How would a nukeless WWIII go down?

How would a nukeless WWIII go down?

NATO victory

United States and friends steamroll any and every other opposing force on the planet.

Someone decides to use biochemical weapons instead.

Absolute NATO victory.

Proxy wars in Southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa

NATO takes out all other opposing air forces within the first 24-72 hours.

After that it's an easy air campaign to target whatever they want and totally destroy said country.

Air supremacy = guaranteed victory

>india and china meat grind to a stalemate because infinite manpower
>Nato BTFOs russia and persia in the west while the nips, aussies and koreas btfo north korea and attack russia in the east
>All of Nato then dogpiles the bogged down chinks
Decisive Western victory

US and allies use their vastly superior air and naval firepower to absolutely wreck infrastructure and supply lines in Russia and China, rendering their large armies relatively useless and putting massive pressure on the civilian population. Russia and China would probably advance in an initial blitz due to sheer overwhelming manpower and armor, but eventually get bogged down, and ultimately repelled. From there it would probably just be a continuous series of bombing runs and slow incursions by US-allied forces until they either surrendered or their governments were overthrown by popular rebellion.

The reds would utterly stomp all of Asia, RIP indoor and Japan. Initial gains in Europe as NATO retreats after being overwhelmed by sheer numbers and suicidal force.

However despite losses NATO starts making Swiss cheese out of the Russian supply lines. And then USA lands with all its ridiculous might. After that it is steam roller into Russia and the the near East.

However the middle East would be a long and bloody battle. Like WW1 but over a bigger area with wrecked cities instead of trenches.

>Like WW1 but over a bigger area with wrecked cities instead of trenches.
>In current year

Before 1985: Warsaw pact victory with minimal losses
>After 1985: NATO victory with dramatic losses

Initial gains for the Eastern forces and proxy forces in South American and Africa. Maybe even significant intellence and cyber warfare victories. Then, however, the well organised armies of NATO and their supply chains plus knowledge utterly buttfucks the east. Especially when Russia falls due to its own incompetence and China due to India-Nato alliance and air supremacy.

Sorry mate India doesn't stand a chance against China. Indians aren't fighting people. Lack any sort of cohesion.

>Not maxim gun
user please

Why would China ally with Russia? Also, there's no way Finland would stay neutral, at least if Russia's the aggressor. Also, why would Iran ally with russia, but not those former Soviet republics in Central Asia? That map makes no sense

how bad would it get if biochemical weapons were allowed? what nasty stuff have been cooked up in sixty years?

If Russia didn't attack Finland, Finland wouldn't join the war.

Are you aware that we aren't vaccinated vs smallpox anymore?
It's not about new pathogens, the old ones would work better than ever.

Rommel, his son and his wife war gamed it

t.

In modern times? It depends what the strategic objectives were in the conflict. If we are talking about world domination where one side must subjugate the other then there would be a high intensity conflict for maybe a year or eighteen months leading into perpetual asymmetric gorilla warfare. If the objective is just to get the other side to say "Okay we lose you win" then maybe there could be a resolution and treaty.

Attrition based warfare is much different than WW1 where you keep throwing millions of men to fill in the lines. The most powerful nations produce planes, ships, and tanks which are all high tech, resource intensive, and expensive to produce. Missiles are more deadly, artillery is more accurate, and information can travel instantaneously across the battlefield. So your wet dream of a some grand conventional conflict occurring in many theaters across the world that lasts a half decade is not likely. The nations that can continue to produce that expensive equipment, air craft, and vessels to replace the inevitable high casualty rates will win. More importantly, nations that can produce said equipment while the global economy inevitably implodes will win.

Confrontations with team blue in the air and at sea would be brutal and decisive. Russia can't pump out 100 SU-35's a month to replace losses. The same can be said for engagements at sea. Team red can't afford to confront team blue's air and naval power less they find themselves even more at a disadvantage after losing a battle. This fact severally hampers the land war. Without air superiority for land offensives (lest they find themselves under blue air supremacy) or naval presence to protect supply lines mobility becomes restricted to localized, but somewhat mobile engagements.

A war of conquest is not feasible for either side, then the most likely conclusion is a peace treaty signed within a few months after skirmishes or one or two decisive battles.

This is neither history or """humanities."""

Off my board, third worlder

>neutrality-leaning
What does that even mean? How is that different from leaning to one side of another?
OP certified brainlet

...

>America has the strongest military in the world measured in objective terms
>HAHA AMERIMUTTS LE 56% FACE
Damn you really BTFO those Americans. Will America ever recover?

Russia simply does not have the military that the Soviet Union did.

depends on who controls Africa, if you can disrupt the imports of resources, the US's economy tanks. Russia on the other hand is much less reliant on imports.

seriously look up how much the US relies on mineral imports.

>post-WW1 Africa and South East Asia
>but pre-1776 America
>also no French Lousiana
Triggered

t.

Read Red Storm rising.

>g-guys AirLand Battle totaly works! Look at all those African and Arab armies with outdated T-72s and AA systems from late 50's we defeated!

Isn't actually russia quite dependent on imports for nearly everything except for arms, oil and half of it`s food considering the domestic production of just about everything imploded after the downfall of the USSR with many factories and plants being shut down?

