WWIII general

the problem arises when the enemy has to rely on more primitive logistics while you have access to modern tech.

>you can use satellites to hack a 40 year old manpack radio

Attached: 1536437120185.png (645x729, 80K)

>Trump has 2 to 6 years left
>war in 15 years, way before he left
>DRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMPFT

China will attack while the USA is having it's civil war desu

isn't a problem for afghans since the taliban are winning.

yes, but the issue is more compounded. if the afghans can still maintain a stalemate with the Americans with primitive technology, the inverse scenario would be even worse. if the Americans had to fight the exact war without modern logistics while the afghans had access to modern logistics.

Dumb leaf. One swallow does not make a summer.

>Metro 2033 is going to happen

Attached: 1516925275609.jpg (221x286, 10K)

In a conventional modern war both sides will eventually have to resort to lower tech means of navigation and communication. Even if that conspiracy theory of china being able to shut down our military systems is true, you can bet your ass we have a lot more sophisticated and effective offensive cyber capabilities. The US managed to shut down the iranian nuclear program remotely and even managed to jump air gaps. If ww3 breaks out both sides will be on a level playing field.
What the fuck are you trying to say?

The US will never be conquered. Too many of our citizens are armed, and once we have a common enemy, nothing can stop us. Russia understands this. That’s why they’re trying to create a schism and fracture it from within, because they know it’s the only way to take us down. The US needs to realize this before it’s too late.

>Metro 2033 is free on steam right now
C-could it be?

>>we have a lot more sophisticated and effective offensive cyber capabilities

that really is a wildcard and remains to be seen. if ww3 breaks out. imagine all satellite communications being immediately destroyed. this would be like the afghan war. only against an opponent that is better armed and more numerous.

>What the fuck are you trying to say?
That you're a fucking moron

>The US will never be conquered. Too many of our citizens are armed

you retarded or something? lots of people are armed in the ME too, do you know what the US does? it turns the cities into rubble via air superiority then claim the quarry as conquered.

Canada will be destroyed in the crossfire. If we choose not to play, the US will bomb us in anger.

Attached: 1424850371277.jpg (1280x720, 103K)

what you fail to realize is that nobody wants to conquer america. every other major power in the world only wants to exert their influence in their geographic sphere. conquering america is too much work for too little gain. that is why Russia and China are working on the same doctrine.

Are you retarded? He said one swallow does not make a summer. Learn to read, or should I say swallow.

You can't compare success in a conventional war vs a COIN operation. A war with china would look absolutely nothing like afghanistan.

Then let all comers head over here and turn our cities to rubble

I'll be to old for conscription by then xddd

You indians will suck Americas dick.

Why? Because of Twitter?

a war against China would look exactly like the Afghan war. how else do you expect to sell war to a democratic nation? China would never attack America in the sense that it lacks the capabilities and the rewards to not justify the effort.

It must be a sign from (((them)))

Attached: fugg.png (253x199, 6K)

Please educate yourself. China has a first rate modern standing army that would fight conventionally in all 5 dimensions of warfare. Afghanistan had no real standing army and was controlled by a glorified militia that immediately started resorting to guerrilla tactics. You can't compare a police action against dirt farmers with homemade bombs to a conventional war against an enemy wearing uniforms, utilizing 5th gen aircraft and with a bluewater navy.

now that would be BASED. fuck you for giving me an erection.

>conquered
Any Chinese-US war won't be about conquering each other rather than see who is the dominant force in the world. It will also reduce the losers country to a parking lot.

Well given that america didn't win the afghan war they're gonna get utterly btfo by china

who says you have have to fight conventionally if you have a conventional army? you fight the way that is most effective. if insurgency and guerrilla tactics are most effective, any commanding officer will use that tactic.

how effective is the 5th generation fighter and a bluewater navy in Afghanistan or Iraq? America's weakness has always been their reluctance to throw bodies into the war. the only reason Afghanistan and Iraq is in the fight is because locals make the majority of the meatshields. same with Vietnam and that actually failed.

me again i'd like to also bring up that fact that any nation would have multiple levels of resistance. official conventional means first, devolving into a guerrilla and insurgency. no nation is bound by any rule that claims they must fight conventionally in a open battlefield, that is your mistaken belief.

COIN=/=Conventional war
Very few nations have ever mounted a successful modern counter insurgency. The US and NATO are still very good at conventional warfare.

past results are not indicative of future results. China is not the same as Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam. nobody knows how this will fair, but it's safe and reasonable to assume that China has far more capabilities then the three countries listed above and would conceivably cause more human loss of life to Americans.

kek

Attached: SmartSelectImage_2018-10-26-07-52-36.png (1439x1477, 1.16M)

hmmm, I guess I'll watch the news

Attached: 1491539895869.gif (500x375, 135K)

Western allies: ASSEMBLE

Why the FUCK would you ally with the losing side?

>Well given that america didn't win the afghan war they're gonna get utterly btfo by china

Attached: 1538444746326.png (230x219, 7K)

What part of police actions being completely different from conventional warfare do you not understand? The soviets were also extremely proficient at conventional warfare but got their asses kicked by by occupying afghanistan. America destroyed the entire iraqi military conventionally in under a month. China doesn't have a religious fanatic sect dedicated to fighting the west. When their military falls they will surrender like all major defeated powers do.

India doesn't participate in others' conflicts. That's good, because we have far too many problems to be wasting our money just to be someone's bitch.

For the retard arguing that China would win because they would use insurgency tactics.

If China came to the point where they would have to use insurgency tactics then America would had effectively won.

