How do you think World War III will pan out?

Recommended Videos

Merkavar

New member
Aug 21, 2010
2,429
0
0
Icarion said:
Merkavar said:
Rationalization said:
Merkavar said:
quantity has a quality all of its own.
What has history highlights shown people though? Quality usually comes out at top, I constantly hear about such and such defeated an army 3x-5x-10x as big as them because of better tactics and better weaponry.
quality usually comes out on top. so sometimes it doesnt. like say when your outnumbered 2 to 1?
I direct both of you to the 6 day war of 1967. Prehaps the most amazing quality over quantity win of all.
yes i think we all agree quality can win over quantity but the opposite is also true
 

C4N4DUCK18

New member
Jun 9, 2010
61
0
0
Well, I had to do some research to freshen my memory, but I think I've got an answer now.

An important thing to mention now, is that you HAVE to look into the foreign relationships of the superpowers of the world to get a good idea of how different countries will most likely react to certain events. Ok, let's begin!

Note: I'll establish now that WWIII is going to a blood bath of biblical proportions.

Now, we all know relationships between North and South Korea are very poor, with trade between both countries being completely cut off as of 2010. South Korea's allies are currently the US and some nations in Europe. Canada and other countries involved in UN disputes also have close ties. North Koreas primary ally is China, who has close ties with Russia, although it is seeking diplomatic relations with all nations (China's goal is generally the preservation and creation of peace). These relations include South Korea and more recently India, despite their rough history. In fact, China has solved many of it's disputes with its border countries (hint border, so not Japan for obvious reasons). But I'm Rambling here, so I'll move on.

So, Russia isn't technically allied with China, but they have signed an agreement saying that Russia would sell their oil and military "advice and technology" for a chance to employ their people, and China would grow economically and increase its stance on the Republic of China (Taiwan).
Also, European/American continent support for Israel, anti-terrorism and so on.

Now, the most likely case is North Korea will go to war with South Korea (again) to unify the peninsula and finally claim it their own. Both countries have a grudge for Japan for its treatment of their people during WWII. Now, the US would immediately deploy to back up the South, while China "may" get caught in the middle but eventually join the North. That is, if it doesn't go to war to claim Taiwan or other land claims.
Russia would have sold its military equipment and expertise, and also fuel by now, so China would be a new superpower, rivalling even the US. Many countries would be forced to pick sides to avoid conflict with either powers (except switzerland because they're ALWAYS Neutral).

It would start bloody, and get worse as time goes by. Casualties would be high on both sides and tensions would grow to dangerous levels. I'd predict Nuclear weapons would be the last to be used, though anything could happen. Since the Horrors of war are still fresh in our minds, Leaders all over the world would try to come to an agreement. Whether this would work or not is not sure.

Best Case scenario: All countries sign a cease fire, and try to solve problems via political means. Also assess damages and costs, etc.
Worst Case Scenario: The war wouldn't end until either one side prevails, or all countries push the Nuke buttons, destroying all life as we know it.

One thing I know for sure is that it's going to be a very long, bloody battle, that will make WWII look like a game of cat and mouse. The horrors we know now, would be minuscule compared to the atrocities that would be committed during this next Great War. Our only hope is people will awake from their insane dreams, and try to right the wrongs done in the past, to avoid a fatal future.
 

Throwitawaynow

New member
Aug 29, 2010
759
0
0
Kortney said:
My whole points was trying to get you away from using extremes, apparently that failed.

Yeah I could tell that early in, especially when you started trying to suggest that Italy defeated France in the Italian Wars! Mental, hey?
"By the end of the wars in 1559, Habsburg Spain had been established as the premier power of Europe, to the detriment of France. In France, Henry II was fatally wounded in a joust held during the celebrations of the peace. His death led to the accession of his 15-year-old son Francis II, who in turn soon died. The French monarchy was thrown into turmoil, which increased further with the outbreak of the French Wars of Religion in 1562."

I never said which country defeated France, just that France lost. No matter what happened, what intrigue or backstabbing, or anything else it ended badly for France. That was the point.
Plus, this is what was said, "Italian Wars, King and Heir did not die and the 1562 religion wars did not happen, strong victory."
Well I've only lived in England for two years but I have never heard a joke on that. Not in person nor in the media. So I'm going to have to say you're wrong there.
Thats ok cause I've been told by others who have lived there all their life that it is a running joke for comedians and one UK news reporter actually saw it so much that he wrote and entire report about UK FF incidents in WW2 because he saw that the joke was happening so much. It is widespread, it is taken as fact and it does "reduce history of a culture down to sheer lies" as much as that site, as I get messages "Atleast my country doesn't FF everytime" when I interact with people from the UK and have US flag on my account. And of course France gets poked at, in the view of a lot of people the last few multi-nation wars France has either not held up what is expected of a country that as you put "The French have some of the best military victories in the World." or declined to enter. And I've already admitted that most of that website were lies or muddled to make it look like a French loss yet you continue to act as if I do. I have no idea why. Plus you contradicted yourself so I went with the one I could respond to, rather than the I'm not debating part.

