World War Iii World War Iii (Origional Post)

Posted By WhatUrMuva on 8/07/04 @ 10:32:43 AM
Hypothetically, if there was a third world war and it occured recently with countries fighting such as the United States, Germany, Britain, Japan and other world powers. Who do you think would win based on real facts not just who you'd root for.

I believe the 3rd world war will be started by India. Their Growing telecommunications info structure will allow them greater reach and ability to plan attacks. England shall feel the sting 1st as terrorist attacks rock their island. Followed by a direct hit on Japan's economy being crippled by several dummy corporations and a rather nasty computer virus. This will send the US into a depression over night. This in turn sends the whole world into a panic. The armies of the middle east will see their chance run a muck. Shit keeps hitting the fan.. I won't bore you with details. Pretty soon it's Mad Max time.

Posted By ZBomber on 8/07/04 @ 9:19:47 PM
I think it would be the last war the US could win. Why? I dunno, no stats or anything, but we can't be the strongest forever.

Posted By WhatUrMuva on 8/08/04 @ 2:39:50 PM
I don't think neucular weapons will be used at all in war. Countries know the danger of them and how it could affect the entire world if 1 were to go off. Mutations would occur and a plague like disease could happen do to mutagens

Posted By XRedBlazeX on 8/09/04 @ 11:06:49 PM
Chances are India would never be the aggressor in a war. They don't have the need to go to war, they control plenty of land (enough for thier population anyways), thier economy is thriving, thier movie industry is stronger then ever... They somewhat lack in military though.

I'd have to say based on statistics that the US would horribly lose. Why? Because based on statistics, the US would most likely be the aggressor in the war, forcing most of the rest of the world to fight against the US.

Right now the main powers in the world are India, China, Japan, Korea, a couple other Asian countries, most of Europe (Germany, France, Spain, Britain, etc), Russia, and the US

Posted By Pharismo on 8/11/04 @ 12:28:53 AM
I think if it starts US would go down and a new country or new people would take the controll of US. Why? It is simple lots of people from all around world dont like US and would fight against him prob china and russia, japan, france and others countrys would fight against us thats what i think. But i prefer that the 3world war doesnt happem because tons of civilians will die like those who died in iraq and us said that was a mistake.

Posted By WhatUrMuva on 8/11/04 @ 5:46:45 AM
QUOTE (Pharismo @ Aug 11 2004, 01:28 AM)
I think if it starts US would go down and a new country or new people would take the controll of US. Why? It is simple lots of people from all around world dont like US and would fight against him prob china and russia, japan, france and others countrys would fight against us thats what i think. But i prefer that the 3world war doesnt happem because tons of civilians will die like those who died in iraq and us said that was a mistake.

Yea true, war is usually only fought when it really has to be, I don't want to see a WWIII either. But you don't see countries going to war over something stupid, usually something big has to happen to trigger the war. The war will most likely be fought without the use of nuclear weapons in fear that they may consume the planet.

Posted By Pablosky on 10/26/04 @ 5:07:13 PM
I'm actually afraid of North Korea. Commies, they threaten to blow up Japan and Australia with Nukes...

The Indian/Pakistani conflict is worrying, but they are in a stalemate. As the Cold War showed, MAD is much better than Stability in securing peace.

Posted By tacoX on 10/26/04 @ 5:16:41 PM
QUOTE (Pablosky @ Oct 26 2004, 05:07 PM)
I'm actually afraid of North Korea. Commies, they threaten to blow up Japan and Australia with Nukes...

The Indian/Pakistani conflict is worrying, but they are in a stalemate. As the Cold War showed, MAD is much better than Stability in securing peace.

Im much more afraid of North Korea than India. We have been freinds with india, and they dont really start any problems. They are an extremly strong country and all, but North Korea is more of a problem.

Now, I really dont feel as if North Korea could start another WORLD WAR. They really have NO support, if any from smaller nations. I doubt China is even backing them up! They could easily start a war with us, or any other country they nuke.

