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.


How will World War Three start???

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:20 AM
The US will be excluded from WWIII. With ever surmounting debt. And the massive Welfare state spending started by President Obama, And the democrat controlled congress. The US dollar will plummet to irrecoverable amounts. During this time, Companies will (like the US) outspent itself and go bankrupt. With out any large manufacturing base nor Small Farming Base, The US will have a slower recovery then the depression of 1928.

And the US defeats itself.

The WWIII will be three or four political ideologies fighting each other, IslamRussiaChinaEU\India. For limiting resources. Israel as usual will partially be the powder keg, And either all the armies of the world fight each other around the middle east, or Nuke each other. Either way, Cockroaches rule.

Which BTW is a unlikely scenario, But at least its more imaginary then the typical "east vrs west" scenario. Or Simpler yet, Earth gets destroyed by a giant solar flare. And WWIII is a fight between Virus vrs bacteria..

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:39 AM

I don't if there even will be a World War III. Because, who would be the 'winner'? There couldn't be any winner in that scenario - humans now have nukes, all 28,000 of them.

In 2004, Russia had 18,000 while the US had 9,000. But I don't know if that really matters, it's all in the delivery etc.

The countries that haven't signed the non proliferation treaty that reportedly have nukes are:

* India - 95
* Israel - 200
* Pakistan - 52

If countries still rely on mutually assured destruction as a military doctrine, then there probably won't be a WWIII - it'd be impossible to win, and it mean would the absolute end of your country.

With the 'war on terror' though, and Bush's emphasis on pre-emptive wars, the game might've changed a bit.


But that doesn't mean there couldn't be an accidental nuclear strike. In 1995, Boris Yeltsin was about 10 minutes away from launching a nuclear strike because Russian radar picked up what it thought was an attack - but was instead a Norwegian research rocket. So, it might be something really trivial that starts a really huge conflict.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by mattguy404]

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 03:32 AM
Personally I don’t think there will be any major war too soon. I think there will be more small to medium scale (non nuclear, unless it’s a dirty bomb) skirmishes between 2- 4 countries due to resources. Of course while these wars are going on the major weapon producers of the world (USA, China, Russia) will gain from it.

Russia, China and America I think will not engage each other. They are too interconnected but at the same time are not exactly chummy either. China and Russia although oppose USA as being the only major super power do not really trust each other either.

Most of the merging super powers will of course wave their sabers and curse and threaten whoever is their supposed enemies but of course since their economies are booming will happily sit back down and get back to business and try to see how they can take advantage of the chaos and mayhem financially.

China and Taiwan’s relationship if you have read recently have never been better with the new election and their change of policy towards China.

Japan and China since the invasion are trying to fast track good relations with each other and I don’t see any war between then too soon.

Who ever said Japan would not side with NATO, I don’t see why not. Japan, ANZAC’s and the US have always co-operated and have continued every year with each others army’s practiced war games together.

China or Russia will never directly back Iran. Yes they have business relationships with weapons and different types of energy but as you see they still are backing sanctions against Iran as well. They don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons but they don’t want business to stop either.

India and China I highly doubt would be on the same side though they are not exactly cursing each other at the moment either.

North Korea and China are not on the same level anymore. China is NOT a communist country (although I am aware its government has the word communist in its title) and I believe was just as annoyed as the rest of the world when N. Korea detonated it nuclear bomb. China doesn’t want unrest in and around its borders.

Thanks for reading and Cheers

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 03:55 AM

Originally posted by CreeWolf
In the end, I think our great-grandchildren will be sterile, speaking Chinese, and shopping at Huan-Mart.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by CreeWolf]

Sounds about right....I've been telling my teenage roommate to learn Chinese for the longest time....

and I also think the EU will be the ultimate winner as well at least in the short term....and we're probably all tougher than we realize in the long run - Life is tenacious....millions upon millions lost in WWII and now we're reaching critical mass again 60 some years later....

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:40 AM
reply to post by Dubyakadubla

I think you're on to something here. WW3 will essentially be a war for the survival of the fittest. We are already seeing this happen before our eyes...IRAQ! I think larger countries might eventually go to war over oil though. I doubt Nukes will be used.

America is fighting a war for control of the Iraqi oil. Whether it be just or immoral, America is trying to secure it's future.
So...when big economies like India and China start running out of oil, then what?

It doesn't have to be the Indians or Chinese. It could be any country that doesn't take kindly to having to pay substantially more than others for oil.

Yes it is a free market now, but when things start to run dry, look to see countries watching out for their best interests.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:44 AM
On a more speculative note...These fancy free energy technologies that are supposedly being developed by the Americans, might actually be used to swing the balance of power back in Americas favour.

