Who will win WW3?

[Pollak]

I am interested why alot of people vote for Russian and China?
Why do you think they will win?
Well I vote US, because is close to me and that is just scary if WW3 happen.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I am interested why alot of people vote for Russian and China?
Why do you think they will win?
Well I vote US, because is close to me and that is just scary if WW3 happen.

Russia has been tested a lot of times during different wars for last 3 centuries. On the other hand, USA can only invade small weak countries and even then they lose pretty often. China has enormous human resources, there are no that much weapon to kill them all without making a polished glass ball of the Earth.

[ridery99]

I am interested why alot of people vote for Russian and China?
Why do you think they will win?
Well I vote US, because is close to me and that is just scary if WW3 happen.

Russia has been tested a lot of times during different wars for last 3 centuries. On the other hand, USA can only invade small weak countries and even then they lose pretty often. China has enormous human resources, there are no that much weapon to kill them all without making a polished glass ball of the Earth.

Exactly. Russia is huge and it's population is not dense, people there are used to very hard times plus Russian government owns lots of gold.

[BADecker]

I am interested why alot of people vote for Russian and China?
Why do you think they will win?
Well I vote US, because is close to me and that is just scary if WW3 happen.

Russia has been tested a lot of times during different wars for last 3 centuries. On the other hand, USA can only invade small weak countries and even then they lose pretty often. China has enormous human resources, there are no that much weapon to kill them all without making a polished glass ball of the Earth.

Exactly. Russia is huge and it's population is not dense, people there are used to very hard times plus Russian government owns lots of gold.

With the dying off of Russian people who were adults at the time of the Bolshevik take-over, there are becoming fewer and fewer Christians in Russia. There have always been few Christians in China. IF Americans remaining with God, and turn to Him rather than falling away from Him, they will become supremely strong. But the same is true for Russians, and could be for Chinese... or those of any other country.

It isn't military might that makes a country strong. It is God that makes and keeps countries of His choice strong.

[ridery99]

I am interested why alot of people vote for Russian and China?
Why do you think they will win?
Well I vote US, because is close to me and that is just scary if WW3 happen.

Russia has been tested a lot of times during different wars for last 3 centuries. On the other hand, USA can only invade small weak countries and even then they lose pretty often. China has enormous human resources, there are no that much weapon to kill them all without making a polished glass ball of the Earth.

Exactly. Russia is huge and it's population is not dense, people there are used to very hard times plus Russian government owns lots of gold.

With the dying off of Russian people who were adults at the time of the Bolshevik take-over, there are becoming fewer and fewer Christians in Russia. There have always been few Christians in China. IF Americans remaining with God, and turn to Him rather than falling away from Him, they will become supremely strong. But the same is true for Russians, and could be for Chinese... or those of any other country.

It isn't military might that makes a country strong. It is God that makes and keeps countries of His choice strong.

USA is becoming a homosexual sodomite country which runs World's sodomites. Russia is trying to save at least it's own citizens to become sodomites.
Citizens of USA are becoming more and more weak and hedonistic, they can't fight any wars soon.

[sj2199]

i think Russia and china would win (with a few more countries on their side)...but the win would only worth if everything is not destroyed... use of nuclear chemical and biological weapons would cause mass destruction......

[Nameless Coin]

I am interested why alot of people vote for Russian and China?
Why do you think they will win?
Well I vote US, because is close to me and that is just scary if WW3 happen.

Russia has been tested a lot of times during different wars for last 3 centuries. On the other hand, USA can only invade small weak countries and even then they lose pretty often. China has enormous human resources, there are no that much weapon to kill them all without making a polished glass ball of the Earth.

Exactly. Russia is huge and it's population is not dense, people there are used to very hard times plus Russian government owns lots of gold.

With the dying off of Russian people who were adults at the time of the Bolshevik take-over, there are becoming fewer and fewer Christians in Russia. There have always been few Christians in China. IF Americans remaining with God, and turn to Him rather than falling away from Him, they will become supremely strong. But the same is true for Russians, and could be for Chinese... or those of any other country.

It isn't military might that makes a country strong. It is God that makes and keeps countries of His choice strong.

