Who will win WW3?

[kevin987]

why would the next war be a nuclear one?

to me, more likely would be a war in which use is being made of chemical weapons, bio-engineering and hacking/malware/virusses

this is all way more covert. and basically, moneywise nothing new

[1715646239]

1715646239

[1715646239]

1715646239

[1715646239]

1715646239

[Gotumoot]

2017 edit: Russia v USA: Global Nuclear Showdown (2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeLrKDAn1x8


. . .
If you vote, please state some reasons. I think Russia and China will win because they have more resources, manpower and gold plus autocratic leadership.

edit:
Please don't spam "everybody will lose" or "next war will be sticks and stones" bullshit. World War 3 will be won by some faction.

Best comment thus far (10/28/2015):

I heard recently that the science that the concept of mutually assured destruction was based upon was a well intentioned lie. Humans tend to overestimate their importance. Some people are more resistant to radiation than others, and while birth defects increase quite a bit, there are still many healthy babies born in irradiated zones. The main radiation depletes very quickly after the blast, and the cone of wiping out all life on earth is based on the nuclear winter, not radiation. I heard this is also a myth, and that while it would result in a much colder climate worldwide still enough solar radiation would come through the debris clouds to grow plants, and it would be possible to run heaters and UV lamps using nuclear reactors.

   Besides, the weather patterns would shift all the debris around so there would be clear spots everywhere anyway from time to time, and I heard that there is no way it would take decades for the dust to settle. Also, by the time the dust settles the radioactivity present in it will most likely have subsided below harmful levels. Some people less than 100 yards from ground zero in Hiroshima survived in open, above ground bomb shelters that were only designed to protect from blasts and shrapnel without any injury. Also, a nuclear bomb that is 1000 times more powerful does not destroy 1000 times the area, because the blast emanates spherically, it requires exponentially increasing energy to expand the blast radius.

   Not to say that it's not serious, but just saying the extent of the threat of nuclear weapons has probably been over stated for understandable reasons.

     War is simply the continuation of politics by other means. So there can be various degrees of success like in any form of negotiations. It depends on the will of the populations, but also on the resources available. No matter how determined Germany was in world War two, there were simply not the resources in terms of population to sustain the war effort. In this sense a war between China and Russia and NATO would likely be much more protracted. Also, the will of the citizens of NATO is not very strong- this generation is very soft and clearly has no stomach for hardship, so it is likely that the NATO powers would descend into civil war when their luxuries started being curtailed.

    Russia and China already have more totalitarian systems in place which would be able to exert a greater level of control, but they are also dependent on a lot of infrastructure, like for the internet, that is based in the West and would be swiftly cut off in a conflict situation. There are enough resources in Siberia and Southeast Asia, which would likely fall under Chinese dominion, as well as Africa, which has a growing Chinese presence, to make for a very protracted conflict. It is likely that Africa would be a major battleground of this conflict due to the the prevalence of rare earths there. Most of the materials used in the electronics we are addicted to are mined in China or Africa, and China would be fairly well insulated from any kind of a direct assault due to the ease of deploying defense systems from Russia through the Siberiañ plains, so NATO would likely counter by trying to attack the markets that are the lifeblood of the Chinese economy and limits their access. This would give rise to a revival in American manufacturing as the economic war heated up.

   If you want to understand the power, follow the money- while Western backed institutions like the IMF and Bank for International Settlements may be active in the formation of policy in places like Brazil and and India, the new BRICS development bank sponsored by Russia and China will assuredly try to supplant the IMF wherever it can, forming a globalization of resistance to the current dominant schools. Anti American sentiment in South America is also very high due to decades of the US and CIA backing brutal and unpopular dictators there, so you could easily see a bloc of Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, and possibly other states forming against American aligned Colombia, Ecuador, and Panama.

  You have intelligent and rational players making the decisions here- Putin's popularity is at an all time high because Russians feel the pride of imperial glory returning, however, nobody is going to take any unnecessary risks. It is a simple question of what can be gained. I heard someone once say that in Chinese the word for "crisis" and "opportunity" are the same word.

      In Western Asia Russia sees an opportunity to expand its influence through an emerging shiite bloc composed of Iran, Iraq, and Syria, putting pressure on US backed Saudi Arabia by backing Shia in Yemen. This gambit is likely to fail in the long run because of the preponderance of Sunnis in the region, but they can be used simultaneously to secure a presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and to block access for Qatari gas to the large and lucrative European market which is currently the lifeblood of the Russian economy, and would be threatened by a consolidation of NATO power in Western Asia.
      In other words, all Russia really has to do in order to win in West Asia is to not lose. This means a stalemate is actually a desirable outcome, and the present offensive in Aleppo is likely more defensive then genuinely aimed at retaking territory.
       It would honestly be very hard to estimate who will win this war since there are many factors that cannot be calculated, but I think it is safe to say it will not be like World War 2 where you had a decisive victory in a few short years, but it is rather more likely to be like the wars of the middle ages that spanned generations. I  would expect it to last at least three generations, and by the time something resembling "victory" is finally obtained, the political landscape will probably have changed so much that the winner may not even be recognizable to us.

