US/Japan/India will fight China. Australia might be a weak participant and sit on the sidelines.

China/Russia/Iran/North Korea will simultaneously take on the US. Pakistan will just take on India.

Who wins?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42587574)

The US calls in alliance with India, Japan, and Australia. Japan and India are close to China so compelled to also fight hard. Australia is further away and has a weaker presence and motivation.

Russia understands that it must support China or it will be isolated and next in line. North Korea has to fight alongside its only benefactor. Iran wants revenge for the assassinations and believes it's being drained of strength by US sanctions to pave way for an eventual invasion. So it uses the opportunity to attack US bases in the Middle East first. Pakistan fights India because they are always ready to go against India. This is the best opportunity for Pakistan to win and participating supports their main ally.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42587628)

Because it would mean the destruction of the korean peninsula, i do not think nk will participate in a war over taiwan.

If nk does participate, i think such an action would quickly escalate and, i imagine, the us would have immense difficul5 holding a combined nk/china invasion of the south. Millions could die on the peninsula alone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42589112)

Without such japanese participation, korea is utterly impossible to hold and us would resort to highly destructive but ultimately ineffective (cruise missiles and carrier based air strikes.

I think that us and japanese cooperation would ultimatelt deter nk from invading the south. However if nk were to attempt such an endeavor in consort with china making an attempt at taiwan, i have serious doubt the us could hold either.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42589128)

If 100k chinese troops got on a ship, left for the island, i do not think us could shoot them down absent prior provocation. Qll china needs is some expedient excuse to send humanitarian aid or peacekeepers. Witb such a pretext i think that taiwan could be largely subdued without much of a fight.

However i take the scenario to mean that hostility gradually builds up and china finally tries a forcible channel xroasing with 500k or so troops.

Could the us stop such a crossing? I think the us would stop much of q first wave but a few sunk carriers and frigates andaybe a sub or two would force us back to guam and japan area. The first troops to cross would be bait after which i think us naval advantage is obsolete in era of cheap drones and cheap fast missiles. Realistically, sink one carrier and us strategy is shattered. Us suddenly stuck witb subs and taiwan based drones basically. Us would have some fighter presence at first but due to supply problems and attrition from cheap chinese dreck thrown at them, that will be gone qfter two weeks.

Bugs take mass losses but now occupy taiwan. Some insurgency but chinks have lots of manpower to throw at the issue and being an island, theres fewer places for insurgents to hide or run to. Us continues interdicting chinese military supply ships but pozzed us mil refuses to open up a broader war or bomb taiwan proper. The hope is for a negotiated settlement. And the result will be total us capitulation with some token appeasement like a phony gay truth commission in taiwan or something.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42589171)

1. The baltics. This would draw in nato but energy ties may make european intervention a lot less likely than is imagined. Russia has already annexed crimea. Theres little stopping it from duplicating similar tactics in one or more baltic country. Estonia seems most likely.

2. Eastern ukraine. I think this is self explanatory. I also think putim has taken what he wants from ukraine, ghe good part. Crimea. This seems unlikely.

3. Georgia. Would be a relative cakewalk, but unlikely to be worth the years of resultimg insurgency that would resilt.

But the above items can all be achieved with relatively low levels of engagement, and largely painted with a veneer of deniability, as was done in crimea. I just do not see that russia has much to gain anywhere by 'attacking'. Attacking who for what end?

The most potentially destructive would be war in the baltics. Putin may see the terriotry as stratevicqlly valuable as a buffer against nato. Success may also ultimately destroy nato, so in theory there is good reason to do it if potential success is high. Risk is also high, nameky regime xhange, for putin. It boils down to whether europe could cooperate to evict a quick strikign russia from the baltics.

I do not think they would copperate well enough or forcibly enougb. Russia w9uld eee reprisals and low grade conflict would continue for many years (similar to ukraine bit with amped up intensity and cost to russia). but europe and us lack the stomach for a conventional war in that corner of europe.

