World War 3

[Angst]

If there is a world war, the EU won't take part as a bloc. It's not one country, nor does it have one armed force.
And in a nuclear war, it's not like any side being in Nato, automatically will join.
In both cases, moreover, there are only defensive clauses (if the side is attacked, not if it attacks).

i know, but eh, was a shorthand. i'm really confused by your well ackshually here. if there's a big war between us and china, i can't think of many eu members that'd stay neutral. maybe *vague eastern europe gestures*. and maybe germany but they always send weapons. i mean, in a world war between the liberal bloc and whatever else, i have no idea why you'd think germany wouldn't intervene, yes, even after their ww history.

all in all, this is a really, really strange interjection. what are you arguing against? do you think i don't know about the military blocs? you do know me better than that, i think, so?

like, for eu, denmark literally just voted on eu military participation last year or whatever (after ukraine happened), might have spent time doing reacquaintance with eu military policy there.

 

[Zardnaar]

i know, but eh, was a shorthand. i'm really confused by your well ackshually here. if there's a big war between us and china, i can't think of many eu members that'd stay neutral. maybe *vague eastern europe gestures*. and maybe germany but they always send weapons. i mean, in a world war between the liberal bloc and whatever else, i have no idea why you'd think germany wouldn't intervene, yes, even after their ww history.

all in all, this is a really, really strange interjection. what are you arguing against? do you think i don't know about the military blocs? you do know me better than that, i think, so?

like, for eu, denmark literally just voted on eu military participation last year or whatever (after ukraine happened), might have spent time doing reacquaintance with eu military policy there.

That and NATO is rearming.

Chiba and Russia use ultranationalism to distract from self created internal problems.

 

[Kyriakos]

i know, but eh, was a shorthand. i'm really confused by your well ackshually here. if there's a big war between us and china, i can't think of many eu members that'd stay neutral. maybe *vague eastern europe gestures*. and maybe germany but they always send weapons. i mean, in a world war between the liberal bloc and whatever else, i have no idea why you'd think germany wouldn't intervene, yes, even after their ww history.

all in all, this is a really, really strange interjection. what are you arguing against? do you think i don't know about the military blocs? you do know me better than that, i think, so?

like, for eu, denmark literally just voted on eu military participation last year or whatever (after ukraine happened), might have spent time doing reacquaintance with eu military policy there.

I mean, in the rather highly unlikely case that China declares war on an Eu country, then I can see your point. But why would the Eu, as a bloc, declare war on China for (say) invading Taiwan?
Besides, there are (maybe) two european countries that can play any military role, projection-wise, in a war with China. Or rather just the one (France). And I personally would not want to see Germany building a serious army, it simply cannot be trusted.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, in the rather highly unlikely case that China declares war on an Eu country, then I can see your point. But why would the Eu, as a bloc, declare war on China for (say) invading Taiwan?
Besides, there are (maybe) two european countries that can play any military role, projection-wise, in a war with China. Or rather just the one (France). And I personally would not want to see Germany building a serious army, it simply cannot be trusted.

Individual countries might and Chinas wolf warrior diplomacy has been a bit of a disaster.

If its WW3 people might just pick sides.

Greece might need ANZACs again. Protestant work ethic, paying taxes that sort of thing. Thermopylae 3.0.

If NATOs fallen apart Turks might want their old empire back.

No more naval assaults though.

 

[Snowygerry]

Could be it has already started , Israeli airforce attacked Syrian airfields to stop Iranian supplies, just this morning, which war is that ?

In 1939 we didn’t know either, we had a civil war in Spain, invasions in China, Eastern Europe , only later all these events got tied together in a single “World War”.

It’s a narrative really.

 

[Zardnaar]

Could be it has already started , Israeli airforce attacked Syrian airfields to stop Iranian supplies, just this morning, which war is that ?

In 1939 we didn’t know either, we had a civil war in Spain, invasions in China, Eastern Europe , only later all these events got tied together in a single “World War”.

It’s a narrative really.

Well the great powers have to go at it.

Not to different from WW2 maybe with India?

 

[Snowygerry]

The “great powers” ?

They weren’t in from the start then either.

Logically it would start by majors attacking minors, what we’re seeing now.

 

[Zardnaar]

The “great powers” ?

They weren’t in from the start then either.

Logically it would start by majors attacking minors, what we’re seeing now.

Plenty of that post 1945.

 

[Snowygerry]

Welll we had a Cold War, it was also a narrative to tie different conflicts together, Korea, Vietnam, Africa, South America, the collapse of the Soviet Union..

Imho we’re seeing the start of a new chapter now.

World wars are started by historians really, WW I wasn’t a world war at all at first, it was simply known as the Great War in Europe, in most places in the world absolutely nothing happened.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

That reads like propaganda itself, I am afraid ^^
Can't seriously argue that countries with many hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons are not superpowers. Not much of a point in sending an army when your own land has been nuked: you have already stopped being a power, let alone a super or major one.

I wonder why you think having 'many hundreds' nuclear weapons to be the requisite to be a 'superpower' when nuclear weapons function is deterrence no power. 'Power' means the ability to do things and Russia can't even defeat a relatively small neighbour. Otoh nuclear deterrence is equally effective with a hundred warheads as with many hundreds. I must suppose if you were the aggressive president of some hypothetical country and wanted to invade France, getting your biggest 200 cities glassed would not be enough deterrence for you?

