NationStates Jolt Archive


A Third World War

Garmidia
30-04-2009, 10:18
What situation do you think in the world could lead to a possible third world war?
SaintB
30-04-2009, 10:20
Ever major world power just generally being a prick.
Garmidia
30-04-2009, 10:21
Hold on, I hadn't posted the poll.
Dancing Dragons
30-04-2009, 10:29
What situation do you think in the world could lead to a possible third world war?""

Pakistan-India

Cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict
Hairless Kitten
30-04-2009, 10:33
USA is only listed 2 times. I want to choose from a longer list where USA is involved. USA-Canada would be a nice one.
Garmidia
30-04-2009, 10:35
The ones that the USA is listed on are the primary ones.
Tryzecklia
30-04-2009, 10:42
What about USA and China?

That would definately start a world war.
Garmidia
30-04-2009, 10:44
Ah crap, I was actually thinking of that one but left it out.

Edit: A first post, Tryzecklia?
Linker Niederrhein
30-04-2009, 10:49
Well, I consider the following a quite endearing scenario... Not a 'World War' so much as a 'World full of Wars', but it's close enough.

Following the economic collapse of the United States in 2012, and the rise of the indigenously-dominated, Neo-Aztec Empire ending the Mexican drug cartels and taking over the country (As well as everything down to Colombia, including Panama - China, lacking a navy, can't do shit), war between the two entities breaks out. The Neo-Aztecs conquer the south-west, and proceed to relocate the bible belt's WASP population to Teotihuacan, for the purpose of making Huitzupochtli a happy god. The rest of the United States splits into various sub-entities - Alaska seeks allegiance with Canada as the Inuit start the White Revolt, and massive snowball fights rage across the arctic.

In the near/ middle east, Israel and its Arab neighbors K.O. each other in a nuke fest of epic proportions after the Pakistani Taliban proliferated their nukes to their Saudi buddies. The resulting depopulation of Northern Africa and everything up to the Iraq/ Iran border causes Italy to expand, and form the Neo-Roman empire under the rule of Caesar Berlusconi (He realises too late that conquering brown people makes keeping them out of Italy a great deal more difficult than before).

Iraq avoids becoming an Italian subject by turning into the world's largest archeological dig, with Sumerian as its official language.

Upon electing a tory in '10, and hordes of tories demanding military spending being increased until Britain matches the US*, Britain collapses. Scotland and Wales become independent, England is occupied by the French. Out of spite, mostly.

Subsaharan Africa is conquered in a series of remarkably brutal wars instigated by Zimbabwe, starting after its defeat in the first round to World Cup '10. But since this doesn't actually change anything, nobody gives a fuck.

China attempts to expand its sphere of influence, but is ultimately corrupted by the spread of Japanese pornography (The world's most important industry by ~ 2014), and the need to spend ever-more money on milspec police formations to fight the tentacle monsters popping up in the Jangtse - it is realised too late that polluting that river really wasn't a good idea (Although Korean geneticists are rumoured to have had a hand in this, too). Coincidentally, this also leads to significant growth in its tourism sector, as thousands upon thousands of sexually frustrated females in their late thirties to late fifties start filling the beaches alongside the jangtse. Consequently, China, along with Japan, becomes one of the winner's of the 'Breakdown' period between '08 and '016, leading to the global 'Yellow Age'.

And throughout all this, Kim Jong Il sits in his palace in Pongyang, rubbing his hands and muttering "Just as planned."

* There are Brits who desire this, and believe it to be perfectly feasible if REAL MEN were leading their country...
Garmidia
30-04-2009, 10:51
Well, Linker Niederrhein, that is definitely a possibility.
Tryzecklia
30-04-2009, 10:54
Detailed, very enlightening.

And yes Garmidia, it was my first post.
Barringtonia
30-04-2009, 10:55
Well, Linker Niederrhein, that is definitely a possibility.

Well, except...

