World War 3 question?

Question

if there ever is a ww3, do you think that America would wait till it was attacked like ww2, or just get ticked at our ships being sunk like ww1, or do you think that we would be the first ones in?

the only reason i put this in the history part is because i was comparing them to wars before whats going on now

Answer 1

Why ask about events that have not even happened here in the History category?

Answer 2

Your first inkling that WW3 has started is when your TV and video game will stop functioning as the EMP knocks out electronics in a several hundred mile radius. After that, it's only minutes when you'll either be vaporised or suffering from radiation fall out.

It could be 28 minutes from now or 280 years from now. When the superpowers square off against each other in two camps, then come back and we'll talk world war 3.

Until then, just think regional conflicts, wars between rump states, proxy wars and brinksmanship. If you recall the Yom Kippur War in 1973, a coalition of Arab States (Egypt, Syria and Jordan) were soundly defeated by the Israelis. That was a worse situation than the current conflict and it didn't raise a blip on the world war radar (not that it didn't have the potential to spark a global war).

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. You ask when is the apacolypse, 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.

Our biggest risk is an accidental launch of nukes by one of the nuclear powers.

Answer 3

If and when WWIII occurs the US would most likely be involved quickly after it becomes a major conflict.
First the possibility of nuclear weapons being used is very small, we would most likely not use them against a nation who doesn't have them because we wouldn't have to and it would be seen as bullying. Nuclear weapons are a threat. All well need to do for most countries is say were gonna use them and they'll fall into line only with some radical Islamic sects and N. Korea being an exception. If the nation we are fighting has a nuclear arsenal all nations involved would be aware that if they use them their enemy will as well. and even though most nations can't reach the US with missiles or bombers, they can certainly hit our allies.
Second the most likely hot spots for a conflict are India, where they are in constant flux with Pakistan or soon China as their economies both grow and will conflict for resources and markets. Taiwan, were China claims to the rightful ruler and the US has promised to defend the island nation. Finally if Russia emerges as a threat again under the rule of Putin who has made them a nation capable of growing to the power it once held in the 50's and 60's in comparison to the United States.
Unlikely places: North Korea, Iran, Middle East, and Africa. Although these places are always in the news because of conflict or strife either most nations have allied with each other against them or as a whole the world has proven they don't care.
So lastly if the world did enter a third world war the US would get involved immediately only in key areas to US foreign policy or economic needs. If another conflict grew out of proportion the US would likely go in to end it or stop it. Or if the US was attacked we would get involved.

Answer 4

Actually, it depends on your definition of "world war". The Cold War is often described as WW3, with GWOT (Global War on Terrorism) as WW4. Korea and Vietnam conflicts were part of the Cold War, but not terribly large parts, since the focus was more on the tense stand-off between the US and USSR. There were so many skirmishes between the US and USSR during the Cold War. GWOT is a more easily accepted "world war", because numerous countries are involved in armed conflict across the globe.

Aside from speculation either way about whether the US started the GWOT (by allowing things to happen or whatever), the US has a more "pro-active" approach to confllict, rather than all-out instigation. The US seems to be sliding back toward the isolationist ideas that we had before WW1.

Answer 5

I don't know what it will be, but i can tell you a few sure things.

1. It will be mainly against Russia/China/Iran and there Allies
2. Nuclear weapons will be used but not in a 1960's end of humanity way, mostly small tactical nukes and small stratigic nukes, BUT THE WORLD WON'T END.

3. Lastly, it will be VERY bloody. Many people here have stated that we will not have wars like the past. This is just false. Throught history wars have gotten deadlier and more destructive with time. Why would things change now!

I don't know when this will happen, hopefully not within the next 10 years otherwise im going!

Oh yeah and against Iran/Russia/CHina and the other central asian uniun contries (there is one look it up), we will have US, Japan Ausies, New Zealand, NAto and most of the EU contries (some European countries like Serbia/Belaruse would go with russia)

So good luck everyone, if you don't die in the great WW3 you can look forward to 10-20 years of rapid growth and prosparity !!!!!

Answer 6

We probably will never have another "conventional" World War like WW2 or WW1. We have the largest army, navy, and air force in the world and a level of technology that is head and shoulders above all the other countries in the world. Our navy is larger than all the other navies of the world put together. So a conventional attack from another country like we had in 1941 will probably never happen.
Our greatest threat for the next 50 years or so will be radical Islamic terrorism. For that threat there is no easy solution. We have to "defend" ourselves by attacking the bases and training centers of this radical terrorism before they have a chance to get organized enough to attack like they did on 9/11/01. So we will probably continue to attack and invade random countries based on the intelligence gathered about Al-Qaida. No president will want to be caught "sleeping" when another terrorist attack occurs.

