Could U.S. Win War Against Russia and China? | World Defense

Could U.S. Win War Against Russia and China?

Ejaz

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
27
Reactions
18
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Could U.S. Win War Against Russia and China?
What if China and Russia sufficiently coordinated with one another to engage in simultaneous hostilities in the Pacific and in Europe?


The United States discarded its oft-misunderstood “two war” doctrine, intended as a template for providing the means to fight two regional wars simultaneously, late last decade. Designed to deter North Korea from launching a war while the United States was involved in fighting against Iran or Iraq (or vice versa,) the idea helped give form to the Department of Defense’s procurement, logistical and basing strategies in the post–Cold War, when the United States no longer needed to face down the Soviet threat. The United States backed away from the doctrine because of changes in the international system, including the rising power of China and the proliferation of highly effective terrorist networks.

But what if the United States had to fight two wars today, and not against states like North Korea [3] and Iran [4]? What if China and Russia sufficiently coordinated with one another to engage in simultaneous hostilities in the Pacific and in Europe?

Political Coordination

Could Beijing and Moscow coordinate a pair of crises [5] that would drive two separate U.S. military responses? Maybe, but probably not. Each country has its own goals, and works on its own timeline. More likely, one of the two would opportunistically take advantage of an existing crisis to further its regional claims. For example, Moscow might well decide to push the Baltic States if the United States became involved in a major skirmish in the South China Sea [6].

This story was originally published by The National Interest

In any case, the war would start on the initiative of either Moscow or Beijing. The United States enjoys the benefits of the status quo in both areas, and generally (at least where great powers are concerned) prefers to use diplomatic and economic means to pursue its political ends. While the U.S. might create the conditions for war, Russia or China would pull the trigger.

Flexibility

On the upside, only some of the requirements for fighting in Europe and the Pacific overlap. As was the case in World War II, the U.S. Army would bear the brunt of defending Europe, while the Navy would concentrate on the Pacific. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) would play a supporting role in both theaters.

Russia lacks the ability to fight NATO in the North Atlantic, and probably has no political interest in trying. This means that while the United States and its NATO allies can allocate some resources to threatening Russia’s maritime space (and providing insurance against a Russian naval sortie,) the U.S. Navy (USN) can concentrate its forces in the Pacific [7]. Depending on the length of the conflict and the degree of warning provided, the United States could transport considerable U.S. Army assets to Europe to assist with any serious fighting.

The bulk of American carriers, submarines and surface vessels would concentrate in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, fighting directly against China’s A2/AD system and sitting astride China’s maritime transit lanes [8]. Long range aviation, including stealth bombers and similar assets, would operate in both theaters as needed.

The U.S. military would be under strong pressure to deliver decisive victory in at least one theater as quickly as possible. This might push the United States to lean heavily in one direction with air, space and cyber assets, hoping to achieve a strategic and political victory that would allow the remainder of its weight to shift to the other theater. Given the strength of U.S. allies in Europe, the United States might initially focus on the conflict in the Pacific.

Alliance Structure

U.S. alliance structure in the Pacific differs dramatically from that of Europe. Notwithstanding concern over the commitment of specific U.S. allies in Europe, the United States has no reason to fight Russia apart from maintaining the integrity of the NATO alliance. If the United States fights, then Germany, France, Poland and the United Kingdom will follow. In most conventional scenarios, even the European allies alone would give NATO a tremendous medium term advantage over the Russians; Russia might take parts of the Baltics, but it would suffer heavily under NATO airpower, and likely couldn’t hold stolen territory for long. In this context, the USN and USAF would largely play support and coordinative roles, giving the NATO allies the advantage they needed to soundly defeat the Russians. The U.S. nuclear force would provide insurance against a Russian decision to employ tactical or strategic nuclear weapons.

The United States faces more difficult problems in the Pacific. Japan or India might have an interest in the South China Sea, but this hardly guarantees their participation in a war (or even the degree of benevolence of their neutrality.) The alliance structure of any given conflict would depend on the particulars of that conflict; any of the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan could become China’s primary target. The rest, U.S. pressure aside, might well prefer to sit on the sidelines. This would put extra pressure on the United States to establish dominance in the Western Pacific with its own assets.

Parting Shots

The United States can still fight and win two major wars at the same time, or at least come near enough to winning that neither Russia nor China would see much hope in the gamble. The United States can do this because it continues to maintain the world’s most formidable military, and because it stands at the head of an extremely powerful military alliance. Moreover, Russia and China conveniently pose very different military problems, allowing the United States to allocate some of its assets to one, and the rest to the other.

