This section is dedicated to my favorite part of studying warfare – the simulation of various scenarios between different military alliances, units and so fourth in an imaginary war. We will look at the possibility of how a war might play out, and how society and the world might change as a whole, based on not only factors dependent of the military fighting capability of each nation, but factors such as that of advances in urban planning and fast construction methods, space technology, police sciences, medicine, engineering, robotics, artificial intelligence, cybernetics, biotechnology, weapons of mass destruction, automation, transportation, asteroid mining, cloning, mass production, industrialization, enormous modern armies, tablets, body cameras, augmented realities, virtual reality training, vertical farming, lasers and kinetic strikes, the petition to the US White House to create a Death Star, optical camouflage, 3D printing, increasingly mobile armies, supersonic airplanes and faster logistics, nanotechnology, computerization, electromagnetic and cyber attacks, and other major technological, systemic, methodological and theoretical concepts and models that were non-existent in World War 2.
These are simulations designed to realistically depict a possible war break out since the time of writing of this post, 2019, say, within a time frame of 15-20 years. We cannot predict which future technology is going to be the norm and mass produced in 20 years from now, but we can have a pretty good idea based on supply and demand. What do people need to make their life more convenient? What does the military need as well? Based on these very simple questions, we can map out possibilities. This is not designed to be a simulation far ahead of our time, such as what might happen if World War 3 were to break out in the year 2150, that is utilizing god tech that is currently not available or is very expensive to produce, vulnerable and therefore not viable with current available technology. Why did the massive railway guns and tank designs such as the Landkreuzer P. 2000 Gott fail and why are these monstrosities not viable in the 21st century?
We will map out and simulate battles in cities, block by block, across the world.
Based on US mass media fears regarding the capabilities of North Korean nuclear missiles in 2018, it’s safe to assume that the missile shield and theoretical shooting down of missiles is not fully guaranteed, otherwise why the hysteria? Obviously the reasons behind this are much more complicated, but this is the most simplistic logic we use to determine that mutually assured destruction is not always assured, but destruction definitely is.
Unlike the Cold War, it is also safe to assume that with modern technology, it is both easier and harder to block nuclear missiles. So based off this fact, we will assume that the major nuclear powers have developed some sort of secret technology by now that can render the nuclear missile more obsolete than they would like to admit.
Regardless, we will follow trends and attempt to update these articles on a regular basis in accordance with trends. For example, Brazil under Dilma Rousseff was more BRICS oriented, so the World War 3 simulation for the SCO winning conducted in 2016 showed Brazil on the side of the SCO. However, in March of 2019 US president Donald Trump announced that he will support Brazil joining NATO, suggesting a long term path for reorienting Brazil towards the West and NATO became more apparent. In our 2016 assessment Brazil was determined to be a game changing factor depending on which side it joined in a possible WW3 scenario, given it’s large size, both geographically, in terms of natural resources and population. It would not be as much of a game changing factor as say, India, who if joined the US could potentially mean defeat for a Russian-Chinese alliance, or even the entire Arab World, which together with Brazil, the US and EU could balance a war against Russia, China and India respectively. The fact that the Arab League is divided between pro West and pro East interests, as in that of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Jordan vs. that of Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Yemen, just makes the assessment more complicated and dependent on public opinion from these countries rather than governments currently in power, especially for long term assessments. Similarly, Brazil’s neutrality, as well as that of many ASEAN nations, make it hard to conduct a proper assessment. However, a balanced assessment is more interesting to conduct than an assessment in which the balance of power is shifted more towards one side than the other, in the case of the current SCO vs. current NATO. In that regard, the Philippines under Duerte is increasingly anti American and pro Russian and Chinese, meaning that we will have to take out the initial buffer country out of the equation that China and India might have battles against in the Pacific Theater.
This is also factoring current numbers. Obviously if a Russia, China and India with their current population, economy, military capabilities and infrastructure were to go to war in which the US was 500 million people, Canada was 200 million people and Australia was 100 million people, then things might be significantly different given the systems in these countries that allow them to run to a significant economic output despite their small populations in comparison to China and India. Canada has only half of the GDP nominal of India, even though it has around only 1/50 of it’s population, give or take. This is assuming the current level of technology is used.
Ultimately, we will factor in not just conventional warfare factors, but industrial capacity, technology levels, mass production techniques, access to natural resources, level of automation, and also the potential use of chemical, nuclear, biological and electromagnetic weapons.
Jungle nations with large populations and many kilometers of rivers and waterways, like Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Vietnam, get a bonus for their Vietnam war style battles in terms of defense. It is easier to hide in this terrain and conduct long, protracted insurgency operations against conventional forces. It also means that China and India will have to produce enormous amounts of amphibious vehicles, naval ships and paratrooper forces.
Actually, we will extensively use potential use of WMD’s. We will assume that all rules of war will eventually deteriorate, and nations will go back to using banned technologies like mustard gas, exploding ammunition and enriched uranium cluster bombs.