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

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

Honestly, I'm pretty sure your industrial out put really doesn't matter in a WW3 scenario modern day weapons from what I heard seen and read are far far too complicated for your average steel mill or car factory to produce quickly sure you would see things like 24/7 shifts for major arms factories things like Boeings St Louis Plant or Lockheed Martin same for Dassault in France etc. etc. etc. to quote Calbear here (Jesus is he a reverse for quotes):
Because, as I suspect you already know, B-2s are closer to the construction of a top end watch than to the building of a Chevy. That level of precision takes time. It didn't matter in WW II if a rivet on a B-29 was 1/64 of an inch too high, either due to a supplier or assembler error, if the B-2 has that sort of error its stealth drops by 95% and a $2B aircraft and two exquisitely trained American pilots wind up a smoking hole in Outer Shithole.

In any war no nukes, I'd almost certainly hand it to the US and friends power projection large stockpiles of gear. It will be bloody and supremely costly i think bare minimum the US is gonna lose over 1400 aircraft in operations probably at least one probably two or three carriers and a fair number of SSNs
 
Honestly, I'm pretty sure your industrial out put really doesn't matter in a WW3 scenario modern day weapons from what I heard seen and read are far far too complicated for your average steel mill or car factory to produce quickly sure you would see things like 24/7 shifts for major arms factories things like Boeings St Louis Plant or Lockheed Martin same for Dassault in France etc. etc. etc. to quote Calbear here (Jesus is he a reverse for quotes):

Industrial output from basic industries supports the advanced industries that produce the precision weapons, basic industrial output is also vital for repairing chunks torn out of communications and transport networks and for turning out the millions of cheaper weapons systems that would be vital for total (nuke free) war.

The precision engineered American weapons (and indeed their Russian and Chinese counterparts) are great for fighting small wars but can never be produced in the bulk that would be required to arm an army invading the mainland of the US, China or Russia. In total war, Tiger tanks and their equivalents are beaten by hordes of mass produced Sherman tanks and their equivalents.

This of course, is another reason why nukes would pretty much inevitably be used. I don't think anyone with half a brain in Russia, China or the US would want to invade the heartland of the other (which would be required to win) if they can just annihilate the enemy's cities.

fasquardon
 
Industrial output from basic industries supports the advanced industries that produce the precision weapons, basic industrial output is also vital for repairing chunks torn out of communications and transport networks and for turning out the millions of cheaper weapons systems that would be vital for total (nuke free) war.

The precision engineered American weapons (and indeed their Russian and Chinese counterparts) are great for fighting small wars but can never be produced in the bulk that would be required to arm an army invading the mainland of the US, China or Russia. In total war, Tiger tanks and their equivalents are beaten by hordes of mass produced Sherman tanks and their equivalents.

This of course, is another reason why nukes would pretty much inevitably be used. I don't think anyone with half a brain in Russia, China or the US would want to invade the heartland of the other (which would be required to win) if they can just annihilate the enemy's cities.

fasquardon

If the war starts conventional, nobody will be stupid enough to go nuclear (except maybe North Korea) because they like living. Even if they lose, the worst thing that happens is Russia loses Crimea and some of its Central Asian influence, China loses North Korea (which will no longer matter if the US proves it can win even with it in place), maybe Tibet, and its Pacific influence, or NATO and the US's allies withdraw from Eastern Europe, the southwestern Pacific and Korea/Taiwan. In a modern war, there is no threat to national survival for most nuclear powers, making a nuclear strike too big a risk. And even if it succeeds, congrats, one side just tanked their economy (even worse) for decades to come. Unless things start nuclear or fanatics take control of one side (either the winners start talking about national annihilation a la widespread massacres and scorched Earth or the losers get hardliners who would rather see the world burn than lose, neither of which I see the fundamentally rational governments of the possible belligerents gaining), then the use of nuclear weapons makes no sense. This isn't some strategy game where the goal is to break your opponent and conquer them, any war would be over limited goals rather than a life or death struggle.
 
If the war starts conventional, nobody will be stupid enough to go nuclear (except maybe North Korea) because they like living. Even if they lose, the worst thing that happens is Russia loses Crimea and some of its Central Asian influence, China loses North Korea (which will no longer matter if the US proves it can win even with it in place), maybe Tibet, and its Pacific influence, or NATO and the US's allies withdraw from Eastern Europe, the southwestern Pacific and Korea/Taiwan. In a modern war, there is no threat to national survival for most nuclear powers, making a nuclear strike too big a risk. And even if it succeeds, congrats, one side just tanked their economy (even worse) for decades to come. Unless things start nuclear or fanatics take control of one side (either the winners start talking about national annihilation a la widespread massacres and scorched Earth or the losers get hardliners who would rather see the world burn than lose, neither of which I see the fundamentally rational governments of the possible belligerents gaining), then the use of nuclear weapons makes no sense. This isn't some strategy game where the goal is to break your opponent and conquer them, any war would be over limited goals rather than a life or death struggle.