The resulting depopulation of Northern Africa and everything up to the Iraq/ Iran border causes Italy to expand, and form the Neo-Roman empire under the rule of Caesar Berlusconi (He realises too late that conquering brown people makes keeping them out of Italy a great deal more difficult than before).

Italy would possibly land on the Africa coast but then all their tanks would break down due to reversing from the beach into the sea, two Ethopian kids armed with a mango seed and coconut would then massacre the remaining 10, 000 strong Italian army.

England is occupied by the French. Out of spite, mostly.

France can only win with either a delusional female or someone not from France in charge so this remains tricky, their main hope is to attack at 4pm when all England is enjoying tea and scones.
Garmidia
30-04-2009, 10:58
I can see this happening. My god we should be contacting world leaders right now
Tryzecklia
30-04-2009, 11:02
I think china is going to expand it's territory. Russia might do something else.
Sol - III
30-04-2009, 11:03
Russia/Georgia was much too close for comfort to triggering a world war, but I don't think Russia is overall the most likely cause of the world war these days. The Middle East is the modern equivalent of the Balkan Powder Keg.

Also my first post with this account, before you ask.
Garmidia
30-04-2009, 11:05
Woo, two new first posts.

By Russia-Georgia I meant the Georgia joining NATO thing. Not the South Ossetia war that happened last year.
Tryzecklia
30-04-2009, 11:08
I agree with you that the Russia/Georgia conflict won't start a world war but I think that Russia is going to get more aggressive as the next 20 years progress.
Naturality
30-04-2009, 11:10
I think the middle east will be slap dab in the middle of it/or slap dab the cause of it... one way or the other.
Garmidia
30-04-2009, 11:10
If Georgia joins NATO, Russia said they would attack them. Hmm. I don't think they will. What do you guys think?
Tubbsalot
30-04-2009, 11:11
None of them.

Plenty could result in a war, but a world war? Not a chance. Russia-NATO is the only one which has the slimmest chance of a world war, and first it has to happen (and Russia isn't that stupid).
Garmidia
30-04-2009, 11:11
I think the middle east will be slap dab in the middle of it/or slap dab the cause of it... one way or the other.

The Israel Arab conflict has the potential to turn into a world war, or the Middle East in general.
Naturality
30-04-2009, 11:22
The Israel Arab conflict has the potential to turn into a world war, or the Middle East in general.


Was that a statement.


What I mean is.. one way or the other a country from the middle east will be involved in the next world war, or a cause.. when it all comes down to it.

Israel especially. They will most definitely be a cause or a major player .. and if they are involved.. then other middle east countries will have been involved by a conflict dealing with them. If by some strange reason not .. their ass will be soon enough. And comes the rest of the world. If they weren't already (point to U.S.).


I'd be shocked if World War 3 happened without a major influence of middle east .. Holy Land.
Linker Niederrhein
30-04-2009, 11:22
The Israel Arab conflict has the potential to turn into a world war, or the Middle East in general.I agree. If the first two were blamed on the Jews, we can sure as hell blame #3 on them, too.
Naturality
30-04-2009, 11:34
I agree. If the first two were blamed on the Jews, we can sure as hell blame #3 on them, too.

The reason I specify Israel is because of the political backing .. and the power of that backing (now). I'm not saying muslim countries can't cause shit. You see they don't like Israel or the US now.

I also think world scaled war is planned .. so meh. I trust none of ya. I'm moving.

Oh I must add .. Israel is always a major player in the end times. That one area over there.. where more battles have been fought that anywhere.. blood is suppose to reach the height of a horses bridle. Everyone is against Israel .. but Israel whoops us all. /Christian scripture

sigh
Sol - III
30-04-2009, 11:35
Woo, two new first posts.

By Russia-Georgia I meant the Georgia joining NATO thing. Not the South Ossetia war that happened last year.

I'd have to say the South Ossetia thing was more of a world war risk than NATO doing anything. The United States were seriously considering intervening, and that would have been major. NATO is generally unwilling to flex their muscle, and so I suspect they would just back out of the Georgia situation rather than get in a fight with Russia.

