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....where you go to hide, or how long you can survive. In a nuclear age like i said before, the only true enemy is war itself.
2007-07-11 11:52:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Israel hasn't truthfully declared warfare on Lebanon even though stating warfare turns out to have long gone out of type within the state-of-the-art international and Lebanon is relatively little greater than a geographic expression. I could argue that we're already combating international warfare 3 and if you're thinking about who's on what part it's well-nigh a repeat of the crusades with the function of the aggressor reversed from the primary clash.
2016-09-05 23:00:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by romanok 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I really don't think there will be, nor, of course, do I hope there will be.
What we see in different parts of the world aren't real wars, they are mainly civil wars and disputes.
Moreover, power now is not weapons, it is science as well as economy.
2007-07-10 11:19:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by hy003002 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
we've been asking that question since world war two 62 years ago
2007-07-10 11:11:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by si_kleeg 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sure, war is part of humans' nature.
2007-07-10 11:10:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mau 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I hope not, if there is, the whole world is gone... WW3 won't be fought without nukes
2007-07-10 11:20:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If we can suspend the elections or have a third and fourth Bush terms..... YES!
2007-07-10 11:08:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
yes...................and not if.............when
I think we are in a death spiral now.......any massive casualties (over 100,000 americans) within a 10 day period or less, will certainly cause American voters to call for war, real war.......not some police action.........real war=atomic weapons
2007-07-10 11:15:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by captainamerica 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Let's HOPE not- or it will be the LAST war we'll ever have to worry about! :(
2007-07-10 11:13:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Joseph, II 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
My friend it is going on right now in Iraq
2007-07-10 11:09:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by ngcigar 3
·
1⤊
0⤋