If there was WW3...

[Zealon]

@Boris, woah woah; listen here, I could spend a whole week arguing and correcting everything you just said, but like I said already I havn't proven anything yet, I havn't given any counter info, and I'm not going to. There is no point in debating against somone who isn't going to respond to your arguments. And be nice, theres no need to insult.

So thats all I have to say, goodbye now, my 3 projects await me...

 

[Boris_Spider]

...I could spend a whole week arguing and correcting everything you just said, but like I said already I havn't proven anything yet, I havn't given any counter info, and I'm not going to.

Then why did you post?

...There is no point in debating against somone who isn't going to respond to your arguments...

I have responded to your arguements. I presented counter-arguements, rhetorical questions, and cited facts. I think you confused the meaning of "responding" with "agreeing."

Water will likely be a critical factor in the beginning of WW III. Food will be also. Countries will likely start the war, and the odds of it's origin in the Middle East are high enough to raise concern. The major rivers through that region are already enjoying conflicting claims.

//\\oo//\\

 

[Nuclear]

 

[Evil_Redneck]

Japan's army is actually rather small and only has rights to be employ self-defense, not to mention that the US troops from Okinawa would put them down in a blink.

Then again, Japan has literally no reason to attack the USA.

I'm also wondering why people keep bringing Iraq up. Past conflicts have proven that that country is not to be taken as a global threat and the world police puts them to their place without losing a dozen of men.

Technically the U.S. is Japans Army. After WWII the U.S. forced Japan to sign a mandate of sorts that Japan would not be able to have a standing army of more than *I forget how many*, but in return the U.S would pledge to protect Japan from foreign invaders. And yes, the U.S. would protect Japan because Japan is where the U.S. gets most of its "technological" devices. (notice I said technological, we get the other garbage from China.)

 

[Zombie]

Technically the U.S. is Japans Army. After WWII the U.S. forced Japan to sign a mandate of sorts that Japan would not be able to have a standing army of more than *I forget how many*, but in return the U.S would pledge to protect Japan from foreign invaders. And yes, the U.S. would protect Japan because Japan is where the U.S. gets most of its "technological" devices. (notice I said technological, we get the other garbage from China.)

Not entirely. Read into the JSDF. Japan has its own, autonomous military force.

Note the SD in JSDF before you start arguing.

 

[Boris_Spider]

This is for?

//\\o0//\\

 

[jsheph03]

Well i was gone for a while and i see that alot of people have taken this thread over so..................... IDK U guys gets it *Passes imaginary baton of the thread to random person* There *runs away crying*

 

[Nuclear]

This is for?

//\\o0//\\

It's for this thread.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

Not entirely. Read into the JSDF. Japan has its own, autonomous military force.

Note the SD in JSDF before you start arguing.

Well, I think on a technical note it doesn't count as a military due to the constitution claiming we (I'm Japanese) aren't allowed to have an actual military, hence its the Japanese Ground/Maritime/Air Self Defense Force rather than the Japanese Army/Navy/Air Force. But yeah, Japan has its own autonomous military force albeit its only available for defensive and peace keeping purposes, as well as disaster response and such.

Although Japan DOES Have the JSDF, Japan's defense is quite dependent on the USA, which you can see through the US military forces in the country, particularly the base in Okinawa, and also due to the treaty between the two nations in which the US is obliged to defend Japan alongside the JSDF.

 

[Carter_117]

1: WW3 will be started over world resources. we have that point down.
2: it wont be started anytime soon unless a new anti nuke system is put up... which i say is a bad idea as then a war will break out because no fear of nuclear annhiliation.
3: during this said time of no nukes new innovative weapons shall be created... my money is on Biological weapons. or mass use of EMP's or something similar.
4: no nation is really mad at another i mean seriously China has no reason to go to war with the US no country really has a good reason but that still dosnt meant it wont happen.
5: Australia isnt a desert. try coming here. we may have a higher temperature then you folks but we really arnt a desert everywhere. and the desert most certaintly isnt expanding.
6: Zombies could be created. all you need to do is create a virus which blocks the "civilized" (for lack of a better word) part of the brain reducing you to Pre-Homo Sapien where survival is your only though (e.g. eating) and this virus could easily be passed on via saliva or anything else even just some blood (so in effect biteing people)
7: WWIV wont be fought with sticks and stones. it will be between the remaining men trying to make a life out of the eventual holocaust that will envelope us all
8: Martians invade from the planet zorg after we find out that mars was a listeing station for them and then the earth gets pulled up into an inter-galactic war of extermination aginst the united republic of Terkishla which has violated the Grod's policy on spreading disease and chemical experimentation on other races. so the Grod then sent the martians to earth to recruit our absurd number of nukes to use against the United Republic in an effort to stop them... but then they decide it would be better to simply delete episodes I II and III of star wars as we all thought that they sucked and that the original triology was bette rthen they go home wipe our memorices and now i am the only ONE WHO CAN REMEMBER THE INVASION AND THEN I COME ONTO THE HIVE WORKSHOP AND REPORT MY RAVEINGS TO THE ENTIRE WW3 COMMUNITY WHICH BEGINS HERE AND NOW!!!
9: Ignore point 8

