Warsaw Pact + China + India vs NATO

[trick master]

Without China the Warsaw Pact was completely fragile against any NATO agression but what if two major countries, they being India and China turned socialist and became members of the Warsaw Pact. Would that make it possible for the Warsaw nations to win a possible 3rd WW?

 

[Xaiban]

No I believe at some point WW3 would go nuclear. No one wins.

 

[Juubimode13]

Without China the Warsaw Pact was completely fragile against any NATO agression but what if two major countries, they being India and China turned socialist and became members of the Warsaw Pact. Would that make it possible for the Warsaw nations to win a possible 3rd WW?

I guess no one really have interest for this kinda stuff -.-

 

[Tarinth]

America is the biggest power in the world. However, both sides
wouldn't want that much bloodshed, and there wouldn't be any real winner
since the American public would not want war unless it truly threatened their way of life.
In an imaginary scenario taking out politics where countries just want to destroy each
other, NATO would win in a conventional war. This is under the assumption, all the nations
went completely out. The results would be devestating for both sides though.
However, in such a deadly war, it might turn nuclear. If that happend, everybody in the
world loses.

 

[Wabbit]

India has a long border dispute with China and it aides pak as enemy of my enemy is a friend so India teaming up with China does not make sense.
Even if we take the whole Russia,China and India it might not fill the gap in the conventional warfare.Russia has economic problem for spending on arms.Chinese are busy re engineering,India does not have an effective local producers it is a largest importer of arms and imports from Russia and Israel.They would have really bad timing in power projection.India operates one carrier group,Chinese are building.A single US carrier group is larger than many air forces.Russia and China has number of SSNs but they are dwarfed by USN and NATO.On the unconventional side Russia has effective deterrent.Both parties have enough to turn each other into radioactive ash.USA and NATO are all filled up.Russia has many SSBNs and China operates a strike group of subs for second strike.No NATO country in the range of Indian missiles though.

 

[Sherlock.]

India will never be a complete socialist nation.

 

[BlacLord™]

Once again, you show fragmentary knowledge.

I'm not going into detail but at the end of the day, neither China, USSR nor India had the brains nor brawn to stand up against NATO. All they had was numbers but let's face it, NATO wasn't, and isn't short of either. Although, I wouldn't have put it passed any of the aforementioned to make an assay. The significants have proved in the past that they don't understand simple strength isn't everything.

 

[KingHashirama]

impossible. india won't turn socialist ;p

Once again, you show fragmentary knowledge.

I'm not going into detail but at the end of the day, neither China, USSR nor India had the brains nor brawn to stand up against NATO. All they had was numbers but let's face it, NATO wasn't, and isn't short of either. Although, I wouldn't have put it passed any of the aforementioned to make an assay. The significants have proved in the past that they don't understand simple strength isn't everything.

False, you yourself show that you have no knowledge on countries like india and china. Trying to claim they did not have brains nor brawn to stand up against NATO...

India and china first of all were /are developing countries. NATO on the other hand is led by developed countries who are pretty much in control of the world economy.

India had been going through alot internal civil unrest, some of it due to countries like Britain and etc. China had also been going through civil unrest due to countries like russia and so on.

It wasn't about having the brains or the brawns.. its about focusing on where your priorities lay.

India has a long border dispute with China and it aides pak as enemy of my enemy is a friend so India teaming up with China does not make sense.
Even if we take the whole Russia,China and India it might not fill the gap in the conventional warfare.Russia has economic problem for spending on arms.Chinese are busy re engineering,India does not have an effective local producers it is a largest importer of arms and imports from Russia and Israel.They would have really bad timing in power projection.India operates one carrier group,Chinese are building.A single US carrier group is larger than many air forces.Russia and China has number of SSNs but they are dwarfed by USN and NATO.On the unconventional side Russia has effective deterrent.Both parties have enough to turn each other into radioactive ash.USA and NATO are all filled up.Russia has many SSBNs and China operates a strike group of subs for second strike.No NATO country in the range of Indian missiles though.

@Bold, that is actually the most likely alliance i can think of. If India and china do join hands.. possibilities are unthinkable. However, European powers will try to prevent that in some way.

 

[BlacLord™]

False, you yourself show that you have no knowledge on countries like india and china. Trying to claim they did not have brains nor brawn to stand up against NATO...

India and china first of all were /are developing countries. NATO on the other hand is led by developed countries who are pretty much in control of the world economy.

India had been going through alot internal civil unrest, some of it due to countries like Britain and etc. China had also been going through civil unrest due to countries like russia and so on.

It wasn't about having the brains or the brawns.. its about focusing on where your priorities lay.

I understand perfectly.

It is you who does not understand the thread of the conversation. The original discussion was as to whether had China and India been part of the Warsaw Pact and whether they could or not stand against NATO and not why they hadn't joined; I know perfectly well the economic and political positions of India and China.

 

[KingHashirama]

I understand perfectly.

It is you who does not understand the thread of the conversation. The original discussion was as to whether had China and India been part of the Warsaw Pact, could they stand against NATO. The answer being no for the reasons I gave and not why they hadn't joined; I know perfectly well the economic and political positions of India and China.

Yes and your reason why they ddin't have the brains or the brawns.. While the matter of the fact india and china, have one of the most military savy people out there. I only said its not because of not having the brawns or brains.. its simply they had other things to focus on.

Only advantage lets say russia and america would've had over these 2 is the technology. Which can be overcome by tactics. But lets not forget India had just gotten done with being looted by europeans.

 

[BlacLord™]

Yes and your reason why they ddin't have the brains or the brawns.. While the matter of the fact india and china, have one of the most military savy people out there.

India and China's individual military strategy and power to boot left a lot to be desired in the last century. Just as no man can be an island, no man can be an army either.

The fact is, the U.S. alone was far better equipped for international conflict in technology, numbers and strategy. The situation during the Cold War was complex but in the end, the hypothetical WarPac belligerents wouldn't stand a chance - NATO held all the cards.