Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/27/07 03:32 PM, Mehrdad14 wrote:

At 10/27/07 03:32 AM, Fios1 wrote: I think Iran or Israel is going to nuke one another and that will be what will start world war three.
And then it will be like Einstein said. "World War Three will be fought with Nuclear Bombs ,but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones".

I think Einstein got the right idea...

;
He had a lot of 'right' ideas, this one could be right.
But waging a war with nukes is going to change the planet & life on it in many ways.
I'd hazzard a guess none of them any good.
I'm hopeful that a nation like north Korea or Iran, will attain a bomb & use it, causing the rest of the world to stand together & say , no more. It could be the start of a World Governing body, that would have the power of multiple members monitary & military power.
So when a country tries to use terror or a bomb type threat against others the World will step into that country & take over.
Look at how quickly the U.S. overran Iraq.
Can anyone imagine what it would be like if, the U.S., Russia,China,England,France,Germany,Cana da,Austrailia all allied & invaded together.

The US goes rougue, and declares war on the rest of the world - launching their arsenals at anyone they feel like. And, as the British nuclear defence system is reliant on the US for satellite navigation, intelligence and targetting information, their arsenal is useless - although, as it's a world away, having been aiming for Russia, it would be useless anyway.

I think World War 3 will start when some nuclear worker accidentally presses the launch button in ___country and destroys a couple million people. Because people are too scared to use WMDs.

At 10/28/07 01:05 PM, DariusR wrote: I think World War 3 will start when some nuclear worker accidentally presses the launch button in ___country and destroys a couple million people. Because people are too scared to use WMDs.

There is more to lunching a nuke than just pushing a button.

At 10/27/07 03:42 PM, PhoenixTails wrote:

. France would surrender as soon as the first declaration of war was issued.

indeed they would.

At 10/28/07 01:19 PM, flashplayer5 wrote:

At 10/27/07 03:42 PM, PhoenixTails wrote:

. France would surrender as soon as the first declaration of war was issued.

indeed they would.

Actually, when the first season of Walker, Texas Ranger was released in France, they surrendered to Chuck Norris just to be on the safe side...

At 10/28/07 02:57 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually, when the first season of Walker, Texas Ranger was released in France, they surrendered to Chuck Norris just to be on the safe side...

Who wouldn't surrender to his rugged good looks and devil-may-care attitude?

World War 3 =

Britain vs Russia-Britain wins
China vs N. Korea-China wins
U.S. vs crappy Muslim countries-No winner, US has less casualties
Pakistan vs India-India wins
Israel vs rock throwers-Israel wins

There you have it, taking all bets 2:1

At 10/28/07 03:16 PM, n64kid wrote: World War 3 =

Britain vs Russia-Britain wins

Russia'd win: there's more of them, they're double-hard, and better suited to their terrain.

China vs N. Korea-China wins

Probably - they can call up several hundred troops within three days, and have the firepower to make the term "South Korea" irrelevant.

U.S. vs crappy Muslim countries-No winner, US has less casualties

They seem incapable of doing the job thus far - and are only superior as long as the opponents don't shoot back. Considering the US have stretched their manpower in Iraq and Afghanistan, going for Iran will break them.

Pakistan vs India-India wins

India have the numbers, but Pakistan can nuke their major cities (India, though, can nuke the whole country). This one'll b e a bloody, hard-fought meatgrinder.

Israel vs rock throwers-Israel wins

Again , if they have guns, Israel suddenly stop being such big, tought guys. And, of course, numbers come into it once again.

Not that there's a pro-US & Israel bias in your post, and an arrogant disregard for the notion of being defeated. One word: Vietnam...

At 10/28/07 03:45 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

World War 3 =

Britain vs Russia-Britain wins

Russia'd win: there's more of them, they're double-hard, and better suited to their terrain.

Numbers don't mean shit. Their spies are incompetent and their air force is full of obsolete aircrafts and their rockets are capable of sending nukes about 700 miles. This is far inferior to Britains air force and technologies.

U.S. vs crappy Muslim countries-No winner, US has less casualties

They seem incapable of doing the job thus far - and are only superior as long as the opponents don't shoot back. Considering the US have stretched their manpower in Iraq and Afghanistan, going for Iran will break them.

Take a look at the "no winner". Again, America only has 10% of their total troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. Iran couldn't break them.

After what happened i think if there would be a WWIII it would be started by : North Koreea, Turkey, Russia or in some time Iran. Doesn't matter who gonna start it, the main reason gonna be one of these : resources, territory, terrorism.

At 10/28/07 03:51 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 10/28/07 03:45 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

World War 3 =

Britain vs Russia-Britain wins

Russia'd win: there's more of them, they're double-hard, and better suited to their terrain.

