Hypothetical world war 3

[Star Wars 888]

Hopefully, this won't actually happen, and is not intended to be offensive.

Year: 2032. Tensions are once again rising between the United States, Russia and China. The USA, although having long gotten out of that recession, still hasn't paid back its debts to China. Although they are doing it a bit year by year, China decides to demand that the USA pays back all of its debt within a course of 5 years - something that is secretly an attempt to force the USA into another recession. The American government refuses, calling the demand ridiculous.

Meanwhile, Britain, which was also badly in debt, still hadn't paid its debt back to Russia. Russia's leader in 2032 has a personal vendetta against the British Prime Minister. Also, Britain recently discovered a huge source of coal, oil and even uranium in Ireland, suspiciously contained in what appeared to be an abandoned man made cave. Russia had since been itching for an excuse to take the resources.

Suddenly, Russia launches a huge sea invasion of Britain with 1 million men and a powerful navy and air force. A rather large strategic blunder, the invasion force doesn't last long and has to retreat. Outraged, the rest of NATO demands that Russia stand down within 72 hours or face total war. Russia ignores them and launches an invasion of Poland, which falls within days. By this time, NATO declares war on Russia, who proceeds to invade Germany (notice the semi parallels with history?).

Meanwhile, the Russian leader plans to invade the United States. The strategy is that most of the US army, navy and air force would be in Germany, and that a huge naval blockade could trap them while a huge Russian invasion force could take the USA by storm. Many Russian generals laughed at the plan, but the Russian leader insists that it commences.

The largest invasion force in history of 10 million soldiers (which is a lot) sails across the Pacific ocean. 25% are killed before they can set foot, but the remainder set force in the west coast of the USA. The USA has the National Guard, in this hypothetical 2032 consisting of 1 million soldiers, 10,000 aircraft and 30,000 ground armor. Both sides have very, very good generals that would in this scenario probably remembered to be on par with Alexander the Great and Hannibal.

Meanwhile, in this scenario China joins Russia. However, in this scenario a Chinese democratic revolutionary starts a rebellion against the government. Although surprisingly well trained, supplied and organized, the guerrilla movement is relatively small at around 100,000, however, in this scenario their number will gradually rise at about 100,000 every year.
In this scenario, Germany has 600,000 troops and a decently strong navy and air force. Being in 2032 AD in this scenario, Germany has invented a revolutionary new tank. This tank can move at 60 mph, has an effective range of an impressive 12 kph, can go up moderate sized mountains, is practically immune to frontal fire and has enough fuel and food to last for a month with no supply line (omg wankage!). The Russian tank is also very effective, although lacking the logistical capabilities of the German tank, but is very cheap to mass produce. The American tank is semi based off of tank designs currently being designed. It is fast at 75 kph, its main cannon can fire indirectly, and it has an advanced laser scanning and targeting system that can detect precise enemy locations within 10 km at a margin of error of under 1 meter. Oh, and its radar stealthed (omg wankage!).

Also, stealth aircraft is fairly common in this scenario. The USA still has the lead in this, with the first DEW mounted on a jet fighter able to shoot down other fighters and intercept missiles, although the former is hard to do against stealth aircraft, and metal storm cannons mounted on fighters. The USA and Russia in this scenario have both launched workable space capable aircraft, yet the USA outnumbers Russia 2 to 1 in this category and are ahead in terms of the capabilities of said space plans.

The major nations in this scenario have SDI programs capable of shooting down nukes at a 75% chance rate.

Numbers in this scenario:

USA: 12 million
Other NATO nations: 20 million
Russia: 50 million
China 60 million

Although Russia and China greatly outnumber the USA and NATO, the latter still has the technological edge and a larger air force and navy.

In terms of GDP and production capabilities, USA and China in this scenario are on par with eachother, with Russia close behind. The EU combined is greater than the USA and Russia in GDP though.

Possible future technologies:

Fusion - in this scenario, USA scientists and Russian scientists are both about 5 years away from developing practical fusion tech.
Nano suits - already in development, in this scenario USA scientists are about 3 years away from developing practical advanced exoskeletons, and Russian scientists are about 6 years away.

What might happen in this hypothetical scenario?

[Chaotic Neutral]

Lets say the world has 1000 major cities. At a 75% destruction rate of nukes, that is 4000 nukes to hit every city. The world has far more than 4000 nukes.

Thus, it ends with a stalemate and severe depression of all involved, or a nuclear apocalypse.

