UN interventionists run a modern-day gauntlet

[IndyFront]

I might do several of these based on the UN/modern-day, but let's say a coalition of the following countries begin a worldwide police action... the Arab League, Brazil, Chile, Peru, the Commonwealth (minus the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand), the Association of Caribbean States (minus Mexico, Costa Rica and Belize), ASEAN, the CIS (minus Russia, Moldova and Belarus), China, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iran... to compete with the United States and NATO allies

The world descends in World War III, with the West declaring war on the UN and global outbreak of hostilities beginning in the failed state of Haiti (because I know for sure they could defeat and conquer Haiti) and spreading across the planet. Assume that the UN soldiers and police are superseded by national armed forces and police, with the full weight of each country's respective economy marshalled against whichever countries they target. Also assume the UN countries maintain relative stability throughout the duration of these conflicts in non-coalition countries. In which region are they bound to start having problems? Which members of the coalition will pull their weight and which won't?

 

[Husky_Khan]

I might do several of these based on the UN/modern-day, but let's say a coalition of the following countries begin a worldwide police action... the Arab League, Brazil, Chile, Peru, the Commonwealth (minus the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand), the Association of Caribbean States (minus Mexico, Costa Rica and Belize), ASEAN, the CIS (minus Russia, Moldova and Belarus), China, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iran... to compete with the United States and NATO allies

The world descends in World War III, with the West declaring war on the UN and global outbreak of hostilities beginning in the failed state of Haiti (because I know for sure they could defeat and conquer Haiti) and spreading across the planet. Assume that the UN soldiers and police are superseded by national armed forces and police, with the full weight of each country's respective economy marshalled against whichever countries they target. Also assume the UN countries maintain relative stability throughout the duration of these conflicts in non-coalition countries. In which region are they bound to start having problems? Which members of the coalition will pull their weight and which won't?

Hmmmm if Russia is feeling threatened, it might be persuaded to angle for the Western side, however the OP states that the United Nations is declaring War on the West, so it might be more likely that Russia leads a third way bloc.

So you'd have the West, with what appears to be the entirety of NATO and the European Union, plus likely ANZUS, South Korea, Ukraine, Moldova and Japan. Maybe Switzerland as well, but a minor issue. Taiwan might also be involved since they could be roped into 'The West.' Maybe Georgia and Armenia as well, but they might also want neutrality to avoid being on the front line. The only other issue might be Ethiopia since they could be open to pressing claims for the Nile River and/or Somali but it seems doubtful considering their geographical location as well.

Russia would likely be leading with Belarus and maybe some of the West African states, Central African Republic and Zimbabwe and going their third way. Possible Serbia as well but they would probably like to be double neutral.

Countries like Nigeria, Mexico, Argentina and the like would likely just want to stay the hell out of affairs in general, no alliances in general. But Mexico would probably be leaning towards the United States in sympathy since they are on a borderland.

Immediate fronts would be the Caribbean, the Southwest Pacific, Turkey and the Northwest Pacific. I think the Caribbean Front would be hard pressed to hold back the United States and Canada and a lot of those islands would be in dire straights soon enough when the blockades and airstrikes start taking their toll. I don't think the Latin American air and naval forces will be able to intercede well enough. Cuba would become an island in an enemy lake pretty quick I feel.

North Africa is powerful but there is a vulnerability in the reliably of most of the transportation being along the coast along with industry and other economic and population centers. I don't think they'll be able to engage in any cross straight or sea operations and be punished quite a bit by the European forces there as well.

Turkey would get hammered pretty tough but the terrain is mountainous and defensive. They are up against some formidable peer opponents so it'll be tough for them but with European backing and Ukraine as well, I think they could hold and stabilize.
Australia looks to be in a bad position but it's military is large enough I feel to keep their shores safe for now. The real Battle I feel will be for the Northwest Pacific. Taiwan and Japan and South Korea and everything in between.

