NationStates Jolt Archive

In your opinion, if there is another "World War," what would it be fought over?
What Parties will be involved?

U.S./China/France/Israel V.S. Britian/Russia/SK/Canada/Brazil

Why? U.S. nuked Iran. Why did the U.S. nuke Iran? Because they could.

In your opinion, if there is another "World War," what would it be fought over?
What Parties will be involved?
Oil and other similar resources, such as natural gas, and possibly uranium.

As for the parties: every single industrialized nation, possibly even every country for themselves, though the major conflict will be the Russia vs. China vs. U.S.A vs. European Union foursome.

Projected time: ~2020

Spelling

Economies. I clicked oil, but that's because oil is the biggest factor in the economies of nations nowadays. Problems with oil mean problems with economy, and if economic problems get too big, nations collapse.

Taiwan.

In your opinion, if there is another "World War," what would it be fought over?

What were the last two fought over?

Communism.

The U.S.A, China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, Iraq, Iran (the new American government of Iran), Saudi Arabia, UAE, India, and Mexico vs. Canada, and the EU.

What were the last two fought over?
World War I was a result of multiple alliances. We all know the story. Ferdinand gets knocked off in Serbia, Russia protects Serbia from Austria, France joins Russia because of their alliance, and from there it explodes. Imperial Germany probably was after territory and resources once the war started though.

As for World War II: Hitler's Greater German Reich, of course. Territory and resources.

In essence, they boiled down to what any war is about: territory and resources. The type of resources might change, the fighters will most certainly change, but the struggle is always over the same thing in the end.

I said other, human rights and world economy. Autonomy is evolving out.

Frankly I think we are already in a World War, most of it is carried on at bargaining tables, but is a war none the less.

In essence, they boiled down to what any war is about: territory and resources. The type of resources might change, the fighters will most certainly change, but the struggle is always over the same thing in the end.

So they were both wars of distributive justice?

Communism.

The U.S.A, China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, Iraq, Iran (the new American government of Iran), Saudi Arabia, UAE, India, and Mexico vs. Canada, and the EU.For some reason, I don't see any of these nations turning to communism anytime soon...

U.S./China/France/Israel V.S. Britian/Russia/SK/Canada/Brazil

Why? U.S. nuked Iran. Why did the U.S. nuke Iran? Because they could.
No one's going to criticize me on this? Wow.

No one's going to criticize me on this? Wow.
It was too ridiculous to deserve comment.

It was too ridiculous to deserve comment.
What's ridiculous about it?

What's ridiculous about it?
:rolleyes:

It's either a deliberately stupid statement, a joke, or an unintentionally stupid statement, and so required no response.

Religion

U.S./China/France/Israel V.S. Britian/Russia/SK/Canada/Brazil

Why? U.S. nuked Iran. Why did the U.S. nuke Iran? Because they could.

would be more like u.s./britain/sk/canada/israel v. china/iran/russia/brazil/venezuela...

britain may even decide to sit it out. who knows. but if the u.s. nuked iran, i think russia would be pissed because they're working a deal to enrich iran's uranium.

would be more like u.s./britain/sk/canada/israel v. china/iran/russia/brazil/venezuela...

britain may even decide to sit it out. who knows. but if the u.s. nuked iran, i think russia would be pissed because they're working a deal to enrich iran's uranium.
No you fool. Iran would be utterly destroyed. I mean, 10 nukes are going to deal quite a lot of damage to all of Irans major cities..

A US diplomat and a Chinese diplomat will run into each other while the American is eating peanut butter straight from the jar and the Chinese guy is eating a chocolate bar. The chocolate will end up in the peanut butter, and both parties will realize that chocolate and peanut butter are two great tastes that taste great together. Unfortunately, the Chinese diplomat will suddenly discover that he's allergic to peanuts and drop dead. This will cause tensions between the two nations to escalate to the point where war will be inevitable.

No you fool. Iran would be utterly destroyed. I mean, 10 nukes are going to deal quite a lot of damage to all of Irans major cities..

Fool?

i see you're not even worth talking to.

