English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-07-17 19:20:23 · 10 answers · asked by sd 1 in Politics & Government Military

10 answers

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.

2007-07-17 19:59:52 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

Always! but it is unlikely to be started by one of the major nuclear powers. They understand all too well that nobody wins in an all out nuclear exchange. It is more likely to be started by some smaller nation such as India or Pakistan, or North Korea, where people are poor and life is cheap. Use of nuclear weapons may eventually appear as a good means of applying leverage on the international community to gain concessions such as Kim Jung Mentally-Ill has recently gotten for his promise to stop his nuclear program. (Funny how that same promise was made to the clinton adminstration and we gave them aid then too). Eventually, we will either have to eliminate such wildcards or accept the possibility that they will actually deploy weapons as a means of terrorizing the world into giving into their ever increasing demands.

2007-07-17 19:29:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yep. If the Democrats get their way and the U.S. withdraws from Iraq before the job is done, civil war will ensue. Iran will back the Shias and the Gulf States will back the Sunnis. The entire region will go to war, and the West will be forced to act. It'll make the current conflict look like a party.

2007-07-17 19:26:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

uh...how are democrats making the third world war, we want to stop the war..I swear, these people are so brainwashed these days. But yes, there is always a chance of a third world war, there are always tensions in countries. Look back at the cold war, we came very very close with the cuban missle crisis.

2007-07-17 19:27:42 · answer #4 · answered by Coma White 5 · 1 1

The third World War ended in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. You now have a front row seat for World War IV, the west vs radical islam.

2007-07-17 19:28:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Of course.

How high the chance is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think it's pretty high given that certain elements of the world seem to want it, and the UN doesn't seem to be populated with people that comprehend that. For that matter, neither is Congress or the American media.

2007-07-17 19:33:19 · answer #6 · answered by open4one 7 · 0 0

Always but this one might get nastier.

Chances are that we are already in it and the extremist are winning. They already stopped France and Spain from doing anything out of fear.

The problem is they don't have a specific terrain and are spreading everywhere so we can't target a country like in past wars.

2007-07-17 19:27:16 · answer #7 · answered by WCSteel 5 · 0 0

Not as extensive as the last two in the near future. It still could involve a major portion of the world, I just doubt if major powers will fight each other.

2007-07-17 19:29:49 · answer #8 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 0 0

There is always a chance of almost anything happening but it would be hard to place a % probability on that one.

2007-07-17 19:26:22 · answer #9 · answered by Ted T 5 · 0 0

uuhh, its already started............thank your president.

2007-07-18 10:33:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers