If NK, China, and Russia united against America, who would win a war?

[Deleted]

China has centered EVERYTHING in their Megacities.

You take them out and China looses basically all it's economic, political, cultural and military power.

The war would be won quite fast when those cities fall, who cares about some farmers hiding in mountains in Westchina? Take the coast and you have China.

[Ausr]

Why would China help Russia at all? The moment Russia went to war with America (assuming no nukes), they're going to take all of Russia's eastern half for themselves. NK has enough military ordinance for a brief burst and they're out.

[Skroe]

What odds would you give that one of these Russian swarm missiles gets lucky?

Well here's the thing. This forum thread... it's as old as the World wide web. Every forum ever has had some variation on it. and since time immemorial, there's always been some putz fascinated with the latest Russian wonder weapon. A decade or so again, it was the BraHmos hypersonic cruise missile.

But as ever, the putz in question forgets two details:

-Russia never bought all that many BraHmos's to begin with (a few dozen).
-The range sucks. As in absolutely sucks. The Tomahawk has a 2500km range. Brahmos has a 450km range.

If a Russian missile capable of damaging a carrier gets in range to launch one, there was a series of enormous fuck ups before hand. If one hit, a 200kg warhead probably wouldn't even stop carrier operations (for reference, Tomahawks carry a 450kg warhead and the US needed 49 of them to strike that Syrian airbase).

It's also worth remembering that Carriers are FAST. Very very fast for ships. So fast the Navy had to design special resupply ships just to keep pace with them for underway replenishment. A common thing that likes to be countered is that a Carrier killing missile could have a nuclear warhead to make up for the kill chain. Of course, that's a fallacy, because the destructive radius of a large modern warhead is a few miles in a circle, at at a speed of at least 30 knots, a carrier could clear the destructive radius of a "fire and forget" carrier killer in just a few minutes.

They're not invincible, but the line "carriers are obsolete and vulnerable to missiles" has been thrown around since the 1960s. And yet countries (like China) keep starting to build them, and new tactics and technologies evolve to make them better.

Consider the next one. The drone on a carrier. The US will begin that in the 2020s. It will never "unhappen" at some point, more drones will operate from carriers than manned aircraft. And what happens when carriers start carrying drones with 3000 mile ranges and >24 hour loiter times that carry a 600 mile range missile? What happens when the drones are electrically powered and recharged by the carrier's own nuclear reactor?

Carriers are a tool in the toolbox.

- - - Updated - - -

Incredible break down for a silly question. Not sure why it's a question. We spend Trillions on this shit.

We spend about $600 billion a year, and it's not enough. Should be ~$750 billion before the VA.

The US's requirements outstrip its investments. We operate a 14 carrier plan with a Navy that has nominally 11 (really 10), for example. We should either go up to 14 or change to a strategy that doesn't require 14.

[caervek]

Why would China help Russia at all?

Because that was the criteria of the question, America with no support versus China, Russia and for some lol reason North Korea. It was a very silly question of course but that's what it was.

[Skroe]

Because that was the criteria of the question, America with no support versus China, Russia and for some lol reason North Korea. It was a very silly question of course but that's what it was.

Might as well thrown in Al Qaeda, Venezuela and Hydra.

[Doctor Amadeus]

We spend about $600 billion a year, and it's not enough. Should be ~$750 billion before the VA.

The US's requirements outstrip its investments. We operate a 14 carrier plan with a Navy that has nominally 11 (really 10), for example. We should either go up to 14 or change to a strategy that doesn't require 14.

Yes, exactly I agree.

Feels like Mayweathers vs McConer and I don't like Mayweather, but he was going to win, that really shouldn't have been much of a prediction either. The U.S much to most of our chagrin is the most over heavily technically advanced military in the world off the lifeblood of every man woman and child in the U.S.

- - - Updated - - -

He was joking, in that they were 'tested', and blown the fuck up. Hence being in pieces all over the middle east.

Got it now thanks for the assist.

[ipaq]

An all-out war basically. WW3 and nothing less.

Not the US for sure.

Beside murdering 200k+ of japanese women, children, and old people, you never won a single modern war.

[yetgdhfgh]

Are nukes aloud?

Cause the USA has enough nukes to wipe out all 3 countries but china and russia has the same to do the same thing to the USA.

