Likely alliances and enemies in ww3

Who do you think would be the most likely allies and enemies in WW3?

I think that China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela would all join forces just because they don't like the US.

I also think that when it comes to the number of allies, that the US would win because basically all of Western Europe are our allies, we have some friends in the Middle East and America also has an alliance with Japan.

Your thoughts??

reply to post by lucius01


likely axis powers(imperialist) :
USA
UK
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Pakistan
Norway
Poland


likely allied forces(Resistance):

Russia
Kazakhstan
Belarus
India(will invade Pakistan)


--------------------------------------------------

The war is likely to be nuclear , will end in MAD or Russian victory(thanks to soviet scalar weapons , which are better than american back budget weapons )

I think that China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela would all join forces just because they don't like the US.

technically ,impossible , chinese have major interest in american economy, so expect China to be neutral or be a US ally (provided that USA agrees to stop protectin taiwan

Iran is full of rhetoric and is only capable of destroying Israel not USA

N.Korea is dependent on western aid for survival

Venezuala has no interest in attacking USA and is only interested in self defence



[edit on 7-7-2008 by manson_322]

Originally posted by manson_322
reply to post by lucius01

 

likely axis powers(imperialist) :
USA
UK
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Pakistan
Norway
Poland


likely allied forces(Resistance):

Russia
Kazakhstan
Belarus
India(will invade Pakistan)


--------------------------------------------------

The war is likely to be nuclear , will end in MAD or Russian victory(thanks to soviet scalar weapons , which are better than american back budget weapons )

It is a bit naive to think China would sit still while the two closest nuclear rivals Russia and India begin launching nuclear assets. I think the result would be a bit more complex than the explainations I have seen put forth.

The formation of alliances is not always fixed, in my opinion, but would depend on what crisis triggered a confrontation. Energy resources, draught, water rights, all these things could trigger a war. I think the water scenario could really lead to some unusual alliances.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by clay2 baraka]

[edit on 7-7-2008 by clay2 baraka]

reply to post by clay2 baraka

It is a bit naive to think China would sit still while the two closest nuclear rivals Russia and India begin launching nuclear assets. I think the result would be a bit more complex than the explainations I have seen put forth.

The formation of alliances is not always fixed, in my opinion, but would depend on what crisis triggered a confrontation. Energy resources, draught, water rights, all these things could trigger a war. I think the water scenario could really lead to some unusual alliances.

i have editted the above statement ,

The formation of alliances is not always fixed, in my opinion, but would depend on what crisis triggered a confrontation. Energy resources, draught, water rights, all these things could trigger a war. I think the water scenario could really lead to some unusual alliances.

water scenario will not(salt water can be filtered) , but energy resources will trigger a war

indians are very interested in purchasing natural gas from Iran, but thanks to american pressure(thanks to 123 deal) , the deal is jeopardy





[edit on 7-7-2008 by manson_322]

I'd agree with every thing manson said so far he pretty much nailed it on the head.

What about Australia and Japan although their relatively small fry i mean if there is a world war breaking out China either have two thorns in the backside or two potential allies they may be small but in war every man and window of opportunity counts.

African nations are going to be selling to the highest bidder maybe??? Or just a non-factor in the war???

Originally posted by SR
I'd agree with every thing manson said so far he pretty much nailed it on the head.

Why? His theory that a small organization of nations, in which only two are of any consequence, could someone beat a vastly larger group, in which the only Superpower, the mighty U.K., and Saudi Arabia reside?

And all of this is based on 'Scalar Weaponry' which, if it exists, is somehow better than the United State's own Scalar Weapons and better than its Black Budget projects?
Of which, of course, he knows little to nothing about.

Russia puts an extreme reliance in its unconventional weaponry - And while it's conventional forces are becoming much better, they still have much ground to cover from the Cold War period.

This means either the war turns nuclear and everyone loses, or Russia and India, and their two small friends are overwhelmed.
[At-least in Manson's conception, I don't see the alliances occurring in the same light as him.]

What about Australia and Japan although their relatively small fry i mean if there is a world war breaking out China either have two thorns in the backside or two potential allies they may be small but in war every man and window of opportunity counts.

My bet is that they [Central / western Asia] all stay neutral, save those pressured by Russia. They have too much to lose, and too little to gain. If they all go in, they would all lose. If they all stay out, then they have to deal with the complete annihilation of the global economy, but their in the best place to do so; ie. still alive.

As far as Australia, not only is it an American ally, but we have bases there. Their naval surface forces are quite formidable, their air force will soon be, and they've got the best location of anyone on the planet as far as defenses go. After all, the logistics of getting an army to Australia, and safely, would be astounding for any country.

African nations are going to be selling to the highest bidder maybe??? Or just a non-factor in the war???

I imagine the middle-east will go for Israel, and the United States will do what it can to help, but by and large, save for South Africa, I don't see Africa doing much of anything, if only because they're all-ready in constant war with themselves, or internally.

Personally, I think it would depend on who started it and why. If the US were to continue it's current policies and were to set off WW3 because of them, I think we'd be on our own.