It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadpresidentz
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]


no one wins when ww3 breaks out, no one on this earth will survive and that is a garanty. Its a misconception that a small group will survive a full atomic war.




posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by antigovFZ777


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.


Yeah, A staging base in South America wouldn't hurt either. In fact without such a staging base such an operation would be impossible.

You also have to consider the logistics. The necessary hardware and personell cant be produced in Brazil alone. It would have to be trasported from the enemy mainland which would give the US an advantage due to the supriority of their Navy and its Air arm. If these could be countered in some way...? Who knows?



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by IComeWithASword
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.


Not true. Not true at all. Every target that you shoot at has to have multiple warheads targeted on it for redundancy. If it only took a few hundred thats all that would have been built.

What you don't realise is that not all nuclear weapons are delivered through ICBMs. In fact, most of them are airdropped, thus AIR SUPERIORITY is VERY important.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I figure if WWIII breaks out it will start in Europe, just as the last two have, and Americans will be screaming to stay the heck out of it, Just as they did in the last two WW's, and finally the americans will have to go in, end the war, clean up the mess and save the idiots from themselves. Just as the Americans had to do in the last two WW's.

History will repeat itself.

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
My 2 cents.

Side A
USA
North America
Nato with or without Germandy
Japan
Taiwan
Isreal
UK
India

Side B
Russia
China
North Korea
Iran
Cuba
Venazualia
Colombia
Opec Nations
Libyia
Pakistan

A Very long bloody warthat will take decades to decide..the ultimate battle of Christiandom vs. Islam......Communist Vs. Capitalizm/Democrocy

I believe some humans would survive a nuke war...somewhere somehow......what for a fact will not survive is civilization as we know it...christiandom..or islamiic communism// democrocy

I see Brazil emergeing as "The SuperPower"



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Germandy might goto side B



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bulgarian
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?

lol
Anyone check this guys post out (and his many others like it)?



Dude, you seriously need to get a grip. He stated nothing more "nationalisumstic" than what you wrote. He posted reasons why the allies could win. You didn't.
I'm mean seriously, did you actually read his post?
It seems the only reason you're angry is because he said the allies would win.
That's an absolutely ridiculous reason to be mad, because realistically the Allies have a great chance of "winning" (even though no on would really "win").
Also looking at your edits, realistically Brazil, India, and Bulgeria (I know you added Bulgeria due to your irrational hate for America) would never fight against us or our allies as they are our allies...



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
I figure if WWIII breaks out it will start in Europe, just as the last two have, and Americans will be screaming to stay the heck out of it, Just as they did in the last two WW's, and finally the americans will have to go in, end the war, clean up the mess and save the idiots from themselves. Just as the Americans had to do in the last two WW's.

History will repeat itself.

Love and light,

Wupy

Funny how you see it, I see it as the US staying out of WWII as long as possible, letting Pearl Harbour happen on purpose to sway public opinion into letting them get into it.

Looks like youve seen too many US films on war to actually know what happened.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Dude, you seriously need to get a grip. He stated nothing more "nationalisumstic" than what you wrote. He posted reasons why the allies could win. You didn't.
I'm mean seriously, did you actually read his post?
It seems the only reason you're angry is because he said the allies would win.
That's an absolutely ridiculous reason to be mad, because realistically the Allies have a great chance of "winning" (even though no on would really "win").
Also looking at your edits, realistically Brazil, India, and Bulgeria (I know you added Bulgeria due to your irrational hate for America) would never fight against us or our allies as they are our allies...


- i dont't have an "irrational hate for America", what i said many times, not only in this post. I'am an European, raised in Germany and now living in BulgAria, the reason why i post US allies as US enemys is based on the NEW Chinese-Russian-Brasilian-Indian relations, which i've posted one week ago.

Don't forget the WW2, where alliances breaked down, new alliances were made etc. Base on that i've posted my opinion. India and Brazil have more interests in Eurasia than in the US, what is proved by the new "coalition".