[Star Wars 888]

Lets say the world has 1000 major cities. At a 75% destruction rate of nukes, that is 4000 nukes to hit every city. The world has far more than 4000 nukes.

Thus, it ends with a stalemate and severe depression of all involved, or a nuclear apocalypse.

Hopefully the world leaders would not be stupid enough to send nukes flying knowing that doing so would be suicidal.

Also, there's still the DEWs on fighters which in this scenario can shoot down fighters and missiles. Given the range of lasers, it would not be that much of a stretch to suggest that they can shoot down ICBMs too.

[Purple]

Well, if I may be honest here. I think the entire scenario is laughable.

For one, no man made cave could contain significant deposits of both coal, oil and uranium. Unless of course we are talking about something akin to the mines of Moria in scale. And I truly think that there is no force on earth that could build something like this without attracting a lot of attention. And where did the resources come from?
So unless you want to say Q did it it falls apart.


Than, you mentioned an invasion of the UK. But let me ask you something. How would the Russians do that?
They don't exactly have a surface fleet large enough to get 1 million men across to the UK. And they certainly could not do it without going around Scandinavia. And the Scandinavian countries would not exactly allow a huge war fleet to sail through their territorial waters. So Russia would have to invade them as well.

And naturally, this would be noticed well before the troops arrive, war would be declared and all hell would break lose.

And now we come to the big thing. NATO declares war on Russia.
You see, there is a rather good reason why the USSR when it was at it's peak did not try to take over Europe. And that reason still stands today. It's called Mutually Assured destruction.

If you want a plausible scenario for a third world war, try starting it with a nuclear holocaust.


Russia today does not have and I don't know if it ever had a fleet capable of transporting 1 million men to england without getting noticed and without provoking a threat, than war, and than a nuclear strike. The only reasonable strategy for them would be to strike first and destroy the hearth of western Europe while hoping that the Americans will stay neutral.

None of the things you propose could possibly happen since not even the opening makes any sense.

[Star Wars 888]

Well, if I may be honest here. I think the entire scenario is laughable.

For one, no man made cave could contain significant deposits of both coal, oil and uranium. Unless of course we are talking about something akin to the mines of Moria in scale. And I truly think that there is no force on earth that could build something like this without attracting a lot of attention. And where did the resources come from?
So unless you want to say Q did it it falls apart.

That's why in the hypothetical scenario I included the word "suspiciously". Maybe its some sort of alien civilization that put it there.

Than, you mentioned an invasion of the UK. But let me ask you something. How would the Russians do that?
They don't exactly have a surface fleet large enough to get 1 million men across to the UK. And they certainly could not do it without going around Scandinavia. And the Scandinavian countries would not exactly allow a huge war fleet to sail through their territorial waters. So Russia would have to invade them as well.

Hence why this scenario is set hypothetically in 2032 AD. Lots can change in that time, especially in terms of military stuff. If Russia or another world power were building up for war, they could indeed create a surface fleet large enough to carry 1 million men. Ever heard of D-day? Scandinavia would not realistically have much chance at stopping a one million man army going past them.

And naturally, this would be noticed well before the troops arrive, war would be declared and all hell would break lose.

Did you read the part where I called it a "strategic blunder"?

And now we come to the big thing. NATO declares war on Russia.
You see, there is a rather good reason why the USSR when it was at it's peak did not try to take over Europe. And that reason still stands today. It's called Mutually Assured destruction.

The SDI's reduce that somewhat in this scenario, as does the common sense to not launch nukes if doing so would be the end of the world.

If you want a plausible scenario for a third world war, try starting it with a nuclear holocaust.

Nah.

Russia today does not have and I don't know if it ever had a fleet capable of transporting 1 million men to england without getting noticed and without provoking a threat, than war, and than a nuclear strike. The only reasonable strategy for them would be to strike first and destroy the hearth of western Europe while hoping that the Americans will stay neutral.

Hence why I called it a "strategic blunder".

None of the things you propose could possibly happen since not even the opening makes any sense.

It's actually plausible though. Your arguments against it are based on modern day information on the world's armies.

[Purple]

That's why in the hypothetical scenario I included the word "suspiciously". Maybe its some sort of alien civilization that put it there.

Than you should have said so.
They also gave the Russians magical teleportation so that their ships don't have to travel months to reach the UK or worse yet to reach the US. On a voyage that would have them easily spotted and picked off by aircraft and cruise missiles.

