did you guys thing that if u.s.a fight with iran the the ww3 would start?

Question

yes or no

Answer 1

I believe the definition of world war has to have at least two continents and twenty countries involved...China just might back Iran if Iran is attacked...which could spew into a world war...

I can't understand these people coming into this forum to sow the seeds of hatred...Saying things like kill em all...WHAT!!! ARE YOU PEOPLE FOR REAL??????

People live in Iraq, Iran, Afganistan. babies live in these countries....children live in these countries..........Are your brains so clouded by the western media that you just don't care what happens................

Some people make me sick

Answer 2

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 between the superpowers, 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 if a war with Iran will be the start of WW3, 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. Fighting Iran itself will only be a war relegated to the heap of regional conflicts with and between rump states.....

Answer 3

WW3 will not come as a result of Iran
just a whole lot more bloodshed and a lot more hatred !!!

WW3 is not scheduled until the world has had a global leader that convinces everyone that he has all the answers for everythng-- and DOES for something like three years or a little over--- BUT-- at THAT point-- there will be a major rift in the fabric of the "illusion" and the old enemies of the world will meet in the middle east to blow the bloody hell out of everything at that time--- hopefully we won't be around to witness it--- it will not be pretty !!!

Answer 4

military concepts are on no account taken off the table on condition that they shrink a u . s . a .'s negotiating means. The pundits that see this as some thing poor are in lots of circumstances from eu worldwide places that relied heavily on the U. S. for cover in the process the time of the chilly conflict and subsequently on the instant have underdeveloped militaries. with the aid of this, the army determination isn't probable an determination for them so the only means available to them are financial/diplomatic. talking of the chilly conflict, Russia grew to grow to be into pointing missiles at quite everybody then. it is going to no longer be suprising that they'd not prefer to located those missiles on condition that they've them already. That being reported, there is no longer a large style of a explanation for Russia or all human beings for that remember to superb pal with Iran against the U. S.. they only have little to income and each and each subject to lose.

Answer 5

Of coarse we have, but this is a risk that must be weighed ! Do you let a lunatic like Ahmadinejad continue to kill our troops with the arms and munitions he is sending to Iraq. Or do you nip it in the bud, once and for all. Each day that we do nothing allows the enemy to get stronger. Now, that sleaze in Syria al Assad, is seeing the crap that Ahmadinejad is getting away with, so he too, is bringing in missiles, arms. and offensive and defensive weapons from our dear friends, the goddamn Russians who love to hide behind rocks and make life difficult for the US.

We can sit and wait while the enemy gets stronger, or we can start dusting off some of the real big stuff we have in inventory. You know, the stuff that will make really short work of the Iranian problem; the stuff that makes large parking lots.

Answer 6

NO - NO - NO. For crying out loud, Iran is just a pain in the you-know-where. I've said before on Y!A that even if they did produce a 'nuke and even were able to use it, they would be history!! 'Nuff said. Good grief!!

Oh yes - The Congress would have to approve any conflict with Iran. No chance now, except the above-------!!

Answer 7

No, china and russia would also need to be in the mix as well, and there would be a reason for taking "sides".

War is a bad thing. People dieing is a bad thing, lets hope that we do not have to go to war with iran.

Answer 8

Yes

Answer 9

I'm not a guy but am sure a thing exists. if u.s.a. fight with iran the the www.hellonumbskull woud inlist not.

Answer 10

No country is stupid enough to support Iran.Actually America was supposed to attack Iran instead of Iraq,but you all know that Bush misspelled while writing his orders.