 

[jsheph03]

Everything makes sense except Number 8 xD, The zombie one may take a little more time to start though

 

[Fussiler1]

I have no idea how a virus would be able to influence us so that we can become human-eating cannibals.

 

[Legend_Dk]

WW3 will start with major civil disorder in U.S.A and most of the European countries, thats when Russia will take the advantage and conquer the world

The Russia part is a joke, but i do think IF WW3 is going to start it would right after a civil disorder, in most of the countries

 

[jsheph03]

The zombie thing might be possible. Look at all the stuff we have now. There are medicines for everything and poisons for everyone. If we can make nuclear bombs I think we could make a virus somehow

 

[TwistedImage]

I have no idea how a virus would be able to influence us so that we can become human-eating cannibals.

Living creatures are just like machines, albeit ridiculously complicated and made of organic materials rather than metal.

We can make virii that alter every single aspect of the body and mind; however, engineering a virus intended for living beings is a lot more complicated than engineering one intended for a computer, for obvious reasons.

This means that the chance of such a virus ocurring naturally is ridiculously low, while the chance that we'll make it ourselves one day is pretty dang high, given that we don't destroy ourselves within the next one hundred years.

 

[BoneBreaker]

Within 20 years, I see the seven seals being opened.

Team 1: ASEAN + Australia + China + Japan + South Korea + India + New Zealand (Australia and New Zealand will be left unscaved, becoming Mini-Superpowers behind China and India)
Team 2: USA + Canada (allies with Team 1, will get dominated by team 3)
Team 3: South American Dictatorships + Iran + Pakistan + Iraq + Various other countries of the Middle East and Africa (spreading neo-communism and viva-la-revolution)
Team 4: North Korea (will nuke the !@#$ out of South Korea and other Asian nations)

Countries of the European continent will be scattered among different teams, many having different ideologies... a major split will occur in the European Union.

 

[Razosh]

Who would win WW3 depends on which unions there are, and besides I cant imagine who would start WW3.
WW1 was started by Russia, sure serbia shoot the prince of Austria but if Russia hadent going into war there would never have been a war and serbia would have been defeated in 1 or 2 days.
WW2 was started by Germany and Adolf Hitler.

 

[Fussiler1]

Who would win WW3 depends on which unions there are, and besides I cant imagine who would start WW3.
WW1 was started by Russia, sure serbia shoot the prince of Austria but if Russia hadent going into war there would never have been a war and serbia would have been defeated in 1 or 2 days.
WW2 was started by Germany and Adolf Hitler.

Errr...

 

[Icedrake]

Ever heard of the Geneva convention? Even though I don't trust that every goverment will "follow the rules" its still the only thing stopping countries from doing stuff like that.

In the end, it all comes down to one country that decides the fate of the world. If one country launches a nuke at another country, the country the nuke is getting launched at will probably say something like "To hell with the Geneva convention!" and launch their own retaliation nuke strike. Then, of course, the world would heat up exponentially from all the nuke debris, radiation, etc., then cool down into what would be a "Nuclear winter". By that time, most of us would be dead.

 

[TwistedImage]

Some of us would survive, still. Sure, it'd be a dystopia, but I daresay that's good for our lazy, weak species.

 

[rcshaggy]

I'll create the Galactic Elite League and make obey me like the Dominion and be as ruthless as Mengk from the Starcraft Series and people will overthrow me and take over my group.

But well thats what I would have done if I was a backstabber person in life, but that's not what I am.
I would make my Galactic Elite League as a group for all people willing to survive the war and bring justice to all who oppose us.
We would be the Freedom Fighters of the World War and we would bring peace to the world after the war was over.

