Who would win World War 3????
- Thread starter Raptorf22
- Start date
Motonuke
Sic and Possesed
this is an odd question with not much detail. Who would be in this war? Who would be fighting who? Whos evil and whos not? U just cant ask who would win a war if we dont know why or where its happening.
I like the WW4 thing though!
I like the WW4 thing though!
It's fr a quote by Albert Einstein. Something that goes like, 'I don't know what WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones.'
Or something like that.
Or something like that.
Motonuke
Sic and Possesed
If only I had the knowledge you do......
dannyevilcat
DESTROYER OF FURNITURE
I'd say the side that's the strongest would probably win WW3. 
Why shld it be WW3? Maybe it will be IW1 (Inter-Planetary War 1) or GW1 (Galatic War 1)?
Doragon
Chieftain
Lets pretend that WW3 will be faught with conventional
warfare and it was faught tommorow. Wouldn't this be a
interesting matchup (i'm going to use side a & side b as opposed
to labelling axis and allies and entering who is the good guy /
bad guy debate)
Side A
USA, UK, Germany, Japan, India, Canada,
Australia, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea & Majority of the EU
Vs
Side B
Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Turkey
From a conventional standpoint, it would be a very long war.
On Side A, you would see industrial nations such as USA, UK,
Germany, Japan, Canada and a couple of EU nations
providing the bulk of the heavy hardware. I think you would see countries like Taiwan (yes I am a independant Taiwan person, Japan has more of a claim to it than China, but thats a discussion for another day) and Israel taken relativly early in the war, but probably taken back and used as staging grounds pretty quickly as well. I think Australia would serve to be a very valuable staging area at the onset of the war. Population wise, which can be converted into troop amounts would be I think in Side A's
favor. That means India would be pivital to Side A.
On Side B, you would see nations like Russia, China, North
Korea and Iran being the main suppliers of heavy equipment.
From a geographic standpoint, with the proper offensive, I think
you could see Side B drive relatively deep into Europe before
Side A could respond (with 3 of the industrial nations being
a large distance away and that translates into time required
to transport massive amounts of equipment over and landing
them). UK & Germany would be paramount to repelling long
enough for the bulk of US forces to come over. However, thats
assuming that Side B would go for Europe and Israel first and
not use mass amounts of Russian equipment to surprise and
make an assault on North America. Iran would be the backbone
of taking Israel. The best strategy for side b would probably
be for them to quickly take Israel and Taiwan, have part of the
Russian forces and Iranian forces ( backed by the other
mideast powers) pushing into Europe. Forcing the UK to deal
with Europe's problems. Have China dealing with India, with
Pakistans help. Lastly, have a large Russian naval force
transporting massive amounts of Chinese and Russian troops
try to make a landing in Western Canada or Mexico and
keep North America occupied. The idea would be to
catch north america off guard when they are sending equipment
through the Atlantic to the Euro front (thus they would have the
bulk of the navy escorting)
Honestly, I think either side could win in conventional.
the scales would be tipped in whoever can build
equipment the quickest. I think Side B would have the
initial advantage in the Euro/Mideast front, but once the backup
comes, then would probably be pushed back to a chokepoint.
No offense to the Indian Army, but I think China would likely
dispatch of them, just because of China's
conventional missle ability and amount of heavy armor. But
it would keep the majority of Chinese forces busy for
a while. It could end up a draw, with peace treaties and
land negotiation or it could end up with one side having
better strategy and a bit of luck. However if this was to
happen in say 2010 - 2020 and China continues to
spend the kind of money it is now on equipment then this
analysis could very well change.
There is my quick WWIII analysis
warfare and it was faught tommorow. Wouldn't this be a
interesting matchup (i'm going to use side a & side b as opposed
to labelling axis and allies and entering who is the good guy /
bad guy debate)
Side A
USA, UK, Germany, Japan, India, Canada,
Australia, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea & Majority of the EU
Vs
Side B
Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Turkey
From a conventional standpoint, it would be a very long war.
On Side A, you would see industrial nations such as USA, UK,
Germany, Japan, Canada and a couple of EU nations
providing the bulk of the heavy hardware. I think you would see countries like Taiwan (yes I am a independant Taiwan person, Japan has more of a claim to it than China, but thats a discussion for another day) and Israel taken relativly early in the war, but probably taken back and used as staging grounds pretty quickly as well. I think Australia would serve to be a very valuable staging area at the onset of the war. Population wise, which can be converted into troop amounts would be I think in Side A's
favor. That means India would be pivital to Side A.
On Side B, you would see nations like Russia, China, North
Korea and Iran being the main suppliers of heavy equipment.
From a geographic standpoint, with the proper offensive, I think
you could see Side B drive relatively deep into Europe before
Side A could respond (with 3 of the industrial nations being
a large distance away and that translates into time required
to transport massive amounts of equipment over and landing
them). UK & Germany would be paramount to repelling long
enough for the bulk of US forces to come over. However, thats
assuming that Side B would go for Europe and Israel first and
not use mass amounts of Russian equipment to surprise and
make an assault on North America. Iran would be the backbone
of taking Israel. The best strategy for side b would probably
be for them to quickly take Israel and Taiwan, have part of the
Russian forces and Iranian forces ( backed by the other
mideast powers) pushing into Europe. Forcing the UK to deal
with Europe's problems. Have China dealing with India, with
Pakistans help. Lastly, have a large Russian naval force
transporting massive amounts of Chinese and Russian troops
try to make a landing in Western Canada or Mexico and
keep North America occupied. The idea would be to
catch north america off guard when they are sending equipment
through the Atlantic to the Euro front (thus they would have the
bulk of the navy escorting)
Honestly, I think either side could win in conventional.
the scales would be tipped in whoever can build
equipment the quickest. I think Side B would have the
initial advantage in the Euro/Mideast front, but once the backup
comes, then would probably be pushed back to a chokepoint.