However, it bears emphasis that this situation will not last forever [9]. The United States cannot maintain this level of dominance indefinitely, and in the long-term will have to choose its commitments carefully. At the same time, the United States has created an international order that benefits many of the most powerful and prosperous countries in the world; it can count on their support, for a while.


@AleksBudka17 here is an article that might interest you.
 

Lieutenant

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
1,789
Reactions
4 2,075 24
Speaking of quality the U.S along with its NATO allies have superiority over China and the Russkies. On other hand China and Russia are ahead in quantity. majority of world's countries will find themselves involved one way or another. India and Japan for instance might take the US side, North Korea will most likely side with Russia and China. Pakistan will stand by it ally China. It is going to be a whole of a mess.
 

T-123456

MEMBER
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Messages
354
Reactions
246 1
Country
Turkey
Location
Netherlands
Speaking of quality the U.S along with its NATO allies have superiority over China and the Russkies. On other hand China and Russia are ahead in quantity. majority of world's countries will find themselves involved one way or another. India and Japan for instance might take the US side, North Korea will most likely side with Russia and China. Pakistan will stand by it ally China. It is going to be a whole of a mess.
Its almost impossible for the US to lose this ''war'' without the use of nuclear weapons from Russia and China,they cant reach the US Mainland(Alaska is not that important),China would be the loser.
The US has bases all over the world and close to both China and Russia to inflict serious damage,the 10 or more AC's are also bases of their own.
The US wouldnt lose this ''war'' in a conventional way.
 

Ahmad heidary

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
2
Country
Iran
Location
Iran
I think America's relationship with Russia the best of chinese-Russian relations but hostility in the media only and every country afraid of dragon
 

Lieutenant

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
1,789
Reactions
4 2,075 24
Its almost impossible for the US to lose this ''war'' without the use of nuclear weapons from Russia and China,they cant reach the US Mainland(Alaska is not that important),China would be the loser.
The US has bases all over the world and close to both China and Russia to inflict serious damage,the 10 or more AC's are also bases of their own.
The US wouldnt lose this ''war'' in a conventional way.
I beg to differ, China and Russia combined vs US+NATO and the with nuclear option ruled out the outcome of the math is really hard to predict. In terms of technological superiority I would give that to the western squad however, facing a large army like that of the China along with Russia is going to be devastating for the US+NATO. China and Russia are geographically huge with Russia close to Europe distance wise and to the US as well. China have almost 2 and half million personnel. The US will absolutely nuke both countries otherwise it wont survive. The US bases won't be able play a key factor at all except intercepting and launching missiles. But to say that the US would be able to put foot on the ground that is absolutely impossible.
 

Lieutenant

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
1,789
Reactions
4 2,075 24
I think America's relationship with Russia the best of chinese-Russian relations but hostility in the media only and every country afraid of dragon
Russia and the US have a long history of cold war. To say that the relation is at its best is simply absurd.
 

T-123456

MEMBER
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Messages
354
Reactions
246 1
Country
Turkey
Location
Netherlands
I beg to differ, China and Russia combined vs US+NATO and the with nuclear option ruled out the outcome of the math is really hard to predict. In terms of technological superiority I would give that to the western squad however, facing a large army like that of the China along with Russia is going to be devastating for the US+NATO. China and Russia are geographically huge with Russia close to Europe distance wise and to the US as well. China have almost 2 and half million personnel. The US will absolutely nuke both countries otherwise it wont survive. The US bases won't be able play a key factor at all except intercepting and launching missiles. But to say that the US would be able to put foot on the ground that is absolutely impossible.
There is no mention of USor NATO boots on Chinese or Russian soil,only all kinds of bombs and missiles,not to forget Japan India and Australia.
 

Arjun

MEMBER
Joined
Oct 18, 2017
Messages
35
Reactions
8
Country
India
Location
India
The US has 53 treaty allies. NATO has what 26-27 members, 15 new ones from the old USSR? How is the CSTO doing these days? Five members? Some of the poorest nations in south central Asia? What about China, how many treaty allies do they have? ...North Korea and probably Pakistan.

CSTO.png


Really?:xD:
 

Ahmad heidary

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
2
Country
Iran
Location
Iran
Russia and the US have a long history of cold war. To say that the relation is at its best is simply absurd.
We know the history and the cold war but Russia is not the ussr and is now in danger from China and fear that robs them of second place in power
 

Scorpion

THINK TANK: SENIOR
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
3,797
Reactions
4 3,139 52
Country
Saudi Arabia
Location
Saudi Arabia
We know the history and the cold war but Russia is not the ussr and is now in danger from China and fear that robs them of second place in power
But Russia and China have pretty chill relations unlike the US vs Russia. China has a big economy the Russians could only dreamed of. No way Russian is going to replace China in any shape of form.
 
Top