NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay I want an actual debate/ I am giving NS one last chance to actually have an intelligent conversation......


Ok Heres the Topic:

NATO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nato

Everyone Else: Including the whole mid-east, China,Russia, And North Africa

Lets assume South America and Southern Africa Remain Neutral.

who would win in this war?
Why would they, as in how would they do this?

Can we wait until Russia theoretically joins NATO?

Assumption: No nukes used. Otherwise, no one wins.

This is basically the US, Turkey, and the UK against everyone else. Why? No one else in NATO matters. Turkey could hold their own against the rest of the Middle East outside of Israel (and why they would fight on the anti-NATO side I shall never know). Africa and Mexico don't matter. Russia really doesn't matter without nukes. ChIndia would be the only real threat out there, and I think NATO could currently take them.

In another 10 years? Perhaps not.

Can we wait until Russia theoretically joins NATO?
Good point Russia does want to join Nato but i thought that would make NATO too strong, at least with russia on the opposing side it evens it out a bit.

Good point Russia does want to join Nato but i thought that would make NATO too strong, at least with russia on the opposing side it evens it out a bit.

Well if Russia isn't in NATO, then I think that the Russia/China/India/Israel alliance would win in the end. I think the US/UK/Germany/etc. alliance would be able to gain the upper hand in the opening stages of the conflict, and cripple much of the non-NATO nations infrastructure, but they would be facing a decided numerical disadvantage, and the NATO war machine would not be able to operate for long without Mexican/Venezuelan/Middle Eastern oil fuelling it.

World War III will not be won by anyone.

Everyone will be dead after a nuclear holocaust.

Oh and Israel Is neutral Sorry I should've mentioned that..

World War III will not be won by anyone.

Everyone will be dead after a nuclear holocaust.

Oh and lets assume that the leaders of the countries in question are smart and won't doom their people by using nukes.....

See Heres the Way I see it:

NATO has a stronger military but less supplies, IE Manufactoring bases in South East Asia and Oil in mideast. So they would have to move quickly to secure at least the oil. Navy wise NATO would dominate, but the Alliance would be able to operate because all of their need supplies could be transported contenentally.

So we have this in the beggining: NATO Invades Saudia Arabia, either through the ocean or from turkey. The alliance reponds by launching a massive ground campaign, they would have a definant advantage. NATO would also have air suppremacy but the alliance would ulimatly win on the land. In total war the alliance would just overwhelm continental Europe and take it over. NATO would have to launch a war atrition against the alliance but it would probably end in stalemate in my opinion....

See Heres the Way I see it:

NATO has a stronger military but less supplies, IE Manufactoring bases in South East Asia and Oil in mideast. So they would have to move quickly to secure at least the oil. Navy wise NATO would dominate, but the Alliance would be able to operate because all of their need supplies could be transported contenentally.

So we have this in the beggining: NATO Invades Saudia Arabia, either through the ocean or from turkey. The alliance reponds by launching a massive ground campaign, they would have a definant advantage. NATO would also have air suppremacy but the alliance would ulimatly win on the land. In total war the alliance would just overwhelm continental Europe and take it over. NATO would have to launch a war atrition against the alliance but it would probably end in stalemate in my opinion....

That's how I see it. If the NATO alliance didn't win the war in the first six to twelve months, they would have lost it.

That's how I see it. If the NATO alliance didn't win the war in the first six to twelve months, they would have lost it.

Well I don't think NATO would lose Either, Its like WWII IMO. the Alliance would not have the Air or Naval resources to attack N. America or UK, But NATO would not have the Ground resources to protect contentental europe or take it back, MAYBe if they could win but only after YEARS I mean decades of fighting.... but I see it as a stalemate where no side can win, just deaths.... The alliance couldn't make any naval resources also becuase NATO would use theirs to halt it, same with air... Maybe after decades of saturation bombing the Alliance would give in....

