Isn't the prevailing view that nuclear arsenals have made number-of-soldiers largely irrelevant?
I've been told that actual war between powers now means catastrophic nuclear blasts both ways
Sino-US theatre will be largely naval, relatively little combatants from both sides on open waters with no civilians around. I personally wouldn't rule out tactical nukes (especially on PRC's part) if things turn desperate. It's about as optimal and opportunist conditions for rationalizing using theater level nukes. The calculations for escalation spiral is more permissible compared to USSR massing troops to roll across europe, and even then NATO/USSR had plans to tactically nuke buffer states filled with civilians. Sino-US maritime war is significantly more volatile than USSR-NATO landwar specifically because it's easy to rationalize nuking each others naval groups on open ocean as long as it doesn't spread to PRC/US soil. PRC has their no first use doctrine, but doctrines change when situations turn existential. There is a report from 6 months ago by Congressional Research Service about "nonstrategic nuclear weapons" with respect to PRC and Russia, because tactical nukes has NEVER been off the table for peer warfare by major nuclear powers.
So I don't believe that nukes will be used. Just as poison-gas wasn't used in WW2.
That means we need to look at what happens in a non-nuclear conventional war. Once again, that comes back ultimately to "God is on the side of the big battalions", as Rommel is supposed to have said. That means the nations with the most men, and the most weapons.
WW3 was the economic struggle that Reagan used to take down the Soviet Union.
Listen to Clif High's explanation of WWIV:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WU3218W2qULL/
and
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6UoprWnLdauS/
When the SOC releases information later this week, they achieve the Strategic Moral victory over the enemy, and flip the loyalty of Humanity. This will achieve a fairly bloodless victory for WWIV.