It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


World War 3 -- Picking Sides

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 11:29 PM
A lot of people are saying the world is going to end around 2012 and that WW3 is going to happen soon.

My question is, if there is a two sided war, which countries would be on each side? And who would win.

If countries sided like WW1:

Central Powers (Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, and Turkey)

Allies (U.S., Britain, France, Russia, Belgium, Serbia, Greece, Romania, Montenegro, Portugal, Italy, and Japan).

If countries sided like WW2:

Axis Powers: Germany, Italy, and Japan (Soviet Union until attacked)

Allied powers: (Big 3) United Kingdom, from September 1939, the Soviet Union, from June 1941, and the United States, from December 1941.

(The rest of the allies) * The British Commonwealth, Poland, France, Belgium, China, Norway, and the Netherlands


(Current Axis of Evil per George Bush: Iran, North Korea , Syria)


Here's my prediction on WW3.

Side A: (Anglo-Latin) USA, UK, Italy, Spain, Iraq (why not)

Side B: (Asia-Arabia) China, Iran, North Korea , Syria

Side C: (Undecided or I don't know) Russia, Germany, France, Japan

My speculation is whoever's side China is on will win. And for some reason I don't think it's going to be on the U.S.'s side in World War 3, if it were to ever happen.

[edit on 2-4-2005 by Lord Altmis]

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 11:53 PM
Allied powers: Russia, china, maybe india, brazil.

Axis Powers: NATO (usa)

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:19 AM
Interesting, so you don't think China will be on the side of the U.S. either.

I wonder if anyone does, probably not.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:23 AM
IMO, should WW3 happen and as per your example it is a World War made up of two opposing sets of countries, then I'd have to say without a doubt the answers are:

Which countries would be on each side?
1.) Who really cares about who's on who's side, it's still a World War?!?!? (supporting validation for #1 found in answer #2)

And who would win.
2.) Nobody. What is there to be Won exactly??? I mean, even saying something like "Dominion over the whole earth" or "All your enemies stuff" it still makes no sense to me. The whole Earth was already here and all the fighting over it only continues to tear it up.

For example, it's like two kids fighting over a football only to pop it in the process and then saying that the kid who then gets to keep the useless rubber taco skin of a football is a winner?!?! He didn't win, both of them lost cause they were too ignorant to realize they should be playing catch in the first place. Play catch and they both actually DO win and nobody loses.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:26 AM
Everybody would lose? Hence I take no sides, unless upon self defence upon which my arsenel of offensive weaponry will be severely inadequate anyway.

- Nazgarn

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:27 AM
If there is a war, no one will win. In fact, no combatant will survive to celebrate.

If you have to pick a side. Pick the one not involved and find the nearest cave. Stock it with water and food for at least two months. The probability that you will survive will be about 10%, depending on the distance of your cave to the nearest military installation or city.

I recommend that all countries be allowed to arm themselves with nuke, and all will have the right to "mutually assured destruction."

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 03:02 AM
First, we would need to pick teams, and so I suggest this: We divide the nations into two groups based on present relations, so for example, the US and Cuba would be on opposite sides since the US still carries a grudge for losing all that mob money to Castro.
Once the nations are picked, we put the leaders' names in a hat and pick two captains.
Now, all the nations go back into a single pile, to be more fair.
Flip a coin to see which captain picks first, then one by one pick teams.
Team one captain: Tony Blair, wins coin toss, and picks UK first, to the dismay of the US.
Team two captain: Kim Jong Il, picks China, to the dismay of North Korea.
and so on.
Once the teams are set, then a commitee sets the ground rules, and says go.
I would suggest rules such as: No killing allowed, all warfare must be done via computer simulation. etc.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 03:04 AM
"The Man Who Saw Tommorrow"

Know it..............learn it!

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 03:14 AM

Allied powers: Russia, china, maybe india, brazil.
Axis powers: NATO (usa)

I foresee the united states being on the losing end of that battle. China alone may be able to do in the U.S. Just what they need is help from India and Russia also.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 04:44 AM

Originally posted by antigovFZ777

Allied powers: Russia, china, maybe india, brazil.
Axis powers: NATO (usa)

I foresee the united states being on the losing end of that battle. China alone may be able to do in the U.S. Just what they need is help from India and Russia also.

How does China trump the US? You clearly know NOTHING of military powers. If China were able to take the US military, they would be the world superpower now wouldn't they?

If it is in 2012, that gives them exactly 7 years to:

1) Close the gap of nuclear disparity with the US. The US currently has (about) 8,000 warheads. China has (about) 250 (largest claims).

2) Close the disparity in the airforce. Chinas lates fighter, the J-10, is based off of a 30 year old US design - the F-16. The F-16 is being retired by the USAF soon. China has also has little in the way of a nuclear bomber force, while the US has the B-2 for first strike, The B-1 for hit and run, and the bomb truck of the century - the B-52. The USAF also has better radar and better AWACS in larger numbers, a better satalite system (for everything), and stealth strike ability. The Air would be OWNED by the US.

3) Close the disparity in Naval warfare. Truth be told, this is probably the greatest advantage the US holds. The US has over 70 nuclear submarines, all of which are better then anything China has. China does not have a single aircraft carrier. The US has - what - 18 SUPER carrier battle groups. CBGs are the most important aspect of FORCE PROJECTION, which is the SECOND most important aspect of warfare. After all, having a billion people to put in an army doesn't help you very much when every transport ship and plane gets blown up . This aplies to Russia as well. Both countries simply do not have the means to bring their armies to bear. They would both be fighting defensive wars, and that means giving up the initiative. If you know anything about warfare you know that that is a decisive advantage to have.

