Who would win in a war: the U.S. vs Russia and China?
Germany and India would win.In a scenario where those countries fought and there were no nukes, the United States and its allies would have a qualitative advantage in armaments and a huge advantage on the seas, but the vastness of the territory and enormous populations of Russia and China would mean they could never possibly conquer those countries. The war would turn into a bloody and costly stalemate in which the people of the United States would probably eventually get tired of fighting and make peace, especially since their Japanese allies would be in the line of fire and pressuring them to do so.However, by the time everyone reached that point and made peace, all of the countries in question would have sustained serious material and economic damage and would be seriously weakened. As a result, there would be a power vacuum in which another power or powers in the world could advance their own status. The two countries most likely to benefit are Germany and India; the former because it is one of the world’s foremost industrial and economic powers, and the leading nation of the EU, and India because it is already an emerging world power with more than a billion people.A good historical parallel is the final war between the Roman Empire and the Sassanid Persian Empire, which took place between 602 and 628, and climaxed about 400 years of conflict between those two world powers. In the last war, the Persians nearly won and briefly controlled most of the territories of the Eastern Roman Empire, but the Emperor Heraclius was able to re-organize and rebuild his armies, and in a daring campaign, he defeated the Persians at Nineveh in 627 (just a year after the Persians had besieged Constantinople) and marched to the gates of Ctesiphon, where the Persians surrendered. They returned everything they had conquered since 602, and their new Emperor became a vassal.Unfortunately, the real winner of the war was the Rashidun Caliphate, which formed and started pursuing an expansionist policy of its own within a few years of the end of that war. Both the Romans and the Persians were too weak to resist them, after a quarter-century of fighting each other. Within fifteen years, Persia was wiped off the map, and the Romans had once again lost everything they had regained from the Persians.A full-scale war between the USA and a Chinese-Russian alliance with no use of nuclear weapons would play out the same way. No one would win but third parties.
Difference between Conventional and Unconventional warfare?
Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army. It is normally fought using conventional weapons, not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The general purpose of conventional warfare is to weaken or destroy the opponent's military force, thereby negating its ability to engage in conventional warfare. In forcing capitulation, however, one or both sides may eventually resort to unconventional warfare tactics. Unconventional warfare targets civilian population and political bodies directly, seeking to render the military proficiency of the enemy irrelevant. Limited conventional warfare tactics can be used unconventionally to demonstrate might and power, rather than to substantially reduce the enemy's ability to fight. In addition to the coercive use of traditional weapons, armaments that primarily target civilians can be used: atomic weapons, urban incendiary devices, white phosphorus or other such weapons. Special forces, inserted behind an enemy's front line, can be used unconventionally to spread subversion and propaganda, to aid native resistance fighters, and to ultimately build environments of fear and confusion. Tactics of destroying non-military infrastructure and blockading civilian staples are used to decrease the morale of civilians and, when applicable, also the soldiers in the field through concern for their families. Globalization dissenters broadly criticize the managed-trade system as a planet-wide version of the blockading tactic of unconventional warfare. The Pros and Cons of each are dependent upon the objectives of the units.
Does NATO stand a chance in a war against Russia?
That depends what kind of war. Russia has quite different military doctrines than the USA and NATO in general.If Russia invaded Europe, according to old Cold War plans, it’d be a defeat for them. They simply lack the necessary force. They are not prepared for this kind of force projection, their army is not designed to face NATO forces as an attacking force. If a Russian invasion ever occured, it’d be in the Baltic states or somewhere else in the buffer zone. In any case, it’ll be very limited and the Russians will try to achieve a status quo before major NATO forces drive them out or their little adventure escalates into a worldwide shitstorm.But if NATO invaded Russia, that’ s a whole different story. In this case, NATO would very well lose. The Russians are well prepared to defend their Motherland, and they have strong traditions doing so. Not to mention that NATO also lacks the necessary ground potential. Most likely they’d grind to a standstill somewhere around the Dnepr, and then it’s either nukes or GTFO.To summarize, a NATO-Russian war would not lead anywhere, in any case. There is no point trying to win small territories from each other while risking to lose everything. (And I am not talking only about a potential nuclear scenario: there are serious economic ties tangling the two factions to each other, and straining them would be almost as bad as bombing each others’ cities.) As neither side could invade the other’s territory and occupy enough land to cripple the opponent into submission, it’d be just a very nasty tug of war.Finally let me point out that no wars are repeated exactly as the previous one, yet military planners tend to fall into the mistake of preparing for it. In WW2, the demise of France was to prepare for trench warfare and mass attacks again, but they got mobile armies and air support. Britain still believed in the might of the battleship, just to have its ass kicked by Japan and have most of its warships locked in Scapa Flow by German submarines. Most people nowadays imagine a war between Russia and NATO as some strange mix of WW2 and Cold War plans. No it’ll never happen. Not that way.
Cold war question for history final?
The 'Cold war' is different in that no war was being fought, just 'frosty relations' , an arms race and very much an armed stand off. Fighting (in my opinion) was done through third parties, like Vietnam and Angola with the two super powers of East and West backing different belligerents.
Are we close to World War 3 regarding what's happening in Syria? I'm really scared of the current situation.
A lot of nay sayers in here… I find over confidence in thinking WW3 could never happen is usually what deep down they want to believe. They have grown up in a time where we have not experienced total war for some 60 years now. We have forgotten, become ignorant and decadent.. Syria is a potential flash point for the begining of military engagement between 2 superpowers (Russia and the USA) and is also a flash point for Israel and Iran to start fighting.If the USA and the Russians engage in direct conventional military confrontation this could honestly be in retrospect looked on as the begining of WW3. Will nukes be used in or around Syria? (Shrug) that’s really up to the USA and Israel because I highly doubt the Russians are going to use one in their back yard unless someone else uses one first. If Israel is attacked by Iran they will likely use nukes in retaliation.This is truth and to disregard where we are right now as a species is not wise and is willfully ignorant. It is worse right now then it was before WW1 and during the height of the Cold War. Be ready to not live a happy American Dream life. Learn how to protect yourself and your loved ones, also learn as many skills as you can to become as self sufficient as is possible with little to no reliance on the modern comforts of life we take for granted.
Does the Us Navy engage in combat often?
No only in very extreme cases first line of defenses in marines then army then navy but navy is used for patroling the sea and if he is on a sub spying unless he is special forces like seals but right now definitely not he can request to go but they're not sending people to combat zobes anymore