How long could a war last between 1st world countries?

[bloomen]

When an individual plane costs $100 million and ships run into the billions and these things take years to build, how long could a shooting war last between countries with advanced capabilities before all of their toys are exhausted?

Gone are the days when you could melt down the local playing field's fence and turn it into a Lancaster the following week. It even seems missiles have multiple year lead times these days and the US has been running low on munitions just blowing up little fellas on the ground occasionally.

[Wacky Racer]

Both the US and Russia have several thousand nuclear weapons, one of which could wipe out Moscow, London or New York, so I would say less than an hour, if things got nasty.

[Roscco]

Wacky Racer said:

Both the US and Russia have several thousand nuclear weapons, one of which could wipe out Moscow, London or New York, so I would say less than an hour, if things got nasty.

+1

I'll second this thought but doubt it'd last even that long before the worlds properly F***ed

[Wacky Racer]

http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/

[bloomen]

Obviously nukes nullify everything else, but let us assume that they don't go nuclear.

[RobDickinson]

If its not won in a few weeks/months and stays conventional ..

I'm sure both major powers would start de-mothballing the last 40-50 years worth of kit stored away and start throwing lower/older gear and poorer trained people into the action.

We would quickly retool for new munitions etc, all the fancy smart/guided stuff would get used up and we'd have a bunch of old shook bombs etc to throw around.

[jdw100]

RobDickinson said:

If its not won in a few weeks/months and stays conventional ..

I'm sure both major powers would start de-mothballing the last 40-50 years worth of kit stored away and start throwing lower/older gear and poorer trained people into the action.

We would quickly retool for new munitions etc, all the fancy smart/guided stuff would get used up and we'd have a bunch of old shook bombs etc to throw around.

They don't like it up 'em.

[LimaDelta]

I was Army in the late 90's. Everything we did (pretty much) was still based on a large scale conflict with the old Warsaw Pact. We generally only ever carried one 24hr ration pack. It took me a little while to figure out why...

[Henners]

There would be full scale cyber warfare.

That's when we really find out how secure the grid etc is...

[Hugo a Gogo]

Wacky Racer said:

Both the US and Russia have several thousand nuclear weapons, one of which could wipe out Moscow, London or New York, so I would say less than an hour, if things got nasty.

Russia isn't 1st world though
Western Europe, US, Canada and Australia

edit: Japan and S Korea too apparently

[austinsmirk]

maybe if the super powers had a game of "tic tac toe" to use the Americanism, it would help.

I wonder if North Korea allows this ?

[Faust66]

Not read it for years, but ‘Red Storm Rising’ by Tom Clancy covers the OPs question quite well.

Basically, it’s WW3 but without the nukes… set in the 1980s the book is a bit dated re. the cold war, but I remember it being a good, tense novel.

Might have to dig it out and have a re-read.

[Wobbegong]

RobDickinson said:

If its not won in a few weeks/months and stays conventional ..

I'm sure both major powers would start de-mothballing the last 40-50 years worth of kit stored away and start throwing lower/older gear and poorer trained people into the action.

We would quickly retool for new munitions etc, all the fancy smart/guided stuff would get used up and we'd have a bunch of old shook bombs etc to throw around.

Might take a while for the five remaining toolmakers in the U.K. to produce the tools

[LimaDelta]

Faust66 said:

Not read it for years, but ‘Red Storm Rising’ by Tom Clancy covers the OPs question quite well.

Basically, it’s WW3 but without the nukes… set in the 1980s the book is a bit dated re. the cold war, but I remember it being a good, tense novel.

Might have to dig it out and have a re-read.

Also 'Red Army', by Ralph Peters. Tells the story of conventional WARPAC forces invading Western Europe, interesting for it's time (Late 80's) as the story is told from the Soviet perspective.

[llewop]

bloomen said:

Obviously nukes nullify everything else, but let us assume that they don't go nuclear.

even as a thought exercise: not really a workable assumption - whoever was losing or blinked first would go nuclear before long.

[Collectingbrass]

Faust66 said:

Not read it for years, but ‘Red Storm Rising’ by Tom Clancy covers the OPs question quite well.

Basically, it’s WW3 but without the nukes… set in the 1980s the book is a bit dated re. the cold war, but I remember it being a good, tense novel.

Might have to dig it out and have a re-read.

And the war in the book ended with a coup in Moscow before the equipment losses outpaced the ability to resupply.

These days it would be a race between social media pressure due to 24 hr news / facettter / instapp reporting and rate of loss of irreplaceable equipment assets. The former did for the Americans in Vietnam, the later did for the Argentinians in the Falklands.

[Zetec-S]

llewop said:

bloomen said:

Obviously nukes nullify everything else, but let us assume that they don't go nuclear.

even as a thought exercise: not really a workable assumption - whoever was losing or blinked first would go nuclear before long.

Not necessarily. Earlier post mentions Tom Clancy's 'Red Storm Rising'. Put into the modern world, you could envisage a situation where Russia gets overly ambitious in Eastern Europe and goes one step too far. NATO then steps into to halt the advance. Neither side would be prepared to press the nuclear button and risk escalating a conflict initially consigned to a relatively small region.

Or a USA - China conflict in the South China Sea? Again, too much to lose.

The only way you'd realistically expect (or hope?) nukes to be used is if a major power's sovereign territory was seriously threatened, which in the modern world is very unlikely.

[skinnyman]

I know it's basically a case of "my dads bigger than your dad" but why the hell does the US & Russia need 7000 nuclear warheads each? Like you could even use that many

[Wacky Racer]

skinnyman said:

I know it's basically a case of "my dads bigger than your dad" but why the hell does the US & Russia need 7000 nuclear warheads each? Like you could even use that many

In case three or four don't work......

[yellowjack]

LimaDelta said:

I was Army in the late 90's. Everything we did (pretty much) was still based on a large scale conflict with the old Warsaw Pact. We generally only ever carried one 24hr ration pack. It took me a little while to figure out why...

In 1990 when I trained as an Armoured Engineer, we were told that our life expectancy on a battlefield was around 22 minutes. Just about long enough for the Russians to locate us and send a Frogfoot or two our way. We were regarded as "battle winning equipment" and as such were a priority target. We were also the largest, most obvious targets in a battlegroup. At top dead centre, during launch or recovery, a modern No.11 bridge stands 16 metres tall, making it rather an easy thing to spot too...




...so once the engineer assets are gone, a battlegroup isn't really going anyplace in a hurry anymore. Then it becomes an attritional war with artillery and air assets governing the outcome. In the old days, with American forces in Europe I'd be pushed to call the winner. Later, with reductions in NATO budgets, and troop reductions, I'd have said the former Warsaw Pact countries would have the upper hand. They rely more heavily on analogue solutions and lots of them. They'd lose a lot of 'planes and vehicles, but they'd take some of ours with them, and be better placed to soak up their losses and replace stuff than we are. They also rely less on specialist battlefield equipment, such as our AVRE/AVLB family and the M3 rigs. Instead they build tanks that are equipped to swim or snorkel across water obstacles, rather than using heavy ferries and bridges as in NATO doctrine. This gives them greater freedom of movement to cross wet gaps and engage their opposition from favourable positions.