Who will win WW3?

[galdur]

If Sweden and Finland joins NATO, then Russia have to react quickly or it loses Baltic Sea to NATO

http://yle.fi/uutiset/us_armoured_fighting_vehicles_to_join_finnish_war_games/8684377

Let them join the NATO. Already they are behaving like they are default members of the NATO. These two nations are pretty useless. Their army is inexperienced and they do not possess advanced military equipment. That means that NATO might need to supply these countries with training and equipment, which will incur additional expenses.

Yeah, they´re useless but there are interests that wouldn´t mind increased military spending especially in Sweden. They´re a substantial weapons and armaments producer after all.

Unrelated 

[blackbird307]

Is this really a topic that we should discuss? WW3? So morbid.

[McDonalds5]

Is this really a topic that we should discuss? WW3? So morbid.

There's going to be WW3 in the future so it's an important topic to discuss 

[blackbird307]

Is this really a topic that we should discuss? WW3? So morbid.

There's going to be WW3 in the future so it's an important topic to discuss 

I really hope not. And even if so, it would be better to gather supplies than talk.

[ekoice]

Is this really a topic that we should discuss? WW3? So morbid.

There's going to be WW3 in the future so it's an important topic to discuss 

I really hope not. And even if so, it would be better to gather supplies than talk.

I hope and pray it may never happen since lifes of all Hum

If Sweden and Finland joins NATO, then Russia have to react quickly or it loses Baltic Sea to NATO

http://yle.fi/uutiset/us_armoured_fighting_vehicles_to_join_finnish_war_games/8684377

Let them join the NATO. Already they are behaving like they are default members of the NATO. These two nations are pretty useless. Their army is inexperienced and they do not possess advanced military equipment. That means that NATO might need to supply these countries with training and equipment, which will incur additional expenses.

an in the world is as important as ours and we have to think positive and peaceful and pray that all countries of the world become brothers and friends and love each othe

Is this really a topic that we should discuss? WW3? So morbid.

There's going to be WW3 in the future so it's an important topic to discuss 

I pray and hope that no war would ever happen again in future and all countries of the world become friendly brothers and live in peace and love each other and respect the solidarity of other nations as well. We must pray for peace for humanity since war is never good.

[Daniel91]

In my opinion WW3 is already finish long time ago (Cold war between USA and USSR) and now we have WW4 between Democratic countries in the West and radical Islam organizations in the East, (like ISIS but also many others) in Syria, Iraq, Libya etc.
Who will win?
I hope we will win otherwise it will be the end of our civilization and democracy.

[Tyrantt]

If Sweden and Finland joins NATO, then Russia have to react quickly or it loses Baltic Sea to NATO

http://yle.fi/uutiset/us_armoured_fighting_vehicles_to_join_finnish_war_games/8684377

I believe Serbia signed a contract with NATO so it's armies can stationate on serbian territory.

[KiwiParty]

This question is not easy to answer, and beyond our imagination there is not much proof or science which could be applied.
First, you are talking about factions. what is a faction?
Is it based on political, geographical, or economical aspects? In case of war, we pick the military factions.
Today we have the NATO, as the biggest military alliance the western countries ever had.
But also Russia has massive military power, much more than china does today.
The arab league does not stand aside and buys modern weapon technology whereever they can.
South america relies mainly on western technology, but is increasing its capabilites as well.
India is dependent on russia, next to 100%.
And Africa even can't maintain a powerful military organisation these days.

All of them could be assumed a faction, maybe even more. But are they all counter-productive?
Nope.
Are they allied?
Nope.

In case of a war, military strength is one option, a lot of comments pointed this out as well, the ressources are important too.
WW2 thought this. But WW2 had a different weapon technology. Todays weapons could have an outrageous impact.
Any full scale war would be fast, deadly, and most destructive.
The ability of any faction to survive: app. 0%

But we have forgotten another faction: the cockroaches, and many other insects.
They will survive, and feast on our corpses. A new dawn.

[criptix]

Russia and China... EU will be mostly fucked and torn apart by this migrant crisis and screw me if there aren't any riots or protests against the idiotic migrant laws in west EU. Russia stronk

The European Union member states such as Germany and the United Kingdom are not capable of taking part in major armed conflicts. The armed forces there are very under-trained and unequipped. The only European nation which had a viable armed forces was Greece. But as a result of the financial crisis, the situation there is also not looking that good.

Our insurance salesman from india is lying again

Germany, England and French are one of the handfull nations with a military-industrial complex.
Best weapons and a professional army.
Although the german troops have less real fight experience then the other two.

[bryant.coleman]

I believe Serbia signed a contract with NATO so it's armies can stationate on serbian territory.

That agreement is mutually beneficial to both the parties. Serbs, who are not financially well-off can gain some hard currency, and the NATO can fill the gap in its geographical coverage in the Balkans. But that doesn't mean that the Serbs are inclined to join the NATO. The public remains fiercely opposed to applying for the NATO membership.

[Losvienleg]

In my opinion WW3 is already finish long time ago (Cold war between USA and USSR) and now we have WW4 between Democratic countries in the West and radical Islam organizations in the East, (like ISIS but also many others) in Syria, Iraq, Libya etc.
Who will win?
I hope we will win otherwise it will be the end of our civilization and democracy.

That's not as simple as that. You have 2 sides : NATO + Israel + terrorists VS Russia + basically everyone who don't listen to the USA and their allies. Our democracy isn't a true one. The only real democracy is the Switzerland, and even, not at 100%, but that's the closest, and that's not really good...

