Where do you think WW3 will start?

[AT God]

I don't know if there will be a world war, there may be a huge war but I don't think it will be like the other world wars, I doubt a country will set out to conquer the world, however I am sure some country will push their boundaries and get shot down. If any country in the UN does something incredibly stupid in complete defiance of every nation in the UN, then something may happen involving multiple countries but I think we are going to have a war between maybe two countries with other countries sending support, such as China vs. USA with USA getting UN support and China getting NK support, I doubt China will rise and try to seize all of Asia for lebensraum.

 

[Sean951]

Deleted

 

[hannan4mitch]

Well, the thing is, is that the factors that caused the first two world wars are not present today. We don't have massive webs of treaties and diplomatic agreements tying countries to other ones, thereby in the instance one nation would have war declared upon it, another would declare war on the nation that declared war in the first place, essentially causing a massive snowball effect.

 

[HentMas]

Infinity ward will create a game so awesome and so incredible called "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" that the people that hate Bobby Kotick will try and erase it from the face of the earth, just so they can say "there was no good game that came out while Kotick was in EA"

but some people who actually are in for the love of video games and not just some trend of "hating the company that makes money" or "the man that runs the company that makes money" will raise and defend their right of playing such games without anyone messing around with their preference

and so... yeah, will be inside the US, practically "Texas" vs "everyone else", London will join later to try and calm things down and then some country, like probably China or Korea will yell "ITS TAKERS KEEPERS" and everyone else will try and take their piece of the United States

México will then start operation "La Raza" and take control of Texas and California

Canada will raise a big wall not wanting to have anything to do with the whole ordeal (probably the most intelligent thing to do)

and then the war will start because some dumb ass from the pentagon thought it was a good idea to launch a nuke (which will be a dud and do no damage at all) at the country that yelled "takers keepers".

 

[natster43]

Middle East. Probably in Palestine. That is my guess.

 

[C95J]

I'm gonna go with Christmas Island.

No one will expect anything...

 

[Raesvelg]

Taiwan.

Possibly in about twenty years.

 

[MikailCaboose]

The title says it.

Do you think world war 3 will start in Israel? Germany? North Korea? Australia?

I'm guessing in a special place called "Nowhere".

Seconded, a little thing called mutually assured destruction makes it seem highly unlikely that there will be any global scale conflicts in the near or distant future.

Mutually assured destruction does not really calm relations though, and something may light the powder keg anyways. Brinksmanship was supposed to help end the Cold War, but it took Russia's military-caused bankruptcy to really end it. When it comes down to it, I don't think relying on mutually-assured destruction is really a safe fall-back.

 

[aba1]

honestly I think North Korea will get cocky and do somthing serious and somebody will react and will simply cream them it wont be ww3 but itll happen there to seperated from the rest of the world and there leader seems to be the type who will let his power get to his head and eventually attempt to expand

also I think eventually china will call in its debt that US owes them and I just have this feeling the US will bomb them for it... I know its horrible but I just don't trust the US's goverment the people are generally cool enough but man ohh man every decade its a new freaking war

 

[DasDestroyer]

Canada

They will try to invade russia =p

As a Russian living in Canada, I have no idea whose side I'd take xD

And my guess is that if it starts, it will start everywhere at once.

 

[Pierce Graham]

It's a known fact that since the end of WW2 the US has done their best to alienate the entire world. They don't care about other people's cultures, ideals, or values, they just walk into any country, throw down their flags and impose their values. The world won't stand their cocky strutting for much longer.
Incidentally, I hope I don't receive a warning for this post. "Sounding like a terrorist." What, because I don't like the US I'm automatically a terrorist? Guess that make most people on Earth terrorists then. Having a different opinion makes you an evil terrorist... very American way of thinking.

 

[matt87_50]

I'm not sure... but $10 says France gets invaded.

 

[6unn3r]

Judgeing by the shouting i heard last night i would say next door???

 

[Discrodia]

At this point, world war 3 is pretty much out of the question. All the big and emerging powers (Russia, the EU, US, China, India) all have much more to gain through mutual support than through pointless fighting. Unless something truly improbable and egregious occurred, I'd say WWIII is out of the question. At least involving the large powers.

Now, in the 3rd world and Middle East a massive conflict seems more likely, especially with all the religious fundamentalism, warlords, rich natural resources, and in the Mideast the fact that Israel is no closer to trying to make friends than they were 40 years ago. Though not a truly 'world' war, I can see Africa and the Mideast being ripe ground for large-scale confict.

 

[rt052192]

Hmmmm...Well both of the previous started in Europe and also encompassed Asia.

I don't believe it will go down in the Middle East mainly because that region has been going through war/combat/chaos for centuries, but if it were to start in the Middle East my best bet would be because of a shortage of oil worldwide.

If it were to start in Asia I would probably say it's because of North Korea or China. North Korea would probably attack South Korea and it would also have to attack elsewhere, like possibly Japan. And I can definitely see China trying to pull a WWII attack similar to Japan. China's economic growth is scary powerful, coupled with the sheer manpower it has is just pointing towards expansion. But I don't think China has the unity or political prowess to pull off something of this nature and territorial expansion doesn't seem to be as popular as say 100-150 years ago.

Africa is too big of a shit hole to really start anything on a global scale. North Africa is a hotbed for revolt and I don't trust any of the North African countries. If anything I think they are crazier than the nut cases running the show in the Middle East.

As for Europe, I dont't really see it starting here. I can perhaps see it being a stage of the war, but Eastern Europe was ravaged by former Soviet Russia and isn't really in any condition to be causing a stir. Western Europe could most definitely get caught up in a flare up elsewhere in the world though.

