Canada went to war you could argue that it was simply to powers fighting for control of North America, but in my opinion it wouldn’t be accurate. It’s akin to claiming that a Russian invasion of Latvia would simply be the reunification of a dissident province because once both the geographical areas we call Russia and Latvia were part of the Soviet Union.

Thus what you have in Taiwan is not simply a province of China which broke away, its not even two political parties fighting for domination of the same state. Nationalist China and Communist China were never part of the same political entity, just two powers vying for control of the geographical area we call China. Therefore if one attacked the other it would indeed be an invasion. I know this just seems like semantic crap but it’s important, wars are justified with words.

You keep saying how I'm having trouble understanding what your saying but I don't. I understand your thoughts, but your neglecting and not understanding mine.

I think I do understand your position; that Taiwan is a geographical part of China and thus any war over it between the PRC and the ROC would not be an invasion i.e. "like America invading Texas". Please if I have misunderstood your position, particularly in this post:

How is it China is invading Tawain? You mean the mainland unifying an island of China (Tawain). Don't mistaken Tawain is Chinese territory. Not talking about CCP but China as a whole. Its like saying America is invading Texas.

let me know. An invasion must be made by a political & military power and therefore you must be referring to the PRC when you say "the mainland". Please enlighten me if I have mistaken you here.

I'm not crying when someone challenges my opinion but I'm not going any further on this thread, I will if their was a thread dedicated to this matter.

How is this thread not an appropriate place to debate this topic, it has ramifications which could indeed have an effect on WW3?

Stop putting words in my mouth, no need to be so rude when addressing someones post.

Look I didn’t mean any disrespect, but lines like:

I studied the ROC and PRC debate at university for over 2 years now, I know clearly and well what I'm debating about.

I'm not going to reply to your next post.

and

You have your thoughts but I have my facts

aren't exactly conducive to friendly debate.

 

[Feanor]

An arbitrarily defined geographic area which acts in the politico-military sphere?

No. But within which military-political actions are carried out. It's like saying America can't invade Canada because Canada is in America. But the USA can invade Canada. Same shit here. China can't invade Taiwan but the PRC can. It's a pretty stupid, and pointless, distinction in my opinion, since China is a commonly accepted name for the PRC. But the distinction can be made.

 

[HKSDU]

OK, I’ll say it again. Taiwan was and is part of the geographical region called China, the nation which now controls that island once controlled the majority of the region we call China, but the current mainland Chinese state (the PRC) never controlled Taiwan. Taiwan was never part of modern China though once a power controlled both geographical areas, Canada and the US were actually once both part of the UK. But in essence this is all beside the point.

I still think you're getting mixed up on this whole geography thing. Nation states are not geographical entities, they exist in geographical space but they are not fundamentally defined by their geography. Look at North America again; the central part of North America was once part of various native nations, then Spain the UK and France, now its controlled by Canada, Mexico and the United States. The geographical boundaries of these nations have shifted over and over again, but the states themselves for the most part have persisted even if their geographical boundaries have radically shifted. If the US and Canada went to war you could argue that it was simply to powers fighting for control of North America, but in my opinion it wouldn’t be accurate. It’s akin to claiming that a Russian invasion of Latvia would simply be the reunification of a dissident province because once both the geographical areas we call Russia and Latvia were part of the Soviet Union.

Thus what you have in Taiwan is not simply a province of China which broke away, its not even two political parties fighting for domination of the same state. Nationalist China and Communist China were never part of the same political entity, just two powers vying for control of the geographical area we call China. Therefore if one attacked the other it would indeed be an invasion. I know this just seems like semantic crap but it’s important, wars are justified with words.



I think I do understand your position; that Taiwan is a geographical part of China and thus any war over it between the PRC and the ROC would not be an invasion i.e. "like America invading Texas". Please if I have misunderstood your position, particularly in this post:



let me know. An invasion must be made by a political & military power and therefore you must be referring to the PRC when you say "the mainland". Please enlighten me if I have mistaken you here.



