Who will win WW3?

[Daniel91]

Long time ago I heard the best answer to this question.
We don't know who will win WW3 but we know how we will fight in WW4. With stones and sticks.
So, you better hope that WW3 will never happen or we will see the end of our civilization.
Nobody can win WW3.

[Sithara007]

Long time ago I heard the best answer to this question.
We don't know who will win WW3 but we know how we will fight in WW4. With stones and sticks.
So, you better hope that WW3 will never happen or we will see the end of our civilization.
Nobody can win WW3.

One of the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the POTUS 2016 elections was that some of her supporters expected her to trigger a WW3. The statement by Dr. Jill Stein went viral in the social media. It cost her a lot of votes from the left-leaning youth.

[tuvok007]

This topic should be called "who will win WW3 IF nobody uses nukes,cause if one side use one nuke,otther sides will also and then we"re all fucked and nobody wins anyway.

[olushakes]

For me the best thing we can hope for is that may the war never happen because there might actually be no one left to count the scores and determines who is the winner or loser. World War if it happens now, then the effect will be devastating with all countries having nuclear and anti nuclear weapons, countries that have not even stabilised the country investing in weapons, thats how bad it is and the citizen who care less about world politics including myself and you will be the one to bear the brunt of such endeavour.

[TotalPanda]

Pretty sure it was said already but nobody reacted to this it seems.

I know the only winner of a WW3 and it would be Europe. Europe is protected by France nuclear weapons, able to nuke any country in the world. And Europe isn't an interesting target because there is absolutely no natural ressources of interest here. It means it's fucking dangerous and you wouldn't earn anything important. So nobody will attack Europe =)

That's an interesting idea that you bring us here ! But what if France and the other europeans countries were not on the same side ? Also, let's remember that the evil Americans bombed Japan while they had no interest to do it. This was a pure terrorism, like they're the best at.

Well the side with France inside would win :p

Difference is that by bombing Japan USA ended the war without any possible counter attack.
No country could do that because France own 7 nuclear submarines, each of it being able to launch around 80 H-bombs anywhere in the world.
Even if the USA would bomb France, they would be totally nuked in return. So why doing it?

What about several France ? I'm sure that within the 15 newt years there will be a civil war that will split the country in several sides.

C'est bon ?
T'es content de tes prédictions ?
Je te rachète ta boule de cristal lol

This guy is a false prophet.

[Lieldoryn]

For me the best thing we can hope for is that may the war never happen because there might actually be no one left to count the scores and determines who is the winner or loser. World War if it happens now, then the effect will be devastating with all countries having nuclear and anti nuclear weapons, countries that have not even stabilised the country investing in weapons, thats how bad it is and the citizen who care less about world politics including myself and you will be the one to bear the brunt of such endeavour.

Earlier there was a concept of limited nuclear war. I think that now will fight by agreement without the use of atomic weapons. There will be war on foreign soil in conventional arms. This is already underway in Syria.

[bitcoinvestor]

Neither faction, the cockroaches will win...

No. Nuclear war can be won. It doesn't mean the whole planet will be destroyed like in some Hollywood films but it will make some parts of the planet uninhabitable.

All the world will suffered from the war. Not only the looser but also the winner will expereince effect of the war. War need cost. Money, properties, and souls. The worst is children.

[DollarPerHour]

Neither faction, the cockroaches will win...

No. Nuclear war can be won. It doesn't mean the whole planet will be destroyed like in some Hollywood films but it will make some parts of the planet uninhabitable.

All the world will suffered from the war. Not only the looser but also the winner will expereince effect of the war. War need cost. Money, properties, and souls. The worst is children.

I hope that the war will win the West. I think that war is inevitable. It is needed to restart the world economy. The more damage, the longer the economy will overcome the consequences of war and the means to develop.

[Sithara007]

All the world will suffered from the war. Not only the looser but also the winner will expereince effect of the war. War need cost. Money, properties, and souls. The worst is children.

I'd agree with most of your post, but in my opinion only those people living in the participating countries will suffer the after-effects. Look at the WW1 and WW2. Countries such as Switzerland, which stayed out of the war prospered just after the battle ended.

[ridery99]

Russia Deploys Banned Cruise Missiles While A Spy Ship Hangs Out Off The U.S. Coast

U.S. government officials said today that they believe Russia has secretly deployed two battalions of the SSC-X-8 cruise missile, which violates a 1987 treaty, according to the New York Times. At the same time, a Russian spy ship, the SSV-175 Viktor Leonov, is now hanging out off the United States’ East Coast. And it could not come at a worse time for U.S. President Donald Trump.

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, known as INF, bans U.S. and Russian ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles capable of flying between 300 to 3,400 miles. The Pentagon has known about the development of the new SSC-X-8 cruise missile since 2008, when the Russians began test-firing it. The Obama Administration had worked to persuade the Kremlin to end the tests and to adhere to the terms of the INF after concluding the test occurred in a 2014 report. Both Obama and then-Secretary of State John Kerry told Russia to back off.

