How do you think World War III will pan out?

Recommended Videos

Raregolddragon

New member
Oct 26, 2008
586
0
0
Iran will start it off by nuking the shit out the Hebrews which will cause a chain reaction of nuclear war leading up to China bombing the USA.

The USA missile shield will stop the China made A-bombs and then a nice retaliation and all of china will start to glow in the dark.

End result USA wins due to missile shield and other Classified tech with the other global powers getting very nervous at just how powerful the USA is.
 

Kortney

New member
Nov 2, 2009
1,960
0
0
deonte9109 said:
Well it wouldn't be World War if America, Germany, UK, Italy, and France didnt fight. France is really there as a tactical distraction to the countries. They will capture it thinking that they actually did something then proceed to be defeated by the opposing nations.
Only a few countries would be able to capture France. The French military is amazing (one of the best in the world) and they spend more money on their military than Russia does. It's quite ironic that they are called "pussies" (God knows why) when they could crush most countries with their eyes closed.
 

Mr.Mattress

Level 2 Lumberjack
Jul 17, 2009
3,645
0
0
The US, France and the UK will definitely form the main good Alliance. Russia may or may not join the war (For it knows how much World Wars suck for them, seeing as they lost substantial territory in both of them), if it does, it'll be in the Alliance. I have a gut Feeling that Germany and Japan could start it, but the main culprit would be China/Iran and a Coalition of Oppressive nations. I don't think we'll use nukes, but it's possible.

If Nukes occur, you can see me creating a new nation in the USA.
 

deonte9109

New member
Sep 8, 2010
1,264
0
0
Kortney said:
deonte9109 said:
Well it wouldn't be World War if America, Germany, UK, Italy, and France didnt fight. France is really there as a tactical distraction to the countries. They will capture it thinking that they actually did something then proceed to be defeated by the opposing nations.
Only a few countries would be able to capture France. The French military is amazing (one of the best in the world) and they spend more money on their military than Russia does. It's quite ironic that they are called "pussies" (God knows why) when they could crush most countries with their eyes closed.
The reason they're called pussies is because their service record in recent conflicts in poor and on top of that you can spend as much money as you want but its tactics that win wars.
 

Throwitawaynow

New member
Aug 29, 2010
759
0
0
deonte9109 said:
Kortney said:
deonte9109 said:
Well it wouldn't be World War if America, Germany, UK, Italy, and France didnt fight. France is really there as a tactical distraction to the countries. They will capture it thinking that they actually did something then proceed to be defeated by the opposing nations.
Only a few countries would be able to capture France. The French military is amazing (one of the best in the world) and they spend more money on their military than Russia does. It's quite ironic that they are called "pussies" (God knows why) when they could crush most countries with their eyes closed.
The reason they're called pussies is because their service record in recent conflicts in poor and on top of that you can spend as much money as you want but its tactics that win wars.
Google french military victories take the first link, and then the link after that. It's all explained. For the lazy ones [link]http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html[/link].

OT: West wins, world loses, America #1 on scoreboard because "whoever has the most points at the end of the world wins". Tried to find the exact quote and maybe a video but I couldn't = (
 

deonte9109

New member
Sep 8, 2010
1,264
0
0
Rationalization said:
Google french military victories take the first link, and then the link after that. It's all explained. For the lazy ones [link]http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html[/link].

OT: West wins, world loses, America #1 on scoreboard because "whoever has the most points at the end of the world wins". Tried to find the exact quote and maybe a video but I couldn't = (
Thank you sir I really do appreciate that. French are useless in a fight. Everything else idk. dont really care
 

Free Thinker

New member
Apr 23, 2010
1,332
0
0
MirrorSweep said:
China Vs Rest of World

World: "Aw, balls"
China: "gg"
Space Aliens: Hai thar! I found your planet and decided to join your little game here. Mind if I cheat? Yes? I'm gonna cheat anyway.
Earth: HAX!!!!!!
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Nouw said:
How do you think World War III will pan out? (Let's be honest, there is going to be one)
What do you think will spark it to begin? When do you think it will begin? Who will win? What will happen and etc?

This is for a research paper of mine and of course there is no real answer but the thought counts. Plus I'm always curious about what my fellow Escapist's think about a future world war.

-Thanks in advance.

P.S. Long posts very welcome and should this belong in Religion/Politics?
I'm gonna stick with einstein on this one. I have no idea, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones. Meaning that it will be the end of a good part of our society and civilization, but people will survive.
 

miscelaneous

New member
Apr 4, 2010
347
0
0
Well to quote Einstein:

"I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth?rocks!"

Damn, ninja'd a while back.
 

The Long Road

New member
Sep 3, 2010
189
0
0
World War III will end in weeks.

