How do you think World War III will pan out?

[SSoneill]

I think World War III will work out pretty well...for the cockroaches THAT WILL INHERIT THE EARTH

 

[Bobbovski]

The war will be waged over resources that could be acquired. But this time the spoils of war will also be its weapons: Petroleum and Uranium. For these resources, China will invade Alaska, the US will annex Canada, and the European union will dissolve into quarreling, bickering nation-states, bent on controlling the last remaining resources on Earth.

Then the storms of world war will come again. In two brief hours, most of the planet will be reduced to cinders.

 

[Rawle Lucas]

How do you think World War III will pan out? (Let's be honest, there is going to be one)
What do you think will spark it to begin? When do you think it will begin? Who will win? What will happen and etc?

This is for a research paper of mine and of course there is no real answer but the thought counts. Plus I'm always curious about what my fellow Escapist's think about a future world war.

-Thanks in advance.

P.S. Long posts very welcome and should this belong in Religion/Politics?

You can get a helpful, serious attempt at an answer from Generational Dynamics. [http://www.generationaldynamics.com/ww2010.htm] The owner of the site predicts something called a "Clash of Civilizations world war" that would principally involve America and China. As an interesting side note, it also predicts a new European war.

 

[superbatranger]

Well, we should hope it does not become a nuclear war. If it does, we're all proper fucked.

 

[Caspertjuhh]

I think the US will keep attacking other countries, liberating them if you will, and they'll make a mistake in estimating the force of one country. They bomb (maybe even nuke) them, causing global judging of America. Lots of support from other coutries for the attacked coutry will push the usa in a corner, and, to quote a dutch saying 'a cat in a corner makes weird jumps'

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

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

You're right. A bunch of alliances can't help but prevent war. I mean look at Europe. They've never had a big war because of tons of alliances.

Sorry if I came off as a jerk, but I just had to point that out. I do agree with your second point. I doubt that the major countries of the world would just go willy-nilly dropping bombs everywhere. Humans have a tendency to act stupider than what was previously thought possible, but by now governments realize that nuking the enemy into the stone age hurts everyone.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

-snip-

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.

You know this guy has got a point. I have to agree with him. And oh yeah, I've got this poem that you might be interested in. It's called "The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling. And I totally agree with you views on imperialism. Nothing bad has ever come of it.

 

[Caspertjuhh]

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

You're right. A bunch of alliances can't help but prevent war. I mean look at Europe. They've never had a big war because of tons of alliances.

Sorry if I came off as a jerk, but I just had to point that out. I do agree with your second point. I doubt that the major countries of the world would just go willy-nilly dropping bombs everywhere. Humans have a tendency to act stupider than what was previously thought possible, but by now governments realize that nuking the enemy into the stone age hurts everyone.

I agree, but shifts in power are innevitable.

For Example:
Someday, China will try to get control of the USA government. They'll keep getting those jobs etc... If one american patriot with a slight mental situation (in a high position) decides to nuke China, we got one hell of a problem.

But I dont think a 3rd WW will come. I do think that someday terrorist will succeed in nuking a part of the USA, and the reaction will determine what kind of conflict will come afterwards.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Oh damn, most of humanity is dead now. Oh damn, the rest is going to be wiped out by radiation seeping across the surface of the Earth. Oh damn, it doesn't matter because we have no crops or food now.

I don't know who will *win* but we are all going to lose if and when the nukes are all fired.

 

[k3v1n]

I'm bettin it'll be either, India & Pakistan or North Korea & South Korea or Israel & Iran/Islamic country

and all countries will pick a side and will be nuked to hell eventually....I'm guessing most of Africa will be spared and probably some European countries

 

[BlackMunz]

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.

First of all the British Empire was neither as glorious and righteous nor as evil as either one of you described it. I mean the BE was pretty hard on any form of riot but they did lay the foundations for world trade.
But more importantly the BE never fought back against Bismarks armies because Bismark never did anything to shift the balance of power in Europe to Britain disatvantage. He fougth three wars: One against Denmark which tried to usurp parts of northern Germany(at this point "Britain was humiliated and left impotent, as it was unwilling to commit ground troops to Denmark and failed to receive support from France" - Harold Temperley), one against Austria over the same region and finally the German unification war against France which was over so quickly that Britian didn't had a chance to react (and we won that one too). After that Bismark tried to construct an order of treaties in Europe to make war amongst the great nations impossible (except with France because at that time Germany and France hated the shit out of each other) and was renown as a mediator in European diplomatic affairs.