How is this thread not an appropriate place to debate this topic, it has ramifications which could indeed have an effect on WW3?



Look I didn’t mean any disrespect, but lines like:





and



aren't exactly conducive to friendly debate.

Taking my post out of context here. I'am talking about geographic here. Using the word invasion is abit misleading but then so is using the word unification like PRC keeps dishing out. If you through in poltical and military parameters than yes its an invasion between an internal struggle of China (Geographical). Both PRC and ROC are claiming to be China, but PRC is just known to be China, while ROC is just known to be Tawain. I don't see how talking about China geographical, etc. has to relate to WW3. Its more for another thread to be open about this issue. Though if you want to link it as the reason of war starts then yes. But when people use the term China invasion of Tawain it just seems stupid. Cause it should be PRC invasion of Tawain. Does this all make sense at the angle I'm coming from? Cause it seems I'm talking about geographics and heritage, and your talking about politics and military.


North America is a contignents Canda is part of the contignent and so is the USA, but Canda is not the USA.

 

[Toptob]

OMG!!!!

Taking my post out of context here. I'am talking about geographic here.

Which makes it irrelevant to the discussion. If you're talking politics you don't go boasting about your geographic knowledge because it's pointless. Accept that the PRC (more commonly refered to as China!) and Taiwan are two different country's for all intensent purposes.

Using the word invasion is abit misleading

No its not, the hostile deployment of the PLA on Taiwanese or ROC soil can definitly be described as an invasion. As it will be by the Taiwanese people, the US and most of its east Asian allies. You can stay stuck in semantics, or put you're issues aside and accept the terminology as relevant for the discourse in this topic.

Because:

Cause it seems I'm talking about geographics and heritage, and your talking about politics and military.

This is a forum about military (first) and political matters!
-------------------------

Now back to business:

Who do I think will be involved in WW3? Everyone ofcourse, except maybe some South American country's. But what is the likely scenario?

I think that central Asia is a definite possibility. But Africa is in my mind a big big possibility. Why? Because I think that China will be the (other) great player in that conflict, and they are expanding trade, business and political connections there. And that will provide a point of conflicting interests between China and the western world.

Some notes on the topic:

1. I dont know what Russia will do, maybe some additional discussion is warranted on this front. I do not have in depth knowledge Russo-Sino relations, but I'm interested which side they will choose in a large conflict. But I'm certain that while Russia has a mighty military, it cannot afford nor sustain its military in a full scale conflict (nukes aside) for any amount of time. Then there are important issue's with combat readiness and the age and state of its ground, air and naval based fleets of assets. I also have serious doubts that Russia's military is technologically able to compete with Western or Chinese military's, most of its assets being either in a bad state or reaching obsolescence (pardon my French but thats what I think, I hope feanor will enlighten me further on these matters))).

2. A lot of the Islamic military's would have a very hard time operating their military's in opposition to the US. Especially Egypt, observing that most of their offensive assets are either of Western origins or pretty old (maybe even obsolete). Their airforce is built on the F-16, and their inventory of MBT's is dominated by the M1A1 Abrams. I think their Navy would be irrelevant in a Large scale conflict, when opposed to the combined European and Turkish forces in the Meditiranian. Pakistan also operates a lot of F-16's and that fact alone has kept large scale conflict with India at bay on several occasions (sanctions...). Even when the US blatantly attacks Iran, Egypt wont use their military against them, they may make a stink in the UN, but thats irrelevant.

3. When there is an event that threathens to provoke a world war, all of the NATO allies,even France, will be squarely behind the US (that is an opinion though). And combined, the European NATO partners or even the EU posess enough military power to challenge every oponent safe the US itself.

4. Why is everyone convinced that WW3 will always be a nuclear conflict? Because it would be cheaper? The WW2 addadge that it saved millions of lives and shortened the war (which I think is total FELGERKARP), does not apply. Lauching nuclear assets will raise alarms all over the world and would inevetably signal total nuclear devastation and an end to human life on earth.

