What would a modern large-scale symmetrical war be like? -

[DykesDykesChina]

Some days ago I visited a historical battlefield of the Napoleonic wars: The Battle of Jena - Napoleon stomping Prussia and Saxony (there was a time when the French excelled on the battlefield - no joke here).

This made me consider the question: What would a large-scale modern war between armies of approximately equal strength be like?

Most wars after WWII were asymmetrical wars, usually with the US battling smaller guerilla-like forces.

But how would a modern symmetrical war be like? Which tactics would be used? How would battles be carried out? While WWI was all about trench warfare, with heavy stationary artillery bombardments for days, until storming the enemy trenches was attempted, WWII introduced the mobile artillery attack and large-scale tank tactics. Which military innovations would WWIII see?

Let's say that ICBMs with megaton-strength thermonuclear warheads are banned. Up to and including tactical nukes everything is allowed.

Let's have three alliances in this thought experiment: A. Eurasia: Europe, Russia, South Asia and East Asia without Japan. B. Atlantica: North and South America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. C. The Great Kalifate: The Islamic/Arabic world - including North Africa. Central and South Africa are pawns.

The object of conflict is control of the server on which Encyclopaedia Dramatica is hosted.

How would this war proceed? What would the experience for the individual soldier be like? For the officers? For civilians? Which weapon systems would primarily be used (based on real present-day technology)? How long would the fray last?

 

[Null]

There's a reason wars aren't conducted like this anymore. All sides would be annihilated in a day's time.

 

[champthom]

You know, this reminds me of something Einstein once said: he said he wasn't sure how World War III would be fought, but he knew how World War IV would be fought - with sticks and stones.

 

[KatsuKitty]

There's a reason wars aren't conducted like this anymore. All sides would be annihilated in a day's time.

Exactly. These wars were all-out efforts to destroy the enemy and all of its citizens. With nuclear weapons, that got too easy, so there's been little incentive to fight this way since 1945.

With that, the UN, and economic cooperation...the only wars I can envision in the future are small-scale topplings of rogue states who are long before starved of any power through sanctions (think Iraq as a real life example, and possibly Iran and North Korea in the future). That, and the threat of powerful world-wide networks such as radical Islam.

 

[Smokedaddy]

As an aside, it's worth noting that megaton-yield nuclear warheads are rare, probably making up less than 1% of the world's arsenals. Bombs that big just aren't militarily useful. Most nukes are around 150 kilotons, with 275 or so at the high end. There are some big ones, but they're mostly Cold War arms-race relics that were more about national dick-thumping than anything else. I think (would have to check, but this is about right) the biggest thing anyone packs these days is a couple of megatons, tops.

Any war where someone Pushes The Button on a nuclear weapon will be over in minutes, but the effects will persist for hundreds of years.

"If we fight a war and win it with H-bombs, what history will remember is not the ideals we were fighting for but the methods we used to accomplish them. These methods will be compared to the warfare of Genghis Khan who ruthlessly killed every last inhabitant of Persia." -- Hans Bethe

 

[Dyn]

I think it would be pretty bad.