I don't think iam quite competent to post reasons why "the axis of evil" could "win" that war, but a lot of other people are and have posted very good reasons. Sure, i can copy & paste, but it isn't my goal.

Dont missunderstand me, i don't hate americans - i don't like americans and people of other nations, saying radical things like "ooh yeah, i like to kill muslims, etc.." - Yes, that has nothing to do with this topic, my fault.



[edit on 3-4-2005 by bulgarian]



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
This topic seems insane...

As albert einstien put it "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."...I would take this mans advice and take heed of these words...this man helped created the first atomic weapon....inessance he is one of the fathers of nuclear weapons...



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
It'll be:

Allies
---
US
NATO excluding Germany/France
UK, Canada, Australia
Israel
Japan
South Korea

Axis
---
Russia and its satellite states (most of Eastern Europe)
China and its satellite states (countries such as Nepal, Sudan, etc.)
North Korea
Iran
Cuba
Germany/France?
Other "outposts of evil" labelled by that Ricetard that I haven't mentioned

I'm not sure about India/Pakistan. India is under Russia's sphere of influence, and Pakistan is under China's sphere of influence. India is unlikely to join in on an alliance with Pakistan though :\.

WWII also proved to us that technological superiority doesn't necessarily win wars. France had superior technology to Germany. Germany eventually had superior technology to the Allies. However, France and Germany were both defeated in the end anyhow.

Whoever said that WW3 will break out in Europe has no grasp of the current political environment. Europe (specifically the EU) is just too friendly with eachother to suddenly declare war. The trouble region is in Asia where each country's trying to one up the other, where many countries have nuclear capability, and where many of the regional powers tend to be aggressive.

While I must agree with AMM about the US having power projection capability, I would like to expand on that by adding that I think much of WW3 will be similar to WW2. I think that North Korea will attack South Korea and China will attack Taiwan. This will leave the US having to defend these two countries IF they are able to (recall the failures in the Korean War). When or if the Axis countries lose their momentum, the Allies may be able to slowly advance. I say slowly advance because I find it extremely difficult that the Allies can gain much momentum given the size of Russia/China whom happen to be locked in a strategic alliance presently to counter US hegemony. Furthermore, realize that never in the history of warfare has anyone had to face such vastness in both territory and army size. The territory of Russia/China combined would take ages to conquer. Let's also not forget that while trying to take this territory, the Russian winters can strike. Coupled with China's large army size and population pool, I'm convinced that the result of a WW3 (without nukes) would be devastating.

China has the largest army and if it were to draft every able man, it would have the size of the Nazi military force multiplied by over 100. So while the PLA may never be able to touch US soil, it definitely can place MILLIONS of troops on several fronts provided that they will even be fighting on several fronts. Also, AMM, I wouldn't doubt China's ability to arm all their men. Let's not forget their reputation for slave labor and being the "factory of the world."

North Korea also has one of the largest standing armies. If anything triggers WW3, over one million men will be marching towards Seoul within minutes of war being declared.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
WTF...sorry but I need to comment on this...why germany and france against america??



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
First off, before you choose the sides of world war 3, you would have to figure out what event would caused world war 3? We have the UN, and a good portion of countires are in the UN. And then you have to look at the good old balance of power, each country trying to balance each other to maximize their power. We live in a unipolar world since the cold war ended. The US is on top and because of that factor the US has more resources and technology to defend their turf. Their resources can buy allies, and possibility stop a third world war. Personally, I don't see another world war 3 breaking out anytime soon or within the "7 year span". Most countries want to maximize their power, and the best way to do that is through economical trades. With more organizations less likely of war. UN, EU, NATO. And after you figure out why theres a chance of a 3rd world war, you have to look at the individual level. Most of the world leaders have learned from the past, and no world leader wants to a major nuclear war. Most likely world war 3 would turn nuclear. In conclusion look at the system level, state level, and individual level.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackout
Furthermore, realize that never in the history of warfare has anyone had to face such vastness in both territory and army size. The territory of Russia/China combined would take ages to conquer. Let's also not forget that while trying to take this territory, the Russian winters can strike. Coupled with China's large army size and population pool, I'm convinced that the result of a WW3 (without nukes) would be devastating.

