Would the U.S. be on the winning side of WWIII?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Would the US and its Allies be victorious if WW3 broke out?



With our forces already stretched thin in Iraq and elsewhere who would fight this war? How many true allies do we have left that would support the US? Reading some of the topics around ATS and various news articles, it certainly feels like we could be headed toward a global conflict.

Are sides being chosen? US (and the UK's)relations with Russia have cooled considerably and Putin looks to be aligning himself closer with Iran every day. And we all know who Iran's buddies are. Russia has also been testing new huge bombs and new reports claim they're building up their nuclear arsenal.

It's hard to say where the Chinese would fit in all of this. It's apparent that we don't have the warmest of relations with them(think Taiwan). And after reading this snippet it doesn't feel like warmer times are on the horizon:


China has recently promoted a handful of senior generals who have made their careers on war planning against Taiwan.

Read article here.

I don't see them fighting against Russia and Iran nor do I see them backing the US, I mean they are communists. And being the huge global player that they are makes it hard to believe they'd remain on the sidelines. So where would they stand? Would that have an effect on the outcome? I kind of think it would.

So who are we up against? And who would win?





[edit on 19-10-2007 by PhotonEffect]

[edit on 19-10-2007 by PhotonEffect]




posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I guess it would depend on how much resources any country/allies would want to commit. Judging by world opinion I don't think it would be physically to much mostly political if anything.

But then again I don't see world war 3 happening anytime soon.

anyway just my 2 cents



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I don't think there will be ANY winners when WWIII is over. There will only be survivors.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Actually, Cuba could probably do a blitz on some southern states at this point. We would not be ready. I suppose if America could stomach American civilian losses then we would eventually be able to push Cuba out of the southern states. Nuking or bombing cuba would not do much to remove a blitz of cuban forces that could take over some of the southern states in a day or 3.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Ummm...its WW3. No one would be a winner.

And Cuba blitzing the southern US? Yeah with what? You think any of their boats would even make it to florida? I seriously doubt it.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Many many times this question has been asked since the early 60's and always the answer was the same, there can be no winners of a nuclear war, once a nuclear attack begins the retaliation has to be prevented and with todays warning systems surprise is out of the question, so no i dont think the USA would win



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Ok, I agree there are no winners per se, so I'll rephrase.

Do you think we would be defeated or be victorious like we were in WW1 and WW2?

I wonder with our resources being stretched the way they are, what that would do to our chances.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I think the answer depends on what countries are involved, what weapons are used, financial resourses available ect. You could nuke China and Russia, but you would have to assume that you couldn't kill all of their soldiers. And even if you did, I would bet that China and Russia could come up with the additional people to fight. If you strategically nuke places in the US and take out the civilians, then what you would have left is not much. Sure you'd have some people left, and then some military, but how many people in the US are going to want to fight more wars for the US government?



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
I don't think there will be ANY winners when WWIII is over. There will only be survivors.


Thats what I was about to say.
Well said.
In any war,the only winners are those left alive.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I doubt this WW3 thing happens. If it does I highly doubt nukes will play a big role. Maybe some tactical stuff on the other side of the world but thats it. If WW3 does happen it isn't happening any time soon. I am going to assume our missle defense systems and boarder security will be up to the max it can be if it gets close to this happening. With that said countries with the ICBMs won't likely hit the United States if everything goes to plan. I can see Europe getting hit but only from a grounded nuke.


Now troops and military. We can take the fight to anyone in the world and still protect our country. Other big countries like Russia and China would be hard pressed to do this. Do you think if there was a invasion from Cuba (ROFL) I would sit on my ass and not kill a few of them commi bastards?

I say in WW3 MAD would come into play. It would be fought on the battlefields of another country, most likely starting in the middle east.


I would pick the USA/EU/Aus and who ever else wants to join our side to win out.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox

Thats what I was about to say.
Well said.
In any war,the only winners are those left alive.


If its nuclear, the winners could be the ones who die instantly.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


Good point.
But we are all winners if there is no war at all



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
If there is a WW3, more than likely bio/chem weapons will be used and if anyone is left alive after such an exchange; the living will envy the dead.

If bio/chem enters into the current sphere of war; armies and warriors will be obsolete and redundant.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisBROKC
 


Well, problem is, the EU won't pick the US on a WW3 event



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Do you think we would be defeated or be victorious like we were in WW1 and WW2?


Victorious against who (or whom)? Who are we supposedly fighting in this Third World War? "Islam?" Because you can't be victorious over a religion or philosophy, only a government. We were never able to beat Communism, though we killed a lot of people trying.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The living will envy the dead for sure. WW1 was not 'won'. The 1918 blue flu that keyed on 20 somethings saw to that. Millions dead, and there was no one left to fight. Drs would be speaking to victims and they'd die in mid sentence from hypoxia wrought by massive body antiviral response. Literally choking on their own chum. I hold little hope for this species. Too warlike, territorial, stupid. We will be extinct fossils found a million years from now with so many questions. I opened the window, and in flew enza.
Trilobytes buried in shale deposits.

[edit on 19-10-2007 by jpm1602]

[edit on 19-10-2007 by jpm1602]



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by absente
 


So they are going to go along with the Terrorists and Russians? I highly doubt that one.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


Keep dreaming. The survivors would swim back to Cuba crying like baby's after getting slaughtered in Florida. If you have ever been to a rifle range in Florida you would understand. Its not just the amount of hunters we have here with allot of guns, You will find guys coming out with military grade guns all the time dressed like they were just out to dinner. All that being said they would have to get passed our Air Force witch I don't see happening.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


I don't think it would start in the name of religion. But it certainly could end that way. If you involve an Islamic country then religion will play a role one way or another.

I look around and wonder who would back the US in a world that has become very Anti-American, including some of our allies. I look at Russia, they seem to be taking the side of Iran. Syria would also take the side of Iran. China, who knows but it's not all warm and fuzzy with them either. Then you have Venezuela and Cuba. Probably nothing to worry about but they could pose a nuisance. North Korea? Don't know where their allegiance lies but we've grouped them with the rest.

I hope nothing comes from this. It just seems like Bush has his sights set on Iran. And he doesn't reason with anyone else if they get in his way. Going into iran like he says could spark WW3...so this is why I wonder how we'd fare...

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Nonsense. Don't get sucked into irrevalency. Cuba would be a charcoal such as much of the world. Honestly, the massive Cuban navy invading US is so psyop. Please.....lets get on topic. The world would be unlivable after WW3 for those not brave enough left living to spill their own subdurals at their own hands.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join