They also magically disabled all NATO nuclear weapons so that they can't do what the entire point of NATO is. Nuke Moscow.

Hence why this scenario is set hypothetically in 2032 AD. Lots can change in that time, especially in terms of military stuff. If Russia or another world power were building up for war, they could indeed create a surface fleet large enough to carry 1 million men. Ever heard of D-day?

The point is that this fleet would, like it or not have to pass around Scandinavia and through the north sea. All in plain sight of NATO forces. I doubt even a single ship would reach the UK. I mean, compared to this, Sea Lion sounds promising.

Hence, there is no general alive that would be that stupid to do something like that.
A far more realistic scenario would have been the Russians simply nuking the UK with a few ICBMs or even bombers.

Scandinavia would not realistically have much chance at stopping a one million man army going past them.

The point is that they would buy time. Time NATO would use to nuke the living daylights out of Russia.

Did you read the part where I called it a "strategic blunder"?

More like outright insanity that breaks even the hardest limits of suspension of disbelief on any level.

The SDI's reduce that somewhat in this scenario, as does the common sense to not launch nukes if doing so would be the end of the world.

No it does not.
The entire point of nuclear weapons was that they were made to be used. And that they would have been used.
The moment an invasion force hits the seas heading for the UK, the British will have no doubt that their options are annihilation at the hands of the Russians, or a mutual annihilation with nukes. And they would have no choice but to use nukes.

Even if they did somehow destroy all the Russians and defeat Russia without using nukes. What comes after that?
NATO would fall apart because the member states have refused to help each other. They have refused to do their job and nuke the living hell out of Russia.

It's actually plausible though. Your arguments against it are based on modern day information on the world's armies.

No, they are based on common sense. And on the fact that there are actually things like NATO designed to defend the west against a Russian aggression.

You can't realistically expect that the countries of the world would throw away their one and only trump card just so that they can give you a slug fest that fits your taste.


But since you have already admitted that you have no desire to poses even the slightest pretext of realism. I will leave you at that.

[Star Wars 888]

Than you should have said so.
They also gave the Russians magical teleportation so that their ships don't have to travel months to reach the UK or worse yet to reach the US. On a voyage that would have them easily spotted and picked off by aircraft and cruise missiles.

It wouldn't take months, and both sides would have an air force. Russia wouldn't go unarmed.

They also magically disabled all NATO nuclear weapons so that they can't do what the entire point of NATO is. Nuke Moscow.

Which would trigger a retaliation by Russia and possibly the end of the world as we know it. Would NATO be that stupid?

The point is that this fleet would, like it or not have to pass around Scandinavia and through the north sea. All in plain sight of NATO forces. I doubt even a single ship would reach the UK. I mean, compared to this, Sea Lion sounds promising.

Hence why in this scenario their invasion of Britain fails.

Hence, there is no general alive that would be that stupid to do something like that.
A far more realistic scenario would have been the Russians simply nuking the UK with a few ICBMs or even bombers.

In this scenario it was a strategic blunder. The invasion of Britain happens before the actual scenario begins.

The point is that they would buy time. Time NATO would use to nuke the living daylights out of Russia.

To start a nuclear war in such a situation would be suicide.

More like outright insanity that breaks even the hardest limits of suspension of disbelief on any level.

More reasonable than nuking a country that can nuke back.

No it does not.
The entire point of nuclear weapons was that they were made to be used. And that they would have been used.
The moment an invasion force hits the seas heading for the UK, the British will have no doubt that their options are annihilation at the hands of the Russians, or a mutual annihilation with nukes. And they would have no choice but to use nukes.

This contradicts your earlier claim that Russia would get stomped in an invasion of Britain, which in this scenario they did. After that, in this scenario they conquer Poland and invade Germany, thus coming in conflict with Europe. Then they launch an invasion of the USA.

Even if they did somehow destroy all the Russians and defeat Russia without using nukes. What comes after that?
NATO would fall apart because the member states have refused to help each other. They have refused to do their job and nuke the living hell out of Russia.

"NATO would fall apart because the member states have refused to help each other. They have refused to do their job and nuke the living hell out of Russia."

What? In this scenario, NATO declares war on Russia in response to aggression against Britain and Poland. That's fulfilling the treaty. The treaty is to help a member of NATO that is attacked by an external force, not to start a suicidal, doomsday and foolish nuclear war over an argument over debts.

