How do you think World War III will pan out?

[ChicagoTed]

This how I see it happening. China becomes for too overpopulated and begins border disputes with other surrounding countries. When the fails it forcibly annexs land from other countries and eventually India and Pakistan then war starts between the three countries. The three nations can't gain a clear adavantage so they launch nukes. When that fails they all turn to there allies for help but Russia turns China away because it doesn't wish to become involved in a nucular war but Britain, America, Canada and Austrailia come to Indias and Pakistans aid but only strike with conventional weapons. Taking advantage of the chaos and lack of amrican forces North Korea invades the south in response america launches tactical nucular strikes against the north but some missles over shoot and hit China and in return the chinses launch missles that hit Hawaii, Alaska and nothern Austrailia.

America and Britain launch strikes against Bejing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Then they launch a ground assualt from the border countries driving back chinese soldiers into there own borders. With that a mass radiation cloud forms and spreads over Asia causing crops to fail and livestock to die causing mass tsarvation. Russia and other nations help out by sending food, water and medical supplies but eventually China spills into another civil war and it's current territorys take advantage of this and gain independace.

Because of the war other 1st world countries hit another recession because of plumiting trade due to the civil war and lack of import and export but they still manage to stay affloat, food prices also sky rocket because of this and poverty grows in developed nations immigration also rises due to the war in Asia and people fleeing the violance to seek a better life else where. Racial tensions rise due to the refugees and overstrecthed resources in the developed world. China's civil war ends with a treaty signed by both sides and a stable government is put into power with free elections. Then over the coming decades the global situation would settle and things would return to a much more stable enviroment.

 

[GiantSpiderGoat]

Space aliens arrive. We nuke the alliens. Then more aliens arrive.
Rinse-repeat until either
a: the aliens give up
b: we run out of nukes
c: all the fallout from the sky causes the fish to mutate, causing WWIV, MAN VS FISHMAN!

It can be a never ending chain of world wars where man goes up against something new every time.

Isn't that the entire point of life? To prove that humans can beat the crap out of each and every species on earth.

Yes but then we can start killing things that don't live on earth.

 

[The AtticWarrior]

RAGE MONKEYS!!!!

 

[Nikolaz72]

The war will most likely be waged in no obvious way via hackers over the internet. A wise man one said he who controls the internet controls the world. So if somebody wants global domination thats what he will be going for, country or man. The war will most likely be started due to America's huge debt to China. And seeing how some of their future presidents might not be as smart as this one they might even be the one starting it causing the EU not to aid them in any way and Nato not being able to due to it not being for defensive actions. But they will not help China either due to them wanting good relations with the US and NATO largely being the US... It will probably end with both country's trying to heavily focus on developement of "Future-Tech" like a spaceship that can travel to a new up-and-comming Earth. Or perhaps a large Virus that can black out a whole country's computersystem. It will probably be the end of many country's but not many will die. Unless ofcourse somebody is immature enough to use nukes which everyone knows is too obvious and stupid to be valid and is therefor cheating.

So yea.. A larger scale Cold War. Raged across the world rather than between two superpowers.

 

[shaneriding]

I'm not American, but it usually is all the "brown" countries that do cause shit. Name a single shity little backwater country that lives peacefully with its neighbours and doesnt oppress its people. I'm glad that America has taken our position as the worlds policeman and dishes out soem form of justice. Yes I know it seems that they only go into the oil rich countries but they cant be everywhere. Where are the French and Germans? So long as mainland Europe continues to look after itself it will crumble from the inside.

America also gives out a hell of a lot of aid and other humanitarian stuff that all these crappy little countries are all too happy to grab with one hand and try and murder them with the other.

On topic I wouldnt mind the former British Empire getting back together for old times sake and kicking ass (with US, India, Canada, Australia and NZ etc all banding together).

I don't know if anyone knows but after WW1 there were some very serious discussions to form a world goverment led by USA and British Empire to literally rule the world.

Dear god... please tell me he is trolling... PLEASE!

