Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Will World War 3 be more like WW1 or WW2?" video.

I seriously doubt western nations would ever turn to using nukes first before the other side launched because its not in the west's nature to do so. Even if they were on the verge of losing I would question if they would turn to nukes because they obviously know there would be retaliation and the west doesn't want to lose everything it has built through the centuries. China has a no first strike policy and I doubt they break that which leaves Russia as the only one that's most likely to use nukes because they're the weakest major power who as we've seen in Ukraine have vastly inferior conventional forces that can't even defeat a smaller opponent that's only been moderately supplied with western weapons and supplies. If Russia didn't have nukes, I think there's a very good chance that within the first week of the invasion of Ukraine that if Russia didn't turn back that there would've been massive NATO airstrikes against the Russians that would've crushed the invasion before it had any chance of going very far. Nukes are the only thing that's been stopping western nations from intervening directly with their military forces in Ukraine because they have too much to lose if things went nuclear.
5
@EdwarkDiyaz Truthfully in a fully conventional war without nuclear weapons the US alone could defeat China. Not defeating them as in conquering Chinese territory, but beating the Chinese in any battle whether it be on land, sea or air. The US is the only nation on earth with a military that can invade practically every corner of the planet while China's military remains a largely regional force that likely won't ever project its military power very far beyond its own borders the way that the US can.
3
@EdwarkDiyaz Then why did the United States fail to do this in the Korean War in 1950? The fact is that in any field, whether it is technology war, trade war or military affairs, China can defeat the United States alone. If the United States wants to defeat China, it must mobilize all military forces to gather in the Western Pacific. The US didn't fail to win the Korean War. They along with other UN nations didn't want to fight another full scale war just a few short years after winning WWII. If the US and UN forces decided to go all in and throw all their industrial might and military forces into winning the Korean War, they would've done so. However after WWII I think most people were tired of war and fighting over a small asian country didn't seem like it was worth it beyond preserving South Korea. If the United States wants to defeat China, it must mobilize all military forces to gather in the Western Pacific. In a US/China conflict the US wouldn't be looking to completely defeat the Chinese forces or even want to occupy any Chinese territory. Their main goal of 'defeating' the Chinese would be to prevent China from successfully attacking Taiwan or any other ally in the region. That's it.
1
@EdwarkDiyaz China did not use all its strength in 1950, because the Chinese Volunteer Army invested only one million troops in the Korean battlefield, and the United Nations Army invested about one million troops in the Korean battlefield. China also did not use all its strength in 1950. The UN army DID NOT have one million troops on the frontlines in Korea EVER. There may have been one million troops rotating into and out of the frontlines during the war, but if the UN army actually had one million soldiers on the frontlines all together at the same time, the Chinese would have likely been pushed back to their own borders. With that many soldiers and with enough firepower supporting them, there's no reason the UN forces couldn't launch another Inchon amphibious assault that could've beaten the Chinese the same way it defeated the North Koreans. Also all China had was manpower and some artillery, but what else did they have? No airpower other than the Russians, very few tanks and vehicles to move their forces and zero navy. This is why the Chinese lost 4-5 times or even more troops than all UN forces combined. This is not because the United States can stop China now, but because China wants to wait for greater advantages. After all, confrontation between major powers is not a child's play. China must ensure unification. Taiwan has a higher chance of winning in dealing with decoupling from the West I really believe that the Chinese government no matter how much they want Taiwan back, isn't ever stupid enough to actually try and make that come true. I don't think and I hope the Chinese government is smart enough to understand that possibly gaining back an island nation isn't worth all the massive economic damage that it would do it itself. Russian trade with the world outside of natural resources is relatively minimal. Chinese trade with the world is insanely huge. Any full scale sanctions would be devastating to the Chinese economy when their economy relies so much on other nations buying their products. To me the best course for China would to be to continue what they're doing now which is continuing to improve their own nation and the standard of living for all Chinese people. A war with the west would set them back massively and Taiwan is not a prize that's worth all the pain and suffering that Chinese people would receive as a result of Chinese aggression towards Taiwan.