4) Force projection is the second most important thing, but LOGISTICS are the most. Simply put, an army marches on it's belly, and niether China nor Russia have the ability to equip, supply, and feed an extensive war. The US can.

In all honesty, this thread was a joke the moment the author pinned China as the trump card. China would be a vast second fiddle to Russia in such a scenerio, because China simply can't confront the US nuclear superiority. China also does not have near the technology that would be needed to confront the US that would be needed in a full scale war. Russia might.

Also, to say that India would fight alongside China is a complete joke. India would be fighting against China if they took part at all.

Over all, you are looking at:

USA, UK, Australia, Poland, Germany, Italy, Spain, (basically all of NATO), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, France, plus others I am forgeting


Axis of Evil:
Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba.

In the end, both sides nuke each other. The Allies 'win' (if there is a winner in global thermo nuclear war) because they hold a decisive nuclear advantage, and the Allied naval forces would clean up.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 04:48 AM
Air superiority and all the fancy high tech weapons will be a moot point if there is a world war. You don't need thousands of nukes to kill everyone, just a couple hundred will suffice.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 07:50 AM

Originally posted by American Mad Man

USA, UK, Australia, Poland, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, (basically all of NATO), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, PAKISTAN plus others I am forgeting

Germany and France would NEVER fight against Russia and China. They just can't risk is. Also Italy and Spain, i think all four countrys would be NEUTRAL. The population of these countrys would never fight side by side with americans after the last US wars. I you wanna facts, do some research about the opinion in Europe about the US. If there is another WW, NATO is going down.


Axis of Evil:
Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Brasil, Kirghistan, Bulgaria, INDIA

Just editet a little bit the sides...

Do You really think that "The Allied" can win this war? That a joke right? Oh, i've forgot, thanks to put Russia and China into the Axis of Evil, it would be a great pleasure for me to remind You about Your flaming, when i fight You if there is a WW3

You have to slow down a little bit, i'am respecting You as an veteran, but You are saying a lot of flaming stuff... not only in this topic, pure nationalisum? Great, just compare the history of Your country, and compare it with Europe - where do You get Your nationalisum from? From Your army? From Your wars? Oh i've forgot, of course, You get it also from CNN and FOX news. I don't hate americans, but i just can't understand people like You saying "ooh yes, i'd love to kill some muslims even if i don't get paid for that" - no comment.

Don't take it to personally, its my personal opinion about Your posts, if You can't handle it, we can discuss it, but just slow down a little bit. Whats that f*cki'n HATE printed on Your head?

[edit on 3-4-2005 by bulgarian]

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:17 AM
Spain will never side with muslims or arabs. THey hate them

Russia, china, arab nations, muslim nations, north korea will side on one side.

Australia, britain, america will side with one another.
European's will most likely help the australia, britain and america.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:44 AM
no one is going to win, it doesn't matter if you have 1 billion nukes or 1 thousand nukes, 1 thousand is enough to blow up this crappy planet.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 11:56 AM
MY theory on WW3

Side A : Europe / USA / Isreal / Australia / Japan

Side B : Communists / Former Communist Sates & the Whole of Islam

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:51 PM
What if World War III is not between any countries? It could be a war FOR the world. All countries standing together. Wouldn't it be shocking if world war III was actually a war for the world? In other words, a threat from outside of earth.

[edit on 3-4-2005 by Event Horizon]

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:55 PM
actually its more multicorporations against humanity and it has already begun in my opinion

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:00 PM
Many people who predict the outcome as the U.S. losing WWIII because they can't wait to see U.S. get defeated. They've done no research on the topic whatsoever. I'm not saying that the U.S. can't be defeated, anything is possible. In the end, we do have the clear technological advantage. I also don't think that nukes would get used (I at least hope so). Many countries now have nuclear capabilities.....all it takes is one country.

[edit on 3-4-2005 by deadpresidentz]

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Iainwh
MY theory on WW3

Side A : Europe / USA / Isreal / Australia / Japan

Side B : Communists / Former Communist Sates & the Whole of Islam

I think Ianwh is closest to this statement. Excluding possibly Saudi Arabia, but most definately Iraq and Afghanistan(they have no armies). I hope Saudi Arabia would take sides with us, just for the fact that if all Arab Nations did decide to go to the other side... we would be #ed, especially if russia is on that other side too. Why you would say? It'd be kinda hard for the U.S. to win a war when they didn't have the oil, and if the Arab Nations and Russia sided together they would have all of the oil. And what's a army if your planes don't fly and your tanks don't go?

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:52 PM
I must agree with Hellraiser.

It's going to be NATO, Japan, North Korea, Israel (possibly) and obviously other common wealth countries VS a Russian alliance, probably all former warsaw pact countries, China, India, Brazil.

Possibly Cuba will get involved, perhaps some other South-American countries.

I don't think the middle-eastern Muslim world will have the manpower and probably not the motivation to start a world war, they were uninvolved in both other world wars, however Iran is probably the most powerful.

It would be a very tough choice on me to be honest, It's just like the US ellections, it will in the end have little effect on our world since the power at be are all corrupt IMO.

[edit on 3/4/2005 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in