 

[GhostThruster]

Humanity, after colonising hundreds of different planets, was slowly crumbling. Outer colonies began to rebel against the inner colonies, causing riots and war. It was at this time, during 2525, that an outer colony, called Harvest, lost contact. A small fleet was sent to investigate. Only one ship returned. It told that an alien broadcasted on their screens, saying 'Your destruction is the will of the gods, and we... are their instruments'. It ignited a devastating war between the UNSC (the United Nations Space Command) and a collective group of alien species known as the Covenant. This war would last for 27 years.

Well, my theory anyways

 

[Boris_Spider]

Thinking Machines vs. Humanity.

With humanaty's current thinking level, machines won't have a problem crushing us.

//\\==//\\

 

[Devine]

4chan vs the world.

 

[Tleno]

Who would win WW3 depends on which unions there are, and besides I cant imagine who would start WW3.
WW1 was started by Russia, sure serbia shoot the prince of Austria but if Russia hadent going into war there would never have been a war and serbia would have been defeated in 1 or 2 days.
WW2 was started by Germany and Adolf Hitler.

Russia did what it had to do. It had a pact with Aserbia and other countries that in case of war it joins their side. So no Russia blaming.
WW2 was started by Martians. But don't tell anyone, it's a secret!

In WW3, I see these sides:
-USA and NATO. I mean, NATO is just a USA's hnechmen made in cold war times to prevent USSR from invading dirrectly to USA.
-Russia. Doubt it will join NATO and USA, unless they will have a same enemy, but it might happen Russia wuill support country that NATO and USA will be againt.
-China. Might team up with Russia, might not. Might also team up with Venezuela, Belarus and other socialist or social-democrate countries. One of the main forces in WW3 with it's economical and military strenght and nuclear arsenal.
-North Korea. Alone against whole world. With it's mighty army of uneducuated, hungry peasants and Cold-War era technology. Got a nuke, but after wasting their nuclear arsenal will be wasted in no time.
-South America, Africa and smaller Asian countries. Well, these are not so might, but they might make aliances or unions together and become strong. Might.
-Terrorists? well there can't be a war with Terrorism litterally, because it not a nation or anything, it's just a bunch of fundamentalists. These people might be from any country and might have any iedology, you can't say they're middle east muslims only. Might become dangerous in future as there might increase the amount of fudamentalistic ideology followers.

 

[jsheph03]

Who would win WW3 depends on which unions there are, and besides I cant imagine who would start WW3.
WW1 was started by Russia, sure serbia shoot the prince of Austria but if Russia hadent going into war there would never have been a war and serbia would have been defeated in 1 or 2 days.
WW2 was started by Germany and Adolf Hitler.

Actually i belive WW2 was started by Japan attacking China, Though my memory from WW2history isnt very good

 

[Coolty44]

Who would win WW3 depends on which unions there are, and besides I cant imagine who would start WW3.
WW1 was started by Russia, sure serbia shoot the prince of Austria but if Russia hadent going into war there would never have been a war and serbia would have been defeated in 1 or 2 days.
WW2 was started by Germany and Adolf Hitler.

Russia didn't start WW1, the assassination of Franze Ferdinand did, and Germany played a bigger part in it by giving one of the countries a "blank check", so to speak, which allowed them to use Germany's military assets.

WW2 was started for many reasons, the biggest being the League of Nations fault for not stepping in when Japan and Italy started to attack other countries. After Germany had taken about 3 countries and started to attack Poland(?) countries started to declare war on the Axis. So really, it was just incompetence that started WW2, along with the depression and such.

 

[GhostThruster]

So, stepping away from the Human-Covenant war theory, I think WW3 is non-existent. No-one wants to fight any more. Germany and Japan has become nice and friendly. China's become pleasant and open, and North Korea is too pov to do anything. And if Russia starts a fight with the US, the US will have half the world with them, obliterating Russia. So, no one can or wants to fight.

 

[Tleno]

Erm, more possibe USA and half of the world will attack Russia than Russia attack them. I mean Russia has less allies and more rich resources, it can end up like Iraq.

North Korea is crazy and fanatic, I'm pretty sure earielr or later they'll do something... nuky.

Japan has signed that it for eternity refuses to solve any conflicts with war. Germany has some documments signed too.

China is not that pleasant and open, you know. Plus it it will grow bigger and stronger, which is of course very possible, it might start... expanding.

 

[GhostThruster]

Well, the US wouldn't attack them, they've got no point.

NK, as said, is pov. Even if it is crazy, it can't do shit.

Japan and Germany are both passive, as said.

