SirWinkler

World War III.

128 posts in this topic

We've all had a history class or two, I hope. There's been two World Wars to this point in history.

 

My question to my fellow Terra-ans (Terra-ites?): When will the next World War be? Who will be the major players? What will be the causes and ramifications? Or, if you subscribe to the theory that the UN has saved us from a third World War (nice try, League of Nations), will there ever be a third World War?

 

Feel free to add any other prudent or interesting information you feel you want to about the upcoming war, or lack of one.

 

Personally, I think it will be something like this.

 

Edit: Go Netherlands!

Edited by SirWinkler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will not be a third world war. Globalization has made nations far more interdependent on each other than ever before, and MAD continues to be a powerful deterrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will not be a third world war. Globalization has made nations far more interdependent on each other than ever before, and MAD continues to be a powerful deterrent.

I would hope that MAD won't be necessary in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear Powered Robots gave the best response.

On another note. Lets assume super weapons didn't exist, And that this WW3 was purely conventional:

http://globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

^Read the "keep in mind" notes before questioning the rankings.

The US really blows every nation out of the water. I mean, there is no single nation that could take us in a conventional war near our own borders. Lets not forget the added boost front NATO.

In comparison to Russia:

http://globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

The only benefit Russia has is land based weapons. But this doesn't take technology into consideration.

Conventionally speaking, nothing can be compared to NATO, the world knows this. So nobody is going to make a move.

A good example of this is North Koreas annual dick waving.

Shaman, very well said. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue Nuclear Weapons spared us going through another World War and not the UN.

 

That's a very fair point - I think the Cold War gives enough evidence for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue Nuclear Weapons spared us going through another World War and not the UN.

 

Exactly what I was going to say. Reminds me of a quote I copied down, but I don't know the source of:

 

"The one true god is the mushroom cloud; this is the holiest thing man has manifested to date, as an archetype. It, more than any religion or philosophy on Earth, brought us together all of a sudden, to a new level of consciousness. Knowing that we can blow up the planet 50 times, or 500 times, we finally realize that maybe we are all here together and have something to lose."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope that MAD won't be necessary in the future.

It will be, unless every country gives up their nuclear weapons simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, there is a good chance of a third world war, You could avoid the problems cause by Nuclear deterrent, Think about it Russia attacks Ukraine, US responds with Nuclear War... Yeah a bit uncalled for, Globally the US will be seen as the bad guy the nation that over acted and killed the global environment causing people all over the world to die of radiation poisoning, when they could of just sent troops in and repelled the Russians instead.. so for example, US and Russia goes to war and fight battles in the Americas, in Europe and in Asia and Africa but due to the Nuclear deterrent, the nation themselves wont be attack and invaded.

Look at China for example, China and Japan for some reason Gets into conflicts, what happens, US is drawn into the conflict, US Asian allies are mobilised to help the US, Russia enters in support of China and mobilised against Europe, Europe in a attempt to deterrent Russia aslo mobilises and gets ready to give US any military Support it needs. One wrong move and its a world war. 

Also Globalization doesn't stop wars, and interdependent only works as a limited deterrent to war, Russia has just annex Crimea and now facing sanctions, Russia's action in the past few weeks are counter productive economically, But thanks to nationalism, Russia's views National pride over economy.

Nationalism is rising, In China, Japan, Australia, India and even in Germany and UK where young people like myself would be more than happy to sacrifice economy performance for National pride. Whether nationalism will reach the same levels it was before the world wars, only time will tell but for the moment it looks like it may get there. 

Edited by Ahovking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been more than two world wars, but only two have World War in their names. The Seven Years' Wars can be considered a world war due to it involving not only European nations, but also their colonial possessions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been more than two world wars, but only two have World War in their names. The Seven Years' Wars can be considered a world war due to it involving not only European nations, but also their colonial possessions.

 

That's a fair point. I would state that the reason I went with "World Wars" would be because it involved every (or almost every) continent, but WWI didn't involve much of Asia or Africa - they were there, just didn't play a huge role. So I guess that's not really the question I meant to ask.

 

I suppose the question then comes to centralize over one key idea: Will there be another large-scale conflict involving most of the world in which terrible new weapons are involved?

