Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Stale mate, all man kind would be wiped out from disease after a short amount of time, sort of like how all those millions prisoners of war who had all there clothing chemically cleaned because of the outbreak of that disease i forget the name, so it was definitly a issue in ww2, imagine ww3.

 Stormatious wrote:
Stale mate, all man kind would be wiped out from disease after a short amount of time, sort of like how all those millions prisoners of war who had all there clothing chemically cleaned because of the outbreak of that disease i forget the name, so it was definitly a issue in ww2, imagine ww3.

Wait what disease?
Are you talking about the spanish flue?
because that 'd be WW1.
However bio and chemical warfare would be an escalation that sooner rather then later would lead to massive retribution strikes with nuclear options, so in this scenario also unlikely to be used by both sides.

Interesting thing, that most military equipment was created specifically for Europe rush. Like BMP and BTR-70 -80 sacrificed many tactical and technical characteristics for the sake of swim ability and radiation protection. Yes, its armor - mostly protection from radiation, and only after that from bullets. And all the soldiers had medicines that allowed them to fight for two days after the radiation exposure. Medicine that didnt protect from radiation. Did not help from the harmful effects of radiation. But forced the soldier to act for a while. And what next is not important.

 Stormatious wrote:
Stale mate, all man kind would be wiped out from disease after a short amount of time, sort of like how all those millions prisoners of war who had all there clothing chemically cleaned because of the outbreak of that disease i forget the name, so it was definitly a issue in ww2, imagine ww3.

In the event of stalemate in Europe, sure much of Europe would get hit by disease, but the same conditions wouldn't be present in the rest of the world. We might see a pandemic claim millions, but humanity would survive it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
Stale mate, all man kind would be wiped out from disease after a short amount of time, sort of like how all those millions prisoners of war who had all there clothing chemically cleaned because of the outbreak of that disease i forget the name, so it was definitly a issue in ww2, imagine ww3.

Wait what disease?
Are you talking about the spanish flue?
because that 'd be WW1.
However bio and chemical warfare would be an escalation that sooner rather then later would lead to massive retribution strikes with nuclear options, so in this scenario also unlikely to be used by both sides.

I think it was tuberculosis, or some thing like that and it was a huge deal in prison camps and was a big issue, so i imagine that would be alot larger in ww3, along with all the other causes of death.

And that's just that diseaase, what about the modern diseases like Ebola from the African continents etc? i imagine that would also spread

Ebola is really bad at killing people who practice basic hygiene.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ebola is really bad at killing people who practice basic hygiene.

War, mixed with famine and large amounts of death people will create the scenes where basic hygeine is impossible. Remeber, ww3 would involve more then just western countries.

 Stormatious wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ebola is really bad at killing people who practice basic hygiene.

War, mixed with famine and large amounts of death people will create the scenes where basic hygeine is impossible. Remeber, ww3 would involve more then just western countries.

Well we are restricted on the european Theater.

Technically, however when the yugo war broke out and we got some waves of asylants we also again had tuberculosis problems in switzerland, that was comparativly recent and european so i guess yes tuberculosis could get terrible consequences.

Also we talk about a timespan 20 years before the jugos decided to beat each other up.

yeah, i just know that with war comes massive disease, and if it was ww3, i imagine that would be a major factor in determining who wins and loses

 Stormatious wrote:
yeah, i just know that with war comes massive disease, and if it was ww3, i imagine that would be a major factor in determining who wins and loses

Has there been a disease in Iraq or Afghanistan as a result of the WoT? I don't recall hearing much about that specific issue.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
yeah, i just know that with war comes massive disease, and if it was ww3, i imagine that would be a major factor in determining who wins and loses

Has there been a disease in Iraq or Afghanistan as a result of the WoT? I don't recall hearing much about that specific issue.

Um is this 1945??


Either way there was disease spreading in a big way during the 1st and 2nd world wars, so i imagine 3rd... oh crap i forgot no nukes loool... Well would stil be lots of disease regardless

You said war brings disease. I'm asking if that is true at all times or is it impacted by the region, combatants, and/or scale.

I vote stalemate.

Two of the greatest armies of their time were defeated/stalled going into Russia. History repeats once again.