War isn't just killing every single person of a country. China is fairly developed and if they had to use insurgency tactics then that means either their conventional forces would had been decimated or they abandoned it and all their tanks/planes/bases would be open to attack. In which case America can take it's leisure time doing attack runs on china and knocking them back into the stone age.

Chinese manufacturing,tech and military installations are very close to the coast anyway, so attacking them wouldn't be much of a stretch.

the soviets were smart enough to withdraw. hey had the same success as americans. only that the americans are too stubborn to cut their losses.

China did not surrender when Japan invaded in the pacific war. their conventional army was destroyed and most of their coastal territory annexed. this was during a civil war. do you really think China would simply surrender if their conventional army was defeated?

friend, have you won in Afghanistan after beating their conventional army? the strength of a nation is not dependent on the whether or not your official military has been destroyed. it's if you can claim, hold, and dictate the occupied territories.

China very much had conventional armies alive and well during all of the second world war. They also had foreign backing by multiple great powers. Finally China did not have nearly the level of infrastructure it does now. Developed nations don't resort to insurgencies because that means giving up and actively destroying their own infrastructure.
see

India will likely do nothing if WW3 breaks out between USA and Russia or USA and China. They have wayyy too many internal problems to deal with that shit. Besides, India is a neutral country and would likely only send aid to the USA because they go against China, India's only real enemy besides Pakistan.

If India joined, China would fucking destroy them. India has only two real allies, Bhutan and Sri Lanka, which are basically their puppets. China has Pakistan, Nepal, and Myanmar, and is trying to get Bangladesh on their side currently. The ideas of Myanmar and Nepal are kind of useless, but the alliance with Myanmar only threatens relations with Bangladesh due to the Rohingya stuff. In a hypothetical war on India (without nukes), China would take parts of Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh, while Nepal takes Sikkim, Bangladesh takes West Bengal, and Pakistan takes Kashmir. India simply has no allies and avoids war because China would fuck them over.

What battlefield? You and everyone else will get incinerated faster than you can say the word "nuclear".

developed nations don't resort to insurgency because the wold has been very generous to developed nations in the modern era. but if push came to shove? you bet your ass people will fight tooth and nail against invaders. that's how decades of propaganda works.

right if you classify that china had a 'conventional' army during the japanese occupation then at no point will there ever be a point that any nation will not have a 'conventional army'. even taliban commanders have regiments and a military.

US will be better under socialist/communist rule тьн.
We really no need to fight.

Yes because I forgot how Italy, Germany and Japam had active insurgencies after the second world war. You are a fuckimg retard.

and China is the same league as Italy, Germany and Japan? do i need to remind you that Per capita they are still poorer then those respective countries at their point in time?

US and China are too economically dependent on each other for them to actually go to war, unless that changes it's just going to be geopolitical dick waiving.

War wouldn’t be fought on American because the idea of conquering the most heavily armed citizenry in the world mixed with the most developed and capable military in the world is laughable. We could use Flavian tactics and whatnot.

Realistically it would be fought in a neutral place like the South China Sea or Africa where influence is at stake.

Very true. But also, the US has NATO and its other western allies. Sure, the British, French, German, Italian, Australian etc. militaries are not the biggest in the world by themselves. But put together, they're quite a force. Plus, these militaries have some of the most advanced technologies in the world.

Together, we are stronger.

Attached: nato logo.png (1280x668, 67K)

Before the First World War people used all the same rhetoric they use now. Britain and Germany were the worlds largest trading partners. There had been 100 years of relative peace and stability since the last great european war. Yet everyone was surprised when the assassination of the prince of a dying empire burst the world into flames. When tensions are high the smallest spark can set off a war. Do not be surprised if this war starts because of an accident in the south china sea.

Don't ask me, ask the Indian govt. The US govt was this closing to attacking India in 1971 (?) and refused to help in 1999, forcing India to make it's own military gps system. Meanwhile, USSR/Russia has saved India's ass multiple times and has been one of India's biggest trade partners for defense.

But like I said, India will most likely not get involved. It has always been neutral and only follows decisions handed down by the UN (which is why it still buys oil from Iran despite US led sanctions).

It's not that simple. Pakistan will not and cannot take Kashmir (I don't really care who gets it but it's not simple for Pakistan). India does not even need to go to war against Pakistan. It's economy is in tatters and has to continuously ask for money from the international community (see KSA promising to bail out Pakistan recently). It'll only get worse for them. The only reason people give a shit about Pakistan is because if the government falls, the nukes *can* find themselves in the hands of terrorists. Bangladesh and Nepal lol
Only threat is China from the North or the North East. Unfortunately, the North East does not provide a wide area for invasion and the north is unsurpassable terrain half of the time.

The government can and will put out it's aircraft carrier (currently only one lmao) and position it to prevent any of the other South Indian nations from doing something stupid.

Just like India, Bangladesh, Myanmar etc have no reason to join the fight.

GDP per capita is a horrible measure and you're better off doing GDP per capita (PPP)

>tfw will probably be an expat in China at that time

Attached: sad frog squashed.jpg (399x400, 16K)

user if you see someone wearing a 4 of clubs in their helmetband don't shoot. We need a sign so anons don't kill each other. Also a passcode so we don't murder eachother surrendering.

Attached: 4_of_clubs.svg.png (2000x2900, 138K)

I'll be sure to bring one with me wherever I travel.

>tfw we're gonna win

Attached: 1536205559718.jpg (600x765, 38K)

Australia is here!
We will use our strategic positioning and world class special forces to cripple the enemy before they even have a chance to fight.

You kidding? I'd relish in killing you fucks. I'd target you.