If there was WW3...

[GhostThruster]

@Adiktus: NK would have little to no chance. Even with a few communist buddies, it would still get pulverised. It has too little power. And SK would definitely help the US.

 

[soulbad]

North Korea vs South Korea. So on.

 

[Adiktuz]

North Korea vs South Korea. So on.

that is actually happening right now... though still not that large scale...

 

[Zarathustra]

Who would it be between

It wouldn't matter.

what would they fight it with

The sorts of things that ensure WW4 was fought with clubs.

who would win?

Cockroaches.

 

[Tyranid]

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.

Fairly sure the mortality rate of (untreated) cancer is 100% .

 

[Boris_Spider]

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)

~You assume those in power are rational, and that they'd be destroyed.

~...you missed the sarcasm. They're not nice to non-businesses and those working for them. If you're a large company or are in charge of one they'll 'love you long time.'

~Countries don't grow up. When resources become scarce, governments will take what they can or die trying.

~Peace is as real as the American Dream. Cute ideal, but it can't exist. People see to that. Also, war is good for business. WWII more or less demonstrated wars can, in a sense, boost economies.
If something like the Covenant decided to swing by, well... I doubt we'd last long enough to make a war out of it.

//\\oo//\\

 

[GhostThruster]

You assume those in power are irrational, stupid pricks, when some countries actually have sense.

I didn't miss the sarcasm, I was just kidding around.
That's nature. Animals always choose the strongest, sexiest mate. China chooses the richest, powerfullest company.

What does resources becoming scarce got to do with anything? Of course, there will be conflicts when a country runs out, but I doubt one enough to ignite a world war.
American General: Damn it, we ran out of oil.
American President: TO WARRR!!!
Countries have and do grow up. China, for example, although still not exactly a humanitarian country, has already lightened up.

Um...peace exists now. Maybe not universal peace, but peace itself exists. Otherwise I would be having a barfight with my mum every living second. And if peace exists, even in the smallest form, it can expand, and long enough, world peace. If WW3 was gonna happen, why the long wait? Why couldn't some superpower country like the US just come and kill everyone a few years ago?

Offtopic: If you've played Halo, Humanity does actually survive and live in peace...

 

[Fussiler1]

Yes, it really doesn't make sense. After WW II was the perfect chance for a third world war and they missed it. If such a chance will occur again, which it probably won't, why would they do it?

People can only lose in a third World War, not win anything.

 

[Tleno]

Yes, it really doesn't make sense. After WW II was the perfect chance for a third world war and they missed it. If such a chance will occur again, which it probably won't, why would they do it?

People can only lose in a third World War, not win anything.

All wars are like that. There are no victorious, only survivors...

 

[Boris_Spider]

You assume those in power are irrational, stupid pricks, when some countries actually have sense.

I didn't miss the sarcasm, I was just kidding around.
That's nature. Animals always choose the strongest, sexiest mate. China chooses the richest, powerfullest company.

What does resources becoming scarce got to do with anything? Of course, there will be conflicts when a country runs out, but I doubt one enough to ignite a world war.
American General: Damn it, we ran out of oil.
American President: TO WARRR!!!
Countries have and do grow up. China, for example, although still not exactly a humanitarian country, has already lightened up.

Um...peace exists now. Maybe not universal peace, but peace itself exists. Otherwise I would be having a barfight with my mum every living second. And if peace exists, even in the smallest form, it can expand, and long enough, world peace. If WW3 was gonna happen, why the long wait? Why couldn't some superpower country like the US just come and kill everyone a few years ago?

Offtopic: If you've played Halo, Humanity does actually survive and live in peace...

~Alright then, which countries 'have sense' and why do you think so?

~In that case, :

~By resources, I didn't mean commodities such as oil, but rather food and water. The US illegally invaded two countires for oil, but to date has failed to bring any back (hence rising gas prices...). I fail to understand your notion of growing-up countires. How exactly, does a country grow up? China has loosened it's grip, not by much, because of what happened to the USSR.

~The illusion of peace exists. Life is conflict, and it's not limited to physical confrontations.

//\\oo//\\

 

[TwistedImage]

All wars are like that. There are no victorious, only survivors...

