WW3 Strategy Discussion

What strategy do you think would work best in defeating Russia?

Dassault Papillon: Launch an attack from Europe (assuming that this is NATO trying to defeat Russia) and encircle/destroy as much of the Russian army as possible. A population of 142 million will not provide sufficient manpower if you can overwhelm Russia quickly. In addition, you would have to bomb the major cities.

Bolshevik-: It seems that we should find a way to get more nations (those immediately adjacent to Russia) to join NATO first.

Dassault Papillon: If we could get Georgia, Ukraine, and Finland on our side prior to attacking Russia, we'd have a considerably better chance at winning.

Russia's a loose cannon as it is right now; unless major change happens in Russia, NATO needs to take action to defeat and disarm Russia without being victim to Russian nuclear warheads. Pulling this off will be quite difficult, though.

Russia has Black Sea and Arctic Ocean naval forces that would have to be dealt with. Just throwing that out there.

Ye nukes will provide a problem in wars since those that have them will probably use them before they would fall to an invader.

Dassault Papillon: Why do you think WW3 would involve attacks on Russia?

admin: Well, it's that or Russia attacks us, or both.

Still, the human race would not survive nuclear war.

admin: +1

I guess if this were really going to happen, it would be a war of mass concentration. Russia is a huge country and very flat. Controlling the ports of Odessa, Saint Petersburg, and Kalingrad would guarantee naval supremacy for NATO, so control of these ports would be vital for both sides. In the Pacific theater it would be important to control Vladivostock to either maintain or eliminate the Pacific Fleet. Control of the Armenian and Ukrainian pipelines would be essential for Russian tank advances, so that would also be a priority.

Eventually all the easy targets would be eliminated, and the only course of action left would be a straight up clash of militaries. Russia's #1 advantage is its tank force. Infantry could not fight a sustained conflict against Russian armor, but NATO's main advantage is air supremacy. Both sides have a tough time penetrating the other. Russians would knock out any planes from the sky with enplaced AA guns, while NATO would destroy any tanks coming at them with air supremacy.

Overall I would say NATO has the air and naval advantage in a hypothetical conflict with Russia, while Russia would have a slight advantage on the ground. The feeble Eastern European nations who spend 1.5% on their military honestly wouldn't stand a chance against a tank rush, so the main battlefield would be between Ukraine and Germany.

Blackflag: What nations would likely be allied with Russia?

Dassault Papillon: Sounds like a foregone conclusion to me. Are you sure you're not living in the 1950s?

admin: No, but Vladimir Putin is.
Still, I am not unaware of the huge threat posed by nuclear weapons. That alone might prevent a war.

Dassault Papillon: I don't necessarily agree about Putin, but even if he was, you'd wage a war against Russia because you want to kill one guy? That's insane. Just assassinate Putin if that's all you want to do. Better that than killing millions of hot Russian chicks.

Dassault Papillon: Belarus, lol

Blackflag: Actually, Russia has created a local military alliance similar to NATO. I forgot what it's called, but it's got around 6 member nations, such as Belarus and Kazakhstan. Mostly the "Stan" countries.

admin: That would definitely spark WW3; at any rate, it's good to at least plan for such a conflict.

Dassault Papillon: That proves that Putin is NOT the only problem then. You don't like the whole Russian government. Don't forget that, contrary to foregin belief, Putin's power is mostly as a very influential figurehead. Medvedev has gone against him a fair number of times.