So who will be in WW3?

Side 1:
- NATO
- Australia (and NZ...)
- Other country's in the Commonwealth
- Israel
- Token Eastern European and Balkan country's
- Scandinavians
- South Africa
- Singapore
- South Korea
- Japan
- Taiwan
- Maybe some south american and African nations

Side 2:
- China
- Pakistan
- Iran
- Some South American nations
- Some African nations

Side 3 (I think they will choose a side, I just dont know which one):
- Russia
- India

Well I've made some pretty bold statements and I'm ready to see them torn apart by your enlightend and informed reasoning. So feel free (except on the matter of geographic semantics).

 

[josh3firefly]

a bad peace is even worst than war

What countries do you guys think are going to be involved in World War 3? I really would like an opinion from some of the members here on this board if you guys wouldn't mind sharing.

"a bad peace is even worst than a war"

yes it is! its like a gas fuel leaking accumulating combusting potential and with a little spark! boom! house burns!

nowadays, we are having the ingredients of a bad peace. its just a matter connection that will lead us into world war 3. God forbids!
1. USA intervenes with the affairs of every nations.
2. Russia is not that cooperating as compared to previous decade
3. Iran is stubborn and confidient that they think thay have the audasity to go into war like Iraq then
4. north korea is getting bolder and bolder
5. China is already at par with USA in terms of military capability
6. terrorist is of course aggraviating everything
all it needs is a link between these parties to go against another and starts a wwIII.

 

[Feanor]

1. I dont know what Russia will do, maybe some additional discussion is warranted on this front. I do not have in depth knowledge Russo-Sino relations, but I'm interested which side they will choose in a large conflict.

Neither. They will sit on their ass and sell anything they can sell to anyone who pays enough, all the while actively condemning anyone who tries to get them involved.

But I'm certain that while Russia has a mighty military, it cannot afford nor sustain its military in a full scale conflict (nukes aside) for any amount of time.

An obvious fallacy. It can certainly sustain it's military for the first 15 minutes. Anyways depending on the size and scope of the conflict, the date, the state of Russia at that date, and the enemy involved, Russia may or may not be able to mobilize successfully.

Then there are important issue's with combat readiness and the age and state of its ground, air and naval based fleets of assets.

Again when is this WW3 taking place. Now? 15 years from now? And age and state, compared to whom? Kazakhstan? North Korea? The US?

I also have serious doubts that Russia's military is technologically able to compete with Western or Chinese military's, most of its assets being either in a bad state or reaching obsolescence (pardon my French but thats what I think, I hope feanor will enlighten me further on these matters))).

Not even close, across most areas. China in particular would find itself considerably outmatched in the technology department. Their main MBT is still an upgraded T-54 clone.

 

[josh3firefly]

Neither. They will sit on their ass and sell anything they can sell to anyone who pays enough, all the while actively condemning anyone who tries to get them involved.



An obvious fallacy. It can certainly sustain it's military for the first 15 minutes. Anyways depending on the size and scope of the conflict, the date, the state of Russia at that date, and the enemy involved, Russia may or may not be able to mobilize successfully.



Again when is this WW3 taking place. Now? 15 years from now? And age and state, compared to whom? Kazakhstan? North Korea? The US?



Not even close, across most areas. China in particular would find itself considerably outmatched in the technology department. Their main MBT is still an upgraded T-54 clone.

chinese technology is advance as the US. Russia has no more venom except for it reputation being a former superpower. China has all the minds, technology, money, manpower to match the US.

 

[Bonza]

chinese technology is advance as the US. Russia has no more venom except for it reputation being a former superpower. China has all the minds, technology, money, manpower to match the US.

The Chinese, militarily, really aren't on the same level as the United States. I don't mean this as some kind of flag-waving who's-best comment, but it's not accurate to think the Chinese are military peers to the US. Technology wise, the PRC are catching up very quickly, but they're not there yet.