Of course, looking at history is the best way to determine the future, and we can see that fortunes have been fluctuating between West and East, with Roman and Persian empires going at it for centuries. The last few centuries have been characterized by dominance of the inheritors of the western Roman empire, now known as NATO, due to a surge of resources resulting from the conquest of the Americas. This momentum is starting to run out though, and you can see the economic center of gravity of the world shifting to the east, causing the Indian and Pacific Oceans to eclipse the Atlantic as the most important bodies of water. Control of the Atlantic belongs pretty completely to NATO, but as the Atlantic declines in importance expect the battle to heat up in the pacific, where the Russians and Chinese have a much stronger presence.

Why were talking about this wars ? its quite scared and sad because we're brothers and sisters we don't have to fight for just misunderstanding. We know we have different perspective or opinion and our pride tearing us apart , I'am student sometimes I ask myself where is peace? , what will happen on the next generation? . All this question though , and why we choose a leader from the word leader , a person who will lead us , give us peace and hope. And back to the topic I have no vote , We will die by this.

[Lasvista]

2017 edit: Russia v USA: Global Nuclear Showdown (2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeLrKDAn1x8


. . .
If you vote, please state some reasons. I think Russia and China will win because they have more resources, manpower and gold plus autocratic leadership.

edit:
Please don't spam "everybody will lose" or "next war will be sticks and stones" bullshit. World War 3 will be won by some faction.

Best comment thus far (10/28/2015):

I heard recently that the science that the concept of mutually assured destruction was based upon was a well intentioned lie. Humans tend to overestimate their importance. Some people are more resistant to radiation than others, and while birth defects increase quite a bit, there are still many healthy babies born in irradiated zones. The main radiation depletes very quickly after the blast, and the cone of wiping out all life on earth is based on the nuclear winter, not radiation. I heard this is also a myth, and that while it would result in a much colder climate worldwide still enough solar radiation would come through the debris clouds to grow plants, and it would be possible to run heaters and UV lamps using nuclear reactors.

   Besides, the weather patterns would shift all the debris around so there would be clear spots everywhere anyway from time to time, and I heard that there is no way it would take decades for the dust to settle. Also, by the time the dust settles the radioactivity present in it will most likely have subsided below harmful levels. Some people less than 100 yards from ground zero in Hiroshima survived in open, above ground bomb shelters that were only designed to protect from blasts and shrapnel without any injury. Also, a nuclear bomb that is 1000 times more powerful does not destroy 1000 times the area, because the blast emanates spherically, it requires exponentially increasing energy to expand the blast radius.

   Not to say that it's not serious, but just saying the extent of the threat of nuclear weapons has probably been over stated for understandable reasons.

     War is simply the continuation of politics by other means. So there can be various degrees of success like in any form of negotiations. It depends on the will of the populations, but also on the resources available. No matter how determined Germany was in world War two, there were simply not the resources in terms of population to sustain the war effort. In this sense a war between China and Russia and NATO would likely be much more protracted. Also, the will of the citizens of NATO is not very strong- this generation is very soft and clearly has no stomach for hardship, so it is likely that the NATO powers would descend into civil war when their luxuries started being curtailed.

    Russia and China already have more totalitarian systems in place which would be able to exert a greater level of control, but they are also dependent on a lot of infrastructure, like for the internet, that is based in the West and would be swiftly cut off in a conflict situation. There are enough resources in Siberia and Southeast Asia, which would likely fall under Chinese dominion, as well as Africa, which has a growing Chinese presence, to make for a very protracted conflict. It is likely that Africa would be a major battleground of this conflict due to the the prevalence of rare earths there. Most of the materials used in the electronics we are addicted to are mined in China or Africa, and China would be fairly well insulated from any kind of a direct assault due to the ease of deploying defense systems from Russia through the Siberiañ plains, so NATO would likely counter by trying to attack the markets that are the lifeblood of the Chinese economy and limits their access. This would give rise to a revival in American manufacturing as the economic war heated up.

   If you want to understand the power, follow the money- while Western backed institutions like the IMF and Bank for International Settlements may be active in the formation of policy in places like Brazil and and India, the new BRICS development bank sponsored by Russia and China will assuredly try to supplant the IMF wherever it can, forming a globalization of resistance to the current dominant schools. Anti American sentiment in South America is also very high due to decades of the US and CIA backing brutal and unpopular dictators there, so you could easily see a bloc of Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, and possibly other states forming against American aligned Colombia, Ecuador, and Panama.

  You have intelligent and rational players making the decisions here- Putin's popularity is at an all time high because Russians feel the pride of imperial glory returning, however, nobody is going to take any unnecessary risks. It is a simple question of what can be gained. I heard someone once say that in Chinese the word for "crisis" and "opportunity" are the same word.

