StarGateWars Forums

I can see India choosing instead to finish their fight with Pakistan and maybe taking over Bangledesh during the chaos.

Oh shoot, Pakistan... >.<

@ the hate America comment, as someone who reads alot of international news, trust me. Plenty of people hate everything about America. It may or may not have stemmed from our foreign policy but people in general have the impression that Americans are spoiled, obnoxious and don't care about anything else other than what's happening in their country. Now, as an American, I feel this is bogus, but from what is spread around the world by our own media, CNN (the Clinton News Network ), people get that perception.

Now about the WW3, I could see Russia supporting China as they are already fighting the US diplomatically and economically on a bunch of fronts. I don't see India fighting us per-se, but they could go after Pakistan, which may or may not stay allied to us depending on who the next President is I imagine.

A marine landing against China would be quite difficult and you'd have to ensure that the land all aroud the landing site has been completely leveled. And I mean LEVELED. They have practically unlimited troops so you'd have a serious fight landing, but once you get situated on the continent, it's just another city by city fight. Or rubble by rubble if you want to actually not end up in another Stalingrad.

Now if Russia joined the war, that would be the really interesting side of it. They would likely invade Europe and with their enormous number of tanks, and with Europe really not spending enough on their militaries thinking that the US will solve all problems (sorry tangent), they might be able to take alot of Europe pretty quickly, at least if they got the element of surprise. It would be more interesting if the US had advance warning and had a response army waiting in Europe, but then we'd be pretty stretched. Against Russia and China in a land-based war, there would need to be serious help from allies I would imagine. Now, they wouldn't be able to invade the US of course because our navy and air force would win that war, but an invasion of their countries would be pretty tough.

Whew that was a ramble, sorry.

russia would also have a pretty hard time with logistics once they left their country, but i guess we would too. but yeah, korea would prolly go after what they could, india would prolly go after pakistan, iran would go after iraq and/or kuwait, not to mention Israel would almost certainly find an excuse to reoccupy its former land that was given to palestinians.

I'm sure Israel would find a reason to attack pretty much all of the middle east. You know they want to

Mathlord wrote:I'm sure Israel would find a reason to attack pretty much all of the middle east. You know they want to

hey, it must be hard for them. constantly being picked on by their neighbors. I know I'd be ready to snap if I were in that position.

Mathlord wrote:@ the hate America comment, as someone who reads alot of international news, trust me. Plenty of people hate everything about America. It may or may not have stemmed from our foreign policy but people in general have the impression that Americans are spoiled, obnoxious and don't care about anything else other than what's happening in their country. Now, as an American, I feel this is bogus, but from what is spread around the world by our own media, CNN (the Clinton News Network ), people get that perception.

lol i guess so... my reference was more of a badly constructed joke... mainly poking a little fun at some locals here. Nvm.

if there was a situation between the US and China, i agree with some of the former sentiments made, it could spark WWIII. im just hoping it doesnt happen, although whichever side we do fight for, i beleive us here in Australia wouldnt have much of a problem, because despite our size and lacking technology in areas, our warfighting capability is somewhat impressive.

Quality over quantity isn't always true (this argument works against the US as well, which is why I'd rather the US did not have a ground war, but instead wore the immense Chinese forces out in a modern continental siege). Australia is lucky, as they are separated by bodies of water from China, and by the time they became involved in the war, a strong coalition navy should be in place to prevent any actions against the country's soil.

Assuming you guys sided with the US. If, for some reason, you were on the Chinese side... let's just say that would suck and leave it at that.

Phoenix of Terra wrote:Quality over quantity isn't always true (this argument works against the US as well, which is why I'd rather the US did not have a ground war, but instead wore the immense Chinese forces out in a modern continental siege). Australia is lucky, as they are separated by bodies of water from China, and by the time they became involved in the war, a strong coalition navy should be in place to prevent any actions against the country's soil.