I just found your attitude incredibly disrespectful and ignorant. I hope you take some of what I (and other people who are more intelligent than me) say on board. I apologise if I didn't understand how downright funny it all is. = )
Take some of what you and other people on the board, so far no one has responded to this conversation except for the first 2 people that started it. And you were the only one on Frances side. And do what with that you said, I have no idea what that means. Also, why say I'm disprespectful and ignorant then put a =) at the end? I got confused with that.
 

Nomanslander

New member
Feb 21, 2009
2,963
0
0
SimuLord said:
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Just what I was thinking when I read this topic.

Truth is Mad Max was never suppose to be that far off from the truth of how things would end up, Fallout would be neither if it wasn't for the sci-fi elements.
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,836
0
0


Gentleman, this is Earth after the war...

Seriously I think some nuclear weapons will detnate on my beloved continent. The US will respond vigorously, some violence in Europe will break out and we'll see decades of alternating between war and fighting for survival in the Nuclear wastelands. It'll be the second dark ages.
 

Kortney

New member
Nov 2, 2009
1,960
0
0
Rationalization said:
Also, why say I'm disprespectful and ignorant then put a =) at the end? I got confused with that.
It seems you get confused with a lot of things. I'm not going to bother trying to argue the point with someone who is completely disregarding historical events. There is no case for discussion here. Any amount of research will tell you how France are in no way shape or form a bad military power. Stay away from your mental websites and you might learn something.

Leave it.
 

Arsen

New member
Nov 26, 2008
2,705
0
0
The Middle East will be nearly wiped from the face of the earth.
Europe will have clashing societies.
South America will secure itself.
Russia will be involved somehow.
China will be one of the main aggressors...
North Korea will either fall or become apart of China...

And somehow, as the dust settles, the weapons go into silent mode, and the pen used to sign the treaty falls upon the table after the long, hard-fought, bitter conflict...there she will be.....

The United States of America. Poised to help the world move on, sow the wounds of combat, and help out mankind once again.

PS - And Africa will somehow still be a raging shithole.
 

Raregolddragon

New member
Oct 26, 2008
586
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
Raregolddragon said:
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.
I think you over-estimate our ability to stop stratospheric-level projectiles. Especially if they're lobbed at us by the dozens.

Even a tactical nuke could be flown in under radar on an unmanned drone.

No..a nuclear war will end civilization as we know it.
A drone might get though but you forget or don't know the real resin the Cold War cooled down.
 

Astoria

New member
Oct 25, 2010
1,887
0
0
I say whenever governments decide they want to go to war soldiers from both sides should hand the polititions (sp?)baseball bats and tell them to fight the war themselves. I bet they wouldn't be so keen on the idea if they were the ones who actually had to fight.

But seriously we all would die. There are nukes so powerful that just one going off would destroy the whole planet no matter where it went off. Sure, some might hold up underground but those people would probably end up wishing they'd died in the blast anyway.
 
May 6, 2009
344
0
0
Here's a fun one:

North Korea nukes Japan either on purpose or accidentally while testing one of their ludicrously named missiles. The US and South Korea have to respond due to treaty obligations. China has to defend NK due to treaty obligations and goes ahead and takes Taiwan back just because they've already wanted to.

I don't know how it ends, but I do hope I get to see somebody blow up the Three Gorges Dam.

....

Okay, WWIII will begin as a hunt for me after I blow up the Three Gorges Dam just to see the wave.
 

Popido

New member
Oct 21, 2010
716
0
0
The United States of America VS ???.


And Russia will sell arms to who ever gets into that position.
 

k-ossuburb

New member
Jul 31, 2009
1,312
0
0
It was Earth all along.

"You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, Damn you! Damn you all to Hell!"
 

Octorok

New member
May 28, 2009
1,461
0
0
Decum said:
I personally think that the war in iraq will escalate and some other countries will join in, cause of the whole oil shortage problem, other countries will want in eventually, Russia wont join though, they're good for oil.
How can the war in Iraq escalate? The only troops there now are US troops, and combat operations have ceased.

