If WW3 really happened

[VGmasters]

If WW3 really, who do you think would be the belligerents? My money's on USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Israel, Australia, Japan, and South Korea VS Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Countries like India, Pakistan, and Turkey being neutral.

Your picks?

[FaIonefaI]

YOUR MOM AND MY MOM LOL

[Manly-Chicken]

I'd go n noob toob n teabag teh n00b soldurssss!

this thread now could be MW3 fan parody, if you want.

[TheBlueRaven]

China and North Korea on the same side

wat.

[BritishGamer]

North Korea vs EVERYONE.

[Razz]

North Korea likes to piss people off, and China would be more than glad to help defend them. I mean, the "who versus who?" is pretty fucking obvious.

[Corky-D]

It's gonna get ugly.

It's most probably going to be nuclear, so they might as well blow this rock to shit. Saves the rest of us having to suffer.

[Jester]

At 11/23/11 09:45 PM, VGmasters wrote: If WW3 really, who do you think would be the belligerents? My money's on USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Israel, Australia, Japan, and South Korea VS Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Countries like India, Pakistan, and Turkey being neutral.

Your picks?

Why would Germany, Australia, and France be in the war? Australia is way far from all the others and doesn't get involved in a whole lot of international politics, Germany probably doesn't want to go to war again any time soon because East Germany is still in sort of bad shape after all the Berlin Wall business that was essentially caused by WWII, and the French aren't really fighting people as far as I know.

[BritishGamer]

Why would Germany, Australia, and France be in the war? Australia is way far from all the others and doesn't get involved in a whole lot of international politics, Germany probably doesn't want to go to war again any time soon because East Germany is still in sort of bad shape after all the Berlin Wall business that was essentially caused by WWII, and the French aren't really fighting people as far as I know.

Also, hasn't Japan decided to never go into war ever again, especially after what happened at world war 2?

[Ganon-Dorf]

At 11/23/11 09:58 PM, JoeMation wrote: North Korea likes to piss people off, and China would be more than glad to help defend them. I mean, the "who versus who?" is pretty fucking obvious.

Last time the North got violent with the South, China said they wanted nothing to do with the "barking dog making noise"

[POTaTOS]

IT WUD BE TEH YOO ESS AYE VERSUS TEH COMMEEES!!!!

[SneakyGameBoy]

At 11/23/11 09:47 PM, Manly-Chicken wrote: I'd go n noob toob n teabag teh n00b soldurssss!

this thread now could be MW3 fan parody, if you want.

It seems like Call Of Dooty is always in any discussion about war.

[Michaely385]

At 11/23/11 09:45 PM, VGmasters wrote: If WW3 really, who do you think would be the belligerents? My money's on USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Israel, Australia, Japan, and South Korea VS Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Countries like India, Pakistan, and Turkey being neutral.

Your picks?

I will rather choose America, Canada, UK and Austrailia.

[CorpseGrinderClock]

World War III did happen, we just called it the Cold War and called the theatres of that war different conflicts (Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan)

In reality, it was a long, global conflict in which millions died, with the principal belligerents being countries associated with Communist expansion vs. countries in opposition.

[VGmasters]

At 11/23/11 10:53 PM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote: Stuff

Then I guess WW4 is the War on Terrorism.

[FaeryTaleAdventurer]

World War III is already happening (though we don't either think about it or notice it) sanctions, cybehacks, Warner Music Group, and Occupy Earth put together are this one major war, aside from the daily bloodshed we hear about in the news between countries like the U.S. and Iraq. Forget nukes, it's conflicts like these that are affecting millions of people on a daily basis, save the occasional tsunami/hurricane juggernaut.

[Light]

At 11/23/11 09:56 PM, TheBlueRaven wrote: China and North Korea on the same side

wat.

Given that China and North Korea are close allies, I don't see this as particularly confusing or unrealistic.

[Gobblemeister]

Is this like a betting pool?

[BizzarroPMP]

At 11/23/11 09:45 PM, VGmasters wrote: India, Pakistan, and Turkey being neutral.

Don't really see THAT happening....

[BlackEyedPeas]

WWIII almost happened in, I think, in the 1960s. REmember the Cuban Missile Crisis?

