Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

results of WWIII?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> results of WWIII? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
results of WWIII? - 7/30/2017 11:53:14 AM   
Mind

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 7/13/2017
Status: offline 		in your opinion who would win the war USA + NATO allies + Japan & other allies Vs Russia + China + Iran & some their allies. I mean without using of nuclear weapon?
Post #: 1
RE: results of WWIII? - 7/30/2017 12:29:05 PM   
zakblood


Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline 		nobody,

as in nobody wins wars, only people lose

power is only in the eyes of a few death-pots as victory only seems a few hours or battles away, but it never comes, only more misery to the masses on either or all sides.

while history is written by the victors, in the end almost all knowledge is lost as we don't learn by our or others mistakes and keep on making them

(in reply to Mind)
Post #: 2
RE: results of WWIII? - 7/30/2017 1:01:06 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline 		^ This a million times over.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick.

(in reply to zakblood)
Post #: 3
RE: results of WWIII? - 7/30/2017 1:10:31 PM   
Yogi the Great


Posts: 1948
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mind

I mean without using of nuclear weapon?



Would the side that's losing actually be willing or able to not use the weapons? If the winning side is just fighting to not lose and willing to accept the end just being the stopping of hostilities perhaps. However if the winning side is actually after world domination and/or control of important resources the side that is losing has a much harder choice. Unfortunately some winning or losing may choose to use them if they feel it will save them or give them the advantage. Or as has happened in the past, if the use of the weapon ends the war and saves the number of lives that would be lost otherwise, is it a good choice?

Food for thought, many questions, hard to predict good answers.

(in reply to Mind)
Post #: 4
RE: results of WWIII? - 7/30/2017 1:30:10 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mind

in your opinion who would win the war USA + NATO allies + Japan & other allies Vs Russia + China + Iran & some their allies. I mean without using of nuclear weapon?



The one that has the political/national will to endure casualties that would make what Russia lost in WW2 look small. And can go on no matter how long it takes.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Mind)
Post #: 5
RE: results of WWIII? - 7/30/2017 2:06:33 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 2082
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline 		Playing or studying war games is fine, but going to war world three isn't. Imagine how many lives would be lost compare to World War 2?

Not a good idea talk about that subject in here.

_____________________________


(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 6
RE: results of WWIII? - 7/30/2017 2:41:53 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mind

in your opinion who would win the war USA + NATO allies + Japan & other allies Vs Russia + China + Iran & some their allies. I mean without using of nuclear weapon?

warspite1

Who starts it? and why? Who are the leaders of the various powers at the time and what are their goals? How stable are they? What is the initial goal of the starting power/bloc - and is it really not something that can't be negotiated away? Why does it develop into a 'World War' given what the consequences are likely to be?

World War III is just impossible to contemplate. For a war to be so serious that all major powers are involved - and yet not so serious that nuclear weapons won't get used - seems so unlikely. The biggest danger to the world is some rogue element, with nothing to lose, doing something really stupid. But if that happens, why is everyone going to start shooting at everyone else?


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Mind)
Post #: 7
RE: results of WWIII? - 7/30/2017 7:28:02 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline 		And when all the world is overcharged with Inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is Warre, which provideth for every man, by Victory or Death.
Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

Best wishes,
Steve

_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 8
RE: results of WWIII? - 7/30/2017 9:12:12 PM   
U47


Posts: 32
Joined: 3/2/2016
Status: offline 		Timber companies and stone quarry owners

(in reply to shunwick)
Post #: 9
RE: results of WWIII? - 7/30/2017 11:18:36 PM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1520
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline 		I was thinking cockroaches and rats.

_____________________________

Windows 7 home premium 64
Intel quad core I7
16 gig
AMD R9 200 series

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!

(in reply to U47)
Post #: 10
RE: results of WWIII? - 7/31/2017 6:43:28 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline 		Wording the question the way you did brought the philosophers out. Lets say its a game with cardboard counters or pixels.

I think Russia and China would hold most of their Asian mainland land mass, and there is nothing much anyone could do about that.

China and Russia, plus North Korea could probably take out South Korea. Maybe China could take Vietnam just by brute numbers. I highly doubt China could take Taiwan with conventional means even without the US interfering. China would not even try India. Russia could probably take the Baltic states, push into Ukraine, NE Poland, northern Scandinavia. The rest of the world belongs to the "Allies" including all sea areas and Earth orbit.

It would be a disaster for the Russia/China alliance. I'm not sure what their realistic goals could possibly be? Why would they do this? I'm sure they can imagine the end result which would put them much worse off. The above assumes there is not a pacifistic minded US President. If the US were to sit it out somehow, then it would become interesting.

The west just has too many tools combined with experience from the war on terror. Technologically the only way China and Russia can even fake it, is by spying and stealing tech. China would be better off just waiting...keep its economy improving, take small steps as it seems to be doing, and wait for opportunities. One scenario the US could implode politically (civil war, revolution), and that would be a huge opportunity.



_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> results of WWIII? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.750