Clearly, the Russians didn’t listen. Officials told the New York Times that the missile has been removed from current intelligence reports, meaning it is fully operational.

During one test on September 2, 2015, the missile did not fly beyond the 300-mile ban range, according to the Washington Free Beacon. However, the SSC-X-8 is capable of reaching distances beyond that range, which clearly violates the INF. While the missile is not capable of reaching the United States, it can certainly hit NATO alliance members in much of Europe, especially the Baltics and Poland.

Making matters worse is the optics of a Russian spy ship, the SSV-175 Viktor Leonov, just chillin’ 70 miles off the coast of Delaware at the same time, according to Fox News. The ship can intercept communications and measure U.S. Navy sonar capabilities. It was in international waters and the spy ship’s sighting was not a big concern, but “we are keeping our eyes on it,” one official told Fox News. By the way, the Leonov is armed with surface-to-air missiles.

This kind of nautical trolling is not unusual. During the Cold War, Russian spy ships regularly spied off the U.S. east coast and American ships spied on Russia as well. And the the SSV-175 Viktor Leonov has visited America before: it and another Russian ship were seen near our waters in 2014.

But both of these developments come at an extremely difficult time for the Trump administration. The president’s national security advisor, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign after it was discovered he wasn’t completely forthcoming about his contact with a Russian diplomat.

As I said in my analysis this morning, Flynn’s departure already makes Trump look like a Russian pawn. Though the development the SSC-X-8 took place on Obama’s watch, Trump will be tasked with how to best deal with its deployment. It is one thing to test a missile that violates a long-standing treaty. It is another thing completely to deploy missile battalions in blatant defiance of that treaty.

NATO members have long expressed concerns over Trump’s commitment to the alliance, so this deployment surely will not put them at ease. Moreover, it will also test the mettle of how tough Trump will negotiate with Putin, who, by the way, he has yet to criticize. One has to think what Ronald Reagan, the GOP hero lauded for leading the fall of the USSR, would do in this situation. The INF was signed by Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev as the Soviet Union was on its deathbed. Now, it seems like American diplomatic power finds itself in the same predicament with the Kremlin in light of the missile deployment.

Additionally, this could potentially complicate any efforts for Trump to negotiate other arms treaties with the Kremlin, as the New York Times wrote:

Before he left his post last year as the NATO commander and retired from the military, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove warned that deployment of the cruise missile would be a militarily significant development that “can’t go unanswered.”

Coming up with an arms control solution would not be easy.

Each missile battalion is believed to have four mobile launchers and a larger supply of missiles. The launcher for the cruise missile, however, closely resembles the launcher used for the Iskander, a nuclear-tipped short-range system that is permitted under treaties.

“This will make location and verification really tough,” General Breedlove said in an interview.
Putin is winning the diplomacy battle, and Trump has not so much as condemned the Russian leader for hacking the election—let alone this latest show of strength.

This is going to get far worse before it gets better.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-deploys-banned-cruise-missiles-while-a-spy-ship-1792353338

[ridery99]

U.S. Successfully Shoots Down IRBM Target With THAAD

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense element of America’s missile defense system successfully shot down an Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile target from Alaska this morning, according to a statement by the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. It’s good news, but it’s not a full safeguard against an increasingly belligerent North Korea.

An Air Force C-17 fired the target over the Pacific Ocean and a THAAD system in Kodiak, Alaska detected and shot it down. Launcher, fire control and radar operations were conducted by soldiers from the 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade out of Fort Bliss, Texas.

This was the 14th straight successful interception of a missile target since 2006.

But as Foxtrot Alpha has consistently reported, we can’t put too much stock in these missile defense tests, be it THAAD or the Ground-midcourse Defense system.

The agency says today’s successful THAAD intercept was conducted using procedures they’d undertake in real combat conditions, but that is impossible. Neither North Korea or Russia would let us know when they planned on launching a real nuclear weapon at the United States. And the Missile Defense Agency also wouldn’t have the luxury of knowing in advance which delivery system would carry out the launch.

Moreover, we aren’t sure if THAAD could take out more than one missile at a time. Or, say, 15 of them at once.

Simply put: Washington can’t rely on missile defense alone to address its issues with Pyongyang.

But, for now, this is where we are. It is promising that THAAD can take out an IRBM in a simulated situation. But, hopefully, the Trump administration will eventually lean on diplomacy even more so that THAAD won’t ever have to be an option in the first place.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/u-s-successfully-shoots-down-irbm-target-with-thaad-1796803902

[tikalbong]

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.

All I can say is that everybody who will participate in WW3 is a big greedy loser.

[sweetbet]

No one will win WW3. Most of the population will be wiped out by nuclear bombs, starvation, sickness, etc. Those who survive it will will have to deal with radiation poisoning, anarchy, hunger, etc etc

[Nikola95]

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.

