Who will win WW3?

[RainDestiny]

And who knows about russian external debt?

Russian Reserve funds are worth more than $360 billion, and the federal debt is only around 10% of this amount. So you can say that Russia is in a net positive. On the other hand, the American federal debt is at least 10 to 12 times the net worth of its gold / forex reserves. And this ratio is rapidly increasing day by day.

Ok, if we are talking about US debt it would be necessary to say that approximately 70% of USA debt is owned by US citizens, banks, corporations and the Federal Reserve Bank, only 30-33% of US debt is held by foreign countries.
And Russia actually has very huge external debt: $ 679 billions.  Proof - Central Bank of Russian Federation (in Russian) http://cbr.ru/statistics/print.aspx?file=credit_statistics/debt_an_new.htm   It is much bigger than all Russian reserve funds.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Ok, if we are talking about US debt it would be necessary to say that approximately 70% of USA debt is owned by US citizens, banks, corporations and the Federal Reserve Bank, only 30-33% of US debt is held by foreign countries.
And Russia actually has very huge external debt: $ 679 billions.  Proof - Central Bank of Russian Federation (in Russian) http://cbr.ru/statistics/print.aspx?file=credit_statistics/debt_an_new.htm   It is much bigger than all Russian reserve funds.

http://www.usdebtclock.org

[BADecker]

Ok, if we are talking about US debt it would be necessary to say that approximately 70% of USA debt is owned by US citizens, banks, corporations and the Federal Reserve Bank, only 30-33% of US debt is held by foreign countries.
And Russia actually has very huge external debt: $ 679 billions.  Proof - Central Bank of Russian Federation (in Russian) http://cbr.ru/statistics/print.aspx?file=credit_statistics/debt_an_new.htm   It is much bigger than all Russian reserve funds.

http://www.usdebtclock.org

The debt is fake.

Before the Federal Reserve Bank was given control of the money by government, the money was simply a medium of exchange. Then with the FED we went on the fiction debt system. This means that all debt is fake, because it was essentially legislated into being.

[bryant.coleman]

And Russia actually has very huge external debt: $ 679 billions.  Proof - Central Bank of Russian Federation (in Russian) http://cbr.ru/statistics/print.aspx?file=credit_statistics/debt_an_new.htm   It is much bigger than all Russian reserve funds.

The Russian external debt was $555 billion as of 2015. However, Russia is holding debt worth more than $500 billion belonging to the other countries. So the net external debt is only around $40 billion to $50 billion. Russia is very close to a "net international creditor", unlike the case with the United States of America. 

[lama-hunter]

No one actually wins a war.We have seen in the past and looking at the present Geo-political scenario around the world you can ascertain yourself,who is suffering most.Innocent people are becoming victims in these wars,that are fought for global dominance and greed only.

Bankers win wars. They won in ww1 and ww2  Who do you think funded Hitler and Soviets?

The Bank of Raqqa lost over 400$ million us dollar to the terrorists. I think they won.. in this Moment

At the end i think Russia and China will be the Leaders. Chinas keeping Cold so far.

regards
lama-hunter

[RainDestiny]

.However, Russia is holding debt worth more than $500 billion belonging to the other countries. 

What? Dou you have any proof about "$ 500 billion"? The biggest debt holding by Russia is US debt. Its approximately $ 70 billion. What about other $ 430 billion?

[galdur]

Always missing in these comparisons: missiles. The main reason that U.S. aircraft carriers wouldn´t leave port in a war against Russia and China except maybe as the very last resort.

Great news: Russian "Black Hole" Sub appeared off Syria without NATO/U.S. having much of a clue.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Russia’s new Kalibr (SS-N-27 Sizzler) cruise missile systems provide expanded defense capabilities to the Russian Navy, the latest unclassified US Navy intelligence report reveals.

"The new technologically advanced Russian Navy, increasingly armed with the KALIBR family of weapons, will be able to more capably defend the maritime approaches to the Russian Federation and exert significant influence in adjacent seas," the December Office of Naval Intelligence report said.

It quoted an unnamed high-ranking Russian defense industry official as saying in 2011 that the Kalibr family "provides even modest platforms, such as corvettes, with significant offensive capability." The official went on to say the capability to hold distant fixed ground targets at risk using conventional warheads expands Russia’s ability to deter, threaten or destroy adversary targets.

Last week, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov disclosed plans to fit two next-generation Project 22800 corvettes with new Kalibr systems. The Uragan and Taifun small missile ships are expected to join the national fleet in 2017-18.

Russia's Caspian Fleet launches a massive attack involving 18 Kalibr-NK cruise missiles on 7 terrorist positions in the Syrian provinces of al-Raqqah, Idlib and Aleppo

Russia Laying Down 2 New-Gen Corvettes Armed With Kalibr Cruise Missiles

Experts assess that Kalibr can be used alongside other cruise missiles to perform missions similar to those of the US Conventional Prompt Global Strike program designed to deliver a precision strike anywhere in the world within an hour.
The system, including anti-ship, anti-submarine and land attack cruise missiles with a reported operational range of 160 miles to 930/1,550 miles, was last deployed against terrorist targets in Syria early in December.
Russia is underground a major five-year rearmament program to modernize nearly three-quarters of its military by 2020.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20151231/1032539980/us-navy-kalibr-russia.html


Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151231/1032539980/us-navy-kalibr-russia.html#ixzz3vtS88tqD

[jethrorn99]

I Will say Russian & China will win.
They got almost the same technology advancement as the western countries, but with a bigger land and manpower.
Bigger land means harder for them to nuke everything to eradicate them.

