Who will win WW3?

Does this even matter? Imagine the number of death people, f*cking sad...

Quote from: leirou on July 22, 2017, 10:15:36 AM

I think it will be Russia but with its allied nation China . And it wont just be a Nuclear showdown there might be a coldwar before nukes starts flying. For now Russia and China had greater power than US and its allied nation it wont be an easy war though.

The major disadvantage with the NATO alliance is that they don't have a nation which can contribute with manpower. There is Turkey, but it is not a very populous nation. Things can change if the NATO could convince India to join the alliance. If India is staying neutral or siding with Russia (they will never enter in to an alliance with China), then the NATO can attempt bringing in countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia in to the alliance.

I'm pretty sure Russia and China.

Russia and China without questioning, they have the biggest population, a trained and specialized army and they are one of the biggest economies in the world.

Quote from: deejhay on July 14, 2017, 01:56:57 AM

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.

I agree with you, the people factor between them is the largest over the world. If all of their people supported them it would be easy.

Quote from: earthpocket on July 23, 2017, 11:05:07 PM

Quote from: deejhay on July 14, 2017, 01:56:57 AM

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.

I agree with you, the people factor between them is the largest over the world. If all of their people supported them it would be easy.

The demographic advantage with China/Russia can be neutralized, if India sides with US/NATO. But I really doubt whether India will do that, since that nation has been a trusted ally of Russia since ages.

Quote from: darkangel11 on October 19, 2015, 06:54:55 PM

That's right, you can't win a nuclear war. Multiple nuclear blasts would probably disrupt Earth's orbit and climate. We'd be killing ourselves over nothing, a piece of paper saying this side gave up first.

I strongly agree to this . The world might be destroyed before anyone will will the war.

I think Russia and China will win the war. They got a well trained troops and I think they have a high powered weapon that is hidden and it is a counter part, unlike USA they are always exposing their weapons.

Humm, if earth couldn't disappear: Russia and China

Quote from: ridery99 on October 19, 2015, 04:55:53 PM

2017 edit: Russia v USA: Global Nuclear Showdown (2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeLrKDAn1x8

. . .
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" or "next war will be sticks and stones" bullshit. World War 3 will be won by some faction.

Best comment thus far (10/28/2015):

Quote from: semaforo on October 20, 2015, 07:25:39 PM

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.

nobody wins

nobody only humanity will lose.

Quote from: kyori on July 24, 2017, 04:00:37 PM

There is no need for any secret weapon. Even the existing nuclear weapons are capable of exterminating all the life from the earth many times over. So I don't understand the need for any new weapon.

Quote from: Sithara007 on July 25, 2017, 01:37:02 AM

Quote from: kyori on July 24, 2017, 04:00:37 PM

There is no need for any secret weapon. Even the existing nuclear weapons are capable of exterminating all the life from the earth many times over. So I don't understand the need for any new weapon.

Yeah and does it really even matter whoo wins this or not? Whoever wins would probably be winning ashes with the destruction ww3 would cause. Imagine the horrors of ww1 and ww2 combined with nuclear warfare. It would dwarf the number of casualities of the fwonfirst world war combined. Only a fool would think that anyone would really be victorious if ever ww3 is to happen. Extinction would be close

Neither.
Nobody would win..

It is common knowledge that once a nuke is launched 500 or 600 will follow.
The planet will be carpeted with them all.

Experts from every country agree.. there will be no winner.
When one launched we as a species will barely survive at all.
There will be no winners anywhere on earth.

The nuclear winter will decimate almost all of humanity.
It would likely take a 100 years to get back to where we were.
With populations still far off..

People have not thought about it much but there is people who are paid to think about this.
They have been telling you all along that it's bad.. real bad !
If a nuke goes off then automatically the other side will retaliate.
They will hit allies and strategic interests and of course all the other nuclear weapon bearing countries like France or Pakistan.
Experts say there would be many hundred of nuke in the air right away in waves.
And once 1 is launched there would be no turning back.

Humanity will be close to be erased and the planet will be pounded into submission.
The weapons will be bad but the worst part is the nuclear winter.
Imagine all of humanity having all their food vanish in 3 months.
That is when the real war would begin.

The truth is I don't know who will win. Its maybe russia and china, but they can't be happy because of the life that lost in the war. Imagine how many people will die, will grieve, will be able to survive. For me, the true people who will win that war are the people who live and can survive the sorrow, trauma, and start a new life without their loveones and never give up.

Mongols are gonna rule the world again

No one...
But the cockroaches and other scavengers will be happy though....
Very happy indeed..

Those who live in peace

It is hard to decide, but my prediction China/Russia have a great potential. China have some kind of great technology to offer and also the military aspect in drone technology.

Quote from: karinbusch on July 30, 2017, 04:05:41 PM

It is hard to decide, but my prediction China/Russia have a great potential. China have some kind of great technology to offer and also the military aspect in drone technology.

The fact is that today the roses in the world are completely different. We can observe how North Karelia is practically expressing a measure of nuclear weapons. We see how Syria gives permission to its troops to use chemical weapons. It seems to me that the whole world is under threat from such countries.