What would WW3 look like?

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Seymour Hersh has recently warned that the US has a Plan B should Ukraine's defenses break and begin to crumble. He reportedly has said that units of the 82nd and 101st airborne divisions are now close to the Ukraine border. US troops already in place in Europe would directly enter the conflict to prevent Ukraine from losing the war, he suggests.

‘He Did It’: Seymour Hersh Slams Biden As Nord Stream Bomber| Countercurrents

Pulitzer-prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh made waves again Tuesday night as he excoriated the Biden administration and lambasted

countercurrents.org

Spoiler: 7 minute Wion video on the subject of Plan B

I don’t believe US troops are going to intervene in Ukraine, even if the war takes a bad turn. Those troops are to protect NATO countries if the war takes a bad turn, and Russian forces arrive on NATO’s doorstep.

NATO defenses are being beefed up to protect NATO, not to fight Russia in Ukraine. The other narrative promoted in your post is another Russian propaganda talking point, which is generally no surprise, because that’s typically what you post.

 

[Dotini]

Unconfirmed reports claim the Russians are recovering wreckage from near the location depicted in the map below.

Fizik research vessel’s position by the coast of Crimea on 16 March 2023 (Picture: e2w/Metro.co.uk)

Russia 'wins race' to recover downed US Reaper drone 3,000ft below the Black Sea

It comes after the US released dramatic footage showing a Russian warplane flying extremely close to the drone.

metro.co.uk

 

[CalebJ]

Ooh - tabloid headlines!

 

[tim cubbedge]

Unconfirmed reports

Does that mean it’s not factual?

 

[Dotini]

While IMHO not perfect, this 28 minute video gives the best non-controversial overall intro/summary of the Reaper incident from what I've seen. For now, we see through a glass darkly.

 

[Dotini]

My proposed scenario for WW3 may not happen. Boo hoo. Xi has met with Putin in Moscow and after 3 days emerged with a 12 point peace plan for the Ukraine war. Supposedly, Xi will go to Zelensky in the effort to promote this plan, though likely with little success.

8 minute video discusses issues of cease fire (multipolar world order) versus weakening Russia (unipolar rules based world order).

 

[boatgeek]

My proposed scenario for WW3 may not happen. Boo hoo. Xi has met with Putin in Moscow and after 3 days emerged with a 12 point peace plan for the Ukraine war. Supposedly, Xi will go to Zelensky in the effort to promote this plan, though likely with little success.

8 minute video discusses issues of cease fire (multipolar world order) versus weakening Russia (unipolar rules based world order).

What are the 12 points? Do we have any reason to believe that any of the points are acceptable to Ukraine?

 

[Dotini]

What are the 12 points? Do we have any reason to believe that any of the points are acceptable to Ukraine?

Here are the 12 points:

China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis

www.fmprc.gov.cn

Are they acceptable to Ukraine? I strongly doubt it. The points as far as they go may appear somewhat reasonable, but I believe the conditions are unacceptable to Ukraine because the Crimea and other lost territory is not restored as a precondition. Whether the conditions are acceptable to the US, I would also strongly doubt - depending upon the particular faction within the administration, intelligence and military communities.

 

[CalebJ]

Here are the 12 points:

China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis

www.fmprc.gov.cn

Are they acceptable to Ukraine? I strongly doubt it. The points as far as they go may appear somewhat reasonable, but I believe the conditions are unacceptable to Ukraine because the Crimea and other lost territory is not restored as a precondition. Whether the conditions are acceptable to the US, I would also strongly doubt - depending upon the particular faction within the administration, intelligence and military communities.

Your posts are madness. Sheer, mind boggling madness.

In those 12 points, there is not a single mention of reverting to the pre-invasion borders. Neither the Crimean territory, or what remains of Ukraine prior to last year's invasion.

Without that, these points are meaningless and shouldn't be acceptable to anyone at all. At least not anyone sane.

 

[boatgeek]

Here are the 12 points:

China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis

www.fmprc.gov.cn

Are they acceptable to Ukraine? I strongly doubt it. The points as far as they go may appear somewhat reasonable, but I believe the conditions are unacceptable to Ukraine because the Crimea and other lost territory is not restored as a precondition. Whether the conditions are acceptable to the US, I would also strongly doubt - depending upon the particular faction within the administration, intelligence and military communities.