 

We had gas in WWI which was so terrible that it became outlawed, and nuclear weapons ended WWII in the Pacific. There wasn't really much new weapon-wise about the Seven Years' War except for its breadth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion we are already experiencing the beginnings of a Third World War. Many could consider it the war on terror. Because terrorism comes from all corners of the globe including from within our own borders. (I'm from the United States so we have a history beginning to take shape of home grown terrorists. Take for example the Boston Marathon Bombing) also wars in the Middle East. While these events may be limited to certain corners of the world, most notably where the level of democracy we have in the west hasn't been obtained yet like in Syria, or Iraq. I would say that the world war we are fighting is a conventional war on terror. We only engage in this actual warfare when we have tracked terrorism to a particular place in the world. Most of the fighting nowadays takes place in cyberspace. I think that as big a deterrent as MAD and other WMDs are, it seems the ultimate goal for every nation to have them.mand the smart way to win a nuclear war is by crippling or destroying another's retaliatory capability, the reason why the UN tries to limit the number of nuclear capable countries out there is because there are some countries and people who won't hesitate to use them in a first strike attack. Human nature is unpredictable and when mixed with nuclear deterrents it's no wonder why the human race has come to the brink of nuclear war in the past. That's just my opinion. So I'm convinced we are already fighting a world war three with conventional weapons and in cyberspace. It's just scary that one little incident can set off a whole chain of nuclear retaliation if world leaders aren't careful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt a Third World War will happen quite yet. It would be against the economic self-interest of the major nations.

 

But what it happens, it will be pretty much as predicted; too many people and not enough space or resources to go around. We must remember that when it comes, war, war never changes...

 

By which I am saying it will likely lead to something like the Resource Wars from Fallout.

Edited by sum sine regno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking to.video games to predict anything is, well.... Just no...

But hey, this Ukraine thing is getting spicy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking to.video games to predict anything is, well.... Just no...

But hey, this Ukraine thing is getting spicy.

 

I am referencing Fallout, because it is connected with the point I am making. That World War III will likely be over scarce resources, the last few bread crumbs.

 

Yes it is. Putin's antics seem quite familiar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And his antics will continue as long as we have a containment policy towards Russia.

The USSR may be gone but its still very popular in post soviet states and Russia is still very much alive.

Also, I think WW3 will most likely be centered around Jerusalem. Because its only natural for the UN to be the direct cause of the next global massacre.

Joe also makes a good point. As we speak, we are basically at war with China over the interwebz. As well as everyone else who knows their way around a computer and isn't fond of the federal government.

However, in an all out conventional war, internet, satellites, and communications will be the first things to go.

Also, radical Islam is something that will never die. Our war against it has actually had the exact opposite effect. IE: prior to 9/11 AQ was nothing anyone cared about. Then we invaded Iraq just because we could and inspired a whole generation of Muslims to turn to extremism to fight what they see as a devil suppressing their people.

At this point, its a never ending conflict. The only possible way to end it is to end the US and Israel. An inevitable outcome, really.

Obviously America sucks at guerilla warfare. I believe we did this before in southeast Asia once...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I' am personally on a picket-fence. I have a 1:1 (50%:50%) mindset on the whole idea of a 'world war three'. For one in order for it to be a WORLD WAR, majority of the actual world would have to be involved so it'd have to have 55% of each of the nations that exist in at least 4 of the 6 continents. During the WWI, and WWII Europe still had a lot of colonial ties to majority of the nations that helped them fight. For example; Great Britain had ties with a region called Nepal, in return Nepalese Gurkha fought alongside the British. Nepal is now aligned with Britian, Nepal didn't really have the own power and stability to really support itself without Britain. So really in a ways of speaking it was really only Britain with help from its colonial territories.

 

Another good example is Canada, very few people know it but the Germans nicknamed the Canadian soldiers "stormtroopers" because they would rush into combat and defeat the numerous Germans. 

 

On the modern hand, if the war broke out in North Korea vs South Korea; it'd be completely one-sided. The reason being is that North Korea up to date has no changed its doctrine of the more the better, they use old soviet equipment. The South literally recovered a crashed North Korean UAV that had a COMMERCIAL grade camera on the inside. (You can buy a commercial grade camera at the store). I don't suspect China would directly get involved in the war, but more-so 'fund' it. By selling their old equipment to North Korea, and possibly slipping them a few ding dongs under the table that could fuel the North Koreans, and if China were to continue to sell their goods to the US; they would remain under the radar when the US decides if they want to get involved. But by selling to each side, they are indirectly fueling them to fight each other.

