What Would World War III Look Like?

[Cotton]

Inspired by MJC's Second Civil War thread. How do y'all think World War III would go down?

Edit: For me, I guess the Third World War be fought with humans on one side, and flesh-eating zombie on the other. Man there will be lots of blood...

[Rachel Grey]

BC weapons. Piles of rotting corpses. World War IV being faught with sticks and rocks.

[Sanagi]

Everyone in Continent A drops dead from Scary Disease. Continent B's leaders say "Oh, did we forget to mention, World War III: It's on." Things get uglier from there.

[Noah Johnson]

Choices 2 and 3 are the same.

[Cotton]

Choices 2 and 3 are the same.

Well, nah, the way I meant it to be was that the second choice implies that we're still a Democracy, the third choice we've become Nazi Germany.

[tricksterpup]

What would WWIII look like???
Bright lights and hot flashes.

[StoneGold]

http://home.earthlink.net/~treadwell_jay/starwars/pix/dsnew.jpg


Yes, it would look like the Death Star blowing up.

[tricksterpup]

http://home.earthlink.net/~treadwell_jay/starwars/pix/dsnew.jpg


Yes, it would look like the Death Star blowing up.
Now that would be pretty.. it would be cool to have a seat on the moon and watch it blow.

[Cotton]

http://home.earthlink.net/~treadwell_jay/starwars/pix/dsnew.jpg


Yes, it would look like the Death Star blowing up.

I guess it wouldn't be THAT bad if the Earth blew up like the Death Star. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't even have seen it coming...

[StoneGold]

I guess it wouldn't be THAT bad if the Earth blew up like the Death Star. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't even have seen it coming...
You wouldn't have evacuated in your moment of triumph, that's for sure.

[Rachel Grey]

Well, nah, the way I meant it to be was that the second choice implies that we're still a Democracy, the third choice we've become Nazi Germany.

Like he said, 2 and 3 are the same. :p

[Noah Johnson]

Well, nah, the way I meant it to be was that the second choice implies that we're still a Democracy, the third choice we've become Nazi Germany.
When we cease being a democracy, we will still loudly trumpet our committment to being a democracy.

C'mon, you haven't noticed the American style of doing these things?

[dingo]

Given the nattering about democracy etc, this seems as good a place to ask this as any..

Why does the US supreme court say that spending money is a freedom of speech?

The reason I ask is that I saw a doco saying the US method of allowing political donations can not be changed because spending money is protected under the constitution with freedom of speech.

[Matt]

I'm guessing (middle) East vs West sort of deal.

Iran, Palestine, North Korea, China and a few others vs America, England, Australia and friends.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

WW3 looks like me marching on washington with a heavily armed urban Guerrilla force behind me. :evilsmile

[Noah Johnson]

Why does the US supreme court say that spending money is a freedom of speech?
It's a way of legally codifying the fact that rich people get more freedom than poor ones.

Wait, did you want the real reason or the bullshit reason?

[Wesley Dodds]

The money-speech decision really fucked-up America's public financing system, too.

[Drew Van T.]

It's a way of legally codifying the fact that rich people get more freedom than poor ones.

Hey, they earned it. They did all that backbreaking labor of...er...investing other people's money better, and stuff like that?

They busted their humps going to the private schools and expensive colleges that their parents picked out for them which...er...led them right into overpaid jobs high up the corporate ladder?

For all those accomplishments, they get to be more equal citizens than the rest o' youse! So shut up and take it.


The answer to the topical question is "short. Very short."

[dingo]

Thanks for the answer guys...thats what I thought

[Dennis K]

World War III will be wearing sensible shoes and a light blue sundress.

[Cotton]

Like he said, 2 and 3 are the same. :p

I've should've seen that coming...

[Iangould]

World War III will look a lot like CBR.

A bunch of guys at keyboards typing away.

I note that all the options proposed involve the US in a leading role.

Why not a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan or a war between China and Japan over their disputed sea boundary?

[gary bolt]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/images/disaster_nuclear.jpg

The whole planet will become a fixer-upper.

[darkkeeperjr]

World War III will look a lot like CBR.

A bunch of guys at keyboards typing away.

I note that all the options proposed involve the US in a leading role.

Why not a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan or a war between China and Japan over their disputed sea boundary?


Because the U.S. will get right in the middle of things.

Cause we police the world or we're part of the U.N. or the CIA is involved in it some way,shape or form.

[Cotton]

World War III will look a lot like CBR.

A bunch of guys at keyboards typing away.

I note that all the options proposed involve the US in a leading role.

Why not a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan or a war between China and Japan over their disputed sea boundary?

Because I thought the only way it would be a World War is if the war involved the major super power.

[Iangould]

Everyone thought World War I would be over by Christmas 1914.

HG Wells, a very smart man, sneered in the 1930's at the people who thought tanks meant a second world war wouldn't be a slow bloody trench-based affair like the first.

Winston Churchill boasted after Pearl Harbour about how Singapore was an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" that would deter any Japanese attack on south east Asia.

Nobody has any clear idea in advance how a war will turn out.

For all we know, we'll wake up tomorrow to find out Taiwanese hackers have just permanently crashed every computer in mainland China. Or there's been another military coup in Pakistan and the new government's first act has been to supply nukes to their muslim brothers in Iran to "defend themselves against American imperialism".