Either way, Georgia most certainly will not join NATO, as that would be a de facto declaration of war with Russia.
Sol - III
30-04-2009, 11:40
I agree with you that the Russia/Georgia conflict won't start a world war but I think that Russia is going to get more aggressive as the next 20 years progress.

No it won't. South Ossetia was justified. If they did anything purely in the goal of territorial expansion, they wouldn't be given an inch of leway, and they know it. It's unlikely to see anyone being as ridiculously stupid as Georgia was, and any situation in Eastern Europe would be quickly dealt with by the European Union and NATO.
Brutland and Norden
30-04-2009, 12:20
Anything with Chavez. He seems to be a great belligerent warmonger.
Mirkana
30-04-2009, 12:35
The US will almost certainly be involved. I could imagine the US not taking sides in, say, an India/Pakistan war, but that doesn't count as a world war.

The most likely scenario is a US war with either Russia or China. Georgia got a little too close for comfort, while Taiwan could be the trigger point for a US-China war.

There are two other possibilities that come to mind. One would be if radical Islam took over several Middle Eastern countries, upgrading the current War on Terror to World War Three. The other would be if relations between the US and the EU went down the toilet, leading to a trade war that got hot (Larry Bond's novel, Cauldron, gave an example of how this might happen - admittedly, with Britain, Poland, and the Czech Republic on the US side).

I don't see a massive Israeli/Arab war turning into World War III. Simply put, I don't see a superpower deciding to openly ally with the Arabs given Israel's track record of handing the Arabs their asses on a platter.
Dododecapod
30-04-2009, 12:44
None of the above. Resource Wars, starting about 2025, everybody vs everybody.
Sol - III
30-04-2009, 12:45
I don't see a massive Israeli/Arab war turning into World War III. Simply put, I don't see a superpower deciding to openly ally with the Arabs given Israel's track record of handing the Arabs their asses on a platter.

The Arabs didn't use to have nukes.
Sol - III
30-04-2009, 12:46
None of the above. Resource Wars, starting about 2025, everybody vs everybody.

Which one comes first? I say water, followed by the major oil crisis that would cause.
Mirkana
30-04-2009, 12:51
The Arabs didn't use to have nukes.

At the moment, they don't. Israel, America, and the EU are working to stop Iran's nuclear program. And even if they did get nukes, we'd be talking a handful of warheads against Israel's 500 or so (not to mention the Arrow ABM system).
Sol - III
30-04-2009, 12:54
At the moment, they don't. Israel, America, and the EU are working to stop Iran's nuclear program. And even if they did get nukes, we'd be talking a handful of warheads against Israel's 500 or so (not to mention the Arrow ABM system).

True, but I suspect Israel would be less willing to use them than Iran, especially if the Arabs were already losing. Also, Pakistan may well throw themselves into the fray.
Rambhutan
30-04-2009, 13:00
Humans versus cows.

They have successfully infiltrated every country and will now reveal their true nature.
Truly Blessed
30-04-2009, 13:00
I think China will roll over Taiwan should the need arise. It would happen so fast we likely could do very little. The consequences would also be so grave that we would be forced to accept the situation although complaining loudly in the press.

North Korea - This is somewhat of a mystery. I don't think the leader is all there upstairs. He scares me a little in that he could cause one by accident.

India - Pakistan these two countries not likely but if another power was to capture one or the other that could do the trick.

Russia - I think they would likely back down if push came to shove. I don't even know what the point would be anymore? Seems to be going well for both countries on the diplomatic front.


Arab - Israel by far is the one that will do it. Oil, Nuclear weapons, terrorist organizations, militant governments and political parties. The USA will also likely not start it either but will be dragged in when one of the two sides over reacts to something.
Mirkana
30-04-2009, 13:05
True, but I suspect Israel would be less willing to use them than Iran, especially if the Arabs were already losing. Also, Pakistan may well throw themselves into the fray.

