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: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sailor Sam


So, who are these non English speaking commonwealth member states that (sadly) hate Britain

Perhaps you can back up your claims?

Personally i have served in the British Army and trained with many commonwealth troops from Ghana, Cameroon, South Africa, Nepal, Fiji & so on, and in a few cases even trained in some of those commonwealth country's on exercises, and they're all rather nice friendly people they had no problem with our presence there, at all,

and perhaps you missed where i wrote the recruits from commonwealth nations in the British Army are having to be capped sense there are to many signing up,

Sonk if i'm not mistaken you was also talking utter nonsense in the Falklands dispute thread with little to no evidence to back up your claims, i personally think your facts are based on anti British hatred and dreams

.


I would think that Southern Cyprus, with its orthodox religion and communist government friendly to Russia, will side with them.
They hate the English even more than they hate the Turks.

edit on 14-2-2012 by Sailor Sam because: shortened the quoted bit.






Rubbish,

I've been to Cyprus 6 time never have i heard of any of this from the locals or read about it else where for that matter, to say it has better relations with Russia is incredibly stupid, there is a large RAF air force base located in the south, and it is also where the 2nd battalion (the poachers) the Royal Anglia Regiment are based for the next 2yrs, otherly know in WW2 as the desert rats, pretty sure it has no ties with russia

to say relations are bad with Cyprus is absurd,




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Great conversations going on here. I'm going to hold off posting an updated map until the end of the night, after a bit more hashing out of some of these countries/areas. I'm learning a lot from the discussion, thank you!

I'm just going to reiterate that *my* map is not seeking to achieve a perfect representation of the degree of favor countries share in peacetime, their subtle everyday political differences, or their desire to be dragged into war or not. The map this thread is seeking to achieve is one that represents the two sides any country could *actually* have as choices for alliance, or likely fall to in an all-out global war scenario; when it comes down to it, it's the "Beatles or Elvis" question----you may like a few hits of one or the other, but if forced to live with only one for the rest of your life, you can't pick both, and if you pick neither, one will be forced on you eventually.

That's why it's either the two sides or "unpredictable". Because as much as we might not like it, it always comes down to Axis or Allies----which coalition is going to be a more advantageous choice for my country? Which side will the "Middle Eastern/Islamic" coalition go with when they need more ammo? The East, of course. Which two countries are going to want to get a mutual partnership going to eliminate the threat of being right on top of each other? China and Russia. So on and so forth.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR
 





These are all highlighted in red, they would never in a million years fight for/with Russia they're ex soviet and have quite a hatred towards Russia, especially Georgia with the recent invasion of Russia, Kazakhstan is home to Russia's space fleet/launch sight with its location being perfect, but i don't think we can simply include them in the fight simply because of that Kazakhstan's have just as good relations with the west as they do with Russia,...

Eastern Euro block, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, can't see them remaining natural like the map suggests there part of the EU, and have been in countless arguments with Russia namely over the US missile shield, and also the gas pipeline & debt for gas supplied by Russia...


1. Kazakstan people are Russians that moved there. They see themselves as being part of Russia. The more indigenous population are mixed. This may not be true of Georgia because the people were refugees from the Turks and are more autonomous. In any case, none of them can do much except act like Mullahs

2. Belarus would connect with Russia. They already have an open border. Ukraine would stay close. None of them would be bothered by war, since Europe on the other side is a big wall to them.

It depends on how desperate things get. There is an obvious fight for commodities that has already started.


To be fair i don't think any of those south ex soviet states are even worth marking/mentioning, other then Georgia who we know would be firmly yellow and has a better armed forces, i don't think any ex soviet southern states offer anything militarily and the rest won't get involved, period, Poland certainly yellow, Ukraine worth more debate on, but i can't see them siding with Russia after all the bad past/tensions, Belarus, i think you maybe right id be happy to put them neutral with recruits for Russia , my opinion was based on the majority of eastern block tbh,

i think the map as it stands already has far to many insignificant reds or yellows on it which won't in a million years touch it with a barge pole or matter in the slightest, people are just desperately like children making crap up to get more reds or more yellows on it, its ridiculous really, if you want a realistic map just put the main players on it and cover the rest of the map with 2 more colours for the potential recruits for either the red or yellows, because there are certainly nations who don't have the means to go to war on it, but would instead offer up recruitment programs,

OP is not far of now imo still no yellow over Taiwan tho,

I think the entire middle east bar Iran needs have its own colour for "Totally unpredictable" all tho i'm pretty sure the Saudis & Turkey will side with the yellows, the Saudis are very close friends with the UK, the MOD does big money arms deals with the Saudis and an even closer relationship is that of both the Royal families the queen regularly visits the Saudi royals, and they're close with its ME allies Bahrain, as we see in the Revolutions recently, i think at a later stage Saudis would light up yellow with Turkey, regardless of and insignificant Israel, they both have very good relations with the EU,