[bryant.coleman]

That's not as simple as that. You have 2 sides : NATO + Israel + terrorists VS Russia + basically everyone who don't listen to the USA and their allies. Our democracy isn't a true one. The only real democracy is the Switzerland, and even, not at 100%, but that's the closest, and that's not really good...

Right now, this is the military and political situation.

Cold War 2.0

NATO Group:
1. USA + Canada
2. EU
3. Japan
4. GCC
5. Turkey
6. South Korea
7. Pakistan
8. Israel
9. Colombia and other pro-US Latin American nations.
10.South Yemen

Anti-NATO Group:
1. Russia
2. China
3. Iran
4. Syria
5. DPRK
6. Cuba and other left leaning Latin American nations such as Bolivia and Nicaragua.
7. Zimbabwe and other pro-Russian African nations such as Sudan and Rwanda.
8. Armenia and other former USSR nations such as Belarus and Kazakhstan.
9. Thailand
10.North Yemen
11.Serbia, Macedonia.etc

[Daniel91]

In my opinion WW3 is already finish long time ago (Cold war between USA and USSR) and now we have WW4 between Democratic countries in the West and radical Islam organizations in the East, (like ISIS but also many others) in Syria, Iraq, Libya etc.
Who will win?
I hope we will win otherwise it will be the end of our civilization and democracy.

That's not as simple as that. You have 2 sides : NATO + Israel + terrorists VS Russia + basically everyone who don't listen to the USA and their allies. Our democracy isn't a true one. The only real democracy is the Switzerland, and even, not at 100%, but that's the closest, and that's not really good...

I don't think that you can put NATO, Israel and terrorist on one side and Russia and everyone else on other side.
In my opinion, Russia is on terrorist side, helping war criminal Assad in Syria to remain in power, and also attacking many innocent people in Syria.
ISIS can't be defeated if Russia and USA don't start to cooperate together in Syria and Iraq, even Libya.
About true democracy, well, Switzerland is surely financial and economical ''heaven on earth'' but regarding democracy I'm not sure.
Maybe if you are native people and don't need to worry about papers, work etc.
Try to go there as Muslim refugee for example and you may face other ''reality'' in Switzerland.

[Losvienleg]

In my opinion WW3 is already finish long time ago (Cold war between USA and USSR) and now we have WW4 between Democratic countries in the West and radical Islam organizations in the East, (like ISIS but also many others) in Syria, Iraq, Libya etc.
Who will win?
I hope we will win otherwise it will be the end of our civilization and democracy.

That's not as simple as that. You have 2 sides : NATO + Israel + terrorists VS Russia + basically everyone who don't listen to the USA and their allies. Our democracy isn't a true one. The only real democracy is the Switzerland, and even, not at 100%, but that's the closest, and that's not really good...

I don't think that you can put NATO, Israel and terrorist on one side and Russia and everyone else on other side.
In my opinion, Russia is on terrorist side, helping war criminal Assad in Syria to remain in power, and also attacking many innocent people in Syria.
ISIS can't be defeated if Russia and USA don't start to cooperate together in Syria and Iraq, even Libya.
About true democracy, well, Switzerland is surely financial and economical ''heaven on earth'' but regarding democracy I'm not sure.
Maybe if you are native people and don't need to worry about papers, work etc.
Try to go there as Muslim refugee for example and you may face other ''reality'' in Switzerland.

Hey ! Mate ! Come back to reality ! Everything that the medias tell you is pure bullshit. Take a little exemple : Libya. Under Khadafi, the Libyans were living pretty well, and this state stopped "refugees" flux that now take place today. Assad isn't a war criminal, he's the only non-religious leader of Middle-East. Look at Irak, Iran, do you want something like that for Syria, a beatiful country (but less than Iran of course) ? The terrorists and the rebels, are the same people. In Afghanistan, Al-Qaida is our ennemy, but now, in Syria, that's our best friend ! That's a pure non-sense. Saudi Arabia finance the terrorists, because they will, in their mind, overthrown al-Assad. Then they will be able to put their so precious pipeline to Europe, which they can't build now because al-Assad doesn't want. If the terrorists take the power, they will be the friends of Saudi Arabia because they would have helped them to take power and they would be able to build their pipeline.

Then, you have Turkey, which collaborate with the Islamic State by buying their oil, which is their primary income. Turkey is USA's friends, and Russia's ennemy. Israel is USA's friends. Now, you have the full links !

[bryant.coleman]

I don't think that you can put NATO, Israel and terrorist on one side and Russia and everyone else on other side.
In my opinion, Russia is on terrorist side, helping war criminal Assad in Syria to remain in power, and also attacking many innocent people in Syria.

Yeah sure... the secular regime of Assad, along with the secular Kurdish YPG and the pro-Christian SSNP are terrorists, while the Al Nusra, ISIS, and the Jaysh al Islam are all "liberators". I hate to say this, but NATO is supporting the wrong guys in Syria. They made the same mistake in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq, and now they are repeating the same in Syria.

[bonski]

I don't want to win these communist countries if they will win World War III then they will conquer the world and they will forced us to be a communist. Everything in the bible is happening. Nations against nations, brothers against brother killing one another. 

[Paracelsus]

The war is raging for a long time, but we must admit this is only preparation for ww3.
Don't be afraid of communism this is just an excuse!
NWO will win this fight- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MADYzQstpsU

[blackbird307]

no one will win. not from a war. a world wide war. everyone loses.

[adverbelly]

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.

for me, china, russia and north korea will be the winners of this war game..

[salinizm]

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.

for me, china, russia and north korea will be the winners of this war game..

north korea wont be a winner of world war three according to me .. it will be at losers sides..