Poll: whose starting WW3 people?

[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 1914 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)

Okay, so you have no problem admitting that I'm right about the world not being able to adjust it's resources properly to start another World War, you just had a problem with my date? Excellent. On we go.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

It'll start in Australia, as part of Operati- oh wait, I'm not supposed to tell anyone about that yet.

I have no idea where WW3 will begin. Not in my glorious country, that's for sure.

I for one welcome our new Australian overlords.

OT: I'm guessing Middle East & Israel; people seem to forget there's a difference between an economic competitor and a hostile enemy, China's in the former.

 

[WeAreStevo]

I don't think America Vs. China is a viable option, unless we're talking economic take over. Still, I think the US will split into smaller countries before that happens.

I think if it does crack off it would be Israel VS. some Middle East country (take your pick) and then the US will be pulled in followed by Iran followed by Europe and so on. I think that's how it will begin though (hopefully it doesn't...)

 

[thespyisdead]

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.

your post sums the american psyche in a nut shell: the ability, and basically the arrogance, to call yourself a world power, while completely neglecting, that China basically owns you at this point in time. also, china may not attack US, it may put a choke on funds coming into the US. this is a recepie for a new "great depression"

 

[Gonztah]

Finland gets taken over by a dictator who attacks the other scandinavian countries (We have a bigger army than all of theirs put together.) NATO will take its sweet time to react (As in they must "Discuss" about what to do for the next 30 years.) And nobody with nukes wants to launch them into Finland because we have all that tasty fresh water in our lakes. (Yum yum.)

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Earth vs Mars

It will be over the sovereignty of Phobos.

Earth, Venus, and the Moon will make up the Triple Entente

Mars, Demos, and Mercury will form the Allies.

 

[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.

your post sums the american psyche in a nut shell: the ability, and basically the arrogance, to call yourself a world power, while completely neglecting, that China basically owns you at this point in time. also, china may not attack US, it may put a choke on funds coming into the US. this is a recepie for a new "great depression"

I am not even American smart one. I am German and what I said is completely true. http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/china-growth-debt-currency-yuan-climate-markets-economy-myths_4.html

See that? That was research, not going AMERICANS ARE STUPID LOL.

Also, militarily, even if China put a choke, the US would tear China a new one. The only thing they have is numbers.

 

[Kathinka]

hnnn the last two ones were started by austrians tooling arround with their german minions..but i've got a feeling things changed.
america is the warmongering nation number one nowadays, so simple mathematical chance dictates they will be in it somehow^^

 

[N_of_the_dead]

America vs China is unreasonable they are reliant on each other. If South and North Korea go to war then I can see the U.S. and China being dragged in but that would likely end with, in my opinion, China just absorbing North Korea and being done with it. Other options I could see are Russia vs China and the U.S. having a civil war.

 

[hutchy27]

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

Are you kidding me? German basically have no military power what so ever now.
The biggest country they could even attempt to successively invade would be a small tropical island.

Anyways, in my opinion I would say it would start with some Asian countries having disputes about population increase and border issues and then it escalating. America will defiantly be involved, they wouldn't want to miss out on a world war would they?
Hopefully it there is a third world war, America won't wait till the last minute.

 

[Lgkook]

In my opinion it will be America, or to say the U.S., against the rest of the world, because they think they can beat everything

 

[Yureina]

US vs China will happen someday. I guess that will be the true WW3. Everything until then will just be regional at best.

 

[holographicman]

WBC and the KKK

i wanna watch them to kill each other

well that's the best idea i've heard in a while

mw3 will be started by idiots and ended by idiots

 

[Spartan448]

At this point, it'll be either Republicans V Democrats, or it'll turn out that all this time, the Swiss or the Canadians or both have been developing advanced space technology, and proceed to take over the world.

 

[Conza]

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.

Ok, you've covered several bases, I actually would've prefered if they were all individual countries, but I think this also works

Lets see

--
America v. China

Pakistan v. India

America v. Other (comment)

Israel v. Middle East countries

North Africa v. Middle East

North Korea v. South Korea

America v. Iran

UK v. Argentina

--

North Korea v South Korea has been done, that's not going to happen again.

North Africa v Middle East? No.

Pakistan v India... not world war material.

UK v Argentina, just don't see that happening

Israel v Palestine/Other MEC, again, very likely (again), still not WW materal imo.

So all I'm left with now is America, America, America. Well, the US wouldn't start a 'world war' all their skirmishes into the Middle East have never been far enough for true, full on war.

So from the countries listed, forget other, Iran or China..


I'll go Iran. Most unstable, why the Brits ever left is beyond me

 

[Maddenfreak]

well the thing with pakistan and india is a ticking time bomb. eventually full blown war will break out. then its a matter of whether to let them duke it out, or choose a side. just my 2 cents

 

[phats_cocks_strangla]

Aliens

 

[Bob_Dobb]

Civil war, Bronies and Pony Haters.

/thread

 

[badgersprite]

My starting WW3 people.

Grammatical errors aside, I don't think anything that could accurately be called "World War 3" will happen, at least not any time while I'm alive.

 

[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.

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.

We aren't that brutal, perhaps only because of the emergence of the video camera and the internet. But we hid what we could and got away with what we could, particularly during the Dubya administration. We rounded up random people who's only crime in many cases was standing while Arab, and tortured them. In at least one reported instance at Abu Ghraib, a 12-year-old Iraqi girl was locked up in a cell with over a dozen grown men, all of them criminals. We hired mercenary groups - private killers and private espionage agencies (how do those exist again?). We ensured that returning caskets of dead American soldiers could not be televised. The DOD reported less than 10 percent of the number of chronic and fatal illnesses and mental disease reported by the Department of Veteran's Affairs for soldiers returning home from Afghanistan and Iraq. Microsoft and Halliburton were on the ground within the first couple of months. We still use cluster munitions and mines, which never fail to kill small children for decades following a large-scale conflict. And we fuck over a nation's infrastructure, "kill the bad guys," and throw up the deuces and leave. "Peace, brown bitches. Whitey's leaving."

I think you're right though. Wartime makes us remember that we're still in fact animals.