And yes Israel would become very quickly an Insignificant little runt in WW3, people should remember they're already running at full capacity under someone else funding which would fall away drastically to, with little to no industry to produce more hardware either because its all bought US, or bought for them rather, its likely they'd only serve as troop numbers eventually


edit on 14-2-2012 by BRITWARRIOR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR
 


But alliances/neutrality and willingness aren't the only factors in a global war scenario; there's supply line issues, especially for countries between a major coastal area and the country needing the supplies (such as the US needing the Pakistani routes for supply of US troops); there's proximity issues the main players may want to exploit in order to have a closer base of operations (like Iraq and Afghanistan); there's economic dependence issues (who do they buy their oil from if both sides threaten sanctions?), etc. A realistic map takes into account not just willingness and ability to contribute, but also who any country is at the mercy of as well. The entire world is dependent on each other in some way or another, and this factors into who they're "with" when it comes down to it.

To leave entire geographical regions blank just because they have very little military resources or don't want to get into the fight is to ignore the fact that if they border a country someone wants to attack, they will be the door that country comes knocking on (or busting down). Should that happen, and the other side wants to cut them off, the countries next door to *that* first country will now be in play. Can we make educated guesses at which side these countries would more easily fall to or side with if their door is knocked on? Absolutely.


la2

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 



Sweden, Switzerland and Austria are nuetral countries, and wont take any side, granted, Sweden is a heavily armed nuetrality.

I agree with the earlier post, most of the yellow countries are unpradictable, should it come to it i feel countries like Italy and Spain wouldnt contribute, Iraq would most likely fall in line with its arab neighbours and who could blame them, they wont last long.

I do think that when war does break out the actual map will be decided by how it pans out, Israel/Iran will obviously start it, but from there its an unknown, who joins Iran when? At what point does China take Taiwan, the US government must be really worried, they cant fight on this many fronts, and to be honest, most of the countries marked yellow on your map cant really afford to go to war, could be very interesting



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by la2
reply to post by 00nunya00
 



Sweden, Switzerland and Austria are nuetral countries, and wont take any side, granted, Sweden is a heavily armed nuetrality.

I agree with the earlier post, most of the yellow countries are unpradictable, should it come to it i feel countries like Italy and Spain wouldnt contribute, Iraq would most likely fall in line with its arab neighbours and who could blame them, they wont last long.

I do think that when war does break out the actual map will be decided by how it pans out, Israel/Iran will obviously start it, but from there its an unknown, who joins Iran when? At what point does China take Taiwan, the US government must be really worried, they cant fight on this many fronts, and to be honest, most of the countries marked yellow on your map cant really afford to go to war, could be very interesting


The Swiss indeed are true nuetrals. Austria less so as it is part of the CFSP and Sweden even less so as they recently joined with NATO in the Libyan air campaign. If Russia attacks any NATO member it pretty much drags in most of Europe through NATO and the EU. Many nations will simply join the winning side and considering massive advantage the US has of being able to attack any of the opposition without fear of any meaniful retaliation you would see most of the world backing the US. Kind of like WW2 where lots of nations declared just to be on the winning side.
edit on 14-2-2012 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by la2
reply to post by 00nunya00
 



Sweden, Switzerland and Austria are nuetral countries, and wont take any side, granted, Sweden is a heavily armed nuetrality.

I agree with the earlier post, most of the yellow countries are unpradictable, should it come to it i feel countries like Italy and Spain wouldnt contribute, Iraq would most likely fall in line with its arab neighbours and who could blame them, they wont last long.


Sure the first three you mentioned are officially neutral countries, but are they going to be taken by red forces or take action against yellow forces at any point? No, never. Therefore, they're yellow, because there's no chance of them going red.



I do think that when war does break out the actual map will be decided by how it pans out,

Obviously, LOL


Israel/Iran will obviously start it, but from there its an unknown, who joins Iran when? At what point does China take Taiwan, the US government must be really worried, they cant fight on this many fronts, and to be honest, most of the countries marked yellow on your map cant really afford to go to war, could be very interesting


Hence the attempt to sort out who will *eventually* be on one side or the other.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicodeme
reply to post by Vojvodus
 


I don't think Poland would. There's a mutual hatred between Russia and Poland over WWII and previous conflicts. I'm not sure if the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) should be orange. They were pretty quick to leave the Soviet Union and join NATO and the EU.



True, but even if they like NATO better, are they capable of holding their borders against Russian aggression? Or is NATO poised to quickly secure those states in the face of a Russian threat? That's one of the "fronts" I think it's important to figure out, along with the creeping of red and orange to Europe's southeast side.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcamp2011
reply to post by solarstorm
 


I Agree, no way Mexico is an ally to the US. IF there were a WWIII, they would be highly interested in reclaiming the south west as there own, not helping the US do anything. They would join forces with Venezuela.