When oil becomes too expensive, and people are going hungry, who you gonna call???

I find it hard to believe that governments of developed nations aren't planning for this. If they aren't, then when they time comes, they might be at the mercy of those that possess the technological answers to our energy problems. guessed it...the Americans. Or perhaps, the military industrial complex?

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 06:25 AM

Originally posted by jkrog08
I have been thinking recently about how WW3 would start(if it did)and I can't find hardly anyway it would realistically.I thought I would share my scenario and ask for others.Keep in mind this is not a nuclear exchange,but conventional war.

[edit on 4/27/2008 by jkrog08]

Interesting idea... I believe it will be someone attacking an oil distrubtor or something of that sort... possibly pre-emptive nuclear strike on some poor bastards somewhere... anything that will make the government money and igive them control... because you can bet ALL wars are perpretrated by the US somehow some way.. its a bold statement I know lol

I also don't think anyone really has a choice what kind of war it's going to be... some people say its already started with brainwaves and such to break us down and make us weak... who knows, its all about control.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 10:27 AM
The main reason there could or even would be a war would be energy. Being oil and gas.

Once we run out of fossil fuels we will have to result in changing what energy we use and not everyone likes change...

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 10:38 AM
My opinion is that WWIII will start with the collapse of the World Trade Centers.

We first had European War I.

Then we saw European/Pacific War II.

Now we're engaged in World War III - the only REALLY World War. You've heard time and again that threats of the "global war on terror". It's being hyped as such without actually using the term WWIII.

It's begun and it'll never end because we, as people of the United States, don't care enough about the rest of the world to end it.

It's Sad.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 10:51 AM

Originally posted by tyranny22
My opinion is that WWIII will start with the collapse of the World Trade Centers.

We first had European War I.

Then we saw European/Pacific War II.

Now we're engaged in World War III - the only REALLY World War. You've heard time and again that threats of the "global war on terror". It's being hyped as such without actually using the term WWIII.

It's begun and it'll never end because we, as people of the United States, don't care enough about the rest of the world to end it.

It's Sad.

Interesting theory,

Apparently the term "War on terror" has been ditched by ministers.
I believe however that this isn't WWIII, we will know when or if it starts.

Read these:

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

i highly doubt russia will be an allie with the usa, your politcial scope is limited if you suggest that, russia has very close ties to china and india and will not jeopardize their relationship with the chinese, russia has a strong chance of being neutral over being an allie with the us

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 11:21 AM
i believe that if WWIII was to break out, the most likely thing keeping the US out of the running would be large scale terroist attacks. By this i mean bombing of key government buildings all across america in major cities, within a matter of weeks. Also possible 'death squads' which would be small teams of terrorists, acting similarly to that of the washington sniper in major cities all across ameica. If these things were carried out, it would quickly grind america to a halt. If you keep the citizens to scared to walk in the streets of their cities,how can u fight a war on the other side of the world.
just my opinions

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 11:31 AM
OK i have been thinking about the possibility for WWIII growing lately.

War is good for Gov't "business". More and more consumers have less and less disposable income, this means lower business profits for most.
sans costco type stores.

The housing bust in america is also going to occur in various country's of varying degrees in the U.K and Spain as well as a couple others.

Weaker american spending threatens to slow global demand as well as the "taboo" topic that more and more debt is being required to grow GDP.

The fed/treasury dept got desperate and conspired to deregulate the financial industry to allow investment banks to invest in subprime mortgages and their exotic derivitives to creatively (w/ moral hazard) create new debt, they also encouraged subprime lending (esp. greenspan).

Now more and more debt needs to be created to keep a credit deflation from occuring (which banks hate!!!) in my understanding this heightens the desirability of WAR which requires more DEBT creation. Loans for equipment, weaponry, etc (not to mention a draft).

Now obviously to instill a draft the gov't would need to CREATE a desire for american's to WANT to fight in the war. I mean how many people are willing to fight in a new war right now (that are not in the military) sure like the 60's their will be protests, but now i imagine it would be worse than the 60's, and to minimize dissent it would be beneficial for some HEavy propoganda as well as a " badly needed false flag attack" to instill american ANGER, EMOTION, and then VENGENCE on "the new bogey men".

and finally the ratio of new added debt to new GDP created is becoming very poor. i.e more debt is needed to grow even 1$ of growth.

failure of new growth = capital destruction which is a nightmare especially to the federal reserve/ treasury dept marriage! so a moral hazard is created to do what it takes to find a way to grow debt and thus gdp no matter how much debt it takes.

the time may come when the federal reserve and the treasury can no longer (even thru creative means (including war)) stop an inevitable credit deflation/implosion because they are merely delaying the inevitable by creating more and more suspect debt. At this point they may be forced with really brain storming and finding a creative way to regenerate the powers that be in some sort of new system which sustains the power, but likely at the expense of the general population (whose living standards and freedoms would be impaired) since it would require a dire situation for the fed/ treasury to do something as radical as creating /regenerating a new system w/ the powers that be.