 

Although in an event if the sides were China, and North Korea vs US, South Korea, Japan, and Philippines. The obvious victor would be the US led side, I mean lets be real here; China has had no MODERN day experience in a war like the US has had, and nor does it enjoy the defense assets. Even with the US Defense Budget cuts it will still be bigger then the next 3 nations combined (Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia). 

 

Nuclear missiles are slowly becoming obsolete with the inventions of equipment like the Boeing YAL-1, THAADs, BAE Electric Railguns that will hit you before you hear it. You could literally be standing 100 miles away and the US BAE ER was to fire it would get to you in eight minutes and hit you. And if you haven't disintegrated because the impact alone causes an explosion (the rounds have no gunpowder) then you will hear it 8 more minutes later. South Korea, and Japan also have great economies and are high ranking in technological aspects. They also have PROVEN equipment that would be rated higher than anything China, or the North could possess.

 

In the event of Russia vs Ukraine; probably not much would happen. I mean the Ukrainians are kind've already surrendering as showed via various media outlets. Although after Ukraine if Russia tried to take anymore of the old soviet union, the Russians are going to have to answer to the brunt of NATO. Germany alone could give Russia the business; just go look at what Germany uses and how much of it they have. They have more tanks in storage than 60% of the military organizations on this planet even have. If the war broke out I would give it to NATO any day.

 

But we can only compare statistics, it's really hard to predict wars. Because none of us have ever been in a situation where you were at war, and a lot of us base things off of what we hear from others not what we take the time to investigate ourselves.

 

And to say the US sucks at warfare of any type is highly hilarious. I suppose we suck at "guerrilla warfare" <-- Nickname|Real Name --> (Asymmetric Warfare, Clandestine Warfare, Unconventional Warfare.) I wouldn't trust a source that doesn't even know the actual name. The US has at least 4+ Special Operations units for every branch. That's 2x - 3x as much as most nations with sizable/reputable forces.

 

JSOC -

Delta Force, Intelligence Support Activity, United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, 24th Special Tactics Squadron, US Army Flight Concepts Division, 427th Special Operations Squadron, Joint Communications Unit. 

 

ARMY -

1st Special Forces Group, 3rd Special Forces Group, 5th Special Forces Group, 7th Special Forces Group, 10th Special Forces Group, 19th Special Forces Group, 20th Special Forces Group, 75th Ranger Regiment, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment "Night Stalkers", Systems Integration Management Office (SIMO), US Army Special Operations Command Flight Detachment, 4th Military Information Support Group, 8th Military Information Support Group, 95th Civil Affairs Brigade, and 528th Sustainment Brigade.

 

NAVY - 

Naval Special Warfare Group 1, Naval Special Warfare Group 2, Naval Special Warfare Group 3, Naval Special Warfare Group 4, Naval Special Warfare Group 10, Naval Special Warfare Group 11, United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group.

 

AIR FORCE - 

1st Special Operations Wing, 24th Special Operations Wing, 27th Special Operations Wing, 193d Special Operations Wing, 919th Special Operations Wing, 352nd Special Operations Group, and 353rd Special Operations Group.

 

MARINES -

Marine Special Operations Regiment, and Marine Special Operations Support Group.

 

There were many more I didn't list I will leave a link here. Every Branch has 1 - 2 schools dedicated to training each candidate for everything required for their mission. Not to mention the training programs that most will go through. For example if you've got an 11x Option 40 Contract with the US Army, you will have to go to Basic Training, OSUT (One Station Unit Training), Airborne School, Pre-Ranger (Optional, but recommended), Ranger School, and then Ranger Assesment & Selection Program (RASP) Officers must got through RASP 1, and RASP 2. And that is JUST if you want to be a standard Ranger Infantrymen not even like a fire support specialist or any of that specialized stuff. For example if you decide to get a slot to become a Ranger Sniper, you have to go to Sniper School, and SERE. 