I do think that we could cause a world war. We are being... dickish (as a country) to other countries.

Posted By Pablosky on 10/26/04 @ 5:26:17 PM
1.) My friend, being a Dick internationally is the only way to secure your power.

2.) True. India has no intent in blowing up the US... The thing is, that the Pakistanis are not very stable (Serious Al Qaeda deployment and tribal fighting) and may have support from Terrorist regimes (Iran's still on the loose)

3.) Many people didn't think Germany could start a WW either. Do you know what made them capable? Appeasement. That's what Democrats (And some Republican's) politics are; peace over freedom.

Posted By tacoX on 10/26/04 @ 5:33:21 PM
QUOTE (Pablosky @ Oct 26 2004, 05:26 PM)
1.) My friend, being a Dick internationally is the only way to secure your power.

2.) True. India has no intent in blowing up the US... The thing is, that the Pakistanis are not very stable (Serious Al Qaeda deployment and tribal fighting) and may have support from Terrorist regimes (Iran's still on the loose)

3.) Many people didn't think Germany could start a WW either. Do you know what made them capable? Appeasement. That's what Democrats (And some Republican's) politics are; peace over freedom.

1) I do agree with that, but it could agitate other nations to learn towards other nations IF there were every a World War.

2) Truthfully, this may be irrational, but I feel as if we should just drop a nuke in the smack dab in the middle of the middle east - all they do is cause problems. I really dont think any of those countries in that entire region have enough momentum to start a WORLD War.

3) Well, it was kind of predictable that they would start another War (im talking about WW2) after the shit we gave them after WW1. The European Nations literally DESTROYED Germany. Put them trillions into debt, and crushed them. It was quite predictable that they would one day retaliate.

I dont mean to be the devils advocate, but look at the Patriot Act by Bush - now that type of shit is scary. I really dont want people seraching my car if they feel im a terrorist.... jesus.

Posted By Pablosky on 10/26/04 @ 5:45:22 PM
1.) You mean France? I wouldn't get so hyped about them. They'll realize their ranting is not helping and will quit.

2.) Oh, no, bro. Think about the reason US forces are in Iraq today. Do you really wanna kill victims of your enemies? Saddam, the Syrian Wahhabbists, the Iranian Mullahs - All of them are opressors. Should we kill everyone in the Middle East? hell no. I say the West should decapitate those governments and install Republics. This should be done over time; Some 10 years.

3.) I admit the Versallies Treaty was unfair, but given the cirumstances, it was just TOO fair. the Kaiser didn't start the war thinking he would lose; he had no economy to make reparations. I think keeping an agressive State under control makes sense. Though, it makes even more sense to eliminate it.

You bet. That's why I'm not so hot over Bush. Clearly against Constitution. However, these are kinda special times. I'd play it as usual; have evidence? Attack. If you don't, fuck off.


Posted By Black-Syth on 10/26/04 @ 9:49:33 PM
QUOTE (Pablosky @ Oct 26 2004, 04:45 PM)
2.) Oh, no, bro. Think about the reason US forces are in Iraq today. Do you really wanna kill victims of your enemies? Saddam, the Syrian Wahhabbists, the Iranian Mullahs - All of them are opressors. Should we kill everyone in the Middle East? hell no. I say the West should decapitate those governments and install Republics. This should be done over time; Some 10 years

What's with this damn philosophy that 12th century feudal theocracies can't coexist with modern day democracy? These people have been like this for years, leave em' alone. Fence em' off, and let them kill each other off, if they're so terrible. It's better than our hands being red with their blood.

Posted By Black-Syth on 10/26/04 @ 9:59:47 PM
Alright, sorry about the double post, no "edit" button.

I believe that Russia would win an entire World War. They've got a few distinct advantages over the US. They've got a higher population, they've got nukes they're not afraid to use, and they're heartless. America takes the credit for beating the Germans in WWII, but Russia should get the credit. Russia was similarly equipped to Poland, and Poland (I would know) got run over. They had so many people, that they over-ran Germany. Germany lost it's first war to Russia, and had it not been for Russia, Germany could have been a much different country today.

