Who will win WW3?

[zuyfg888]

I think, no one will win in WW3. We cannot say who is the most powerful country, because for me, any weapon can result to damage the mother earth, also if they use their weapons, mostly nuclear weapons can affect those who are not involve in WW3. So there no one can win in world war 3.

[criptix]

Hard to say... On one side we have NATO and on other Russia, China, India, North Korea, well almost whole East.
Eastern countries like Russia, China and of course North Korea invest a lot of money in armament. You see North Korea who invest almost all money into armamament.
So I think, if WW3 would happen, East would win. Remember how Napoleon and Hitler ended when they tried to defeat Russia

Really hard to say who will win, but in war we all  lose. All is affected like economy,jobs food,investment,business etc. It causes more hate,poverty,inequalities and sufferings among the nations affected. Hope this atrocities will be stop and we all be helping each other. Peace!

Well the guys who are at the topmost of the ladder would benefit. Those who are rich will only get more rich. And those in the higher ranks in the government will also benefit.

It is not that simple. Chaos and anarchy will follow the start of WW3. The billionaires and the oligarchs will lose most of their immovable assets. And they will be forced to barter most of their liquid assets for medicine, water and food.

Like they did in ww1, ww2 and in the cold war

The elite is profiting from war and in the case there is nuclear war they are the last people on earth fearing radiation and death.
A nuclear shelter with enough fuel, food and water  for 10 years cost much less then 1 billion.

In the case of russian internet trolls though.... it doesnt look so good lol

[bryant.coleman]

no one will win in war.all nation involved are considered loser.hope that they realize that war is not good business.

Those who stay neutral will benefit, when compared to those who jump in early. Look at WW2. Those nations which jumped in to the fray earlier (such as Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, China, USSR, Italy, and Poland) got completely destroyed, while those who remained neutral (Brazil, Canada.etc) and those who participated in the end (USA) benefitted greatly from trade and manufacturing of equipment.

[coolcoinz]

no one will win in war.all nation involved are considered loser.hope that they realize that war is not good business.

Those who stay neutral will benefit, when compared to those who jump in early. Look at WW2. Those nations which jumped in to the fray earlier (such as Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, China, USSR, Italy, and Poland) got completely destroyed, while those who remained neutral (Brazil, Canada.etc) and those who participated in the end (USA) benefitted greatly from trade and manufacturing of equipment.

Jumped into? Look at what you are comparing here, throwing attackers and attacked into one basket. Poland was invaded by Germans and Soviets, China was invaded by Japan. Nobody gave them a choice.
What about France? It chose not to fight, is that what an invaded country should do? Wave the white flag? Brazil and Canada had a choice, because the war did not affect them.

[criptix]

no one will win in war.all nation involved are considered loser.hope that they realize that war is not good business.

Those who stay neutral will benefit, when compared to those who jump in early. Look at WW2. Those nations which jumped in to the fray earlier (such as Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, China, USSR, Italy, and Poland) got completely destroyed, while those who remained neutral (Brazil, Canada.etc) and those who participated in the end (USA) benefitted greatly from trade and manufacturing of equipment.

Are you a stupid muslim who never had an education?

Germany and the sowjets started ww2 by invading and parting poland in 1939. The UK was trying to defend polands sovereignty but was not able too.

Japan invaded china which couldnt defend itself (similar to poland) in 1937.
Starting 41 japan joined ww2 by attacking pearl harbor.

Italy was active 35/36 in ethiopa and spain but overall not that of an important war factor because their economy was still mainly based on agriculture and not heavy industry.
They joined ww2 in 1940.


The war was mainly in europe, north africa and east asia.
It is fucking obvious that everyone else was safe.

Nations who benefitted were the winning nations (USA and sowjets) plus friends (uk, france, china) and switzerland as the money launderer of nazi germany.

[bryant.coleman]

no one will win in war.all nation involved are considered loser.hope that they realize that war is not good business.

Those who stay neutral will benefit, when compared to those who jump in early. Look at WW2. Those nations which jumped in to the fray earlier (such as Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, China, USSR, Italy, and Poland) got completely destroyed, while those who remained neutral (Brazil, Canada.etc) and those who participated in the end (USA) benefitted greatly from trade and manufacturing of equipment.

Jumped into? Look at what you are comparing here, throwing attackers and attacked into one basket. Poland was invaded by Germans and Soviets, China was invaded by Japan. Nobody gave them a choice.
What about France? It chose not to fight, is that what an invaded country should do? Wave the white flag? Brazil and Canada had a choice, because the war did not affect them.

I should have rephrased my post to "the nations which got involved early". Poland and the USSR were probably the most affected nations. They lost almost one-sixth of the population. Half of the casualties in Poland were Jews, while in USSR almost all of the victims were Slavs. Belarus lost more than one-fourth of the population.

