Who will win WW3?

[RealBitcoin]

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.

Damnit you dont get it, if they start world war, nobody will survive, literally. Because the earth will be a glowing fireball from all the radiation from the nukes.

Economy doesnt matter when the earth turns into a flameball.

[1714706077]

1714706077

[1714706077]

1714706077

[1714706077]

1714706077

[1714706077]

1714706077

[1714706077]

1714706077

[ridery99]

[ridery99]

[ridery99]

[ifightformerkel]

Not russia, not europe and not the usa.

The only winner will be china.

China has about 10000 Kilometer giang tunnels, over the whole country.
They has there over 3000 nuclear bombs and can shift and shoot it from on side of the country to the other side.

You cant destroy tunnels so easy when thery are hundreds of meters deep.

The first directly losers will be europe and russia.

[Boelens]

Not russia, not europe and not the usa.

The only winner will be china.

China has about 10000 Kilometer giang tunnels, over the whole country.
They has there over 3000 nuclear bombs and can shift and shoot it from on side of the country to the other side.

You cant destroy tunnels so easy when thery are hundreds of meters deep.

The first directly losers will be europe and russia.

There are nuclear bombs everywhere. Nobody will win if a world war happens. Unless by some magic they make an agreement to never launch nuclear weaponry at eachother, everyone is just going to end up blasting eachother away with nuclear weapons and there won't be any country left to actually win the war, considering everything will just be destroyed. I still doubt a WW3 would happen in the nearby future though, unless diplomatic relations reaaally mess up.

[ridery99]

Russia's Buildup Of S-400 Missile Batteries In Kaliningrad Is Freaking Out NATO

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russias-buildup-of-s-400-missile-batteries-in-kaliningr-1752792417

[Jameshartl]

Russia-more land people more secretive nukes and a crazy hitlerist dictator

[BADecker]

We have been in WW3 since the very end of WW2. There won't be any winner or loser. WW3 will convert into WW4 before there is a winner or loser.

[bryant.coleman]

Russia's Buildup Of S-400 Missile Batteries In Kaliningrad Is Freaking Out NATO

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russias-buildup-of-s-400-missile-batteries-in-kaliningr-1752792417

It was a natural response from Russia, to the newly installed NATO missile defense / air defense systems in Poland and Romania. I don't understand why the NATO guys are going ballistic over this. It was the NATO, which first placed the air-defense systems close to the Russian borders. Also, the S-400 is having a range of only 250 km, which is going to cover only small parts of Poland and Finland.

[mOgliE]

Hey, I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings but I'd say the only winners will be Europeans 

I'll take the example of France, cause a citizen it's the country I know the best.
I'd say that in case of a WW3, France would be completely neutral and wouldn't even lose one soldier.

Why so? Well easy as a pie. We got the Bomb H along with 7 nuclear submarines, a total of 480 bombs can be launched at any time anywhere on the Earth. It's enough to destroy any nation, even Russia, China or USA (though maybe not the 3 of them).
Now, why would anyone try to invade us? Why fighting us?
We got literally NOTHING you would want! Our main resources are corns and our culture. There is no interest for any nation to risk being destroyed by our nuclear power.

So I would say that France and probably a good part of Europe would stay neutral, and that no one would try to invade us. Just because we have nothing of interest, main resources are Oil and Iron, we don't have much of both ^^

For me we would be the winners, because we would be the one not fighting. Especially as they can fight by the other side of the world, it would even be shorter to go through the Pacific ocean =)

[RealBitcoin]

Folks this will be a financial war, and no country's economy can support a huge army.

The winners will be those that had a small/ defensive army, while those that prepare for offense, will go bankrupt before being able to attack

[madonnino]

war never had real winners, all more or 'less and will lose something, was is hell, war is a shit

[ridery99]

war never had real winners, all more or 'less and will lose something, was is hell, war is a shit

It's not the case in the coming nuclear war because the adversary will be totally annihilated leaving the winning side ruling the remaining continent.

[mOgliE]

war never had real winners, all more or 'less and will lose something, was is hell, war is a shit

It's not the case in the coming nuclear war because the adversary will be totally annihilated leaving the winning side ruling the remaining continent.

Nope, because the one side being annihilated will still be able to annihilate the other side. That's the main point of the nuclear submarines. They can stay under water for months if not for years and launch hundreds of nuclear bombs every where on the planet, no matter the good or bad shape of the side owning the submarines!

[xuan87]

if you asked me probably i am going to choose russia, but eventhough they win the war all of their country will be damage and also half of the world will lost,when they start to use nuclear and bio weapon, human being will be suffered huge damage, so nobody is actually win anything in war

[iCeSaiah]

Who? The middle man off course. The business people behind weapon manufacturers. Everyone will lost cause there are surely casualties. Even if a party win. There will always be war. Inside and out.

[flumesshag]

no one. ww3 wont be finished, it will just end.
Nobody could win WW3 if it were ever to happen. The world would be destroyed by our advanced wepons.

[bryant.coleman]

if you asked me probably i am going to choose russia, but eventhough they win the war all of their country will be damage and also half of the world will lost,when they start to use nuclear and bio weapon, human being will be suffered huge damage, so nobody is actually win anything in war

Yes. Half the world would be reduced to rubble, and this "half" is likely to include Russia, the United States, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, European Union, Ukraine, Belarus, Iran, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, DPRK, Syria, Egypt, South Korea, Japan(?)etc.

But the other half would escape the war unscathed. This half is likely to include China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, Nigeria.etc. Once the war is over, these countries will dominate the world.

[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.

russia and china will win.... they have strong labor force and guns.. and they know how to make war perfectly both cold and hot war.. for these reasons they will absolute winners of ww3