Why? What is this? Weeks? Yes, mere weeks. No matter what happens, somebody will be clearly losing after a few weeks. (Let's be honest... It's not going to be the US/NATO.) Whoever is losing will openly threaten the use of tactical nuclear weapons of the battlefield. Military leaders will steel themselves for the losses about to be incurred, but politicians will intervene, fearing the elevation of the conflict to strategic nuclear war. A cease-fire will be declared and world leaders will meet on neutral ground to begin negotiations for an end to hostilities. The losing side will inevitably lose resources, maybe even territory. If leaders are smart, they won't impose too many punishments. The lessons of World War I & II will be remembered.

The biggest casualty of WWIII will be diplomatic relations. Right now, there are very few stable states that are openly hostile to one another. Those that are openly hostile are mostly in the Middle East or Southwest Asia. Ties from East to West will be broken, especially between China and the US & Europe. If Russia is smart, they'll try to stay out of it, because they're kind of the sketchy middleman of the world right now. They don't have much to gain from firmly choosing a side, and nobody has much to gain from attacking them. If I had to guess just one city, I'd say the next major peace conference will be in Moscow.

The world economy will take a nose-dive, because naval blockades and submarine warfare will absolutely shut down global shipping on the seas, which is where 90% of goods travel eventually. Factories won't be converted to wartime manufacturing, but resources may be diverted to those factories that produce military goods. Rationing will almost certainly not go into effect, as the war will be so short.

Politically, it's likely that the United States' position as Head Honcho of the World will be cemented for decades to come. Waging war against NATO will be impossible. Expect to see the West, especially the reaffirmed US, swinging its weight around to strongarm China and the North-Korea dominated "rogue states" into improving human rights, economic systems, oppressive theocracies, and anything else "wrong" with them at the time.

However, the smartest move for everyone after the war, winners and losers alike, is to leave things be. Too many sanctions on the losers puts them in a similar position to Germany in the period between 1919-1939. Remember who popped up then? Yeah. We'll try to avoid that.

In summary, there will be a conventional war for a few weeks until someone is clearly winning, the loser will threaten tac-nukes to stem the tide of attackers, and peace will be declared to prevent the use of such powerful weapons. More likely than not, very little will change from pre- to post-war.
 

Blemontea

New member
May 25, 2010
1,321
0
0
I will start after all the world leaders are in the oval office with the president haveing a toast on how they finally cured world hunger, when a flash grenade flys into the room after the flash clears all the world leaders are gone along with the president. Each county is sent a video with man pointing a gun at the head at each victim. Each video gets one with the man saying the same line but in a different language. "Lets spread a little chaos..." and he will pull the trigger. The next day every country but Germany has a plane crash into an important building and each plane has the swastika painted on it. another few days pass and it happens again. So every one pins the terrorist sticker on Germany and demands an answer. While all that is going on every presidential house is bombed by what looks like French airplanes and so now the people want the French to fess up. The final act is by the Americans who casually bomb most of the east county side and a final bit of the before mentioned video is released with the guy taking off a mask he was wearing, and talking English in an American accent shutting off the camera saying "Have a nice day." Now everyone especially the French and Germans is going in for the attack on America. So now America has to push every country back while defending its people. While all of them are doing this an alien is sipping cocoa inside a warm cottage in the south pole watching the world destroy itself because of its actions.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
THE SPARK: Honestly? I think the U.S. will initiate it. Society here has changed since the last World War. We're all up in people's business, more and more treating the issue of other countries as our own. Unfortunately, that's like a policeman out of jurisdiction without the benefit of hot pursuit rules. Eventually, somebody takes precident to this. And because the U.S. is a big place to fuss with, ALOT of somebodies decide to join in. Not like Red Dawn, but a number of countries who - of their own volition and spacing themselves from other factions - want the U.S. up out of their grill. Maybe alliances will be born, but notably no super powered nations will be involved, citing this as perhaps a bad idea.

WHEN: Probably the next time U.S.A. does another high-profile witch hunt on a nation or forces their unwanted hand heavily into another nation's territory with another round of going too far. Now understand...I live in this country. Nobody can appreciate better on who's going too far than the side with the biggest guns to point. Picking on little nations who aren't even Nazi-level aggressive is embarassing. Either the U.S. needs to find bigger boys to play with or become the villain. So, we cause enough unrest in a country and THAT country says "What the fuck?" and decides to get their game on. Other nations then follow suit by either agreeing or having their own grudge on the table.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN: Again, this isn't Red Dawn. I said that significant super powers will keep out of this fight unless it's China and the U.S. calls them. I'll get to that later. Basically, smaller nations do their thing, whatever they can think of. Invasion forces, guerilla attacks, etc. This causes alot of chaos and problems, forcing U.S.A. to put itself in real-time war status, committed on its own shores. It's a problem, because alot of smaller dogs going after a big dog is frightening, confusing, and it hurts. Maybe this puts a strain on resources, because the nation isn't at its fullest to defend its borders right now.