Logistically it’s a nightmare and the size of Russia and their will to defend the motherland turns this into something NATO would be unable to sustain.

I also disagree with the Chinese impact on this war. I can see China siding with Warsaw over NATO based on the tension of the South China Sea, Korea, and Vietnam. It was the Chinese that pushed into North Korea and fought US forces.

 trexmeyer wrote:
You said war brings disease. I'm asking if that is true at all times or is it impacted by the region, combatants, and/or scale.

Yep, generally breakouts of diseases especially cholera and diharea since the infrastrucutre for cleaning gets damaged destroyed.
Flues and other normal 08/15 diseases get also way worse thanks to scarcitiy, take a gander at yemen.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
You said war brings disease. I'm asking if that is true at all times or is it impacted by the region, combatants, and/or scale.

Yep, generally breakouts of diseases especially cholera and diharea since the infrastrucutre for cleaning gets damaged destroyed.
Flues and other normal 08/15 diseases get also way worse thanks to scarcitiy, take a gander at yemen.

But how great is the severity and how prevalent is it? I don't think it would impact mid 80's western Europe that severely. Or USSR eastern Europe for that matter.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
You said war brings disease. I'm asking if that is true at all times or is it impacted by the region, combatants, and/or scale.

Yep, generally breakouts of diseases especially cholera and diharea since the infrastrucutre for cleaning gets damaged destroyed.
Flues and other normal 08/15 diseases get also way worse thanks to scarcitiy, take a gander at yemen.

But how great is the severity and how prevalent is it? I don't think it would impact mid 80's western Europe that severely. Or USSR eastern Europe for that matter.

A fully waged conventional war....

The infrastrucutre of and for civillians would literally be dead.

There is no telling how much get's destroyed but after WW1 were massbombing became the en vogue thing to do, do you imagine that it matters where this battle takes place?

Hint it does not.

Take a look at yugoslavia, with the further outbreaks of tuberculosis etc. Yugoslavia before that was one of the better developped countries in regards to healthcare and infrastructure.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
You said war brings disease. I'm asking if that is true at all times or is it impacted by the region, combatants, and/or scale.

Yep, generally breakouts of diseases especially cholera and diharea since the infrastrucutre for cleaning gets damaged destroyed.
Flues and other normal 08/15 diseases get also way worse thanks to scarcitiy, take a gander at yemen.

But how great is the severity and how prevalent is it? I don't think it would impact mid 80's western Europe that severely. Or USSR eastern Europe for that matter.

imagining that ww3 would be alot worse then 1 and 2, i just assume based on the severity of 1 and 2, that 3 would be alot worse if combined with nuclear war, which i forgot we are not allowed to do so, my thoughts are now irrelevant, but as i say disease does play a huge role and spread rampantly with war times. So diseases would be a large part of what could cause a stalemate which is why i voted it.

Of course it matters. Not every city across the whole of Western Europe will be suddenly, immediately destroyed. Civilians still have access to allied resources, to include medicine. The same would not be true in a less developed, scarcely populated area.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Of course it matters. Not every city across the whole of Western Europe will be suddenly, immediately destroyed. Civilians still have access to allied resources, to include medicine. The same would not be true in a less developed, scarcely populated area.

No they do not, between cruise missiles mass Bomber attacks and the lack of proper anti rocket technology it could've turned Europe into the fething stoneage.

Take a look at yugoslavia, with the further outbreaks of tuberculosis etc. Yugoslavia before that was one of the better developped countries in regards to healthcare and infrastructure.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Of course it matters. Not every city across the whole of Western Europe will be suddenly, immediately destroyed. Civilians still have access to allied resources, to include medicine. The same would not be true in a less developed, scarcely populated area.

No they do not, between cruise missiles mass Bomber attacks and the lack of proper anti rocket technology it could've turned Europe into the fething stoneage.

Take a look at yugoslavia, with the further outbreaks of tuberculosis etc. Yugoslavia before that was one of the better developed countries in regards to healthcare and infrastructure.

Or even the black death, that wiped out like what half of eu's population, i imagine in ww3 things could easily reach that intensity. Maybe a new type of black death or the same one would appear or re appear.