Ok.. Trying hard not to flame you...

Do you see any problem with a capitalistic country playing world police? No? Not at all? Maybe it passed you by that a country that has absolutely NO interests in human rights or all that, and handles only for profit, may not be the best to rule the world.

First of all, these countrys are neither "shitty" nor "backwater". One of the big reasons that people in these countrys are living in poverty is the west exploiting them. Take a look at some african countrys. They have huge militarys. They spend millions on weapons while their people starve. America, Germany, we sell them these weapons. And why do we do so? Knowing perfectly well that people will die due to this money not being spent on food? For profit. Cash. Nothing else matters to the G8. So are you saying that a country that holds no interest in the well being and survival of humans - I mean hell, they even do a shitty job at keeping there own population fed - is the best to rule the world? I dont think so. Also, I lold at your prediction of Europe "crumbling from the inside". Do you really believe this? Of course, I guess, in a way you are right, Europe is crumbling due to a system that depends to much on growth (and an economy cannot grow endlessly). But, take a look at the USA. If you asked me to name a country crumbling from the inside the first thing id think of would be them. And im sure im not alone on that one.

As for your last point - I dont know if anyone knew this, but there were rumours Uwe Boll was going to make a Half Life movie. Thats fucking terrible. Just like a world government.

Btw, what do you mean by the British Empire "kicking ass"? You want them to invade small countrys? Take over the world? Kill millions of people? Whats so kickass about that?

I dont mean to insult you, but you come across as a right wing pig. Forgive me if im wrong, and I mean no offence to any right wing lovers. But you can be right wing and then you can be stupid right wing. Just like you can be left and you can be stupid left.

Flame me? I wouldnt even know if someone was flaming me? what does that even mean. Spend a little time away from the internet and have areal conversation.

My comment about the British Empire kicking ass was in realtion to the topic. Example being that if there was a WW3 then I would like to see us win.

I hope you are not suggesting the BE killed millions of people. It did far more good than bad. Look at all the countries that were ruled by it. All of them are living under a democracy yet all those who broke away such as Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Iraq etc, look at the places they have become.

And yes those places are backwater and shitty. I wouldnt waste a nuclear missile on them. They aren't fit for human survival. And don't try to blame western governments for selling them weaopns, these people have been at war for centuries with neighbours and each other. They sell their own people for slaves and are incapable of living a humane existance.

I would much rather come across as a right wing pig as you put it (i would prefer realist) than a left wing, liberal, namby pamby human right preaching fool who thinks that the world would live happily in peace without weapons and the like. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst

 

[Edorf]

There wont be another WW, there are far too many alliances and treaties for another WW to even be remotely possible.

Now I've just about had it with all you "OOH!! WE'LL GO NUCLEAR BOMBS AND BLOW OURSELVES UP CUZ I HAVE NO FAITH IN HUMANITY" people...
/rant

 

[LornMind]

It'd plunge most of the world into a nuclear winter given the mass amounts of nuclear warheads available to many countries.

This is not exactly accurate these days. Despite the number of warheads around the world, and the assured problems regarding the detonation of atomic weapons, to trigger a full blown nuclear winter would require the ground-level detonation of ALL of them.

Simultaneously.

Nuclear winter calculations are all pretty controversial even still, but most of the early freakouts that folks had on the topic were pretty overblown.

Modern nuclear combat doctrine would never allow for such a situation; blast heights are carefully calculated to give the maximum downward blast force while minimizing fallout. It only makes sense to do it that way (the armies have to move around in the aftermath, of course, and you don't want a lot of radiation attrition as you mop up the demoralized shell-shocked survivors), and thats exactly how US and Russian nuclear arsenals (which remain the lionshare of the arsenals) are configured.