[Coolest11er]

Oh looky here

You put the countries that you like to win

And the countries that you don't like to lose

[Light]

At 11/24/11 12:54 AM, BlackEyedPeas wrote: WWIII almost happened in, I think, in the 1960s. REmember the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Indeed.

Had President Kennedy decided to invade Cuba to destroy those missile bases, the Soviet Union likely would've retaliated with its nuclear weapons. How do we know this?

A high-ranking officer confirmed that this was the case in 1992. Read more if any of you are interested.

I got this info from reading one of my textbooks.

[CorpseGrinderClock]

At 11/23/11 10:57 PM, VGmasters wrote:

At 11/23/11 10:53 PM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote: Stuff

Then I guess WW4 is the War on Terrorism.

Not even close.

You wouldn't believe it by the money we throw at it, but we're really half-assing this war compared to conflicts like World War I, II, and the Cold War, or even Korea and Vietnam.

Total U.S. military casualties of the War on Terror are around 6,000

To put that in perspective, we had 125,847 military casualties in Operation Overlord alone.

[Xaotik]

Personally, I think it would be every WWII nation allied on one side, a few NATO nations, vs the common "belligerents", meaning the nations that normally tend to rub elbows with everyone.

At 11/23/11 09:46 PM, Travis wrote: Everyone would die if it turned nuclear... which is likely.

So it doesn't matter really.

As for this, radiation doesn't guarantee death, and neither does a nuclear bomb in the vicinity. Nuclear weapons generate a lot of energy and heat, but it moves quickly and dissipates fairly quickly. It is possible to survive a nuclear explosion, provided you are far enough. Fallout from nuclear explosions does contaminate areas though. So I'm assuming some cliché post-apocalyptic scenario in densely populated areas would take place, while rural areas would become segregated but fairly undamaged.

The fact that survivors would exist means that humanity would bounce back.

[DarkAltair]

If it does happen, I'm going to Pallet Town with a few pina coladas.

[Fifty-50]

If a terrible event like Word War III was to happen, I think I would just await my fate without having any fear or hesitation. Although it would be great if wars were fought with giant robots instead of tanks and stuff.

[Wagggs]

WELL FUCK. If it is a world war, then probably all of them.

WW3 = World War 3. Not just, "really big war 3."

[VGmasters]

At 11/24/11 01:25 AM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote:

:: Not even close.

You wouldn't believe it by the money we throw at it, but we're really half-assing this war compared to conflicts like World War I, II, and the Cold War, or even Korea and Vietnam.

Total U.S. military casualties of the War on Terror are around 6,000

To put that in perspective, we had 125,847 military casualties in Operation Overlord alone.

I dunno, but chances are that it could snowball into a bigger series of conflicts. We'd fight terrorist groups one year in then the next year or so we're fighting actual armies.

[CorpseGrinderClock]

At 11/24/11 10:19 PM, VGmasters wrote: I dunno, but chances are that it could snowball into a bigger series of conflicts. We'd fight terrorist groups one year in then the next year or so we're fighting actual armies.

Yeah but that's the thing with "this could become this" is that thing it "could become" is fiction and conjecture.

The Cuban Missile Crisis "could" have been the end of humanity, a nuclear holocaust so devastating that it lead to the extinction of human beings. But it wasn't, and to call it such would be asinine.

To compare the war on terror to any world war would be to demonstrate a profound lack of historical understanding of the scale and significance of these conflicts. The macabre thing is that people talk in such terms with glee and excitement at the notion, they fantasize incessantly about the idea of another World War because it would lend their experiences a significance and a grandeur that they find lacking.

I hold in my heart the naive little hope that we have evolved beyond that point and will be able to look back on the horrors of our actions with the proper shame and desire never to repeat such foolishness, that we won't find ourselves playing that thermonuclear game of chicken again or laying waste to tens of millions of lives over stupid things like disagreements on the efficiency of economic systems.

[Freddythealien]

At 11/23/11 09:46 PM, Travis wrote: Everyone would die if it turned nuclear... which is likely.

So it doesn't matter really.

Yeah... This.
If shit went down like it did in world war 2, odds are the new "Nazi/axis forces" Would have nukes before attempting that level of war, so it would either be...
A) A standoff like the cold war
or...
B) Blow the fuck out of everyone and everything....
Sigh....