2007-02-17 16:50:09 · 21 answers · asked by kcflds 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Nobody would win. There would be survivors, but no winners.
The world economy would be shot to hell and all your paper money and stock certificates would only be good for use as toilet paper or kindling.
2007-02-17 17:00:14 · answer #1 · answered by chimpus_incompetus 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, WWIII will be global suicide, therefore in answer to your question, as long as there's rational superpowers who believe in MAD, there will be no WW3. By definition, the next world war wil be nuclear, how could it not. In a nuclear war there will be no winner. In a nuclear world, the only true enemy is war itself.
The next World War will involve a nuclear exchange, how could it not if both sides believe no price for victory will be too high. In the first 30 minutes, nearly a billion people will have been vaporised, mostly in the US, Russia, Europe, China and Japan. Another 1.5 billion will die shortly thereafter from radiation poisoning. The northern hemisphere will be plunged into prolonged agony and barbarity.
Eventually the nuclear winter will spread to the southern hemisphere and all plant life will die. You ask what country would be victorious, you are asking when will we commit global suicide. My answer is it won't happen soon because the larger superpowers are more rational than the rump states in the middle east.
While we hear talk of a nuclear-Iran or a confrontation with NorKor, little is said about the 2 bulls in the glass shop. The arsenals of Russia and the US are enough to destroy a million Hiroshimas. But there are fewer than 3000 cities on the Earth with populations of 100,000 or more. You cannot find anything like a million Hiroshimas to obliterate. Prime military and industrial targets that are far from cities are comparatively rare. Our biggest threat is from an accidental launch by the Russians.
At the point of global suicide, it doesn't matter who is on what side.... In a nuclear age like i said before, the only true enemy is war itself.
2007-02-18 03:07:09 · answer #2 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like what John Hagge said, "World War III started with the birth of Ishmael" or words to that effect. Meaning when Abraham, the first patriarch of Jude ism, had a son from the maid-servant, before birth of his son Issac. In the series he presented, Rev. Haggae pointed out that when asked, people will give different perspectives of when "WW III" started. To think about it, his statement warrants merit, because the Islam way of life is to destroy all who will not believe as they do. World War III will not start in the future, but is already being fought. Yes, the world is the battle-ground.
2007-02-18 01:14:09 · answer #3 · answered by John Sr. 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
depends what the teams are.
I would say the US, China, and most of Europe would lose no matter who truly wins.
The real winners would be the countries that where able to pretty much stay out of the fighting and keep there infrastructure intact. Both the winner and loser would have there cities, factories, and transportation lines destroyed.
Imagine the US power grid being destroyed. Think of recovery in cities that it takes months to get power back to.
Also Nukes would probably end up getting used so say goodbye to every major city and even most of the small ones if they have enough factories.
As for the retarders who say the end of all life on earth they have seen to much sci-fi. Sure we can destroy every city, but not every town and rural area. Also the amount of radio active material in the air left would not be that bad over all.
Lets say it started with the US and china. Sure our allies would get all in it, but some countries will stay out. Places in Africa, south America, maybe new zeland. So no one would have any reason to send nukes at them or attack them. So we bomb each other back to the industrial revolution and they have all there factories and everything intact. So they win.
2007-02-18 00:59:37 · answer #4 · answered by thatoneguy 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No one because millions of people would die, our World would be broken from chemical biological and nuclear war, food shortages would mean we would have to do with alot less, parts of the planet would be very unsafe to live in.
2007-02-18 01:10:22 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No-one would win. Everyone would get nuked. Maybe one country would be a little less nuked than all the others, but I don't know if that counts as winning.
2007-02-18 00:59:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Russia,China and India were on the same team: them Vs. the World they would win.
2007-02-18 00:53:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since global warfare is not a game of Risk or a video game that you can start over, no one would win. Absolutely no one.
2007-02-18 01:24:27 · answer #8 · answered by answer boy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Haliburton is the current winner of all wars.
Only the war profiteers win wars.
2007-02-18 00:55:52 · answer #9 · answered by 1776_2007 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Tonga
2007-02-18 00:58:58 · answer #10 · answered by cold runner 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