NationStates Jolt Archive


hypothetical question bout a true world war

Cebat
03-09-2004, 02:34
This is a hypothetical question about a true world war. Where every single country had no alliances and they all had to fight for world domination. There's no NATO, or UN, or OPEC, or any sort of alliance at all, and every last country is at war with every other country (just have to make this clear...).

Who would win? Why? What kind of strategies would countries use? What countries would attack who first? What African country would rule the whole of Africa before getting the crap kicked out of them by a foreign power? so on and so forth.

I just thought it would be a fun debate to see what would happen if the entire would was at war.

Go.
Cebat
03-09-2004, 02:37
Personally i think America would win the entire thing.
Reltaran
03-09-2004, 02:41
Well, assuming that all international trade is permanently ceased and that no alliances would come up over time(as they inevitably would in reality), I'd say that it's pretty obvious that the USA, China, and Russia would be the key players in the opening stages. After a while, though, the situation would destabilize and power would be redistributed fairly evenly(whether over two or several dozen nations, hard to say).
Colodia
03-09-2004, 02:43
The United States, if done properly.


I think they should just regroup our whole military to our homeland, for the first step. Secondly, maintain a defensive war. Other nations will no doubt be trying to destroy each other, weakening themselves. In a few years, they will be exhausted, ripe for the picking of a country with the most powerful military in the world, which is logically the still strongest military.
Cebat
03-09-2004, 02:44
Actually, maybe it would end up being like the book 1984. Where 3 super powers controlled the entire world and not even with the combined effort of 2 of the superpower could defeat the last one... just a thought.
Homocracy
03-09-2004, 02:49
To get rid of their rivals, the nuclear powers nuke the industrialised nations and their enemies. That means that the USA, Europe, Russia, India, Pakistan, Japan, Korea(North and South), Israel and neighbourhood, aswell as any I'm forgetting, are out of the running. So Australia has the best chance, since Canada will probably be fucked royally by the nuking of the USA. This assuming the entire population isn't killed off, in which case it's whoever gets the most in their bunker and has the most food in there.
Big Jim P
03-09-2004, 02:50
The United States, if done properly.


I think they should just regroup our whole military to our homeland, for the first step. Secondly, maintain a defensive war. Other nations will no doubt be trying to destroy each other, weakening themselves. In a few years, they will be exhausted, ripe for the picking of a country with the most powerful military in the world, which is logically the still strongest military.

Yes we would win, we have the most nukes.

Jim
Colodia
03-09-2004, 02:54
Yes we would win, we have the most nukes.

Jim
no, nukes are the last option. Seriously, just because a nation is weakened seriously does not mean they cannot launch their nukes. Look at Russia. Imagine all the nuclear powers launching their nukes at everyone, it'll be hell and the end of the world as we know it.
Super American VX Man
03-09-2004, 03:04
no, nukes are the last option. Seriously, just because a nation is weakened seriously does not mean they cannot launch their nukes. Look at Russia. Imagine all the nuclear powers launching their nukes at everyone, it'll be hell and the end of the world as we know it.

Hell, Russia or the US could just launch a sizeable fraction of the total stockpile, and the world would be fucked.
Colodia
03-09-2004, 03:05
Hell, Russia or the US could just launch a sizeable fraction of the total stockpile, and the world would be fucked.
They just need 1/10 of em.
Super American VX Man
03-09-2004, 03:08
They just need 1/10 of em.

That's the number! I had forgotten.
Colodia
03-09-2004, 03:09
That's the number! I had forgotten.
freaky isn't it? Take that number and the fact that all throughout the Cold War, these nukes were threatening these two countries. Kinda gives you some insight on how people from this time period felt, doesn't it?
Super American VX Man
03-09-2004, 03:45
Very much so.
Dalamia
03-09-2004, 03:51
Any circumplar nation, (exluding Russia, who will be pulverized not by the US, but by China and Chechnya), will be the best chance at surviving, simply due to the vast distances between major centres, and the ability to move onto the Arctic ocean during most of the year.

Second on that list would be Australia, New Zealand, and most of Polynesia. They would be far enough fromthe 'action' as it were to remain realtively safe.

The safest, and last standing coninent, will be Antarctica. Almost all of the survivors will magrate there, as it will be the final untouched, unbombed continent.
CSW
03-09-2004, 03:55
Actually, maybe it would end up being like the book 1984. Where 3 super powers controlled the entire world and not even with the combined effort of 2 of the superpower could defeat the last one... just a thought.
Read the last few pages, it wasn't really BS. Oceania did win the war, or at least defeated a major power.
Deltaepsilon
03-09-2004, 04:01
I agree with Homocracy. Australia would have the best shot. China is next though.
Cebat
03-09-2004, 04:11
Read the last few pages, it wasn't really BS. Oceania did win the war, or at least defeated a major power.


Sry, I'm currently reading it now, havn't made it that far yet.
CSW
03-09-2004, 04:14
Sry, I'm currently reading it now, havn't made it that far yet.
Oh damn. Hope I didn't give away the ending (I shouldn't have...)