Modern wars*.

Before guns and artillery and suchlike, you could earn a lot from winning a war, with relatively few losses.

 

[Coolty44]

Yes, it really doesn't make sense. After WW II was the perfect chance for a third world war and they missed it. If such a chance will occur again, which it probably won't, why would they do it?

People can only lose in a third World War, not win anything.

The cold war would have put an end to North America and large parts of Europe in a matter of days. I wouldn't really call it a world war, especially when it would pretty much be limited to nuclear exchange, and not actual combat.

 

[Fussiler1]

The cold war would have put an end to North America and large parts of Europe in a matter of days. I wouldn't really call it a world war, especially when it would pretty much be limited to nuclear exchange, and not actual combat.

Well, I'm pretty sure there would've been fighting near the German border.

 

[Ganondorf]

I personally think that the "Economic crisis" is blocking the war from happening... all countries are afraid they'll lose too many resources that are vital to their existence... Well, except for a handful of countries, including all the G8 countries (Germany, France, USA, etc.)

 

[GhostThruster]

~Alright then, which countries 'have sense' and why do you think so?

~In that case, :

~By resources, I didn't mean commodities such as oil, but rather food and water. The US illegally invaded two countires for oil, but to date has failed to bring any back (hence rising gas prices...). I fail to understand your notion of growing-up countires. How exactly, does a country grow up? China has loosened it's grip, not by much, because of what happened to the USSR.

~The illusion of peace exists. Life is conflict, and it's not limited to physical confrontations.

//\\oo//\\

U.S., as a superpower, definitely does, even though sometimes their behaviour is *questionable*(as you've proven, I admit). They have the power, why don't they just kill everyone?
Russia, even highly unlikeable, still has the brains to not start a massive conflict.
China, like you yourself said, is becoming better. It doesn't want to kill everyone, it just wants to steal everyone's money.
Britain, I think a former world power (I think, before WWI), had(in the past) the power.
and several lesser countries.

In that case, ;}

Do you think the US stealing some oil is going to ignite WW3? Once again, possible, but highly unlikely. I don't think the more 'powerful' countries will run out of food or water any time soon. However, should they run out, it would still be near-impossible to start a whole world war.
"%#&#, we ran out of water!" - Chinese agent
"DEATH TO ALL!!!" - Chinese Government
As for growing up, do you see Germany making another holocaust every month? Or Americans still importing slaves from Africa? Or even Australians still killing Aborigines?

You're a pessimist. And I was giving an example. And, no, you're not being realistic, otherwise you'd realise that life isn't full of murder and hate.

 

[Boris_Spider]

U.S., as a superpower, definitely does, even though sometimes their behaviour is *questionable*(as you've proven, I admit). They have the power, why don't they just kill everyone?
Russia, even highly unlikeable, still has the brains to not start a massive conflict.
China, like you yourself said, is becoming better. It doesn't want to kill everyone, it just wants to steal everyone's money.
Britain, I think a former world power (I think, before WWI), had(in the past) the power.
and several lesser countries...

...Do you think the US stealing some oil is going to ignite WW3? Once again, possible, but highly unlikely. I don't think the more 'powerful' countries will run out of food or water any time soon. However, should they run out, it would still be near-impossible to start a whole world war.
"%#&#, we ran out of water!" - Chinese agent
"DEATH TO ALL!!!" - Chinese Government
As for growing up, do you see Germany making another holocaust every month? Or Americans still importing slaves from Africa? Or even Australians still killing Aborigines?

You're a pessimist. And I was giving an example. And, no, you're not being realistic, otherwise you'd realise that life isn't full of murder and hate.

~You told me which countries you think have sense. Now please tell me why you think so.

~No, I highly doubt oil would be the cause of WW3. You wouldn't kill people because you have no water. You kill them because they're preventing/limiting you ability to take theirs. I still don't understand how you think a country 'grows-up'. The examples (I assume that's what they are) aren't explaining anything to me.

~Whether or not the conflict in life is good (optimistic) or bad (pessimistic) is up to you. It simply is. Keep in mind that most conflicts are survival oriented, while few (emotional) fit the extremes you're suggesting ('murder and hate'). Also, to label me as overly pessimistic about human nature would also label you as overly optimistic about it.