Russia is modernising it's equipment, and by 2020 they will have 99% of modern weapons. And if the war start, there won't be winner. You can't destroy such big countries. Russia have good rockets, USA have good rockets, planes and so on.. So it will just be stupid war.  If they use nuclear weapons, than, I think we won't find out who is winner because we can't survive that.

[Sithara007]

Russia is modernising it's equipment, and by 2020 they will have 99% of modern weapons. And if the war start, there won't be winner. You can't destroy such big countries. Russia have good rockets, USA have good rockets, planes and so on.. So it will just be stupid war.  If they use nuclear weapons, than, I think we won't find out who is winner because we can't survive that.

Fair enough. It will be next to impossible for the Americans to invade all of Russia. This is something which even Napoleon and Hitler couldn't achieve. If the Americans attempt this, then there will be tens of millions of American casualties, without any good results to speak of.

[Okurkabinladin]

Russia is modernising it's equipment, and by 2020 they will have 99% of modern weapons. And if the war start, there won't be winner. You can't destroy such big countries. Russia have good rockets, USA have good rockets, planes and so on.. So it will just be stupid war.  If they use nuclear weapons, than, I think we won't find out who is winner because we can't survive that.

Fair enough. It will be next to impossible for the Americans to invade all of Russia. This is something which even Napoleon and Hitler couldn't achieve. If the Americans attempt this, then there will be tens of millions of American casualties, without any good results to speak of.

I agree, that world peace is at best guaranteed not by words, but by power balance. And with the level of technology at mankind disposal, that means mutually assured destruction (MAD).



    To continue to deter in an era of strategic nuclear equivalence, it is necessary to have nuclear (as well as conventional) forces such that in considering aggression against our interests any adversary would recognize that no plausible outcome would represent a victory or any plausible definition of victory. To this end and so as to preserve the possibility of bargaining effectively to terminate the war on acceptable terms that are as favorable as practical, if deterrence fails initially, we must be capable of fighting successfully so that the adversary would not achieve his war aims and would suffer costs that are unacceptable, or in any event greater than his gains, from having initiated an attack.
    — President Jimmy Carter in 1980, Presidential Directive 59, Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy

The doctrine of MAD was officially at odds with that of the USSR, which had, contrary to MAD, insisted survival was possible. The Soviets believed they could win not only a strategic nuclear war, which they planned to absorb with their extensive civil defense planning, but also the conventional war that they predicted would follow after their strategic nuclear arsenal had been depleted. Official Soviet policy, though, may have had internal critics towards the end of the Cold War, including some in the USSR's own leadership.

    "Nuclear use would be catastrophic."
    — 1981, the Soviet General Staff

[Bagrras]

The side, which will have more bitcoins xD

[2econd]

WW3 is v.s Zombies. Zombies win hands down, because the Aliens will back them up if they stand to lose.

[Sithara007]

Russia is modernising it's equipment, and by 2020 they will have 99% of modern weapons. And if the war start, there won't be winner. You can't destroy such big countries. Russia have good rockets, USA have good rockets, planes and so on.. So it will just be stupid war.  If they use nuclear weapons, than, I think we won't find out who is winner because we can't survive that.

Fair enough. It will be next to impossible for the Americans to invade all of Russia. This is something which even Napoleon and Hitler couldn't achieve. If the Americans attempt this, then there will be tens of millions of American casualties, without any good results to speak of.

I agree, that world peace is at best guaranteed not by words, but by power balance. And with the level of technology at mankind disposal, that means mutually assured destruction (MAD).



    To continue to deter in an era of strategic nuclear equivalence, it is necessary to have nuclear (as well as conventional) forces such that in considering aggression against our interests any adversary would recognize that no plausible outcome would represent a victory or any plausible definition of victory. To this end and so as to preserve the possibility of bargaining effectively to terminate the war on acceptable terms that are as favorable as practical, if deterrence fails initially, we must be capable of fighting successfully so that the adversary would not achieve his war aims and would suffer costs that are unacceptable, or in any event greater than his gains, from having initiated an attack.
    — President Jimmy Carter in 1980, Presidential Directive 59, Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy

The doctrine of MAD was officially at odds with that of the USSR, which had, contrary to MAD, insisted survival was possible. The Soviets believed they could win not only a strategic nuclear war, which they planned to absorb with their extensive civil defense planning, but also the conventional war that they predicted would follow after their strategic nuclear arsenal had been depleted. Official Soviet policy, though, may have had internal critics towards the end of the Cold War, including some in the USSR's own leadership.

    "Nuclear use would be catastrophic."
    — 1981, the Soviet General Staff

Russia is at an advantage in having spread over a larger surface area when compared to the United States. The total surface area of Russia is almost 2.5 times that of the mainland United States.

[deejhay]

russia and china.
they got soldiers, proper weapon, resource and history in war so their chance of winning is high but the result would still be in tactics and if the people fully support them.