Thus again, i find it unlikely russia would actually do this, as the reward is largely theoretixal (acceleration of disintegration of nato + some extra territory filled with quarrelsome people) and the risks severe. However if russia were to risk it i think odds are actually in their favor to hold the baltics (or whatever shithole they felt like reintwgrating).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42589248)

Iran would be limited to engaging in asymetric war, and would have its shit oushed in by us assets in saudi. Oil prices could skyrocket, disrupting amerixan life. But high profile blocking of persian gulf or arabian sea would just cause massive retaliation down the line. Iran cannot defend itself from missiles and us has viable allies in the region from which to launch bombers and fighters. I do not see how iran could achieve any wprthwhile strategic goal othet than 'bother the us'. And they are already essentially doing that. So again i dont see iranian involvment realistic in this or similar scenario.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42589288)

But long term its not a strategy that will achieve goals for the iranian regime. Your stating war is inevitable not becuz iran is bent on invading neighbors or axhieving some broader strategic aim that could be achieved through forxe, but bexause israel postures its going to eventually need to bomb them to prevent development of nukes. Why does iran want nukes? The israeli line is that they want to push the israelis into the sea. Realistically tho, as with all countries unfriendly with the us, they see that states with nukes dont get invaded by the us.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42592642)

Any duch sustained effort on their part would result in evemtual 2003 iraq style dismantlement. If us is distracted in taiwan, well good for iran but thats not going to last.

What strategic goal do they achieve by cementing the likelihood of future annihilation of their heavt weaponry?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42593586)

That said i think rhe chinese could take taiwain in a hostile confrontation if they are willing and able to make it a war of attrition. I think the chinese communist gov would be willing and able to make this a war of attrition. I think us naval power would be effective at first but would be ground down by asymetric drones and newer model missiles. It would only require sinking one carrier to push the rest back to guam.

US allied would have extremely limited incentive much less ability to participate. U state that becaude india is 'close' it would 'fight hard'. However i think its questionablr to even mention india as an ally. If anything they could negotiate small concessions from china by recognizing its reintegration of taiwan and being some kind of broker. The consewuences of korean involvement would likely prevent spillover, but again, if the chicomms and nk were to risk it, an invasion of sk would fit nicely in an overall attrition strategy.

Japan and australia would nominally participate but lack will and resourxes to be a factor other than as fortified air strips.

Russia could use such an asian wat of atteition to catch nato off guard to take the baltics. I dont think it could be stopped, or that russia could be dislosged, wotbout losses that the 3ffeminate west would be unwilling to bear. This would result in bloody insruvenxcy for years, but russia may be ok wkth that.

I dont see what iran hopes to gain by attacking us in middle east, other than a guaranteed future ass rape. Iran eould have limited success with asymetric tactics while the us is focused elsewhere, but saudi, israel, and eventually the us would use such actions to sooner or later dismember the iranian regime ala iraq 2003 air campaign.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42589346)

First, it is highly doubtful that China has the capability to invade Taiwan now or any time soon. It doesn't matter how many troops the PLA has. Any troop transport vessels would be sitting ducks. The only realistic scenario where China can take over Taiwan in the next decade or two is if they manage to completely blockade the island and starve them into submission. Even then, it's unclear if they could maintain a blockade against Taiwanese forces. If the U.S. gets involved, you can completely forget about it.

And I find it extremely unlikely that China tries to attack any U.S. carriers. Sinking a U.S. carrier would be the single biggest provocation possible short of launching a nuclear weapon. China knows that they are risking World War 3 if they escalate the conflict to that level. Maybe they try some kind of "bloody nose" attack where they try to disable a U.S. carrier without actually sinking it. But they're not going to risk World War 3 over Taiwan, especially when around 40% of the Taiwanese population already supports reunification.

I also find it extremely unlikely that Putin tries to invade the Baltics, at least not openly. If Putin marches into Estonia and NATO does nothing, NATO is over, and every NATO member knows that. Putin isn't going to risk NATO invoking article 5 on his ass for fucking Estonia. He knows he will lose that war, and he knows that no other country will have his back. Maybe China sells him weapons and shares intelligence in hopes of weakening the West, but they aren't going to risk a military conflict with NATO to bail out Russia. Indeed, it's equally plausible that China offers to help out NATO if they are allowed to annex some Russian territory after Putin's government collapses.

Maybe there's a slim chance that Putin sends some of his "little green men" (Russian troops without uniforms who claim that they are not Russian troops) into Estonia just to fuck with NATO. His hope would be that NATO won't want to risk World War 3 for Estonia. That would (hopefully) convince countries like Ukraine and Georgia that the West won't protect them so they need to realign themselves with Russia and weaken NATO generally. Still, that's an enormous risk for a purely hypothetical reward. Nobody believed Putin when he said that the "little green men" in Ukraine weren't Russian troops. NATO can very easily invoke article 5 and start marching straight for Moscow.

Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, but I think all of these World War 3 scenarios are far-fetched. I think China and the U.S. are unlikely to fight a full-blown war. Aside from the standard explanations about interdependence due to trade and nuclear weapons, I think geography makes it extremely unlikely. The U.K. and Germany fought two destructive wars because they are a short distance from one another and could dispatch large numbers of troops against one another. China will probably never have the capability of attacking the mainland U.S., and the U.S. probably couldn't invade the Chinese mainland (and certainly couldn't go it without absolutely horrifying casualties even if the war doesn't go nuclear). So I just don't see it happening.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42594862)

Phone rings at 3 am and biden answers with a banana. Kamala picks up the phone but starts asking about the plight of uigher trannies. Meanwhile the troop ships are puling into harbor. Once a half million supplied chinks are on taiwan and digging in, setting up shadow gov in the cities etc, the calculus changes. I agree unlikely but if china believes it has support or sympathizers on taowan, maybe achievable.

Secenario 2 is that china belueves scenario 1 is impossible to avhieve.

So china engages in asymetric warfare wherein us naval assets are gradually pushed out to where us ability to interdict troop ships is limited. At which point its a salmon run where missiles and air power can only get so many of the troop ships and air drops.

I think that would be an effective strategy.

The rest of your post is, in my opinion, fighting the hypo. I agree in the current climate op's wwiii scenario is extremely unlikely. I agree with the sentiment that china is unlikely at this time to launch asymetrix strikes on us carriers. But if we grant that china is too scared or unwilling to strike us carriers, then its as simple as the us parking a couple carriers between taiwan and mainland and war is over. I do think if the us is using carriers to actively strike china, im whatever scenario, then yes china will go ahead and throw drones and missiles at it until it sinks or is forced away. I find it likely they would be succesful. I do not think an attack on a carrier would result in nuclear warfare. The us is as interested as china in not escalating to use of nukes. Ill grant, its debatable.

Regardless, my posts were all geared towards imagining as plausible as possible a string of events to as closely as possible match the hypothetical that op presented.

I think the us is an over teched paper tiger. But china and russia are unlikely to risk confrontation quite yet.

I think the crimea model of covert invasion will be used a lot in the next decade or two. But that alone wouldnt result in the wwiii scenario op wanted to explore.

I find it fun thinking about this stuff.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42595375)

Regarding attacking U.S. carriers, I wasn't trying to imply that it would never happen. If a U.S. carrier were attacking the Chinese mainland, obviously they attack it. (But we are already in World War 3 at that point.) Indeed, the Chinese leadership remembers the humiliation when Clinton sailed the George Washington through the Taiwan Strait in the 90's, and I highly doubt that they would allow something like that to happen again. Maybe they wouldn't directly attack a U.S. carrier, but you can rest assure they would retaliate in some form. What I was trying to say was that I doubt that China attacks a U.S. carrier that is staying in international waters and pretending to be a "peacekeeper." In this scenario, the carrier isn't attacking the Chinese mainland or even directly attacking the PLAN. They would just send fighters to escort civilian ships trying to run the Chinese naval blockade and say that they will attack any ship that attacks the ship they are escorting. In that scenario, attacking a U.S. carrier would turn a localized war over Taiwan into World War 3. China knows that and won't take that risk.

But if the point is to try to make the OP's scenario happen, I think some kind of conflict in the South China Sea is more likely than a scenario involving Taiwan. Brief summary of possible hypo: A PLAN captain on one of China's artificial islands gets trigger happy and attacks a military vessel from (just pulling a country out of hat) the Philippines. Or better yet they accidentally attack a civilian vessel. This leads to widespread public outrage plus a sentiment that it is now or never if they want to stop Chinese territorial aggression in the South China Sea. The Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia all immediately declare war on China. A few battles are fought and China wins easily. Japan and Australia see that the South China Sea will be permanently lost if they don't intervene, so they declare war on China as well. At this point the U.S. feels like it needs to support its allies in the region to prevent permanent Chinese dominance of Asia, so it pledges support as well. Russia decries "Western imperialism" and offers to provide China with oil and weapons, but stops short of joining the conflict. Meanwhile, after a couple years of stalemate in Asia, Putin decides to send his "little green men" into Estonia thinking that NATO will have no appetite to interfere when the U.S. is already involved in a serious conflict in Asia. He guesses wrong and NATO invokes Article 5 on his ass. Now you have a war involving NATO against Russia in Europe and U.S.-led coalition against China in Asia.