>Ayo, Ivan, we's could totally like stand up to those Americans, like no sweat, I swears
>*loses to Chechens*

Alright, answer this.
What alternative would you suggest in modern warfare between full armed forces that would supplant aerial and naval superiority?
What's the counter to complete air and sea dominance?
Surely you must know, since you seem so willing to attack the doctrines.

weird way how to spell defeated Chechens

What's your fucking point? No great power has directly gone to war with another great power for more than half a century. As far as a massive global conflict like OP's is concerned, everyone's military is untested and unproven.

Agressive attacks of huge tank formations are still the only effective offensive tactic against opponent with equal technology. Naval dominance is a meme with no real effectivity in conventional war, air dominance is achievable only against countries without modern AA technologies, which simply isnt that case in this scenario.

lol

>Naval dominance is a meme with no real effectivity in conventional war
Except, you know, that Russians and Chinks would have no way to touch the US without ICBMs, while the US/ NATO would control the seas. You do know the vast majority of international trade is still done via ship, just like a hundred years ago, right?

>no year given

One job

...

and now tell me how can US touch China or Russia nigger
wow, Chechens killed a lot of Chechens, so ebin

>This is neither history or """humanities."""
Fuck you, War Studies, as a subject within International Relations, absolutely is both history and humanities.

>no way to touch the US without ICBMs

>and now tell me how can US touch China or Russia nigger
Air and naval supremacy, of course. Having huge permanent aircraft carriers like Japan and the UK helps a ton, especially when the enemy can't touch them

Like what

I think the west would get steamrolled in a protracted conventional war. Can you imagine a modern population putting up with food rations, patchy internet and power and maybe curfews? What about conscription? There is literally zero appetite for a fight in the western world and as soon as the patriotards are stiff in Siberia the raw manpower left is so damn subpar that a bunch of drunk gopniks would skullfuck them. Only thing the west has going in its favour is superior airpower. Even then America has had that in every war snce 1945 and that has been a limited success. Ultimately I think wars come down to a nations willingness to prosecute them to their full extent and that just isn't possible in the west today. As for me personally no way in fuck am I losing a leg fighting for McWorld TM: Tranny Pride Edition. If they conscripted me I'd frag the officer

Not sure if le 60% white US can win WW3
Based on the current state of the left they'll probably just blame the white man for the war and start rioting against the draft

>what are anti-ship missiles
>what are AA systems

Kek, so true.

Kh101/102s for starters

Russia is a scarred and angry nation yes but you're high if you think that humans can't adapt on the home front in times of existential crises. Especially in a country as large and industrialized as Murica. We have a frontiersman culture and the most valuable land in North America. Moving to a home grown lifestyle would be easy for us, especially today with all this eco faggotry amount the youth.

If you've ever served you are vacced against smallpox, actually, and I think you can request a vacc but your insurance won't cover it

You know Indians have a long and enriching martial history, right? I mean, all memes aside?

Also
>"What are ghurkas?" For 500, Alex.

>Moving to a home grown lifestyle would be easy for us, especially today with all this eco faggotry amount the youth.
Literally over half you country is on anti-depressants at any given moment. There are social and ethnic divisions which would cripple any war effort. I mean do you think ni*ggers are going to line up to fight for uncle sam?

>How would a nukeless WWIII go down?

It wouldn't. A World War implies total war, and in a total war scenario nukes would be dropped in my estimation.

>More importantly, nations that can produce said equipment while the global economy inevitably implodes will win.

So America loses

America doesn't develop nukes
War breaks out in 1950ish

There, now use your fucking imagination.

Why are russians always the bad guys? Just assassinate the president and we are even. There are way more christians here than commies.

No one is saying Russians are bad guys. Russians are put against the US in these scenarios because of two things:
1. Russia's global interests aren't usually aligned with America's (Syria, Ukraine)
2. Russia and China are basically the only countries that matter militarily besides the US, and even then it still heavily favors the US

>and even then it still heavily favors the US
this is what Amerimutts actualy bealive

You consider war gaming a part of the humanities? News to me.

Dragonball-like powerlevel shitposting. There's no way for the USA to make the same nice money it did on WW1 and WW2 now and there's no way to love suicide everybody on the planet to make the world economic crisis disappear, I don't see how the big war would help the dollar against yuan or muhbitcoins

>America doesn't develop nukes
That's retarded, even the fucking Japs tried making nuclear weapons, and America was the scientific and engineering powerhouse of the war.

What is the source of this? Seems a very crazy lecture

>finland guaranteed neutral
>swizerland guarenteed neutral
>Vietnam eastern ally
What a fucking meme map

>I mean do you think ni*ggers are going to line up to fight for uncle sam?
considering that they've fought in every US war, yes

Russia gets fucked, China vs. NATO would be a stalemate that would wreck both sides' economies

You mean during Cold War?
From early 50s to late 80s, Soviets steamroll Europe.

>what are anti-ship missiles
things defeated by the overlapped defence of airwings, subs, and destroyers present in all carrier groups.
>what are AA systems
things defeated by networked air wings composed of stealth aircraft and EW aircraft