Numbers don't mean shit. Their spies are incompetent and their air force is full of obsolete aircrafts and their rockets are capable of sending nukes about 700 miles. This is far inferior to Britains air force and technologies.

Numbers are why the Union won the American Civil War: troops are a finite resource, and Russia has a far larger number than the UK. As for spies being incompetant, out intelligence is hardly that smart, while the Russians have far superior crack units, especially Spetsnatz. They also have large cache's of weapons still unsold - another valuable resource. An outdated air force isn't necessarily a bad one, either: if the pilots are crack, they'll put up a fight - something the Russians have a justified reputation for above all else. v And that's what'll swing things - the Russians can dig in and grind down the enemy, as well as use surroundings to their advantage better that the Brits, who are by-the-book, and often don't have a secondary plan (as well as fetishising one target above all else).

Plus, the major Russian population centres are out of range - no matter how many Tridents the UK launch, they won't be hitting Moscow.

Why are we discussing a situation in which Britain would be fighting Russia by itself and not with the rest of the NATO countries? I don't know how much history you guys have, but NATO was created in opposition to Soviet Russia, so I'm pretty sure it would still hold up against non-Soviet Russian aggression.

At 10/28/07 03:00 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 10/28/07 02:57 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually, when the first season of Walker, Texas Ranger was released in France, they surrendered to Chuck Norris just to be on the safe side...

Who wouldn't surrender to his rugged good looks and devil-may-care attitude?

It is not gay to fall in love with Chuck Norris, compared to him all people are girly!

At 10/28/07 01:19 PM, flashplayer5 wrote:

At 10/27/07 03:42 PM, PhoenixTails wrote:

. France would surrender as soon as the first declaration of war was issued.

indeed they would.

No they wouldn't. France has one of the most high tech militaries in the world and they also have nuclear weapons. Not easy to beat that kind of force, particularly if the attackers don't want their country to be nuked into oblivion.

Anyway, I wouldn't get worried about World War 3. It was far more likely to occur during the Cold War, particularly during the Cuban missile crisis. It's less likely to happen now than it ever was during the mid to late 20th century.

At 10/27/07 03:04 AM, peanutfoot932 wrote: In 2034 all the Metric-using countries will attack the US to force them to switch. Approximately 40,000,000 people will die.

Approimately every newgrounds user will die.

I doubt that our planet will survive if theres a nuclear war.......

At 10/27/07 03:32 AM, Fios1 wrote: I think Iran or Israel is going to nuke one another and that will be what will start world war three.
And then it will be like Einstein said. "World War Three will be fought with Nuclear Bombs ,but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones".

I doubt that our planet will survive if theres a nuclear war....

P.S. Yes Im aware tat i wrote this twice but I pushed the wrong button -_-

i think there will be a WWIII. And believe it or not, I believe that America needs to be involved in a war in order to seem more heroic. Think about. Not to offend anyone who was related to someone during 9/11. But I think we knew it was going to happen and that we let it happen just to have a reason to go to war. Look at Pearl Harbor. The fact is that we had deciphered codes stating that the attack was going to occur, but we ignored that. So on a final note, WWIII will happen. And when it does, you can bet all of your money that America will be there, attempting to attain the glory it had back in WWII.

At 10/28/07 04:10 PM, tommyt1 wrote: After what happened i think if there would be a WWIII it would be started by : North Koreea, Turkey, Russia or in some time Iran. Doesn't matter who gonna start it, the main reason gonna be one of these : resources, territory, terrorism.

turkey? wtf Cuba has more of a chance than turkey

You guys want to know whats going to happen?
Bush is going to attack either a city in the USA or an american base in some other country *cough* again *cough* and blame it on Iran. That will give him a reason to attack. If he does, itll be the BIGGEST mistake hes ever made. Iran isnt weak like Iraq, they fight back.

WW3 will happen, and it will be the final war.

"I don't know what weapons world war three will be fought with, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones"

Very likely to be honest, unless the next world war is in quite a long time, because they will no doubt have such advanced technology, nobody would even know we were at war...

But seriously, chances are it will be just like the cold war, except with a hell of a lot of actual nuclear attacks.

if and when it does happen i think the main part will be in europe.

If I had to choose "hot spots" these would be them.

Turkey and the Kurds. Bush pretty much alienated Turkey over the last 7 years. I'd say that if there was any major shift in power, Turkey and the Kurds and then Iran coming into Iraq might lead to a dramatically smaller war which the US would be compelled to take part in. It's only a matter of treaties at that point. Let's not forget Israel either, which Iran would go after immediately if it ever entered into a war with the US as Israel would likely support the US. It's then a matter of whether the rest of the Middle East has had enough with losing to Israel or if they are finally content with peace. I would assume that they wouldn't be content with any form of peace.