Off-Topic:
Generally I'm labeled a cynic, or viewed as cynical. It's somewhat amusing, mostly because of this quote:

"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it."
- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

//\\oo//\\

 

[GhostThruster]

I'm not exactly proving that countries 'have sense', I'm just trying to prove that they have enough sense not to start a whole new WW3.

If countries don't grow up, we'd already be up to WW6.

Once again, an example, life will always contain conflicts, but life is NOT conflict. Human nature has its ups and downs, but part of our nature is to learn. And when we learn, we learn not to repeat history.

Offtopic: Nope, you're a pessimist. So, that quote you just quoted, doesn't apply to you.

 

[Boris_Spider]

I'm not exactly proving that countries 'have sense', I'm just trying to prove that they have enough sense not to start a whole new WW3.

If countries don't grow up, we'd already be up to WW6.

Once again, an example, life will always contain conflicts, but life is NOT conflict. Human nature has its ups and downs, but part of our nature is to learn. And when we learn, we learn not to repeat history.

Offtopic: Nope, you're a pessimist. So, that quote you just quoted, doesn't apply to you.

~Countries (by countries I mean their governments, since governments don't represent their constituents) will always do what they believe to be in their best interests. Sometimes war is the best way to achieve their goals, and is usually the best way to save themselves from those they rule. Same rule applies to people as well, but as individuals they typically have a minimal effect on their envireonment.

~Countires don't grow up. They can die, but can't age in the sense your applying to them. Governments can learn from previous mistakes in time to save themselves, but they only have their own interests in mind. Ultimately, regardless of form all governments 'hang' themselves.

~Life is conflict. From your PoV (based on your earlier posts) you're being sheltered from it. Not all conflict is bad. You should study history some more. You'll find that the only things that change are the faces and names, not the desicions/actions/events. It's why the human race is Insane (according to Einstein's definition).

Neither of us is capable of persuading the other, and from this point I don't see us doing anything but repeating ourselves. If you think you have new arguements then post, but I won't respond if I'll just be repeating myself.

Off Topic:
I'll sign you up with the others who've also labeled me as a pessimist. Those calling me a cynic still outnumber your side, so I guess I'll stick with the majority. Besides, I haven't found any good pessimist quotes yet... any suggestions?

//\\oo//\\

 

[GhostThruster]

K, you may stick to your beliefs, and I'll stick to mine.

Offtopic: I'm not calling you a pessimist, you ARE a pessimist. This doesn't mean you're not a cynic though.

 

[Carter_117]

meh. if theirs a war i wanna die in the battlefield surrounded by my comrades with a gun in arm and to be fighting for something reasonable. not so called "water shortage" i mean christ our planet is 2/3 water just devote all of this military money to get water purifiers up and running. and also i cbf to find the quote but someone said we hit our peak in the indsutrial revolution. if we hit our peak then logically we should be dead already. which obviously means we have as of yet no hit our peak. also if the world gets destroyed in nuclear flames, we should create a hive nation and slowly take over the world with our superior knowladge of world war 3... as we have been discussing it on a webpage forum ^.^. also, Countries are lead by idiots always. everyone has their haters. no matter how good they are... also all politicians are liars and backstabbers to some extent... ;\ most humans in general

 

[LucasMapurunga]

If a World War III happened, it would f*ck everything. I mean, it would probably be a nuclear war (and i'm not talking about Horoshima and Nagasaki here; today, the nuclear weapons are FAR more powerfull), and few would be saved.

Today, anyone have it's alliances. If a WW started with a conflict is Asia (Korea, for example), different countries would take differente sides, and ... hell. A powerfull country like US can literaly destroy any country... with retaliation, of course. But nowadays I guess governants realize the power they have and try to use diplomacy... I hope so.

 

[HQCosTheta]

Fairly sure the mortality rate of (untreated) cancer is 100% .

It pretty much is.

 

[Skycraft]

It would be the real life equivalent of Warcraft 3.
There is no winner.
Everyone - and I mean, EVERYONE, will suffer.

