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.

 

Who would win WWIII?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
This seems like an easy answer at first thought: US, UK, Japan, Israel, and all our allies could militarily squash any enimy conventionally. But I assume this war, atleast the third and fourth phases of it would become unconventional. If it went nuclear, then we would squash. But then the aftermath would/could be horrific. I truely don't think there could be a true winner. But if all militaries were present, what strategy would win?

US, UK, Israel, Japan, (Poland, Italy, etc...)

Russia, Iran, China, N. Korea (Syria, Palistine, etc...)

Man the very thought of it sends shivver down my spine!




posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
The Winners would be cockroaches



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
US, UK, Israel, Japan, (Poland, Italy, etc...)

Russia, Iran, China, N. Korea (Syria, Palistine, etc...)


....

US, UK, Japan, Spain, Israel, S. Korea, Italy, Poland

Russia, China, India, Iran, Brazil, Belarus, N. Korea, Syria, Kazakhstan

Realistically, the BRICs would easily win any conventional or unconventional world war.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
That is something that I'd rather not guess. Either way it would be the biggest war yet, and by far have the most casualties. I'd think the side with Russia & China would win though main due to the massive forces they would have



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
US and Japan? i dont think so mate. Deep deep down the Japanese hate the americans SOO SOO BAD there is no word to express their hate. The Japanese and Americans nothing but Business. You think the Japs would love and befriend the americans when they dropped two nukes on Japan?. And what was the remembrance day for? its not just a holiday so the Japs can get drunk. Its so the Japanese People can remember what America did to them on that day that hour and that year . Force them to surrender and push the whole economy almost go broke . Japan will rise when America takes the dog collar off their necks and let them build their army again. Japan has the tech , $ , brains manpower and will power to do what ever they want . TV, VCR, DVD,MP3,Camera's,Cars , Robots,Computers , They created the whole lot . Only thing is weapons they not create because America doesnt let them or all hell will go loose



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
US, UK, Japan, Spain, Israel, S. Korea, Italy, Poland
Russia, China, India, Iran, Brazil, Belarus, N. Korea, Syria, Kazakhstan
Realistically, the BRICs would easily win any conventional or unconventional world war.


Pretty well informed you are.... Not much for me to add beside the fact that most of South America will stand behind Brazil including Cuba and Venezuela. And don't be so sure about Japan btw.
Thing will continue to go downhill for the USA while it sticks to current policies and more countries join the winning side.

Stellar

[edit on 19-2-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Alot of people are soo blind and cant see the real threat to America isnt China but JAPAN. China's economy is BIG and China is People 1.3bill of them but why is China growing so Fast? Who are the input and output of CHina? .

Japan = Input into China's growth , supplying technology like DVD players TV , and etc etc . China is Japan's Slave they make the goods for Japan without Japan we wouldnt see TV and DVD players with markings "Made In China "

America = output because they buy the goods and generate income for the CHinese. Countrys like UK and AUs are the main income for China .

In other words China is just a slave . they do our dirty work while we control things from da office
.

Japan in the past was the power and threat to America and will be in the very near future . The are the 2nd richeset country in the world and economy is 2nd or some say 1st in the world.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
And keke sorry for one last point .
America is the buying Power and Japan is the inventing Power?
China is in between doesnt that ring any bells of who are the real boss that runs thing


MMP

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Most likely, China and Japan (probably Russia to if it came right down to it) would side with the western world. IMO it would be in Japan and especially China's best economic interest to side with the western world. It seems a lot of you have this apocalyptic idea about China and Japan's relations with the US, but do any of you remember that spy plane that crashed in China awhile back? A lot of doomsday prophecies about war were being spouted off but look at what came about...a whole lot of nothing. I don't know if any of you have noticed, but lately 99% of the world governments (not just the US) are thinking with their wallets. Every government wants an image that will continue the cash flow and being on the winning side of a global war is probably every government spin doctor's wet dream.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   
there wont be any winner in such a war.
there never is a winner in any war??sure the govt.'s might win they may get territorial advantage etc.
but wot bout the wives , mothers, children...of the dead soldiers of the victorious side???there no victory for them.
ww111 ,if it ever occurs will definetly be bcos of the western countries who always meddle in others business.
n i dont think there'll b any definite opposition, mainly islamic jehadis(they too are a considerable force)
no country wud directly want to go to war, so i mainly suppose it'll b the western nations vs islamic jehadis(n i dont think nukes will b used.heck where do u drop em?? its not against some particular country.)



