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

The only benifitiaries of WWIII would be the United Nations and the Global Elite.

I remember when the idea of a winning side was still viable. I was a little kid and now I'm old. If there is no real mission to accomplish and the goal is extranious there is no winning for anybody. Basing out lives with money as our primary goal just aint workin for this old planet. I sure wish I owned Halburton.

xezven: Cuba has already invaded my state! I don't think those commies would want a taste of some good ole southern hospitality. my mossberg is rather hungry. by-gar

In todays political world. Realistically, I think that a WW3 would engolf just about everyone, but South America and Africa. This being said, I think the war would actually not be one war, but 4 or 5 wars fighting. This being said, for Americans. I think there war would be:

1.) U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, EU(mostly because of NATO) VS Russia. This would start as a ground war, and stay a ground war eventually ending in a dead heat with very little land gained for either side. This being said, if decisive battles were lost on the Russia side, which resulted in significant territorial loss, and army loss, they would use nukes to destroy the incoming army. This being said the question is, would the U.S. retailiate if our assets near Russia were utterly destroyed? I think not. I think we would sue for a cease-fire, then end in peacetalks with both sides not being happy.

2.) China would take this opportunity to take tiawan. This being said, the U.S. has protection agreements with tiawan. This being said, we would use our pacific forces to help defend, but eventually we would loose. Again, if the U.S. used nuclear weapons, this would most likely cause China to retailiate against U.S. and Japanese Cities. N. Korea would probably hit Japan during this time too.

3.) Iran would make a land grab for afghanistan and Iraq, and expand its sphere of influence. Isreal would not allow this, bringing in stricks against the Iranian guard. This would most likely cause Syria to jump on its side, as well as several terrorist groups bent on there destruction. Eventually, I think Isreal would nuke Syria, and Iran, causing the whole middle east to go nuts. Isreal as a state would be destroyed, and no-one would control the chemical/biological waste land. Additionally, Syria and Iran would be wasted, as well as gaza and the west bank. I see the isreali army performing genocide on the palestinians, and most arabs that there soldiers found. This being said, not much would be left of Isreal, but I find Jews to be a resilient Bunch. I see them starting again and making small enclaves of survirors.

4.) With the Terrorist going nuts on Isreal, I think this would bring terrorist elements out in India, which would eventually bring skirmishes and a war with pakistan. I see this going nuclear as well.

This all being said. I see eastern Europe being obliterate, with Specific Russia, and E.U. spheres of influence. If all the possible wars listed above were to reach total nuclear capacity. I see much of North America, Europe, Western Russia, Japan, the Koreas, the coast of China, as well as Australia pretty much being obliterated. The safe areas would be South America, and South Africa, As well as Malaysia, Singapore, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand.

This being said because of the significant ecological destruction, as well as prevailing winds, I think that much of africa would be poison, as well as Western South America, as well as the upper amazon basin. I think South Brazil, Paraguay, Uruaguy, and n.e Argerntina

This being said, I think that South Eastern Africa as well as the safe havens in S America and S Asia, will probably implement Strict policies on immigrants. The poor and the diseased will be turned away, and if they refused, shot. The rich(if they have local currency and assets in the remnant nations) would be able to resettle.

These are my thoughts on it. This being said, I don't think Russia and the U.S. would lob nukes at each other. Its mass suicide and they both realise it.

Cheers

Camain

reply to post by Burginthorn

We're knee deep in it already, bubba. Soon and very soon.... ( reader asks, wtf is this guy talking about?)
Well, it's hard to be clever with so many clever people, but, hmmm, be a little patient.

reply to post by camain


wow. that was a very elaborate reply, also very entertaining. You sure did your research. Good job You sure seem to have a good idea of what would happen if WW3 were to break out, almost too good...

No one would win WW3. Not the U.S. or Russia or China. We would all lose.

Originally posted by grover
No one would win WW3. Not the U.S. or Russia or China. We would all lose.

And dont forget that all of us would get caught in the middle despite that fact that we dont make any of the decisions.

-fm

Greetings

It seems none of you posters have actual idea what would happen. I read many defense and strategy forums, where we concentrate in high tech weapons and strategy. I could bet 10.000€ that Russians would deliver more nukes that would land and intercept more than any other state.

1. Russian new nuclear missiles cannot be intercepted with any tech that us currently has (or near future).
2. Russian nuclear arsenal is mobile (trucks, trains etc..)
3. S-400 can intercept any nukes (ICBM too), with range of 500KM

Russians dont have enough S-400 to intercept all at the time, but reports are coming in that they will be teaming with China in manufacturing this system.

Sometimes American patriots are too blind and numb to research. Russia has 10 times better missile tech these days than USA, same goes with anti air systems and artillery (Nuke artillery is funny toy too).

There is much more to this, why i think Russia would "win". I wount be bothered to write more now, maybe later. If you want to know about these things, seek out military communities and discuss, you will be suprised.

my 2 cents

[edit on 21-10-2007 by FaxMachine]

What would happen how? Conventionally or nuclear? Maybe you could enlighten us all as to what would happen.

So it is written so it shall be. Regions of the world will be unlivable for millenia even after the second coming. Hell bent on destruction even with prophet knowledge. Gamblers and bluffers to the end. Stephen was right, unless we find a way off this rock humanity is toast.

World War III?

There's no way there would be a winning side. There has to be something to fight against. In the world we live in today, we're heading towards global understanding, so there's really not much to fight against that poses a true threat to anybody.