 

[Hygro]

USA
EU+UK
Australia
Japan
South Korea
Ukraine
Israel
Saudi Arabia

vs

China
Russia
North Korea
Iran?
...
rest/most of anti-western coalition is uncertain, really. it depends on how deeply entrenched most non-westernen countries are with china. most non-nuclear powers are deeply entrenched in trade with both west and china.

Brazil probably neutral.
India is complicated. democratically aligned with west, geopolitically against china, trades with russia, obvious bad blood & still complicated relationship with eg britain.
Türkiyee is complicated. loves nato (like, the political alignment and support that comes from that, to be clear), but shaking a big stick against the west atm

like Venezuela and Cuba are both really tired of the US for obvious reasons, but them going against a nuclear power is seriously questionable.

the biggest issue of ww3 isn't really a problem of sides, but a problem that most nuke-wielding countries have enough firepower to level the earth. china is ensuring long term economic relations with eg the developing nations in africa but it's kind of questionable whether they'll jump at a chance against a coalition as geopolitically brutal as the west this point in history

Kind of makes ww3 seem really unlikely.

 

[r16]

in English it is Turkey and Israel has been bombing Syria non-stop since like 2011 .

edit: ı hate autocorrect .

 

[Kyriakos]

Greece might need ANZACs again.

You act like those miserable forces actually won
Or that the UK declared war to help Greece - it was already at war with Germany and Italy.

 

[Crezth]

India is complicated. democratically aligned with west, geopolitically against china, trades with russia, obvious bad blood & still complicated relationship with eg britain.

"Democratically aligned with the west" is one thing, they're also economically and financially aligned with the west. The IMF has its tentacles wrapped all around them, responsible for the "structural adjustment" planned and scheduled to move 400 million Indians from the farms to the cities. This program began in 1991 moreorless as a direct consequence of the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc, too. The policy has been called dirigisme.

India's transition in 1991 to a program of “structural adjustment,” which entails a regime of “liberal imports,” a progressive removal of administrative controls, including a move to “free markets” in foodgrains and a whittling down of food subsidies, a strictly limited role for public investment, the privatization of publicly owned assets over a wide field, an invitation to multinational corporations (MNCs) to undertake investment in infrastructure under a guaranteed rate of return, and financial liberalization that would do away with all priority sector lending and subsidized credit, is an event therefore of great historical significance.

 

[Zardnaar]

You act like those miserable forces actually won
Or that the UK declared war to help Greece - it was already at war with Germany and Italy.

ANZACs don't do well in that area.

 

[Estebonrober]

The US falls in on its own incoherence. After a generation of reopening the possibilities of territorial expansions the world falls back into the early 20th century mode of land and resource grabs. The details of which do not matter but the reality of which will lead to another round of working and academic classes uniting globally to try and stop the madness. Fascist Capitalism and Socialist Democracies (hopefully actual democracies that finally recognize the true enemies of humanity) go round 2. Fascists start using nukes and a deep breath is taken in as the world watches in horror.

 

[Samson]

WW3 will be Google vs. Amazon.

 

[H4run]

The Israel-Palestine conflict could potentially serve as another front in WW3, as follows:

Palestinian side:

1. Iran.

2. Egypt (possibly, as there is already existing tension—ranging from Israeli apparatus being killed by Egyptian apparatus, to an Israeli tank mistakenly firing on an Egyptian outpost).

3. Jordan (who has started to act more daring and stern recently).

4. Yemen.

5. Syria.

6. Qatar.

7. Russia (they've already stationed their aircraft carrier in the neutral Black Sea).

8. Turkey, primarily through rhetoric and fiery speeches. They also provide some aid for Gaza, organize protests sporadically, and occasionally an AKP representative will urge Erdogan to intervene militarily, though this will likely never happen.

Israeli side:

1. U.S.

2. Europe.

3. Saudi Arabia.

4. UAE.

Another possible front, with a small probability, could be triggered by India due to potential future ethnic cleansing over dietary differences—specifically, Muslims and Christians consuming steak while Hindus abstain which perhaps induce jealousy. Should this occur, it might elicit a reaction from Pakistan, given China's green-light and support:

Indian side:

The ultra-nationalist BJP in India would likely stand alone.

Against:

1. Pakistan. (the purge of Muslims in India, is strongly associated with Indian hostility to Pakistan, and the stream of immigrant that running to Pakistan, as well as Bangladesh will bring further down the Pakistan already bad crisis, war is a good distraction in the time of turmoil and instability)

2. China (a good timing for settling the border conflict with a much more honorable/humanist cause).

3. Afghanistan (even though they hate cooperating with the current Pakistani regime, but they also can't just stay idle)

4. Muslims and Christians freedom-fighters that are financed and weaponized from various Muslims/Christians organizations from across the globes.

5. Indian armed opposition groups (rooted from rival parties).

 

[H4run]

Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, EU, Indonesia, Australia on USA side.

Indonesia will love to remain abstain, if they aren't, it will be due to ASEAN pressure, there's a joint military drill a month ago during the China-Taiwan tension. If that's the case China will be pretty much surrounded with only NK as their possible allies. But I also not sure if ASEAN except Philippines who has a much more severe border conflict with China willing to enter the conflict with China, especially the one that little to no interest like Vietnam or Thailand.

 

[Kyriakos]

Egypt won't be on the side of "Palestine" (that's not Hamas, nor is it just Gaza where Hamas is king as it has literally killed the opposition), since they already had a coup to remove the "Muslim Brotherhood", with which Hamas is linked.
It might remain neutral, or just be on the US side.