And assume China 'expands', well, it probably would just devour the whole world in one go and not have any war. Though I think China will become docile over time(as it already has).

So, there you have it. No WW3.

 

[Nightblade]

WW3=End of the world.The later it happens,the more likely.

Reason=nukes

 

[Boris_Spider]

... I think WW3 is non-existent. No-one wants to fight any more. Germany and Japan has become nice and friendly. China's become pleasant and open, and North Korea is too pov to do anything. And if Russia starts a fight with the US, the US will have half the world with them, obliterating Russia. So, no one can or wants to fight.

WW3 hasn't started yet.

No one wants to fight currently.

China's pleasant and open ... what world are you living in?

Also everyone can fight and some currently are (the US and it's illegal invasion/occupation of 2 other countries).

It's not a matter of if WW3 will occur, but rather when.

//\\oo//\\

 

[Fussiler1]

Personally I think that if there will be a WW III it will mostly be fought through the economy, global finances and cyber-attacks.

 

[Boris_Spider]

Personally I think that if there will be a WW III it will mostly be fought through the economy, global finances and cyber-attacks.

It's being fought currently.

>:

 

[Fussiler1]

It's being fought currently.

>:

Yep.

 

[Narrat0r]

It would be between Chuck Norris and the world.

 

[Tyranid]

It would be between Chuck Norris and the world.

 

[GhostThruster]

@Boris_Spider:
You like arguing don't you?
No one wants to fight, like I said.

My mistake, I meant China's becoming pleasant and open, at least compared to before.

If 2 countries fight, I don't think it is WW3, otherwise me and my mates could get into a punch-up and then that's the 3rd World War there.

Actually, the matter IS if WW3 would occur. Look at the thread title.

@Narrat0r: That's kinda unfair... the World is outnumbered.

 

[Nightblade]

I remember seeing the thread about chuck norris warcraft jokes..wha happened to it?

On-topic:IF WW3 would occur AND if countries dont use nukes,then the topic is of some debate.
Personally,I think cyber-attacks and bio-attacks as the agent of warfare.

 

[GhostThruster]

I don't think the world is dumb enough to try to wipe out so many human lives using things like bio-attacks, with the exception of a few countries(NK). Cyber-attacks seem plausible, as many countries are going digital. But, it still doesn't seem right that WW3 will be cyber...
Colonel Wilkins: Give them a taste of the U.S. Army!
Corporal Simons: Yes sir! Spreading the youtube clip of the Russian Admiral wearing a bikini.

48 Hours later, and the film becomes viral, and the Admiral is now in shame...

Russian Admiral: I tell you all, it vas my wife's birzday!

 

[HQCosTheta]

Technically the planet can't sustain our current population. We're doing it through artificial means, but are approaching the point where we'll soon need some technological breakthrough, or our populations will be consolidated.

Well, actually that is a common lie. Did you know that the whole worlds human population could fit into one province of Australia; and still have 1/2 an acre of land for each person? It only seems like we are overpopulated because the goverment/media want people to believe that. Its only urban areas that are vastly populated, there are many rural areas however, that are completly blocked off to humans and are soly used for farming. If you want proof, I can even go as far as to show you a world map of "where people are not allowed"

Actually that is a common, if ignored, truth. We exceeded the maximum sustainable human population cap during the industrial revolution. The only reason we are able to support our population past that point and up to this time is due to the fact that we have been mass producing artificial fertilizer since the aforementioned industrial revolution. This fertilizer is a product of the petroleum industry without which we would starve to death. While it is true that there is a great deal of land per person on the planet a majority of that surface area is required for the planet to function properly (rain forests, animal habitats, etc.). The farmland that is currently sustaining us is being fed artificially by fertilizer without which the nutrients in the land would be used up turning said farmland into a dusty lifeless plain. Any top soil left would dry up and blow away. The planet is still dying despite evidence to the contrary and just because we yet live does not mean our lives are sustainable.

Then again there are always the Great Lakes...

...bearing in mind that a great deal of the water in the great lakes is undrinkable due to pollution.

The worlds population is only 6 billion, not 7 billion

Water isn't a problem. Water is naturaly recycled bck into the water cycle. If I remember correctly when your body uses water, it puts a large percentage of your "water" into the toilet. From the toilet it goes into a sewerege system, or like ours, it goes into an underground tank that purifies it until its drinkable. Then it just empties it onto the lawn somewhere, where a huge percentage is recycled, etc.

