Who will win WW3?

[ridery99]

Neither faction, the cockroaches will win...

Nope, only bacteria and mosquitos survived the ice age.

So even in the nuclear winter, only those will survive.

Stop that bullshit spam or you will get banned. There will be a winner. Stop that Hollywood "cockroaches will win" bullshit.
American or Asian continent will be devastated depending on which side is smart enough to strike first (and last).
The winning side continues as a new world leader. Or it might be just a global scale conventional war without nukes or
just limited nuclear war. "Everybody loses" is just autistic spam copying shit rhetoric which doesn't mean shit.

[chiajw1]

Instead on focusing on the big powers, why not also highlight the other countries? World War 3 is a worldwide war, every county is in it. If a nuclear disaster really happened, I doubt that the countries with nuclear will bear with it. India, Pakistan, France will also fire it. How about the small countries? They will most probably the ones who lost the most. Civilians that are controlled by law are going rampage, international mercenaries will do anything they like, literary we are killing each other. You can imagine when the war breaks out, the political power will experience a major shift. Maybe all countries will exterminated and some so-called "man full of vision" will create a world government that controls all, just like the old days with monarchy, but with high-end technologies. Or maybe we live in the primitive era, where everyone is free from control, no laws, no identification, but who knows what will happen.

[/quote]
There is not one man who is not bothered by this question! Not only because the war would put an end to culture and civilization. People who would still be alive, and would not cease to wonder why we whitewashed in vain for thousands of years !?
[/quote]

[Aggressor66]

It would be neither as both sides would use nuclear weapons. Both sides have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons so they would use them. Humans are idiotic enough to conduct warfare so they'll most likely use nukes. If it was conventional warfare, it would depend on many factors. One on one, the Russians would most likely win because of the fact that they have the resources to continue a war while the U.S. depends on foreign resources. The U.S. would win if NATO and the UN intervenes and supports the U.S. The U.S. does indeed an advanced arsenal of weapons but the Russians aren't far behind. The Russians also have quantity as an advantage since they can produce more weapons and they have more troops in reserve. The U.S. is in trillions of dollars in debt so this war would literally cause the U.S. to collapse.

[xuan87]

Whenever who held more nuclear power will win this war.
But hope this will not happen because surely it can damage our civilization 

Just show off is OK, but don't too show off or somebody might piss off

[bryant.coleman]

Whenever who held more nuclear power will win this war.

I don't think that is true. For example, Russia is having more nuclear weapons when compared to the United States. But that doesn't guarantee them a victory against the Americans. A lot will depend on their offensive and defensive capabilities. For example, Russia is having the most powerful ballistic missile in the world (SS-18 Satan). They are also having the best air-defense system (S-400 Trumf). But the Americans are having the best bomber aircraft (B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber).

[RealBitcoin]

Stop that bullshit spam or you will get banned. There will be a winner. Stop that Hollywood "cockroaches will win" bullshit.
American or Asian continent will be devastated depending on which side is smart enough to strike first (and last).
The winning side continues as a new world leader. Or it might be just a global scale conventional war without nukes or
just limited nuclear war. "Everybody loses" is just autistic spam copying shit rhetoric which doesn't mean shit.

Well it's my opinion, so I`m not sure how is it spam.

But you really think that 1 side will nuke the hell out of the other side, and the first striker will have perfect nuclear shielding, while the other is counterattacking?

Have you seen a nuclear devastation map? There are thousands of warheads, that web around the whole planet.

It's impossible to defend against all warheads, and it takes only 2-3 to hit major areas and it will cause permanent damage to them.


Who will survive? In short term maybe pacific island residents.


But then comes nuclear winter, the atmoshphere will get blocket, a new ice age comes, plants die, and the oxigen levels will get low too.

About -99.99% of the population will definitely die, then, or in the upcoming panic era.

[avw1982]

Can't vote because I think there is no way Russia and China will be on one side in this hypothetical war. Comunist Party of China which is the ruling political party of the People's Republic of China is like a dying dinosaur now which stays alive only because he's licking America's ass. Yes, of course this dinosaur is licking Russia's ass too but not to the extent of being on one side with Russia in the war against USA.

