Russia and China

[preemptingyou03]

For some reason, I feel that the War on Terror is the slow start of World War III with Russia and China. I don't want to be the doomsday caller here because I may just be wrong, but I think that within 10-20, maybe even 30 years, the geo-political struggle for regional dominance in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, will inevitably bring a confrontation between the US and China.

And it is there that I have thw following questions.

1) If we invaded North Korea, would China back North Korea militarily?

2) If China defended North Korea, what would Russia do? Would it become WWIII?

3) If China invaded any of its neighbors, what would we do?

4) If we got into a war with China, where would Russia stand? Russia isn't communist anymore put would it return to its communist roots and defend its communist ally China, or would Russia fight alongside with us for the sake of democracy?

5) If there was a war between Russia and China, what would it look like? Would there be three fronts? (Russia in Europe, China in Asia, and both Russian and Chinese forces in the Middle East).

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
For some reason, I feel that the War on Terror is the slow start of World War III with Russia and China. I don't want to be the doomsday caller here because I may just be wrong, but I think that within 10-20, maybe even 30 years, the geo-political struggle for regional dominance in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, will inevitably bring a confrontation between the US and China.

And it is there that I have thw following questions.

1) If we invaded North Korea, would China back North Korea militarily?

2) If China defended North Korea, what would Russia do? Would it become WWIII?

3) If China invaded any of its neighbors, what would we do?

4) If we got into a war with China, where would Russia stand? Russia isn't communist anymore put would it return to its communist roots and defend its communist ally China, or would Russia fight alongside with us for the sake of democracy?

5) If there was a war between Russia and China, what would it look like? Would there be three fronts? (Russia in Europe, China in Asia, and both Russian and Chinese forces in the Middle East).

Lots of hypotheticals there - Chances are great North Korea will go the way of the USSR.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Well then forget about North Korea... what about China? What if Korea is liberated and China does nothing? What if North Korea does go the way of the USSR and reforms?

Does China invade Korea to make it communist again in 5-10 years?

My point is these "hypotheticals" are what we need to be thinking about.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
1) If we invaded North Korea, would China back North Korea militarily?

2) If China defended North Korea, what would Russia do? Would it become WWIII?

3) If China invaded any of its neighbors, what would we do?

4) If we got into a war with China, where would Russia stand? Russia isn't communist anymore put would it return to its communist roots and defend its communist ally China, or would Russia fight alongside with us for the sake of democracy?

5) If there was a war between Russia and China, what would it look like? Would there be three fronts? (Russia in Europe, China in Asia, and both Russian and Chinese forces in the Middle East).

Totally based on my opinions:

1. If we started it, I'm sure that China would send troops to NK unless we had some amazing diplomatic successes.

2. Russia doesn't like China. I don't think they would fight against us. If anything, they'd join us - but I'm pretty sure they would sit it out.

3. If they invaded Taiwan, we would fight back, and they know this, and thus are not willing to attack. I think they understand that we would consider any unsubstantiated attack as a threat and that we would respond accordingly.

4. See #2.

5. If they fought - which they almost did in the 1970's - it would most likely be a two front war, on either side of Mongolia. I can't imagine that either side would pick a fight with the other, though, unless there was a good reason for it.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
My point is these "hypotheticals" are what we need to be thinking about. [/B]

There are many people in the Pentagon, CIA, and State that wargame this stuff all day long. What a fun job that would be...

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
My point is these "hypotheticals" are what we need to be thinking about.

I agree. I suspect that the Korean Peninsula will go the opposite way of the USSR which broke up. At some point North and South Korea will probably be re-united. The "sunshine" policy of the last S. Korean president was moving that process along. I think it even earned my a Nobel Peace Prize. But that process took a big hit when W took office. He suspended negotiations with N. Korea and instituted a "policy review." Then came the "axis of evil" statement and diplomacy was, for the time being, derailed. China, Japan, the U.S. and the Koreas are trying to get the diplomatic track moving again it fits and starts. The diplomatic track is important because there is no military track that works. North Korea has one million soldiers and quite possibly nuclear weapons. So, in the short term, containment, with the longer goal of reunification is the only real option available. How many millions of Koreans will starve to death before that happens remains an open question, as does the disposition of N. Korean WMD and missile technology.

Frankly, I’m more concerned about the possibility that India and Pakistan will start lobbing nukes at each other.

Originally posted by preemptingyou03 ) If China invaded any of its neighbors, what would we do? [/B]

This is a serious and immediate concern. The US has passed legislation that we would defend Taiwan if they are attacked by China. It is a real possibility.

Again, there is no good military option. China has a quarter of the worlds population. There are simply too many to take on in a conventional war assuming that it was fought in and around China. And obviously lobby nukes at each other is an unappealing option. So far, the U.S. policy has been both military and diplomatic. We provide Taiwan with a credible non-nuclear deterrent to defend itself, and at the same time we support the "one china" policy, that states, in a nutxhell, that Taiwan is part of Chana.

 

[preemptingyou03]

5. If they fought - which they almost did in the 1970's - it would most likely be a two front war, on either side of Mongolia. I can't imagine that either side would pick a fight with the other, though, unless there was a good reason for it.

I meant Russia and China against us.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
I meant Russia and China against us.

I'm pretty happy to let you field this one Jeff!

 

[preemptingyou03]

I agree with all of you. I think terrorism is a serious problem now but I think we're turning a blind eye towards China. I think China is going to be, one day, our most serious enemy. And if we got into a war with them, it is unknown where Russia would stand. If Russia fought against us, would we fight a democratic government just because of geo-political and regional differences?

If we went to war with China, what would Russia do? And if we went to war with Russia, what would FRANCE do?

 

[johnfromohio]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
I agree with all of you. I think terrorism is a serious problem now but I think we're turning a blind eye towards China. I think China is going to be, one day, our most serious enemy. And if we got into a war with them, it is unknown where Russia would stand. If Russia fought against us, would we fight a democratic government just because of geo-political and regional differences?

If we went to war with China, what would Russia do? And if we went to war with Russia, what would FRANCE do?

The FRENCH

OOOOHHHHH SHIT
don't get me started on those non-leg-shaving, un-grateful people. And most of all FRENCH people would be speakin german if it wasn't for the US. So if they decided to be their regular pussy selves and not make any military action but suggest all kinds of ways to 'solve the problem', it wouldn't suprise me.

 

[Rambo]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
China has a quarter of the worlds population. There are simply too many to take on in a conventional war assuming that it was fought in and around China.

i honestly don't think this would be a problem. the US is way too technologically advance in the military. if we did go to war, it'll be cloudy with stealth bomber, b-52's with a 100% percent chance of raining cruise missle, precision guided bombs and maybe some MOAB.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
I meant Russia and China against us.

I'm sure we'd have a Football strategy for that... and I don't mean the football that we watch on Sundays.

(For those who don't understand allegory, that means nukes.)

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
If we went to war with China, what would Russia do? And if we went to war with Russia, what would FRANCE do? [/B]

Surrender pre-emptively.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I'm sure we'd have a Football strategy for that... and I don't mean the football that we watch on Sundays.

(For those who don't understand allegory, that means nukes.)

does this mean that nukes are no longer a deterrent against nukes? that we would use them as SOP in war?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
does this mean that nukes are no longer a deterrent against nukes? that we would use them as SOP in war?

Good call. Based on that, Russia probably wouldn't want to go to war with us. That leaves China on their own. Good call DK!

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
does this mean that nukes are no longer a deterrent against nukes?

I think it's a realization of the fact that it would be difficult to win a conventional war against both Russia and China, simultaneously. And that even if we were on the verge of victory, they would undoubtedly resort to nuclear weapons, so we may as well just use them first, hope for the best, and skip to the end.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Zhukov
I think it's a realization of the fact that it would be difficult to win a conventional war against both Russia and China, simultaneously. And that even if we were on the verge of victory, they would undoubtedly resort to nuclear weapons, so we may as well just use them first, hope for the best, and skip to the end.

ok, in that instance, how would pre-emptive nuclear strikes affect our relationships with the other world powers and how many more enemies would we find aligned against us that we would never expect?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
ok, in that instance, how would pre-emptive nuclear strikes affect our relationships with the other world powers and how many more enemies would we find aligned against us that we would never expect?

We'd have to do a comprehensive threat assessment beforehand, and take out all of them at once. Or: How many people do you think would be in our face after we incinerated half the world, and maintained the capacity to incinerate the other half at a moments notice?

That's not really the point though. We are assuming the Chinese and the Russians are the aggressors here, in which case I don't think there would be much of a choice.

We couldn't win a conventional war. There are simply too many of them.

So we would do what was neccessary, and deal with the fall-out afterwords.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Zhukov
So we would do what was neccessary, and deal with the fall-out afterwords.

Fall-out? I assume the pun was intended.

 

[Zhukov]

Absolutely. The misspelling of afterwards was not.