I think that if we shift a little bit to the east we'll find another political hot bead. Pakistan and India. The muslim/hindu tensions in the country are high. We've seen both countries race for nukes and either country given a cause and an appropriate time might step up. Plus, there have been crazy amounts of Nationalism sprouting up in India. With the largest growing population, a disparage between rich and poor and the "need" for more land, I think we may find that India could be an agressor "for the greater good." Or they may choose to protect themselves against Pakistan. This is all theory, but it could happen.

Then again we must shift to the east. North Korea. There isn't a whole hell of a lot to say about them. I don't know how much longer tha country can even stay togeather, but given they are trying to get nukes I could see the country being a lynchpin at the very least in any world war.

Let's move east again. China and Japan. Now we see perhaps one of the largest diplomatic problems of the day. The US entirely supports Japan and is on shaky terms with china. Japan is the leader of technology today and it's estimated that it's entire fleet, small as it is could erraticate China's in weeks. Since Japan is stepping up it's military, I think it's only a matter of time before the tension get's to be too much. Then it will just depend on alliances. Russia might support China or it might support the west. If it supports China we have a problem, it will depend on the government. The US would probably go to the side of Japan unless Japan was the agressor, and still we'd be hard pressed to support china.

Like I said, I can only point out hotspots. I don't think that anything is looking as good as it should, but I think it's normal for the world. I still wouldn't put it past Europe to surprise us all and start another one.

At 10/29/07 01:30 PM, Loch-Ness-Monster wrote:

At 10/28/07 01:19 PM, flashplayer5 wrote:

At 10/27/07 03:42 PM, PhoenixTails wrote:

. France would surrender as soon as the first declaration of war was issued.

indeed they would.

No they wouldn't. France has one of the most high tech militaries in the world and they also have nuclear weapons. Not easy to beat that kind of force, particularly if the attackers don't want their country to be nuked into oblivion.

Anyway, I wouldn't get worried about World War 3. It was far more likely to occur during the Cold War, particularly during the Cuban missile crisis. It's less likely to happen now than it ever was during the mid to late 20th century.

I disagree, as the 21st century progresses and the population of the world booms further there will be nuclear war between superpowers(be it Russia, the US, India, China, or even the UK) fighting over necessities like land.

i think its going to happen in 5-20 years. "yeah i know" not pinpoint accurecy
the one thing i wonder is if china will be fighting us"im from america". we have problems with eachothers goverment but our economies are really dependent on eachother.

At 10/26/07 05:44 PM, Mehrdad14 wrote: When do you think its going to happen?

Who is versing each other?

---
I think Iran is going to ally with some middle eastern countries, and some other Asian countries to take down USA. Either that or America gets those balls ready and nukes iran.

lmfao, what?

Yeah there's a likely scenario.

At 10/27/07 12:55 AM, RaspberryRobot wrote:

At 10/26/07 05:44 PM, Mehrdad14 wrote: When do you think its going to happen?

Who is versing each other?

---
I think Iran is going to ally with some middle eastern countries, and some other Asian countries to take down USA. Either that or America gets those balls ready and nukes iran.

Probably Russia, China, and the Middle East, versus the USA. I doubt Europe will help either side, though.

I dunno about that, well we here in Denmark got election in two weeks, and if we keep the same government, we help America, cos our prime minister (Anders Fogh >:( ) is a bush-cocksucker
so whatever help we can be, will probably go to the US.
but I can't guess for the other nations though

Personally, I believe that WW3 is a fairly plausible scenario for our future.
Just before WW1, the world was ruled by two massive superpowers which, as is inevitable in such situations, ended up fighting each other.

Nowadays, we can see a much larger pair of superpowers emerging. With America and it's allies on one side, and the entire middle east on the other.

But personally, I think that something else is likely to happen before this hypothetical war has a chance to begin.
Global warming.
I can see wars happening over global warming. Low-lying nations such as England (but not Scotland, Ireland or Wales), Holland, Denmark, much of Japan and a considerable portion of Greece are all set to become totally submerged in seawater as the ice caps melt.
So I can see a war happening between the low-lying nations and the high-polluting nations. I can even see it as quite plausible that England would go to war against America (shock!) over their pollution. Because we all know that countries like India, China and America don't give a flying pigs arse about global warming. "There is no concrete evidence...."
Well, believe it or not, there is no concrete evidence about anything. It has long been accepted that nothing can ever be proven totally conclusive... Ever since Socrates, who first created the phenomenon that we now call 'scepticism' (or Skepticism, in the states).
Hell, there is no way for me to prove to anyone - even myself that I'm not just some brain in a jar somewhere being fed artificial sensory feeds.... (Think along similar lines as the Matrix.)

Anyway, I've ranted long enough. I'll shut up now.