That isn’t a peace plan. It’s pablum. There is little that’s actionable and nothing enforceable. There’s no discussion of borders at all. There’s no mention of return of kidnapped children. However, in the spirit of compromise, I think there are a few confidence building steps that Russia could take:
6. Protecting civilians. Russia could stop using precision weapons against apartment blocks. It’s not like those blocks are militarily useful anyway.
9. Facilitating grain exports. Russia could stop threatening to leave the grain deal.

 

[dhbarr]

Here are the 12 points:

China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis

www.fmprc.gov.cn

1. Respecting the sovereignty of all countries
How about Taiwan though?

2. Abandoning the Cold War mentality
How about Korea though?

3. Ceasing hostilities
How about Senkaku though?

etc. etc. etc.

 

[boatgeek]

1. Respecting the sovereignty of all countries
How about Taiwan though?

I’m glad you asked. You see, Taiwan isn’t a real country, so it doesn’t count.

2. Abandoning the Cold War mentality
How about Korea though?

Oh, that's all our fault. You see, if we hadn't expanded military blocs to include South Korea, North Korea wouldn't have had to become a dictatorship ruled by a homicidal maniac.

3. Ceasing hostilities
How about Senkaku though?

etc. etc. etc.

Rules for thee and not for me.

/s if it isn’t clear

 

[Pem Tech]

Oh boy, speculation time. YAY!
Here is my opinion and you are welcome to it.
If Russia were attack a NATO country, the attack would be conventional (non-nuclear), limited in scope and non-controversial target selection. Putin would do this to test NATO's resolve. Will they counter attack? Will they negotiate? Will NATO fall to the floor and assume the a fetal position and allow Russia to continue expanding? The attack would be significant enough to claim a military victory in reclaiming Russian territory but not large enough to incite a nuclear response. If NATO lobbed a limited number of nukes in response, Russia would claim NATO over reacted to the Russian operation and forced them into a limited nuclear exchange. Not my fault, they made me do it. Since nuclear war is undeniably MAD I really believe that the world (excluding NK) would go into shock after the first nukes was used, they would back off and contemplate what the hell just happened. Negotiations would ensue and (hopefully) cooler heads would prevail. But there is the chance that NATO would crumble and said nations would refuse to use nukes or participate in a nuclear exchange, fearing retaliation. Russia gains another foothold, experiences little military resistance to the action and negotiations would start. All the time China watches and NK keeps its finger on the big red button.
Disclaimer: This is all the fairytale imaginings of a slightly demented mind and in no way claiming to be absolute truth. Like it, don't like it, Meh......

 

[boatgeek]

Oh boy, speculation time. YAY!
Here is my opinion and you are welcome to it.
If Russia were attack a NATO country, the attack would be conventional (non-nuclear), limited in scope and non-controversial target selection. Putin would do this to test NATO's resolve. Will they counter attack? Will they negotiate? Will NATO fall to the floor and assume the a fetal position and allow Russia to continue expanding? The attack would be significant enough to claim a military victory in reclaiming Russian territory but not large enough to incite a nuclear response. If NATO lobbed a limited number of nukes in response, Russia would claim NATO over reacted to the Russian operation and forced them into a limited nuclear exchange. Not my fault, they made me do it. Since nuclear war is undeniably MAD I really believe that the world (excluding NK) would go into shock after the first nukes was used, they would back off and contemplate what the hell just happened. Negotiations would ensue and (hopefully) cooler heads would prevail. But there is the chance that NATO would crumble and said nations would refuse to use nukes or participate in a nuclear exchange, fearing retaliation. Russia gains another foothold, experiences little military resistance to the action and negotiations would start. All the time China watches and NK keeps its finger on the big red button.
Disclaimer: This is all the fairytale imaginings of a slightly demented mind and in no way claiming to be absolute truth. Like it, don't like it, Meh......

Hang on a minute here. What makes you think that the two options NATO has for a ground invasion are rolling over or lobbing a few nukes? NATO wouldn't do either of those. They'd respond to an invasion with conventional forces. And any Russians across the border (including inside Ukraine's pre-2014 border) would have a very short life expectancy. NATO ground forces would almost certainly stop at the pre-2014 border, but air forces may destroy active SAM sites or ammunition/fuel dumps inside Russian territory.

As for NATO's resolve, that seems to be in good order, at least at the moment.

