WW3

[The Doctor, RIP Juggernaut]

China takes a "Hear no evil, see no evil" approach to war. Iran may be "friendly" with China, but is China going to risk its resources over a tiny piece of land such as that? Hell no.

Yes, they would actually.
Korean war, the US were taking up most of North Korea, China rampaged their way down to the borders of South Korea.
North Korea is tiny compared to Iran.

That was/is because China didn't want the US at their border.

[SoapANator]

Us gov't wants more Oil. derp.

[Yimmy The Cat]

I think Syria will, with the random killing of its citizens and reporters.

[Mr Jive]

Of course superpowers have fought before but they don't do it now. And at the same time the US won't be untouchable but like I have said before, superpowers nowadays no that they can't fight because of their nukes. Even if they agreed not to use nukes do you really think they would just get to the end of the war with loads of dead soldiers, they are about to be taken over and not go for that final push? Which is why it wouldn't happen. The last superpower Vs. Superpower fight was the cold war and that ended in a "stalemate". They never actually fought each other and so any war between superpowers today would be fought the same way.

[Hazard Time]

Of course superpowers have fought before but they don't do it now. And at the same time the US won't be untouchable but like I have said before, superpowers nowadays no that they can't fight because of their nukes. Even if they agreed not to use nukes do you really think they would just get to the end of the war with loads of dead soldiers, they are about to be taken over and not go for that final push? Which is why it wouldn't happen. The last superpower Vs. Superpower fight was the cold war and that ended in a "stalemate". They never actually fought each other and so any war between superpowers today would be fought the same way.

Considering this, you are suggesting that China and America will be fighting through proxies?

[Mr Jive]

Of course superpowers have fought before but they don't do it now. And at the same time the US won't be untouchable but like I have said before, superpowers nowadays no that they can't fight because of their nukes. Even if they agreed not to use nukes do you really think they would just get to the end of the war with loads of dead soldiers, they are about to be taken over and not go for that final push? Which is why it wouldn't happen. The last superpower Vs. Superpower fight was the cold war and that ended in a "stalemate". They never actually fought each other and so any war between superpowers today would be fought the same way.

Considering this, you are suggesting that China and America will be fighting through proxies?

No I am suggesting that they wouldn't go to war with eachother. If they did the loser would be whoever would run out of money first

That or when one sides leader admits its stupid and make a peace treaty

[SoapANator]

WW3 is not going to happen for fucks sake. If does happen it's gonna be twice as worse than WW1 and 2 combined for fucks sake, The whole world world will be involved the shitty war and it'll destroy the world leaving many countries under control or  made force into a new kind of Gov't. WE JUST DON'T NEED  A NEW FUCKING IRON CURTIAN OR WE WILL HAVE A NEW FUCKING COLD WAR.

-_-

[Pielolz]

All of you are wrong.

Iran will start it.


They just embargoed Oil exports to France and Britain, if they do it to US and the rest of the West, then we will all jump in and tear shit up. Russia will join in because they are Iran's ally, China will jump in because they are Russia's ally, North Korea will jump in because they are China's ally.

Eventually, the US will emerge victorious.

[Technical Abbreviations]

Everyones argument for WW3 being completely and utterly impossible for the sole reason that "It would be bad". This amuses me to watch.
Look, that fact is, it will happen, and nuke probably wont be very involved, because thats foolish, and the entire damn world realizes that. Any gov who uses a nuke in a war will have half the world population at the capital beating on the door with some very sharp instruments. Why are you all so obsessed with nuclear weapons? WW3 will come, like it or not, but its unlikely to be nuclear. Im not saying it will come next week, or soon even. For all I know it will be a century or even a millennium from now, but chaos will always spring up, and saying "chaos isnt good" wont stop that. What can go wrong, will go wrong. I wont even try to assume how it will occur, like you guys seem to be...

