Poll: whose starting WW3 people?
- Thread starter HotFezz8
- Start date
I kinda have to agree with this. It'll start off with a few smaller nations, then some big boys will start sticking their nose in the situation, someone says this, someone launches that, and the next thing you know the whole world has gone mad...or at least madder than usual.Berethond said:
I don't think WW III will start because we're too interconnected and our populations depend too heavily on each other. For instance, China would be screwing itself over if it attacked the US because it owns US debt, and if we go to war it would necessarily be the most costly war in the history of man. The way China handles it's population is rather careless, and to fund a war would probably mean tens or hundreds of millions of Chinese starving and the loss of it's greatest customer, the US, and severely damaging relations with NATO treaty countries. There is still too much to lose, and unless something happens to change that, I doubt there will be a WW III.
I think wars will only be fought economically and politically on a grand scale.
I think wars will only be fought economically and politically on a grand scale.
I'm going to go with Israel and Palestine when/if they get a state. Think of it. The Palestinians get a state, the leadership does their annual rocket launch into Israel, the Israelis declare war on Palestine, the rest of the Middle East go after Israeli, then it's a clusterfuck as everyone picks sides on who to back up and who to go against, making the Middle East a complete war zone of epic proportions. Followed by that, everyone then goes after each other because one country 'lost' an errant missile/nuke that hits one of the major players.
World War I started small, so it wouldn't be a complete surprise. I think that in the extremely unlikely event that a World War were to start again, it might be the US v. China like in Fallout. Though hopefully with fewer nukes. You know, like no nukes. The only problem with this is that the US and China share a number of allies, and so a division would not be as clear cut as it was in World War I.Berethond said:
I just can't imagine WWIII when the US has nuclear weapons. Sure, there will be small conflicts, but the big ones are forever off the table.
Also, I would have voted for EU versus the Balkan States. Why is the only European country the UK, and why in the world would they start a world war with Argentina? Is that a soccer thing or something?
Also, I would have voted for EU versus the Balkan States. Why is the only European country the UK, and why in the world would they start a world war with Argentina? Is that a soccer thing or something?
That sounds about right.Do4600 said:
The thing is, if North Korea flicks the back of South Korea's ear a bit too hard it could trigger a war between those two...The US will back SK and China will back NK. It would spiral out of control from there.
I'm hoping World War 3 ends up never happening though. Unless they find a way to make it non-lethal, kinda like how they chose the leaders of the Earth in G-Gundam. A planetary Giant Fighting Robot tournament would be awesome.
ya know what? I change my mind. World War 3 could be the most epic war EVER. The US could come in with an armada of Metal Gear only to be decimated by Japanese Gundam (unless they form an alliance). It could also be the first war where biological weapons use brings about the rise of Zombies and/or mutants. Not to mention all of the orbital weapons! Granted, it would only take one to destroy the planet (or rather, make it uninhabitable for humans) depending on how it's used that is...
I don't see that happening, the worst thing I can see happening is the middle-eastern Islamic states becoming allied against Isreal in that case. I don't see a major superpower joining the Islamic states though, there's very little to gain, oil will be dead in thirty years, and it's not worth joining the risk of a major conflict to have access to the oil. Perhaps China would join the Islamic states, they are really the only super power that would require the oil. But again, China survives off the quantity of cheap goods it provides to first world countries, it would be pitted against them because the US and Nato would almost assuredly join Isreal in the conflict, that would destroy China's economy and the only way to get that back would be conquer or force the entire rest of the world to pay them and that....would be virtually impossible.LordOfInsanity said:
If it were to happen, it'd start in the middle east. Things are so heated there right now that it's possible. Particularly between Israel and Palestine. Especially given how much vested interest the rest of the world seems to be taking in the whole affair and the whole UN debacle. (which should be a non-issue, ffs)
I say smaller. Vatican City vs Monaco. My guess is the Pope starts wrecking Monaco's shit, and from there it escalates into one mass-world brawl.Berethond said:
That could happen in North/South Korea, but again, starting a conflict with your biggest customer is a very bad business model. Also, nuclear weapons would make a good deal of the resources you'd be trying to capture unusable, also a bad business model, using zombie bombs, also a bad business model, any one of these tactics will make you look worse than Hitler, and probably mobilize the world against you.Shoggoth2588 said:
Also, the United States has the most advanced weaponry in the world, China....not so much. If a large scale conflict actually broke out, you can bet the United States has some very lethal technology just waiting for the big red rubber stamp to spend money on, they have been talking about putting kinetic bombardment stations in orbit for a decade now.