There are plenty of superficial things being pushed into our faces though, maybe we should fight against said superficiality. I think that'd be a war worth fighting for. You wouldn't have to use weapons, you'd just have to educate the globe - especially folks in the western world.

We're too comfortable. We're happy with our toasters, cars, widescreens, and HD-DVD players. The whole western world is slowly crumbling into a state of illusion - if it already isn't fully there.

Wepons:

I think everyone is making predictions on what they think they know, and not what they know that they absolutley don't know. Does everyone think that the governments have specifically told the world what type of wepons and technology they have? The united states certainly has alot more then the world knows, the government has a reputation for not disclosing things to the public. I however think the problem is its wepons that are much to destructive to use in Iraq without massive global consequences. As for China and the Russians, they are two very underground countries and It would be impossible to really know what they have and how much of it. So the wepons element is a suprise.

Allainces:

If your going with the fact that there is definetly going to be a war, you would figure the three main superpowers russia us and china are all not oblivious to what will happen to them if they unleash their wepons of mass destruction. What goes around will certainly come around. I think it would be common sense to be wise enough not to start fighting unless there was no other option and in presently, although relations are not so tight I think they realize they are not in any desperate need to fight. The russians have no offical ties and obligations to support Iran, therefore there is no real purpose to do so because thee will be a negative outcome. Same with China, they have no real reason to get involved unless it is for economic reasons like the US cutting off trade. STill, not a reason to take a risk. WHich means the three main powers certainly will not go at it. What does that leave you with? EXACTLY what we have today. A mess in the middle east, America walking into other countries as they please and the North Korean issue. Possibly we are in the inintial stages of world war three right now. It will however probably escilate but not to the extent of everyone throwing nukes around because again common sense comes into play. Worst comes to worst America will go at Iran and come out on top. Isreal will probably lend a helping hand. The MIddle east crisis will continue and NOrth Korea issue will become more then just talk and military action will take place. China probably would nto go after Taiwan because of the consequences of the UNited States.

SO, since i believe we are into the begginning of world war three which is a very spead out conflict with everyone having a different goal. MY opinion is that the U.S is eventually going to ibtain control over the middle east. Meaning america will come out on top because CHina and Russia are not going to become an obsticle. The real war right now Is U.S, Isreal and UK v.s not the middle east, but its select few enhabitants who are causing the U.S to feel they need to elimmnate the threat before it becomes a real problem with a few soon to be conflicts beefinf up in the pacific This war is not teh same as past world wars. No huge bombs, No giant number of casualties. It is more difficult for those invilved because of the new style of warfare but less difficult and dangerous for those watching it on CNN.

And sadly... there are many idiots, some on this website even, who say bring it on. And, equally sad, many of them think of themselves as good Christians and patriotic.

War, all war is a failure, no matter who wins. It is a failure of reason and sanity.

Everyone loses.

Originally posted by grover
War, all war is a failure, no matter who wins. It is a failure of reason and sanity.

Everyone loses.

I've always been fascinated with people who hold the opinion that war, for any reason whatsoever, is an inherently negative thing. The largest example of this fallacy is, of course, WWII. No one can reduce a war on this scale to just one motivation or one "reason", but look at the European theater. The Nazis were steadily on the march to conquer most of Europe, and wrought death and destruction everywhere they trod. Free people were subjugated, and the systematic destruction of millions was underway. The US entered the war, and helped beat the Nazis back to Berlin; the Russians doing the same on the Eastern front.

If you believe that ALL war is failure, and Everyone loses, then please, explain in what way the European front of WWII was a failure. Should the US just have remained isolationist, and watched the burning of Europe from afar? Should the US have stepped in earlier, and tried to stop the destruction of Europe before the Nazis conquered France?

The fact is that those who refuse to ever support any war, are refusing to ever stand up for whatever they hold most dear. You are never willing to sacrifice everything to preserve what's "good" and right in this world. The world has watched the slaughters in Darfur, and done nothing. The junta in Myanmar is crushing the Buddhists monks, and likely killing hundreds, and the world does nothing. Is this right?

Seems like a cliche, but this quote from Boondock Saints sums it up for me:
"We must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

The US would be murdered and conquered, but it's people would rebel and rebuilt against their foreign conquerers.

reply to post by BloodthirstyCapitalist


It was a failure of reason and sanity... like all wars.

Originally posted by BloodthirstyCapitalist

Seems like a cliche, but this quote from Boondock Saints sums it up for me:
"We must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

That is very true, but I would also like to add.........

"But there is another kind of evil which we must fear, and that is the unthinking, unquestioning, fanatic that follows the charismatic moron
because it fulfills their lust for blood and power."

There are good wars all the time, like WW2, or the Spanish American War, or the Revolutionary wars of both France and America. Yes, profits were made, but in the end, good things came from it. The victors always profit though, and it isn't law that you shouldn't profit from a war. That's kind of the whole basis of war, to profit. Weather Monetary profit, or profits in the form of human rights and dignity.

reply to post by whaaa


Understand... I am a veteran. Of peace time thank God, but still I took a vow to serve my country. I am no pacifist. At the same time I have no illusions about war either. All war even necessary wars like WW2 are still a breakdown of sanity and a failure of reason and simple human decency.

No war is honorable, and no war is noble... they are all ugly, nasty, evil and violent... in the long run they are all failures and the problems they "solve' are always temporary ones.

The Franco/Prussian war sowed the seeds of WW1... WW1 sowed the seeds of WW2... WW2 sowed the seeds of the cold war... the cold war sowed the seeds of the terrorism we are faced with today.

So tell me who are the winners besides the arms merchant?

[edit on 21-10-2007 by grover]