Is this the best way to do things? No, but right now it's the only way we have to protect and defend our way of life.

Will it make the United States seem like a giant bully to the rest of the world? Certainly.

Will it make more people from that part of the world want to join Al-Qaida? Probably.

Do we run the risk of Al-Qaida getting so powerful that they incite a war in some little Middle Eastern country that gets out of hand and even though we send troops to squash it, it spreads to other countries in the region and eventually turns into World War 3? Probably.

Is there a way to avoid this? Not until the Middle Eastern countries of that region do something proactive about stopping religious fanaticism in their own backyards. Until that day the conflict will continue just like we have now. The names of the countries will change, but the issues will be the same.

Depressing, isn't it?

Answer 7

you really cant just say ww III, and expect us to know what you are thinking. I think the most likely scenario would be a Iran/China/Russia union against a common foe; the United States. The Iran/China/Russia would probably be the ones to initiate an actual military offensive first but they would have had to been pretty aggravated at the USA for taking action against them albeit not militarily (think economic sanctions, diplomatic hostilities, etc.) Seeing the USA as the victim (as opposed to the instigator) the European Union, Canada, Australia, and perhaps some Latin American countries would probably band together with the US. As war intensified more countries would choose to ally themselves with one group or the other depending on their history with the two factions. For the crucial reason that the US would need the support of these other countries they would probably wait to be attacked (like in WWII) so they could appeal as the oppressed.

Answer 8

First, I don’t believe that the cold war between US and USSR was already a WWW-III. During that cold war there were so many countries that were living in peace. To be considered as World War there must be at least half of the world organized themselves in group or allies to fight another group or a nation.

Those nations that continue to manufacture nuclear weapons are cowards. Producing them will not solve the conflict. One nation who will use a nuclear will make other nations produce more or ally themselves to fight the first that sent nuclear. This is because of the threat caused by that initiator. I believed that more weapons would be produced in the coming years like bio-chemical weapons, weapons that could destroy humans but not the environment. The principle here is this “you destroy the enemy by annihilating them then take their land for good use”, to supplement the needs of the nation and at the same time expanding the territory without fear of revolt because they were annihilated already.

But bio-chemical weapons in my point of view will be released at the same time on all enemy country to avoid retaliation. But retaliation still is inevitable and more likely will occur from sympathetic nation.

You know the global effect. Manpower will certainly be a problem.

After this, the www4 will certainly be by sticks and slingshots with dogs and cats as back up.


Ntc4bread_peacekeeper

Answer 9

I believe that World War III is currently being fought. This is a war that differs from all previous wars in that the battle is not between nation states with recognizable, uniformed combatents. Rather it is a conflict of ideologies and pits proponents of freedom against the believers of facism. The sooner the governments of all democracies recognize this fact the sooner the world will be able to see the confilct for what it is. If this recognition does not take place, there may indeed be a nuclear attack on US soil. If this does happen, I believe that that America will respond with a massive, non-nuclear, air attack in the Middle East. The goal would be to destroy the capabilities of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to influence middle eastern politics for the foreseeable future.

Answer 10

I must agree with many here in that the definition of World War must be "redefined" as we think of it. Since the beginning of history there has always been some moderate level of warfare going on all over the globe, some armed, some just a giant game of chess (i.e. Cold War). I personally think that mankind as a whole is competitive by nature and conflict is in our blood. Say what you will but you could say that World War has always and will always be, it is just a matter of how we define and label parts of it for our own understanding.

Answer 11

Okay, now permit me reply your query competently. First, Armageddon is truthfully the position in which the last wrestle will take position, now not the occasion of the sector finishing. It's a exact valley (also referred to as Megiddo) external Jerusalem. COULD that last wrestle be related to WWIII? Yes and no. The global main as much as the End will probably be riddled with wars, tsunamis, earthquakes... But as it is one wrestle and now not an genuine warfare, it is rough to name it that. Also, the wrestle occurs after the Rapture, which hasn't occurred but. Since no person however God is aware of while the Rapture is, we might have a WWIII the next day to come and feature the Rapture take position enormous quantities of years from now. Hope this is helping.