What would a modern total war between two great powers look like without nuclear weapons?

IE Russia and/or China vs US or NATO

Can we try not to discuss how total war without nukes Would happen, since that makes it ASB.
 
Well, the Russian army would fair poorly against the US (so they would need the PLA to protect them). They rely heavily on conscripts already, they can't afford to modernize their forces, the US can outspend them many many times over while fielding a larger army and air force (that isn't archaic) all the while supplying armaments to all the nations opposed very close to Russia, they have no access to strategic ports anymore, Moscow is close to the border. I might stop short of saying they would be defeated quite as badly as the Iraqis were by the US, but nonetheless the writing is on the wall. Russia has gained some experience in places like Grozny, Syria, Ukraine, Georgia etc. but it would be a far cry from the truth to say they have more combat experience for their military leadership than the US does. And honestly the more I look at it, the more technology itself seems to be the predominant factor in warfare in the 21st century and the turn of the 20th century.

The PLA on the other hand would be dangerous to mess with despite the fact they aren't battle hardened anymore (but would quickly become battle hardened). However, their coastline is long and vulnerable to invasion as Japan proved, but the things is they could put massive amounts of divisions on the coast to preempt that. It is probably a stalemate.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The PLA on the other hand would be dangerous to mess with despite the fact they aren't battle hardened anymore (but would quickly become battle hardened). However, their coastline is long and vulnerable to invasion as Japan proved, but the things is they could put massive amounts of divisions on the coast to preempt that. It is probably a stalemate.

Agree with all your points in regard to Russia. However, the PLA is, IMO, being overblown. Yes, they're huge. But they are still behind the US and NATO. Particularly in the area of aircraft and naval forces. Their Army too is about a generation to two generations behind in tanks, artillery, and AFVs.

Now, they ARE modernizing. But they still have a ways to go. Here's the other thing to think of too. This isn't WWII or Korea, where a soldier with two to three months training was considered fit for combat. Hell, it takes 6 months, MINIMUM, to train a rifleman anymore. For tanks, it's closer to a year. And and "special" troops, 2 years, minimum. So that largely negates their manpower advantage. Now, obviously, this applies to the US as well. But where the US has the advantage, is that there are literally MILLIONS of combat veterans that the armed forces can call on in time of war to rapidly expand. And these men CAN be deployed with just a few weeks of refresher training (assuming they are still in Military shape).
 
So it would be
Russia/China/Iran/North Korea/Pakistan on one side vs.
Allies - NATO/USA/Ukraine/Georgia/Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States/India/ANZACs/Vietnam/Taiwan/South Korea/Japan

No weapons of mass destruction to be used. Conventional bombs can be used to flatten cities like WWII.

Question would be, what would the access to China? Coast would be heavily fortified by China and they have strong natural defenses at other access points. Perhaps it would be through North Korea across the Yalu in the north with the Vietnam and India having localized conflicts. Or the USA and ROC land in southern China as the Vietnamese are fighting on the border to isolate a Chinese army and secure Vietnam.

Once the borders are secure, a general blockade is set against China with advances along the coasts in the north and south. A strategic bombing campaign would commence to hit Chinese industry.

Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan are screwed

So how would forces be deployed?
NATO forces plus designated US army takes on Russia all along the border including Turkey
Saudi and allied Gulf States along with designated US army takes on Iran. Maybe add some marines as well to roll on Iran and Russia along the Caspian Sea to get the oil and then Pakistan

India vs Pakistan first and limited against China

Vietnam and ROC against China

Perhaps US marines and ROC land in southern China

South Korea, US Army, Japan against North Korea, northern China, and Pacific Russia

The US army would be stretched thin so priorities would be established as Iran (oil), Russia Caucus (oil) first and all other places second, China would be third.

Perhaps in one big front the USA main forces start in Iran and move in all directions against Russia. This is the focus for most of US forces and half marines. Establish bridgehead in Iran and pour troops through.