Well I don't think NATO would lose Either, Its like WWII IMO. the Alliance would not have the Air or Naval resources to attack N. America or UK, But NATO would not have the Ground resources to protect contentental europe or take it back, MAYBe if they could win but only after YEARS I mean decades of fighting.... but I see it as a stalemate where no side can win, just deaths.... The alliance couldn't make any naval resources also becuase NATO would use theirs to halt it, same with air... Maybe after decades of saturation bombing the Alliance would give in....

I think the non-NATO alliance would have the numbers and the resources to grind down NATO resistance. It would be long, and bloody, but I think the non-NATO alliance would win the war of attrition.

Israel will side with the Americans since Israel will not bite the hand that feeds.

Before the conflict could start I belive NATO would accept Russia.


NATO hands down.

I think the non-NATO alliance would have the numbers and the resources to grind down NATO resistance. It would be long, and bloody, but I think the non-NATO alliance would win the war of attrition.

But they wouldn't have the Air or naval power to do so....

Nato will be winning when the E finally gets desperate and uses nukes, thus everyone dies in the end, just like shakespear

Nato will be winning when the E finally gets desperate and uses nukes, thus everyone dies in the end, just like shakespear

Actually contrary to popular believe there is not one Shakespear play where everyone dies, Just all the main characters there is always at least one minor character who lives....

But they wouldn't have the Air or naval power to do so....

I believe the combined air forces of the non-NATO alliance would be able to withstand the NATO air forces. The navy question is still a bit troublesome, however, as the US and British navies are far and away the best in the world.

Actually contrary to popular believe there is not one Shakespear play where everyone dies, Just all the main characters there is always at least one minor character who lives....

Which is often how the story gets told, the one surviving minor character.

I believe the combined air forces of the non-NATO alliance would be able to withstand the NATO air forces. The navy question is still a bit troublesome, however, as the US and British navies are far and away the best in the world.

Well Air Wise Nato would dominant, Not by numbers but by tech, Air war is one of the few places where numbers can't win, tech and expierence does. The alliance would have a very powerful combined Airforce, but Aegis along with the fighter tech NAto has would destory it pretty quickly....

Which is often how the story gets told, the one surviving minor character.

lol true....

Well Air Wise Nato would dominant, Not by numbers but by tech, Air war is one of the few places where numbers can't win, tech and expierence does. The alliance would have a very powerful combined Airforce, but Aegis along with the fighter tech NAto has would destory it pretty quickly....

I think that the crux of the war for NATO would be within the first few days. They would have the strategic advantage with their technology to make key air strikes on non-NATO airfields, major highways, ports, etc., etc., etc. If they could sufficiently cripple the non-NATO alliance to the point where victory would more or less be assured.

India wouldnt be in the Sino-Russian alliance, if you watched the news, you'd know that the US and India and forming a military alliance to counter-balance the Sino Russian alliance

I think that the crux of the war for NATO would be within the first few days. They would have the strategic advantage with their technology to make key air strikes on non-NATO airfields, major highways, ports, etc., etc., etc. If they could sufficiently cripple the non-NATO alliance to the point where victory would more or less be assured.

Yep, If you cripple the enemy before they can mobilize you assure victory...


..... I think this thread is pretty much dead... How do you pronounce your name anyway? (Sid-a-eri-iji???)

India wouldnt be in the Sino-Russian alliance, if you watched the news, you'd know that the US and India and forming a military alliance to counter-balance the Sino Russian alliance

Yes Becuase TV news Knows all, India is an upcoming power, NATO is a Power, India will be against NATO for the sole purpose of gaining more power....

Yep, If you cripple the enemy before they can mobilize you assure victory...

Right. And that's NATO's biggest advantage over the rest of the world: speed. If they can't capitalize fully on their one major advantage, they're screwed.



..... I think this thread is pretty much dead... How do you pronounce your name anyway? (Sid-a-eri-iji???)

It's never been conclusively determined.

India wouldnt be in the Sino-Russian alliance, if you watched the news, you'd know that the US and India and forming a military alliance to counter-balance the Sino Russian alliance

Well, clearly there is a lot about this hypothetical situation that doesn't make much sense in the current political climate. That's why it's a hypothetical situation.

It's never been conclusively determined.

lol, you should start a thread on it....