[Mr Jive]

Everyones argument for WW3 being completely and utterly impossible for the sole reason that "It would be bad". This amuses me to watch.
Look, that fact is, it will happen, and nuke probably wont be very involved, because thats foolish, and the entire damn world realizes that. Any gov who uses a nuke in a war will have half the world population at the capital beating on the door with some very sharp instruments. Why are you all so obsessed with nuclear weapons? WW3 will come, like it or not, but its unlikely to be nuclear. Im not saying it will come next week, or soon even. For all I know it will be a century or even a millennium from now, but chaos will always spring up, and saying "chaos isnt good" wont stop that. What can go wrong, will go wrong. I wont even try to assume how it will occur, like you guys seem to be...

Wow you basically just tried to undermine almost 40 years of history :L
Ofc nukes will be involved just not in the sense that you are thinking. Nukes will be involved as a failsafe for the superpowers, which is what the cold war was. Anyone who tries to attack the superpowers e.g. China trying to invade USA because USA will pull their nukes out and say one more step and we blow you up and china will say, we will blow you up. Bam you have a stalemate. Again.

It won't "happen". War will happen, war always happens but the entire world won't split into two sides because they wouldn't be able to fight. A war between superpowers plays out as political manoeuvres, economic strategies and technological advances. Big countries might fight little countries but the main contenders won't throw any punches at each other. The idea of "ww3" is foolish.

Also don't try to undermine my argument by making it sound simplistic, it was much more in-depth than "It would be bad" etc.

[Technical Abbreviations]

Everyones argument for WW3 being completely and utterly impossible for the sole reason that "It would be bad". This amuses me to watch.
Look, that fact is, it will happen, and nuke probably wont be very involved, because thats foolish, and the entire damn world realizes that. Any gov who uses a nuke in a war will have half the world population at the capital beating on the door with some very sharp instruments. Why are you all so obsessed with nuclear weapons? WW3 will come, like it or not, but its unlikely to be nuclear. Im not saying it will come next week, or soon even. For all I know it will be a century or even a millennium from now, but chaos will always spring up, and saying "chaos isnt good" wont stop that. What can go wrong, will go wrong. I wont even try to assume how it will occur, like you guys seem to be...

Wow you basically just tried to undermine almost 40 years of history :L
Ofc nukes will be involved just not in the sense that you are thinking. Nukes will be involved as a failsafe for the superpowers, which is what the cold war was. Anyone who tries to attack the superpowers e.g. China trying to invade USA because USA will pull their nukes out and say one more step and we blow you up and china will say, we will blow you up. Bam you have a stalemate. Again.

It won't "happen". War will happen, war always happens but the entire world won't split into two sides because they wouldn't be able to fight. A war between superpowers plays out as political manoeuvres, economic strategies and technological advances. Big countries might fight little countries but the main contenders won't throw any punches at each other. The idea of "ww3" is foolish.

Also don't try to undermine my argument by making it sound simplistic, it was much more in-depth than "It would be bad" etc.

Wow you basically just tried to undermine almost 40 years of history :L
Ofc nukes will be involved just not in the sense that you are thinking.

* Degtyarev counts the numerous number of times that nuclear bombs have been used as a typical explosive in wars

Yeah, not really. People are not going to be using them like you're saying otherwise US would drop bombs is the middle east because they arnt giving us free oil. You clearly dont understand how a single nuclear explosion a doesnt just affect the area of its explosion, it affects a good chunk of the planet.

It won't "happen". War will happen, war always happens but the entire world won't split into two sides because they wouldn't be able to fight. A war between superpowers plays out as political manoeuvres, economic strategies and technological advances. Big countries might fight little countries but the main contenders won't throw any punches at each other. The idea of "ww3" is foolish.

* Degtyarev counts the numerous irrational people put into power of a large country

You realize thats a lot, correct? Youre arguments for it being impossible for third world war to occur are "big guns exist" and "only good natured and rational people are put into positions of power"

And genocides are myths and wars are fought with baguettes and plastic shields...

[Lewis]

Highly doubt there will be another World War for a while, considering nobody can be stupid enough to start another war, which, really, in the end, turns out to be a complete loss of human life for all countries involved, with little to no gain on any sides.