 

[techrat]

The attack would be significant enough to claim a military victory in reclaiming Russian territory but not large enough to incite a nuclear response. If NATO lobbed a limited number of nukes in response, Russia would claim NATO over reacted to the Russian operation and forced them into a limited nuclear exchange

This assumes that NATO's oly response to an attack of any type is with Nukes. NATO has more than enough ground and air forces to attack back. Furthermore, any strike by Russia into a NATO territory would only involve conventional rockets with conventional warheads, because that's about all Russia has left aside from Nukes. And this also assumes a Russian attack into NATO terriroty would even be successful, as so many defense systems are in place to intercept any incoming attack.

Russia has been so weakend by their catostrophic foray into Ukraine that they cannot, at this point, atempt any kind of assault into a NATO territiory. They would utterly fail in such an attempt and the resulting counterattack would leave them with nothing left except to attempt a nuclear strike as most of their conventional forces would be toast. And if they were to attempt that, well, then they really are playing with the end of the world.

 

[Pem Tech]

Oh my....
For a "best guess, what do you think" thread people are getting quite testicaly. Or something like that...
Best to avoid Thread Lock.

 

[boatgeek]

Oh my....
For a "best guess, what do you think" thread people are getting quite testicaly. Or something like that...
Best to avoid Thread Lock.

I think people are assuming that a "best guess, what do you think" thread is a place to offer, you know, their best guess and what they think. Evidence based answers and all that.

Seriously curious, why do you think that the only NATO options are rolling over or lobbing nukes? Feel free to reply via PM if you think that your response would result in thread lock.

 

[PhilC]

With so much materiel and manpower invested in Ukraine I wonder what resources Russia could muster to launch an invasion of a NATO country. Perhaps a few troops of Boy Scouts (or the Russian equivalent) armed with pointy sticks?

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Oh boy, speculation time. YAY!
Here is my opinion and you are welcome to it.
If Russia were attack a NATO country, the attack would be conventional (non-nuclear), limited in scope and non-controversial target selection. Putin would do this to test NATO's resolve. Will they counter attack? Will they negotiate? Will NATO fall to the floor and assume the a fetal position and allow Russia to continue expanding? The attack would be significant enough to claim a military victory in reclaiming Russian territory but not large enough to incite a nuclear response. If NATO lobbed a limited number of nukes in response, Russia would claim NATO over reacted to the Russian operation and forced them into a limited nuclear exchange. Not my fault, they made me do it. Since nuclear war is undeniably MAD I really believe that the world (excluding NK) would go into shock after the first nukes was used, they would back off and contemplate what the hell just happened. Negotiations would ensue and (hopefully) cooler heads would prevail. But there is the chance that NATO would crumble and said nations would refuse to use nukes or participate in a nuclear exchange, fearing retaliation. Russia gains another foothold, experiences little military resistance to the action and negotiations would start. All the time China watches and NK keeps its finger on the big red button.
Disclaimer: This is all the fairytale imaginings of a slightly demented mind and in no way claiming to be absolute truth. Like it, don't like it, Meh......

Russia has not been able to successfully attack even Ukraine and has nearly lost its military in the attempt. I don’t think there’s any chance they could successfully attack a NATO country. What are they going to do? Roll in with those 70-year-old tanks that have been sitting out in the rain and snow for 40 years? That’s the kind of equipment that they’ve been hosing off for their Ukraine war. I don’t think we need to worry about them coming for us, considering the trouble they are already dealing with.

 

[cwbullet]

Russia has not been able to successfully attack even Ukraine and has nearly lost its military in the attempt. I don’t think there’s any chance they could successfully attack a NATO country. What are they going to do? Roll in with those 70-year-old tanks that have been sitting out in the rain and snow for 40 years? That’s the kind of equipment that they’ve been hosing off for their Ukraine war. I don’t think we need to worry about them coming for us, considering the trouble they are already dealing with.

Why do you think they have held their more modern tanks in reserve?

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Why do you think they have held their more modern tanks in reserve?

I’m sure they have kept some advanced tanks in reserve, but it’s not as many as they used to have by a long way, and I’m pretty sure the reason they have kept them back isn’t so that they can attack NATO with them, which was the point I was replying to.

Basically, I’m disagreeing with the idea that Russia is in any position militarily to test NATO by attacking a NATO country.

 

[Pem Tech]

Russia has not been able to successfully attack even Ukraine and has nearly lost its military in the attempt. I don’t think there’s any chance they could successfully attack a NATO country. What are they going to do? Roll in with those 70-year-old tanks that have been sitting out in the rain and snow for 40 years? That’s the kind of equipment that they’ve been hosing off for their Ukraine war. I don’t think we need to worry about them coming for us, considering the trouble they are already dealing with.

