WW3=end (or close to that) of humans

 

Many scholars have posited that a global thermonuclear war with Cold War-era stockpiles, or even with the current smaller stockpiles, may lead to human extinction. ... However, models from the past decade consider total extinction very unlikely, and suggest parts of the world would remain habitable.

 

I wouldn't agree that the Chinese version of government is in the classic mold of communism. It is more of a socialist capitalist system.

A totally communist system would not be on the verge of becoming the world's most dominant economy, as their system has allowed it to become.

They are an authoritarian regime, .....a system that has evolved over centuries and replaced all other previous systems.

We consider that a bad system and would prefer a democratic system similar to ours, but that may not be possible.

As to Taiwan........the US no longer controls every corner of the earth. China is the boss of that neighborhood, and if they want Taiwan they will have it.

I think a "handover" will be arranged such as was done with Hong Kong.

 

The fact that China is no longer a pure communist regime is the reason why they have no legitimacy, as Communism is what the CCP say they want to do.

Look at what happen in HK, no one will trust the PRC anymore. Not to mention all the semiconductor manufacturing facilities TW have, there is NO WAY US will let TW falls into the hand of the PRC. US will rather destroy the island with nuke than to let it fall into PRC's hand.

 

I would predict a collapse of the US before China. The influence of the US is in decline while China's is rising.

The US has military bases all over the world to support and historically every nation that extended themselves too far in history has fallen.

The US should worry more about North Korea than China. Chinese does it's knitting close to home. It has extensive trade with every country around them.

North Korea is a very dangerous situation as they acquire missile systems for their nuclear warheads.

Perhaps the US will agree to 'stand down" and negotiate a peaceful transfer of Taiwan if the Chinese agree to "stand down" with their support of North Korea.

Waging war is an easy choice when the other side has no way to retaliate. That isn't the case with China.

 

Semiconductor manufacturing is too important, there is 0 chance US will compromise this with China, unless US build massive capacity domestically, but that will take decades to achieve.

Population is the cornerstone and gold standard for the basis of building a powerful country, China's aging population situation is very serious. In contrast, US population is frequently replenish with new immigrants.
(Lots of people don't guarantee success, but declining population guarantees failure).

 

For all their military might and bluster, the US couldn't even defeat the Taliban.

 

It is always difficult to defeat a bunch of warriors that blend in with the crowd, USSR also face this problem when they were in Afghanistan. We also see this happening in Mali with the French right now.

This is clearly not the case in US vs China.

 

The United States of America, in some form, will survive. The People’s Republic of China, like the Russian Federation, will cease to exist as a political entity.
In Russia, the situation will be even worse. The full disintegration of the Russian Empire, begun in 1905 and interrupted only by the Soviet aberration, will finally be complete. A second Russian civil war will erupt, and Eurasia, for decades if not longer, will be a patchwork of crippled ethnic states led by strongmen. Some Russian rump state may emerge from the ashes, but it will likely be forever suffocated by a Europe unwilling to forgive so much devastation.

 

Nuclear mathematics: how many nuclear charges does the United States need to destroy Russian strategic nuclear forces?
To defeat the Russian strategic nuclear forces, the enemy will need:

- On 12 SSBNs, of which 6 will be in the base, the enemy will spend 6–12 nuclear warheads plus torpedoes, possibly with tactical nuclear warheads. As a result, we have a loss of 432-1920 YAB; This can also include the "Poseidons" and their carriers, since as targets they do not differ at all from SSBNs.

- The enemy will spend 4–8 nuclear weapons on SB at two air bases. As a result, we have a loss of 500-800 missile launchers with nuclear warheads (this is not so critical, since under the START treaty it is still about 100 nuclear warheads).

- The enemy will spend 150-200 nuclear warheads to destroy heavy ICBMs in highly protected silos. As a result, we have a loss of 150-750 YAB.

- On 75 PGRK in the base, the enemy will spend 8-16 YaBB. As a result, we have a loss of 225 YaBB.

- On 75 PGRK on the route, the enemy will spend 75 YABB. As a result, we have a loss of 225 YaBB.

- On 150 light ICBMs in silos, the enemy will spend 300 YABB. As a result, we have a loss of 450 YaBB.

In total, for the destruction of all Russian strategic nuclear forces, the United States should spend about 500-600 nuclear warheads out of 1550 operatively deployed, plus a certain amount of high-precision weapons, of which they have a lot.