OT: I think that if WW3 is going to happen it is because of the nearly inevitable economic downfall of the US. Their debt problem is second only to Japans (Greece earlier this year was in a better position debt wise). The EU is a bigger market and grows at a much higher rate, as does Chinas. Because of that and the already great social tensions in the US some president will start a war to distract from the inner problems which goes horribly wrong thus starting World War 3. I would guess that Europe would emerge victorious due to the fact that we have far less nukes and nearly no first strike capabilities which would make us a lesser priority target for nuclear first strikes and our high level of technology. When the other countrys are done nuking the shit out of each other our survining military forces would be able to win in no time.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

A group of nazi's takes over the cripiled world, small sectors of resestance remain across north america and parts of europe... and all of russia is fine.

 

[DanTheMan92]

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!

Dude that isn't funny at all, gain a sense of humour.

Anyway, it will start in some shape or form by a powerful country, such as USA to Nuke somewhere (I'm not saying it will be the USA)

 

[ImprovizoR]

It wont last longer that how long it takes a nuke to reach it's target. Luckily for me my country will be spared. We never participate in anything good or bad. The world likes to ignore us, and I like to ignore the world.

 

[Caspertjuhh]

It wont last longer that how long it takes a nuke to reach it's target. Luckily for me my country will be spared. We never participate in anything good or bad. The world likes to ignore us, and I like to ignore the world.

Switzerland?

 

[badgersprite]

I don't think we're ever going to wage a war on the scale of WWI or WWII where we send a whole generation to fight. It's simply outdated. Most wars will probably be fought on a smaller scale by professional armies, and major superpowers will most likely not engage each other with huge standing armies, but fight in smaller proxy wars, as has been going on since the end of WWII and the start of The Cold War.

If there is a WWIII it won't be anytime soon. It simply isn't viable with the world in its current state. Major powers aren't going to gut themselves by exposing themselves to such a huge conflict. Hate to break it to you, but having your country blown up isn't good for your economy.

 

[manaman]

A literal world war................Earth vs Mars........

We would own that little red planet, send it crying back to it's mommy.

I say we just throw the moon at it, kill two birds with one stone.

 

[manaman]

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.

First of all the British Empire was neither as glorious and righteous nor as evil as either one of you described it. I mean the BE was pretty hard on any form of riot but they did lay the foundations for world trade.
But more importantly the BE never fought back against Bismarks armies because Bismark never did anything to shift the balance of power in Europe to Britain disatvantage. He fougth three wars: One against Denmark which tried to usurp parts of northern Germany(at this point "Britain was humiliated and left impotent, as it was unwilling to commit ground troops to Denmark and failed to receive support from France" - Harold Temperley), one against Austria over the same region and finally the German unification war against France which was over so quickly that Britian didn't had a chance to react (and we won that one too). After that Bismark tried to construct an order of treaties in Europe to make war amongst the great nations impossible (except with France because at that time Germany and France hated the shit out of each other) and was renown as a mediator in European diplomatic affairs.

OT: I think that if WW3 is going to happen it is because of the nearly inevitable economic downfall of the US. Their debt problem is second only to Japans (Greece earlier this year was in a better position debt wise). The EU is a bigger market and grows at a much higher rate, as does Chinas. Because of that and the already great social tensions in the US some president will start a war to distract from the inner problems which goes horribly wrong thus starting World War 3. I would guess that Europe would emerge victorious due to the fact that we have far less nukes and nearly no first strike capabilities which would make us a lesser priority target for nuclear first strikes and our high level of technology. When the other countrys are done nuking the shit out of each other our survining military forces would be able to win in no time.

The US is still a larger market then the EU. The US is only challenged by China, but per capita the US is in a much, much stronger position. Then again it all depends on how you want to look at it. The EU has more people if you want to be as simple as that, but they have less purchasing power per person. Then again even in Canada where they have quite a bit less income then a person in the US doing the same job managed to run a spin program to keep people from taking jobs in the US that tried (mostly failed) to tell Canadians that the larger income results in less disposable income. If they can spin that, then I guess you can spin anything.

 

[Calico93]

Someone pisses off russia
Nukes

Enter Fallout 3 & New Vegas

 

[Socius]

Now that's just being cynical. And quite fair, paranoid...

No, if we focus on education amongst all, there'll be very little wars. Why do you think there are talibans to begin with?

because americans blow up their houses and they want vengance. But thats just now.
the old Taliban was formed when the Sovjets did the same thing the americans are doing now.
at wich point the Americans was supporting them, oh world, how random you are.

I do realise that isn't all thats too it, but if you simplify it somewhat thats whats behind it.