Where do you think WW3 will start?

[Westaway]

Is it wrong that I hope it happens in a place with lots of people close together so we can lower our population? Cus we need to. Badly. Honestly I think having a baby is one of the most selfish things you can do at the moment.

 

[karamazovnew]

If by "nobody seems to care" you mean that everyone is using the intrenal conflicts to sell weapons to them, then yeah you're right.

You're right though, if the USA tries to invade Iran it'll be much different than Iraq and Afghanistan, and it'd trigger a series of events that could lead to a war of global scale.

I personally think the next country that is going to be struck by war is Pakistan. Many things point at that, the evergoing conflict with India, it's support of Afghanistan and most importantly, it's absolutely strategic geographical position. And Bin Laden wasn't "found" there for no reason, after all.

You're right, I should've used a different expression. With "nobody really cares" I was only talking in the context of the topic. I've recently been to Israel and I've seen how tense they are. 50 years of constant defense has changed their way of life. Even now, they fear that the recent revolutions are a chance for muslim extremism to rear it's ugly face again, instead of supporting them at a chance for freedom and stability. In our cushy sofas, most of us will never experience wars outside Call of Duty nor are we inclined to "support" the idea of a global war completely without reason. One thing that many forget is that the Holocaust wasn't known until the end of WW2 and even now there are still people who believe it was a lie. What Japan did in their territories is still not acknowledged either by Japan or the US. Back then, having a warmongering country in your backyard was enough of a threat to start a war. Right now, a few idiots blowing themselves on the other side of the world are reason enough to lay waste to a poor country. This might seem a better chance to step on somebody's toes (China, Russia). But again, It's well established that wars everywhere are a gold mine to any weapon dealer. Plus, wiping out a country's industry is what foreign investors dream about. Wars are here to stay and the latest rouse over Pakistan is clearly an indication of what's next in line. But India versus Pakistan will not spark a world War no matter how bad it gets. Since they both have nukes, the rest of the world will never become polarized. Whoever attacks first will be blamed and put in line. Sure, maybe it's next, big chance, but, as I said before, "nobody really cares". And here I'm not talking about us sofa lovers, the big powers will use the UN haven to delay action. China is doing very well economically (everything is made in China) so there's no need for them to burst the bubble. Russia's only weapon is European gas supply lines so again, why do anything? And the US has a million tired and exploited and insulted soldiers that just can't wait to get home. The US has bases in Pakistan, so India attacking first would be crazy. More likely the US would topple the gov with help from India as going back home would leave the whole area destabilized (which might be what they want). In the long run what might be in the cards is a coalition between Afghanistan (which I doubt very much like the US), Pakistan (which have been insulted way too much) and Iran and lo and behold, Iraq. So the Americans have no choice but stay and deal with Iran now. No doubt someone in Pentagon sees this and might just very well do something very stupid.

But I agree that Iran being attacked is a long shot exactly because it's way to sensitive an issue and it could spiral out of control very fast. Most of the world thinks that Bin Laden was a Cia agent(more so after his weird death), that the 9/11 was an inside job, an excuse to establish a base in Middle East, surround Iran (which American leaders HATE even more than Iran hates America), tame Pakistan and finally punish Saddam. Whatever excuse they throw next to start a new war ain't gonna hold water. And they know this. Just look how careful they were in Libya. The American population is also fed up with everything and want to see money spent at home, not on bombs. To be honest, I believe that a new world war will never happen again. The only reason they did happen was lack of communication and a totalitarian rule of people. As America has shown since is that it's way more profitable and safe to resolve issues with "revolutions" and insurgent activities. And most of the muslim world is dead tired of being called a terrorist faction so extremism will be dealt with "in house" from now on. The only place extremism will survive is in Europe. Some TV brain washed, Coran reading, Call of Duty players might just thing it heroic to blow up some old ladies in a bus. But we have too much security to have this spiral out of control.

Boy... when I start writing I never stop... talk about a dedicated troll

 

[Sean951]

When Japan attacked the US, Germany and Italy declared war on the US. The US RESPONDED by declaring war on the two other Axis powers.
And the easiest way for Americans to get rid of their Imperialist stereotype would be this:
Stop interfering in other country's affairs. You don't run the world. You do not outweigh the collective powers of this world. You are part of the world, not the one who runs it. Mind your own business, US.

K, then the rest of the world isn't allowed to get upset when we don't help them. Oh wait, they were practically BEGGING America to help in Libya.