Such a number of nuclear submarines can be deployed on three or four Ohio-class SSBNs. The minimum launch range of the Trident II (D5) SLBM is 2300 kilometers or 5,5 minutes of flight time. To increase launch density, the United States may use eight SSBNs in conjunction with promising hypersonic precision missiles launched from Virginia Block V nuclear submarines, surface ships, strategic aircraft, and ground launchers. Potentially, they can be supplemented by two British Vanguard-class SSBNs with the same Trident II (D5) SLBMs.

If Russian SSBNs are tracked on combat patrol routes, they, like SSBNs stationed at the base, will be destroyed in an even shorter period of time.

Yes, it is possible that part of the ICBM will not be destroyed and will be able to launch, but for this the United States is deploying and improving the anti-missile defense system
It can be concluded that the Russian strategic nuclear forces have a high offensive potential, which, if necessary, can be additionally strengthened, but at the same time their resistance to a sudden disarming attack by the enemy may be insufficient.

When delivering a sudden disarming strike, the United States will spend about one third of its operatively deployed nuclear warheads, which will allow them, after striking, to dictate the terms of a “disarmed” Russia, and not to fear a blow “in the back” from the PRC. Taking into account the NATO allies, primarily Great Britain, the capabilities of the United States are becoming even higher.

Often, in the comments to articles on the stability of strategic nuclear forces to a sudden disarming strike, one can see remarks like “by the time the enemy’s nuclear weapons fall, our mines will be empty”. This is true only when hitting from a maximum distance of 8-10 thousand kilometers, when the launch detects in advance missile attack warning system (early warning system) and the country's top leadership will have about 20-30 minutes to make a decision about the beginning of the end of the world. When hitting from a distance of about two to three thousand kilometers, the time for passing the entire chain of information and making a decision will be 5-10 minutes, after which it will be too late.

The "Perimeter" or "Dead Hand" system, even if it functions, will not help - it protects against the destruction of the country's top leadership, that is, from a "decapitating" strike, but not from a "disarming" strike, when there is already nothing to give the command to start.

 

In total, for the destruction of all Russian strategic nuclear forces, the United States should spend about 500-600 nuclear warheads out of 1550 operatively deployed, plus a certain amount of high-precision weapons, of which they have a lot

When delivering a sudden disarming strike, the United States will spend about one third of its operatively deployed nuclear warheads, which will allow them, after striking, to dictate the terms of a “disarmed” Russia, and not to fear a blow “in the back” from the PRC. Taking into account the NATO allies, primarily Great Britain, the capabilities of the United States are becoming even higher.

Read this again.

 

The USA chances against China are even greater.

 

That assessment doesn't include the tens of millions who would die from the aftermath of a full nuclear exchange.

Radioactive clouds (much worse than the Chernobyl cloud that swept across Europe), poisoned food and water, and rampant disease spreading from tens of millions of un-buried bodies would cause the most deaths.

More people would die gradually of starvation, radiation poisoning, lack of water, lack of medicine or healthcare, and disease than in the initial blasts.

The consensus is those who died in the initial blast would be the lucky ones.

 

Imagine a world where the leadership and infrastructure is gone. Nobody would be farming or delivering food or goods. There would be no functioning hospitals. All the major cities along the East and West coast would be gone.......totally destroyed and leaving hundreds of millions dead.

The survivors would wander foraging for food and getting sick. It would be a slow and torturous death and much worse than being at ground zero.

Anyone who thinks a full nuclear exchange is in any way winnable is totally bonkers.

 

Anyone who thinks a full nuclear exchange is in any way winnable is nuts.

I have provided the estimates above, 1/3 of the USA nuclear arsenal is enough to disarm Russia, if action is swift. So world will be quite livable yet.

 

According to the 1980 United Nations report General and Complete Disarmament: Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons: Report of the Secretary-General, it was estimated that there were a total of about 40,000 nuclear warheads in existence at that time, with a potential combined explosive yield of approximately 13,000 megatons.

By comparison, in the Timeline of volcanism on Earth when the volcano Mount Tambora erupted in 1815 – turning 1816 into the Year Without A Summer due to the levels of global dimming sulfate aerosols and ash expelled – it exploded with a force of roughly 800 to 1,000 megatons,[citation needed] and ejected 160 km3(38 cu mi) of mostly rock/tephra,[48] which included 120 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide as an upper estimate.[49]A larger eruption, approximately 74,000 years ago, in Mount Toba produced 2,800 km3 (670 cu mi) of tephra, forming lake Toba,[50] and produced an estimated 6,000 million tonnes (6.6×109 short tons) of sulfur dioxide.[51][52] The explosive energy of the eruption may have been as high as equivalent to 20,000,000 megatons (Mt) of TNT, while the Chicxulub impact, connected with the extinction of the dinosaurs, corresponds to at least 70,000,000 Mt of energy, which is roughly 7000 times the maximum arsenal of the US and Soviet Union.