The current Pakistani government would not get involved - they're a little far from Israel. Besides, Pakistan has like 30 warheads, which still doesn't approach Israel's total. Oh, and India might get involved.

Though that could turn into a world war, if China supported Pakistan.
Risottia
30-04-2009, 13:06
None of the options above will lead to a third world war.

Situations with the potential to lead to a major war (not a world war though) could be:

India vs Pakistan (as usual over the Kashmir, only this time they've got nukes)
India vs Pakistan II (if muslim extremists take control of Pakistan)
Turkey vs Russia for the control of Caucasian states (limited to conventional weapons)
China vs Russia either for the Russian Far East or for influence over Kazakhstan (unlikely, the Chinese know they would be destroyed, but potential for tactical nukes)
Iran vs Iraq+Pakistan (unlikely because Iran know they would lose)
Israel vs Iran (potential use of nukes by the Israelis, but very, very unlikely)
Colombia vs Venezuela (Colombia invading or supporting guerrilla to topple Chavez)
Bolivian civil war (with Colombia and US stepping in favour of the separatists, while Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela would support the unionists)
Argentina vs UK (Argentinians attempting at Falklands again, but incredibily unlikely)
Vietnam and Cambodia vs Myanmar (attempt at toppling the burmese regime, with China supporting it)
Lebanon II (with Syria invading to conquer and Israel attacking to destroy, potential intervention of Egypt and escalation to nuclear war)
Urghu
30-04-2009, 13:12
The current Pakistani government would not get involved - they're a little far from Israel. Besides, Pakistan has like 30 warheads, which still doesn't approach Israel's total. Oh, and India might get involved.

Though that could turn into a world war, if China supported Pakistan.

The problem is that Pakistan could blow Isreal to oblivion with 30 nukes if they wanted. Perhaps not the whole country but the major cities would be demolished.

Not that I think they will, but the difference with being hit by 30 or 100 nukes isn't that big in the end.
Brum Brum
30-04-2009, 13:12
~I think israel palestine followed russia usaand then us Noth korea.

All american or american military. Some idiots will find some religious excuse for war.
Mirkana
30-04-2009, 13:20
~I think israel palestine followed russia usaand then us Noth korea.

All american or american military. Some idiots will find some religious excuse for war.

Um, can you clarify that. I can't understand what you said, except for the last sentence.
Brum Brum
30-04-2009, 13:31
Israel and palestine could stir things.


Russia and usa could be a disasster if nato keeps expanding.

And Us - north korea could go to war and then china enter then russia and alll ntions enter.
Mirkana
30-04-2009, 13:34
Israel and palestine could stir things.


Russia and usa could be a disasster if nato keeps expanding.

And Us - north korea could go to war and then china enter then russia and alll ntions enter.

Last one is unlikely. If North Korea were to invade South Korea, China would probably arrange a coup within the NK military leadership and turn North Korea into a puppet state.
Arroza
30-04-2009, 14:24
1. U.S.A. vs. U.S.A.
Errinundera
30-04-2009, 14:35
Australia v Queensland.

But, seriously folks, the last two world wars come about because several nations went at it.
Lincoln Sydney
30-04-2009, 14:47
If Georgia joins NATO, Russia said they would attack them. Hmm. I don't think they will. What do you guys think?

Did Russia actually say this? Remember NATO is a military alliance, and when a member gets attacked the other members must go to war as if they were attacked. It would be dangerous for Russia to attack Georgia the NATO member.
Intangelon
30-04-2009, 16:52
One word: water.
Mussolioni
30-04-2009, 19:38
What about the collapse of Mexico?
Curious Inquiry
30-04-2009, 19:46
You left out of the poll the obvious: US v China
Mussolioni
30-04-2009, 19:50
You left out of the poll the obvious: US v China

I honestly do not see the U.S. and China going to war with each other, unless it's a sort of proxy way that involves North Korea. I don't think the U.S. would dare touch China militarily because China imports almost all of their weapons from Russia. Just imagine what hell that would cause.