And finally, I don't anything south of the US to cause any trouble worthy of a world war. Venezuela is the true power house along with Columbia, but internal conflict and poverty will trump any potential global threats. Now this leaves us with the U.S. of A. We will most definitely get involved in a WW3. Whether we instigate it or not I can assure you the World Police will stick its nose in it. FUCK YEAH!

this has been the World War 3 perspective...brought to you by RT0!

 

[Sean951]

It's a known fact that since the end of WW2 the US has done their best to alienate the entire world. They don't care about other people's cultures, ideals, or values, they just walk into any country, throw down their flags and impose their values. The world won't stand their cocky strutting for much longer.
Incidentally, I hope I don't receive a warning for this post. "Sounding like a terrorist." What, because I don't like the US I'm automatically a terrorist? Guess that make most people on Earth terrorists then. Having a different opinion makes you an evil terrorist... very American way of thinking.

Yup, the Marshall Plan was totally an attempt to piss Europe off, and defending South Korea with the U.N. took care of Asia. Let's not forget Kennedy's line of tanks in Berlin when the Soviet's moved their armored divisions up, or all the disaster relief we so horribly gave out, the Pakistani's we saved during the recent massive flooding, and our support of Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion. Yup, totally trying to alienate every one.

 

[Sougo]

Isn't a large part of the world already at war?

America and Allies busy running troops and drones up and down some third world counties.

UN bombing Libya.

Several Arab countries facing massive uprisings.

The 2 Koreas enjoying some skirmishes and threats.

Sudan getting ready to divide itself and start a war between North and South.

Somalia, facing massive internal turmoil and sending more ppl fleeing to the seas for piracy.

Israel and Palestine - the never-ending war.

The inevitable strike of Israel/America on Iran still looming ahead.

Several other egs. Heck, even the Canadians had a riot.

It may not be a World War, but it is a World at war.

I don't mean to imply it directly towards you but I find this kind of thinking a little naive. To equate the small scale fighting around the world to almost suggest we're in a globe of violence and a world at war... problem is this sort of fighting has always been going on throughout history. While it's not perfect and the 90's were better, post cold war has probably been the most peaceful era in human civilization history, or at the very least it is per capita. It's pretty much been all guerrilla warfare, either advanced armies fighting under-equipped insurgents or militia's wiping out unwanted residents. Real wars where two trained professional armies go at it with both expecting to win just doesn't really happen anymore.

I agree that these cases don't fit in with our classic definition of 'war.' However the chances of seeing an actual encounter like that are pretty slim. Because of technology and media, most sides already have a reasonable estimate of the others power, and so noone really wants to commit forces into difficult battles.

Since the demonstration of the power of nuclear weapons, it is highly unlikely that any 2 superpowers are going to engage in an actual war, and the presence of the UN will probably see to that any 'stepping out of line' by weaker countries will stamp out the cause of disturbances (e.g. Libya these days).

As for WW3, I think its pretty safe to assume that thats not happening until at least one of the more significant minerals gets depleted. Although I don't think wars will be fought for oil, they might take place for water. Again fairly well into the future ... perhaps not in our lifetimes.

 

[Pierce Graham]

All that was done not to help others, but to defend the wallets of the rich in Wall Street. Let's be honest. Example,what's happening in Libya. The US and NATO aren't helping the Libyan people. They're making sure the oil supply is secured. They're not helping people in Syria. Or in Yemen. Or in any other Arab country. Why? Not enough oil for them to care. The US sets up dictatorships wherever they feel like, they completely ignore UN law and do whatever they please. They're not the glorious defenders of democracy and freedom they want the world to believe they are. They're people, just as evil and corruptible as anyone else.

 

[Rainforce]

While not knowing about the Treaty of Versailles and how it influenced the political structure in Europe to the point of war breaking out is acceptable, insisting on being an ignorant jackass after being enlightened is not.

It's the same as me making fun of the American war of Independence against the English, saying it was obviously The fault of Christopher Columbus and the Conquistadors for re-discovering the Americas in the first place.

Well, the concept of "being at fault" is kinda pointless the second you realize that you can justify everything with anything (due to linear causality). so yeah, from a certain point of perspective you could say it's all Columbus fault (it is even logically true, considering all factors), it just depends on where you draw the line.
(although I personally wouldnt put it that way)

 

[Lionsfan]

First two were Germany's fault.....I feel good putting my money on them for a third round.

Uhh, no. Germany did not start World War 1, they just got the shortest possible end of the stick in it. The whole of Europe started world war 1, and had the Treaty of Versailles not been so vicious and had the whole of Europe accepted that they had all been twats (not something countries generally do), Germany would not have started World War 2.

Well they didn't start it, but they certainly didn't help matters. Because after Austria-Hungary's Duke was assassinated in Serbia they (with Ally Germany's encouragement/support) offered an ultimatum towards the Serbs which basically would end in an invasion/total surrender. Because the Russian Empire was allied with the Serbs (and didn't want anybody else with influence in the Balkans) they told Austria-Hungary to fuck right off and mobilized their forces, Germany did the same with theirs. It was then that France decided to jump in on the Dick-Measuring and mobilized their forces too. Germany declared war on Russia on August 1st.

So in a way Germany is to blame for starting WWI, however thanks to countless Alliances which had been made they weren't the only ones, but they weren't victims either. And they did get the unfair blame in the Versailles Treaty which didn't help matters at all, which led to Germany being angry, which led to a stronger central government, which led to the rise of the Nazi Party, which led to etc. etc. we get the point. Bu