[BADecker]

Spent on defense.

[bryant.coleman]

Spent on defense.

This doesn't mean anything. Just because the Americans spend more money than China and Russia, that doesn't automatically makes them a better fighting force when compared to the others. The Russians on their part, have churned out state of the art weaponry, at extremely low R&D costs. For example, the development of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is likely to cost the NATO somewhere around $1,500 billion to $2,000 billion USD. At the same time, the Russians designed a much better alternative (Sukhoi PAK FA) for just $10 billion.

[BADecker]

Spent on defense.

This doesn't mean anything. Just because the Americans spend more money than China and Russia, that doesn't automatically makes them a better fighting force when compared to the others. The Russians on their part, have churned out state of the art weaponry, at extremely low R&D costs. For example, the development of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is likely to cost the NATO somewhere around $1,500 billion to $2,000 billion USD. At the same time, the Russians designed a much better alternative (Sukhoi PAK FA) for just $10 billion.

Fewer middlemen to be paid in countries other than the U.S.  However, many of those countries buy their technology from U.S. companies.

[bryant.coleman]

Fewer middlemen to be paid in countries other than the U.S.  However, many of those countries buy their technology from U.S. companies.

Might be true in the case of Saudi Arabia (most of their weaponry is of American origin). However, Russia and China have never purchased any American weaponry. On the other hand, these nations are among the top competitors to the American defense equipment industry, and in many cases the Russian weapons are superior to their American equivalents.

[jethrorn99]

Spent on defense.

This doesn't mean anything. Just because the Americans spend more money than China and Russia, that doesn't automatically makes them a better fighting force when compared to the others. The Russians on their part, have churned out state of the art weaponry, at extremely low R&D costs. For example, the development of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is likely to cost the NATO somewhere around $1,500 billion to $2,000 billion USD. At the same time, the Russians designed a much better alternative (Sukhoi PAK FA) for just $10 billion.

Fewer middlemen to be paid in countries other than the U.S.  However, many of those countries buy their technology from U.S. companies.

The russian got one of the best fighter jet and pilots in the world.
Russian tech is as modernistic as the western nations. But they got more manpowers.

[ace45954]

There won't be a world war 3. Both sides have much more to lose than gain.

[onlinedragon]

There won't be a world war 3. Both sides have much more to lose than gain.

I think this the only right answer all countries are scared to start new ww3. Now a day there is enough nuclear power to blow the world.

[galdur]

There won't be a world war 3. Both sides have much more to lose than gain.

I think this the only right answer all countries are scared to start new ww3. Now a day there is enough nuclear power to blow the world.

Well, I wouldn´t count on that. Not while retards vote psychopaths into political office. And there seems little likelihood that it will change.

It´s the problem with psychopaths, they are crazy. You can´t count on common sense and rationality as they are concerned.

[ace45954]

There won't be a world war 3. Both sides have much more to lose than gain.

I think this the only right answer all countries are scared to start new ww3. Now a day there is enough nuclear power to blow the world.

Well, I wouldn´t count on that. Not while retards vote psychopaths into political office. And there seems little likelihood that it will change.

It´s the problem with psychopaths, they are crazy. You can´t count on common sense and rationality as they are concerned.

No. Politicians aren't as dumb as they may appear. They care about their own livelihoods too much to risk a nuclear war.

Also, the people tasked with turning the ignition keys in both the USSR and US during the cold war have openly stated that they were never going to turn the key even if ordered. I doubt this sentiment has changed very much.

If there ever is a large scale nuclear war it'll be some stupid conflict between Pakistan and India.

[galdur]

There won't be a world war 3. Both sides have much more to lose than gain.

I think this the only right answer all countries are scared to start new ww3. Now a day there is enough nuclear power to blow the world.

Well, I wouldn´t count on that. Not while retards vote psychopaths into political office. And there seems little likelihood that it will change.

It´s the problem with psychopaths, they are crazy. You can´t count on common sense and rationality as they are concerned.

No. Politicians aren't as dumb as they may appear. They care about their own livelihoods too much to risk a nuclear war.

Also, the people tasked with turning the ignition keys in both the USSR and US during the cold war have openly stated that they were never going to turn the key even if ordered. I doubt this sentiment has changed very much.

If there ever is a large scale nuclear war it'll be some stupid conflict between Pakistan and India.

I didn´t say they were dumb, I said they were crazy. There is a BIG difference.

Look around you at all the war scams, death and destruction that these nutballs have created. They thrive on mayhem and chaos. You simply can´t rule anything out.

[designerusa]

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.

evils always win.for that reason, devil brotherhood of russia and china will be winnersof ww3 .

[AlphaCatalyst]

There will never be a World War III.  China cannot survive without the income from NATO countries, and NATO countries cannot service without cheap Chinese goods.