A US diplomat and a Chinese diplomat will run into each other while the American is eating peanut butter straight from the jar and the Chinese guy is eating a chocolate bar. The chocolate will end up in the peanut butter, and both parties will realize that chocolate and peanut butter are two great tastes that taste great together. Unfortunately, the Chinese diplomat will suddenly discover that he's allergic to peanuts and drop dead. This will cause tensions between the two nations to escalate to the point where war will be inevitable.
It's as if you have a crystal ball... :p

A US diplomat and a Chinese diplomat will run into each other while the American is eating peanut butter straight from the jar and the Chinese guy is eating a chocolate bar. The chocolate will end up in the peanut butter, and both parties will realize that chocolate and peanut butter are two great tastes that taste great together. Unfortunately, the Chinese diplomat will suddenly discover that he's allergic to peanuts and drop dead. This will cause tensions between the two nations to escalate to the point where war will be inevitable.

That or Jack Bauer.....

No you fool. Iran would be utterly destroyed. I mean, 10 nukes are going to deal quite a lot of damage to all of Irans major cities..

We will not be using Nuclear devices on Iran. Just because the media is telling you that the nuclear option is not being ruled out doesn't mean inevitable utilazation of atomics. Before every war we plan situations with atomic weapons.

A US diplomat and a Chinese diplomat will run into each other while the American is eating peanut butter straight from the jar and the Chinese guy is eating a chocolate bar. The chocolate will end up in the peanut butter, and both parties will realize that chocolate and peanut butter are two great tastes that taste great together. Unfortunately, the Chinese diplomat will suddenly discover that he's allergic to peanuts and drop dead. This will cause tensions between the two nations to escalate to the point where war will be inevitable.

rofl. what commercial did you get the idea from?

rofl. what commercial did you get the idea from?
The old Reese's peanut butter cups commercials

Serious and or legitamate arguments only please.

In your opinion, if there is another "World War," what would it be fought over?
What Parties will be involved?

Voted "other". War will be fought over all of the above and OBVIOUSLY religion.

Unification perhaps?

Maybe as globalisation steadily proceeds towards the inevitable step of the one-world government a small vanguard of nations will ally to protect their own sovereignty - or - perhaps a group of nations gets ahead of itself and tries to unite the world against the will of the rest of the world, and is repelled.

Which one of these two scenarios it will be basically boils down to which side America is one.

Voted "other". War will be fought over all of the above and OBVIOUSLY religion.

Then that would exclude the United States, our Government does not use religion as a basis for war. Most Islamic countries as well.

Communism.

Iran (the new American government of Iran)

Leave... Iran.... alone...

*edits* I voted oil, but if a European Federation was ever formed (hurray!) then that might well be in a war with the USA and China. Which would be very sad.

The Russians are coming.

The odds of China and the US ever going to war are very slim. There's too much money tied up in each other's economies.

... if a European Federation was ever formed (hurray!) then that might well be in a war with the USA and China. Which would be very sad.
Not to mention terminal for the European Federation. :rolleyes:

The odds of China and the US ever going to war are very slim. There's too much money tied up in each other's economies.
China seems to be waging war via economics.

China seems to be waging war via economics.

Yes, seems they've learned from us Americans. We'd be better off if they were still commies.

The odds of China and the US ever going to war are very slim. There's too much money tied up in each other's economies.

Not to mention Nukes, knives and sharp, pointed sticks.

Not to mention terminal for the European Federation. :rolleyes:

Well yeah. It'd be terminal for everyone. Which, as I said, would be a bit tragic, really.

U.S./China/France/Israel V.S. Britian/Russia/SK/Canada/Brazil

Why? U.S. nuked Iran. Why did the U.S. nuke Iran? Because they could.

No one's going to criticize me on this? Wow.
It was too ridiculous to deserve comment.
What's ridiculous about it?

The idea that Brazil would actually get of the fence and take any side at all is just utterly ridiculous.

U.S./China/France/Israel V.S. Britian/Russia/SK/Canada/Brazil

Why? U.S. nuked Iran. Why did the U.S. nuke Iran? Because they could.

No one's going to criticize me on this? Wow.
It was too ridiculous to deserve comment.
What's ridiculous about it?

The idea that Brazil would actually get of the fence and take any side at all is just utterly ridiculous.The idea that Brazil would actually get of the fence and take any side at all is just utterly ridiculous.