Further, the old days of 20-50 megaton warheads are LONG gone-- that was old 1960s delivery strategy when bombs had to be flown in. Its easy to shoot down planes, so every plane must be loaded with enough payload to assure the destruction of its target even if dropped from a suboptimal distance to the target. The advent of the ICBM and more recent cruise-style missiles, as well as submarine launched missiles, has led to a steady DECREASE in the yield of atomic warheads. Typical payloads these days are more along the lines of 1 megaton, and often less, in line with the improved accuracy of the weapons.

This may be true, but I never fail to underestimate the extent to which a nation will go to win. Especially if they have such destructive power at their finger tips. I'm taking into account humanity's propensity to be especially atrocious when things go south. Tactically nuking is effective given the information you've given, and the shock and awe is rather impressive at the localized level it occurs at, but dropping a tactical nuke only spurs more nukes. Perhaps a nuclear winter is a tad much, I think the probability of widespread destruction and Chernobyl-esque wastes increases rapidly as soon as the first nuke is dropped in just the right (or wrong) place. It becomes less a matter of what you explained, and more a matter of "What? They have bigger guns? MAKE BIGGER ONES." As comical as that statement sounds...well, like I said, I never underestimate humanity at war.

Perhaps I'm a bit sensationalist.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Spoiler: This is my prediction. It sounds somewhat familiar though...

SAS members attempt to find a nuclear device on board a cargo ship. They clear the ship and kill the soldiers aboard, but the ship is attacked by MiGs and begins to sink. The team escapes with the cargo manifest, which provides evidence of ties between the Russian Ultranationalist Party and a rebel faction in the Middle East.

The Russian Ultranationalist leader, who plans to return his motherland to the times of the Soviet Union, draws international attention away from his plans by funding a coup in an unnamed Middle Eastern country, organized by a local separatist leader. Discovering the plot, the American government starts a police action to stop the uprising, while the SAS continues to operate in Russia. After the President of the Middle Eastern country is executed on live television and the separatists takes control, the SAS rescue their compromised agent from Russian Ultranationalist forces.

In the American invade the Middle Eastern country; they deploy to search for the separatist leader, but are too late, and proceed to aid other American units fighting the separatists. During the final stages of the operation, United States Central Command learns of the leaders position in the capital, but is also notified by Special Forces units of a Russian nuclear weapon nearby, and sends the Nuclear Emergency Support Team to disarm it. However, the nuclear device suddenly detonates, leveling most of the city, killing his own army, citizens, and the US Invasion Force.

The British learn that the leader fled the country before the American invasion, and is hiding in a safe house in Azerbaijan. With the help of intelligence and Assistance from Loyalist Russian soldiers, the SAS clear the village of the Ultranationalist forces and capture and interrogate the separatist leader at his safe house. After listening to the voice callingthe leader's phone he is executed, now knowing that a Russian Ultranationalist leader behind it all.

A joint operation is conducted by the SAS, USMC Force Recon, and Loyalist Russian forces. They capture the Ultranationalst leader's son in an unnamed Russian city, to learn of the leader's whereabouts, but as they corner him, the son commits suicide to avoid being captured. The leader becomes enraged, blaming Western nations for the death of his son, and plans to retaliate by launching ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads at the East Coast of the United States, with predicted losses of over 41 million people. When the Task Force operatives arrive at the facility in Russia, he manages to launch ICBMs towards the United States. However, the squad successfully seizes the silo command room and remote detonates the missiles over the Atlantic. They escape the facility in military trucks with forces in hot pursuit.

Before the squad can escape across a nearby bridge, it is destroyed by a helicopter, leaving them trapped. Forces arrive and engage the remaining members of the strike force. On the bridge, a gas tanker explodes, incapacitating most of the soldiers nearby. The leader, along with two of his soldiers, begin executing the surviving members of the strike force. Before he reaches the last two, he is distracted by the destruction of his gunship and the arrival of the Loyalist helicopters. As he looks away, one solider slides his pistol to another, who shoots and kills the leader and his two guards.

Taking the CoD approach are we?

Not at all. Wait...

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Everyone vs Iran.

And then other mad countries will join in and it will be a big free-for-all.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

Flame me? I wouldnt even know if someone was flaming me? what does that even mean. Spend a little time away from the internet and have areal conversation.