I have no interest in investing my ego in either the US or China, so this really should not be considered a comment on the relative worth of either nation. But it's important to get details right, so have a look via google at the various military technologies deployed by each nation in the last ten years.

 

[Toptob]

Reply to: josh3firefly

chinese technology is advance as the US. Russia has no more venom except for it reputation being a former superpower. China has all the minds, technology, money, manpower to match the US.

Thats just not true, well they do spend a lot of money on their military, but they are not on level with the Russians yet.

Rply to: Feanor

Neither. They will sit on their ass and sell anything they can sell to anyone who pays enough, all the while actively condemning anyone who tries to get them involved.

If its a world war, eventually they will have to get involved. So will it be the east with whom Russia has had important strategic contacts that have cooled down significantly in recent years. Or the west that is on the doorstep of Russia's economic, military and population hearthland?
(I just want to know which one is more likely)

An obvious fallacy. It can certainly sustain it's military for the first 15 minutes.

let me refrace: it cannot afford nor sustain its military in a full scale conflict (nukes aside) for any significant[/B ]amount of time.
Now how's that?

Again when is this WW3 taking place. Now? 15 years from now? And age and state, compared to whom? Kazakhstan? North Korea? The US?

Lets say between 5 and 25 years from now. And compare them to significant powers that would likely be involved in the conflict

Not even close, across most areas. China in particular would find itself considerably outmatched in the technology department. Their main MBT is still an upgraded T-54 clone.

Agreed. But the point I wanted to make is that most of Russia's combat assets are dating back to the Soviet era. Almost no aquisitions where made in the nineties, and the aquisition of modern and more important new-built materiel is more a trickle then a waterfall. As I see it to get up to date the Russians have to aquire hundreds of new-built and new generation aircraft, and ships. The MBT's are still usefull in a zerg tactic strategy, the large numbers of T-72 and T-80 look impressive. But when we consider Russia's vast territory, they would definitly be needed in an al out global conflict.

To sum it up, Russian technology is awesome. The Su-34 is a fantastic bird, and the new flankers are very very good. Modern naval development is also good, definitly on par with the stuff most other regions develop, and new army developments are also very usefull and advanced. BUT! most of these things are token assets as it stands now, with no meaningfull numbers available now and in the future when we look at the defence needs of a country the size of Russia. Furthermore I have the creeping suspicion that a big part of their defence equipment will reach obsolescence or will just be run out in the next ten years.

Reply to: Bonza

The Chinese, militarily, really aren't on the same level as the United States.

Totally agree on that, they have a long long loooong way to go. The most advanced Chinese designs that are coming in to service can touch US systems that have been widely deployed and sold to everyone in the world for years. Also the US military is very well integrated, and getting more and more net centric. China will have to spend countless billions before they are on the same level.

I don't mean this as some kind of flag-waving who's-best comment,

I know you don't, but you're right tho..

Cheers!

 

[Feanor]

If its a world war, eventually they will have to get involved. So will it be the east with whom Russia has had important strategic contacts that have cooled down significantly in recent years. Or the west that is on the doorstep of Russia's economic, military and population hearthland?
(I just want to know which one is more likely)

Again, neither. The current Russian leadership will do all they can to stay out of a major conflict (note, do not confuse it with a major confrontation). If they do end up dragged into it, the side they end up will be determined by circumstance, not by their own long-term planning or allegiances.

let me refrace: it cannot afford nor sustain its military in a full scale conflict (nukes aside) for any significant[/B ]amount of time.
Now how's that?

It depends. It wouldn't be impossible for them to.

Lets say between 5 and 25 years from now. And compare them to significant powers that would likely be involved in the conflict

Here's the second question. What state is Russia in at this time? If things go the way the current trends indicate, Russia will be economically stable, the military will have renewed a large part, if not all (depending on where in this 5-25 we end up) of it's arsenal, and the level of professionalism, as well as the proportion of contract to conscripted personnel may be quite large. On the other hand shit could hit the fan, another default, inability to stem corruption, social instability, low energy prices, inability to manage infrastructural investments to continue oil and gas export, defeat of Russian industry on an international stage, etc.