No, they are based on common sense. And on the fact that there are actually things like NATO designed to defend the west against a Russian aggression.

You can't realistically expect that the countries of the world would throw away their one and only trump card just so that they can give you a slug fest that fits your taste.


But since you have already admitted that you have no desire to poses even the slightest pretext of realism. I will leave you at that.

"trump card" - no, a nuclear war is a foolish thing to try and start. In the case of a war both countries aren't going to go straight for their nukes unless if they want to get annihilated.

[Imperial528]

Here's what I predict:

1. MAD.

2. Russian and Chinese forces get nuked at sea. Any NATO invasion forces go through a similar experience. Slightly lower possibility of MAD.

You have failed to realize just how ready the governments of the world were during the Cold War to nuke the living fuck out of each other. If you walk through any major American city you will see old "Fallout Shelter" signs on any large concrete or stone building that has a significantly sized basement structure. I'm sure the same would go for England and Russia. In fact, they were so prepared for MAD that each side built systems to out-do the other side's early warning systems and missile defense. The USSR built a way of deploying ICBM warheads from satellites in space, NATO developed ICBMs which could carry at least three warheads, so to overwhelm Soviet anti-warhead missiles. The US also commenced research into laser weapons to disable enemy nukes, which continues to this day. And during all this every power was building the most extensive fortresses known to man. There's a bunker I know of in the US that could survive a direct nuclear strike, and the facility itself is mounted on the largest springs I've every seen in order to absorb the shock.

Simply put, in the Cold War there were two objectives in the event of total war: 1. Bomb the enemy so hard that the ground glows as bright as the sun. And 2. Make sure the enemy takes more bombs than you do.

Note the order of those two objectives. Once it comes to total war numbers being thrown around, intact survival takes the backseat to making sure the enemy does not survive intact. In total war, you know you will emerge crippled, but the goal is to make sure that the enemy isn't there to take advantage of that.

Of course, by launching the invasion first, Russia also becomes the guy who fires his nukes second. When you become that guy, you lose, since most of your missiles will be destroyed by the enemy's missiles, even if you manage to launch a salvo in time, the enemy has already launched a second one.

[adam_grif]

Lets say the world has 1000 major cities. At a 75% destruction rate of nukes, that is 4000 nukes to hit every city. The world has far more than 4000 nukes.

Thus, it ends with a stalemate and severe depression of all involved, or a nuclear apocalypse.

The number of warheads in service is declining.

Nuclear weapons do not get targeted at "major cities", they get targeted at assets, some of which are located in cities.

There are way, way more than 1000 targets in the world, and only some of these are located inside cities.

Most of the world's population would survive the initial nuclear exchange, and most of the deaths would occur in the aftermath (with collapses of governments, vital services, power grid goes down, trade grinds to a halt etc).

[Chaotic Neutral]

The number of warheads in service is declining.

Nuclear weapons do not get targeted at "major cities", they get targeted at assets, some of which are located in cities.

There are way, way more than 1000 targets in the world, and only some of these are located inside cities.

Most of the world's population would survive the initial nuclear exchange, and most of the deaths would occur in the aftermath (with collapses of governments, vital services, power grid goes down, trade grinds to a halt etc).

I know, I was just assuming all the nukes were aimed at cities for maximum terror for the enemy. Thus better deterrence.

(Or at least I'm assuming the militaries wouldn't be stupid enough to start the nuclear exchange in the first place since there is no way to win, so I figure scaring the populace and making it unthinkable for them would maximize the money spend on nukes. This is all just assumption from someone who knows nothing mind you.

[Cykeisme]

They also magically disabled all NATO nuclear weapons so that they can't do what the entire point of NATO is. Nuke Moscow.

Which would trigger a retaliation by Russia and possibly the end of the world as we know it. Would NATO be that stupid?

That, my cherry-picking friend, is why neither the Soviet Union of the past nor the Russian Federation of the present is stupid enough to sail a war fleet to the United Kingdom in the first place.

[Sarevok]

The OP mentions the year being 2032. Depending on how much support NMD got the US may as well be highly resistant to ICBM attacks and come out relatively unscathed.

[Axiomatic]

Is this the backstory to Metro 2033?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Your troop numbers for Russia are massive, incredible bullshit. This is supposed to happen 22 years from now. Currently the population of Russia is about 142 million. What's more, its' fertility rate is LESS than replacement.