This is the problem with NATO. It's slightly off-topic, but worth mentioning...If Bush had his way, and Georgia was admitted to NATO before that whole Russia-Georgia conflict last semester...And everything went forward as it did in reality. Since Russia attacked Georgia, the United States would have been obligated to attack Russia because of Article V of the NATO Charter. Russia is a nuclear nation. I don't think they would have been afraid to use them at that point.

This is what international organizations gets us. The United Nations has done no good. It takes them three days to condemn North Korea's missile launch, but I bet you it'll take them less than an hour to release a statement condemning Israel if they attack Iran in self-defense. The U.S. has gained nothing by being in NATO or the UN, therefore we should withdraw. That would make any debts to the latter organization null and void.
Chernobyl-Pripyat
30-04-2009, 19:51
What about the collapse of Mexico?

They're like Venezuela and [Republic of] Georgia; nobody would really care.


WWII will probably be over resources.
Chernobyl-Pripyat
30-04-2009, 19:53
Since Russia attacked Georgia, the United States would have been obligated to attack Russia because of Article V of the NATO Charter.

Georgia actually made the first move, so NATO isn't obligated to help them in that case.
Curious Inquiry
30-04-2009, 19:55
I honestly do not see the U.S. and China going to war with each other, unless it's a sort of proxy way that involves North Korea. I don't think the U.S. would dare touch China militarily because China imports almost all of their weapons from Russia. Just imagine what hell that would cause.

This is the problem with NATO. It's slightly off-topic, but worth mentioning...If Bush had his way, and Georgia was admitted to NATO before that whole Russia-Georgia conflict last semester...And everything went forward as it did in reality. Since Russia attacked Georgia, the United States would have been obligated to attack Russia because of Article V of the NATO Charter. Russia is a nuclear nation. I don't think they would have been afraid to use them at that point.

This is what international organizations gets us. The United Nations has done no good. It takes them three days to condemn North Korea's missile launch, but I bet you it'll take them less than an hour to release a statement condemning Israel if they attack Iran in self-defense. The U.S. has gained nothing by being in NATO or the UN, therefore we should withdraw. That would make any debts to the latter organization null and void.
You don't think the US would go to war to prevent complete economic takeover by the Chinese?
Mussolioni
30-04-2009, 20:03
You don't think the US would go to war to prevent complete economic takeover by the Chinese?

Oh, well, that's different. An economic takeover by the Chinese wouldn't come because of the efforts of the Chinese. It comes from the government's refusal to be economically self-sufficient. We're a nation of lazy couch potatoes. We've been running trade deficits for over 40 years. Our exports are a disgrace. If we get our trade deals in order I believe such a catastrophe would not occur.

And re: Nobody caring about the collapse of Mexico: Can you imagine what the massive immigration influx would do to racial relations in the U.S.? We're a trading partner with Mexico. If their economy collapses, the U.S. is going to have serious problems. And when the government collapses, who's going to step in? Is it going to be anarchy? The problems in Mexico are going to lead directly to anarchy or authoritarianism.
Andaluciae
30-04-2009, 20:06
I find such an event doubtful, with the exception of an accidental launch by one of the nuclear powers.
Lackadaisical2
30-04-2009, 20:26
None of the options above will lead to a third world war.