NATO countries with US forces in Europe to be on defensive and make limited gains towards St Peterburg and Moscoaw

USA, South Korea, and Japan to squash North Korea and Russian Pacific establish northern bridgehead to China and into Russian Siberia

US marines land in southern China along with ROC and ANZACs to establish southern front in China.

Allied navies blockade Chin and Russia

Allied air forces to establish air superiority and then interdict supply flow and strategic bombing against Russia and China.

War lasts four to five years
 
US marines land in southern China along with ROC and ANZACs to establish southern front in China.

NO no one no one is dumb enough to propose landing in China and facing some hundreds of thousands of PLA troops on its home turf unless you bought all 4 Iowas all 3 Zumwalts and several CBGs to the party plus landing at bare minimum what amounts to a short field army no one in the world, not even the US has that capability I think
 

SsgtC

Banned
NO none none is dumb enough to propose landing in China and facing some hundreds of thousands of PLA troops on its home turf unless you bought all 4 Iowas all 3 Zumwalts and several CBGs to the party

I think that's a given if we're fighting against both Russia and China. Hell, a war that big, and the Navy may start looking at bringing back the SoDaks and NC as well.
 
one thing I've read about modern warfare (as in, the kind between two big modern armies), is that it would have to be fast... no one has the reserves or logistics anymore to fight a full out war for more than a few months. And I have to wonder at just who anymore has experience in that kind of war... a lot of armies around the world have lots of experience in fighting insurgencies, but actual total war?
 
Chemical weapons and biological agents would play a big role

Taking out key infrastructure by computer attack would be attempted on all sides

Both sides would try to start with precision strikes by low-flying bombers and missiles (cruise and non-nuke ICBMs)
 
Gotcha. I read it more as a gentleman's agreement not to go nuclear

Ah

I was thinking Ok, so nuclear fission not invented, but everyting else will be

So missile tech will continue where V2 left off, ICBMs are a logical development

Bio and Chem weapons will be obvious

Laser-guided missiles and cruise missiles also developed

etc
 

SsgtC

Banned
Ah

I was thinking Ok, so nuclear fission not invented, but everyting else will be

So missile tech will continue where V2 left off, ICBMs are a logical development

Bio and Chem weapons will be obvious

Laser-guided missiles and cruise missiles also developed

etc

Gotcha. I guess either way could work because both would give the OP what he wants. The only issue I see with still developing ICBMs, is they're so damn expensive for a realativly small payload (when compared to say, a B-52 or B-1B).

If they're still developed, I think they would still be restricted to special weapons, i.e. biochem. The issue is, compared to nuke, those are very fragile warheads. Designing survivable reentry vehicles would be a cast iron bitch
 
Oh I assumed from the OP that nukes had not been invented

Yup.
Gotcha. I guess either way could work because both would give the OP what he wants. The only issue I see with still developing ICBMs, is they're so damn expensive for a realativly small payload (when compared to say, a B-52 or B-1B).

If they're still developed, I think they would still be restricted to special weapons, i.e. biochem. The issue is, compared to nuke, those are very fragile warheads. Designing survivable reentry vehicles would be a cast iron bitch

What about precision "decapitation" strikes? even a minuteman could carry a very serious bunker buster a long way.
 
Ah

I was thinking Ok, so nuclear fission not invented, but everyting else will be

So missile tech will continue where V2 left off, ICBMs are a logical development

Bio and Chem weapons will be obvious

Laser-guided missiles and cruise missiles also developed

etc

I'm going the route of uranium acting like thorium, where reactors still work, but an uncontrolled chain reaction does not. So recognisable large navy ships and even dirty bombs would be possible but not a full scale nuke.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
What about precision "decapitation" strikes? even a minuteman could carry a very serious bunker buster a long way.

They're not accurate enough and don't carry a large enough warhead to justify the cost. I'm going of memory here, but I think the Trident D5 has a CEP of 90 meters. That's more than close enough for a nuke, but not for a PGM.

The Minuteman is worse, with a CEP of 200 meters. Again, more than close enough for a 500kt nuke, but might as well be a mile off for a conventional warhead.
 
