Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Purely hypothetical, if WIII occured, what country would most likely start it?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40

Emre944

Original post by cl_steele

I don't know the sandwich islands and Niue seem to be in cahoots for world domination...

Indeed but you never know. Maybe Liechtenstein will finally invade China.

Reply 41

tohaaaa

Original post by Emre944

Indeed but you never know. Maybe Liechtenstein will finally invade China.

Surely though, if someone invades China, they're screwed as China has one of the biggest land armies and Russia on their side??

Reply 42

Aj12

Original post by tohaaaa

Surely though, if someone invades China, they're screwed as China has one of the biggest land armies and Russia on their side??

How is Russia on China's side? Granted they cooperate on some things and have a similar global outlook but I would't ever put Russia in China's side enough to come to their aid in a war.

Reply 43

Jack93o

israel, usa, north korea are the 3 most likely candidates

Reply 44

Isambard Kingdom Brunel

Amerika, Britton, and OZ vs North Korea (nuclear bomb), Iran (nuclear bombs), and Zimbabwe (sharp sticks).

And if that was a Royal Rumble, Britton would still get knocked out first under a Labour government.

(edited 11 years ago)

jamaica

Original post by Palindromic

jamaica

What is this.... I don't even---....

Reply 47

joey11223

Are any middle Eastern nations confirmed to actually possess ICBM's?

Just thinking if none do, then actually I'm not sure a middle Eastern situation would really be able spark anything other than a regional conflict. After all if America seriously thinks it's going to be invaded, it may not wish to nuke nations as they know the civilian cost, but as a show of force they could nuke areas of desert near enemy territory. Even the most fanatical leaders who hypothetically rise up because of a regional conflict and decide to then attack American interests are probably going to pause to consider their next move when they see the deserts turn to glass.

Maybe as someone else said it would actually be leading nations of the world fighting amongst themselves for natural resources if fusion power or the like isn't discovered. Problem is that realistically M.A.D means no nation literally wants to land an invading army on another nations doorstep because everyone knows that if a nation with nukes is about to be destroyed, it'll launch everything it has as it's aggressor as a final **** you.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 48

HaQ_mAn_

WW3 seems like it would just be half an hour of world leaders pushing buttons and destroying eachother...

Reply 49

gummibear

My nan always used to say she didn't know how WW3 would be fought, but WW4 would be fought with sticks and stones....

I think USA/UK most likely to start a world war tbh, hopefully not against each other or the above will almost certainly be true :eek:

Reply 50

mr-breaker

If there's a betting market then Serbia is where my money goes.

They do have form after all..............

Reply 51

Fullofsurprises

Original post by gummibear

My nan always used to say she didn't know how WW3 would be fought, but WW4 would be fought with sticks and stones....

Not just your Mum, but Albert Einstein, who first said that. :smile:

Reply 52

flipflap99

the middle east
koreas actions will only encourage iran to perk up and kick off some action down there

Reply 53

gummibear

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Not just your Mum, but Albert Einstein, who first said that. :smile:

Well then its definitely true :biggrin:

Reply 54

tohaaaa

Original post by gummibear

Well then its definitely true :biggrin:

Is it too optimistic that MAYBE WWIII won't be fought with nukes :confused:

As people already understand the dangers of them......

Reply 55

Emre944

Original post by tohaaaa

Surely though, if someone invades China, they're screwed as China has one of the biggest land armies and Russia on their side??

Biggest land army or not, they don't stand a chance against THIS:

Reply 56

username858757

I'm not so sure that any future war will be referred to as WWIII. A key feature of the world wars was a dozen or so countries from around the world packing up the full force of their military, and sending it off to 2 or 3 theatres of war to have a big fight with the enemy that had done the same. Obviously the wars, particularly WWII, showed other forms of combat such as guerilla warfare, but mutliple countries sending off their entire army hasn't been done since.

A second feature of the wars was a great percentage of the world's countries taking sides. Many countries, particularly in WWI, took part because they were colonies at the time. A third feature of the World Wars was that the economies were completely geared towards the war. I suppose that this could plausibly occur in he future, although you would have to think that Europeans, including the UK, would take a lot of persuading if they weren't directly at risk. So maybe a future war might be called a World War if it involved a majority of the world's countries and took up the focus of their economies, but it would be very different to the past world wars because of nuclear weapons and the internet.

Original post by tohaaaa

Surely though, if someone invades China, they're screwed as China has one of the biggest land armies and Russia on their side??

Liechtenstein holds many bank accounts of rich people from around the world. This is obviously advantageous, as they could seize this money, withdraw it as coins, and throw it really hard at any members of a resisting force (and also at the UN diplomats when they try to negotiate peace).

Reply 57

tehFrance

Original post by tohaaaa

If WWIII occured, what country would most likely start it?

Germany... lets be honest, a pan-European war is going to come along again and it will be Germany to start it as the wield the power they have currently. Only been 5 years since the last conflict so another one is due soon :tongue:

Reply 58

tohaaaa

Original post by tehFrance

Germany? HIGHLY doubt that considering what happened in WWII.

Why would they start another war if people still don't really trust them? (Or am I wrong here?)

Reply 59

tehFrance

Original post by tohaaaa

Germany? HIGHLY doubt that considering what happened in WWII.

Why would they start another war if people still don't really trust them? (Or am I wrong here?)

Why do you highly doubt that? look at history and the German power, it has always been a force to be reckoned with. WWII wasn't exactly a walk in the park but it most certainly showed what a Germany with a strong leader can achieve, especially as they seem to actually put a lot of effort into their way of doing things and it works out better for them, if it hadn't of been for Hitler's personal mistakes we'd all be speaking German right now (well I already speak it by choice but had Germany won, it wouldn't be by choice :tongue:

).

You realise the EU is basically being used to German advantage right? Germany is an economic powerhouse that keeps getting more power as time goes on, the federalisation of Europe will most likely mean German domination only this time achieved peacefully unless civil then pan-European wars breakout over the federalisation.

People both trust and distrust Germany for a variety of reasons, I personally wouldn't put it past the Germans to start or be instrumental component for a future war in Europe, their history dictates their future more than other countries histories as they seem to repeat their history a lot more than others.