[The_prodigy]

No one country will win the war but it will suffer inocent people who will affected by the war this doesn't make any sense war for what? For pride for to prove which country has the most powerful equipments? Europe Economy now are fell down not they limited users who can use creds.

[ridery99]

Russia unveils new weapon that can shatter any armour: Scientists successfully test railgun which fires bullets at 6,710 mph

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4151214/Russian-unveils-new-weapon-shatter-armour.html

[Hydrogen]

Cockroaches will win world war 3.

They will be the only survivors.

 

[bryant.coleman]

Russia unveils new weapon that can shatter any armour: Scientists successfully test railgun which fires bullets at 6,710 mph

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4151214/Russian-unveils-new-weapon-shatter-armour.html

Did you even watched the video? The scientist in the video is explaining how they are going to use this railgun, to protect their spacecraft and satellites from meteorites and space debris. The Daily Mail, as usual tweaked the story and created a Russophobic article out of it. There will be no World War 3 without these poisonous media outlets.

[grermezter]

There will be no winners in WW3 The planet will explode and became floating asteroids if God doesn't save us all.

[Malsetid]

There will be no winners in WW3 The planet will explode and became floating asteroids if God doesn't save us all.

LOL! That came straight out of a scifi movie dude. I'm not really sure if you're serious about that but I think you're correct for the first part. If in case WW3 happens, it would most likely be of nuke proportions and I don't think most of us would survive that magnitude. Both parties most likely would have damage beyond repair in their own territories and that's when they'll realize that war is not necessary. I just hope they realize this before it dooms all of us

[bryant.coleman]

There will be no winners in WW3 The planet will explode and became floating asteroids if God doesn't save us all.

Nope. The nuclear weapons are having a limited range. So even in the worst case, at least 10% or 20% of the world population will survive the world war. Considering that the world is already over-populated, a population of 1 billion will be more than enough to sustain the human population in this planet. But I am afraid that the world war will take away the best people from our species, just like it did during the WW1 and WW2.

[ridery99]

China Just Buzzed A Bunch Of Japanese Islands That The U.S. May Be Forced To Defend

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/china-just-buzzed-a-bunch-of-japanese-islands-that-the-1792087361

Three Chinese Coast Guard ships encroached into waters right near the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands yesterday, reports CNN. The Japanese Coast Guard says yesterday’s incursion is China’s fourth this year, which puts everyone right on pace to match 2016, in which 36 incidents took place. Monday’s maritime jostle was just one of many face offs between the two regional powers over the chain of islands China claims are its territory.

Most media attention has focused on China’s activities in the South China Sea, but the Senkaku Islands are arguably more contentious because the United States may or may not be forced to protect them under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, depending on who may or may not be the American President at any particular moment.

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said that Article 5 of the treaty, which allows for the use of military force, covers the islands, during a press conference with Japanese Defense Minister Tomomi Inada on Saturday. Mattis’ words are consistent with former president Barack Obama’s commitment to Article 5 during his visit to Japan in 2014.

The Japan Times reported in December that Tokyo will spend 27 percent of its Coast Guard budget to increase patrols around the Senkaku Island—which are also disputed by Taiwan—in response to China’s moves.

The Senkaku Islands—also known as the Diaoyu Islands in China or the Diaoyutai Islands in Taiwan—are a disputed little slice of the Pacific Ocean. Not much more than a couple of uninhabited rocks, they were mostly used as navigational markers in the past. Annexed by Japan in 1895, they were controlled by the United States after World War II, until the U.S. withdrew in the early 1970s.

Complicating matters further, both China and Taiwan agree that the islands are part of Taiwan, though neither of them agree on what “Taiwan” is exactly.

How does the Trump administration view what’s going on? Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said during his confirmation hearing last month that the U.S. may bar China from accessing its own artificially-build islands. And top White House aide Steve Bannon has long predicted a war between the U.S. and China, as we previously reported.

Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi rebuffed Bannon’s comments today, saying neither side would benefit from an armed conflict, according to the Guardian:

Any sober-minded politician, they clearly recognize that there cannot be conflict between China and the United States because both will lose, and both sides cannot afford that.
The real question now is how the U.S. will respond to China’s persistent incursions. For now, the answer appears to be “it won’t.”

For example, an international tribunal in the Hague ruled last summer that China built an artificial island that was inside of Philippine waters. Beijing, which did not participate in the proceedings, said it would not honor the ruling.

The U.S. has a defense pact with the Philippines, too. So much for that.