Situations with the potential to lead to a major war (not a world war though) could be:

India vs Pakistan (as usual over the Kashmir, only this time they've got nukes)
India vs Pakistan II (if muslim extremists take control of Pakistan)
Turkey vs Russia for the control of Caucasian states (limited to conventional weapons)
China vs Russia either for the Russian Far East or for influence over Kazakhstan (unlikely, the Chinese know they would be destroyed, but potential for tactical nukes)
Iran vs Iraq+Pakistan (unlikely because Iran know they would lose)
Israel vs Iran (potential use of nukes by the Israelis, but very, very unlikely)
Colombia vs Venezuela (Colombia invading or supporting guerrilla to topple Chavez)
Bolivian civil war (with Colombia and US stepping in favour of the separatists, while Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela would support the unionists)
Argentina vs UK (Argentinians attempting at Falklands again, but incredibily unlikely)
Vietnam and Cambodia vs Myanmar (attempt at toppling the burmese regime, with China supporting it)
Lebanon II (with Syria invading to conquer and Israel attacking to destroy, potential intervention of Egypt and escalation to nuclear war)

I especially agree with that none of the situations mentioned so far make sense or would result in a world war. However where do you get the Myanmar one, I don't see why Vietnam or Cambodia would gain from it, and what about Thailand?

you know, especially with laos and Thailand in the way of those two doing anything to Burma:

http://mabryonline.org/blogs/howard/archives/map_southeast_asia.jpg

EDIT: thats not to say that region is stable, just that particular match-up doesn't make much sense, I could see Burma v. Thailand with China and US backing respectively, although I don't know if India would come into play at all, I don't know much about india-burma relations.
Indri
01-05-2009, 00:24
Wars between and within third-world countries are common.
Dododecapod
01-05-2009, 01:05
Which one comes first? I say water, followed by the major oil crisis that would cause.

Water's the big one, but arable land is also a possibility. Everything else cascades from the interruption of trade in vital goods.
Garmidia
01-05-2009, 09:25
Water definitely.
Delator
01-05-2009, 10:05
As soon as China can work out a successful ballistic missile defense, they will invade Russia...

...don't hold your breath.
Dragontide
01-05-2009, 12:47
WWIII has already started. It began in Sept. 2000 when Ariel Sharon (along with 1000 armed guards) disrupted muslim church services which was immediately followed by several years of violence that looks to have no end in sight.
Risottia
01-05-2009, 12:48
Since Russia attacked Georgia, the United States would have been obligated to attack Russia because of Article V of the NATO Charter.

No.

That would be true only if all the following were true:
Georgia were the attacked side (and not the attacker)
Georgia and USA were parties to the Western European Union (see art.5 of the WEU)

Art.5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does NOT force any party thereof to intervene militarily, even if a fellow party is attacked. It merely states that help should be given by every party, according to what every single party decids. In the case of Georgia being attacked by Russia, the US could just choose to send some humanitarian aid, or to help with evacuation of civilians, and they would be fulfilling their duties as NATO members.
Risottia
01-05-2009, 12:53
I especially agree with that none of the situations mentioned so far make sense or would result in a world war. However where do you get the Myanmar one, I don't see why Vietnam or Cambodia would gain from it, and what about Thailand?

you know, especially with laos and Thailand in the way of those two doing anything to Burma:


Ever heard of military units traveling by sea? Like, dunno, in Normandy? Or at Hastings?

Anyway, Vietnam still has some grudges with China (since the Chinese even attacked them, and since the Vietnamese put a stop to the China-backed Khmer Rouge). Maybe Vietnam this time would be interested in forming a sort of Indochinese bloc, opposing to Chinese hegemony over the area. I agree that this would be very unlikely, anyway no one in the world, short of China and its client states (Zimbabwe, Sudan, South Africa to some point) would disapprove the Burmese regime being ousted for good.
Thailand is too much unstable to do anything right now, they continue to riot against whatever cabinet they have.
Risottia
01-05-2009, 12:57
thats not to say that region is stable, just that particular match-up doesn't make much sense, I could see Burma v. Thailand with China and US backing respectively, although I don't know if India would come into play at all, I don't know much about india-burma relations.

The US cannot afford to go against China directly, the Chinese hold too much of the US debt and are too vital to the US economy.

India would be likely supporting a coup in Myanmar, as the burmese regime is aligned with China. I don't think that they would intervene directly, though, to avoid troubles with Indonesia and Pakistan.