Well, I agree with you, Russia is not a threat at this time. However, the thread is based on the premise that WWIII has/will/is happening and asks for your guess on what it would look like. So, since WWIII is a reality in this thread I gave my guess as to how it might happen. Personally I don't think there will be a WWIII, just a long future of rouge nations, small/regional conflicts and proxy wars.

 

[Pem Tech]

I think people are assuming that a "best guess, what do you think" thread is a place to offer, you know, their best guess and what they think. Evidence based answers and all that.

Seriously curious, why do you think that the only NATO options are rolling over or lobbing nukes? Feel free to reply via PM if you think that your response would result in thread lock.

In reality I don't believe that NATO would launch a nuclear retaliation attack. It is just a scenario wherein WWIII could happen.
As stated above
"the thread is based on the premise that WWIII has/will/is happening and asks for your guess on what it would look like. So, since WWIII is a reality in this thread I gave my guess as to how it might happen. Personally I don't think there will be a WWIII, just a long future of rouge militant llamas and epoxy wars."

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

In reality I don't believe that NATO would launch a nuclear retaliation attack. It is just a scenario wherein WWIII could happen.
As stated above
"the thread is based on the premise that WWIII has/will/is happening and asks for your guess on what it would look like. So, since WWIII is a reality in this thread I gave my guess as to how it might happen. Personally I don't think there will be a WWIII, just a long future of rouge militant llamas and epoxy wars."

WWIII will settle the best glue question once and for all!

 

[boatgeek]

In reality I don't believe that NATO would launch a nuclear retaliation attack. It is just a scenario wherein WWIII could happen.
As stated above
"the thread is based on the premise that WWIII has/will/is happening and asks for your guess on what it would look like. So, since WWIII is a reality in this thread I gave my guess as to how it might happen. Personally I don't think there will be a WWIII, just a long future of rouge militant llamas and epoxy wars."

Ah, OK that all makes sense. I had been in the thread for so long that I had forgotten what the original premise was. Your description is definitely among the least implausible scenarios for how WWIII starts.

PS Alpacas, Titebond II, and T-88.

 

[icyclops]

My old friend and Rocketry Planet moderator, Aaron Head, posted this in the Ukraine War thread:


It got me thinking; if Russia were stupid enough or suicidal enough to launch a military attack against a NATO country, what do you think would happen? What would be the extent of the retaliation? Measured or overwhelming? Would it truly result in WW3, or a quick and decisive non-nuclear destruction of select Russian interests and a ceasefire? How long would such a war last in either case? Would China or North Korea join in? Why would they?
There’s no doubt the potential could be terrible, but would it really play out that way?

Now that China is in the mix, things are getting closer. China wants to control the shipping zones near Japan and closer to that part of the world and they want Russia on their side. The Nuclear challenge will always keep that in check…..maybe. Just depends on a stupid move by either China or the Soviets….I am positive that under very specific circumstances
first use” is not out of the question by any nation.

 

[Dotini]

In yet another flashpoint event with nuclear overtones, an apparently random terrorist attack against a small US base in far NE Syria has rapidly escalated into further attacks and counterattacks involving Iranian Revolutionary Guards, also based in NE Syria. Where this is going may be worth watching, at least for the moment.

 

[cwbullet]

It will not surprise me if we park a sub somewhere full of Tomahawks. Four Modified Ohio class subs have over 150 of them on board each sub. They could do some severe damage to Iran if they keep this up. They have a range of 1000 miles. No pilot or ship would be at risk, and 150 military targets could be eliminated.

 

[cwbullet]

I hope it does not come to nukes. A lot of innocent Iranians would die. I am pretty sure they cannot hit us (maybe our deployed military), but if they did, the results would be catastrophic for them.

 

[Dotini]

It will not surprise me if we park a sub somewhere full of Tomahawks. Four Modified Ohio class subs have over 150 of them on board each sub. They could do some severe damage to Iran if they keep this up. They have a range of 1000 miles. No pilot or ship would be at risk, and 150 military targets could be eliminated.

Yeah, at least one of these SSBN's operates out of Sub Base Kitsap, 25 mies from my Seattle home. Almost every week I see the boomers coming and going right in front of my fishing cabin.

Iran's nuclear status may be in the process of shifting, Israel and the US being vitally concerned, previous treaties having been made and torn up.



At top center may be seen the northern-most pier of Sub Base Kitsap, in the distance, the Olympic mountains of Washington State.