Which country is least likely to start World War 3?

Lonan

New member
Dec 27, 2008
1,243
0
0
North Korea. Simply because China would abandon it if it did something like nuking Seoul, and then it would be over so quickly it would be more of a battle than a war.
 

seekeroftruth86

New member
Nov 20, 2010
124
0
0
England is far too polite and proper to offend anyone's sensibilities. Japan isn't all that keen on killing anybody in a mass display of imperialistic genocide either, not since last time...

Sorry Geass fanboys, ain't gonna happen.
 

King Toasty

New member
Oct 2, 2010
1,527
0
0
Shock and Awe said:
Switzerland, they didn't even get into World War 2, not thats a commitment to neutrality!
America almost never went into WW2. Then Japan did the entire Pearl Harbor thing, and it kinda messed things up.
 
Sep 9, 2010
1,597
0
0
Latvia! Because it has the least important geographic position ever.
Plus it is the land from which my ancestors come
EDIT:The only reason Switzerland is neutral is because it was forced to sign a treaty saying it would stay out of every war ever. In return they got to be Socialist. History huh?
 

JoshGod

New member
Aug 31, 2009
1,472
0
0
Germany. I mean what is the chance that they would do it three times in a row?
 

Angus565

New member
Mar 21, 2009
633
0
0
Sturmdolch said:
airplanedude550 said:
Liechtenstein
Hah they don't even have an army... Or a currency... And their soccer team plays in the Swiss league. Er... Yeah.
Hey! Liechtenstein has an army, and he's a really nice guy!
 

FortheLegion

New member
Dec 16, 2008
694
0
0
Germany is the least likely country to start another world war. They've already started 2 I think the population would very against another.
 

beniki

New member
May 28, 2009
745
0
0
FortheLegion said:
Germany is the least likely country to start another world war. They've already started 2 I think the population would very against another.
Third time lucky!
 

muckinscavitch

New member
Jul 27, 2009
457
0
0
Germany. Pretty self-explanatory. They've learnt their lesson twice, and have disallowed many things that most countries still do, such as stem cell research, or really any research involving human DNA and such... CRAZY! But makes them less likely to start a war.
 

Tattaglia

New member
Aug 12, 2008
1,445
0
0
Nauru.

Ripped shamelessly from Wikipedia - "Nauruans are among the most obese people in the world. 90% of adults have a higher BMI than the world average. Nauru has the world's highest level of type 2 diabetes, with more than 40% of the population affected. Other significant dietary-related problems on Nauru include kidney disease and heart disease. Life expectancy on Nauru in 2006 was 58.0 years for males and 65.0 years for females."

No army, no money, and no fit people. Take us to DEFCON 1, please.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
DoomWyrd said:
Switzerland. You know, the one that is ALWAYS neutral. I'm going with that one.
Surprised this one took so long to show up. Wasn't the last time they were a part of a war like over 300 years ago or somethign rediculous?
 

crudus

New member
Oct 20, 2008
4,415
0
0
SimuLord said:
My money's on Lesotho. Hard to start WW3 when nobody in the world has heard of you (and, with a >30% adult HIV prevalence, hard to find enough guys to field a soccer team, never mind an army.)
That is a good guess. They are also completely surrounded by a possible enemy nation. However, I am putting my money on Madagascar.