If things go well, Russia will be able to mobilize and sustain a force of it's current size in a long-term conflict, or a force of larger size in a medium-short term conflict. The cost will not be pleasant, however.

Agreed. But the point I wanted to make is that most of Russia's combat assets are dating back to the Soviet era. Almost no aquisitions where made in the nineties, and the aquisition of modern and more important new-built materiel is more a trickle then a waterfall. As I see it to get up to date the Russians have to aquire hundreds of new-built and new generation aircraft, and ships. The MBT's are still usefull in a zerg tactic strategy, the large numbers of T-72 and T-80 look impressive. But when we consider Russia's vast territory, they would definitly be needed in an al out global conflict.

Currently being done. T-90 purchases are in the hundreds already. BTR-80/80A, and BMP-3, are quickly becoming a common sight in Russian units.The question is whether the re-armament can be completed, and integrated with modern C4I and ISR systems.

To sum it up, Russian technology is awesome. The Su-34 is a fantastic bird, and the new flankers are very very good. Modern naval development is also good, definitly on par with the stuff most other regions develop, and new army developments are also very usefull and advanced. BUT! most of these things are token assets as it stands now, with no meaningfull numbers available now and in the future when we look at the defence needs of a country the size of Russia. Furthermore I have the creeping suspicion that a big part of their defence equipment will reach obsolescence or will just be run out in the next ten years.

This depends solely on the result of the current re-armament and reform program.

 

[gforce]

What will trigger a 2nd Korean War after it has been concluded that a North Korean submarine torpedoed and sank a South Korean warship?

I am waiting while eating popcorn.

 

[syncro]

WWIII 2020

Iran\NK\Palestine negotiations go nowhere. Russia pressured to cancel missle defence sales to Iran. Israel launches all out first-strike attack before Iranian home grown SAM and Nuclear warheads become field ready. Heavy air casualties on both sides. Iranian nuclear capacity crippled short term. Western support of Israel. Major terrorist strikes take place in the west. Iranian nuclear question unresolved. Government support of worldwide Jihad. Iran belligerent. Border is tense.

China embraces ME. Oil becomes an issue.

North Korea in economic ruin, Military government evolves.

Pakistan new terrorism haven\scapegoat. Strikes occur in major Indian cities. Diplomatic incident. Insults and sabre rattling. Pakistan India skirmish, India victory. Iran\Pakistan\China become friendly. China provides 'covert' aid to Pakistan. India mobilizes borders. China responds accordingly. Airspace tense, borders disputable. Nuclear threats, detente.

India navy maintains position near Malacca straits. More diplomatic incidents. China mobilizes CAGs as show of force. PLAN subs take up retaliatory positions. Navies on both sides escort key oil tanker convoys. Western powers refuse to commit to India's defence. India nervous.

Mother Russia content to sell anything to anyone, for the right price.

Middle East seething with Religious babble. Israel angry, flexes muscles. Sabre rattling all around. US\EU support receives heavy criticism. More terrorist attacks.

China begins intense ME diplomatic approachment. China belligerent to Taiwan. US protests. China threatens to evict US Government from White House if US does not come up with rent. US stands down. Taiwan scared. Airspace tense. PLAAF planes looking for excuses. Chinese subs pop up near Taiwanese Naval assets of interest. Diplomatic incidents, threats. Ultimatum to Taiwan. Taipei agrees to unification talks. Taiwanese very nervous, panic striken measures grab headlines.

Asia unstable. China scapegoated, flexes economic\military muscle. ME\China close. Japan\SK stand aside and take no provoking measures.

Economic ruin all around. Russia profits.

NK cries for attention. SK increasingly concerned. Issue no longer 'boring' to populace, according to latest Blizard polls. Seoul considers Israeli-like strike on NK.

