Who will win WW3?

[RealityTruth]

Eastern Europe needs permanent Nato troops, say ex-US policymakers

Burns, an adviser to the US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, said a “small but symbolic” permanent troop presence would show the Russian president that Nato is serious about collective defence. “We are not talking about massing troops on the border, but sufficient strength so that [Vladimir] Putin and the Russian leadership will understand we are going to protect the Baltic states and Poland.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/21/eastern-europe-needs-permanent-nato-troops-russia-ex-us-policymakers

Hitlery's adviser wants "small but symbolic" NATO attack forces to Russian borders. She's not even a president yet and already wants to start a WW3.

[romero121]

No more world wars, people were much aware and had known much about the value of human life. So none is interested in war and other activities. Everyone in one or the other way trying to spread peace.

[Jet Cash]

Well I haven't read this thread, it's far too long. I will point out that America hasn't won a war since their civil war, and half of them lost that.

[mOgliE]

haha, "Russia & China", you guys gotta be kidding right? ) First of China will never be at war with the USA because there is too much connections between both countries and everybody wins from this situation. And Russia also will not start a war against the West because most of the children of the Russian government are living in the West. They won't bomb their own children, right?

Don't blindly believe the Western propaganda. The Chinese are not in good terms with the Americans, as a result of the South China Sea disputes. Also, nowadays Chinese products are being diverted to other markets, and the share of US in the Chinese exports are declining. The children of the Russian government officials are studying in Russia. You are confusing them with the children of the oligarchs.

One of the biggest problem to talk about any international issue is the lack of information...
As you underlighted, most informations about those countries we get go through mainstream western news channel...

Even official events. I remember well the shameful "interview" of Putin by two French journalists badly cut and translated that was shown on French TV. It was just government propaganda, translations mistakes and important parts of the interview were cut to give you a false and biased version of the Putin explanations.

[alplaxxx]

if the world war III start, nobody win a war, Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood.
 

[hermanhs09]

if the world war III start, nobody win a war, Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood.
 

He have said dont post bullshit like "everybody will lose" its actually the same as "nobody will win".
Anyway you are not right about human fear over here,the times when war were fought by two groups of men standing against each other are over.
Now the war is a completely different world,drone's,ship's,rocket's sattelite's etc.Infantry doesn't make a big change really (but army still need's it)

[BADecker]

All the people who are left will win WW3. Why? Because there won't be any governments or banking systems to steal from them anymore.

[RealityTruth]

God will win.

[yesiam6]

Nobody would win World War 3 because it would be a nuclear war
and we would all be dead...

[BADecker]

Nobody would win World War 3 because it would be a nuclear war
and we would all be dead...

Not necessarily true. Life is diverse and resilient.   

[hermanhs09]

All the people who are left will win WW3. Why? Because there won't be any governments or banking systems to steal from them anymore.

Why do you think that world war 3 ( let's say it is going to happen ) will destroy all banks and governments?
I guess you mean an nuclear war,but i dont think that is going to happen,at least i hope so,lol.

[plpbtc1526]

Russia + China is the perfect combination (add in DPRK and Iran if you want). Russia and Iran has the technology and innovation, while China and DPRK has the manpower. On the other hand, US + EU will be technologically superior, but inferior in manpower resources. That said, it is possible for them to improve their manpower capabilities, by roping in countries such as India, Philippines, and Nigeria.

Hahaha now wree playing red alert.

[BTC_ISTANBUL]

Both sides have nuclear bombs.There will not be a WW3 but wars at predefined geographies.

[BADecker]

All the people who are left will win WW3. Why? Because there won't be any governments or banking systems to steal from them anymore.

Why do you think that world war 3 ( let's say it is going to happen ) will destroy all banks and governments?
I guess you mean an nuclear war,but i dont think that is going to happen,at least i hope so,lol.

The banking system is barely hanging on right now.

WW3 will be big enough that people will have to act locally to govern themselves. Sure, they will still be government. But big government will be gone.

[PokerFace3]

All the people who are left will win WW3. Why? Because there won't be any governments or banking systems to steal from them anymore.

Why do you think that world war 3 ( let's say it is going to happen ) will destroy all banks and governments?
I guess you mean an nuclear war,but i dont think that is going to happen,at least i hope so,lol.

The banking system is barely hanging on right now.

WW3 will be big enough that people will have to act locally to govern themselves. Sure, they will still be government. But big government will be gone.

Their will still be government to stabilize the citizens. But about winning WW3 I think it's gonna be Russia and China. But the truth is Wars of tomorrow
will not have winners. We are destroying ourselves. The ones that are really going to win is the weapon company and the bankers.

[BADecker]

All the people who are left will win WW3. Why? Because there won't be any governments or banking systems to steal from them anymore.

Why do you think that world war 3 ( let's say it is going to happen ) will destroy all banks and governments?
I guess you mean an nuclear war,but i dont think that is going to happen,at least i hope so,lol.

The banking system is barely hanging on right now.

WW3 will be big enough that people will have to act locally to govern themselves. Sure, they will still be government. But big government will be gone.

Their will still be government to stabilize the citizens. But about winning WW3 I think it's gonna be Russia and China. But the truth is Wars of tomorrow
will not have winners. We are destroying ourselves. The ones that are really going to win is the weapon company and the bankers.

Other way around. The people will stabilize the governments.

If winning has to do with who will do the most damage, USA still has the most nukes.

[ridery99]

NATO Engineers Build Anti-Tank Tree Obstacles against Russian tanks in Lithuania

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0ZMj3m_X8s

[canah17]

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.

Yes! yes! we all know that china and russians are joining together and they have much bigger and badder technologies from the US and EU but the real question is i think the ww3 winner is US and EU its that they have secrets hidden inside their laboratory i think half of the government technologies are showed from the news and China is showing all the technologies they have to empress and to make bad ass shows from the other countries and same as Russia but the US government has greater power in their technologies that they have hidden in case that China will attack. Just like when the bomb in japan that was US government bomb its freaking absolute! if US created much bigger then its all over for China and Russia that's my opinion

[Darker45]

To be honest I don't think WWIII will happen. And if ever it happens the situations will be very different from now. Remember WWII, before it started there was a Russia vs Germany in the Spanish Civil War. Later on Hitler and Stalin made a pact and they divided Poland. Germany went WWII while Russia is sitting and watching. Studying and planning which move is best. And boom, Russia never became a German ally in WWII. 

Russia-China-Allies vs US-Europe-Allies

Right now I say Russia and China can't win it over US and its allies. Besides, Russia and China also have differences and actually have some border problems which I assume until now isn't fixed yet? And I believe Putin is the best leader right now and is a dark horse. Who knows that if a tension between US and China erupts Putin will leave them alone and let China getting pulverized, US exhausted  or maybe Putin enters after his deep analysis and planning.

[jovs]

if the world war III start, nobody win a war, Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood.
 

He have said dont post bullshit like "everybody will lose" its actually the same as "nobody will win".
Anyway you are not right about human fear over here,the times when war were fought by two groups of men standing against each other are over.
Now the war is a completely different world,drone's,ship's,rocket's sattelite's etc.Infantry doesn't make a big change really (but army still need's it)

Modernization in terms of weapons really matters in winning the war. It gives a huge advantage to deffend their territory, yet strategy is more important. Also, there is no winner in war since both of the countires involved in it are taking its risk.