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.

 

WW3: The map. (Input needed)

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


I feel that:

Africa - South Africa, and most of Africa

Middle America - Costa Rica

South America - Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Chile

Middle East - U.A.E., Bahrain

Asia - Indonesia, Phillipines,

Should all be yellow. The same with most of the orange. But most of these countries wouldn't really have anything to give or gain during WW3 besides lives.

Great idea and map so far by the way.


edit on 13-2-2012 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
Russia's Biggest trading partners.

wiki.answers.com...

China's trading partners:

en.wikipedia.org...

IRAN's trading (errr umm) Partners:

en.wikipedia.org...

All of these have to be considered. A nation won't attack another nation if it's in it's top 3 of trade partners or business interests....usually.



But therein lies the discussion: China's big trading partners are the US, South Korea, etc, but they wouldn't be on their side in WW3. Is Turkey going to forego its alliance with the US, Israel, etc, to join Russia? Trading partners will get shuffled around in the event of war, it won't necessarily dictate sides.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Muslim nations of Africa.

www.islamproject.org...

Think about it.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


Ah, "pic" is the tag I wanted----thank you!

ETA: I had to have it huge to see the tiny countries like Israel.
edit on 13-2-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Exactly. Trading partners will rethink what they have to lose if aligning against a partner. China might feel self sustained and since we owe them debt anyways, they might think it's a good time to collect.

Nobody really knows until something bigger like a protection treaty overtakes the economic burden.

It's really about treaties more.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Exactly. Trading partners will rethink what they have to lose if aligning against a partner. China might feel self sustained and since we owe them debt anyways, they might think it's a good time to collect.

Nobody really knows until something bigger like a protection treaty overtakes the economic burden.

It's really about treaties more.


Absolutely when it comes to regional and smaller conflicts, but when it comes down to who would either allow "our" troops or "theirs" into their countries to fight the other side, or who would easily fall to a side because of extenuating circumstances like close bases, troops on their borders, etc, those treaties might go out the door, would they not? Just because we have a treaty with Taiwan doesn't mean China won't own their a##es if WW3 breaks out.

ETA: to your post about the Muslim nations of Africa: word.
edit on 13-2-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Yep, people change sides real fast in wars. But protection treaties usually stay the same. NATO has been almost untouched since 1948 for example, but you never know.

Those who have something to lose or gain get involved.

Those who are neutral and have no real military to speak of give 'aid' but they really don't count. Half of the places on your map would most likely be 'allies' on paper.


edit on 13-2-2012 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tooo many pills
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


I feel that:

Africa - South Africa, and most of Africa

Middle America - Costa Rica

South America - Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Chile

Middle East - U.A.E., Bahrain

Asia - Indonesia, Phillipines,

Should all be yellow.


Why---because of an alliance, good relations, or because of ease of yellow forces in taking these countries?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Yep, people change sides real fast in wars. But protection treaties usually stay the same. NATO has been almost untouched since 1948 for example, but you never know.

Those who have something to lose or gain get involved.

Those who are neutral and have no real military to speak of give 'aid' but they really don't count. Half of the places on your map would most likely be 'allies' on paper.


edit on 13-2-2012 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)


Totally, and that's why I'm asking for the input here----to help me (and others) understand *why* those nations would hold their military alliances or not, or in some cases, who would hold a military alliance with one side while having to break it with the other.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Damn, I'm moving to Madagascar Africa.....

This World War crap is for the birds



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


South Africa is a basically a crown colony.

Costa Rica has been closely connect with the CIA for awhile.

The same with Colombia and Bolivia because of their natural resources. We have military bases there.
I grouped Peru and Chile in with those two.

The U.A.E. and Bahrain are obviously closely tied with the U.S. and not the Red.

The Philippines and Indonesia both have major U.S. bases.

This might help. It is also from 2001-2003. And the Yellow has greatly expanded since then.
www.ppu.org.uk...


edit on 13-2-2012 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


Awesome reply, thank you!

Link to new map

Signing off for the night.


edit on 13-2-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


I would also without a doubt make Saudi Arabia yellow... Without their trade connection in oil for dollars, the U.S. dominance of the Middle East would not be possible. Also, the largest arm-package ever agreed upon by the U.S. was to Saudi Arabia. $60 Billion.

online.wsj.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
In the event of war with Russia you might as well put Turkey as Neutral or Red as most of Russia's allies in Central Asia and the Caspian region are Turkic nations like Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, the Turkish government might go ahead with war but not without causing a total revolution as many Turks are already fed up as it is with the current regimes attempts to break down Kemalism and the Secular system in Turkey.


upload.wikimedia.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Originally posted by squandered
I think orange is underrepresented. At least half of the yellow countries will be unpredictable. Half of those are waiting for America to fall as it is.


Can you point out which ones and your reason(s) why they're unpredictable? I'm open to all suggestions!


All of Asia is questionable and the reliance on India and Japan is balanced on America being the world superpower. Nothing will kick on until America has been dropped.

If the balance of power moves toward China as predicted and no immediate war breaks out America and Europe keep sliding, I wouldn't count on too many allies, either way (looking at this from an American perspective).

I suppose we need to look at the countries with the most aggressive military stance first. The countries which are the best prepared will want to call the shots.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I wouldn't count out Vietnam and Thailand in a South Asian block, depending on China - they would be two way, at least.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I thought about writing a long explanation about what I thought would be different, but realized it would be easier just to draw another map. Unlike many of the others here, I believe neither Russia nor China will be drawn into an Iranian War. I just don't see it as being in their immediate interests.



With that said, I've envisioned a two-stage war, and my map reflects that as indicated by the key in the top right corner. The first stage is basically Iran, Syria and their satellites versus the Israel, the U.S., and parts of NATO. The second stage envisions a radicalization in certain nations, especially Afghanistan which I see uprising and Pakistan, which I see destabilizing. That brings India into the mix.

At that point, an expansion is possible, but I don't see the Arab west joining in. If they do, all bets are off. I see central Asia as playing neutral under Russian influence. And I see the west fighting a series of brush fires they can't put out.

With respect to the Chinese and Russians, I think they'd love to see America and the west caught up in fighting wars from the Indus to the Euphrates against angry insurgents, and leaving that to happen on its own is all they could ever hope for in terms of what it would cost.

I intentionally haven't included many countries as I believe they would be non-players, even as their sympathies sway one way or another.
edit on 14-2-2012 by cassandranova because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
With that said, the danger in such a war is really in Iraq and Egypt for the west. If either or both of those countries became part of the militant opposition, you could have opposition stretching from the Horn of Africa to the end of India, and at that point, it would potentially become the clash of civilizations long forecasted.

I tend to believe Egypt and Iraq will keep out, but that's the one scenario that scares me most, really. If Egypt joins the war with Syria and around Israel, the game changes so much.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by solarstorm
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Amusing...you think Mexico is gonna contribute?


Yes . . . to the destruction of the USA.

They have fantasies of AZTLAN.

The NWO will surprise them after using them. NWO folks are not interested in making new Nations but in destroying old ones and making 10 regions of one new 'nation.'



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by cassandranova
 


Duduman 'saw' differently.

www.handofhelp.com...

And, China and Russia have BOTH said an attack on Iran = an attack on each of them.

AND, the NWO oligarchy WANT

China and Russia to shred the USA down to ashes.

Makes setting up their tyrannical Marxist satanic global government all the easier.




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join