Nope you have to go with china and Russia only because nowadays china is becoming more stronger and stronger. military forces they are equipping good and russia's manpower so good this combination have more chance

[bryant.coleman]

Nope you have to go with china and Russia only because nowadays china is becoming more stronger and stronger. military forces they are equipping good and russia's manpower so good this combination have more chance

It is the other way around. The Chinese PLA is good for manpower and the Russian armed forces are good for technological innovation. A combination of these two would be invincible. That said, the Chinese are also getting hit by ageing, and the Russian forces are facing some amount of financial crunch due to the falling oil prices.

[galdur]

The U.S. military is still struggling with staging first class trannie fashion shows and until full transgender equality has been established in the ranks and women made into navy seals (priorities #1 and 2) there will be no major war.

[RealBitcoin]

The U.S. military is still struggling with staging first class trannie fashion shows and until full transgender equality has been established in the ranks and women made into navy seals (priorities #1 and 2) there will be no major war.

Really hard to bring equality into a fundamentally hierarchical organization isnt it?

Next time they say that the soldiers are discriminated by the generals and impose equality laws between generals and soldiers. That will ruin the whole point of a hierarchical organization isnt it?

But socialists...

[galdur]

The U.S. military is still struggling with staging first class trannie fashion shows and until full transgender equality has been established in the ranks and women made into navy seals (priorities #1 and 2) there will be no major war.

Really hard to bring equality into a fundamentally hierarchical organization isnt it?

Next time they say that the soldiers are discriminated by the generals and impose equality laws between generals and soldiers. That will ruin the whole point of a hierarchical organization isnt it?

But socialists...

Yeah, that´s the beauty of it. In the U.S. the president is supposed to be the commander in chief of the armed forces which is why - very clearly in order to render the military useless and abolish war - Americans take care to elect people to this position that never have been soldiers and don´t have the slightest clue about the military.

[SAMKUSH]

russia any day any time will win ww3

[BADecker]

russia any day any time will win ww3

I don't know. Israel is a very small nation, yet they are quite powerful. And presently they support and are supported by the United States. I think that Russia and China need to build themselves a lot stronger before they will be able to conquer the United States and Israel.

[hanguyen]

I'm going to guess that along the past 5000 years of the Chinese running an Empire, they've figured out a few things about upstart rivals and how to deal with them.  Many options don't involve actually fighting, and they may be more advantageous to China.  I don't think their military is meant to  do anything but defend.

[bitcoinmar]

Watoshi, China and Russia have many partner countries in the world.

But these partners mean no win in any war because nothing will be safe all going to destroy if any thing going to happen like WW3 we need to settle things on table not with these atomic bombs and army

[galdur]

By the year 2000 the weapons industry was cratering and the threat of world peace was approaching crisis levels. Businessmen create business opportunities obviously and fortunately for them the box cutter boys and the guy with the laptop in the cave lent them a helping hand. World War 3 started in the first years of the 21st century.

[BADecker]

By the year 2000 the weapons industry was cratering and the threat of world peace was approaching crisis levels. Businessmen create business opportunities obviously and fortunately for them the box cutter boys and the guy with the laptop in the cave lent them a helping hand. World War 3 started in the first years of the 21st century.

Actually, WW3 started with the Korean War, and has been going on ever since. All the wars and police actions that the United States has been in since the end of WWII, have simply been battles in WW3. The thing that we need to watch for is the great battle, known as the Armageddon in the Bible. The Armageddon will end WW3, and will usher in the time when the devil takes over the earth in preparation for WW4. WW4 will be the final war, the war between the people of the devil, and the returned Jesus Christ. Jesus will win, and there will be peace forevermore.

[galdur]

Yep Badecker, you could say that the cold war was in effect a continuation of WW2. Or WW3 and still ongoing. Historians will figure it out later no doubt. Peace is bad for those whose business is war it goes without saying which is why a former ally turned into an enemy practically overnight right after WW2 officially ended. There was no more affectionate "Uncle Joe" and the Russians are our friends helping save democracy. No, the propaganda turned on a dime. Also it explains why so many nazis instead of being hanged were welcomed in the U.S. Apart from expertise in torture, human experiments, mind control, rocketry and other useful things. They were scumbags but rabid anti-commie scumbags. That made all the difference. Gehlen, head of German military intelligence on the east front, was welcomed to help set up the CIA and hype up the commie bogeyman and he ended up as head of the West German BND, their intelligence service or rather boil on the CIA´s butt I guess. Amazingly he lasted in this position for 12 years until the Germans and their American handlers eventually were forced to stop ignoring all the unhanged nazis that kept popping up in this organization. You can´t make this stuff up.