Posted By Scoogen on 10/27/04 @ 12:53:27 AM
QUOTE (tacoX @ Oct 26 2004, 03:16 PM)
QUOTE (Pablosky @ Oct 26 2004, 05:07 PM)
I'm actually afraid of North Korea. Commies, they threaten to blow up Japan and Australia with Nukes...

The Indian/Pakistani conflict is worrying, but they are in a stalemate. As the Cold War showed, MAD is much better than Stability in  securing peace.

Im much more afraid of North Korea than India. We have been freinds with india, and they dont really start any problems. They are an extremly strong country and all, but North Korea is more of a problem.

Now, I really dont feel as if North Korea could start another WORLD WAR. They really have NO support, if any from smaller nations. I doubt China is even backing them up! They could easily start a war with us, or any other country they nuke.

I do think that we could cause a world war. We are being... dickish (as a country) to other countries.

Spending a very recent 2 years of my life in South Korea within 60 miles of the border, I'm not too worried about North Korea. The idea that they have nukes is quite scarce if true at all. Back a few months ago, N. Korea tried to get some attention because they noticed they were not the center of the world anymore, so they claimed they had nukes.

Taco, you're slightly wrong about China. China was the major reason we still have two Koreas after the Korean war. If it wern't for China, they South Korean forces would have eliminated the scattered N. Korean forces.

If N. Korea decides to start a war, we all know who it is going to go to first, and it won't be the US. It's S. Korea of course. The highest ranking guys in N. Korea hate how succesful the S. Koreans have been in the post fighting years. If they were to start a war, before thier artillery shells hit the ground, there would be shells in the air going right back to those batteries. We know where almost everything is there, and our side of the DMZ is heavily fortified. True, we're starting to move the troops out of Seoul, to give them some more land to build on, but we still have a whole F-16 wing at Osan AFB that can be at the DMZ in 15 to 20 min. And one cannot forget the S. Korean forces. They have a special thing, when you turn 18, you can join the police force for two years, or you can join the military for 2 years. Manditory conscription for 2 years after the age of 18. Each and every S. Korean male is trained to fight, and can fight and supress N. Korea with no trouble.

The country I would be worried about is accually India. There are entirely too many sects and tribes throughout the state, and too many WMDs flowing between them. If one falls into the wrong hands, a sect could put a nuke wherever they want. It's become less of a deal of world powers, and more of a deal of gurilla and terrorist warfare. It's going to be those small groups that start the ball rolling for a big war.

Posted By Pablosky on 10/27/04 @ 3:32:37 PM
QUOTE (Black-Syth @ Oct 27 2004, 02:49 AM)
QUOTE (Pablosky @ Oct 26 2004, 04:45 PM)
2.) Oh, no, bro. Think about the reason US forces are in Iraq today. Do you really wanna kill victims of your enemies? Saddam, the Syrian Wahhabbists, the Iranian Mullahs - All of them are opressors. Should we kill everyone in the Middle East? hell no. I say the West should decapitate those governments and install Republics. This should be done over time; Some 10 years

What's with this damn philosophy that 12th century feudal theocracies can't coexist with modern day democracy? These people have been like this for years, leave em' alone. Fence em' off, and let them kill each other off, if they're so terrible. It's better than our hands being red with their blood.

Excuse me, mate, but I won't stand by in my democratic country while a fellow human gets opressed. I prefer havaing my hands full of blood than my head full of guilt. If they democratically elect a killer, alright, but, coming from a Country that survived a Dictatorship, I simply can't take it.

Posted By Pablosky on 10/27/04 @ 3:35:35 PM
QUOTE (Black-Syth @ Oct 27 2004, 02:59 AM)
Alright, sorry about the double post, no "edit" button.

