Poll: whose starting WW3 people?

[lacktheknack]

America versus South Korea? What?

I think it'll be Israel vs. Everyone Else. They have some allies, but they have an inexplicable amount of hate aimed at them as well.

Not really inexplicable is it? It was made from stolen land at the end of world war 2, and since then they've broken most every rule the UN has but the US keep bailing them out veto style. They forge UK passports to conduct killings around the world, they invade sovereign nations with no reason then just retreat, they claim half the middle east as theirs by divine mandate. I can see why they are slightly disliked.

I'm NOT getting into a war for Israel here, but they didn't just steal the land. The UN offered it to them. And the alternative was expelling hundreds of thousands of Jews from Palestine, as opposed to hundreds of thousands of Arabs. It's called a "lose lose scenario".

As for the rest... sounds like pretty much any other major country with allies. The only difference is that Israel is the most recent to declare a country as their own and screwing a bunch of others out of land and then abusing it for a while.

See the birth of America for comparison.

 

[Vault Citizen]

I don't think WW III will start because we're too interconnected and our populations depend too heavily on each other.

Actually at the time of WWI the economies in Europe all had close links and were all to some extent inter reliant on each other, yet that didn't stop the war from happening.

 

[cookyy2k]

World war 3 will not begin between nuclear powers. The concept of MAD keeps the peace well in that regard. It is far likely to be industrialising nations much like the last 2, the only difference now is that a nuclear power can become involved down the line and that's more of an issue.

 

[Vakz]

Luxembourg vs. Andorra

I have a feeling it'll start small.

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.

Vatican City vs Monaco, but guessing reason will be Albert II stealing the pop's hat during a party. You know how it goes.. people always want to try out the hat (cause it's so tall, you know?), it gets passed around, and then suddenly, no one knows where it is, because Albert went outside an put it in his car when no one was looking. That guy is always up to no good.

I'd start a war over that. It's a pretty neat hat.

 

[Do4600]

I don't think WW III will start because we're too interconnected and our populations depend too heavily on each other.

Actually at the time of WWI the economies in Europe all had close links and were all to some extent inter reliant on each other, yet that didn't stop the war from happening.

The world population has more than tripled since 1917 and with it the need for resources, I really don't think we have as much wiggle room in our economics and resource transfers as we did back in 1917.

 

[Vault Citizen]

I don't think WW III will start because we're too interconnected and our populations depend too heavily on each other.

Actually at the time of WWI the economies in Europe all had close links and were all to some extent inter reliant on each other, yet that didn't stop the war from happening.

The world population has more than tripled since 1917 and with it the need for resources, I really don't think we have as much wiggle room in our economics and resource transfers as we did back in 1914.

You seem to have been mistaken about when WWI started so I fixed it for you (unless you did mean when America entered the war and didn't just think that it actually started then also, in which case my apologies)

 

[dancinginfernal]

What a stupid thread.
No one will start WW3 because of the existence of nuclear missiles.

This statement is fact. The wars of the modern age are wars of deterrence. Nobody wants to start an all-out war with someone at risk of triggering a global nuclear battle. Such an event would destroy Earth's atmosphere, and scar modern culture and society.

 

[AlphaEcho]

i said america vs china, but in reality it should be the other way around, because chine will some day get pissed about the american "fuck that" attitude toward it's 100 trillion dollar loan.

What? China is even more reliant on the US than vice versa.

None of these are plausible, it will not happen. The republicans wet dream is defunct.

 

[retyopy]

America vs. everyone else. Ever. For varying reasons.

 

[No_Remainders]

Where is the option for Germany vs. Something random? I just have this feeling that Germany will be involved

Nah. Over the past hundred years, we've only known Germany to be a wholly peaceful and loving nation. [/sarcasm]

But yeah, I agree with this guy. I'd say Germany will get pissed off at someone not paying them back their money (perhaps us Irish), and will ragequit the EU, then invade us because we didn't pay them, then someone will try to step in and help, and then all hell shall break loose.

 

[NicholasSchaffer]

There is not going to be a WW3.

You see, most nations don't have the military capacity to go toe-to-toe with NATO's armed forces, as the NATO countries generally have the best military on the face of this earth. And the nation most likely to start a war (N. Korea) will get it's ass kicked quicker then the fucking gulf war.

Actually, the Gulf War is a perfect example of what any traditional war in a modern era would be like. NATO storms in, clearly being the superior military, and just kicks everyone's ass. The only way to fight "effectively" against NATO countries is guerrilla warfare, which only works about half of the time.

China would never start WW3 as their economy is solely dependent on ours and vice-versa. We stop buying from them, their economy collapses.

The best chance is if the Russian socialist party re-took power, but things would have to be really shit with the Russian Federation to have that happen, as no person in their right mind would support the communists again.

Although now that you mention it, war between Israel and it's neighbors is super-likely.

BTW, for any of you who think WW3 will form from a war between NK and SK, think again. Any conflict between the two would basically be a repeat of Vietnam. China would back NK but refrain from getting terribly involved to avoid war with their biggest customer. The US (Our politicians being made of idiocracy) will likely send troops to SK's aid. Hopefully no nukes go off in the process.

Relations are far to good for any European power to get involved. My country is stupid like that because everyone else's war is apparently our war too, but the European nations have a lot more political problems to deal with.

I still stick to the fact that WW3 isn't going to happen anytime soon. Still, maybe resource hungry dictators will try and fight us for territory on Mars and- you know what, I'm just going to stop myself there because any WW3 scenario ever is unlikely.

 

[Talshere]

UK vs Argentina....Really?