Please don't do the quote quote quote quote thing, it's irratating.

if a European Federation was ever formed (hurray!) then that might well be in a war with the USA and China. Which would be very sad.

I think that would be a very short war considering how powerful Europe actually is

I doubt any more world wars will ever take place if it ever should it would be a war of technology with either human vs. transhuman or Man vs. machine (or a mix of the two)

wat i dont get is y every one is saying tht the war will involve america i mean the last time there was a world war they turned up 3 years late and there was a similar story with WWI and the only reason they joined WWII was because of the japenese attacking them strange how the japenese were the cause of the turning point of WWII even though they were our enemy at the time
anyway... enough of saying stuff u already know... the war is most likly to b fought over clean water from wat i hear it is in short supply coz most of the water is salt water and there is an ever growing population so unless somethings done soon better get the chalenger IIs on standby

Water.

U.S./China/France/Israel V.S. Britian/Russia/SK/Canada/Brazil

Why? U.S. nuked Iran. Why did the U.S. nuke Iran? Because they could.


Well I think the odds of the US actually using any form of nuke on Iran before a war started would be very low, so it probably wont happen that way. But if it did happen that way it would quickly escalate to something way above nukes and go straight to oil. Here is how it would go if the US attacked Iran in any way:

The US attacks Iran from the air and possibly the sea. If nukes are used the UN would quickly condemn the attack and possibly lower the US's role in the UN significantly if not kicking it out. Iran would then immediatly stop all exports of oil and seek launching an attack on Israel.

All the oil nations in the Middle East would ally with Iran and group together for selfpreservation and they would all stop sending oil to the US and anyone allied with them. This would hinder any alliances with the US and chances are no one would. At this time China would make a move to befriend the Middle East and gain much power. Russia would side with the side that would give it the most influence. The EU would likely sit this one out until someone did something against it.

The US would likely find itself alone if it made the first move. Any other world war would be started over oil and would result in a more equally allied war against the Middle East/UAE/oil nations vs. all the consumer nations of US/EU/Russia while China went with the winning side this time.

wat i dont get is y every one is saying tht the war will involve america i mean the last time there was a world war they turned up 3 years late and there was a similar story with WWI and the only reason they joined WWII was because of the japenese attacking them strange how the japenese were the cause of the turning point of WWII even though they were our enemy at the time
anyway... enough of saying stuff u already know... the war is most likly to b fought over clean water from wat i hear it is in short supply coz most of the water is salt water and there is an ever growing population so unless somethings done soon better get the chalenger IIs on standby


Ack! My brain, you're killing it! STOP!

as wars tend to lead into each other
britains war with everyone and the founding of the empire leads to germany getting pissed off and jealous so starts WWI
Hitler gets pissed off about the treaty of versaille from end of WWI so starts WWII
end of WWII leaves russians without a nuke making them pissed off against the americans starting the cold war
then for some reason the cold war ends and the world chooses to go to war with Iraq as thts fun creating the Gulf war
then we all fail to kill Sadam Which leads to the second Gulf war about the same time as the war on terroism beggins
my point is tht watever WWIII is about will probaly cause WWIV which will probaly cause WWV which will cause will probaly cause WWVI and so on and so on bla bla bla we all die

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian State
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and The Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
São Tomé and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vatican City (Holy See)
Venezuela
Vietnam
Western Sahara
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe

vs.

France


...everyone will finally have had enough of Parisians' assholedness toward foreign tourists...

Population pressure.

It's kind of already happening. You know who many of the sucide bombers/jihadis in the Middle East are?

Disaffected young men with no future. The oil-bearing muslim states have had a massive boom in population because there was the introduction of modern medicine and tradtional, large family mores were kept. Because of this, the young women being taken by older men first, and the use of foriegn labor (skilled western and poor third world), there has been little reason for these young men to want to, or have an opprotunity do anything. So what is the best option? Religous martyrdom.

Imagine, if the Chinese government decides the best way to relive pressure in their society is a short war, aimed at taking Taiwan or intimidating SE Asia. That's the kind of threat.