Unless Russia starts a massive 'unprotected fuckfest' program there's no way Russia could increase the size of its' army FIFTY FOLD.

Its just bullshit. Then you have a country that has NEVER been a major surface naval power blockade the UNITED STATES? Do you have any idea how LONG our coastlines are? Why does Russia get absurd levels of military and technological buildup while the US ignores it?

Junk it. Junk the whole thing.

Edit: Also, making a tank 'radar stealthed' is like making invisible saran wrap. It serves no purpose, because we don't track tanks with radar

[PeZook]

Year: 2032. Tensions are once again rising between the United States, Russia and China. The USA, although having long gotten out of that recession, still hasn't paid back its debts to China. Although they are doing it a bit year by year, China decides to demand that the USA pays back all of its debt within a course of 5 years - something that is secretly an attempt to force the USA into another recession. The American government refuses, calling the demand ridiculous.

Yeah...except China couldn't do that. Or it could, but it would have to sell off its T-Bills at a lower return rate thus making a lot of people really, really rich in the process and not really causing anything but temporary market panic when investors start asking "Hey, what do they know we don't?".

Hell, the Treasury might just buy some of these bonds back and pat themselves on the back, reducing the national debt for no cost at all (because future bond issues would pay for that), or even coming out ahead depending what discount Stupid China decides to accept.

T-Bills are bonds ; Thus, you can't just walk up to the issuing party and demand they pay you the full amount.

Meanwhile, Britain, which was also badly in debt, still hadn't paid its debt back to Russia. Russia's leader in 2032 has a personal vendetta against the British Prime Minister. Also, Britain recently discovered a huge source of coal, oil and even uranium in Ireland, suspiciously contained in what appeared to be an abandoned man made cave. Russia had since been itching for an excuse to take the resources.

They want undeveloped resources they couldn't use...why, exactly? Just buy them by leveraging Britain's debt. It would certainly cost less than building up a surface navy large enough to do the next phase in this stupid plan...

Suddenly, Russia launches a huge sea invasion of Britain with 1 million men and a powerful navy and air force. A rather large strategic blunder, the invasion force doesn't last long and has to retreat. Outraged, the rest of NATO demands that Russia stand down within 72 hours or face total war. Russia ignores them and launches an invasion of Poland, which falls within days. By this time, NATO declares war on Russia, who proceeds to invade Germany (notice the semi parallels with history?).

This is hilarious ; You can't launch a 1 million man invasion "suddenly". You'd be hard pressed to launch it within a decade ; That's how much of a lead time you'd need to orient the entire Russian Navy for the task (and where's the money for that going to come from? Overlord involved a measly five divisions and took half the world three years to plan and build enough ships for. Modern weapons are far, far more expensive than that.)

And of course the rest of the world is going to notice and uparm themselves. And...well, they can easily outspend Russia, even Future Russia.

Meanwhile, the Russian leader plans to invade the United States. The strategy is that most of the US army, navy and air force would be in Germany, and that a huge naval blockade could trap them while a huge Russian invasion force could take the USA by storm. Many Russian generals laughed at the plan, but the Russian leader insists that it commences.

The largest invasion force in history of 10 million soldiers (which is a lot) sails across the Pacific ocean. 25% are killed before they can set foot, but the remainder set force in the west coast of the USA. The USA has the National Guard, in this hypothetical 2032 consisting of 1 million soldiers, 10,000 aircraft and 30,000 ground armor. Both sides have very, very good generals that would in this scenario probably remembered to be on par with Alexander the Great and Hannibal.

And the US...is just going to oblige Russia in this brilliant plan? When they have an excellent unsinkable carrier positioned in the perfect place to intercept Russian naval movements across the Atlantic and the North Sea? How is Russia going to simultaneously blockade Britain and escort a giant convoy carrying 10 million men across the Atlantic? Pacific is even worse ; Russia doesn't even have proper bases in the Pacific - Vladivostok certainly couldn't handle that sort of traffic, even if massively upgraded. Since Britain was invaded before, the port where that fleet will be assembling is going to get nuked via sub-launched missiles.

It simply can't be done ; It will never be possible within twenty years. Russia can't build a navy large enough to do that ; The US won't oblige their stupid plan ; Russia can't even raise an army 10 million men strong and keep its economy going!

Most likely outcome is that the idiot in charge gets overthrown in an internal coup by the Army.