Assuming you guys sided with the US. If, for some reason, you were on the Chinese side... let's just say that would suck and leave it at that.

hmm... yes... i hope to god we would side with the US... but trust me, our troops are good at what they do. i have no idea about our new Prime Ministers position on foreign relation, hence why i voted for the other guy... and it didnt work out >.<

there was many theories used by different nations throughout warfare in the past. Europeans war tactics that i can remember (ie russia etc,) was that their strength was based off manpower alone. their troops were considered like Ammo. the leaders never realised People arent stupid. we in the west developed our strategy mainly that lives WERE IMPORTANT. our troops were trained as such. in fact it was relatively recently that russia started putting ejection seats in their fighter jets.

regardless, we have a good warfighting capability. not as many troops but were still effective.

Yes people need to remember a large number of the British troops that fought throughout the 20th century were Aussie troops, so you are indeed very skilled. Still idk how advanced and developed your air force or navy are in comparison to the US or China, but whichever side you supported (US ftw), you'd play an important role for your superior ground tactics. Plus if it was a two-sided war against Russia and China, there would need to just be a steady troop supply otherwise the US's line would get too thin.

Mathlord wrote:Yes people need to remember a large number of the British troops that fought throughout the 20th century were Aussie troops, so you are indeed very skilled. Still idk how advanced and developed your air force or navy are in comparison to the US or China, but whichever side you supported (US ftw), you'd play an important role for your superior ground tactics. Plus if it was a two-sided war against Russia and China, there would need to just be a steady troop supply otherwise the US's line would get too thin.

yes thats true...

i note as an example, a quote i gathered from Wikipedia. This was taken from references on the Battle of Long Tần. Lt. Col. Bob Breen: "just over 100 diggers withstood the best efforts of over 1500 Viet Cong soldiers to kill them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Long_Tan

this should prove my point. lol this is starting to get to be an interesting topic

.:SOULLESS:. wrote:
yes thats true...

i note as an example, a quote i gathered from Wikipedia. This was taken from references on the Battle of Long Tần. Lt. Col. Bob Breen: "just over 100 diggers withstood the best efforts of over 1500 Viet Cong soldiers to kill them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Long_Tan

this should prove my point. lol this is starting to get to be an interesting topic

Then again, who won the vietnam war?

The VC knew, if they can sacrifice 100 men to kill 1 man, they can win the war. it's not just about strategy, it's about lifestyle and habits too.

Asami Ayano wrote:

.:SOULLESS:. wrote:
yes thats true...

i note as an example, a quote i gathered from Wikipedia. This was taken from references on the Battle of Long Tần. Lt. Col. Bob Breen: "just over 100 diggers withstood the best efforts of over 1500 Viet Cong soldiers to kill them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Long_Tan

this should prove my point. lol this is starting to get to be an interesting topic

Then again, who won the vietnam war?

The VC knew, if they can sacrifice 100 men to kill 1 man, they can win the war. it's not just about strategy, it's about lifestyle and habits too.

what you listed there is a form of strategy. inhumane and similar idea to early russian tactics, but nonetheless a a strategy. but part of the choice is which strategy and how to adapt to the situation.

Very true. And bringing up Vietnam also brings up another good point, the homefront. I'm assuming the Chinese would be more prepared for huge casualties, but the US and Australia would probably be in an uproar over the huge losses that a ground war would cause.

Phoenix of Terra wrote:Very true. And bringing up Vietnam also brings up another good point, the homefront. I'm assuming the Chinese would be more prepared for huge casualties, but the US and Australia would probably be in an uproar over the huge losses that a ground war would cause.

true, and it seems like the number of "acceptable losses" for us western mindset people has been steadily shrinking over the years. people in the US are outraged at a few (3-4k) killed in the 6-7 years since our expeditions to the middle east began, but in WW2 we took more casualties than that in one week and kept fighting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasserine_Pass

cuz people have turned into pansy's