Question: would North America support a European front or start another front in the Pacific? Alaska is pretty damn close to Russia and America could use the conquered island of Japan as a staging post into China.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Question: would North America support a European front or start another front in the Pacific? Alaska is pretty damn close to Russia and America could use the conquered island of Japan as a staging post into China.

What else is PACFLT for?

IIRC, Palin could see Russia from her window!

Why would America use Japan to invade China? By 1984, China had split with Russia for a very long time, and was busy getting their own house in order. Given that China was America's ally in WW2, and neutral WRT NATO vs Warsaw Pact, invading China invites a Chinese nuclear response, starting with Washington, D.C.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Question: would North America support a European front or start another front in the Pacific? Alaska is pretty damn close to Russia and America could use the conquered island of Japan as a staging post into China.

What else is PACFLT for?

IIRC, Palin could see Russia from her window!

Why would America use Japan to invade China? By 1984, China had split with Russia for a very long time, and was busy getting their own house in order. Given that China was America's ally in WW2, and neutral WRT NATO vs Warsaw Pact, invading China invites a Chinese nuclear response, starting with Washington, D.C.

My Cold War history is... basic. I assumed a communist China would be allies with a communist Russia. Never mind China then. The North Pacific still seems like the most direct route for North America to attack Russia from.

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Question: would North America support a European front or start another front in the Pacific? Alaska is pretty damn close to Russia and America could use the conquered island of Japan as a staging post into China.

What else is PACFLT for?

IIRC, Palin could see Russia from her window!

Why would America use Japan to invade China? By 1984, China had split with Russia for a very long time, and was busy getting their own house in order. Given that China was America's ally in WW2, and neutral WRT NATO vs Warsaw Pact, invading China invites a Chinese nuclear response, starting with Washington, D.C.

My Cold War history is... basic. I assumed a communist China would be allies with a communist Russia. Never mind China then. The North Pacific still seems like the most direct route for North America to attack Russia from.

The chosen year being 1984 is very important. In 1984, China is neutral, unlike1954, they're definitely on Russia's side.

The North Pacific is a sideshow. The Russian Pacific Fleet was always fairly minimal aside from the SSN/SSBN forces, and really no match for the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

On the other hand, invading Siberia and expecting to do much good in an otherwise European war is on the dumb side of optimistic. Aside from the Trans-Siberian Railway there is NO infrastructure for moving much of anything the several thousand miles west to get at anything meaningful to Russian combat and economic capabilities from 1945-1991.

Russia, on the other hand, has stockpiled a lot of equipment and fuel, and has lots of airbases scattered around to defend against a theoretical SAC nuclear strike.

A land war in Asia is generally a losing prospect. And don't forget, this is Siberia we're talking about. General Winter is still Russia's greatest ally.

Fascinating discussion. I think the no nukes rule is a red herring in WW3. If it truly was WW3 it would escalate to the point that somebody used nukes.
More likely is some fighting breaks out, say the USSR annexes part of eastern Europe, then the treat of it going nuclear brings everyone to the table and a deal is done. At this point it wouldn't be considered a world war as the scale would he off.
No way they get to France, as the French would have used theirs to defend themselves before pact troops touched their soil. That's litterelly why they had them.

I think more interesting would be if the USSR decided to expand in a different direction, say towards India. They weren't a nuclear power at the time, and would the US etc really risk MAD to protect them?

This is a historic little tidbit.
After WW2 switzerland was preparing to build nuclear weapons.
Infact strategists at the time even considered a first strike against the soviet Union.

Why?
Because we are insane sometimes.

My point: sooner or later the wrong Person get's to press the redbutton and we would all be fethed. In this case i agree with tamereth would however add to that the longer the conflict lasts and the more desperate a side becomes the higher the chance that common sense will not be applied anymore.

Aye. The only way Nukes do not play a role in any hypothetical WW3 is if the technology to reliably shoot down ICBMs becomes very common. Which will eventually happen, in the form of lasers and railguns, and it would reduce nuclear weapons to being used on a tactical level only since any strategic use of them would have a poor chance of success. Such technology would also be the death knell of combat aircraft and short range missiles too, so warfare would regress back to a weird hybrid of WW2 and WW1 tactics.