Seriously, you think Mexico would ever go up against the US in any military situation, ever? They would reject the sweet, sweet teat that is America's economic bosom? To join up with the likes of Venezuela---a joke in terms of military threat to the US----and try to *reclaim* part of America? Can you pass me whatever you're smoking?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZakOlongapo
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Philippines for sure yellow, every one love Americans here... after Pinatubo eruption US move out of Phil. ... every one miss them here... if U are Caucasian turist in Phil. first question is: "are U Americano?"...


they dont even ask they just assume....and say "hey Joe!"......


as in GI Joe

I tell them im Canadiano


What i would like to know is how a "world war" would actually affect the world.
edit on 14-2-2012 by The Great Day because: (no reason given)


la2

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


I dont agree, you forget that europe gets alot of its energy from Russia, particularly Germany, I think that combined with current economic issues, might sway more countries than you might expect to waver, or even abstain from any action.

Public opinion will also effect it, do any of us really have another war in us, especially if its for all the wrong reasons again, what happens if war breaks out and Obama is defeated by a candidate pledging to pull US out of it? I think the rest of the world is still a little fed up of America, and it would take alot for most copuntries to join a US led alliance, possibly why it was a UK/French leadership in helping the people of Libya, the US is still rebuilding its international relationships.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR



talking utter nonsense in the Falklands dispute thread

I didn't write anything about the Falklands.



i personally think your facts are based on anti British hatred and dreams

scroll back up, i have already dealt with why the commonwealth will be divided in the event of a war in a previous post.

Also, since you are so sure about Britain gaining support from the commonwealth, I have included some "light" reading matter below on what your "great" country did to the rest of the world. Trade and military training are one thing, but in the event of a full blown war I don't expect Britain to receive so much as a whimper of support from the countries mentioned below.

Guardian UK: It is not illegal to discuss the millions who were killed under our empire. So why do so few people know about them?

Here's a small excerpt;



Three recent books - Britain's Gulag by Caroline Elkins, Histories of the Hanged by David Anderson, and Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis - show how white settlers and British troops suppressed the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya in the 1950s. Thrown off their best land and deprived of political rights, the Kikuyu started to organise - some of them violently - against colonial rule. The British responded by driving up to 320,000 of them into concentration camps. Most of the remainder - more than a million - were held in "enclosed villages". Prisoners were questioned with the help of "slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes". British soldiers used a "metal castrating instrument" to cut off testicles and fingers. "By the time I cut his balls off," one settler boasted, "he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket." The soldiers were told they could shoot anyone they liked "provided they were black". Elkin's evidence suggests that more than 100,000 Kikuyu were either killed or died of disease and starvation in the camps. David Anderson documents the hanging of 1,090 suspected rebels: far more than the French executed in Algeria. Thousands more were summarily executed by soldiers, who claimed they had "failed to halt" when challenged.


Here's another
Unlike Belgium, Britain is still complacently ignoring the gory cruelties of its empire

and another;
UK BBC Holocaust Denial
And another small excerpt;



Lord Hastings (Lord Moira, Marquess of Hastings and Governor-General of India, 1813-1823) (1813): “The Hindoo (Indian) appears a being nearly limited to mere animal functions and even in them indifferent. Their proficiency and skill in the several lines of occupation to which they are restricted, are little more than the dexterity of which any animal with a similar conformation but with no higher intellect than a dog, an elephant, or a monkey, might be supposed to be capable of attaining. It is enough to see this in order to have full conviction that such a people can at no period have been more advanced in civil policy.”


dream's eh?
edit on 15-2-2012 by sonik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Brazil shouldn't be yellow, and Libya/Saudi Arabia should be.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Thailand is Yellow. They have fought alongside Australian and US troops in previous wars, and are likely to do so in the future.

Edit: And why is Tasmania not coloured
Last i heard they were apart of Australia


Seriously though.

edit on 15-2-2012 by daaskapital because: eta



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
History has shown us that democracies do not tend to fight each other. If there is WW3 it would be the autocracies, dictatorships and pseudo democracies against the established democracies of the West et al. In other words, the free world versus those who like to curtail freedom. This was the pattern in WW1 and WW2, although the alliance with the Soviets proves the exception to the rule.

The rest of the world – made up of countries with no influence (primarily Africa, parts of South America and Asia) will be ignored because they are too poor and ineffectual to have any input, regardless of their government complexion.