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian State
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and The Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
São Tomé and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vatican City (Holy See)
Venezuela
Vietnam
Western Sahara
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe

vs.

France


...everyone will finally have had enough of Parisians' assholedness toward foreign tourists...

Rofl.

Longer quotes please. And even longer quotes of quotes.

In your opinion, if there is another "World War," what would it be fought over?
What Parties will be involved?

Elvis Impersonators vs Hari Krishnas.

Just because.

The founding of the empire leads to germany getting pissed off and jealous so starts WWI

That's more wrong than Prince Charles in a black leather corset and nothing else.

World War one started because of massive tension starting from the late 1890s. The naval race and the various empires played a part, but it was more due to the previous conflicts between the various nations (the Thirty Year's War etc.) and also the rising worldwide tensions between the various empires after the various crises in and around the Med. before the war, with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as the catalyst.

And it was actually Austria vs. Serbia, then Russia said "feck orf, Austria" which made the Germans get involved, which made the French get involved, which led to the Italians getting involved (for about 10 minutes before they got bribed) and the Schlieffen Plan getting Belgium and hence Britain involved, and over the four years various other countries got involved too.

My view is that any war involving two or more nuclear powers will inevitably end in nuclear exchange.

The Cold War remained cold because neither superpower made the first strike with both the US and the USSR fighting each other by proxy either in wars they actually participated in as combatants(Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea) or by supporting the various factions in regional wars(South America, Africa).

Looking back on the history of warfare it seems obvious that if two nuclear powers did engage each other in a conventional war, the moment one of the belligerents began to lose ground, it would resort to nuclear weaponry, either against the other's territory or against the enemy's allies in the region.

Also, no nuclear power would be able to invade another without the consequences of nuclear retaliation.

My opinion.

I've long been of the opinion that the next set of wars will be the Resource Wars. Not just Oil (though that will be important) but a wide variety of "strategic" materials - Uranium, Titanium, Cobalt, Mineral Sands deposits, Molybdenum, others - all of these are necessary for modern technology and development, and none are particularly common. I believe the most common events will be one nation trying to take a resource-rich area by coup de main, then defending it while they rip as much of the resources out as they can. Second will be actually annexing the area by force to allow more systematic exploitation.
The real "world-war" aspect of it will come when one or more nations abrogates the Antarctic Treaty. Then it will be catch-as-catch-can for the resources of that continent. I'm expecting the biggest naval engagements since WWII.

The Vatican allied with everyone against France? Does Chad even have a military!!!

Anyway, I would say any war is the difference in opinions. Although, the opinion is the choice of who gets oil because I don't think anyone's going to make a good new universal fuel to replace oil for a while.

Other world war scenarios include religious differences in the middle-east. Different denominations of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism will probablly get into a big fight about something that isn't all that important. This may cause of a lot of riots about religion and race in some of the more culturally diverse countries and could escalate in rampant violence.

Don't make fun of me....

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian State
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and The Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
São Tomé and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Swedencharge
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vatican City (Holy See)
Venezuela
Vietnam
Western Sahara
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe

vs.

France


...everyone will finally have had enough of Parisians' assholedness toward foreign tourists...
Wrong! It would be....

Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada without Quebec
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian State
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and The Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
São Tomé and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Swedencharge
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vatican City (Holy See)
Vietnam
Western Sahara
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe

vs.

France
Quebec
Venezuela

Quebec would stand up for France because of heritage. Venezuela would not want to be on the same side as the US.

The next World War will be fought over food or water. The war will be fought between those who wish to control it, and everybody else.

What were the last two fought over?

World War I was because Queen Victoria's grandchildren fell out over the division of the globe.

World War II was fought because apparently germany felt it had been wrongly accused of starting a massive bloody global conflict, so it felt it should start another to prove its point.

World War III will start over trade imbalances in novelty goods.

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian State
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and The Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
São Tomé and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vatican City (Holy See)
Venezuela
Vietnam
Western Sahara
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe

vs.

France


...everyone will finally have had enough of Parisians' assholedness toward foreign tourists...
Heh heh alrighttt. But please Armenia and Azerbaijan working together?

Wrong! It would be....

Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada without Quebec
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian State
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and The Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
São Tomé and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Swedencharge
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vatican City (Holy See)
Vietnam
Western Sahara
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe

vs.