Tanks would make a huge comeback without aircraft and missiles to destroy them. Aircraft would be of very limited use, mostly for reconnaissance while trying to remain undetected. A detected aircraft would be very quickly a dead one due to lasers and AA railguns, so they'd be unmanned drones operating a long way away from any combat zone. Or in a combat zone as small remotely operated by troops on the ground, but they'd be purely for getting visual on targets. They wouldn't be able to contribute much in terms of actually causing damage. That would have to be done with ground troops, conventional artillery, and tanks.

Nuclear weapons would probably also see a huge shift into being used as tactical devices, much more than we saw in the Cold War. We'd see nuclear artillery rounds, nuclear railgun ammunition, etc...

In naval warfare, battleships would come back as well. particularly Railgun armed battleships, as they would become the ultimate force projection system. Easily able to mount plenty of long range AA lasers and railguns to intercept any aircraft/missiles, and large Railguns to bombard targets hundreds of miles away, they would replace aircraft carriers as the main threat of a navy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Aye. The only way Nukes do not play a role in any hypothetical WW3 is if the technology to reliably shoot down ICBMs becomes very common. Which will eventually happen, in the form of lasers and railguns, and it would reduce nuclear weapons to being used on a tactical level only since any strategic use of them would have a poor chance of success. Such technology would also be the death knell of combat aircraft and short range missiles too, so warfare would regress back to a weird hybrid of WW2 and WW1 tactics.

Tanks would make a huge comeback without aircraft and missiles to destroy them. Aircraft would be of very limited use, mostly for reconnaissance while trying to remain undetected. A detected aircraft would be very quickly a dead one due to lasers and AA railguns, so they'd be unmanned drones operating a long way away from any combat zone. Or in a combat zone as small remotely operated by troops on the ground, but they'd be purely for getting visual on targets. They wouldn't be able to contribute much in terms of actually causing damage. That would have to be done with ground troops, conventional artillery, and tanks.

Nuclear weapons would probably also see a huge shift into being used as tactical devices, much more than we saw in the Cold War. We'd see nuclear artillery rounds, nuclear railgun ammunition, etc...

In naval warfare, battleships would come back as well. particularly Railgun armed battleships, as they would become the ultimate force projection system. Easily able to mount plenty of long range AA lasers and railguns to intercept any aircraft/missiles, and large Railguns to bombard targets hundreds of miles away, they would replace aircraft carriers as the main threat of a navy.

It seems you overestimate the value of railguns.
That said, i'd rather not see an conflict of this scale ever started.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Aye. The only way Nukes do not play a role in any hypothetical WW3 is if the technology to reliably shoot down ICBMs becomes very common. Which will eventually happen, in the form of lasers and railguns, and it would reduce nuclear weapons to being used on a tactical level only since any strategic use of them would have a poor chance of success. Such technology would also be the death knell of combat aircraft and short range missiles too, so warfare would regress back to a weird hybrid of WW2 and WW1 tactics.

Tanks would make a huge comeback without aircraft and missiles to destroy them. Aircraft would be of very limited use, mostly for reconnaissance while trying to remain undetected. A detected aircraft would be very quickly a dead one due to lasers and AA railguns, so they'd be unmanned drones operating a long way away from any combat zone. Or in a combat zone as small remotely operated by troops on the ground, but they'd be purely for getting visual on targets. They wouldn't be able to contribute much in terms of actually causing damage. That would have to be done with ground troops, conventional artillery, and tanks.

Nuclear weapons would probably also see a huge shift into being used as tactical devices, much more than we saw in the Cold War. We'd see nuclear artillery rounds, nuclear railgun ammunition, etc...

In naval warfare, battleships would come back as well. particularly Railgun armed battleships, as they would become the ultimate force projection system. Easily able to mount plenty of long range AA lasers and railguns to intercept any aircraft/missiles, and large Railguns to bombard targets hundreds of miles away, they would replace aircraft carriers as the main threat of a navy.

It seems you overestimate the value of railguns.
That said, i'd rather not see an conflict of this scale ever started.

In what way?

Rail guns will be able to do tons of things.