I was thinking that war (And G.W get to that later) would provide the central banks and gov'ts of the world a great opportunity to increase spending/ growth /gdp for a while but also lead to potential exasperation in food shipping/supply and desperation of unprepared citizens. Citizens could become so desperate (due to faltering economic conditions and food shortages) that by the end of such a war they would clamour for anykind of solution to restore their basic necessity's. This would open the door to acceptance of the fed/ treasury's of the world to become creatively regenerated (possibly consolidate into a world group) to creatively further perpetuate the power's that be but at an opportune time that the public would accept (even welcome) in the promise that the union would restore at least a better standard of living (end war/violence (needs being met) as well as spring other intrustions of the privacy that restrict freedom.

I think GW could also serve to get people (perhaps less directly effected by a WWIII or post WWIII) to accept lower standards of living by thinking it was a trade off they need to make to "treat mother nature's fever" which they are eager to convince people they are responsible for (instead of in the context that this was a eventual consequence to the fractional reserve lending banking institutions and gov't spending policy's which collapse under the weight of their own debt throughout history. I would add that i do think global demand for oil is outstripping supply and that GW is also potential demand creation/marketing for Clean technology which gov't will be happy to reward future contracts to those (big wigs in the energy and IT sector) who get with the GW agenda while tiptoeing around big oil's conflict of interest and incorporating clean tech in a very slow way which side- steps cutting into big oil's profits. This clean tech. infrastructure would also eventually provide a growing number of (badly needed jobs) perhaps gov't work "camps" would even be required in some areas.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by cpdaman]

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 11:36 AM
All the analysis thus far, I mean this politely, is naive.

Due to multinational corp's and very complex military and economic alignments, it would be hard for anyone to know how a "axis vs. allies" scenerio would pan out. In fact, that is kind of a WW2 "dated" scenerio.

More likely, there would need to be a shift, at least on one side towards nationalization of assets to resolve the multinational corp's. Also a shift in how one would "produce war" on a basic level. For example, how and where would China get it's coal. Where would the United States get its oil. In WW2, with the levels of population and industry you could still count on domestic supplies for the most part. Although certain minerals were still difficult to obtain locally. (Consider Japanese subs traveling to Germany/France in WW2 to trade obscure pharmaceuticals and minerals.)

That said, one could count on very few sure bets. Consider NATO member Spain's withdrawal recently in the Middle East after the Madrid bombings. Or, consider the complexity of Russia's former republics being part of NATO.

Here are the sure bets I would take to the bank:

1.A United States and United Kingdom alliance, and to a lesser degree but nearly as sure: Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

2.Ottoman-Muslim-Persian Bloc excluding places such as Dubai and possibly Jordan; 90% of the Middle East and former Ottoman areas aligned. (Suprisingly I may even include Turkey and Egypt although that depends on the day of the week in moderate countries such as these.) This alliance includes Persian areas and Pakistan, Afganistan, Indonesia, and satellite areas such as the Maldives, etc.

3. EU, most definately a more important entity than NATO; the EU would go it alone w/o NATO or if need be, although to a leeser degree with the "English speaking alliance" (#1).

4. Russia has little in the way of former Warsaw Countries left, minus Belarus and Serbian areas of the Balkans. I think that there would be a split in Eastern Europe and Central Asia based on religion, where former republics would join the "old Ottoman/Perisan allaince", the rest of Russia and it's allies would find more in common with China/Iran then Europe I suspect.

5. India: not really friendly to anyone in particular. Has had problems with, China, Russia and Pakistan in the past.

6. Asian bloc: Tawian, South Korea, Japan, satellite islands and countries.

7. Asian bloc 2: China, North Korea, Burma, Vietnam, etc.

8. This leaves South America, which is turning very leftist, and most likely a bloc in and of itself.

How do these blocs line up. Who knows, my best guess is this in the model of axis versus allies.

1. English speaking bloc+Former Nato bloc+EU+India+rements in Middle East including Israel, Jordan, Dubai, etc.+Asian Bloc 1+various minor forces: hold-outs in South America, etc.

2. Ottoman-Muslim-Persian Bloc+Russia and satellites+South AMerican Bloc+Asian Bloc 2+various minor hold outs in allied areas.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 11:50 AM
Hello guys.

I'm a new member who joined because I stumbled upon this thread.