Furthermore, while a world war would almost have to involve America by definition, that doesn't mean America would necessarily be critically involved from the start. WWI started out as a spat between Austria and Serbia over Austrian troop deployment in Bosnia. WWII started as a fight between GErmany and Poland.

[Jabuka]

Were going to
A)be the first ones in there because of bush (im not even gonna ask how he won election probabely just stupid reasons which i cant mention)OR
B)snoop arre noses in the wrong place
anyway what it will look like it will look like crazy but then theres always that chance that the litterraly good apocalypse thing will come before then :)

[Bloopinator]

It'd be all messed up and it would have dead bodies everywhere and people crying and skys would be gray. There'd be KA-KA-KA and BAM BAM BAM! And BANG BANG BANG AND WHAAAAAAA AND MOMMY! "THE WORLD IS GONNA END" WHOOOOOOO, WHISTLES AND KABOOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!! ARRRGGGGEEEEEE, AHHHHHHHH, "I'M GONNA DIEEEEEE!!!", IT'S A BIRD IT'S A PLANE NO IT'S SUPERMAN!!!! "DAMN COMMIES!" COUGHING AND DYING AND "STELLLAAAAAAAA!!!!"

[BlairH]

A)be the first ones in there because of bush
It's all Bush's fault! So what if he only has a few years left, we know that WWIII will begin inside of those years, and heck, even if it doesn't it will STILL be his fault if/when it does roll around!

[Xetal]

There won't be a WWIII (it'd end in nukes all round.) But some president will find a way to bring the USA down from its sole superpower status, probably by making it stretch its forces so thin in multiple overseas conflicts it can't protect itself at home when Canada invades to stop the nonsense. :D

[cable guy]

World War III will look a lot like CBR.

A bunch of guys at keyboards typing away.

I note that all the options proposed involve the US in a leading role.

Why not a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan or a war between China and Japan over their disputed sea boundary?

In no way is it a given America would have a leading role, in starting World War 3.

Unfortunately, if things turned into a grand scale World War... I fear we would take center stage.

[estee]

I thought we were fighting World War 4, the War on Terror...the Third was the Cold War against the Soviet Union. That's what some White House guy said after 9/11.

As for the question at hand...we'd be grubbing for worms before we all died of radiation poisoning.

[BlairH]

To see a good representation of what WWIII would look like, check out the BBC, TV docu-drama "Threads".

Chilling stuff!

[Iangould]

To see a good representation of what WWIII would look like, check out the BBC, TV docu-drama "Threads".

Chilling stuff!

But 20-30 years out of date.

We don't know what WWIII will look like.

It might involve two nuclear powers using everything short of nuclear weapons and wiping out millions with thermobaric weapons and the like.

It might be a near-bloodless conflict fought almost exclusively with UAVs and battlefield robots.

It might be a full-scale nuclear exchange.

It might start with north Korea invading the south and end with China and the US re-enacting the Korean war on a much larger scale.

It might consist of a few dozen aerosols full of mutated bird flu being opened on international flights into the US.

[Bloopinator]

I think my description is the most accurate.

[Citizen V]

I set it forth that the United States,which is close to an Empire.Will declare war on the world,but the "war on terror" expanding idea seems more likely.Make note,the world wont stomach that useless conflict elseware.The world will crush the USA if it does anything else.

[BlairH]

I set it forth that the United States,which is close to an Empire.Will declare war on the world,but the "war on terror" expanding idea seems more likely.Make note,the world wont stomach that useless conflict elseware.The world will crush the USA if it does anything else.

So like, I guess my question should be "why?"
Why would the US even consider that?
Why would they plunge themselves into poverty by destroying trading partners?
Why would they risk probable military defeat?
Why would the US attempt to declare war on the world, given that it's -as you say- "useless"?

I "set it forth" that the scenario you described is rather fanciful and will never actually hapen. Ever.

[Cotton]

Everyone thought World War I would be over by Christmas 1914.

HG Wells, a very smart man, sneered in the 1930's at the people who thought tanks meant a second world war wouldn't be a slow bloody trench-based affair like the first.

Winston Churchill boasted after Pearl Harbour about how Singapore was an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" that would deter any Japanese attack on south east Asia.

Nobody has any clear idea in advance how a war will turn out.

For all we know, we'll wake up tomorrow to find out Taiwanese hackers have just permanently crashed every computer in mainland China. Or there's been another military coup in Pakistan and the new government's first act has been to supply nukes to their muslim brothers in Iran to "defend themselves against American imperialism".

Furthermore, while a world war would almost have to involve America by definition, that doesn't mean America would necessarily be critically involved from the start. WWI started out as a spat between Austria and Serbia over Austrian troop deployment in Bosnia. WWII started as a fight between GErmany and Poland.

Yeah, but that's why put other in as an option, I just posted limited choices because they were the most likely scenerios for a Third World War.

[Noah Johnson]

So like, I guess my question should be "why?"
Why would the US even consider that?
Why would they plunge themselves into poverty by destroying trading partners?
Why would they risk probable military defeat?
Why would the US attempt to declare war on the world, given that it's -as you say- "useless"?
Same reasons we've made the last batch of utterly predictable stupid mistakes. Ego, stupidity, and a childish belief in American exceptionalism.

Seriously, dude, this is the EXACT wrong historical moment to say that the U.S. government would never undertake policies known to be pointless and stupid.