Instead of the Trump administration ratcheting up calls for an armed conflict, which would benefit no one, one option might be for the U.S. to start sanctioning Beijing for its actions.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla) introduced a bill last month that would sanction China over its maritime behavior. Here is what the bill would do, per his press release:

Require the president to impose sanctions and prohibit visas for Chinese individuals and entities who contribute to construction or development projects, and those who threaten the peace, security or stability of the South China Sea (SCS) or East China Sea (ECS);

Impose sanctions on foreign financial institutions that knowingly conduct or facilitate a significant financial transaction for sanctioned individuals and entities if China takes certain actions in the SCS or ECS, including declaring an air defense identification zone or increasing activities at Scarborough Shoal;

Mandate a report on individuals and entities involved in sanctionable activities, including some employees of certain Chinese companies;

Prohibit the publication of documents portraying the SCS or the ECS as part of China, investments in the SCS or the ECS, and the recognition of the annexation of the SCS or the ECS; and

Restrict foreign assistance to countries that recognize China’s sovereignty in the SCS or the ECS.
The sanctions listed above would be a significant first step in challenging China over its maritime incursions, and would certainly get Beijing’s attention. Any actions against China should be measured and have a specific purpose, as were Obama’s sanctions against the Kremlin over its annexation of Crimea and support of rebels in eastern Ukraine.

Ngo Di Lan and Truong-Minh Vu wrote in a paper published at the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative that the aim should be to hit back with proportional actions that force Beijing to reconsider its next move:

The U.S. retaliatory response to a Chinese action should be discrete, meaning a single, independent action that can be unilaterally or multilaterally carried out at will. A clear example was the sending of two B-52s to contest China’s announcement of an air defense identification zone over the East China Sea in 2013.

It should be targeted instead of indiscriminate. This is important because it limits the risk of large-scale Chinese retaliations. At the same time, ensuring that U.S. actions are only aimed at those actively and directly engaged seeking to change the status quo in the South China Sea bolsters the legitimacy of the U.S. response. For instance, instead of imposing sweeping economic sanctions on China, the United States should respond to China’s land reclamation by sanctioning companies involved in the process, such as the China Communications Construction Company Dredging firm.

The response should also be proportionate, in that its intensity should roughly match that of the Chinese act. This limits the risk of escalatory response while allowing the costs that China would have to suffer to vary according to its own actions.

And lastly, U.S response should be carried out immediately after a Chinese escalatory action to show that there is a cost to every misbehavior, as well as to negate any potential benefits that China could reap from its action. For instance, if China deploys surface to air missiles on its features in the Spratlys, the United States should help Vietnam and the Philippines acquire assets specifically designed to counteract those Chinese capabilities.

To stop China from continuing to change the status quo in the South China Sea and militarize the dispute, the United States must be able to deter effectively. And ultimately, the greatest value of flexible response lies in its ability to send an unambiguous deterrence signal to China. As long as U.S. responses rely on actions with a primary purpose other than deterrence, such as joint exercises and freedom of navigation operations, it is not able to send a message of resolve to China because it suggests Washington is not ready to bear the costs of directly confronting China’s actions.
Comparatively, the Trump administration has yet to outline a clear China policy that doesn’t go beyond sound bites. Pontificating about war with China over the airwaves of Breitbart or recklessly calling for a “trade war” with China isn’t policy. It’s bluster.

Based on China’s consistent violation of its neighbor’s maritime sovereignty, there are strong arguments for America to honor its defense commitments to its allies in Asia. But it’s very unwise to respond with using the word “war” in any context.

[gabmen]

There will be no winners in WW3 The planet will explode and became floating asteroids if God doesn't save us all.

Nope. The nuclear weapons are having a limited range. So even in the worst case, at least 10% or 20% of the world population will survive the world war. Considering that the world is already over-populated, a population of 1 billion will be more than enough to sustain the human population in this planet. But I am afraid that the world war will take away the best people from our species, just like it did during the WW1 and WW2.

Well i don't think the results would even br close to ww1 and ww2 if ever there would be a third ww. We all know the effects of what a single nuke can do to any country so imagine if it would be the main weapon to be used. 20% would most likely survive the initial effects but what about it's long term effects? Radiation doesn't only affect people but things that we need to survive. Imagine what would happen to the remainih 20% of the population if that happens. For me, ww3 would pretty much spell extinction for a lot of specie and that may include us in the long run

[Mr. Big]

There will be no winners in WW3 The planet will explode and became floating asteroids if God doesn't save us all.

Nope. The nuclear weapons are having a limited range. So even in the worst case, at least 10% or 20% of the world population will survive the world war. Considering that the world is already over-populated, a population of 1 billion will be more than enough to sustain the human population in this planet. But I am afraid that the world war will take away the best people from our species, just like it did during the WW1 and WW2.

Well i don't think the results would even br close to ww1 and ww2 if ever there would be a third ww. We all know the effects of what a single nuke can do to any country so imagine if it would be the main weapon to be used. 20% would most likely survive the initial effects but what about it's long term effects? Radiation doesn't only affect people but things that we need to survive. Imagine what would happen to the remainih 20% of the population if that happens. For me, ww3 would pretty much spell extinction for a lot of specie and that may include us in the long run

Few will survive the war if they use weapons that are powerful, remember, as you've mentioned, the "radiation"... It will not just kill the surroundings, but including our offspring... In short, if some survive, for sure, their next generation are still in danger of extinction or if not, they will be having defects and are not physically fit to produce new generations that are normal... 

[Kemarit]

There will be no winners in WW3 The planet will explode and became floating asteroids if God doesn't save us all.

Nope. The nuclear weapons are having a limited range. So even in the worst case, at least 10% or 20% of the world population will survive the world war. Considering that the world is already over-populated, a population of 1 billion will be more than enough to sustain the human population in this planet. But I am afraid that the world war will take away the best people from our species, just like it did during the WW1 and WW2.

Well i don't think the results would even br close to ww1 and ww2 if ever there would be a third ww. We all know the effects of what a single nuke can do to any country so imagine if it would be the main weapon to be used. 20% would most likely survive the initial effects but what about it's long term effects? Radiation doesn't only affect people but things that we need to survive. Imagine what would happen to the remainih 20% of the population if that happens. For me, ww3 would pretty much spell extinction for a lot of specie and that may include us in the long run

Few will survive the war if they use weapons that are powerful, remember, as you've mentioned, the "radiation"... It will not just kill the surroundings, but including our offspring... In short, if some survive, for sure, their next generation are still in danger of extinction or if not, they will be having defects and are not physically fit to produce new generations that are normal... 

This will be the bloodiest war in history in terms of casualties.
The few remaining will survived and will carry the legacy of
the human race.

But it will take another hundred years for humans to evolved
free of deformities because of the effect of WW3.

[NyeFee]

There will be no winners in WW3 The planet will explode and became floating asteroids if God doesn't save us all.

Nope. The nuclear weapons are having a limited range. So even in the worst case, at least 10% or 20% of the world population will survive the world war. Considering that the world is already over-populated, a population of 1 billion will be more than enough to sustain the human population in this planet. But I am afraid that the world war will take away the best people from our species, just like it did during the WW1 and WW2.

Well i don't think the results would even br close to ww1 and ww2 if ever there would be a third ww. We all know the effects of what a single nuke can do to any country so imagine if it would be the main weapon to be used. 20% would most likely survive the initial effects but what about it's long term effects? Radiation doesn't only affect people but things that we need to survive. Imagine what would happen to the remainih 20% of the population if that happens. For me, ww3 would pretty much spell extinction for a lot of specie and that may include us in the long run

Few will survive the war if they use weapons that are powerful, remember, as you've mentioned, the "radiation"... It will not just kill the surroundings, but including our offspring... In short, if some survive, for sure, their next generation are still in danger of extinction or if not, they will be having defects and are not physically fit to produce new generations that are normal... 

This will be the bloodiest war in history in terms of casualties.
The few remaining will survived and will carry the legacy of
the human race.

But it will take another hundred years for humans to evolved
free of deformities because of the effect of WW3.

That is why, Russia, china, and other big countries that has capability to build weapons of mass destruction must think twice before using it... But I am sure, if we do it like what happens in world war 2, Russia and china will surely win, with their combined forces, they are surely big... But if USA and EU will be using the technology as an advantage, they will win... 

It seems to me that if the war will be without the use of nuclear weapons. Russia does a soap bubble which is not able to fight, and China has the technology much worse than the Western countries. Think will win the West.

[Sithara007]

It seems to me that if the war will be without the use of nuclear weapons. Russia does a soap bubble which is not able to fight, and China has the technology much worse than the Western countries. Think will win the West.

You are mistaken. The Russian defense technology is one of the best in the world, if not the topmost. And whatever disadvantages China is having in technology, they overcome it by plagiarizing the Russian equipment, and using their huge manpower resources.

[squatz1]

Russia and China will not be the countries that will be the winners of WW3 if it was to ever occur. Just because China has the largest standing army and Russia has a ton of military equpment doesn't mean anything when a lot of the equipment on both sides from those two countries are from the Cold War.

I'm not going to say this article is from an amazing source but it does display the old military from Russia - http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/11/how-powerful-russias-military/99062/
They may be attempting to improve their military, but it's going to take some time for a full improvement to occur. America is already on the area of improvement in their military and isn't going to need  to go through this at all.

So to finish that up, I think America would come out as the winner if something like WW3 occurred.