France
Quebec
Venezuela

Quebec would stand up for France because of heritage. Venezuela would not want to be on the same side as the US.

Grr...Damned seperatists. What about Switzerland and their damned neutrality? Would they break it just to destroy the francophones? :eek:

Pakistan vs. Israel. Territory matters.

Israel will nuke Pakistan, because no matter the issue, Israel is fighting for their right to exist. With all this crap lately, it's only a matter of time before Israel drops the bomb. (And if you think they don't have nukes, then you don't know much about the U.S. and how much interest we have in Israel)

Of course, people who sponsor each side will be thrown into the fold. The U.S. and some European countries will side with Israel, possibly Russia and Japan as well. Pakistan will gain the support of most of the Middle East, especially Iran.

What fun. I'm saying no one wins, and we repeat this war about 60 times.

I don't know what weapons WWIII will be fought with, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.

In your opinion, if there is another "World War," what would it be fought over?
What Parties will be involved?

"I don't know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with rocks and sticks." -Albert Einstein.

I always thought that was a dumb thing to say, it implies that the two sides would nuke each other's brains out, leaving tribal-level organisation for whoever survives. That would be ww3. post ww3 people would probably

a) not know that ww3 happened, making any "world war" ww1.

b) lack the organisation to actually have a more than 300 man war

China and Russia are likely already working the energy angle behind the scenes. They'll draw out the Iran situation for as long as possible, while making closed-door promises to Saudi Arabia and the rest of the middle east, Venezuela, and probably sub-Saharan Africa as well.

Once the energy situation's downhill trip starts to pick up speed, they'll essentially try to blackmail European and American interests out of the region, in order to ensure they retain full access to the resources, and can control the flow of those resources to the West.

So we have U.S./Europe vs Russia/China...

...a number of important nations still need to be factored in. The Arabs will be with the Russia/PRC, meaning Israel will side with U.S./EU. India is a fence sitter, but with Pakistan likely in China's corner, I don't see them siding with the U.S. as a likely scenario. Most likely they stay out of it altogether.

Brazil is an interesting situation. They could gain a lot of territory and influence in South America if they back the right side. If they back the wrong side, well...they may just decide to stay neutral after all.

Australia and New Zealand will likely go along with the EU for the most part, although if India sides with China/Russia, they may just stay out, if they can.

So, worst case for Western nations would be...

U.S./EU/Israel vs. China/Russia/India/Brazil/Arab Nations with Aus/NZ staying neutral.

Best case would be...

U.S./EU/Israel/India/Brazil/Auz&NZ vs China/Russia/Arab Nations

Most likely, it would be...

U.S./EU/Israel/Brazil/Auz&NZ vs China/Russia/Arab Nations with India sitting it out (possibly Brazil too)

That doesn't even factor in Japan and the Koreas...that whole region could split any which way.

Not a pretty picture, any way you look at it, but I'm pretty sure I'm wrong...at least I hope I am. :eek:

Water.


im gonna go water world on you...its gonna be fought over land after global warming reduces the land by 50%*



*Figures are made up

Water, food, natural raw materials (oil, uraniun, energy, ...) and territories.

In one side: USA, EU and Japan.

The other side: basicaly all the other countries.

China will wait and go to war when USA and Europe become weak.

Most likely, it would be...

U.S./EU/Israel/Brazil/Auz&NZ vs China/Russia/Arab Nations with India sitting it out (possibly Brazil too)


I doubt any muslim nation would side with China or Russia given their problems with muslim seperatist groups, i.e. Chechnya and Ningxia.

Wrong! It would be.... Snip
Quebec would stand up for France because of heritage. Venezuela would not want to be on the same side as the US.

or we could just swap Venezuela for France and Quebec. hehe

Water, food, natural raw materials (oil, uraniun, energy, ...) and territories.

In one side: USA, EU and Japan.

The other side: basicaly all the other countries.

China will wait and go to war when USA and Europe become weak.

doesn't japan have a long history of beating the snot out of china?

(honest question)

I definately think that the next WW will be a result of both oil and weapons of mass destruction. I can think of two scenarios.