Which is why:
1. A war like that, and what other people are stating here, is highly unlikely given the current world state. Things change though. And...
2. A war like that won't be fought without nukes.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Sorry, Blackout, but the eastern europeans will be on the U.S. side come hell or high water. So will the Ukranians (well, half of 'em), Brits, Japs and Israelis. Everyone else is suspect.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
One more thing.... I guess the only real way for a major world war to break out is if the US reverted back to isolationism. Then I could see NATO, and the UN breaking up because the world police would be gone. But that is unlikely unless the U.S. citizens get more upset with the administration with foreign policy, and then votes in a new administration who doesn't get involved with world events.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
Funny how you see it, I see it as the US staying out of WWII as long as possible, letting Pearl Harbour happen on purpose to sway public opinion into letting them get into it.

Looks like youve seen too many US films on war to actually know what happened.



No, what you say here is absolutely correct. The US did stay out of WWII as long as possible and quite frankly, if the government had not let Pearl harbor happen you'd be typing in german right now.

The US gov. Let Pearl harbor happen so that public opinion would finally sway to the side of saving the sorry europeans butts. The US then instituted the Marshall plan and rebuilt europe.

Out of typical european gratitude they never pass on an opportunity to stab the US in the back.

It is my sincere hope that the next world war will wash europe away, cleansing this world of the stench that has caused EVERY world war to date.

Love and light to each of you,


Wupy



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bulgarian
- i dont't have an "irrational hate for America", what i said many times, not only in this post.


The fact that you have had to tell people many times that you don't have an irrational hate for America speaks volumes




I'am an European, raised in Germany and now living in BulgAria, the reason why i post US allies as US enemys is based on the NEW Chinese-Russian-Brasilian-Indian relations, which i've posted one week ago.


Chineese-Indian relations is an oxymorone. They will never fight together. Like I said, IF India got involved at all, it would be on the side of the US.


Don't forget the WW2, where alliances breaked down, new alliances were made etc. Base on that i've posted my opinion. India and Brazil have more interests in Eurasia than in the US, what is proved by the new "coalition".


What is your 'opinion' based off of? Please show me treaties between Brazil and Russia/India/China. Please show me when China and India have EVER cooperated on anything, much less in war.


I don't think iam quite competent to post reasons why "the axis of evil" could "win" that war, but a lot of other people are and have posted very good reasons. Sure, i can copy & paste, but it isn't my goal.


If you are not competent enough to give reasons, then CLEARLY you have no place having an OPINION on the subject. How do you come to a conclusion without first knowing the facts?
:down:



Dont missunderstand me, i don't hate americans - i don't like americans and people of other nations, saying radical things like "ooh yeah, i like to kill muslims, etc.." - Yes, that has nothing to do with this topic, my fault.


And what American has said "I like to kill Muslims" on this website, much less this thread?



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
WTF...sorry but I need to comment on this...why germany and france against america??


Because most people on this site hate America and don't want to see a US/UK led group win.

Everyone with half a brain knows that IF Germany and France got involved, Germany would DEFINATLY be on the US side, and France would if they decided to fight.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Because most people on this site hate America and don't want to see a US/UK led group win.

Wouldnt say that myself but fair enough thats your opinion...


Everyone with half a brain knows that IF Germany and France got involved, Germany would DEFINATLY be on the US side, and France would if they decided to fight.

Yeah I totally am 100% behind you with this mad man...when the shizen hits the fan we pull together...thinking about it, its sort of like a family thing aint it?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join