 

Mess with the best, Die like the rest. 'MURICA

Edited by Zeyrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its cool to speculate about a third world war, but at the same time pointless. The third world war will be a war fought for many reasons and have many countries involved. It is very possible that it will be a war for resources and land in which those resources are found. The most common resources to start the war would be a shortage of Oil and gas on our planet. The largest Oil and Natural Gas deposits are set in the heart of the Middle East. While normally not a big deal, the fact that the Middle East is home to pretty much 3 of the worlds major Religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism and Judaism and Christianity in constant conflict in the modern world with Islam even though they try to teach the same principles of love, peace and forgiveness, will only inflame the wars to be fought in that region over resources and oil. Further more, yes Russia is still very much alive and the crisis in Ukraine is proving that point. My personal opinion to the US President would be let Ukraine and Russia solve their own problems, however, Ukraine itself is split. Half its people vote to rejoin Russia, and half vote to remain independent and Sovereign Ukraine. While I don't see this actually drawing Russia and the US into direct military conflict, it will be in essence a repeat of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s . (most likely) Where Russia would invade, the US would train and supply those who are fighting to remain independent. So while not involved directly we will be fighting each others strategies and tactics.

 

Also, take again China or the tension between the north and south Koreans. Should any thing happen in Korea it would be a likely repeat of the first Korean War. Russia and China would likely back the north while the US and other NATO/Allied forces would side with the south. However, in that situation it is likely that both the US and Russia or China would come to a direct engagement.

 

Like I said, and Fox Fire agreed with, in todays world almost everything is done via the internet, and satellite. In the event of any terror attack, major war, or any crisis these forms of communications would be the first to go. Likely even cellphone use would be limited. In the near future, it is possible depending on the reason for the war, we could see very different alliances.

Example: If the wars are over Oil or Nuclear disarmament, the Middle East and  most African countries like Egypt, Libya Somalia and others would likely see large amounts of bloodshed, and many western nations especially the United States are likely to see increased terror attacks. IN this situation it is hard to determine what side Russia will be on. (Ironically enough although for entertainment and creative-academic purposes I wrote a story for my English class that depicts events similar to what we are discussing).

 

If the wars are fought over land and old Cold War tensions between north and south Korea, likely the same result will occur. Either the fighting will be too much for either side to withstand and call a cease fire with the same borders we have now or both North and South Korea will be completely destroyed by all of the major countries fighting each other in such a small land area.

 

If the wars are purely economic likely it will be the United States, China, Japan and Russia that will be involved. While unlikely to see widespread combat, there may be tensions, and small military skirmishes. Wile this situation is more likely to be a free for all, if there are any sides to be taken I would not be surprised to see the US and Japan take a side against China and Russia.

 

Again this is all speculation and while entertaining to hear everyone's view on the topic it is impossible to be definitive where WW3 is to be fought, what reasons exactly we are fighting for, and who is going to ally with who.

 

(btw Fallout was a good game) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I' am personally on a picket-fence. I have a 1:1 (50%:50%) mindset on the whole idea of a 'world war three'. For one in order for it to be a WORLD WAR, majority of the actual world would have to be involved so it'd have to have 55% of each of the nations that exist in at least 4 of the 6 continents. During the WWI, and WWII Europe still had a lot of colonial ties to majority of the nations that helped them fight. For example; Great Britain had ties with a region called Nepal, in return Nepalese Gurkha fought alongside the British. Nepal is now aligned with Britian, Nepal didn't really have the own power and stability to really support itself without Britain. So really in a ways of speaking it was really only Britain with help from its colonial territories.

In a modern world its pretty hard to NOT have the majority o the planet involved when two major powers go at it.

Another good example is Canada, very few people know it but the Germans nicknamed the Canadian soldiers "stormtroopers" because they would rush into combat and defeat the numerous Germans.

That doesn't make sense. Sturmtrupen (Storm troopers) was a term Germany had for their own soldiers in the first war. Its also what inspired Storm Troopers from Star Wars.

So I highly doubt this.

On the modern hand, if the war broke out in North Korea vs South Korea; it'd be completely one-sided. The reason being is that North Korea up to date has no changed its doctrine of the more the better, they use old soviet equipment. The South literally recovered a crashed North Korean UAV that had a COMMERCIAL grade camera on the inside. (You can buy a commercial grade camera at the store). I don't suspect China would directly get involved in the war, but more-so 'fund' it. By selling their old equipment to North Korea, and possibly slipping them a few ding dongs under the table that could fuel the North Koreans, and if China were to continue to sell their goods to the US; they would remain under the radar when the US decides if they want to get involved. But by selling to each side, they are indirectly fueling them to fight each other.

Much of that old soviet equipment is far more reliable than much of the stuff we have. There's a sure reason why the AK is the most recognized firearm on earth.