 

[Joe-black-5]

You can already see countries claiming rivers in the Mid-East, due to need of water. It's only a matter of time before people start killing each other to maintain control of it.

Like Israel Invading South lebanon and taking control of it in the 80'th?
it's already in motion
the war for land, war and religious beleives.

 

[Gausslander]

WW3 has already happened, despite the fact that all the wars since WW2 were named something different even though multiple nations were involved.

 

[Luffy]

it would be nothing but shit. Einstein had predicted that we will have to change back our lives into medieval style after the ww3.

 

[Boris_Spider]

Well, americans could really speed things up by putting people like Sarah Palin in office. I'm not sure how effective that would be, since conservatives prefer to tax and charge those without money (which wars cost). On the other hand, those very people are the ones sent to go die on some battlefield since they have no options aside from the military for gaining means to support themselves.

I'm not bashing all conservatives, the wealthy businessmen/women have good reasons for their views. It's all of the others who support the same policies screwing them over.

It's about time for another major war though. I wouldn't support it, since it's likely leave me dead.

Has it been argued yet here that a religion (not just islam) could start the next WW, or was this thread aiming at countries only?

//\\0o//\\

 

[Lich Prince]

Has it been argued yet here that a religion (not just islam) could start the next WW, or was this thread aiming at countries only?

Why are you asking, do you expect something of that sort to happen?

 

[I)eath2u4me]

This is kinda like the thread I started. I honestly think China would be the more likely candidate for a few reasons.

One being that China owns a lot of US Government bonds, which we eventually will have to pay back. When China asks for the money, the only way they're gonna get it is by force.

Another reason is that we have 2 different government's and economies. We (the USA) are Democratic and a Mixed Free Market economy, whereas China is communistic and has a command economy. Raising another issue with North Korea, though China doesn't like what they're doing, they still support their form of government. So when shit goes down, who's side are they really on ? Or will China remain neutral ?

There are also other reasons too, of course.

EDIT: I forgot to to put my two cents in about cancer. IDK if anyone's watched the news lately but apparently there's a cure for every cancer (which I believe) and has been for some while. Look into it it's really interesting. And me being as knowledgeable as I am about nutrition and fitness, I also know a few things about preventing cancer, but not necessarily curing it. To sum that up, eat healthy. lol.

 

[Narogog]

File Clerks and Condemned Convects in Solitary Confinment

well, if ww3 did happen everyone would be effected (because of Nukes) and the survivers would be File Clerks and
Convects, File Clerks because the are surrounded by mounds of one of the better insulators (paper),
and Condemned Convects because they would be in really insulated jail cells

Then it would turn into a war between the two Convicts Having Violence on their side, but file Clerks have organization, Who would win, no idea.

lol seriously though not very many people would survive the fall out, after all one Hydrogen bomb would practically take out N. America with fallout and there would probably be a couple hundred Nukes i use "Nukes" as a generic term used to define all weapons that involve a fission bomb, so the world would Cool, because of all of the matter thrown up into the air. so if a nuclear war did happen everyone loses, unless they have nuke shields from civ 4 and civ 2

 

[Jughead]

Run to canada, everyone else is doing it.

 

[Boris_Spider]

Run to canada, everyone else is doing it.

>:

 

[Luffy]

poor canadians..

 

[Hugomath]

It would probably end up in a Missile War between World's greatest potencies, like United States, China, North Korea and the richer European Countries. Although I am a fan of Russia, I don't believe that they would do great offensives. At least while they are now, with lower military production.

Germans would probably be included some way. They joined lots of wars. I'm not talking only about World Wars 1 and 2. Their past is pretty interesting. Look at the Teutonic Knights, for example. They tried to invade Russia in the time, failed though. Anyway, Germany always was a major military potency, at least in my opinion.

 

[TheKurt009]

This is the Quote i remembered in Cod4:
If WW3 is fought with Nuclear Weapons,
Then WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones...
(if!,some o' them would survive...)



"The United Nations is keeping most Countries (if not all Countries) at Peace as they can..."