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by toolmaker

The Winners would be cockroaches


I second that. They survived what killed the dinosaurs, they'll survive Man. Perhaps after we've driven ourselves to extinction the radiation will mutate them and give rise to humanoid-like cockroaches like in 'Mimic'.

They will move on to build a cockroach empire and take to the stars. Starship Troopers anyone?

:shk: Too much Hollywood.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
i agree the cockroaches would win (very few humans would survive)!!

but i think it all depends on which way the 5 main nuclear powers line up (US, UK, China, Russia, France).

if WW3 went into a nuclear war any of these countrys have the ablity to destory any other country 'SINGLE-HANDLY'. (possibly the world with todays strength of the atom).

see since the 2nd world war, we've been lucky!! - the only real wars which have broken out is 'established military powers' vs 'not so stonger military powers' - so it doesn't really have much of an effect on the rest of the world.

if 2 'BIG' militry powers went to war with each other today, lets say:-

US and France
Russia and Britain

BOTH countrys would be hit, and it would have a drastic effect on the rest of the world.


[edit on 22-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
How little you know about ww3, How little do all of us know. World war 3 is something you cant stop and something that will not change. Live your life and be prepared to fight.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I bid Russia could win WW3 single handedly. With the biggest nuclear stockpile in the world, numbering some 16,000 warheads as of 2005, this easily beats the US's stockpile of 9,960.

The Missile Defense Shield is of no use. Russia has already demonstrated ICBM's capable of intelligent course correction and various defense penetrating technologies. They are on top of the game.

The sheer size of the Russian Federation is testament to the greater strategic placement and safety of these silos.

In a conventional war (non-nuclear) Russia also outnumbers every nation in terms of quantity of armoured units. With the cash injection Russia is now getting, these units could be serviced, oiled, and manned for deployment. We're talking about 48,270 armored vehicles including tanks and 30,045 Artillery units (tracked, wheeled, towed). In comparison, the U.S. has 29,920 armored and 5,178 artillery. The US military is designed to be mobile, unfortunately this doesn't allow them to match the sheer defensive power of the Russians. The ruskies submarines should in theory push back the bulk of allied airpower on the carriers.

My .02



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
No one would win, whoever was loosing would go nuclear and that would either stop the war with emergency negotiations or every one would get wiped out.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolmaker

The Winners would be cockroaches


...if they survived they could be the winners, but my vote would be with maggots.

If WW3 got kicked off, there would be nukes flying after while, and then it would be whoever built the most sturdy and stockpiled bunker that would be the survivor.

If nukes start flying it will be mutually assured destruction for sure.


SR

posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Don Wahn

Originally posted by toolmaker

The Winners would be cockroaches


...if they survived they could be the winners, but my vote would be with maggots.

If WW3 got kicked off, there would be nukes flying after while, and then it would be whoever built the most sturdy and stockpiled bunker that would be the survivor.

If nukes start flying it will be mutually assured destruction for sure.


Exacatly it don't matter whoever wins cause we the people all lose anyway.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by SR]



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
With Russian oil stocks, the US and Russia could dominate this world.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
There won't be another World War for at least the next 50-60 years. There maybe isolated wars between the coalition and some of the remaining extremists regimes but not global, multinational alliances battling each other. Here's why I believe so:

No one group of countries has the military might to win (or think it can possibly win or get any sort of vital benefit from war) combined with the ideological zeal or the totalitarian control over it's populous to pursue or justify such an effort. And no, the US is not in such a state IMO, far from it, just look at how much fuss a 'small' war like Iraq causes.

I look at Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in the 30's as the 'model' for how to cause a World War. Nothing comparable exists today. fundamental, extremist countries like Iran and North Korea are too isolated and lack the military power or the industrial capability to defy the UN (like Hitler did to the league of nations in the 30's) and risk the coalition showing up on their door steps.

And if they do, no one is going to join up and defend them.

WW2 was all about cultural differences (so was the cold war), right now the only cultural issue strong enough to provoke a major war is fundamental Islam and the middle east, there is no country with enough interest or power to make it a World War.

It will always come down (at most) to the coalition vs. The World, one country at a time.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
The winner will be bacteria and other microorganisms. Just because of the chain reaction, it only takes a couple of nukes to start armagedon. You drop one in the North Pole, the other in the south pole; then everthing in submerged in water. Even though this analogy is exagerrated it does express the point that the environment cannot handle WW3.







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join