Poll: whose starting WW3 people?

[Demitri Kamoraz]

Due to MAD, it can't really happen. Sorry.

 

[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.

Actually, what I am more afraid of is South Korea attacking North Korea.

If it is just North Korea then yeah, they'd get steamrolled. But if South Korea attacked, it would almost certainly spark a bigger war.

Maybe, until SK steam rolled NK. Than we would have a few years over countries being pissed off at each other and then everyone will forget in a few decades.

 

[malkavianmadman]

TBH I dont think there is a leader now or hopefully in the future psychotic enough to say F*** IT! and get the shindig started.....also itll be the zombies who start it

 

[Jnat]

We europeans get tired of asians when things start going up, so we accuse them of being evil and attack them.

 

[Rufei]

Easily, if WW3 were to happen, it would bloom between India and Pakistan. THAT is a hotbed of unfortunate things to come, esepcially with Pakistan's proximity to Afghanistan and her closest ally, China.

It would start as skirmishes and escalate to economic warfare. Once India ever hit that pipeline that runs through Pakistan, China would rail on India's economy, and the SCO would generally have many issues with that. And of course, the US would have the perfect excuse to be a "peacekeeping force," which means more weapons testing.

So really, it would be a proxy war fought on Pakistan's soil. And it would not be pretty.

(Because no, it will not escalate to direct confrontation, lest MAD gets invoked.)

 

[Dr.Sean]

You people are all wrong. It isn't an actual World War unless France gets invaded by Germany.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I really don't think there will be a WW3.

If there IS a WW3....it will be one of the following situations:

a) Nations worldwide invade the frozen north, AND Canada AND the antarctic over freshwater/snow to turn into freshwater. (not likely to happen in my lifetime, if at all)

b) Someone manages to fire a nuke at the US/China/Russia/North Korea. The target country's systems will take over and fire nukes back. Soon EVERYBODY is slinging nukes. And then, hey presto, the world is now a radioactive husk, and almost everyone is dead as DogMeat. :s

 

[ImperialSunlight]

United States vs. Canada. Because they already messed up our economy, I imagine they probably would want to finish the job.

 

[Da Orky Man]

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?

Argentina and the UK have been arguing over the Falkland Islands for nigh-on centuries. Both of them claim it to be part of their territory, but officially it's British, and every poll taken of the residents indicate strong support for staying British. look up the Falklands War.

 

[dancinginfernal]

Obviously Switzerland is going to get sick of being called neutral pussies and attack everyone ever.

And win.

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.

You have to hit "Quote" for it to be a full-on reply with his message included. Otherwise he just gets a message saying you replied to him, but nobody else can tell.

 

[AlphaEcho]

Maybe, until SK steam rolled NK. Than we would have a few years over countries being pissed off at each other and then everyone will forget in a few decades.

Oooh, if I remember the Korean War right, China wouldn't be too terribly pleased with South Korea's invasion.

I would just hope that the U.S. doesn't try and assist their invasion.

The thing is, if the US is involved in any way than China would step the fuck out.

Not to mention China and NK are not as close as they used to be.

 

[Hyper-space]

I think wars will only be fought economically and politically on a grand scale.

This.

The war will be fought with distasteful remarks printed on the bottom of noodle-boxes and on the back of iPhones, imagine the horror of an ordinary U.S citizen finishing a box of noodles made in China, only to have his feeling hurt in crude English.

 

[Kirosilence]

I don't know who will start World War 3..

But World War 4 will be fought between the NCR and Caesar's Legion at this rate.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

UK vs Argentina

bwahahahaahahahaaa, sure fucking thing. World war are impossible with how today's economy works.

 

[Talshere]

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.

True enough but these war continue only because of support within the country of none combatants for the combatants. There are only 2 ways to win a war where a segment of the population will support and hide the guerrilla's.

1:Time. People get tired of fighting. Slowly more and more children grow up with the new way of things until eventually there simply are not enough people left willing to die for a cause barely remembered. N. Ireland is a key example here. Even during some of the more dangerous parts of the fighting it was a few members of the population, supported by a minority of the population, that was ultimately funded by American Irish 3000 miles away. Even that finding dried up after 9/11 when suddenly those funding the terrorism suddenly had the reality of what they were funding come crashing down on them.

2:Total zero tolerance. The unification of Britain and the conquering of Scotland is a prime example here. I believe it was also practised in some areas in Afria in the Empire days though I have no source. You are chasing 3 men who performed an act of terrorism. They run round a corner and vanish on a street that is busy but shouldnt be able to hide 3 people from view after 30 seconds never mind 5. You grab the nearest 10 people, men, women or children. Line them up against a wall and shoot them one by one until the terrorists come forward, are surrendered or you kill all 10. Any time you are chasing terrorists and they vanish like this or you storm a building they should be in and they arnt, repeat this process. At first it will stir a deep profound hate that overrides everything. But over time people will begin to fear. The potential loss becomes to great, as ultimately its not the terrorists who are dying, or even their supporters, but random people. This threat of loss causes people to give up any information they might have to save a friend in the line. People who housed them decide the risk is to great, they lose their refuges and over time are run to ground. Its brutal, but history tells us it works. It is fortunate all round they we are beyond this. I have no doubt the wars in the middle east would progress some what different if this brutal practice were still enforced.

If it came down to World War practice. Where losing is not just over a spit of land in the middle of nowhere. This would no doubt become common again.

 

[Rufei]

Maybe, until SK steam rolled NK. Than we would have a few years over countries being pissed off at each other and then everyone will forget in a few decades.

Oooh, if I remember the Korean War right, China wouldn't be too terribly pleased with South Korea's invasion.

I would just hope that the U.S. doesn't try and assist their invasion.

The thing is, if the US is involved in any way than China would step the fuck out.

Not to mention China and NK are not as close as they used to be.

The former is patently false. China has national security concerns over NK being an entity not backed by the US. In fact, if the US did anything, judging from trends in diplomatic tone, China would step the fuck up. You can expect a veto on the UN security council, too. As with Russia, probably.

But yes, they're not as close as they used to be. I wouldn't be surprised if China has plans for when Kim Jong Il croaks, though. Hell, if there's a military coup when that happens, I really wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Mathonwy]

If world war three happens this is the way I see it starting, one of India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, or Pakistan uses a nuke on their enemy of choice. Whoever it is, is soundly rebuked, but not at first nuked in return, lots of condemnation, possibly a conventional response.

Then seeing the fear it inspires and lack of coordinated response (and lack of nuclear retaliation) another does similar to its enemy of choice, escalation continues. At some point someone is attacked that either the USA or China, consider an ally too close not to get involved, at which point it starts being called a world war, and the majority of the world gets dragged into it.

 

[Liquid Paradox]

Here's a question to make you think (until some jackass just googles the answer) What did they call WWI before WWII?

 

[Talshere]

Here's a question to make you think (until some jackass just googles the answer) What did they call WWI before WWII?

The Great War. The war to end all wars. Its is still known as the great war in Britain. Its just another name but its commonly used.

 

[AnotherAvatar]

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?

Thanks to modern military brain-washing mixed with the subtle implimentation of the "Us Vs. Anything labeled a Terrorist" mind-set, yes.

Mind you as an American citizen who regularly abuses the freedom of speech I, too, am hoping that this is where that battle will hit it's kink. I mostly just like to point out this potential scenario to keep people alert, as we'd be fools to think this isn't what the top 1% want.