Meanwhile, in this scenario China joins Russia. However, in this scenario a Chinese democratic revolutionary starts a rebellion against the government. Although surprisingly well trained, supplied and organized, the guerrilla movement is relatively small at around 100,000, however, in this scenario their number will gradually rise at about 100,000 every year.

What does China stand to gain from joining Russia in this insanity? The Chinese are practical people, they'd see the sheer madness of this plan and sit this one out. Why deliberately lose your biggest markets?

[wankage snipped, it's irrelevant anyway]

USA: 12 million
Other NATO nations: 20 million
Russia: 50 million
China 60 million

So all the world's nations are mobilized to WWII levels, yet armed with modern weapons (which are orders of magnitude more expensive and have production lead time measured in decades)?

No wonder the US is so deep in debt in your scenario, but then again, Russia would cripple itself economically since they'd have to conscript every single able bodied man into its armed forces, while the US had been mobilized to this level before without collapsing (total manpower available for Russia today:

Code: Select all

males age 16-49: 34,850,217
females age 16-49: 35,693,977 (2010 est.)

Therefore, I posit all the US enemies collapse within two months and the war doesn't happen. Well, China could do it, but as before, they have no strategic reason to.

Although Russia and China greatly outnumber the USA and NATO, the latter still has the technological edge and a larger air force and navy.

So...NATO does have the larger navy, yet Russia still somehow manages to pull of the 10 million man invasion across the Pacific?

[Solauren]

Why do Star Wars 888's threads military estimates and abilities all sound like his education on the matter is from a combination rather slanted military stratergy games (i.e Civilizations using cheat codes), bad military action video games, bad RPG games, and bad war novels?

[Serafina]

Why do Star Wars 888's threads military estimates and abilities all sound like his education on the matter is from a combination rather slanted military stratergy games (i.e Civilizations using cheat codes), bad military action video games, bad RPG games, and bad war novels?

I think you just nailed it. Except that you left out Hears of Iron (III possibly).

Seriously, the entire szenario is just an entire handwave, without even paying lipservice to economics, logistics or anything from real life.

[Star Wars 888]

Wow. I suspected that this would get a lot of scrutiny, but this is getting ridiculous.

Ok:

A lot of the logistical requirements for such invasions and armies seem to be beyond what a nation could accomplish by 2032. However, given that this is a hypothetical scenario, suspend your disbelief for that part of this scenario and assume that for whatever reason the logistical capabilities and population rate boomed at a huge rate. Or simply assume that it's set in, say 2050 or 2100.

The apparent stupidity of many of the leaders is not that uncommon. This is primarily a Star Wars forum. For those of you who don't know, many Star Wars characters make blunders that appear to be beyond ridiculous from our perspective.

I still disagree with assertions that nations would use nukes in the case of any war. Using nukes in this scenario would be suicide. Even if they had plans during the Cold War to use nukes, plans don't always work in actual warfare, because to launch nukes WOULD BE SUICIDE! (besides, this scenario is quite a while after the Cold War had ended).

Or increase the hypothetical SDIs to a 99% chance of intercepting ICBMS going across long distances. However, the 75% chance rate still applies to intra-continental nuclear missiles, but the SDIs can't intercept close range tactical nukes. Also, in this scenario there's bunkers in every major city in the world. These bunkers can fit up to 1 million people (yeah, a big bunker) with enough supplies for a huge amount of time (food grown inside by effective artificial lighting whose power source is being supplied by other major cities and clean water flowing in from pipes that can be supplied by other major cities) and survive a nuclear explosion (aka with a huge amount of armor and/or deep underground).

[Star Wars 888]

Why do Star Wars 888's threads military estimates and abilities all sound like his education on the matter is from a combination rather slanted military stratergy games (i.e Civilizations using cheat codes), bad military action video games, bad RPG games, and bad war novels?

I think you just nailed it. Except that you left out Hears of Iron (III possibly).

Seriously, the entire szenario is just an entire handwave, without even paying lipservice to economics, logistics or anything from real life.

I think, however, that we can both agree on the fact that I uterally pwned your attack on me during that 26th century Earth vs Empire thread. You accused me of "wankery" and "handwaving" Earth when facing a Star Wars civilization that handwaves physics.

[ray245]

Wow. I suspected that this would get a lot of scrutiny, but this is getting ridiculous.