Well, clearly there is a lot about this hypothetical situation that doesn't make much sense in the current political climate. That's why it's a hypothetical situation.

Yeah This hypothetical isn't designed to be right:

1st: Russia would be with NATO
2nd: So would Japan, Israel, most of africa and south ameria
3rd: Nato would actually have #'s advantage

So I made it more balanced....

India wouldnt be in the Sino-Russian alliance, if you watched the news, you'd know that the US and India and forming a military alliance to counter-balance the Sino Russian alliance

And the US throws in its support behind India gaining a permanent seat on the UN Security Counsel? Maybe...

And the US throws in its support behind India gaining a permanent seat on the UN Security Counsel? Maybe...

What? Did you read the topic? WTF are you talking about....

Yeah This hypothetical isn't designed to be right:

1st: Russia would be with NATO
2nd: So would Japan, Israel, most of africa and south ameria
3rd: Nato would actually have #'s advantage

So I made it more balanced....

NATO would destroy if it were realistic.

NATO would destroy if it were realistic.
Yeah Come here and vote on somethingg:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9269321#post9269321

I think NATO would win in the end with or without Russia. Everyone else though would still make NATO have a long struggle on the count of China has the biggest army in the world and if Russia did not join NATO it would have Russia's army which is not too bad plus all the ex-soviet states and the middle east countries. We thought that the US war with Saddam would be quick but that is still going on. So NATO would win but it would be a tough war.

Yes Becuase TV news Knows all, India is an upcoming power, NATO is a Power, India will be against NATO for the sole purpose of gaining more power....

You may have started the thread, but you don't know shit about gaining power.

#15 in power does not attack #1 in order to defeat #2.

Assumption: No nukes used. Otherwise, no one wins.

This is basically the US, Turkey, and the UK against everyone else. Why? No one else in NATO matters. Turkey could hold their own against the rest of the Middle East outside of Israel (and why they would fight on the anti-NATO side I shall never know). Africa and Mexico don't matter. Russia really doesn't matter without nukes. ChIndia would be the only real threat out there, and I think NATO could currently take them.

In another 10 years? Perhaps not.


As a Turkish citizen, I won't disagree with you. In fact, our Nation has the second largest army in NATO after the USA in terms of number, and technologically it has proven its prowess.
However, don't always count on us to support you, I used to suppport ardently NATO and the USA, especially following 9/11, I wholeheartedly approved the war in Afghanistan, but when it comes to Iraq, no way.
It has been an utter failure for both the USA and Britain and their coalition partners, and you are facing incredible challenges for having engaged in such an crazy campaign. Iraq is far less secure now than before and ask people there, they are just fed up of suicide attacks every day. It is truly a complete fiasco. And OK, you have found Saddam Hussein, good for you, but that still does not make this war legitimate: it is a complete violation of the United Nations Charter by its founding members! what an irony! There's no reason why my Nation shouldn't take over all of Cyprus, and at least we do indeed have legitimate reasons, not puny excuses like so-called "WMDs" which had never existed.
Anyways, I still want to add that I support the international struggle against terrorism, and my Nation has suffered a lot from it so I know what kind of evil scourge it is, but going into Iraq has only alleviated it and made it even more dangerous and aggressive.
Now, finally regarding the hypothetical battle between NATO and everyone else, doesn't make much sense of course, but never mind, of course NATO would win when you are talking of conventional forces, the USA along with Turkey and the others are far more advanced than many nations. However, in reality, I think that NATO has unfortunately lost many of its meaning, and it seems like the European nations like France and Germany don't give a shit about it. Personally, I think that after what the USA has done in Iraq, I would prefer my Nation to increase its ties with Russia and other partners, but especially Russia which is much closer to us and understands us much better than many of those westerners. Turkey and Russia are already strong partners economically and are increasing their political and military cooperation. I do think that the main reason for this shift in foreign policy is the Bush administration's unilateral policies and cow-boy like accents. Many people are exasparated by that (ie Russia has joined the Kyoto Protocol, the USA still hasn't). I personally think that it is therefore Turkey's strategic interest to increase its relations with Russia.