What happens then? Well, they do what I figured they do... They call for aid from China. Why China? Because they're big, they're bad, and they have NUMBERS. Lots of soldiers or potential soldiers to buff the ranks. They have to call in a treaty of understanding first over the matter of the U.S. oweing them money and the U.S. saying "You don't get a cent until you get rid of these fucking stink bugs.", but they work something out because the U.S. DOES owe China something, and that puts them at relative interest. Namely, if the guy who owes them money dies, THEY DON'T GET PAID. So, at the risk of a bigger debt, America outsources to China yet again and they get more soldiers.

Who Wins?: Probably the U.S. Even without China or some other helping nation, we're talking about smaller nations with smaller resources overall. The big ones don't want to fight because there comes a time when WE ALL LOSE and nobody wants that. So, the U.S. gets punched in the face a few times and gets the bad guy badge until it makes nice again. They probably don't lash out at the home nations of the attackers because - yeah - pushing our hands out all the time like this clearly causes problems. A lesson is learned, we hope. Because if we can't figure this out on our own, someone will have to force the issue in answer to some point where we go to far, and hopefully the bloody conflict will enlighten us.
 

Kortney

New member
Nov 2, 2009
1,960
0
0
deonte9109 said:
Thank you sir I really do appreciate that. French are useless in a fight. Everything else idk. dont really care
Rationalization said:
Google french military victories take the first link, and then the link after that. It's all explained. For the lazy ones [link]http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html[/link]
Oh wow! You've really won the debate there!

That link is absolute rubbish. If you take that seriously, I fear for you. Not once does it make a factually accurate claim without spinning it a certain way. Not once. If I had the time and it was on topic discussion I could quite easily completely debunk about 80% of those "facts" and put up equally as valid cases for the rest that are shades of grey.

And I quote:

"Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline."

And you take that so seriously you try to pass it off as not only factually accurate but something that is meant to prove the "fails" of the French military? Hah. Go home.
 

Actual

New member
Jun 24, 2008
1,220
0
0
Thanks to the wonders of nuclear armaments we never need worry about another world war!

The thought of nukes keeps me warm at night.
 

deonte9109

New member
Sep 8, 2010
1,264
0
0
Kortney said:
And I quote:

"Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline."

And you take that so seriously you try to pass it off as not only factually accurate but something that is meant to prove the "fails" of the French military? Hah. Go home.
Not to agitate anything but you do realize that the site was one man's opinion on French warfare and the fact that the entire page was probably meant to be a satire of said French warfare. So sir you should calmly reconsider thinking that sensible people would actually consider this truth. More than likely the author was trolling to get reactions out of people like you.
 

Throwitawaynow

New member
Aug 29, 2010
759
0
0
Kortney said:
deonte9109 said:
Thank you sir I really do appreciate that. French are useless in a fight. Everything else idk. dont really care
Rationalization said:
Google french military victories take the first link, and then the link after that. It's all explained. For the lazy ones [link]http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html[/link]
Oh wow! You've really won the debate there!

That link is absolute rubbish. If you take that seriously, I fear for you. Not once does it make a factually accurate claim without spinning it a certain way. Not once. If I had the time and it was on topic discussion I could quite easily completely debunk about 80% of those "facts" and put up equally as valid cases for the rest that are shades of grey.

And I quote:

"Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline."

And you take that so seriously you try to pass it off as not only factually accurate but something that is meant to prove the "fails" of the French military? Hah. Go home.
You're right, France has won every war that was cited as lost on that website. All leaders that were told to not be from France were from France, all the times France was invaded it was really just luring the enemy in to a trap, and Normandy was France and will always be France.

You have thoroughly exposed the truth and I will always be in your debt.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
I'm pretty sure it will start in the middle east, but turn into an East vs West war, with Russia and China aiding the mid-east. The cold war never ended, our governments are just a bit more laid-back about the spying. Most Taliban and Al Qaeda weapons can be traced back to Russia. Anyways, if it got to WW3 level, I'm sure it'll either end in a worldwide nukefest, or be the nicest little skirmish ever out of fear that someone may start said nukefest.

Don't quote me on this, just a theory.
 

Kortney

New member
Nov 2, 2009
1,960
0
0
Rationalization said:
You're right, France has won every war that was cited as lost on that website. All leaders that were told to not be from France were from France, all the times France was invaded it was really just luring the enemy in to a trap, and Normandy was France and will always be France.

You have thoroughly exposed the truth and I will always be in your debt.
Even though you are being awfully sarcastic, you are much closer to the truth than you think. But then again, if you cite that website you probably didn't know much or care much anyway.

Nieroshai said:
I'm pretty sure it will start in the middle east, but turn into an East vs West war, with Russia and China aiding the mid-east.
Interesting, but why on Earth would China and Russia aid the middle east? Russia, for one, was in a war for decades with a lot of the middle east and did arguably more damage there than the USA has so why would they jump sides and aid their old enemies? And why would China aid the Middle-east? China are an economic giant that would stand to lose everything by doing that. Siding with the West is not only more economically beneficial (by a long, long way) but it's also safer.

That's why I don't think World War 3 will kick off any time soon. Russia and China both have fantastic relations with the West and are in mutually beneficial positions.