Comparisons with supervolcanos are more misleading than helpful due to the different aerosols released, the likely air burst fuzing height of nuclear weapons and the globally scattered location of these potential nuclear detonations all being in contrast to the singular and subterranean nature of a supervolcanic eruption.[53]Moreover, assuming the entire world stockpile of weapons were grouped together, it would be difficult due to the nuclear fratricide effect to ensure the individual weapons would detonate all at once. Nonetheless, many people believe that a full-scale nuclear war would result, through the nuclear winter effect, in the extinction of the human species, though not all analysts agree on the assumptions put into these nuclear winter models.[2]

 

Your estimates assume the targets would be hardened nuclear silos in the middle of sparsely populated rural Nebraska.

You think the Russians and Chinese would waste their weapons on those sites, when they know they can't win ?

They will aim for the most destruction of human life possible on their way out of this world.

It is far more likely the targets with be the major cities along the East and West coast.......where most Americans live.

Say goodbye to New York, Washington, Baltimore, Boston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Miami.........and Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and cities on the west coast.

 

You think the Russians and Chinese would waste their weapons on those sites, when they know they can't win

Read the text above, the adversaries nukes will be destroyed before the take off. But the USA must act fast and organized.

 

 

^^ And we (as in Canada) are their "neighbour". We'll be seeing fire-works day and night, only that the displays are not coming from DisneyWorld.

 

Is this discussion is for real or about Call of Duty campaign 🤣😜. Dude, what a nonsense you are talking LOL

US will never start war with Russia and will try to avoid any military conflict by all means!

Status of World Nuclear Forces - Federation of American Scientists

Despite progress in reducing nuclear weapon arsenals since the Cold War, the world’s combined inventory of nuclear warheads remains at a very high level.

fas.org

 

US will never start war with Russia

Only time will tell.

 

The funny part that dude posted article from official Russian magazine Military Review (военное обозрение) 🤣
Here is original

Ядерная математика: сколько ядерных зарядов необходимо США для уничтожения российских СЯС?

Источник: wikipedia.org В статье «Почему США сохраняют МБР шахтного базирования?» мы рассмотрели, почему США размещают значительную часть своего стратегического ядерного арсенала в высокозащищённых шахтах, несмотря на то, что они обладают наиболее сильным флотом, способным обеспечить безопасность

topwar.ru

Here is full translated article that part of it dude copied and pasted

Nuclear mathematics: how many nuclear charges does the United States need to destroy Russian strategic nuclear forces?

Source: wikipedia.org In the article Tu-95MS (M) and Tu-160 (M) missile bombers. Source: russianplanes.net The naval component of the Russian strategic nuclear forces is strategic missile cruisers (SSBNs). Currently, it includes one SSBN of project 677BDR, four SSBNs of project 677BDRM and

en.topwar.ru

 

I am not talking about who will win when a nuclear war happen, I am talking about the possibility of a nuclear war.

@Ukrainiandude , I know it feels good to literally climax on the idea that your least favorite country is being destroyed (I was from Hong Kong), but this is not the point (and it is not productive either).

 

IMHO, it's more possible that Aliens will arrive to the Earth or zombies will capture the World than Nuclear War

 

Heres the thing...a nuclear war will be over in a few hours...the nation to preemptively get an unprovoked first strike will win. The losers will be too slow to verify and will perish. Lets hope the West can again retain some strong leadership that has been missing since Bush senior.

 

You are mistaken! No one will win!
P.S. it also will be funny what is gonna be with stock market .

 

Wages in Ukraine in dollar terms remain about half of those in Russia, which is the most prosperous economy of any country that did not join the EU after the collapse of the Soviet Union

Russia has an enormous amount of money. The reserves are equivalent to more than two years of import cover, or enough to pay off its entire public and external debt and still have $100bn in cash left over, which is enough to ensure the stability of the ruble.

 

Russia has an enormous amount of money.

TASS The average pension in Russia in 2018 was 14,100 rubles ($202). In 2019, according to the new law, the average monthly old-age pension for non-working pensioners will increase to 15,000 rubles ($215).

P.S. you are Israeli, I honestly don’t understand your utter devotion to kremlin.