Wikipedia said:
On August 19, 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that all U.S.combat operations will end on August 31st. 50,000 troops will stay in an advise and assist role. The full withdrawal is given as scheduled for December, 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invasion_Iraq,_2003%E2%80%93present#American_withdrawal

OT : Really, the modern world isn't really able to start a "proper" World War 3. As in, countries in a state of total war.

Really, if it happens, it'll be some insane dictator, quite possibly with nuclear/other future power weapons. But the idea of the whole world being caught up in a conventional conflict on a modern scale equal to that of the last two wars is impossible at the moment.

The USA spends over $600 billion a year on the armed forces. That is so far outstripping every other nation, that nobody could afford a war with the US, especially as a war with the US means a war with most of NATO, and the other post-WW2 Allies, and not even China could afford a war so devastating as one with the US, UK , France, Russia, Germany, Japan etc.
 

THEfog101

New member
Apr 18, 2009
99
0
0
iThinkCat said:
THEfog101 said:
mad825 said:
THEfog101 said:
snip
True True, very valid point. However lasers are only effective at a certain distance, nearly assured to be close enough to cause radioactive fallout pollution on a landmass, all it takes is this to fall on a town on the coast and now you have a whole population with Gamma exposure diseases and Beta burns. look at Chernobyl, 24 years on and still the animal populations in the area are heavily diseased and low on numbers (Still nothing compared to 2-3 years after the disaster itself). And its more than likely that in the process of defending their own country they are also going to be on the offensive and attack back, then allies are going to get involved on both side.

The allies are going to utilize their nuclear capabilities and launch attacks as well. You can only defend against so many attacks at once before you are overwhelmed. And then your allies are going to continue firing against the hostiles until they are wiped out or have taken a enemy out, in the case they do take a enemy out then another will follow and destroy them and so on until there is nobody left and then BAMM! You have Metro or Fallout, where the surface is so highly irradiated that it cannot be immediately re-inhabited. So we will recover, we always have....... its in our nature.
The lasers actually are effective to serveral miles out and are even more effective in space (nullifying ICBMs). Also, they do not cause the warhead to expload or impload. In fact, they don't even target the warhead; they target the detonator. Without the detonator, the missle can not cause a nuclear chain reaction. If the missle still poses enough of a threat without the detonator, then they simply fry the engine with the laser.

Aside from the warhead being pascified, I highly doubt every nuclear missle out there isn't shielded with lead to prevent radiation leaks during containment. If they were all just sitting there in their launch tubes unprotected, then I think we would already be seeing these land and water contaminations popping up. You have to remember, we have the smartest people in the nation (not an exageration) creating these policies and tactics. Not to mention, a lot of the policies are governed, enforced, and developed internationally by people that may be even smarter than the people we host in our nation.

At this stage in technology, we do not have the luxury to overlook these issues. If we did, it could ensure the destruction of our entire race, and we are well aware of that.
Yeah I was having a look at the laser specifications and noticed that they had that capability. However as I have said there only so many laser available and I have the feeling that there are more nuukes. Yes it is true that the large superpowers have high powered officials that control and govern these sort Of issues, however they will prove their mettle when the time comes I guess, until then.
 

The Stonker

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,557
0
0
What people don't realize is that most countries have something called missile defense system.
It's a very complex system used to intercept all and any missiles comming our way *thumbs up*.
So if some country would try to send a nuclear bomb towards America then that rocket would be intercepted and something would be done for the matter.

Btw.What kind of sick twisted fantasy is this? If I was a evil leader and I wanted power then I would just gather enough money and buy everyone out of the world and declare my self dictator.

Today's wars are faught with business and money.
Not guns and missiles.
Btw. What do you think the USA uses that military budget for? Scratching their nose and listening to Elvis Presley songs? NO.
But they don't need such a huge budget.
 

Aesir23

New member
Jul 2, 2009
2,861
0
0
Lord Monocle Von Banworthy said:
misterprickly said:
Two words...

Canada SNAPS!

Aren't 90% of Canadians already massed within 100 miles of the US border, poised to invade?
Pretty much. This is all for when we finally get tired of people underestimating us. Feel the wrath of our Air Division! (Piloted by Polar Bears)

OP: As with the last two world wars, a lot of countries will go in and fight the war for the entire duration while the US will come in at some point during the last few years. Then, at some point in the future there will be a ton of games based on the war that will paint the US as the heroes that carried the war. :p

You know it's true. Happened one and a half times already. (World War 1 doesn't have video games, sadly. I would love to play through the Battle of Vimy Ridge.)