Ok:

A lot of the logistical requirements for such invasions and armies seem to be beyond what a nation could accomplish by 2032. However, given that this is a hypothetical scenario, suspend your disbelief for that part of this scenario and assume that for whatever reason the logistical capabilities and population rate boomed at a huge rate. Or simply assume that it's set in, say 2050 or 2100.

If we have to suspend our disbelief because you are unable to craft any plausible scenario, there's no point in discussing about who will win.

[Imperial528]

Star Wars 888, I don't think you get it. Just because a scenario is hypothetical in nature does not mean that suddenly all historical precedents can be handwaved away. During the Cold War there weren't just plans, there were plans that only needed one order to come to fruition. Nuclear silos had coordinates locked in from a database, submarines were ready to be launched, etc. They were ready for a Nuclear War. If the US were to see Russia suddenly making giant transport navies and not telling anyone why, and saw China start to do the same, they'd get ready to pull all the stops and say: "Stop or die".

And given that Russia would need to recruit almost its entire population to pull this off, they probably wouldn't even be able to effectively man and run their silos. Of course, there's also the fact that when the USSR collapsed many nuclear systems did too, while the NATO systems are still maintained. Out of the two, only China would really pose any threat, nuclear or otherwise, and they're not stupid enough to give Americans a reason to stop outsourcing.

[Star Wars 888]

Star Wars 888, I don't think you get it. Just because a scenario is hypothetical in nature does not mean that suddenly all historical precedents can be handwaved away. During the Cold War there weren't just plans, there were plans that only needed one order to come to fruition. Nuclear silos had coordinates locked in from a database, submarines were ready to be launched, etc. They were ready for a Nuclear War. If the US were to see Russia suddenly making giant transport navies and not telling anyone why, and saw China start to do the same, they'd get ready to pull all the stops and say: "Stop or die".

Let's say that in this scenario you're the President of the USA. If Russia invaded Britain, and if NATO was still in existence, what would you do? Launch nukes and destroy humanity?

And given that Russia would need to recruit almost its entire population to pull this off, they probably wouldn't even be able to effectively man and run their silos. Of course, there's also the fact that when the USSR collapsed many nuclear systems did too, while the NATO systems are still maintained. Out of the two, only China would really pose any threat, nuclear or otherwise, and they're not stupid enough to give Americans a reason to stop outsourcing.

Fine then. Move the date to 2050. Maybe a revolutionary step forward in medicine boomed the population rate and some leap forward in robotics boomed the logistical capabilities and production capabilities of the major world powers. These are actually very plausible given the amount of things that can happen in 40 years.

In this scenario the SDI interception rate increases to 99% for cross continental ICBMs and 75% for intra-continental nuclear missiles but not enough to stop tactical nukes.

[ray245]

Fine then. Move the date to 2050. Maybe a revolutionary step forward in medicine boomed the population rate and some leap forward in robotics boomed the logistical capabilities and production capabilities of the major world powers. These are actually very plausible given the amount of things that can happen in 40 years.

How about this? Instead of trying to invent more things to justify your scenario, just admit that you crafted an impossible scenario to begin with? Do you not understand that no one down here is really interested in giving you an answer to your stupid scenario?

I mean, how much do you even know about the rate of progress in medicine and robotics?

[PeZook]

A lot of the logistical requirements for such invasions and armies seem to be beyond what a nation could accomplish by 2032. However, given that this is a hypothetical scenario, suspend your disbelief for that part of this scenario and assume that for whatever reason the logistical capabilities and population rate boomed at a huge rate. Or simply assume that it's set in, say 2050 or 2100.

10 million men still need three meals a day and two litres of water, even if they use fusion-powered zapguns with no spare parts requirements and nanowank self-regenarating armor etc.

Assuming:

- Perfect scalability of transport: that is, you can fit all ships to full capacity with no losses due to cargo geometry etc.
- The need to supply the 10 million men for a paltry three days before they can scavenge their food locally (that one is the real killer: they won't be able to do that in a warzone)
- No opposition whatsoever for the convoys, allowing you to ship the items in the most efficient way possible.
- That each soldier needs 1 kg of food and 2 kg of water per day (very minimal for soldiers expected to fight)

We get an awesome number of 30 million tonnes of supplies which you will need right there. That's just the supplies - you need to ship the soldiers and their magic no-logistics vehicles, too.

The total number of ships over 1000 tonnes in the Russian merchant marine is about 1600 with DWT tonnage of circa 8 million tonnes.