 

[Fussiler1]

This is the Quote i remembered in Cod4:
If WW3 is fought with Nuclear Weapons,
Then WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones...
(if!,some o' them would survive...)

well that quote really doesn't make any sense

 

[TheKurt009]

well that quote really doesn't make any sense

well, at first i didn't understand what the sticks and stones mean,but what it means is that the WW3 made so much damage that if WW4 would occur, it would be fought with just sticks and stones

 

[Animalpower]

WW3 would be just a waste of human lives that was provoked by misconception. China has 2 billions people, so imagine cockroaches ( there are billions of cockroaches) plant a nuclear bomb on both of them, both will survive. Also cockroaches are from asia. The worst thing in WW3 would be if innocent people die. China is a great force but it's not so organised and joined as USA. WW3 would be the craziest war if it's total war.

I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

 

[Animalpower]

it would be nothing but shit. Einstein had predicted that we will have to change back our lives into medieval style after the ww3.

All laws will vanish. I agree.

 

[Boris_Spider]

@animal: don't double post. Just use the 'edit' button.

All laws will only be replaced.

//\\oo//\\

 

[Tarrasque]

well, just wait for Israel to attack Iran and you will know.

 

[TwistedImage]

WW3 would be just a waste of human lives that was provoked by misconception. China has 2 billions people, so imagine cockroaches ( there are billions of cockroaches) plant a nuclear bomb on both of them, both will survive. Also cockroaches are from asia. The worst thing in WW3 would be if innocent people die. China is a great force but it's not so organised and joined as USA. WW3 would be the craziest war if it's total war.

I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

Waste of human life? There are almost seven billion of us. To be frank, we should kill 99.99% of them; there would still be more than enough to make a functional society (I daresay more functional than the retarded failures we have today), and science would progress about just as fast (maybe slower, maybe faster). There is no real problem about humans dying, not even if we kill 6 billion of them.

 

[Coolty44]

Waste of human life? There are almost seven billion of us. To be frank, we should kill 99.99% of them; there would still be more than enough to make a functional society (I daresay more functional than the retarded failures we have today), and science would progress about just as fast (maybe slower, maybe faster). There is no real problem about humans dying, not even if we kill 6 billion of them.

I agree. Its like a bush. Sometimes it needs a really good trimming, and humanity is some giant ugly thing that can't pass as a bush but its too small to be a tree.

 

[Don-Para-]

The only winning move is not to play.

 

[Fussiler1]

well, at first i didn't understand what the sticks and stones mean,but what it means is that the WW3 made so much damage that if WW4 would occur, it would be fought with just sticks and stones

well no because you wouldn't be able to reach the other side of the world if you're blasted back to the stone age

 

[Joe-black-5]

well, just wait for Israel to attack Iran and you will know.

Israel could barely invade Lebanon I do not think they will ever attack Iran
If there is a war, Iran's Rival would be America.

 

[Super-Sheep]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Sky#Plot

._.

 

[Disasterpiece512]

As Einstein once said, "I don't know what they'll fight with in the WW3, but I can tell you what they'll fight with in the fourth: rocks."

Fact is, it doesn't matter who fights in it or who starts the war. If it does start, we're all screwed.

 

[Tleno]

people, people!
The nuclear arsenal is not something that will destroy us. It's something that keeps strongest nations away from a new world war! Most of high military commanders in all the strongest countries are, I'm pretty sure, with higher intellect that an average hiver. So, they do realise that whenever they begin a war, everyone will be destroyed and there will be no winners. If there would be no nukes, they fouldn't be scared that country they attack would nuke them, forcing them to nukes, releasing all the arsenal of their and destroying half of earh population...

 

[TwistedImage]

people, people!
The nuclear arsenal is not something that will destroy us. It's something that keeps strongest nations away from a new world war! Most of high military commanders in all the strongest countries are, I'm pretty sure, with higher intellect that an average hiver. So, they do realise that whenever they begin a war, everyone will be destroyed and there will be no winners. If there would be no nukes, they fouldn't be scared that country they attack would nuke them, forcing them to nukes, releasing all the arsenal of their and destroying half of earh population...

Hardly a great achievement being that smart.

They better be smarter than just about everyone else. They and the world leaders can destroy the entire fucking world by pressing a button[citation needed].