This post is just a simple food for thought regarding the topic.
I will chime in with an "official" response when I have more time.

I just wanted to say that in all these scenarios there is the idea that WW3 will be defined as previous wars were.
As armed conflict where sides are drawn.

I don't think that's how it will transpire.
I think we are in the midst of ww3 as we speak.
The definitive front is basically a war of ideas and information.

What I don't think we'll see is a definitive declaration of war, which will be what everyone is watching for.
This won't be recognized as WW3 until it is pretty much over.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by murkywater

Great post,starred...........seem's well researched and put together,I appreciate your input.

Also to the new member who joined because of this thread:Glad to have you here on ATS as a member,Im glad my thread perked your interest,I look forward to hearing some more of your ideas on this topic(and others in the future).

Also I've seen some post on here getting a little"heated"towards me or others,let's keep in mind these are all scenarios and thus hypothetical,who knows what will happen as far as allies when(if)a new global war breaks out,who knows what Russia will do,or any other "fence sitting"country.

Also the reason we are using"allies"and"axis" is because that is the only thing we can use to classify sides because all we have to go off of is the last world war.Although in a ww3 the sides might not be called that or be the same,we are just using those terms as a medium.

I appreciate all of your responses and hope to here many,many more............thanks all,again.

Lets keep um' coming!

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 12:47 PM

Originally posted by magicmushroom
JKRog, in your feelings and views of a 3rd World War can you imagine nukes raining down on the US. Irrespective of what counter measures you have some would get through maybe many. Chemical and biological weapons may also be used. In the past America has enjoyed security from its physical location but that can no longer be guaranteed.

In such an scenario is it worth enduring such a calamity especially if you started the war but was not directly attacked or invaded. Such as with the ME now, is the rik of attacking Iran worth the possible retaliation from those who could greviously hurt you.

I don't see a nuclear exchange as the only war ww3 could start,honestly I don't believe nukes would be used at all(maybe I have to much faith in man though)However if they were used,they would likely be the smaller tactical nukes.........maybe in some larger battles............although it is possible one could be used as a pre-emptive strike-although I know the US would definitely NOT use on first,neither would China or Russia,it would be a "rouge"nation like N.Korea, Israel or Iran,Pakistan,etc.

Now for you question about seeing bombs"rain down"on my countries major cities-possible but HIGHLY UNLIKELY,our missle defense shield(which includes Naval vessels,air borne laser and likely sattilites) and early warning system is more than capable of deterring a couple ICBM's,thats all there would be,no country would launch a"barrage"of nukes at us,it would be suicide-sure some rouge country might launch a couple with the help of China/Russia-although I dont see them giving the technology,even in secret to those countries,and the rouge nations arn't capable of reaching us with nukes anyways.(If China or Russia helped,they won't be acknowledging they helped)but those would be shot down.If a country decided to launch a massive air/naval strike to our homeland then they would suffer massive losses and would probably opt to strike one of our bases not in the mainland-that is the most possible scenario.

But,yea I can imagine what it would look like-prolly like "Independence Day"or"Cloverfield"(the destruction and the falling of bombs)But it wouldnt happen more than likely.

Did that answer your question?

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:28 PM
Jkrog, Yes, the only thing we can be certain of is that no one really knows what could or will happen till it happens and then it may be too late. As a life form we have to decide do we wish to progress and live in peace or do we want to continue to act like savages and wipe ourselves out.

Who knows, but one thing is for sure, that we the little people will have no say in our destiny.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:57 PM
reply to post by magicmushroom

I agree,great post(starred)Im assuming you agreed with my response to your question,since you didn't argue it.

I too hope and pray that we can and are moving past "self destruction"or we will never be a more advanced species,which we capable of being,we will never make new discoveries other than new weapons to wage war.It is past time that we move on from our warlike ways and move to a prosperous and enlightened state of being.

We will never make it to the stars,or cure cancer,famine,aids,and live in harmony with our planet and our brothers and sisters from everywhere across the globe if we continue our present ways.

It is sad and true that our destiny is being controlled by powers of influence and greed,that care nothing for us-but control the world.I do not fear however,as they will meet their destiny one day soon,what goes around,comes back around.They can not continue their ways forever.The longer they lay in their bed getting fat off their wealth,power,and greed-the harder it will be for them to get out of their bed and maintain it.There will come a time soon when they are stuck in their bed,defenseless from the uprising that will stick a sword in their heart and kill them,that time I believe is coming.................but until then,yes, it is sad.

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by Trams

Hey,thanks(where is that star by the way?I dont see it on my OP,or anywhere,lol)Nice avatar,what part of Illinois do you live,I also live there.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in