My comment about the British Empire kicking ass was in realtion to the topic. Example being that if there was a WW3 then I would like to see us win.

I hope you are not suggesting the BE killed millions of people. It did far more good than bad. Look at all the countries that were ruled by it. All of them are living under a democracy yet all those who broke away such as Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Iraq etc, look at the places they have become.

And yes those places are backwater and shitty. I wouldnt waste a nuclear missile on them. They aren't fit for human survival. And don't try to blame western governments for selling them weaopns, these people have been at war for centuries with neighbours and each other. They sell their own people for slaves and are incapable of living a humane existance.

I would much rather come across as a right wing pig as you put it (i would prefer realist) than a left wing, liberal, namby pamby human right preaching fool who thinks that the world would live happily in peace without weapons and the like. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst

wait, what? ...are you seriously trying to imply that the british empire was the greatest thing to happen to the world? if so please tell me this

what good, pray tell did the british empire ever do?

they did kill millions over the time its been in existence (add up the numbers of people killed in the wars it has waged from the middle ages onwards and then factor in various initatives it put into work, (for example: the white australia policy, a deliberate attempt to force aboriginals into extinction by 'breeding them out') and it very quickly reaches that six figure bracket) and nearly half the places they took were used to dump convicts

and not all the countries that were ruled by them are democracies, some are constitutional monarchies. and most of these commonwealth nations aren't actually doing that well at all

funfact: you know all these things modern western people take for granted like medicene, clean water, education, hygene and the like, those 'backwaters' as you put it are where those ideas came from, but were 'claimed' by westerners when they had their crusades against them and turned those places into backwaters, repeatedly, over hundreds of years.

 

[shaneriding]

Flame me? I wouldnt even know if someone was flaming me? what does that even mean. Spend a little time away from the internet and have areal conversation.

My comment about the British Empire kicking ass was in realtion to the topic. Example being that if there was a WW3 then I would like to see us win.

I hope you are not suggesting the BE killed millions of people. It did far more good than bad. Look at all the countries that were ruled by it. All of them are living under a democracy yet all those who broke away such as Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Iraq etc, look at the places they have become.

And yes those places are backwater and shitty. I wouldnt waste a nuclear missile on them. They aren't fit for human survival. And don't try to blame western governments for selling them weaopns, these people have been at war for centuries with neighbours and each other. They sell their own people for slaves and are incapable of living a humane existance.

I would much rather come across as a right wing pig as you put it (i would prefer realist) than a left wing, liberal, namby pamby human right preaching fool who thinks that the world would live happily in peace without weapons and the like. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst

wait, what? ...are you seriously trying to imply that the british empire was the greatest thing to happen to the world? if so please tell me this

what good, pray tell did the british empire ever do?

they did kill millions over the time its been in existence (add up the numbers of people killed in the wars it has waged from the middle ages onwards and then factor in various initatives it put into work, (for example: the white australia policy, a deliberate attempt to force aboriginals into extinction by 'breeding them out') and it very quickly reaches that six figure bracket) and nearly half the places they took were used to dump convicts

and not all the countries that were ruled by them are democracies, some are constitutional monarchies. and most of these commonwealth nations aren't actually doing that well at all

funfact: you know all these things modern western people take for granted like medicene, clean water, education, hygene and the like, those 'backwaters' as you put it are where those ideas came from, but were 'claimed' by westerners when they had their crusades against them and turned those places into backwaters, repeatedly, over hundreds of years.

penicillin, the jet engine, the internet, computers, telephone, electricity, flight, combustion engine, the TB vaccine. Im sure these were all ideas stolen by the oppressive white man. Nearly half the places were used to dump convicts? I'm guessing you mean Australia and then thought that one in god knows how many must mean half? Also i don't think these people INVENTED clean water and education.

These backwater countries have been destroying themselves for thousands of years, long before the crusades etc. If i am correct it was those who came here first,pillaging and destroying before the crusaders drove them back.