If we are talking about a standard war then it would most likely be a stalemate. Geographics and population would make an invasion of the USA very tricky and difficult and the USA would not have enough manpower to invade a massive landmass that is Russia and China!

[Deleted]

In a REAL war, the US always wins.

They would take some hits, but all the other nations would be hacked to the point that nothing will ever work again and then nuked to obliteration.

[Skroe]

Not the US for sure.

Beside murdering 200k+ of japanese women, children, and old people, you never won a single modern war.

Boy. That makes us the most successful losers in the history of civilization. I mean, we have no major rivals who approach us in power. Our competitor states are decades behind and far poorer. We are bordered by friendly states and part of several deep and long standing mutual defense alliances, comprising dozens of nations. We are the richest, most powerful, most technologically advanced people since the first human being walked out of a cave.

America the loser. Where's so successful in absolutely sucking, the moebius strip of providence made us the world's hegemon.

Which begs the question, what the hell happened to the rest of you? I mean take the USSR for example. Ostensibly the "won" World War II through blood and guts, for all the good it them. Ash heap of history 45 years later. And Russian power will never recover borded by the EU in the West and China in the East.

So here's the America, the world's only superpower. Miserable and underachieving in modern war... and yet still managing to win at the end of the day anyway.

[Flarelaine]

Well here's the thing. This forum thread... it's as old as the World wide web. Every forum ever has had some variation on it. and since time immemorial, there's always been some putz fascinated with the latest Russian wonder weapon. A decade or so again, it was the BraHmos hypersonic cruise missile.

Hey, you mistake me for Ulmita. I'm not advocating, I'm not even fascinated. I'm plain curious. I've read about this missile that is supposedly fired in swarms and is autonomous and can gut a destroyer in a single hit or so it was claimed so I've decided to put this question to you. Not to Skroe the Warhawk who likes to pontificate about America's military supremacy, but to Skroe the Swarm Robotics Developer.

As to your actual answer - what if a sub gets within range?

[caervek]

Are nukes aloud?

Yeah they go "BOOM".

[Skroe]

Are nukes aloud?

Cause the USA has enough nukes to wipe out all 3 countries but china and russia has the same to do the same thing to the USA.

If we are talking about a standard war then it would most likely be a stalemate. Geographics and population would make an invasion of the USA very tricky and difficult and the USA would not have enough manpower to invade a massive landmass that is Russia and China!

Russia does. China does not.

Russia has 1550 warheads with another 2000 in reserve.

China has about 250 nuclear warheads, most of which are short or medium range or liquid fueled antiques that would never get off the ground. China only has about 80-ish modern nuclear weapons, and only about 60 of those have sufficient range to reach the US. This, in theory, puts China's nuclear arsenal well within the range of being able to be entirely intercepted by US missile defense.

60 warheads, regardless, are not enough to destroy the US. Nuclear explosions are not nearly as big as people think. Movies overscale them and no nuke is Tsar Bomba. If you wanted to destroy downtown Los Angeles, you'd need about one 300 kt warhead to destroy 161 square kilometers and kill about 800,000 people. Los Angeles metro though is 12,561 sq km with a population of 13.3 million. To destroy it entirely you'd need dozens of warheads.




This is why China isn't included in nuclear arms agreements. They've never spent much money expanding or modernizing their very bare bones arsenal. They're effectively a non-entity.

[zealo]

Russia is a paper tiger without it's nukes, and china does not possess the naval capacity to beat the US in the pacific. Collateral damage to east asia and europe once nukes start flying would be the real losers.

[Skroe]

Hey, you mistake me for Ulmita. I'm not advocating, I'm not even fascinated. I'm plain curious. I've read about this missile that is supposedly fired in swarms and is autonomous and can gut a destroyer in a single hit or so it was claimed so I've decided to put this question to you. Not to Skroe the Warhawk who likes to pontificate about America's military supremacy, but to Skroe the Swarm Robotics Developer.

As to your actual answer - what if a sub gets within range?

Oh I know you weren't advocating. I was just extrapolating from your question!

I've never heard of that missile, but it sounds like more Russian fantasy weapons. A swarming missile "cloud" would need to communicate though, between missiles, and would be subject to electronic attack that would probably be more than enough.

If nothing else, US destroyers carry not just the big SM-6 / SM-2 for defense, but also quad-packed Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles. There would be a lot of things launched at the "swarm".