As far as pulling weight, I feel that the Central American and Caribbean states will actually collapse far more quickly morale wise. I don't think they'll be wanting to fight this battle. None of them are really expansionist and the odds in the local theater are really long against them. Plus collaboration will be strong, as well the economic opportunity that peace will bring. Latin America is similar but would require more pressure to fracture I feel. Especially countries with significant revolutionary and political divides like Colombia, Venezuela and Peru etc or issues with other countries. Like I don't see Chile wanting to sacrifice too much for the UN, weakening them if Argentina and/or Bolivia or something decides to pursue opportunistic revanchism in this zany alternate world.

In the Pacific, I think the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea would actually fold. They don't have the depth and would need lots of support to sustain pressure from ANZUS and allied forces. As the Western Hemisphere stabilizes for the West, I think that Indonesia and Philippines will then feel the pressure of supporting the United Nations with the former thinking of wanting to pursue surrender and neutrality, and the latter switching sides to capitalize. A lot of the SEA countries would see themselves as actual battlefields for great powers like China so that China can benefit from gobbling Japan, Taiwan, Australia and whatnot, not themselves. The prior rivalry and issues with China would strain their relationship with ASEAN allies as they realize they are increasingly the sacrificial buffer zone to protect China and I think that's a fracture point in general. They'll fold like the Axis powers allies in the Balkans did IMHO.

Taiwan would have a tough time, then South Korea... and then Japan. It'd be a devastating conflict for all of them but the fact you have three powerful countries means that the extremely formidable power of a Sino-Indian Alliance would be split among them... and also require attention on the United States and ANZUS as well. Even if they can capture some of the Islands and invade Taiwan, I don't think they'll be able to secure it when their ASEAN allies decide not warring with the West is in their better interests and they have more to gain from a weakened China instead to press their future claims against.

 

[IndyFront]

Hmmmm if Russia is feeling threatened, it might be persuaded to angle for the Western side, however the OP states that the United Nations is declaring War on the West, so it might be more likely that Russia leads a third way bloc.

So you'd have the West, with what appears to be the entirety of NATO and the European Union, plus likely ANZUS, South Korea, Ukraine, Moldova and Japan. Maybe Switzerland as well, but a minor issue. Taiwan might also be involved since they could be roped into 'The West.' Maybe Georgia and Armenia as well, but they might also want neutrality to avoid being on the front line. The only other issue might be Ethiopia since they could be open to pressing claims for the Nile River and/or Somali but it seems doubtful considering their geographical location as well.

Russia would likely be leading with Belarus and maybe some of the West African states, Central African Republic and Zimbabwe and going their third way. Possible Serbia as well but they would probably like to be double neutral.

Countries like Nigeria, Mexico, Argentina and the like would likely just want to stay the hell out of affairs in general, no alliances in general. But Mexico would probably be leaning towards the United States in sympathy since they are on a borderland.

Immediate fronts would be the Caribbean, the Southwest Pacific, Turkey and the Northwest Pacific. I think the Caribbean Front would be hard pressed to hold back the United States and Canada and a lot of those islands would be in dire straights soon enough when the blockades and airstrikes start taking their toll. I don't think the Latin American air and naval forces will be able to intercede well enough. Cuba would become an island in an enemy lake pretty quick I feel.

North Africa is powerful but there is a vulnerability in the reliably of most of the transportation being along the coast along with industry and other economic and population centers. I don't think they'll be able to engage in any cross straight or sea operations and be punished quite a bit by the European forces there as well.

Turkey would get hammered pretty tough but the terrain is mountainous and defensive. They are up against some formidable peer opponents so it'll be tough for them but with European backing and Ukraine as well, I think they could hold and stabilize.
Australia looks to be in a bad position but it's military is large enough I feel to keep their shores safe for now. The real Battle I feel will be for the Northwest Pacific. Taiwan and Japan and South Korea and everything in between.