It seems like most greenies these days, are worried about the world flooding from the polar Ice caps melting. I completly disagree that the world is flooding, and that the world is drying up.

Water has always plentiful, and is still plentiful today; you can't look at the Sarara desert and say "oh no, the world is drying up" when you havn't even seen the rainforests of Brazil "oh no, the world will flood, there is too much rain here" My honest opinion is that people arn't draining the earth of water. Or causing the world to flood. And I'm sorry if I sounded abit mean, I'm just trying to make a point

The world’s population is now more than 6.8 billion and continues to grow by 83 million people per year. That's pretty close to 7.

Water is a problem as the earth can only filter so much at a time. Rain drags toxins down from the atmosphere. Diverting rivers will destroy habitat.

"Greenies" these days do not fear the earth flooding as there is not enough water on the earth to do so. Several miles of coastlines will however be under water including several MAJOR cities. And your right, the planet is drying out in a bad way but other places are flooding. Entire farms are being washed away in other parts of the world.

All of this water you're talking about is being used to facilitate our biosphere and therefore our survival. We can't drink it as it is not ours to drink.

ON TOPIC:

I don't know who will start it and I don't know who will finish it but I expect the neutron bomb to be used at least once.

 

[Boris_Spider]

@Boris_Spider:
You like arguing don't you?
No one wants to fight, like I said.

My mistake, I meant China's becoming pleasant and open, at least compared to before.

If 2 countries fight, I don't think it is WW3, otherwise me and my mates could get into a punch-up and then that's the 3rd World War there.

Actually, the matter IS if WW3 would occur. Look at the thread title.

If by arguing you mean flaming, then no. It's a waste of time. If by arguing you mean debating, then yes. I find it relaxing.

People fight (well... 'conflict' is a more appropriate word than 'fight') constantly. It's a daily activity.

I suppose China is pleasant and open if you have lots and lots of money and want to save more by utilizing their overabundance of cheap labor and absent worker-safety laws.

2 countries could start WW3, but aren't guaranteed to. It's more likely to be lots of little regional wars between regional contenders than the entire world being split into two factions.

The thread title says 'if' while the reality is when.

...bearing in mind that a great deal of the water in the great lakes is undrinkable due to pollution.

You missed the other half of the post... :

//\\oo//\\

 

[Geazergimli2]

If WW3 was to occur... man FO3 is all i got to say.. don't want to get too heavy on this topic

 

[GhostThruster]

@Boris_Spider:
Certainly not, I meant debating/discussing. I myself dislike arguing, it annoys me. But...

Let me rephrase again if you don't understand my use of language; nobody wants to start a major conflict that could destroy the whole world.

Well there you go, they are open and pleasant. You admit yourself. They're just not nice to their own people.

It is plausible, like how a Serbian shot the Austrian dude (even though WW1 was more of a Europe + Australia War), but highly unlikely, as you said, as the countries are more 'grown up' now.

No, it is still IF no matter what. What if there isn't a 'when', and there's just peace?...(until a collective alien species known as the Covenant declares genocide on the Human race)

 

[Tyranid]

If WW3 was to occur... man FO3 is all i got to say.. don't want to get too heavy on this topic

Except radiation doesn't produce ghouls. It produces cancer.

 

[TwistedImage]

Except radiation doesn't produce ghouls. It produces cancer.

Cancer is a mutation, and thus a specific, new kind of cancer could theoretically cause "ghouls."

 

[Tyranid]

Cancer is a mutation, and thus a specific, new kind of cancer could theoretically cause "ghouls."

Nah, just death. You don't become immune to radiation.

 

[Adiktuz]

if it would start I guess NK will be the cause of it... they already have anti US carrier ship missiles and we all know that they have nukes (well america also has them)...

and I guess it would be by means of ICBMs containing a new type of nuclear warhead, naval strikes and air strikes...

though if a NK-US war breaks out, I pretty much think that NK will lose in just a small matter of time because I'm expecting the allies of US to join and blast away NK (I even think that SK will also join US)... so for it to be a WW3, NK needs more allies or a really powerful army + vast amount of resources...

 

[TwistedImage]

Nah, just death. You don't become immune to radiation.

While the latter is probably correct, the former isn't necessarily so.

If you gave every human on the planet cancer (i.e caused almost 7 billion instances of it) there's bound to be anomalies because of the unpredictability of cancer. It could create a new organism. Not a balanced one, of course, but still.

 

[Total_Warrior]

I hope North Korea loses.