[BADecker]

Yep Badecker, you could say that the cold war was in effect a continuation of WW2. Or WW3 and still ongoing. Historians will figure it out later no doubt. Peace is bad for those whose business is war it goes without saying which is why a former ally turned into an enemy practically overnight right after WW2 officially ended. There was no more affectionate "Uncle Joe" and the Russians are our friends helping save democracy. No, the propaganda turned on a dime. Also it explains why so many nazis instead of being hanged were welcomed in the U.S. Apart from expertise in torture, human experiments, mind control, rocketry and other useful things. They were scumbags but rabid anti-commie scumbags. That made all the difference. Gehlen, head of German military intelligence on the east front, was welcomed to help set up the CIA and hype up the commie bogeyman and he ended up as head of the West German BND, their intelligence service or rather boil on the CIA´s butt I guess. Amazingly he lasted in this position for 12 years until the Germans and their American handlers eventually were forced to stop ignoring all the unhanged nazis that kept popping up in this organization. You can´t make this stuff up.

Throughout all recorded history, there has only been war throughout the whole world. There are only pockets of peace from time to time. The peace that the American people have had for years just happens to be a bigger pocket.

[galdur]

To understand how U.S. policy on containment evolved over time into pre-emptive war, study this guy



George Frost Kennan (February 16, 1904 – March 17, 2005) a brilliant  American diplomat, political scientist, and historian. You could call him the father of the Truman Doctrine and the Cold war.

In 1948 he wrote (needless to say this was declassified much later):

In the long run there can be only three possibilities for the future of western and central Europe. One is German domination. Another is Russian domination. The third is a federated Europe, into which the parts of Germany are absorbed but in which the influence of the other countries is sufficient to hold Germany in her place.

If there is no real European federation and if Germany is restored as a strong and independent country, we must expect another attempt at German domination. If there is no real European federation and if Germany is not restored as a strong and independent country, we invite Russian domination, for an unorganized Western Europe cannot indefinitely oppose an organized Eastern Europe. The only reasonably hopeful possibility for avoiding one of these two evils is some form of federation in western and central Europe. ....

Our dilemma today lies in the fact that whereas a European federation would be by all odds the best solution from the standpoint of U.S. interests, the Germans are poorly prepared for it. To achieve such a federation would be much easier if Germany were partitioned, or drastically decentralized, and if the component parts could be brought separately into the European union. To bring a unified Germany, or even a unified western Germany, into such a union would be much more difficult: for it would still over-weigh the other components, in many respects. ....

“The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better”:

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

For these reasons, we must observe great restraint in our attitude toward the Far Eastern areas. The peoples of Asia and of the Pacific area are going to go ahead, whatever we do, with the development of their political forms and mutual interrelationships in their own way. This process cannot be a liberal or peaceful one. The greatest of the Asiatic peoples—the Chinese and the Indians—have not yet even made a beginning at the solution of the basic demographic problem involved in the relationship between their food supply and their birth rate. Until they find some solution to this problem, further hunger, distress, and violence are inevitable. All of the Asiatic peoples are faced with the necessity for evolving new forms of life to conform to the impact of modern technology. This process of adaptation will also be long and violent. It is not only possible, but probable, that in the course of this process many peoples will fall, for varying periods, under the influence of Moscow, whose ideology has a greater lure for such peoples, and probably greater reality, than anything we could oppose to it. All this, too, is probably unavoidable; and we could not hope to combat it without the diversion of a far greater portion of our national effort than our people would ever willingly concede to such a purpose.

In the face of this situation we would be better off to dispense now with a number of the concepts which have underlined our thinking with regard to the Far East. We should dispense with the aspiration to “be liked” or to be regarded as the repository of a high-minded international altruism. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and—for the Far East—unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better. ....

The initial build-up of the UN in U.S. public opinion was so tremendous that it is possibly true, as is frequently alleged, that we have no choice but to make it the cornerstone of our policy in this post-hostilities period. Occasionally, it has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part.

-------------------------------------

"The American way of life is not negotiable" (Dick Cheney, 2001) before 9/11