World War 3: Possible?

Recommended Videos

Raven28256

New member
Sep 18, 2008
340
0
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

If there is a World War III, it could POSSIBLY be between NATO and these guys.

In the late 1990s, China and Russia, with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as a political, economic, and security counterbalance to the growing power of NATO and the EU.

After the Cold War, a lot of the former Soviet Blocs began opening negotiations with NATO and the West. After the Cold War, NATO membership soared. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia all joined NATO between 1999 and 2004. Croatia and Albania will be joining in 2009. The Republic of Macedonia and Cyprus wish to join. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Georgia, and Ukraine have expressed goals to join NATO. Russia feels very threatened by NATO's booming membership, and is working with the East to try and counterbalance the West.

The conflict with Georgia will have repercussions, and Russia is expecting this. Even though Georgia had no formal plans to join NATO quite yet, they expressed interest in doing so, which is enough to extend a partial NATO shield over them, so to speak. Not to mention the fact that Georgia was one of the biggest contributers of troops in Iraq. They had over 2,000 troops in Iraq before the conflict with Russia, making them third right behind the US and UK.

The SCO is supposed to be an "economic and political alliance," but there is an increase in joint military cooperation between its members. It is slowly becoming a second Warsaw Pact/Eastern NATO. Add to it the fact that Iran wants to join, and Russia and China are trying to pull the likes of Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, and the member states of CIS and ASEAN into the alliance.

Will something ever happen? Not entirely likely. I'm just saying that a WWIII scenario between NATO and SCO isn't entirely impossible, given how many of the member states view organizations like NATO and the EU, and the increased military cooperation between the members are making it seem less like a trade treaty and more like a formal military alliance.
 

Aptspire

New member
Mar 13, 2008
2,064
0
0
When I first heard the news of Georgia I thought
Russian troops. In Georgia. In 2008.
So, when do we send the Ghosts (Recon) in?
therefore WWIII has a strong chance of happening in 2020
Let's get some practice with Endwar in the meantime
 

McMo0^

New member
Dec 21, 2007
147
0
0
I don't really consider nuclear war to be a war, more an exectution of the majority of life. There's always small wars going off, and they always end up either just carrying on at a stalemate, or one side wins... but a nuclear strike is highly plausable. Russia are causing a lot of shit at the mo, and if an American/Russia war happened again, its only a matter of time before the losing side decides to "even the odds".

But i seriously believe that WWIII will be Chavs against everyone else...
 

KSarty

Senior Member
Aug 5, 2008
995
0
21
Simski post=18.72751.772240 said:
If the US economy keeps crashing, I think it might leave them vulnerable.
Tell that to Japan. WW2 stabilized our economy after the Great Depression, and our current economic situation isn't anywhere near as bad as the Great Depression. War on that kind of scale requires lots of industry and therefore creates lots of jobs. And frankly, if the United States economy fails then a good chunk of the rest of the world is in trouble too. There are many other countries whose economies rely on the strength of the US economy. It would be a domino effect.
 

ElephantGuts

New member
Jul 9, 2008
3,520
0
0
Raven28256 post=18.72751.772543 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

If there is a World War III, it could POSSIBLY be between NATO and these guys.

In the late 1990s, China and Russia, with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as a political, economic, and security counterbalance to the growing power of NATO and the EU.

After the Cold War, a lot of the former Soviet Blocs began opening negotiations with NATO and the West. After the Cold War, NATO membership soared. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia all joined NATO between 1999 and 2004. Croatia and Albania will be joining in 2009. The Republic of Macedonia and Cyprus wish to join. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Georgia, and Ukraine have expressed goals to join NATO. Russia feels very threatened by NATO's booming membership, and is working with the East to try and counterbalance the West.

The conflict with Georgia will have repercussions, and Russia is expecting this. Even though Georgia had no formal plans to join NATO quite yet, they expressed interest in doing so, which is enough to extend a partial NATO shield over them, so to speak. Not to mention the fact that Georgia was one of the biggest contributers of troops in Iraq. They had over 2,000 troops in Iraq before the conflict with Russia, making them third right behind the US and UK.

The SCO is supposed to be an "economic and political alliance," but there is an increase in joint military cooperation between its members. It is slowly becoming a second Warsaw Pact/Eastern NATO. Add to it the fact that Iran wants to join, and Russia and China are trying to pull the likes of Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, and the member states of CIS and ASEAN into the alliance.

Will something ever happen? Not entirely likely. I'm just saying that a WWIII scenario between NATO and SCO isn't entirely impossible, given how many of the member states view organizations like NATO and the EU, and the increased military cooperation between the members are making it seem less like a trade treaty and more like a formal military alliance.
What if Russia joined NATO...? At that point I think they would have to change the name. But that'd be funny, if the one country NATO was meant to counterbalance joined it, and NATO became some sort of global power, but it was still called NATO, and then there was a global civil war over people who thought NATO should change its name since it encompasses the entire world and those who think it would be too confusing to change the name and then everyone dies in a giant NATO civil war but it's not really NATO because it's the whole world which makes the name irrelevant...