USA is becoming a homosexual sodomite country which runs World's sodomites. Russia is trying to save at least it's own citizens to become sodomites.
Citizens of USA are becoming more and more weak and hedonistic, they can't fight any wars soon.

Oh well every one is saying that China and Russian well win.
Well The Cold War was WW3 right? or I don't know.
I just don't want war, because there will be a lot of blood.

[pungopete468]

The USA was never intended to be an empire, there's exponentially more defensive capability in the USA than offensive. The people aren't interested in fighting overseas when we feel secure at home in the mainland. Fighting overseas can only be done by a small minority of Americans. Without the will of the public, America is weak. America is only strong when the people believe in a just and necessary cause. The people don't support more war, and won't unless they feel threatened militarily. Since 2001 it's become clear to so many living here how things can only get worse until we start seeking diplomatic solutions...

Also, we all know how controlled the mainstream media is here, they don't show you the "average" American, they present an image of whatever supports their agenda... Honestly, I'm confident that we could decimate ISIS over a weekend if all the deer hunters in Alabama got together...

My point is, America as a nation has no will to fight in World War 3. America cannot win, nor lose. It's a clear stalemate (nuclear weapons can't be used or everybody dies).

Just imagine the horror of being a soldier unlucky enough to invade the American mainland. We're stuck in a scenario in geopolitics where conventional armies will be worse than ineffective, nukes are suicidal, and the groups responsible for instigating violence and inciting this hatred and war don't have the support necessary to conquer their adversaries overseas, and so they resort to mercenary and proxy armies. The American people generally aren't aggressive, but are very defensive, very supportive, and very stubborn. We'll see what happens when these waves of deflation cause a hyper-inflationary dollar. I believe that's the next stage in this (on the way to a global currency)...

So the only way to survive World War 3 is to prevent it with diplomacy. We'll see where the American public wants to go when times get tough.

[Snipe85]

The USA was never intended to be an empire, there's exponentially more defensive capability in the USA than offensive. The people aren't interested in fighting overseas when we feel secure at home in the mainland.

So they weren't interested in going to Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars were mostly supported by American people, especially Iraq after 9.11. In the last century the USA has not actually defended their homeland at all, but spent years fighting abroad.

[bryant.coleman]

USA is becoming a homosexual sodomite country which runs World's sodomites. Russia is trying to save at least it's own citizens to become sodomites.
Citizens of USA are becoming more and more weak and hedonistic, they can't fight any wars soon.

Then that will be a good news. Most of the American politicians who support the invasion of the smaller countries happen to be ultra-religious nuts such as John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush. And as more and more Americans become homosexual and HIV positive, they will become incapable of  waging any more wars.

[pungopete468]

The USA was never intended to be an empire, there's exponentially more defensive capability in the USA than offensive. The people aren't interested in fighting overseas when we feel secure at home in the mainland.

So they weren't interested in going to Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars were mostly supported by American people, especially Iraq after 9.11. In the last century the USA has not actually defended their homeland at all, but spent years fighting abroad.

That's precisely my point.

America isn't designed to conquer other nations, America was designed only to defend against invasion. If Vietnam were supported by "most" American people, there wouldn't have been a draft, or mass civil disobedience, or people choosing potential imprisonment rather than conscription. Vietnam was truly supported by a minuscule minority of Americans, even the soldiers forced to be there felt abandoned by America, and it led to rampant suicide. It's just another example of government officials acting in self-interest against the will of the American people.

The Persian Gulf was recognized as a decisive victory, and yet again it was fought by only 425,000 American personnel, and it didn't have the motivation of the American people behind it either. The American people have been caught in a transition from trusting government into distrusting government. People were more trusting back in the early 90's compared with today...

Iraq and Afghanistan are also examples of extremely limited public support in real terms. The American people overwhelmingly supported a war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but had no interest in going to war with Iraq. The American public en mass also recognizes measured responses, human rights with regard to the use of lethal force, and logic. There was no great need to rally the war effort within society against Al Qaeda because ample capability was already present within the US military to win against Al Qaeda. The will of the public isn't what you hear on the TV, it's the mentality of the people within society; the actions and interactions of mass numbers of individuals.

You'll know it if the American public ever truly supports a war when the number of Americans insisting on fighting outpaces the tactical capabilities of the US military to supply them all to the battlefield. When they start acting individually and independently of the military towards accomplishing those ends, even paying their own expenses to fight. That's the only time when America has the power to assert massive force, when it's obviously necessary for protection or defense.