No offense to the Indian Army, but I think China would likely
dispatch of them, just because of China's
conventional missle ability and amount of heavy armor. But
it would keep the majority of Chinese forces busy for
a while. It could end up a draw, with peace treaties and
land negotiation or it could end up with one side having
better strategy and a bit of luck. However if this was to
happen in say 2010 - 2020 and China continues to
spend the kind of money it is now on equipment then this
analysis could very well change.
There is my quick WWIII analysis
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Nobody would, Einstein was right 
Panda
Metal head
I think Earth would be ruled by radioactive cockroaches 
Russia isn't the Soviet Union. The military has basically fallen apart.
China's merely a regional power in terms of conventional weapons.
Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya? When the U.S. bombed targets in Libya back in 1986, the Libyans had high-quality Soviet anti-aircraft equipment. When the U.S. bombers came, almost all of the AA batteries were abandoned because Libyan soldiers were afraid to shoot back.
...and Lebanon? Their only government is Hamas.
China's merely a regional power in terms of conventional weapons.
Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya? When the U.S. bombed targets in Libya back in 1986, the Libyans had high-quality Soviet anti-aircraft equipment. When the U.S. bombers came, almost all of the AA batteries were abandoned because Libyan soldiers were afraid to shoot back.
...and Lebanon? Their only government is Hamas.
Motonuke
Sic and Possesed
But if Russia were to go into another world war, this could result just like it did at the beginning ofWW2. We pulled ourselves out of depression so they could probally do it too. The problem is the aftermath of the war and converting to a peacetime economy.
EdwardTking
Deity
The Insects and Grasses would win.
Doragon
Chieftain
I don't think Russia is as weak as some people think. In time of
war I don't think it would take them to long to get the majority
of their conventionals up to snuff. They have the industry
set up to pump out mass amounts of equipment
I wouldn't brush aside Iran either. They can make their
own tanks, planes, trucks and other equipment. They
really don't have to be dependant on Russia for
equipment. If the US was to go to war with Iran right
now as opposed to Iraq, you would not see a repeat of
the gulf war in the way of quickness of victory. Iran also
has almost 4x the population of Iraq. I forget who said it
but here is the quote "Some men want to go to Iraq, but
real men want to go to the Tehran".
The idea of China in the frey is having Russia either
a) provide it with specifications so they can build Russian
equipment in their factories
or
b) simply provide them with equipment to refurb.
war I don't think it would take them to long to get the majority
of their conventionals up to snuff. They have the industry
set up to pump out mass amounts of equipment
I wouldn't brush aside Iran either. They can make their
own tanks, planes, trucks and other equipment. They
really don't have to be dependant on Russia for
equipment. If the US was to go to war with Iran right
now as opposed to Iraq, you would not see a repeat of
the gulf war in the way of quickness of victory. Iran also
has almost 4x the population of Iraq. I forget who said it
but here is the quote "Some men want to go to Iraq, but
real men want to go to the Tehran".
The idea of China in the frey is having Russia either
a) provide it with specifications so they can build Russian
equipment in their factories
or
b) simply provide them with equipment to refurb.
You know i never got on with that phrase, For a World War to be fought after World War 3 some sort of technology would have to have been gained to get the whole world into another war, As the world would have to communicate, if the wolrd has regained the ability to communicate with each other after World War 3 then also its probable they have also rebiult some military, So if World War 4 was declared chances are it would be fought with alot of ill men armed with faulty guns. However id be sceptical anything would even survive World War 3.
Oh and on who would win, No one probably, Although i doubt there'll be another World war it would probably be Known Galaxy War 1 or Solar System War 1
Switch625
I don't care.
I smell Cold-War thinking.
Russia would have no reason to join such a coalition, and especially no reason to make war against the west. Or east, for that matter. Russia has too much on it's hands to get involved in a war of any sort. I'd say they would rather concentrate on resolving the Chechnya problem and repairing their economy and infrastructure.
Similarly, there would be no profit for China in going to war, either. They are also more interested in internal matters than the rest of the world.
The inclusion of Turkey in your "Side B" list is even more odd. They are a very western oriented, secular state. Turkey is moving toward EU membership, you know. They have almost nothing in common with the rest of the middle east.
The rest of that list could be dealt with by the US and Israel, no other help needed (though I'd expect at least the UK to join in).
Fascinating scenario, but highly unlikely.
sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
Rhode Island would win wwIII
Globber
Professional Slacker
http://www.satirewire.com/news/march02/madness.shtml
it's the most accurate revelation I have seen U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!!
it's the most accurate revelation I have seen U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!!
interjectiv
SAC Member
no-one would win. we would all end up dead.
Similar threads