Although in an event if the sides were China, and North Korea vs US, South Korea, Japan, and Philippines. The obvious victor would be the US led side, I mean lets be real here; China has had no MODERN day experience in a war like the US has had, and nor does it enjoy the defense assets. Even with the US Defense Budget cuts it will still be bigger then the next 3 nations combined (Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia).

Thats a stupid assumption. China is literally a half o step being us id aeronautical technology, has proven they can shoot down satellites from the ground, and has a much better educational system than the US.

China is global power that WILL surpass the US soon. Everyone acknowledges that.

In the event of Russia vs Ukraine; probably not much would happen. I mean the Ukrainians are kind've already surrendering as showed via various media outlets. Although after Ukraine if Russia tried to take anymore of the old soviet union, the Russians are going to have to answer to the brunt of NATO. Germany alone could give Russia the business; just go look at what Germany uses and how much of it they have. They have more tanks in storage than 60% of the military organizations on this planet even have. If the war broke out I would give it to NATO any day.

Russia has the most powerful land army on earth and has gotten pretty close to Germany these days. In fact, Germany is the last NATO nation Id expect to go against Russia.

Also, Russia took Northern Georgia in 08, now Ukraine. NATO hasn't, nor will they do anything.

If you want solid stats to compare power:

http://globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

Also, a war with either Russia or China would be MAD whether WMDs were used or not.

Joe, actually, modern Russia (and even the soviets) are highly opposed to NK. I highly doubt North Korea would see any support from Russia.

China on the other hand is obligated to protect them via treaty. However, Even China has started to realize that North Korea is more of a burden than an asset. In the end, I don't think anyone really gives a ******** about NK exceptthe Kim dynasty.

There are 4 super powers in the world. US, Russia, China and India. (Maybe the UK, bit their population can't compete).

The first things to go in a conflict between these powers, as I said, would be communication and satellites. Cell phone use wouldn't be limited, it would cease to exist. The entire planet would be thrown back by at least 20 years. And Thats just in the first few weeks.

Fallout is one of my favorite games. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know about NK and Russia. That's interesting. And India I thought was still considered "developing" I knew they have a growing economy but not that it is nearing competition to any of the other powers. Its definitely interesting.

As for technology its not going to save us and will be the first to go down. I agree 100%. Everything I own gives me trouble already. lol

I just hope our politicians are better leaders than I give them credit for, because otherwise I may as well pack my things and move underground today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FoxFire is just a generic Russia is stronk kid, they thought Iraq was pretty strong too. Iraq use to slap around all the Middle Easties. Had been in the top 5 largest armies. This is usually why I stay away from this section but it urks me when kids talk about how the US can easily be beaten. Y'know everyone has their losses, but I doubt the US would be defeated. Foxfire if you weren't in NPO and it was 1v1 I'd show you what America is about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FoxFire is just a generic Russia is stronk kid, they thought Iraq was pretty strong too. Iraq use to slap around all the Middle Easties. Had been in the top 5 largest armies. This is usually why I stay away from this section but it urks me when kids talk about how the US can easily be beaten. Y'know everyone has their losses, but I doubt the US would be defeated. Foxfire if you weren't in NPO and it was 1v1 I'd show you what America is about.

What? I... What? First off, where does Fox even say US would lose in a war? In (his/her/their I don't know the correct pronoun) posts s/he mentions that US probably won't be a world power in the future and the fact they we lost in Vietnam. Secondly, your response to (him/her/them) is "I'll fight you"? Really? Look, I get you are a nationalist and everything, but really do you need to go to that level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? I... What? First off, where does Fox even say US would lose in a war? In (his/her/their I don't know the correct pronoun) posts s/he mentions that US probably won't be a world power in the future and the fact they we lost in Vietnam. Secondly, your response to (him/her/them) is "I'll fight you"? Really? Look, I get you are a nationalist and everything, but really do you need to go to that level?

I never used the word fight, you used your imagination there bubba. And the US didn't lose Vietnam, we withdrew before it was claimed a loss. US will always be a world power, generic russia scrub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never used the word fight, you used your imagination there bubba. And the US didn't lose Vietnam, we withdrew before it was claimed a loss. US will always be a world power, generic russia scrub.

"If you weren't NPO and it was 1v1, I'd show you what America is about"

By that logic the revolutionary war wasn't a loss for the British. Always is a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now