As far as pulling weight, I feel that the Central American and Caribbean states will actually collapse far more quickly morale wise. I don't think they'll be wanting to fight this battle. None of them are really expansionist and the odds in the local theater are really long against them. Plus collaboration will be strong, as well the economic opportunity that peace will bring. Latin America is similar but would require more pressure to fracture I feel. Especially countries with significant revolutionary and political divides like Colombia, Venezuela and Peru etc or issues with other countries. Like I don't see Chile wanting to sacrifice too much for the UN, weakening them if Argentina and/or Bolivia or something decides to pursue opportunistic revanchism in this zany alternate world.

In the Pacific, I think the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea would actually fold. They don't have the depth and would need lots of support to sustain pressure from ANZUS and allied forces. As the Western Hemisphere stabilizes for the West, I think that Indonesia and Philippines will then feel the pressure of supporting the United Nations with the former thinking of wanting to pursue surrender and neutrality, and the latter switching sides to capitalize. A lot of the SEA countries would see themselves as actual battlefields for great powers like China so that China can benefit from gobbling Japan, Taiwan, Australia and whatnot, not themselves. The prior rivalry and issues with China would strain their relationship with ASEAN allies as they realize they are increasingly the sacrificial buffer zone to protect China and I think that's a fracture point in general. They'll fold like the Axis powers allies in the Balkans did IMHO.

Taiwan would have a tough time, then South Korea... and then Japan. It'd be a devastating conflict for all of them but the fact you have three powerful countries means that the extremely formidable power of a Sino-Indian Alliance would be split among them... and also require attention on the United States and ANZUS as well. Even if they can capture some of the Islands and invade Taiwan, I don't think they'll be able to secure it when their ASEAN allies decide not warring with the West is in their better interests and they have more to gain from a weakened China instead to press their future claims against.

Yeah I could see the UN ultimately losing, especially if they open up new fronts against the U.S. and Russia, despite their size. Although Azerbaijan wouldn't participate in Arab-spearheaded UN intervention against Turkey, I could see them joining together with the Central Asian Turks and possibly China to attack other countries. But yeah it seems the major flashpoints would be Turkey and Japan-SK, with both of those fronts likely spearheaded by China and India. Brazil could lead a Latin American front against North America, but would ultimately fail.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Yeah I could see the UN ultimately losing, especially if they open up new fronts against the U.S. and Russia, despite their size. Although Azerbaijan wouldn't participate in Arab-spearheaded UN intervention against Turkey, I could see them joining together with the Central Asian Turks and possibly China to attack other countries. But yeah it seems the major flashpoints would be Turkey and Japan-SK, with both of those fronts likely spearheaded by China and India. Brazil could lead a Latin American front against North America, but would ultimately fail.

Guerrilla conflict could still persist in Central and Latin American for decades of course, just like in the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa, but de facto control would eventually be de facto control.

With that said, the powerbloc of South Asia and China being united is pretty formidable. That is over a third of the worlds population in one near contiguous bloc. With a significant share of the manufacturing and industrial capacity. Breaking Southeast Asia from the United Nations will be key as it would limit the Sino-Indian bloc to having to exchange with each other through the Himalayas, or the jungles of Indochina or the steppes and deserts of Central Asia which would be far more tricky then utilizing shipping capacity to maintain links between the two countries.

If the West manages to carry out a successful long war like I outlined before, which is a big If in itself, the position that the United Nations has in South and East Asia on the continent seems really difficult and intractable to make reliable headway against. At least in the short term, like a matter of years. There's so much population, industry and sheer geographic depth. The best way to fracture the United Nations in that case would be trying to break away India from the rest of the countries, taking advantage of pre-existing ethnic and religious tension in that country, especially as focused around that nations Hindu majority. If they could do that then maybe the resulting Sino-Islamic Bloc of the United Nations can be handled more efficiently.

 

[IndyFront]

If the West manages to carry out a successful long war like I outlined before, which is a big If in itself, the position that the United Nations has in South and East Asia on the continent seems really difficult and intractable to make reliable headway against. At least in the short term, like a matter of years. There's so much population, industry and sheer geographic depth. The best way to fracture the United Nations in that case would be trying to break away India from the rest of the countries, taking advantage of pre-existing ethnic and religious tension in that country, especially as focused around that nations Hindu majority. If they could do that then maybe the resulting Sino-Islamic Bloc of the United Nations can be handled more efficiently.