[Night Haunter]

I honestly believe that Iran will most likely pressure someone or something then America, the superpower that we are, will probably be "forced" to enter into the country and topple the Dictatorship there.  It will most likely escalate and considering Iran is like the retarded kid in your class who came in with a gun becasue he found it, someones getting nuked/ suitcase nuked.....This war will probably attract terrorist organizations to act on behalf of Iran and escalate the war further, where it leads from here....I'm honestly not sure.  It will probably just be an extension of the "War On Terror"

[Jeff2307]

Aliens, nuff said...

[Mr Jive]

Everyones argument for WW3 being completely and utterly impossible for the sole reason that "It would be bad". This amuses me to watch.
Look, that fact is, it will happen, and nuke probably wont be very involved, because thats foolish, and the entire damn world realizes that. Any gov who uses a nuke in a war will have half the world population at the capital beating on the door with some very sharp instruments. Why are you all so obsessed with nuclear weapons? WW3 will come, like it or not, but its unlikely to be nuclear. Im not saying it will come next week, or soon even. For all I know it will be a century or even a millennium from now, but chaos will always spring up, and saying "chaos isnt good" wont stop that. What can go wrong, will go wrong. I wont even try to assume how it will occur, like you guys seem to be...

Wow you basically just tried to undermine almost 40 years of history :L
Ofc nukes will be involved just not in the sense that you are thinking. Nukes will be involved as a failsafe for the superpowers, which is what the cold war was. Anyone who tries to attack the superpowers e.g. China trying to invade USA because USA will pull their nukes out and say one more step and we blow you up and china will say, we will blow you up. Bam you have a stalemate. Again.

It won't "happen". War will happen, war always happens but the entire world won't split into two sides because they wouldn't be able to fight. A war between superpowers plays out as political manoeuvres, economic strategies and technological advances. Big countries might fight little countries but the main contenders won't throw any punches at each other. The idea of "ww3" is foolish.

Also don't try to undermine my argument by making it sound simplistic, it was much more in-depth than "It would be bad" etc.

Wow you basically just tried to undermine almost 40 years of history :L
Ofc nukes will be involved just not in the sense that you are thinking.

* Degtyarev counts the numerous number of times that nuclear bombs have been used as a typical explosive in wars

Yeah, not really. People are not going to be using them like you're saying otherwise US would drop bombs is the middle east because they arnt giving us free oil. You clearly dont understand how a single nuclear explosion a doesnt just affect the area of its explosion, it affects a good chunk of the planet.

It won't "happen". War will happen, war always happens but the entire world won't split into two sides because they wouldn't be able to fight. A war between superpowers plays out as political manoeuvres, economic strategies and technological advances. Big countries might fight little countries but the main contenders won't throw any punches at each other. The idea of "ww3" is foolish.

* Degtyarev counts the numerous irrational people put into power of a large country

You realize thats a lot, correct? Youre arguments for it being impossible for third world war to occur are "big guns exist" and "only good natured and rational people are put into positions of power"

And genocides are myths and wars are fought with baguettes and plastic shields...

Again you keep making my awnsers shorthanded to make them sound stupid. Please read all of what I said before posting. No nukes were dropped but they still played a role in the cold war If say russia hadn't of had any nukes then the entire path of history from 1945 to today would have changed. And that works the other way round as well.


Where do I say irrational people are not thrown into power? I was refering to MAD in my argument. This states that neither side will attack the other because they HAVE BIG GUNS. Do you honestly not understand that that is soooo important! If both sides (America + Russia) hadn't of had nukes it is very possible that shortly after ww2, ww3 would have started between them, but while they were recovering economicly both sides developed nuclear arms and so it didn't happen. Can someone else who has some knowledge of the cold war era back me up here.

Also when did I say Genocides are myths? Where did that come from? And dude ofc wars are not fought with baguettes and plastic shields. But that dosen't mean they are fought with guns either. The modern "war" between two countries does not mean trenches, tanks and guns. Some notable battlese of the cold war: The berlin blockade; guns used 0       The Cuban missile crisis; guns used 0        The Berlin wall; guns used - some but 0 were used from Russians against Americans.

Please learn some knowledge on the cold war and war in general then come back to me with something clever....