So, just to ship the supplies for the troops doing that stupid invasion, you'd need to strip entire russia bare of ships. Vladivostok could never take so many ships, anyway ; Not even with significant upgrades. Add in tonnage required to move the soldiers themselves and the necessary escorts, and accounting for a 20% drop in shipping tonnage from convoying, and you get a plan that's completely unworkable. Not in thirty nor a hundred years: the necessary buildup would be economically ruinous and would result in the biggest military catastrophe in history. Hence, of the Russian leader insists on carrying it out, he'd get overthrown.

If Russia wanted to prepare for that invasion, they'd need to increase the size of their merchant marine by an utter minimum of 22 million tonnes, more likely an order of magnitude more ; And maintain all those ships and their crews and berths while they sit there, economically useless due to a lack of demand.

The apparent stupidity of many of the leaders is not that uncommon. This is primarily a Star Wars forum. For those of you who don't know, many Star Wars characters make blunders that appear to be beyond ridiculous from our perspective.

Real-world blunders are more like Gallipoli: they seem like a good idea at the time, but the execution is botched and support lackluster. Your plan is like Sealion: never taken seriously by anybody in the armed services, and even actively sabotaged to keep the catastrophe from happening.

I still disagree with assertions that nations would use nukes in the case of any war. Using nukes in this scenario would be suicide. Even if they had plans during the Cold War to use nukes, plans don't always work in actual warfare, because to launch nukes WOULD BE SUICIDE! (besides, this scenario is quite a while after the Cold War had ended).

Why would it be suicide? A war involving 300 million soldiers would devastate the world anyway ; Nukes would be used where expedient, such as nuking Vladivostok to deny the invasion armada a base. That can be done with a couple of nuclear torpedoes or a supersonic missile launched from a submarine, alternatively you can mine the port's entrance with nuclear sea mines to completely deny the port.

Or increase the hypothetical SDIs to a 99% chance of intercepting ICBMS going across long distances. However, the 75% chance rate still applies to intra-continental nuclear missiles, but the SDIs can't intercept close range tactical nukes. Also, in this scenario there's bunkers in every major city in the world. These bunkers can fit up to 1 million people (yeah, a big bunker) with enough supplies for a huge amount of time (food grown inside by effective artificial lighting whose power source is being supplied by other major cities and clean water flowing in from pipes that can be supplied by other major cities) and survive a nuclear explosion (aka with a huge amount of armor and/or deep underground).

The Russian plan is still completely unworkable, and thus will fail before it even leaves the Kremlin. The Army will generate some paperwork clearly showing it's insane, and if the leader still insists, they will depose him.

Since you yourself posit that NATO has a bigger navy than the combined forces of Russia and China, that kills any massive million-man invasions right there, since they will be opposed, and thus impossible to pull off. The Allies enjoyed total naval and air superiority during Overlord ; With modern weapons, any amount of resistance will destroy or cause crippling casualties to an invasion of that scale. Precise artillery and long-range antiship missiles will make it impossible to supply troops on beachheads, for example: Germans never had the capability to destroy ships approaching the beaches from launch batteries located 100+ kilometres inland, for example.

Why do Star Wars 888's threads military estimates and abilities all sound like his education on the matter is from a combination rather slanted military stratergy games (i.e Civilizations using cheat codes), bad military action video games, bad RPG games, and bad war novels?

My education in these matters isn't anything special, either ; I just can do a simplest analysis involving such complicated mathematics as "multiplication" and "division". I don't even need to use any logistics functions or dig deep for data, since the Russian plan breaks down in the barest fundamentals, within orders of magnitude. It's not "we have 10% less trucks than we need" it's "our economy will never come within an order of magnitude to the most conservative estimate we can make".

[Jaevric]

The invasion fleet is wiped out by tactical nuclear weapons before it ever reaches American shores, with the United States threatening to escalate to using nuclear weapons on continental targets if there is any attempt to retaliate by Russia or China. At this point, the loss of a enormous amount of Russia and China's wealth combined with 10 million of their citizens for a gain of absolutely nothing except the US and Great Britain both telling them to fuck off results in Russia and China collapsing due to internal strife.

When Russia and China tell the United States and Great Britain "You can't use nuclear weapons, it's suicide!" the US and UK reply with "Sure as hell is, for you."

Your scenario is an existential threat to the US and UK. Remember how Americans were up in arms after 9-11? No American government would survive not using nukes against an invasion force like the one posited if that force actually landed on American soil.