 

@gibor365
In my highly biased opinion, there is no way Russia can ever be a powerful country. Russia rely on petroleum resources when the world is moving away from it, It also have serious brain drain issue. At the same time, low birth rate and high degree of alcoholism means Russia's population is in decline, this means there is no way Russia's economy can grow.

@Ukrainiandude
You know your argument with Gibor is not productive right. This type of argument already happen, and it didn't do anything.

Can we just get back to critiquing my first post about how World War 3 will play out ?

 

@gibor
In my highly biased opinion, there is no way Russia can ever be a powerful country.

You are kidding, right?!
Russia is ranked #2 , just after US in 2021 Military Strength rating. China is #3....All other countries power is much less.

2025 Military Strength Ranking

Ranking the nations of the world based on current available firepower.

www.globalfirepower.com

As per May 2021
Russia - Deployed Strategic Nukes - 1,600, Total Nukes Inventory - 6,257
US - Deployed Strategic Nukes - 1,700, Total Nukes Inventory - 5,550
#3 Country is France Deployed Strategic Nukes - 280, Total Nukes Inventory - 290 (not even comparable).

As per
Death by Alcoholism
The country with the most years of life lost from alcohol is Belarus. Lithuania came next and the Czech Republic was third. The following countries, after these three, are in order of lives lost to drinking:

• France
• Russia
• Ireland
• Slovakia
• Hungary
• Portugal
• Poland
• Slovenia
• Latvia
• Denmark

 

btw, US is leading by Opioid consumption

List of countries by prevalence of opiates use - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and number 2 by Drug Use Death Rate ... surprisingly (even for me )#1 is Ukraine LOL

DRUG USE DEATH RATE BY COUNTRY

Interactive Charts and Maps that Rank Drug use as a Cause of Death for every country in the World.

www.worldlifeexpectancy.com

also , surprisingly, Israel is only on 136th place ... when I worked in Israeli police and investigated a ton of drug use/death cases, I assumed that Israel is in top 20

 

Books written by top US military during the Trump years, talk about his continual questions about a "first strike" nuclear attack by the US on various countries.

His bizarre interest terrified them to the point they made references in public that the US military would disobey any illegal orders to launch such attacks.

There is also talk in Congress of changing the chain of command for nuclear strikes, that would require additional safeguards.

The US has come within minutes of launching a full attack in the past, when the warning system for incoming missiles screwed up.

The problem is there is little time to respond, the system isn't fail safe, and the results of a launch would be horrific.

 

Interesting article regarding original post

No, China will not invade Taiwan – The China Project

In mainland China, fear of Taiwanese independence feeds the fever of traumatized nationalism, unites domestic rivals around a shared national dream, and serves as a never-ending threat that justifies enormous military expenditures — but not for war.

supchina.com

 

China's leadership have certainly used violence unification to rally support from the people, however it is possible that this nationalism fever among the people may become out of control, which force the leadership to invade TW.

Many arguments used by author is the article @gibor365 quoted, except for the last one about self-image, can also apply to pre-World War 1 situation in Germany. How come WW1 still happen?

 

China's leadership have certainly used violence unification to rally support from the people, however it is possible that this nationalism fever among the people may become out of control, which force the leadership to invade TW.

Many arguments used by author is the article @gibor365 quoted, except for the last one about self-image, can also apply to pre-World War 1 situation in Germany. How come WW1 still happen?

There was no deterrence in form of Nuclear Bombs.
Back in 1914 one still could reasonably believe they can win a war

On the other side, because of nuclear deterrence countries will be hesitant before relatiating.
This is the very reason Russia could take over Crimea and chill in Eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine doesn't belong to NATO, so other members had no obligation to react. Russia was confident, and rightfully so, that only reaction will be 'stern words and condemnation'.

With Taiwan it might be similar, although it is more important to western world than Ukraine so risk of retaliation is higher.
If Taiwan (or any other country in fact) would join NATO then they would be absolutely untouchable because of article 5. Won't happen though.

 

The highly classified war games simulation culminated with Chinese missile strikes on U.S. bases and warships and a lightning air and amphibious assault on the island of Taiwan, which China has recently doubled down its claim to.

According to Air Force Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, in that particular scenario, the U.S. military will likely “lose fast.”

How U.S.-China War in the South China Sea Could Start in 2034

In the year 2034, U.S. naval destroyers enter the waters of the South China Sea, where they eventually encounter a heavily armed Chinese vessel. Apparently, it all goes downhill from there. Relentless cyberattacks put a stranglehold on the United States’ ability for strategic action, and the...

nationalinterest.org