Also, we would have joined Europe anyways. Like I have been saying, Roosevelt wanted ANY excuse to join on Britain's side, and we were already passively attacking the German Navy and Air Force. Not to mention it's kinda hard to not go to war with your enemies main ally, even more so when your main ally is also at war with said nation.

 

[notimeforlulz]

I'm gonna guess Between china and America once America goes bankrupt. Though what China doesnt realize (and most of the world for that matter) is that China needs America far more then America needs china, so it wouldnt help either country.

LIES, china provides cheap labour for America, without it, America's financial collape would be sped up tenfold

Actually if American businesses found themselves cut off from overseas labor they would have to start hiring Americans again. Wall street would take a dip from that, but the country as a whole would possibly be saved from it's current financial ruin.

 

[Pierce Graham]

And the end result? The US drops bombs which kill hundreds of civilians and the US just flat out denies killing them.
-They interfere in Korea, which solved nothing.
-They interfere in Vietnam, which solved nothing.
-They interfere in the first Gulf War, which solved nothing.
-They interfere in.. ok enough, point it the US walks all over anyone with a different opinion and act surprised when said countries don't like them. In the end, the Libyan rebels will lose, Gaddafi will stay in power and the Us will go back to buying oil off him.

 

[SilentCom]

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

You probably already had this pointed out but Germany didn't start WWI. WWI was caused by the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian nationalist in Sarajevo, Bosnia. This caused retaliation and declarations of war by the various alliances among European countries and by extension their colonies. Germany had the blame pinned on them with the Treaty of Versailles which is part of the reason why Germany started WWII.

After WWII and the stain the Nazis left on Germany, I doubt Germany would want anything to do with war much less start one.

Edit: If a WWIII were to occur, then I would have to guess it would take place in either Korea or Pakistan. The reason for Korea is because North Korea is proving to be a trouble maker and could start something such as attempting to invade South Korea or attack Japan with ballistic missiles.

Pakistan is my other guess because there is the recent tension between Pakistan and the U.S. regarding Bin Laden hiding there "without their knowledge". Areas in the Middle East are also unstable partially because of all the wars with the U.S. recently and terrorist activity. I'm not saying WWIII will be caused by a country in the Middle East necessarily, but it is a hotbed for wars so I wouldn't be surprised if a big one hits.

 

[karamazovnew]

Sorry guys, but I'm with Gaddafi on this one. Not that I like the guy but no matter who you are, when civil unrest results in people raiding military hardware, you have no option but to squish them. Suppose a bunch of hippies raid Fort Knox and win there and declare Independence. Would the UN then bomb Washington to protect civilian casualties in California? Yeah right... Sorry but this is just as it sounds. The UN bombing Libya was just plain stupid. Why don't they do anything in Myanmar? Or Siria? The revolution in Lybia was just false. But I'm not going to blame the US for it, it was a EU chance to see if the US tactic works. And it does. The only people that benefit from this are the Oil cartels. It's a damn shame. The UN has gone one step further to becoming a threat to it's own mission.

 

[Oilerfan92]

Estonia will launch a surprise attack on Niger with the assistance of Trinidad and Tobago. The world will he in such shock and surprise that they'll just launch nukes everywhere.

 

[yaik7a]

Georgia after those pigs attempt to genocide the ossitens.

 

[p3t3r]

i really hope there isn't gonna be one it will be total carnage. but probably an asian county like china or perhaps if a middle eastern country becomes a supper power and the oil starts to run out


also captcha was bragg's onelove

 

[SilentCom]

Is it wrong that I hope it happens in a place with lots of people close together so we can lower our population? Cus we need to. Badly. Honestly I think having a baby is one of the most selfish things you can do at the moment.

The world isn't over-populated, not by a long shot.

 

[DaysBefore]

Pff, China would collapse upon itself if it ever went to war with the US, so no real worry there. The Middle East is more of a regional conflict, unless the Russians decide to start clearing out downtown Damascus I'd say we are good. All the Middle Eastern nations are too weak to even support themselves, let alone wage global war.

I'd say Eastern Europe, maybe Germany, would be most likely.

 

[Westaway]

Is it wrong that I hope it happens in a place with lots of people close together so we can lower our population? Cus we need to. Badly. Honestly I think having a baby is one of the most selfish things you can do at the moment.

The world isn't over-populated, not by a long shot.

It will be before they grow up. No one should be able to have more then one kid, and in a few years two kids.