Poison gas and firebombing looked like they were pretty dumb before WW1 and WW2. But people did them (since as the casualties mounted and deadlock set in, the horrors of those weapons looked like they might provide situational benefits).

And in total war, there'd be lots of situations where using "just one nuke" would look attractive or where one side would go "the risk that the enemy will launch their nukes is just too high, we need to launch ours before they do!"

fasquardon
 
If nukes exist, but haven't been used then ABSOLUTELY they will be used in a total defence mode, we're not talking Tsar Bombas here but tactical nukes that take out that army over the hill, or that railhead, or that airbase and its environs
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Depends on who's on the offensive and in what capacity.

Anything naval, US has nearly unrivaled supremacy and nothing will change that in the near future. Modern powers could likely maintain costal defense with land-based missiles, but their trade and shipping is utterly fucked.

On land and in the air, its a bit more complicated. The USA isn't equipped or organized to fight a protracted major war, and we haven't been for a while.

Against China, we would take losses. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or the worst kind of moron. It's even very possible that we would lose carriers.

Their small arms and artillery is just as good as ours, they're fully capable of fielding ground attack platforms, and attack helicopters, their tanks mount large enough guns to kill an Abrams at shorter range, and they could potentially lean on Russia for EW and CEW, which would make their abilites in that area somewhere between good and world-leading depending on how generous the Russians are feeling.

Say China wants South Korea gone. The US would have about six months to a year before their losses start catching up, and field strength starts to dwindle.

Eventually, we'll start pulling out older mothballed fighters and tanks, largely removing the technological advantage we have without a significant time and monetary investment, with top-tier new and refurbished models coming out of factories in dribs and drabs.


The problem is that there's all of about 150 people in the US that still know how to weld armor plate, and even fewer that have extensive and recent experience working with the DU and Cobham that makes the Abrams so tough to kill.

There two companies that produce ejection seats for the US military if I recall, and neither production line has much in the way of surge capacity, putting a bottleneck on aircraft production.


We just don't have a war economy, and the extreme technical requirements of our weapons make quick conversion and expansion impossible.
 
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.

With most modern militaries "what you see is what you get" - there is very little slack or ability to rapidly replace battle Losses and some off the more expensive bits of equipment over the short term

I once read that in a Central Germany clash between pact and Nato forces US tank losses would exceed Detroits 24/7 max output ability to replace them at 30:1 - and its the same for pretty much everything else.

For the top teams I suspect that they have a single reservist or individual called back to the colors who could act as a casualty replacement and that is probably it for several months - and in many cases that reservist / retired soldier might already have been tapped up to bring certain formations up to strength

For nations that have conscription - things are a little better as there is a larger pool of people that could return to the colors (lots of negatives her as they would have to be taken from Civilian life and possibly away from vital jobs) - but generally as a rule Long service Volunteers are superior soldiers to conscripts - certainly for a short war this holds true - but in a larger longer war its very difficult to retain the standards of such units and far easier to return ex-conscripts or newer trained conscripts to the Colors once your pool of trained professionals have been exhausted.

So my answer would be that a modern war would last several weeks at a high tempo and then begin to slow and cool as the Cruise Missiles, Best tanks, fighter planes, smart missiles etc are used up and replaced with lesser systems or not replaced at all.

You might end up with a situation where a 'better' unit is decisively defeated by a lessor unit because its state of the Art munitions have run out while the other units have not.

I mean what happens when the units Javelins run out and the enemy still has plenty of AFVs, or the supply of SM2/Sea Venom missiles are depleted but your ship is still expected to defend a convoy or the handful of SU35s are gone and the US still have scores of F22s / F15s?
 
I do not know that US/NATO vs. the FSU would be quite the cakewalk it is being made out to. Russia possesses the best anti-tank missiles and SAMs in the world (nukes too, and while those are not used in this conflict, the fact that they exist, and that the United States must surely know that they are at a nuclear advantage would affect the psychology of their war effort). The Second Lebanon War in 2006 showed that even the "best tanks in the world" are quite helpless against contemporary Russian anti-tank infantry missiles.

The Russian AF is probably behind America's, but I doubt by as much as we all assume.
 