Which Commonwealth countries arent doing well? I cant remember the last time a suicide bomber or car bomb blew up in Ontario, Wellington, Sydney, Mumbai, Los Angeles. It seems to me that they live in their "constitutional monarchies" (and which are still democratic, and for all intents and purposes the Queen has no power over them) quite peacefully with their neighbours. Look at Egypt, one of the largest stable democracies in Africa which was a former British colony. South Africa now has peace (don't mention the Boers - that isnt a result of the British, it was Dutch settlers).

These other countries have been destroying themselves for millenia, not just a few hundred years as you put it. Tribes from Africa would come up into Europe and enslave entire villages before taking them back to their own hell holes throughout the Greek and Roman Empires.

Whilst the British Empire wasnt always good, it brought infrastructure, hospitals, roads, schools etc to many parts of the world. It fought back against the Nazis, Napoleon, Bismarks armies. It abolished the slave trade and introduced many parts of the world to the french idea of democracy. Instead of looking at those who died, look if you can at those who have lived because of it. Those who have had chance to go to school etc.

Whilst I can see that we aren't very likely to see eye to eye please don't piss in my bucket and tell me its raining when you say these countries would be better without us. They need countries like GB, France and USA because without someone steering them in the Humane direction they will continue to oppress and fight amongst themselves like they have for as long as they have existed. They are backwards countries who feel that murder is OK, women are a mans possession and that by blaming everything on everyone else they will get by. Sorry Once people like yourself wake up, stop apologising for everything and realise it isn't all flowers and peaceful singing around a fire, the world will move forward.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Bombs. Lots of them. None of us will survive. If World War III actually happens, we're all dead.

 

[Joeaverage]

There is potential for ethnic and religious conflict in lots of european countries due to immigration. If something like a Team Islam identity got stronger than national identity in a large segment of the population(and if nothing else the muslim population is growing fast) it would be a massive failure of integration and end with a balkanized area. It's always safe to bet on failure.

The world war aspect would come from the fact that if immigration destabilized a country it would not happen to them all at the same time. There would be potential for military interventions, reactions to those interventions etc.

Of course, it might not fail this badly. But this is the doomsayer thread.

 

[CouchCommando]

Boom!, BOOM!!.......BOOM!!!, BOOM BOOM BOOOOOOOM!!!!!.........*crickets*

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

You stole my quote.

 

[lewism247]

Followed by

If the is a world war 3, we are all fucked, no other way.

 

[tehroc]

I doubt we will reach WWIII. With scientific research growing exponentially I expect either biological agents or nanotechnology will kill off 3/4 to 9/10 of the Earth's population by 2050. It's the only cheap solution to the world's overpopulation and mechanization problems. Eliminating us filth while sparing the Elites, and the lower upper class will be the new asset they seek to control.

 

[Ampersand]

I would have thought this was obvious. In the near future the cities of Eurasia will lift themselves of the ground with hydrolic legs to do battle with the Island nations for the earths remaining resources.

 

[UnwishedGunz]

well it depends on who were fighting,

russians = nukes
china = giant robots from the future

we'd win against those 3rd world countries, at least think we could

 

[joshuaayt]

America will get pissed off at Australian dollar beating it for a week (This will happen sometime soon in the future, see?) and proceed to bomb our favourite Mint.

England would NOT have any of this, so they'll send the chaps around to show America what for. We'll throw England out of the Country, because they brought the French with them and, really, they are lovely people but some of their national pastry delicacies make me feel ill, so now those guys will be floating and attacking America AND Australia.

The rest of Europe/Asia will form a shaky alliance, because everyone seems to be fighting over Australia (The rest of Europe has, uhm, poor hearing, see? Yeah, they can't hear that we are simply being dicks to each other).
This alliance will bomb the shit out of everything, and the very planet will fracture into two distinct halves- these we will denote "Gaia" and "New Gaia".

The inevitable war over who gets to be Gaia, in the end, is what kills us.