China vs. US: Both need oil and China is rapidly becoming more and more capitalist in practice. Oil becomes more scarce, tree huggers refuse to open up Alaska and everyone needs oil. Tensions rise. China and US become more hostile and eventually go to war. Taiwan is invaded which spreads the conflict in the Orient. NK invades/is invited to SK and Japan begins to develop nukes. Territory in the Middle East is invaded by both sides. Europe and Russia are thrown into an uproar and India, Pakistan, Israel, and Iran take advantage of the situation.

Iran vs. US: Iran refuses to give up nuclear technology and US attacks. Israel aids. Arab countries attack both the US and Israel. US and coalition "colonize" Middle East. The rest of Europe and Russia are decide to liberate Middle East to free oil out of fear of coalition's "greed." China invades Taiwan and also tries to colonize some oil rich areas during the turmoil and NK is invited into/ invades SK; Japan develops nukes. India and Pakistan take advantage of situation.

There are a lot of "What if's" and "maybe's" in there but, the scenarios are still pretty realistic.

Grr...Damned seperatists. What about Switzerland and their damned neutrality? Would they break it just to destroy the francophones? :eek:
Yes. NO-ONE likes the French apart from the French.

Russia/U.S/others
Russia will "liberate" us from our latest monkey-balls president.:cool:

doesn't japan have a long history of beating the snot out of china?

(honest question)


Yes, I agree. But now China is much more powerfull she was any time in the past. China have nukes and a powerfull army and Japan no. It´s more "easy" for Japan fligth in other places like Africa, South America or Middle East.

If it happens soon, I imagine it would be a result of the worlds last superpower finally losing it's dominance over the world. I'm talkin about the US having to deal with being 'just another country' once peak oil arrives, globalisation fully folds out, and countries like China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil begin forcibly (yet peacefully) evening the distribution of economic influence over the world. Either the US will give up it's power nicely and start behaving like a real country "thats right uncle Sam, I want your badge and gun. And the other one! The world police is officially disbanded". Otherwise, it is possible they would rather go down in a flash of glory, desperately trying to preserve their position 'on the top' until somebody smacksthem one, or they collapse from over extending their now-mortal economy. At least we can be pretty sure they won't fire off all of the nukes, as unfired nukes will be all they have left. Time will tell...

Yes. NO-ONE likes the French apart from the French.

But the Swiss are French...sort of...a part of their country is!

doesn't japan have a long history of beating the snot out of china?

(honest question)
Each country performs a horrible war crime and/or genocide on the other every couple of hundred years. Koreans usually get killed/colonised by both nations out of frustration too. China has beaten the snot out of Japan many more times than Japan has done it back. Only Japan perpetrated the latest list of atrocities. I expect it will happen again, especially if the CCP manages to stay in charge of China.

ummmmmm.......................................water

Yes, I agree. But now China is much more powerfull she was any time in the past. China have nukes and a powerfull army and Japan no. It´s more "easy" for Japan fligth in other places like Africa, South America or Middle East.
It's generally accepted that Japan could build nuclear weapons if it is desired/warrented.

The only thing they lack is the political will.

It's generally accepted that Japan could build nuclear weapons if it is desired/warrented.

The only thing they lack is the political will.

Yes, Japan could. But no chance to win China. 10 nukes in China is nothing. 10 nukes in Japan will be the end of the country. Only USA or Russia can figth with China in the atual conditions. But Russia no need this war. She have all the resources she need. And for the USA other places are more easy to conquer. EU and Japan will go with USA.

Japan just needs to build one nuclear weapon, test it, and then it'll be all over.


Why?


Because Godzilla would come and destroy them all XD

WATER* especially where conflict is already probable

India vs Bangladesh/Pakistan
Russia vs China*
Isreal vs Palistine, lebenon, Syria etc
Egypt vs Sudan vs Chad vs Uganda* vs Kenya vs Somalia vs Somail land etc
Mexico vs US*
Civil wars in South America and sub saharan Africa
SADAC vs SA (possible)


*Not just access to but also quality with regards to polutions and strenth of water with regards dams and irrigation processes.

What were the last two fought over?

National pride, ecconomics, racism (eugenics) and and overseas empires