Wallet

Banned
Modern war between great powers is ASB. Especially total war. Especially between the US and China.

The US's economy is totally dependent on commercial goods produced in China. Domestic support is going to fall dramatically if Walmart stops selling cheap Chinese goods. Gas prices will skyrocket if there's any fighting in the Middle East, especially if Iran closes the Persian Gulf or targets the Saudi oil fields.

Because of the possibility of any of this, the stock markets around the world are going to crash. Globalization and international trade is too important now. Nations are too dependent on it. Any disruptions will cause a massive global depression and riots. The western world's population are too comfortable and are used to buying and eating whatever they want whenever they want for cheap.

Also, any physical damage to a country will cripple their stock markets which sends shock waves to other nations. If North Korea shells Seoul with artilley alone, then all of east Asia markets will collapse.

The fear of nukes will make people flee cities causing businesses to shut down and unemployment.

This isn't like WW1 or WW2. With no nukes it land invasions, the worst long term effects will be economic. Even if the war is short. The 2007/2008 recession was only for a few months but millions of Americans have yet to recover almost a decade later. It's been a jobless recovery. A depression might take 20 years. Also, economic setbacks kill dying industries that might last longer with government incentives.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Remember, NATO doesn't activate unless China launches an unprovoked strike against the American homeland. And if that strike is in Hawaii, Guam, or one of the other U.S. islands in the Pacific then NATO still doesn't apply.
 
Remember, NATO doesn't activate unless China launches an unprovoked strike against the American homeland. And if that strike is in Hawaii, Guam, or one of the other U.S. islands in the Pacific then NATO still doesn't apply.

Wait, NATO wouldn't activate if a country stuck Hawaii? I'm pretty sure Hawaii counts as the US homeland considering it's a state.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Wait, NATO wouldn't activate if a country stuck Hawaii? I'm pretty sure Hawaii counts as the US homeland considering it's a state.
It's called North Atlantic Treaty Organization for a reason. Hawaii isn't anywhere near the North Atlantic.
NATO said:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
 

Wolf1965

Donor
A world where nukes do not work (but that needs much larger changes than just U235 that refuses to cooperate, must bombs rely on Pu239, Americium might also work. And I do believe that work on a fissionless fusion bomb would lead to a working device sooner or later) would be very different. Among other things NATO would never allow its conventional strength to dip so low during the 70`s. It is possible that the US Air Force never forms up when they do not have a nuclear role. There will be no bulding holiday for carriers and it is possible that nuclear power by itself will not acquire the evil reputation it currently enjoys.

A war with China very much depends on whether Russia is an ally or not. If not the easiest way is a blockade as China lacks domestic POL production. Any greater war effort would falter sooner or later. A good-sized part of PRC heavy industry is in range of carrier-based planes.

As more money is poured into conventional weaponry precision-guided weapons will be more prevalent. There is no need for WW2 city busting, but key infrastrucure would be at grave risk.
I suspect that NATO or whatever analog exists in such a world could outspend the USSR/China considerably during the 80`s, this could well lead to a implosion like OTL.
 
1. Gentlemen's agreement not to use nukes - or WMDs
In a scenario where nukes exist, I disagree that they would surely or necessarily be used, if all combatants agree not to use them. A poster provides the example of the use of gases in WWI, a violation of pre-existing agreements. Yeah. Now what about poison gases in WWII?
I disagree however that BC weapons could be used while N weapons are not. Many countries, including the one superpower, by now class all NBC weapons as weapons of mass destruction, and a gentlemen's agreement not to use certain weapons would have to be an all-or-nothing thing. Any use of biological weapons would be retaliated against with any WMDs as the targeted country sees it fit. Any use of chemical weapons might very well have the same consequence.

2. No nukes are possible - all bets are off
If we go by the assumption that no nuclear weapons are possible at all, then it's pointless to look at the present-day armies, navies and air forces, and probably even at the present-day national economies and scientific developments. They are all the children of Los Alamos. Yes, including economy and science; space rockets, of which a lot of our present science and technology are offshoots, are the evil twin of ICBMs, which, as we know them, were and are vectors for nukes. We should all take a deep breath and go back to 1939, when Einstein and Szilárd wrote that letter, warning Roosevelt that, contrary to scientific rumors, nuclear weapons (beyond radiological dirty bombs) would not be a thing.
 

Redbeard

Banned
It would be very bloody for sure, but how much for who would very much depend - like on who is invading who. Imagine the PLC actually trying to invade USA - not exactly an easy operation and insurmountable problems probably would be met much before the shores are reached. In comparison the Spanish Armada would be a nice summer day in a canoe on the pond.