Oh and Israel Is neutral Sorry I should've mentioned that..

And Dead, First target of the Arab world and I doubt that Turkey would prevent it.They would join NATO forces to prevent that.

WWIII ???

more like

USA vs EU vs China vs Russia vs Middle East (with all others neutral or tagging along eg. many african countries would side with the Mid East, Israel w/ USA, Russia w/ central asia, China w/ N.Korea, Ukraine w/ EU etc etc) ... THE ULTIMATE 5 WAY GRUDGE MATCH :D :sniper:

India wouldnt be in the Sino-Russian alliance, if you watched the news, you'd know that the US and India and forming a military alliance to counter-balance the Sino Russian alliance

You don't follow world affairs do you? If you did you would know that India has had a long standing Alliance with Russia. Russia supplies a lot of military equipment and technology to India both India and Russia are very close.

Also what hasn't been mentioned in this thread I see so far, Is that many of the EU nations believe NATO is outdated to the current world environment as the alliance we built to counter the Communist threat, many EU nations believe NATO has no more then 20 years left until it falls apart.

nato would win but a desaster like in irak or vietnam is also possible. nato has the advantages of technology and forces. also the russians would never ally with the middle-eastern states. the russians fight their own war at home, so they're not important anyway (until yet). the only possibility would be a war against china and north-korea supported by the mid-east. as long nobody uses nukes (what they would do for sure) nato would win. :mp5:

And Dead, First target of the Arab world and I doubt that Turkey would prevent it.They would join NATO forces to prevent that.yes, they will try it, probably.
remember what happened in the first times they try it? in the end the arabs will try to convince israel to pullout from saudia and cairo, and destroy the settlements on the shore of the hidekel.

NATO would win, if they acted fast.

What it boils down to is mobility. NATO forces thanks to countries like the US, UK and one or 2 other can project their forces around the world. That i know of, no country outside of NATO has that ability.

It takes more than tanks and infantry to win a war, and all things considered, that's the only edge the non-NATO nations would have. What it comes down to is speed; speed the enemy cannot match and cannot challenge. In today's digital battlefield, we are not subject to the old warrior's rule of "see first, shoot fast".

I think the key would be the information age aspects of the war. NATO would be able to destroy the communications infrastructure of the Alliance with a fair amount of impunity via air strikes and our ability to take out satellites. We are, realistically, the only one of the two that could maintain a significant amount of control of space as well. Even land lines of the Alliance would face attack. Tie in the dominance of the Internet infrastructure and NATO pretty much has cyberspace already ceded to it.

With their communications severely disrupted, it becomes extremely difficult for the Alliance to manage combined forces tactically let alone keep them up logisitically. Strategic operations of an offensive nature become practically impossible because you cannot project significant force over thousands of miles without good coordination.



NATO, obviously, would need to secure oil as quickly as possible. Thus, the primary battlefields early in the war would be the middle east and the SW Pacific (going with the assertion that South America is neutral). SW Pacific's proximity to China and India is a bit problematic, but the naval supremacy of NATO should make that the most viable target for NATO as the Mid East has land routes for troops to arrive from India and China to reinforce the Arab nations. Additionally, it would keep Alliance troops tied down defending SE Asia against potential invasion.

Once the oil resources are secured, I see it as mostly a siege mentality for the Alliance. They've got to wait for the war to come to them. They cannot go offensive without the ability to effectively manage their forces when deployed and their intelligence would be very limited. They'd be completely defensive. It's virtually impossible to win a war when you're on the defensive.

NATO, however, is poised to attack from multiple directions against a blind enemy. First, the Mid East seems a likely target for the strategic purposes of taking resources from the Alliance (oil) and dividing them (N. Africa from the Asia). Then press up into the Caucus region to drive home the oil handicap of the Alliance and they're doomed.