Still, as destructive as this hypo would be, I think the U.S. wins in both theaters easily mainly because the U.S. would have a dozen allies in both theaters whereas China and Russia would basically be fighting on their own. What allies does either nation have? North Korea? Belarus? lol! China and Russia might tacitly support each other by selling weapons or oil and sharing intelligence, but I doubt they make a formal alliance mainly because both sides will be smart enough to see that the other side is going to lose. As long as China and Russia remain international pariahs while the U.S. maintains alliances throughout the world, the U.S. will remain the power to beat in any potential World War 3 scenario.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42599786)

Also, i do not see those countries appealing to japan and/or australia prior to the US.

The much more realistic response to the hypothetical posed of a sunken ship would be widespread hand wringing at the un and sanctions from us aligned countries.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42600670)

And in my hypo, Japan and Australia don't get involved because they want to defend the Philippines. They get involved because of great power politics. The PLAN would make short work of the navies of the other South China Sea nations. So they recognize that they either have to join the war or permanently cede a key shipping lane (plus lots of undersea oil reserves) to China. The U.S., on the other hand, probably wouldn't have much appetite to go to war to protect Vietnam, but they would feel compelled to go to war once key allies like Japan and Australia are involved.

Again, I agree that this scenario is highly unlikely. It just seems like the least unlikely scenario to me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42600852)

I think eventually china will get taiwan back largely peacefully using methods abalogous to russia's absorption of crimea.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42600885)

Historically wars between major powers occur when one power thinks that another power is about to get the upper hand on them. World War I had less to do with Archduke Ferdinand than England and France seeing rapid economic and population growth in newly unified Germany and deciding it was their last chance to prevent German domination of Europe. In this case, if China takes undisputed control over the South China Sea, they control some of the world's most critical shipping lanes as well as some of the world's largest proven oil reserves. That could cement Chinese domination over Asia (and perhaps the entire world) for a century or more. It's not at all unreasonable to think that the other major Pacific powers (including the U.S.) would be willing to fight a major war to prevent that from happening.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42602798)

I do tend to agree, though, that it is unlikely that any NATO countries other than possibly the U.S. get involved in a war based in the South China Sea. The only possible way that happens is if China hits back at the U.S. so hard that NATO feels like it needs to invoke Article 5 (most likely some time of unprovoked attack on a civilian population in the U.S. mainland). China is extremely unlikely to do that because it would be an extremely provocative move that would not help its primary objective of controlling the South China Sea. In my hypo, NATO would be fighting with Putin in Europe while the U.S. and its allies fight China in the South China Sea. The U.S. is the only country fighting on two fronts in this hypo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42600760)

Russia is unlikely to invade Europe. However, without China, Russia is isolated internationally and a sitting duck. Russian will do a lot to help China win, short of going to war in Europe. But Russia can still deploy 100,000 troops to Ukraine, causing a crisis and forcing the US to commit troops to Europe while fighting rages in Asia. Russia and its Central Asian allies will also surge oil and other commodities to China so that any US naval blockade of China has weak effect.

"it's equally plausible that China offers to help out NATO if they are allowed to annex some Russian territory after Putin's government collapses." From the point of view of China in this scenario, this sounds not at all plausible. China is not going to do any backroom deals for Russian territory while trying to prevail in the Taiwan war.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42596836)

Please, bitch. Europe is certifiable irrelevant in 2021

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42606129)

Because why? They would never do that? They literally annexed Crimea a few years ago and a lot of E. Ukraine is under Russian allied control. Ukraine continues to be a PITA for them. If China hits Taiwan and says "we need you to hit Ukraine" they will absolutely do it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42606548)

1. Export as much oil and gas as can be delivered to China and tell Central Asian countries to also export more to overcome the US naval blockade.

2. Deploy 100,000 troops to the Ukraine border for an exercise. It's a credible enough threat of invasion that the US military would not be able to transfer European assets to Pacific and Middle East theaters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42608687)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4851801&forum_id=2#42609854)