For example, you would not get India (the biggest democracy) siding with the likes of Iran (a repressive autocracy). You could get Russia (a sort of pseudo democracy / autocracy) siding with Iran. The only way for democracies to work with autocracies is when they have a common threat, like Nazi Germany in WW2.

A World War would only happen if the either block felt threatened and initiated hostilities. In past world wars you knew when the war started, although the US was late to both and nearly missed one!

Luckily for us in the liberal democracies of the West, the number of autocracies is reducing. Democracy is filling the vacuum, however flawed.

Regards



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Originally posted by jrmcleod

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Originally posted by jrmcleod
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


You genuinely believe Iraq, India and Afghanistan will be with the "Allies"?

Not a chance...


Obviously you didn't even read the first post.

I very clearly said places like Afghanistan are yellow not because they love us, but because we have massive military infrastructure in place there.

FFS, read before you comment.


I did read it but its a highly inaccurate way of looking at it. US soldiers are US soldiers. Any US soldiers, no matter where they are stationed doesn't mean that "holding" country will side with them.

i.e. Austria is usually neutral, but by your logic, if the US placed 20,000 troops there for "training" and a war broke out, your automatically jumping to the conclusion that Austria, who usually remain neutral would side with the allies...

FFS, remove the ones you don't know about...


You know, replies are usually a lot more helpful when you give an explanation why you're asserting something, instead of just making a snarky hit-and-run comment.

I'm open to the argument that despite major military infrastructure, those countries might have the will and people power to overcome the US and make the country "red" so to speak. But you made no such argument. FFS.


Ok i apologise for the snarky hit and run comment, my bad. I believe that Iraq, Afgahnistan and India wont side with the allies, even if they have poor infrastructure and a big presence of US/Allied soldiers because of the following...

1. In the time of a third world war, most if not all soldiers would be taken home to secure the homeland and await orders for invasion etc...if any of those foreign placed soldiers survive
2. Iraqi's and Afgan's HATE western soldiers, we went into their country and destoryed it even more so than it was, i dont think they would hestiate in forming a rebel armay to attack allied soldiers in thier homeland
3. India is land locked bewteen other countries who would be sided with Russia and China, not only would it be suicide to be an ally but the have so many financial ties with China and Russia that i dont think they would risk it. If anything, they may even remain neutral.

This is of course, my opinion but i think there are only a few ardent countries who would jump into the WWIII, many many countries in my opinion would stay neutral for fear of dessimination from nukes. My little list would be this...

Allies

US
UK
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
Brazil
South Korea
New Zealand
Japan

Non-Allies

Iran
China
Russia
Pakistan
Venezuela
Argentina
North Korea
Syria
Iraq
Afghanistan

Major Neutral Countries

Portugal
Norway
Sweden
Poland
Mexico
India
Latvia
Austria
Switzerland
Saudi Arabia
Egypt

I personally cant see this WWIII being fought with all countries. Only a few with nukes. Most others IMO would be scared of being nuked if the sided for or against so i think the vast majority would remain neutral
edit on 15/2/12 by jrmcleod because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Incredible...

People are STILL saying that the fifth largest country in the world (both in territory and in population) and sixth largest economy in the world, Brazil, is going to be an "ally" of the USA / Israel against Iran.

Most people here seems to think that South America is still a "satellite" of the USA. That cold be true 15 years ago, but A LOT of things changed in South America in the past 15 years. A wave of left-wing governments took over the continent, and all those governments have a much more "independent" approach to deal with the USA now.

Brazil, for example, helped by Turkey, reached a nuclear agreement with Iran in 2010, trying to avoid new sanctions against Iran. But the deal was rejected by the USA and major powers, and the sanctions went on.

Also, the largest commercial partner of Brazil now is China, and no longer the USA.

It's impossible that Brazil and other countries in South America take the side of the USA / Israel against Iran and China in any war. At best, they will remain neutral.

edit on 15-2-2012 by GLontra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Okay, after reading all the discussion, I blanked out the countries which won't probably matter because they are BOTH not going to contribute AND they are not in proximity to any significant country. Now we can focus on the ones that do, and now there's a whole lot of orange, which kind of defeats the purpose of the map in the first place-----trying to figure out who will likely side with whom----but there seems to be so much disagreement about them. Now that they're orange, let's discuss why they will likely go red or yellow in the most realistic circumstances:

Updated map



Thanks for the input everyone!



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Good work

PNG is yellow or white, not orange
NZ is yellow but could be left white
Tasmania is part of Australia so it can't be white



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Good work

PNG is yellow or white, not orange
NZ is yellow but could be left white
Tasmania is part of Australia so it can't be white


PNG is orange because of another poster; find that post and argue with them! LOL

NZ *is* white.......?

Tasmania is white because if it's yellow, people will say it won't contribute anything, so it should be white. Let's just leave it white, it doesn't matter anyways.




top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join