I doubt there will be a WWIII.At least in the sence of Major world powers. Maybe a few 3rd or possibly 2nd world countries but not first. Simply put, 1st world guns are too big for a war. If any of the main EU, NA, Asian or even middle eastern powers genuinely went at it World War style, life would simply end in those regions of the world. We all know it. And boarders are to defined to really make a go for justifying a war globally. Populations are set in these 1st world countries. I hight doubt a second Argentinian run at the Falklands would be met with global neutrality a second time round considering the standard reaction to even internal conflicts these days.


As it is any World War style war will be fought over power. That is power as in Watts and Joule's not physical power. Given the rate of technological progression technologies such as fusion should render should struggles obsolete within the next 200 years at the outside.

If I WERE to pin it on one country I would say N.Korea. But their leader is a dictator not an idiot. He knows damn well that if it REALLY kicked off and he got the Western world involved they couldn't win, especially since China was decidedly neutral in the last bit of argy bargy up that way.

 

[funguy2121]

out of interest, how do you think WW3 will start?

p.s. yes people I am aware that a) its impossible to know, and b) WW3 is (hopefully) unlikely. just take a guess.

China is likely, which of course means the Korean peninsula will be involved as well. Russia may be a major contender if Putin holds on to all of the clandestine power he currently enjoys. Iran's batshit leader makes them a big contender, maybe not as the biggest player, but certainly a player. Also, the recently liberated (to varying degrees) Libya and Egypt should be watched.

Also, since the state of Turkey, Greece, Britain and other countries is so dire that people can get away with actually referring to the "fabric of (their) culture unraveling," it's not out of the question that some of the countries whose economy is suffering even more than our own will be involved.

The US, if not engaged directly from the outset, will most definitely be involved, regardless of who's in the White House (unless it's maybe Kucinich one day? Maybe if we start carrying our brains into the voting booths).

In summary: I don't think South America or Antarctica or Greenland will have much to do with it. Everyone else is fair game. What do we win if we're right?

 

[AlphaEcho]

If we really learn nothing from history, then definitely North Korea vs South Korea.

It would probably start similarly to The Great War where tensions were brewing all over the world and it took just two small countries to start a global conflict.

You realize if NK ever attacked the south it will be so royally steam rolled that they will be back to just regular to Korea in a week.

They might have been a threat when SK was weak, their tech was sort of up to date and people would actually consider helping them over the US.

 

[nklshaz]

Where is the option for Germany vs. Something random? I just have this feeling that Germany will be involved

What in the world would give you that idea? Is it pattern recognition? ;P

 

[artanis_neravar]

If things continue as they are I put all the odds on America starting WWIII, and their opponents might just be the countries poverty stricken citizens based on all the protests against the financial institutions that back the country's rather large army.

The rather large army made up of the friends and family of the protesters who themselves are poverty stricken?

 

[NicholasSchaffer]

Seriously, you're actually going to say that with a straight face? Face it you crazy, MW2 playing, Cold War fantasizing, conspiratist nut-jobs, WW3 just isn't ever going to happen in our lifetimes.

EDIT: Replies, why U no work?

I was trying to reply to funguys post.

 

[Jewky]

Iceland and Greenland against the rest of the world, they're angry at their names.

 

[AlphaEcho]

I will also like to add, no Russians. The Russian Federations armed forces is only really good at looking cool right now. Even the Spetnaz are not very good when you break it down.

They are one of the most corrupt and undisciplined modern fighting forces on the planet. Their navy and air forces is so~so and could easily be trumped by anything with NATO on it.

 

[funguy2121]

There is not going to be a WW3.

You see, most nations don't have the military capacity to go toe-to-toe with NATO's armed forces, as the NATO countries generally have the best military on the face of this earth. And the nation most likely to start a war (N. Korea) will get it's ass kicked quicker then the fucking gulf war.

Actually, the Gulf War is a perfect example of what any traditional war in a modern era would be like. NATO storms in, clearly being the superior military, and just kicks everyone's ass. The only way to fight "effectively" against NATO countries is guerrilla warfare, which only works about half of the time.

I used to think this, but every nation uses guerrilla warfare now, and the last 10 years disproves your statement. We're still losing people in Iraq and Afghanistan on a regular basis. Going into hostile territory and removing an enemy from power is almost never as simple as it sounds, in spite of the fact that some of our enemies are as sophisticated as a tribal culture compared to our technology and infrastructure. Also bear in mind that North Korea, China and Russia are far more sophisticated than Iraq was.

China would never start WW3 as their economy is solely dependent on ours and vice-versa. We stop buying from them, their economy collapses.

If that's true, and I hope that it is, then maybe we both have something to bargain with and can both improve our cultures because of it.

The best chance is if the Russian socialist party re-took power, but things would have to be really shit with the Russian Federation to have that happen, as no person in their right mind would support the communists again.

As little comfort as I have echoing things that Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly have said, Putin wields enormous power and is very fond of the secret murder-and-make-it-look-like-an-accident game, and he definitely keeps an eye on his neighbors as he pulls Medvidev's strings. What do you think happened in Georgia, after all? Russia doesn't have to return to Socialism to once again become something enough like the Soviet Union to stir up a great big war. And it's interesting that you said this, considering their relationship with Iran, and then said this:

Although now that you mention it, war between Israel and it's neighbors is super-likely.

Makes one wonder just how effective Mutually Assured Destruction really is. Israel's neighbors have made a run for her several times, and it's made her a bit prickly to say the least. Maybe homicidal is more apt. In spite of the Arab Spring, which gives me hope, and in spite of the fact that a great many young Persian college students want democracy, we'd be naive to think we'll see the end of war in the Middle East during our lifetime.