Not that it would be much easier for USA to invade China (or Russia) although they have a fair chance to reach the shores/borders. But even if you could blast away the regular forces of PLC/Russia imagine the challenge in controlling such huge areas/population masses. If you think Iraq or Afghanistan was a tough nut this would be a mountain range.

Then there would be all the options in between, like fighting over the control over Africa (whatever you would do that for). Here neither Russia nor PLC are any where close to challenge USA in power projection. USA still is the only superpower and the last other power to have had a similar capacity was the British Empire.

Fighting the Russian army or the PLA would not be a walk in the park, but my impression is that the difference is somewhere like between a 1918 and a 1945 army and that numbers count less than ever - but you will need a lot of ammo and more than there is the present stocks.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Thinking about this some more, I think we have two very different scenarios here. One is a world where nuclear weapons were never built and/or are impossible to build. And one where the nuclear genie is kept in his bottle; but that particular Sword of Damacles is still hanging over everyone's head.

So scenario A first. If nukes never existed, it's also likely nuclear power was either never explorer or is still realativly primitive. In this case, I doubt we'll see nuclear powered super carries, with carries still being powered conventionally (likely with gas turbine propulsion).

We would MAYBE see some nuclear powered submarines, as the trade-off would be considered worth it (if Nuclear power exists at all). But otherwise, I think we would see far more advanced battery technology and AIP systems. Submarines would also likely be optimised for commerce raiding, not anti-submarine warfare. (Generally speaking, anyway. Boats would likely still have ASW capability, but wouldn't be focused on it the way the Akula, Los Angeles and Seawolf boats are.)

ICBMs likely don't exist, as the cost would be prohibitive. We're more likely to see IRBMs and SRBMs used in a tactical role to target field army HQs, supply depots and equipment lagers. Strategic strikes would still be the exclusive domain of heavy bombers, carrying 50-70k ton conventional bomb loads. With PGMs playing an even larger role than they do today. At least in the opening stages of a war. Once key targets are hit, I think we'd see a switch to dumb bombs and their use in traditional carpet bombing/area denial attacks. Of course, it's also highly likely that, without nukes, world militaries maintain MUCH larger stockpiles of munitions. As the reason stockpiles have shrunk so much is that no major power conflict was expected to last more than a few months before going nuclear. Without the nuclear genie lurking in the shadows, that reasoning doesn't exist.

Along with that line of reasoning, conventional forces are maintained at much higher levels. Particularly armored forces. We likely don't see such a long break in tank and IFV development either. By TTL 2017, the Abrams, Leopard, Le Clerc, etc have likely all been replaced in front line units with next generation armor. Same for the Bradley.

Small arms are also likely more advanced, with the M-16, AK-47/74 having been replaced at least 20 years ago, with their replacements replacement likely on deck.

The other major difference, I think, is less "perfect" equipment that is hugely expensive and more "good enough" equipment that will get the job done, but is realativly expendable. This leads to a less "risk averse" culture in the armed forces, as not only is there more equipment and manpower to go around, but that equipment is also less expensive.

Scenario B is much as OTL. Larger militaries expedite the reactivation of older equipment (the US for example has thousands of tanks in reserve/storage). Same with aircraft. Older equipment will be brought back along with reservists/retirees who are familiar with said equipment. Perhaps not in a combat role, but definitely as training cadre
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Wait, NATO wouldn't activate if a country stuck Hawaii? I'm pretty sure Hawaii counts as the US homeland considering it's a state.

It's called North Atlantic Treaty Organization for a reason. Hawaii isn't anywhere near the North Atlantic.

When it comes to NATO and the wording of the treaty it is not best to rely on the treaty wording set in 1948 to say what would happen now in 2017. NATO is fighting in Afghanistan and as to the issue raised of Hawaii, well Turkey is nowhere near the North Atlantic.
If the US mainland was attacked, treaty wording or not NATO countries would or would not aid the US. It depends upon the current political situation in each country; fancy peacetime statements might not matter.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
When it comes to NATO and the wording of the treaty it is not best to rely on the treaty wording set in 1948 to say what would happen now in 2017. NATO is fighting in Afghanistan and as to the issue raised of Hawaii, well Turkey is nowhere near the North Atlantic.
If the US mainland was attacked, treaty wording or not NATO countries would or would not aid the US. It depends upon the current political situation in each country; fancy peacetime statements might not matter.
NATO is in Afghanistan because America activated Article 5 because of 9/11. New York City is covered by Article 5. Hawaii isn't.
 
Top