I believe that Russia would win an entire World War. They've got a few distinct advantages over the US. They've got a higher population, they've got nukes they're not afraid to use, and they're heartless. America takes the credit for beating the Germans in WWII, but Russia should get the credit. Russia was similarly equipped to Poland, and Poland (I would know) got run over. They had so many people, that they over-ran Germany. Germany lost it's first war to Russia, and had it not been for Russia, Germany could have been a much different country today.

1.) The Russians don't have the right training or Equipment to fight a long term war. Look at Chechnya.

2.) Your thinking the Soviet Union. Only half people report at their bases in times of draft nowadays.

3.) Yes, but the Russians had the winter to their advantage. Hitler fell into the same trick as Napoleon.

Posted By tacoX on 10/27/04 @ 4:12:27 PM
That is one of the only reasons the russians won - the winter. It was Hitlers mistake to spread themselfs soo thin, but if he did focus on russia, during the RIGHT time, im sure he could have won.

3/4ths of the people that try to get into the russian army get denied, because they are physically weak or malnourished.

Posted By Pablosky on 10/27/04 @ 4:36:42 PM
1.) Oh yeap, true.

2.) Yes, but

Posted By Pablosky on 10/27/04 @ 4:46:21 PM
QUOTE (Pablosky @ Oct 27 2004, 09:36 PM)
1.) Oh yeap, true.

2.) Yes, but with Russia population, that shouldn't be much of a problem.

This is what was meant to be posted.

Posted By Black-Syth on 10/29/04 @ 8:09:23 PM
QUOTE (Pablosky @ Oct 27 2004, 02:35 PM)
QUOTE (Black-Syth @ Oct 27 2004, 02:59 AM)
Alright, sorry about the double post, no "edit" button.

I believe that Russia would win an entire World War. They've got a few distinct advantages over the US. They've got a higher population, they've got nukes they're not afraid to use, and they're heartless. America takes the credit for beating the Germans in WWII, but Russia should get the credit. Russia was similarly equipped to Poland, and Poland (I would know) got run over. They had so many people, that they over-ran Germany. Germany lost it's first war to Russia, and had it not been for Russia, Germany could have been a much different country today.

1.) The Russians don't have the right training or Equipment to fight a long term war. Look at Chechnya.

2.) Your thinking the Soviet Union. Only half people report at their bases in times of draft nowadays.

3.) Yes, but the Russians had the winter to their advantage. Hitler fell into the same trick as Napoleon.

As you obviously haven't the slightest clue as what you're talking about, it's futile arguing with you. Russia is currently in a monetary crisis, yes, but they still have an enormous army that is excellently trained. Not paid at all (which is why you commonly see AKs and USSR W.O.M.D. in the hands of "terrorists)

Yes, Russia had the advantage of a winter. However, the way they were equipped as compared to Hitler's army, was ridiculous. So, even with the advantage of Winter, an army a tenth the size of theirs, would not have succeeded. People laid on cannons to stop them from firing, for example. Either way, as I said, arguing is futule, so my opinion stands firm.

Posted By Pablosky on 10/30/04 @ 4:55:42 PM
QUOTE (Black-Syth @ Oct 30 2004, 01:09 AM)
QUOTE (Pablosky @ Oct 27 2004, 02:35 PM)
QUOTE (Black-Syth @ Oct 27 2004, 02:59 AM)
Alright, sorry about the double post, no "edit" button.

I believe that Russia would win an entire World War. They've got a few distinct advantages over the US. They've got a higher population, they've got nukes they're not afraid to use, and they're heartless. America takes the credit for beating the Germans in WWII, but Russia should get the credit. Russia was similarly equipped to Poland, and Poland (I would know) got run over. They had so many people, that they over-ran Germany. Germany lost it's first war to Russia, and had it not been for Russia, Germany could have been a much different country today.

1.) The Russians don't have the right training or Equipment to fight a long term war. Look at Chechnya.

2.) Your thinking the Soviet Union. Only half people report at their bases in times of draft nowadays.