They're not accurate enough and don't carry a large enough warhead to justify the cost. I'm going of memory here, but I think the Trident D5 has a CEP of 90 meters. That's more than close enough for a nuke, but not for a PGM.

The Minuteman is worse, with a CEP of 200 meters. Again, more than close enough for a 500kt nuke, but might as well be a mile off for a conventional warhead.

Well bollocks
 
Gotcha. I guess either way could work because both would give the OP what he wants. The only issue I see with still developing ICBMs, is they're so damn expensive for a realativly small payload (when compared to say, a B-52 or B-1B).

If they're still developed, I think they would still be restricted to special weapons, i.e. biochem. The issue is, compared to nuke, those are very fragile warheads. Designing survivable reentry vehicles would be a cast iron bitch
no, would be completely different scenerios. the militaries & geo-political mindset w/o the invention of nukes wouldn't be the same as a world with nukes always hovering in the background.
 
and the u.s. maybe not be so interested in taking on the guarantor of safe world sea lanes w/o the economy of force nukes provide.
 
IE Russia and/or China vs US or NATO

Can we try not to discuss how total war without nukes Would happen, since that makes it ASB.

I think the closest parallel is WW1. When the war started, no power was really prepared and had only months worth of vital provisions (if that) and very quickly things degenerated into a hand-to-mouth slugging match where what mattered was industrial power and access to world trade and where pretty much all of the rules were disregarded. (For example, poison gas, which everyone used and everyone had agreed to outlaw a few years before, abuse of PoWs, abuse of captured civilians, the free use of lies by all sides, like when the Entente promised territory to Romania if they joined the war while simultaneously agreeing among themselves to not honour those promises, the casual disregard of the sovereignty of neutral nations when it seemed some benefit might be gained from it - witness the invasion of then neutral Greece by both sides, the invasion of Albania by the Greeks, Serbians, Italians and later even Austro-Hungarians, the invasion of Persia by Russia and Britain, unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic etc, etc.) In the end, using only conventional weapons, millions upon millions of human beings had been slaughtered, empires broken, and the entire political trajectory of the world had been sharply altered.

Similarly, no-one is prepared for a great power war in the modern world. Similarly, modern industry and communications would mean that even without nuclear weapons it would be thoroughly apocalyptic on a scale that would make WW2 look like a storm in a tea cup. I'd give a narrow advantage to the US and its allies in any war, simply because the US is best placed to command world trade in such a war, allowing them to do what the British did in WW1 and use the world's resources to feed their people and their war factories while similarly denying those resources to the Germans. Also, with the American advantage of decades of higher military spending than either Russia or China would give them an advantage in the early war that would enable them to claim advantageous positions just like the better resourced (pre war) German army was able to use its advantage to occupy much of the French industrial heartland and ensure that the bulk of the war was fought on foreign soil.

However, the industrial power of the US and China is so close now that the US would have a very real risk of losing such a war if they make mistakes (just as Britain faced the risk of losing WW1).

Russia, while in no position to win a war against the US, is still one of the great industrial powers of the world (though much declined from Soviet times) and a conventional war would likely take many years and be extremely costly and painful for the US/NATO.

It's hard to see Russia and China fighting together (given that they are not currently allied, don't currently show any desire to be military allies and intentionally joining such a war would be an act of national suicide, even if the Russo-Chinese alliance won), but if they did it would make for a significant challenge in conventional warfare.

While the US might fight Russia and/or China alone, no way is the rest of NATO going to fight without the US - the other NATO states just aren't equipped for a great power war without the lead member.

And of course, given how brutal such a war would be, it's basically ASB that any gentleman's agreement could keep nukes from being used, and there's basically no point in using nukes against another nuclear power unless you use them all (since using all of them might just stop the enemy from annihilating you with their nukes). Consider how many tactics and weapons were considered too vile to use at the start of WW1 and WW2 (like poison gas and firebombing) that were embraced energetically as the wars dragged on.

Great power war in the modern era basically means the extinction of the great powers who fight it.

fasquardon
 
Top