World War 2 threatened the substance of what was America, in the eyes of most Americans, the consequences of losing World War 2 would've been worse than death, or enslavement. It was the thought of genocide, the extinction of the American philosophy that drove the effort. That's the essence of America. When the American people decide to make a movement, the government can only watch it unfold and assist with logistics. Whenever a cause is great enough that the American people mobilize themselves, the government is below powerless to resist it, any government resistance becomes irrelevant (not to mention hazardous to the officials posing the resistance). America is very different from the rest of the world in this regard, we often fail to recognize the cultural differences between societies. This is one of the cultural differences that separates Americans from the rest of the world.

Americans are still alive in America, and while America has enemies on the inside, we understand never to draw first blood. It's not the American way to abandon diplomacy before the lines are drawn. These wars aren't what America wants, and the powers responsible for perpetuating them are acting in desperation. America is weak without the motivation of its people, and unbelievably strong when the need arises.

The American system creates a massive inclination towards the defensive capability of the people. The American forces available to be used for aggression are insignificant and pale in comparison with the American forces who refuse to fight for the wrong reasons.

I'm not at all saying that America is better than anywhere else, it's got major issues popping up. I'm simply saying that the true strength of America hasn't been seen since the close of World War 2, and it'll never be summoned for transient causes, or for drawing first blood. That's not to say it can never be tricked, but it's only getting more and more difficult for TPTB as time goes on...

[coinhelper]

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" 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.

EUROPE and USA will obviously win! This is because, we can technically leave eart whenever we want  (if we need to)! Throught the use of space craft ans we can survive oustide of the world but not forever! This is just my opinion!

[BTCBinary]

The 3rd world war is already being fought a long time... one thing is for sure... we as humans are loosing the war for humanization...

[BADecker]

The 3rd world war is already being fought a long time... one thing is for sure... we as humans are loosing the war for humanization...

This is a little like financial investments. When the stocks go down, and there are great losses published in the media, nobody seems to remember that there are the winners who are getting the money that other people lose.

So, who is getting what we lose when we lose the war for humanization?

[croato]

If ww3 really happen between eastern and western block, and nukes and other weapons of mass destruction will be used, we all lose. There is already enough nukes to destroy life on earth multiple times. Chances to ww3 stay conventional are 0 so i hope that will never happen.

[BADecker]

If ww3 really happen between eastern and western block, and nukes and other weapons of mass destruction will be used, we all lose. There is already enough nukes to destroy life on earth multiple times. Chances to ww3 stay conventional are 0 so i hope that will never happen.

Stick to living in the mountains. In America, there are the Rockies and the Appalachians that are best. In Russia, the Urals. China is full of mountains.

Mountainous terrain helps to block nuclear.

[Come-from-Beyond]

If ww3 really happen between eastern and western block, and nukes and other weapons of mass destruction will be used, we all lose. There is already enough nukes to destroy life on earth multiple times. Chances to ww3 stay conventional are 0 so i hope that will never happen.

Stick to living in the mountains. In America, there are the Rockies and the Appalachians that are best. In Russia, the Urals. China is full of mountains.

Mountainous terrain helps to block nuclear.

And vodka.

[bryant.coleman]

If ww3 really happen between eastern and western block, and nukes and other weapons of mass destruction will be used, we all lose. There is already enough nukes to destroy life on earth multiple times. Chances to ww3 stay conventional are 0 so i hope that will never happen.

The Eastern and Western blocks no longer exist. Some of the Eastern block nations, such as Poland and Romania are solidly behind the NATO now. And some of the former Western block nations, such as Greece and Portugal can no longer be considered as the vassal states of the US. Most of these countries are likely to remain neutral in case of a WW3.

[tom555]

i agree with this.
I still believe that the next World War will be between the ISIS and the Western nations. Leaders of Russia and the United States are not that stupid to fight against each other. Even if they fight against each other.
ISIS is now the major of violenece and will make WW3 more atractive.

[Emersonnets]

Well in WW1 en WW2 Eu and US won the war so I just expect that if WW3 comes that they will win also.
But I just hope WW3 won't come.