3.) Yes, but the Russians had the winter to their advantage. Hitler fell into the same trick as Napoleon.

As you obviously haven't the slightest clue as what you're talking about, it's futile arguing with you. Russia is currently in a monetary crisis, yes, but they still have an enormous army that is excellently trained. Not paid at all (which is why you commonly see AKs and USSR W.O.M.D. in the hands of "terrorists)

Yes, Russia had the advantage of a winter. However, the way they were equipped as compared to Hitler's army, was ridiculous. So, even with the advantage of Winter, an army a tenth the size of theirs, would not have succeeded. People laid on cannons to stop them from firing, for example. Either way, as I said, arguing is futule, so my opinion stands firm.

1.) Yeah. I'm stupid. How do I dare to diss the country whose's military is being kicked in the butt by a bunch of Islamic Fundamentalists in the Caucasus. Are they a power? Yes. But they are in no condition to be such a deadly threat.

2.) Yeah. Amazing. Back in that day, with the little equipment they had at the begginning of the war, it was a heroic effort that saved the Russians. I won't deny that.

Arguing is futile? Yes, I'm the moron here.

Posted By Black-Syth on 10/30/04 @ 11:08:28 PM
QUOTE (Pablosky @ Oct 30 2004, 03:55 PM)
QUOTE (Black-Syth @ Oct 30 2004, 01:09 AM)
QUOTE (Pablosky @ Oct 27 2004, 02:35 PM)
QUOTE (Black-Syth @ Oct 27 2004, 02:59 AM)
Alright, sorry about the double post, no "edit" button.

I believe that Russia would win an entire World War. They've got a few distinct advantages over the US. They've got a higher population, they've got nukes they're not afraid to use, and they're heartless. America takes the credit for beating the Germans in WWII, but Russia should get the credit. Russia was similarly equipped to Poland, and Poland (I would know) got run over. They had so many people, that they over-ran Germany. Germany lost it's first war to Russia, and had it not been for Russia, Germany could have been a much different country today.

1.) The Russians don't have the right training or Equipment to fight a long term war. Look at Chechnya.

2.) Your thinking the Soviet Union. Only half people report at their bases in times of draft nowadays.

3.) Yes, but the Russians had the winter to their advantage. Hitler fell into the same trick as Napoleon.

As you obviously haven't the slightest clue as what you're talking about, it's futile arguing with you. Russia is currently in a monetary crisis, yes, but they still have an enormous army that is excellently trained. Not paid at all (which is why you commonly see AKs and USSR W.O.M.D. in the hands of "terrorists)

Yes, Russia had the advantage of a winter. However, the way they were equipped as compared to Hitler's army, was ridiculous. So, even with the advantage of Winter, an army a tenth the size of theirs, would not have succeeded. People laid on cannons to stop them from firing, for example. Either way, as I said, arguing is futule, so my opinion stands firm.

1.) Yeah. I'm stupid. How do I dare to diss the country whose's military is being kicked in the butt by a bunch of Islamic Fundamentalists in the Caucasus. Are they a power? Yes. But they are in no condition to be such a deadly threat.

2.) Yeah. Amazing. Back in that day, with the little equipment they had at the begginning of the war, it was a heroic effort that saved the Russians. I won't deny that.

Arguing is futile? Yes, I'm the moron here.

Alright, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the sarcasm. Who, in your opinion, would win an entire world "brawl?" If you say the US, then wouldn't that render your statement, "Yeah. I'm stupid. How do I dare to diss the country whose's military is being kicked in the butt by a bunch of Islamic Fundamentalists in the Caucasus. Are they a power? Yes. But they are in no condition to be such a deadly threat." false considering the fact that the United States just so happens to be having the same problem.



Return Home
1/08/09 12:14:53 AM


sponsor

Jennifer Coolidge | Gucci Mane | Brooke Langton | Hi5 Codes | WWE Divas Naked | Ed Hardy Store | Kim Cattrall Nude | MySpace Codes