(DISCLAIMER TO ANY CIA/FBI OFFICIALS READING THIS. I AM NOT A NATIONALIST, WHAT I AM SAYING BELOW IS SIMPLY MY HONEST ASSESSMENT OF US MILITARY PROWESS)
Notwithstanding the U.S. is basically the West's ace in the hole. Even divided amongst itself in the midst of some sort of secessionist uprising, the various U.S. factions would likely set aside their differences (at least temporarily) to deal with the aggressor/enemy, and would likely do so effectively barring incompetent meddling or fuckup by US leadership. If US collapsed, sure, I guess we could call that a UN Pyrrhic Victory, but the U.S. is simply too large and too militarized to take on directly, even by India or China. They would have to resort to asymmetric and political/propaganda warfare in the breakaway US territories. I do feel like the UN would buzzsaw its way across the world until it collapsed under its own weight or got beaten in a direct fight with the United States. Alternatively they could attempt a decapitation strike on the U.S. to try to further wedge the country apart, but then you have to deal with a gang of pissed off MUCH more ideologically extremist Mini-Americas on your ass.

 

[Zachowon]

The US from the get go would be heavily invovled in the fighting due to our bases in the pacific.
The fighting would be heavy, and the US would probably deploy National Guard units to help Mexico at least stem the tide against the Latin American countries.

The US would most likely focus on the INDIPACOM theater due to the aspect in which the are the largest threat.
we would have almost the entirety of the Navy and AF in that fight.
Army would be focused on supporting NATO in Europe, facing against the African and Central Asian countries.
With any in the pacific being used to help AKNZ in the pacific, as well as Japan and Korea.

This kinda war would bring about the full total war production of the US military in which case the Civil and military infrastructure of majority if the nations will cease to exist.

And the Three Gorges dam becomes a valid target.


And should any of these nations strike say DC or the continental United States.
The gloves would truly be off and Latin America will be part of the USA by the end and China will be half flooded

 

[IndyFront]

And should any of these nations strike say DC or the continental United States.
The gloves would truly be off and Latin America will be part of the USA by the end and China will be half flooded

Assuming US leadership doesn't shit its pants and try to capitulate/cause chaos at home anyway.

 

[Zachowon]

Assuming US leadership doesn't shit its pants and try to capitulate/cause chaos at home anyway.

Not likely. A foreign threat that is actively seeking to defeat us would not br allowed.
Our entire economy would be at risk and the fact we would have every major ally engaged in a war.
The home front would go into total war mode

 

[IndyFront]

Not likely. A foreign threat that is actively seeking to defeat us would not br allowed.
Our entire economy would be at risk and the fact we would have every major ally engaged in a war.
The home front would go into total war mode

The most direct threats would be the BRICS or India and China via a colonized and militarized Brazil projecting power into the Atlantic, and the US could defeat them almost by accident, but I could see them spearheading a coalition of countries to launch a decapitation strike on the US when they least expect it, but that's about it. I do think the US could be balkanized if they had inside help however. (Although that would be more of a political defeat than a military one)

 

[Zachowon]

The most direct threats would be the BRICS or India and China via a colonized and militarized Brazil projecting power into the Atlantic, and the US could defeat them almost by accident, but I could see them spearheading a coalition of countries to launch a decapitation strike on the US when they least expect it, but that's about it. I do think the US could be balkanized if they had inside help however. (Although that would be more of a political defeat than a military one)

Guam is close to China, as is a LOT of US forces.
If any forces were to be attacked, and with the Korea peninsula going hot they would, we would be invovled from the get go with a large aspect of going head first.
The enemy is on our backyard and a stone throw away.
Even the current admin wouldn't give in when large scale war with our allies is already happening.
The border would be high priority, but so would Mexicos.

This would be a war for survival, and the country would know that.