      In Western Asia Russia sees an opportunity to expand its influence through an emerging shiite bloc composed of Iran, Iraq, and Syria, putting pressure on US backed Saudi Arabia by backing Shia in Yemen. This gambit is likely to fail in the long run because of the preponderance of Sunnis in the region, but they can be used simultaneously to secure a presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and to block access for Qatari gas to the large and lucrative European market which is currently the lifeblood of the Russian economy, and would be threatened by a consolidation of NATO power in Western Asia.
      In other words, all Russia really has to do in order to win in West Asia is to not lose. This means a stalemate is actually a desirable outcome, and the present offensive in Aleppo is likely more defensive then genuinely aimed at retaking territory.
       It would honestly be very hard to estimate who will win this war since there are many factors that cannot be calculated, but I think it is safe to say it will not be like World War 2 where you had a decisive victory in a few short years, but it is rather more likely to be like the wars of the middle ages that spanned generations. I  would expect it to last at least three generations, and by the time something resembling "victory" is finally obtained, the political landscape will probably have changed so much that the winner may not even be recognizable to us.

Of course, looking at history is the best way to determine the future, and we can see that fortunes have been fluctuating between West and East, with Roman and Persian empires going at it for centuries. The last few centuries have been characterized by dominance of the inheritors of the western Roman empire, now known as NATO, due to a surge of resources resulting from the conquest of the Americas. This momentum is starting to run out though, and you can see the economic center of gravity of the world shifting to the east, causing the Indian and Pacific Oceans to eclipse the Atlantic as the most important bodies of water. Control of the Atlantic belongs pretty completely to NATO, but as the Atlantic declines in importance expect the battle to heat up in the pacific, where the Russians and Chinese have a much stronger presence.

I think russia will win though because of their president though and their community amaze me as you can see many article and footage that the deadliest country in the world is the russia despite the strongest men and a strong equipment and tanks surely they win. But the fact is the US have an nuclear that's they advantage but for me basically no one will one everybody will die. So hoping this would not happen.

[qwertylolxd]

No one will win, if this happens, it will be the end of all living things, radiation will be practically everywhere.

[King Koy]

Who will win? I am pretty sure that death, distraction, anger, loneliness, the cry of innocent, hatred, hungriness, hopeless, condemnation, etc. are the only winners in every left human being on that day. Chaos is more victorious than anyone while greedy and selfish leaders are celebrating with their lost mind that cost the biggest distraction in human history. Hopefully that these person will annihilated before their plan.

[Sithara007]

Russia and China would be a perfect match! Together they could be unstoppable. But I hope that it's never going to happen.

They will be unbeatable military, but an alliance between China and Russia will be a very tricky one. Russia is an European power, which controls more than 13,000,000 sq.km of territory in the Asian continent. A lot of Asian powers are interested in this territory, including China.

[sammedy]

No one wins bro ..

all you see are bloods and dying people ..

true

[KonradKarl]

I think that China has the biggest chances to win in the world war.

[zedkiel08]

If this will happen in the future , the tandem of russia and china will be the one who will be victorious. We know that this two countries are the biggest in the world and their military power is huge. With their high technology war armies and weapons. If world war 3 will occure their are many lives that will be loss and many innocents people are going to suffer. The world will be shed in blood .

[coins4commies]

How do you "win" this war?  In past world wars, winning meant getting an unconditional surrender and regime change from your enemies.  There is no situation where someone is going to go in and replace the US, Chinese, or Russian government from their country through invasion.  There is no "winning".

[chengyinoing]

The third world war will never happen. Democracies clearly do not tend to fight each other.

If there is a war, there is no winner. War always brings harm to mankind.

[johnpeter49]

Bacteries will win eventually. Those resistants to radiations.

[John Richards]

And who knows about russian external debt?

[ilhamdoni]

no winners in ww3, everything will be destroyed,

[Sithara007]

And who knows about russian external debt?

Russian external debt is quite small, at less than 20% of the GDP. And it is decreasing as well. Now compare that to the American external debt, which has crossed the total GDP at more than $20 trillion.

[Kuja29]

I think if the WW3 will start , it will be a global domination race btw the ''BIG'' nations of the planet and other small country's will used as ''tampons''

[ApocalypseNow]

There's only three powerful countries in this world and they are USA, Russia and China. Rumors say that China and Russia are against USA so if they team up, they will win in WW3 without a doubt.

[Sithara007]

There's only three powerful countries in this world and they are USA, Russia and China. Rumors say that China and Russia are against USA so if they team up, they will win in WW3 without a doubt.

There are some limitations to the friendship between China and Russia. For now, they have united against the common enemy (USA). But that doesn't mean that in future the things will be very smooth. China still want to re-conquer the outer-Manchuria region, which is currently a part of Russia. And the Russians are not very happy about the Chinese stealing their defense technology again and again.  

[Elviragreg]

There are wars all over the world all the time.  I'm not sure if there will technically be a ww3 unless we are already in it.  If there is a big one that divides the major countries, it's possible that everyone will lose because the major countries all have nukes.  Once the nuke come out, it's all over for everyone.