Worldwide diplomatic instability. UN useless. It is 10 o'clock.

China buys Venezuela. US help to Colombia falters. Arms race. Venezuela Colombia Skirmish. Venezuela Victory. Venezuela belligerent. Colombia near internal collapse. Ships frequently avoid Panama or Suez Canal on purpose. US Navy flexing worldwide muscles. Brazil concerned.

The world begins to align to factions once again. Western powers care only for their resource supplies and their international commitments are now questioned. Appeasment abounds. India is concerned about her safety and will protest no more, pro Chinese sentiments in the government grow. SE asia splits pro\anti Chinese, arms race. Regional powers begin with the threats. Moscow is wary of millions of PLA troops and begins to see a brighter future with Beijing. Chinese investment into ME explodes.

Oil very big issue. Western support of Israel begins to falter.

Russia belligerent to her old Republics. Georgia occupied. Central Asian countries enter into puppet-like arrangments with Moscow. Nato tense, quiet.

Africa destabilizes. Plenty of outisde influence on the continent, none of it positive. Egypt spared, aligns eastwards.

Miditerranean ocean patrolled by NATO.

South American question pops up. Brazil, Argentina more millitant. Faction unknown. UK once again concerned for the Falklands.

ME near eruption. Israel borders very tense. Syria, Egypt and Lebanon mobilize with Chinese hardware. War seen as inevitable in the Knesset, outcome questionable.

China not pleased with progress with Taiwan. Demands military access. Taiwan refuses, stalls for time. US refuses miltary sales. Taiwan refuses to appease China and strategic warface commences. Taiwan blockaded. PLAAF decimates Taiwanese Air Force, heavy casualties on both sides. Strikes on Taiwanese targets bring large civilian casualties. Both sides threaten to unleash their missles on each others coasts\cities. Taiwan eventually brought to the negotiation table. Military occupation, then annexation into China as a semi-autonomous province. Japan,US concerned.

Israel deploys military warheads publicly. Nuclear proliferation. 11 o'clock gentlemen

Big brother takes over in the west, terrorist attacks succesful.

That alone is bad enough, I can't imagine how many scenarios pass through Military commanders.

 

[AMERICANMAN]

Again, neither. The current Russian leadership will do all they can to stay out of a major conflict (note, do not confuse it with a major confrontation). If they do end up dragged into it, the side they end up will be determined by circumstance, not by their own long-term planning or allegiances.



It depends. It wouldn't be impossible for them to.



Here's the second question. What state is Russia in at this time? If things go the way the current trends indicate, Russia will be economically stable, the military will have renewed a large part, if not all (depending on where in this 5-25 we end up) of it's arsenal, and the level of professionalism, as well as the proportion of contract to conscripted personnel may be quite large. On the other hand shit could hit the fan, another default, inability to stem corruption, social instability, low energy prices, inability to manage infrastructural investments to continue oil and gas export, defeat of Russian industry on an international stage, etc.

If things go well, Russia will be able to mobilize and sustain a force of it's current size in a long-term conflict, or a force of larger size in a medium-short term conflict. The cost will not be pleasant, however.



Currently being done. T-90 purchases are in the hundreds already. BTR-80/80A, and BMP-3, are quickly becoming a common sight in Russian units.The question is whether the re-armament can be completed, and integrated with modern C4I and ISR systems.



This depends solely on the result of the current re-armament and reform program.

Russia GDP is $2.116 trillion USA is $14.26 trillion (2009 est.) less then one seventh of the USA..
High performace weapons systems are very very expensive to develope and the only way Russia can can do that is by exporting the weapons. Exports are not that dependable and the USA can under cut the exports in a number of ways, At the present time there is a large surplus of USA Military Aircraft because smart bombs have been a tremendous force multplier.They can be used to undercut the Russian exports.. Russia cant export highly complex air craft to other countries that dont have the technical expertise to maintain the planes. Look at India they have crashed more then 500 migs so far.