Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "What Would WW3 Be Like(old version)?" video.

Also I'd genuinely like to see any actual significant force get through the Himilayas. There's a reason those countries are still there in the Himilayas and that there have been skirmishes but no real war. It's the Himilayas. You thought the Alpines would be bad? Himilayas you just can't move through in any significant numbers. They're natural choke points so a token force can defend the entire border. The only real force concentrations would be through Pakistan as the east would be too filled with jungles. You'll see some battles but nothing too major. The countries we see there today are only there because they couldn't be conquered by their bigger neighbors. It's not for lack of trying but lack of ability.
31
@thomasau3204 Not at all. It's going to be China on the offensive. They're the ones with the most to lose by not going at it first. And they need it to be quick but we all know how "quick wars" go.
4
@mukulmehra007 It would only take about 2 years of war for rebellion to rise considering the toll it would take on the Chinese people.
4
Oh also it's worth noting that it's not how many people you have but how many you can mobilize. And honestly considering the size of the modern US military despite everything, it'll likely still mobilize more than the Chinese. If the US actually wanted a land war they could likely win. China hasn't had a history of actual significant mobilization for at least 150 years at this point with the attitude still being about mercenary armies protecting them and a general low opinion of the military as good steel does not become nails. If you wanted to go by WW2 numbers of induction the US could mobilize 40 million with the Chinese only mobilizing 20 million. 14 million were pulled into the whole Chinese army in the second world War but the actual army peak strength never exceeded 5.7 million. They did not in any way mobilize effectively and the middle classes seemed to not care for it. It seems that China has existed purely by the fact that its population stays as a united group because they're relatively easily conquered and then the conquerers get integrated because there aren't enough of them in comparison.
4
@kaochankddr6920 China's economy has not surpassed the USA even in PPP. Industrial capacity however is definitely a weakness which has currently been on the upswing to repair. The USA was the largest industrial power and has the means to do so again. In terms of manpower the US has never really tried to make a very manpower heavy military and always specialized in making a small but strong infantry which will likely come again. The US military is also at the forefront of innovation in all but hypersonic missile technology in a fashion the WWII Germans were never at and in fact lagged behind in almost every instance. So there's a technology gap as well to consider. The carriers are important for naval warfare as they as of yet have not become superceded but you're correct in how they matter little in a ground war which will be how this is fought. The biggest thing however is that the US will in no way be fighting alone as China has a lot of enemies and even its "allies" hate it. With a way to grab in probably the only other power which can industrialize and grow as fast as China: India who will likely be happy to help crush China in a war. There will be 3 key allies for the US to win: Turkey and Eastern Europe to hold back Russia, India to face down China and hold back attrition, and then Vietnam to provide a border to invade China from. Those key allies and the Chinese coalition falls.
3
Tbh it's 100 million people with a culture of fighting off invasions with insane fever and probably a lot of US foreign aid. It seems like a quick way to make an effective army very quickly. I'd equate it to the Koreans who in the Vietnam War outperformed the US troops in pure ferocity and brutality. China is a bad neighbor and you only survive by being incredibly good at fighting which is what the Vietnamese have become.
2
@ismailmertcileci4199 I'm fairly Certain Turkey is in NATO and with the convincing of being able to take the territory of their enemy seems like an easy way to convince them to get into the war. Lmao maybe turkey will get Crimea.
2
Added together: Russia + Belarus + Kazakhstan + China + Pakistan is a coalition of 1.795 billion people. The USA + India + Japan is 1.835 billion. This puts the numbers more in favor of the American coalition just barely. And since the anglophone countries would almost certainly join the US without much complaint (even if the rest of Europe may not), you can add an extra 137 million to the mix. How hard the US would have to pull would almost certainly just be India. The Europeans striking a deal with the Russians would be honestly do little to affect the rest of the anglosphere who are all essentially islands. The only real linchpin in this war would be India. If they're in, the numbers are in favor of the Americans. If they're not, it's a 4:1 kill ratio.
2
Btw estimates put highest US casualties in Korea at 33,629 and lowest number (Chinese numbers of dead) at 110,000. And across the whole war the US was doing much more with much less. And given the US doctrine and how much it took... there's your 4:1 kill ratio. Btw those are Chinese statistics with the median being about 430,000 dead and highest estimate being over 900,000 dead.
2
Pakistan front will be like that, but the Himilayan front will be much more like WW1 western front. Mountains are incredibly easy to defend and with how much will be at stake for them it'll be defended to the teeth.
1
@obamabinladen5055 As much as the US really doesn't like such actions, it hates the Chinese much more and honestly the only thing holding us back currently from full on aggression is memories of the world wars. That changes with an actual attack. With a war starting there's no stopping the Americans since the US has such a low opinion of China it'll be quick to rally together for a full scale war.
1
@ayushanjay4983 Yeah but those are both American backed anyway.
1
@UwU-ok2jr Low grade authoritarian but at this point basically just capitalists much like the Chinese 10 years ago.
1
@viethungle8627 In terms of pure self-interest this largely sums up the geopolitical situation of the region.
1
@somyaranjansahoosahoo5127 The issue is that China and Russia have been doing a lot of missile defense systems which have the explicit goal of neutering the US carrier benefits and the US hasn't yet caught up in that department. The invention of a technology always comes before it's defensive counterpart.
1
I think you really overestimated the Chinese coalition. Pakistan is in no way strong and its largest use is being a location to invade from for the Chinese. The Himalayas are also the hardest place to invade through. Chinese also depend incredibly heavily on sea trade while facing at least 3 navies blockading them with the largest naval power in the fight as well. Russia is also the weakest of the Allies. Russia hates China and might just use the opportunity to strengthen ties with the central Asian Former Soviet republics and then crush China with the rest of the American coalition. At which point it'll once again have defensible borders and secure itself in the world. I really can't see Russia truly joining China. Russo-Chinese relations are just really poor in general and Russia has a lot more to lose with with a victorious China than victorious America because America for sure will not go on the offensive while China will. And that means that Russia can sit pretty and build up in peace because otherwise it's Russia against China and relegating Russia to Northwestern Asia as the easternmost border putting it in the most vunerable position it's been in about a millennium.
1