 

[MoNKeyYy]

a waning superpower.

world largest economy, largest military superpower, with force projection unmatched by any country that exits or has existed, enough nukes to turn out lovely little green planet into a blackened husk and good ol fashioned American know how, every civilian is armed to the teeth, you need a bit more faith in your country man.

actually, the SAS is a superpower by itself, it's so awesome(okay exaggeration a bit, but you have to agree that the SAS are awesome(they train other armies(including US's i think))

GO SAS!

i have faith in my COUNTRY, just not in Cameron, he means well, but he can't fix Gordon Brown's mess... but to be honest, the world is becoming interdependent, there is no superpowers anymore, the american government says that to keep up morale... and i bet, if it came to it, Britain could take out an area of land around 5x the sizeof itself, so it's quite pointless to threaten with nuclear weapons, since britain is a country of Peacekeeping...that included keeping the peace between america and others...)

Well, my neighbor's country anyway. And I didn't say they weren't still a superpower, just that they're on the downhill. Or that several other countries/blocs (EU) are on the rise.

 

[Blatherscythe]

Germany, started 2 wars to begin with, and almost won them. Third time's the charm.

 

[Blatherscythe]

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

Well actually, Germany was helping their ally Austria (basicly the same as Germany but the allied powers don't want them coming together again) because Syrian assasins had killed their heir and they demanded compensation which was denied. WW2 was started because the Nazis came to power because of that damned treaty pushing the population too far financially. WW3 may happen after the world crosses the line with the Nazi sterotype pushing.

 

[Sean951]

And the end result? The US drops bombs which kill hundreds of civilians and the US just flat out denies killing them.
-They interfere in Korea, which solved nothing.
-They interfere in Vietnam, which solved nothing.
-They interfere in the first Gulf War, which solved nothing.
-They interfere in.. ok enough, point it the US walks all over anyone with a different opinion and act surprised when said countries don't like them. In the end, the Libyan rebels will lose, Gaddafi will stay in power and the Us will go back to buying oil off him.

Korea maintained South Korea as an independent nation, which is now one of the more powerful economies in the world.

Vietnam... well, I'll give you Vietnam.

Desert Storm achieved it's objective (freeing Kuwait) and then proceeded to destroy Iraq's ability to respond, ending without occupying the nation.

Last point... you seem to have run out of direct military interventions, so I will throw a couple I know happened, Grenada, Panama, and 1980s Afghanistan.

As for Gaddafi, I don't see him holding onto power, as pretty the entire world has turned on him, NATO is limiting his troop movements, and other Arab nations are helping out the rebels.

Sorry guys, but I'm with Gaddafi on this one. Not that I like the guy but no matter who you are, when civil unrest results in people raiding military hardware, you have no option but to squish them. Suppose a bunch of hippies raid Fort Knox and win there and declare Independence. Would the UN then bomb Washington to protect civilian casualties in California? Yeah right... Sorry but this is just as it sounds. The UN bombing Libya was just plain stupid. Why don't they do anything in Myanmar? Or Siria? The revolution in Lybia was just false. But I'm not going to blame the US for it, it was a EU chance to see if the US tactic works. And it does. The only people that benefit from this are the Oil cartels. It's a damn shame. The UN has gone one step further to becoming a threat to it's own mission.

No, he went violent before the riots did. There were reports of strafing runs and bombings, which prompted the previously peaceful protests to become a full on revolt, which included units of the army joining the rebels and at least some members of the air force to seek asylum outside the country. His own government officials were leaving before the rebels had even seized a city. A similar event in America would have M1s being called up to quash a peaceful march on Washington, possibly with strafing runs buy helicopters/planes. If that were to happen, I would hope the UN would step in.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

/snip.

Never count on the UN just yeah...not a good idea.

 

[BonsaiK]

The title says it.

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

It won't happen. The political and cultural landscape of the planet has permanently changed in such a way as to make a third world war impossible. The closest thing we'll ever get is the current "war on terror" which really isn't a world war any more than the "war on drugs" is a world war.

India and Pakistan almost went to war in 2001/2002. And they still hate each other.

That wouldn't have been a world war, that would have been an India/Pakistan war.

but they both have nukes....................

...which neither side will use. Think two countries with borders adjacent to each other are going to go nuke crazy on each other, think again.

 

[Pierce Graham]

All of your thrown in interventions only prove my point of the US sticking their nose WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG. Acting as though the world is their playground.
And of course Gaddafi won't hold on to power. When the revolution started, NATO specialists said he wouldn't last a week. Then a month. Then two. Now three. And the rebels haven't really moved in three months. The man cannot be bargained or reasoned with. The only solution is a bullet to head, but since he hasn't killed a pre-requisite amount of people (though mainly because the US makes a lot of money off of him) he will stay right where he is.