1
@Baraxes i think you all hold the US in high regards too much, just in the Ukraine war alone US and Nato have run out of weapons that matters, they supplied all then had to Ukraine in terms of Artillery and small arms fire and grenades, rpgs, and ATGM. Made don't rely on TV news for concrete info. Read articles, defence articles and you will see that NATO and US are currently struggling to match russia in that regards. Neither the US or NATO have 'run out of weapons' and I really don't get how you have come to that conclusion with all facts just a google search away. Both the US and NATO have lower amounts of artillery shells left to give to Ukraine, but that's because they're still keeping the majority of shells for their own armed forces rather than emptying all their warehouses of every shell they have and then shipping them all to Ukraine. As much as the US and NATO forces might want to help Ukraine, none of them are willing to do so if its going to significantly affect their own military. If they actually really wanted to go all in and supply Ukraine with everything they had, then Russia would've lost this war a long time ago. Heck if the US/NATO really wanted to go all in and help Ukraine it would just send all the many thousands of guided bombs and missiles sitting their nations to Ukraine and the war would be over. Imagine Ukraine firing off thousands of guided missiles and glide bombs against every single military target within Ukraine and western Russia? It would be the end of Russian forces being a functional fighting force.
1
@EdwarkDiyaz The Chinese government has made it clear that it is preparing a plan for Taiwan's return, so you can see that China is making various preparations, including establishing a new trade settlement system with the BRICS countries, and then massively expanding its navy and air force, including nuclear weapons Strength, do you think the West will not suffer losses by imposing sanctions on China? If China is making a plan for Taiwan then I hope it will be a peaceful one because a military one would be insane. Also no matter how much China expands its armed forces they will ALWAYS be behind the US technologically. Why? Because the US isn't developing all of its weapons systems alone the way China needs to do most of the work themselves or else get those secrets through spying. A big part of the reason why NATO is so strong is because not only does each nation contribute militarily on the battlefield, but they also contribute logistically and scientifically as well. Getting the best minds from around the world to work together on a problem and sharing the workload will almost always be than doing it mostly by yourself. As for sanctions, sure the west would suffer but China will suffer the most when such a large part of its economy is about selling things to the world. Look at how many factories both large and small that build and manufacture things for the world and what would happen if many of them stopped production because of a war? Look at how many domestically owned factories that would also suffer from losing much of the world as its customer base? How many companies that sell on places like Aliexpress and Temu that sell millions of products to customers around the world would be massively affected if suddenly they were banned from selling to western consumers? Barely anyone buys Russian consumer products, but almost everyone buys at least some Chinese made products hence why sanctions would hurt the Chinese economy far more than the Russian one.
1
@EdwarkDiyaz I must remind you that China won all three decisive battles of the Korean War, Shangganling and Changjin Lake. Then the Soviet Union sent some air force support in the later period, but the war in the later period was of little significance because it had long been a stalemate. Winning a few battles while taking huge casualties doing so is not a long term recipe for success. Just ask how that's working out for Russia in Ukraine. Sure the Russians are still making some progress, but they've taken huge losses in men and equipment to do so because their armed forces are stuck with using mostly Cold War equipment and are poorly trained before being thrown into battle. If the Russians were doing so well in Ukraine the war would've been over a long time ago and they wouldn't be resorting to throwing North Korean lives away in their attacks now. During the Korean war, China took more soldiers killed than the US and all UN nations COMBINED by 4-5x. The only force that suffered more on the South Korean side were the South Koreans which is to be expected. The Chinese didn't have anywhere near the firepower and support that the UN forces did which is why they took so many human casualties. In a modern conventional war the Chinese will almost always lose more men than the US/NATO because they're still significantly behind technologically, logistically and organizationally. Until they close that gap, then they will always have to sacrifice men to compensate for not being as advanced as western forces are.
1