And it's all set up by NATO's ability to gather and disseminate information.

right now the nato allience would win without much trouble but lets just say that in a few years time china has compleated its programme of modernisation. this would mean that the chines would have the techniqal ability to make an industrial process similar to that of russia in WW2. also the chinese people are the most numorous in the world and would no doubt instuitute conscription this would give them over a billion troops in theory. i believe their army is still equiped with the AK47 which would mean that the infantry would have an easily maintainable wepon at their desposal. this would eliminate costly training on many frounts, all you need is some ammo and determination.

the navies of both the us and the uk outnumber anything the east currently have and probably will of some time. not even the russians have anything to stop a conbined navy of the nato countries (frace, uk and us would probably supply the bulk) however once the war reaches inland, out of the reach of the main guns then their only use will be to launch cruse missiles or deck launched planes. the uk and france wouldn't really be too helpfull here seeing their naval airpower isn't too strong (uk have harriers rioght now but if this is a few years into the future then they will have american made F-35s which are primerally for ground support).

the airforces of both the nato nations and the east would require solid air bases to operate from. this would lead the war to centralise arround gaining footholes from which to launch their airstrikes from. in the middle east this wouldn't be too hard. even if the middle east nation formed into a coalision they wouldn't have the combined man power to hold off a massed ground assult by probably the US marines. this leads me to believe that the MEC (middle eastern coalision) would fold fairly early unless china interveined. if the east did form into one large allience then the MEC troops would be force to retrate to either russia or china. this would mean going through some pretty harsh terrain and this would slow down the main infantry advance. but if turky was to aid nato then the USAF and the RAF would have a perfect staging point for a move into the middle east.

depending on India's allience then it could cause the retreating forces to do one of two things. if india was part of the east then it could easily aid the retrating forces into china, if not then the MEC would have to go towards the north where they would be right where nato would want them. it would be a good strategy for nato to move throgh the north and lay in wait along the russian border. either way if india or russia wern't part of this allience then the middle east would be taken with little effort.

if china was the primary target then the nat countries would have to consolidate their forces to attack it for they wouldn't have sufficient forces to take all of china even with US help for they simply wouldn't have enough service men to make this possible. and furthur more if russia or india were part of this allience then the nato job would be even harder. they would have to make a massed assult around the coast of china but since they captured the middle east they would have sufficient resources to make this move.

in the end nato wouldn't possess enough forces to make this possible and would have to resort to tactical nukles to make any headway. this sort of attack would drain all the home countries of military forces and would leave europe exposed to attack from russia (if it wasn't co-operating) the only way for china to be fully subdued would be for both russia and india to join in and for all the countries to have the resolve to go all the way, sacreficing as many troops as needed. then, and only then, would nato possess enough numbers to invade china.

of cource this whole theory is reliant on china being industrially advanced enough to fight a propper war of attrision agains't the superior firepower and technology of nato. but since the whole war is theoretical then i've allowed myself that.

yes, they will try it, probably.
remember what happened in the first times they try it? in the end the arabs will try to convince israel to pullout from saudia and cairo, and destroy the settlements on the shore of the hidekel.

This is not the 1960s remember, the world has changed.

This is not the 1960s remember, the world has changed.and the difference grow in favor of israel, especially if you assume that jordan, egypt and saudia, will prefer to stay neutral and keep the good relationships with USA.

Tough decision, but NATO will win. The Anti-NATO's lose in the naval arena, as the US can take on any unallied navy with little problem. Once the enemy navy is eliminated, the Anti's are confined to the Eurasia and African continents. The Mideast Anti's soon lose any efectiveness as most countries have NATO type weapons and equipment and will soon fall apart from lack of supply. In the air arena, the NATO forces will eventually win air supremecy. While the Anti's have larger numbers, NATO more than makes up for it in mostly superior equipment and better trained pilots. Land combat is tougher as the Anti's have a larger ground force but it will be hampered by the ability to project that power beyond the individual nations. An example is, for China to put troops in Europe, its armies must move from China through Central Asia, either through the 'Stans or through Siberia. For speed and less wear and tear on the equipment, the journey must be made on rail lines, which aren't that numerous in those areas. (I think). These few lines could be cut after NATO wins the battle in the air and US bombers are released (the US is the only NATO member to have long range heavy bombers available to them).