Forums → WEPR → WW3... Who would win?

I know other people might have mentioned it before, but unless it was a very bad nuclear war, I believe that whoever is neutral will really 'win'. Less people and resources lost, I guess.

Well.... with all the nukes people have these days...
we'll kill ourselves! Atomic ash fault covers the whole planet!
Too much heat! Glaciers melt! more water!
Too much radiation in the water!
No more plants......
yeah we're dead
no more winners

Who would win.....Me
because I would move to whichever country was neutral that everyone is ignoring and then if it comes under attack I would take a small community full of people and move underground in a highly fortified bunker

Realistically we would have to take into consideration whether it is a conventional engagement, or if nuclear weapons would be used. Obviously if there are nuclear ordinance involved there won't be any winner, there are simply too many nuclear super powers.

However in the case of a conventional war we would have to consider where it would be fought, and which factions would align with one another in order to take a serious look at an outcome.

As it stands now, I would guess that the next major engagement would take place in the Middle East, and would most likely be reduced to a religious conflict.

In such a case as that I would have to say that the Muslim nations in the Middle East would not survive the encounter. The extremists of their religion have tarnished the reputation of Islam with many of the world's powers and I feel like that would encourage many of the most powerful nations in the world to join in the engagement in opposition of them.

However there is also the possibility of a war between several Middle Eastern nations, especially as events are unfolding in Iran and with the reformation of the Iraqi government. In that instance it is difficult to predict which sides would be formed and whom would take them, although Iran seems to be steadily working toward becoming a true democracy, and the Iraqi people as well seem to be embracing the prospect of a true democratic nation, so it could go several ways.

Lastly we have the 'East v West' scenario in which the communist nations of Asia face off with the western democracies. Now while anyone can see that these communist nations can amass a huge number of troops, we have seen time and again that superior numbers does not necessarily convey a military advantage, and I would have to say that the technology and training of the western militaries would covey a significant advantage.

And with all that being said we must remember that politics can play a big part in war, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and in Vietnam in the past. When policy is made that interferes with soldiers being allowed to carry out their duties in the way that they were trained, and which the military knows to be effective, then even the mightiest force in the world may be rendered impotent.

People state that WW3 will be fought with nukes. I heavily doubt this assumption. I believe that the only time the world will utilize nukes is when it is most drastic, as in ww2 where we knew we could not take the japanese mainland by conventional means at the time

Lastly we have the 'East v West' scenario in which the communist nations of Asia face off with the western democracies.

One of my best friend's uncles is a marine, and he's fought in the Gulf War as well as Iraq. From what he's seen, this is how he thinks it'll go down

Israel or Palestine, one or the other, will invade the other and make the entire holy land their country. In the case of Israel, surrounding egyptian nations would all invade the "new" Israel, and in the case of Palestine, the US would intervene.

No matter who wins, Israel or Palestine, the immediate result would be somewhat of a UN lockdown of the Middle East. There would be a lot of diplomatic argument between different countries, then a huge terrorist attack, 911 caliber, would happen in the US, Britain, etc. Then we're right back where we started. The three variables in the war are North Korea, Russia, and China. As MRWalker said, since it is most likely to be a religious conflict, the reaction of these three countries to UN action would dictate how long the war would last. Unless Russia sided with China and North Korea (I would guess those two countries would be on the same relative side) the final outcome would most likely be the UN occupying the Middle East, with sanctions (no matter how ineffective) to Asian protagonists.

Israel or Palestine, one or the other, will invade the other and make the entire holy land their country.

You do know thats already happened? Isreal rules the holy land with an iron fist. The palestinian authority is a joke, and have no real power.

By numbers, CHINA.

Otherwise it's a clash between USA and the Middle East in Power. Oh and North Korea x)

it really depends on numbers, morale and technology... its hard to make any kind of judgement without hard facts... which to be honest we will never get that on technology

[quote]"History is written by the victors ... There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.â
Winston Churchill

Whether it is a joke or not, palestine is occupying land. Even if their authority is a "joke", they have lands that Israel could, and might, take. If you look at the history over the last 50 years, Israel shouldn't have much trouble doing it (at the start).

Its seems pretty clear who is occupying what land if you look at the facts:

I do belive I mentioned

One of my best friend's uncles is a marine, and he's fought in the Gulf War as well as Iraq. From what he's seen, this is how he thinks it'll go down

Its seems pretty clear who is occupying what land if you look at the facts: