The next World War will involve a nuclear exchange, how could it not. 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. Those that will survive are the ones in deep silos, isolated canyons and far south pacific islands away from the tradwinds....all with unconaminated water and provisions.
2007-09-02 04:29:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
You mean a real world war? A war in which the top global superpowers were involved and invested significant time, soldiers, and resources, to the relative scale that WWI and WWII were?
A nuclear holocaust would result, where most major cities would be bombed to ****, and most of the rest would be wiped off the map. Modern military technology is far too powerful for civilian casualties to be kept at a minimum the way conventional warfare has been treated historically. Nuclear weaponry, the very center of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction which had symbolized the political climate of the cold war, will virtually assure said mutual destruction of human civilization back to the stone age.
2007-09-02 01:13:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
"hmm i think the world would come to an end cause yes there would be a draft..."
What???
You think that the world will come to an end because there will be a draft? Is that because most people will flee or dodge the draft or just be completely incompetent? What exactly are you trying to say?
As for what will happen if there was a WWIII… We would become involved if it was in our best interest and we would devote a substantial amount of resources to the war effort, then the dems will begin to complaining again…
2007-09-02 02:59:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Yuriy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
well to many the war has already begun. weather nuclear weapons to the degree of mutually assured destruction is used is a different issue countries with that capability know the true result, and would in every step attempt to prevent, we cannot say the same for terrorist cells with a dirty bomb or pirated man packed tactical nuke. one thing to remember if you look at great wars there duration is very long. and many sub-battles took place before all hell broke loose, and became multiple army's in multiple countries on multiple fronts. remember what country your in massive assault on U.S. soil won't likely happen it will continue to be 9-11 style assault on US soil while we fight them on there soil. our success over there does limit their ability to fight both here and abroad. depending upon world response there could be a draft. either way you cut it war is here and here to stay conflict is in our nature. and hold this to be true men don't start wars governments do. and the last person that wants to go to war the soldier so always support the troops weather you agree with governing policy or not all of the negativity we expel to protest a war the troops over seas hear it. when our men and women are in harms way support of them and their families should always be the civilians number one priority and have our votes be our protest.
2007-09-02 01:23:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by nela jane and husband 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
WW3 already started soon after WW2.it was known as the Cold War.during this war there were no direct armed conflicts involving US and the Soviets.however they were engaged indirectly through Korean War 1950 -1953, Vietnam War 1964 -1968 and Afghan war in the 80s.now War Against Terror is already on the go.many people see this as WW4
2007-09-02 02:32:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by der Bomber 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
another world war in the near future isn't that far fetched: water supplies are quickly running out due to overpopulation. if this happens, European nations might get engaged in a conflict (that would eventually lead to world war) over the rivers that only run through certain countries.
2007-09-03 11:59:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
With the nukes, WW3 is not possible. The Pentagon knows that and to justify its existence and a 1 Trillion war budget, it has to start little wars every couple of years with some tiny countries.
2007-09-02 01:09:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I'm sorry to tell you, World War III already started. It began on November 4, 1979. The war will enter it's 29th year this November.
2007-09-02 01:11:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Yak Rider 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
The U.S. would bring back the draft along with other NATO countries, mass killing, and a very high chance nukes will be used.
2007-09-02 01:11:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by Latino16 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
the war would end with nuclear bombs going off and the next world war being fought with sticks and stones
2007-09-02 01:14:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 5
·
1⤊
0⤋