The US is interested in making "AI" weapons because it anticipates lacking the aiblity to remotely guide weapons from a long distance in non-permissive environments. It expects EW against its cruise missiles. Effective Swarming missiles would have to be jam-resistent, and able to independently operate, free from guidance from a ship or airplane.

- - - Updated - - -

Also for other post, something that's worth looking at.

[El_Diabl0]

No nukes: Things would look good for the US at first, then China's industrial output would win the war for them.
Nukes: No idea.

[xenogear3]

NK people are the happiest.
They are willing to die for their leader.

US will lose for sure.
Who is willing to die for Trump? Are you?

[Flarelaine]

I've never heard of that missile, but it sounds like more Russian fantasy weapons. A swarming missile "cloud" would need to communicate though, between missiles, and would be subject to electronic attack that would probably be more than enough.

If nothing else, US destroyers carry not just the big SM-6 / SM-2 for defense, but also quad-packed Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles. There would be a lot of things launched at the "swarm".

The US is interested in making "AI" weapons because it anticipates lacking the aiblity to remotely guide weapons from a long distance in non-permissive environments. It expects EW against its cruise missiles. Effective Swarming missiles would have to be jam-resistent, and able to independently operate, free from guidance from a ship or airplane.

Admittedly it sounds a bit like a fantasy weapon. The site I've found it on was clearly an advocate. But the core description - a swarm where each missile is capable of guiding all of them and navigating - did not sound entirely outlandish so I thought it's worth a question. I acknowledge the range issues and I know carrier groups have all those destroyers for a reason, but than launching huge swarms expecting a few to get through sounds like something the Russians would do. Would frequency hopping counter jamming?

Been googling since, I think the article I had read was about some iteration of the P-700 Granit. That one is an older system, of course, but than the Russians would keep tinkering.

[Akka]

is the US military that great, I mean have you seen how scary Russians are?

Russian without their nukes are scary ? WTF ?
The scariest thing about Russian army is their hazing (which is, admitedly, TRULY frightening).

I personally have no idea how the European countries stand vs Russia without nukes, no idea if we'd be able to resist a Russia invasion without the help of the US.

I think you meant "how long Russia would be able to hold off invasion" ?

Guys, wake up. It's not the Cold War anymore. Russia has lost half its population and most of its army compared to USSR, and has been distanced even more on the technological level, it has lost all its European vassals, and the rest of Europe has increased in population, technology and wealth.

The only card in Russia deck would be a surprise attack. Outside that, they're toast.

2: The USA is not currently as far ahead of China/Russia as Germany was ahead of Russia.

You've some weird notion on technology if you really think that.

You do realise that the NK special forces are better trained than the murrican ones right?

WTF is this alternative world in which half the people from this thread are posting from ?

[Sirfailalot]

Tired as shit so I probably shouldn't bother posting at all, but no one. You want the honest truth if it comes down to a purely conventional war those two could probably drag Iran and NK into it with JUST the US on the other side and still lose that war. Because there is no invasion of the US mainland. the chances of pushing through our navy are nonexistant, then you have the issues of a heavily armed civilian population. (So many LOVE to discount that as 'lolol civvies can't do shit' but look at what the constant insurrection from less well armed civilians did to US in Iraq. AFTER we'd crushed their proper military.) And the US controlling the seas for too long and likely cutting off key land routes out of your countries will mean likely starvation eventually. Nevermind Russia and China's main infrastructure (If I'm remembering correctly.) Being primarily within range of our insane naval and aerial firepower.

But then you throw in the fact that there's a good 90% chance that should such a war break out china's neighbors would take their chance to crush their rather belligerent neighbor while they're busy trying and failing to push us anywhere. Nato would jump on this regardless of what many America haters say because we're not likely to be the aggressors and they're bound to help us defensively. Saudi arabia and Isreal would be all over the chance to destroy Iran. To be frank the odds are NOT in our enemy's favor unless Turkey performs a heel turn and strikes Europe to keep nato occupied.

BUT..this is largely pointless. That war isn't going to be purely conventional. The moment Russia and China come to understand how fucked they are they WILL try to nuke us. there's no maybe. Whether we intend to end them or just force them to stop being asshats, they will assume the worst and Russia at bare minimum is not mentally prepared to lose more than it has already.