And that, my friends, would be WW3.
 

jad4400

New member
Jun 12, 2008
1,688
0
0
If nukes somehow cannot work in WW3 than it will be a massive war that will more likly end in a stalemate.
 

GCM

New member
Sep 2, 2008
131
0
0
Quote mipegg: Oil won't run out...

I dunno. What I've heard (from Meatless Monday fliers) is that oil will run out in 13 years (which is if everyone eats meat, which they don't), 260 years if everyone was vegetarian (which, last I checked, is something like 1-2%. But maybe that was just the US).
Main question being whether we will have developed the technologies to run on hydro and nuclear and renewables by then.
But then again, there's global warming. And maybe the president will be stupid enough to be fighting over oil that "stimulates the economy" when we actually have the technology to run on other things completely.
I mean, did you know that America refuses to request manufacturers to increase efficiency because of this? I mean c'mon, we can't even sell cars to China because we don't meet their mileage standards.

But yes, it's altogether possible. Humans aren't even capable of getting along with themselves as far as I've seen, which lowers my hope for extraterrestrial contact. BUT! As long as Stephen Hawking, Jay Leno, a Clinton, Gabe Newell and the guys from Insomniac survive, we should be fine.
 

Labyrinth

Escapist Points: 9001
Oct 14, 2007
4,732
0
0
Random argument man post=18.72751.772451 said:
Bah, the possible reasons I see a WW3 would be

A. Water
B. Oil
C. China pissed at the USA, because they won't can't pay what they own them.
D. Idiots tries to challenge the Darwin theory on a massive scale.
E. Food
I agree, and have edited as was necessary.
 

meatloaf231

Old Man Glenn
Feb 13, 2008
2,248
0
0
Labyrinth post=18.72751.773251 said:
Random argument man post=18.72751.772451 said:
Bah, the possible reasons I see a WW3 would be

A. Water
B. Oil
C. Idiots tries to challenge the Darwin theory on a massive scale.
D. Food
I agree, and have edited as was necessary.
Edited again as necessary. China relies on our trade just as much as we do on theirs. They can't afford to go to war with us over debt.
 
Dec 1, 2007
782
0
0
TheGhostOfSin post=18.72751.771872 said:
English speakers Vs everyone else.

We would lose.
Depends, English as first language or total English speakers.

Because we outnumber everyone else in the later category.
 

felltablet

New member
Nov 12, 2007
112
0
0
NO SHORTAGES OF GASOLINE!??????????

Sorry, but no, no no no no no.

KSarty post=18.72751.771929 said:
Where did you hear that? There haven't been any shortages in the US that I know of, and I certainly haven't had any trouble getting gas here in Massachusetts. The price of gas has been fluctuating like mad but I don't think we have any shortages.

EDIT: I think I know what you are talking about now, in regards to Texas? The thing about that is that it isn't a gas shortage really, the gas is there, but there is no way to get it in there because of all the roads being out, and who knows how many actual gas stations are left anyways. However, in light of the overall level of destruction, gas is the least of those people's worries.
I live in TN and let me tell you a couple weeks where the stations had $5 gallon gas or none at all was very disturbing.
Those pipelines run to a lot of places.
This is a huge catalyst.
 

meatloaf231

Old Man Glenn
Feb 13, 2008
2,248
0
0
Anarchemitis post=18.72751.773305 said:
My hope is that Canada isn't stupid enough to join such an effort should it occur.
Canada seems too relaxed to join a war.

Maybe that's just a misunderstanding of the goings-on up there.
 

TheGhostOfSin

Terrible, Terrible Damage.
May 21, 2008
997
0
21
Imitation Saccharin post=18.72751.773285 said:
TheGhostOfSin post=18.72751.771872 said:
English speakers Vs everyone else.

We would lose.
Depends, English as first language or total English speakers.

Because we outnumber everyone else in the later category.
Us peskey first language folks
UK, US, AUS, NZ and half of Canada Vs Everyone else.
 

Ultrajoe

Omnichairman
Apr 24, 2008
4,719
0
0
2 western nations fight.

3rd world nations rush wealthy neighbors

The poor win by virtue of numbers and having nothing to lose.

This is how WW3 will happen if it occurs. Trust me.
 

Lazzi

New member
Apr 12, 2008
1,013
0
0
why the hell not? I woudlnt mind seeing the modern united staees getting off its ass and having the general popules relize that the united states is not the bad ass it used to be.
 
Dec 1, 2007
782
0
0
Ultrajoe post=18.72751.773339 said:
2 western nations fight.

3rd world nations rush wealthy neighbors

The poor win by virtue of numbers and having nothing to lose.

This is how WW3 will happen if it occurs. Trust me.
*prepares for the ban hammer*

Pfff. Bullets are cheap.
 

Bulletinmybrain

New member
Jun 22, 2008
3,277
0
0
Lazzi post=18.72751.773350 said:
why the hell not? I woudlnt mind seeing the modern united staees getting off its ass and having the general popules relize that the united states is not the bad ass it used to be.
Eh, I would agree with that...But with sea dominance comes air dominance and thats whats important in deciding how wars are fought.. Save 100 lives by air striking a position to hell...Or send in the boys?