Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

WW3

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: WW3
    Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 23:53
Technically, all of them (Portugal, Spain, France and Italy, some had Romania, but I'm doubtfull).

By the way some possible scenarios for WWIII:
USA and most of Nato and its allies against the Muslim world. The two adversaries end up completely destryed and the Chinese rule.
USA vs China... Scary
China and some of its allies against the muslim world. Quiet cool to thinkabout a WWIII without Europe or the USA (at least for most of the war). It ends with a major western victory as its two main oponent have destroyed each other.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 04:01
The US and Nato against the Muslim World and we are both destroyed? How do you figure Nato and US go down?
Back to Top
Jay. View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1207
  Quote Jay. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 14:59
Nostradamus predicted that the WWIII will be in 2012. A nuclear war. I've also read somewhere that 80% of the world's population will be wiped out at the end of the war, but I seriously doubt it.
Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava
Only Unity Can Save the Serb
Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 13:49

Doubt we will have one, regional wars seem more likely.

Back to Top
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230
  Quote Adalwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2006 at 16:22
Originally posted by Maharbbal

Technically, all of them (Portugal, Spain, France and Italy, some had Romania, but I'm doubtfull).

By the way some possible scenarios for WWIII:
USA and most of Nato and its allies against the Muslim world. The two adversaries end up completely destryed and the Chinese rule.
USA vs China... Scary
China and some of its allies against the muslim world. Quiet cool to thinkabout a WWIII without Europe or the USA (at least for most of the war). It ends with a major western victory as its two main oponent have destroyed each other.


World War 3, in my opinion, will be the U.S. vs China. The huge manpower the Chinese can draw on will force the U.S. to resort to nukes to take out China, but probably only as a last resort: like if the Chinese managed to invade the U.S, which I don't think will be possible for years.
Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 13:37
But how can the Chinese get their men to America? Not only that but the Chinese and American economies are so entwined a war would cause economic disaster. Instead proxies of China are a more likely opponent. Not only that but the war would probably be fought on some foreign ground as neither America or China have the military capabilities for full scale invasions.
Back to Top
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230
  Quote Adalwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 14:33
Originally posted by Dampier

But how can the Chinese get their men to America? Not only that but the Chinese and American economies are so entwined a war would cause economic disaster. Instead proxies of China are a more likely opponent. Not only that but the war would probably be fought on some foreign ground as neither America or China have the military capabilities for full scale invasions.


I don't believe the Chinese have the capability of landing troops on American soil at the present, however, they may in the half century.

While the American and Chinese economies are relatively dependant on one another, eventually China will want to flex its muscles and assert its dominance, which will bring it into conflict with the U.S., as the U.S. is the dominant power at the moment.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 13:35
Originally posted by Adalwolf

Originally posted by Dampier

But how can the Chinese get their men to America? Not only that but the Chinese and American economies are so entwined a war would cause economic disaster. Instead proxies of China are a more likely opponent. Not only that but the war would probably be fought on some foreign ground as neither America or China have the military capabilities for full scale invasions.


I don't believe the Chinese have the capability of landing troops on American soil at the present, however, they may in the half century.

While the American and Chinese economies are relatively dependant on one another, eventually China will want to flex its muscles and assert its dominance,
Why would China want to do that? On the whole the Chinese are a fairly sensible bunch nowadays.  There are no barbarians any more (apart from in pop music Smile)
 
which will bring it into conflict with the U.S., as the U.S. is the dominant power at the moment.
 
The US isn't dominant at the moment. Have you looked at Iraq or Afghanistan lately?
Back to Top
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230
  Quote Adalwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 14:16
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Adalwolf


which will bring it into conflict with the U.S., as the U.S. is the dominant power at the moment.

"The US isn't dominant at the moment. Have you looked at Iraq or Afghanistan lately?"






The U.S. IS the dominant economic and military power at the moment. No other nation can compete with the U.S. military or economy. No other nation can defeat the U.S. in a conventional war.

That brings us to Iraq and Afghanistan. Ousting the Taleban and toppling Saddam were both short and successful operations-though much of Taleban escaped and are now trying to take bake Afghanistan.

The battles in Iraq and Afghanistan are not conventional wars. The 'insurgents', if that is how you want to classify them, do not fight regularly because they would quickly be destroyed by the U.S. military. So, they set bombs, murder, and shoot and fade back into the civilian populace. These tactics do not occur in conventional war, which is why the U.S. is having problems.





Edited by Adalwolf - 11-Sep-2006 at 14:21
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 04:26
It would be a religious war basically Muslims against everybody. I mean the Jews, the Christians, the Indians.

The theatre of war would be central, south asia & the middle east. 
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 04:27

God knows the outcome. (The winning God or Gods)


Edited by Vivek Sharma - 12-Sep-2006 at 04:28
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 05:19
 
Originally posted by Adalwolf

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Adalwolf


which will bring it into conflict with the U.S., as the U.S. is the dominant power at the moment.

"The US isn't dominant at the moment. Have you looked at Iraq or Afghanistan lately?"


The U.S. IS the dominant economic and military power at the moment. No other nation can compete with the U.S. military or economy. No other nation can defeat the U.S. in a conventional war.
What good is that? And how are you going to pay for it if other countries stop letting you have the money to do so?


That brings us to Iraq and Afghanistan. Ousting the Taleban and toppling Saddam were both short and successful operations-though much of Taleban escaped and are now trying to take bake Afghanistan.
To oust the Taleban you only had to lend support to the Northern Alliance which was already fighting them. That gave them most of the country. But not all of it, so it's not over yet. And if toppling Saddam was a short and successfulm operation, how come you still have all those soldiers there, with the dead and injured count at nearly 3,000 and over 60,000 and still rising?
 
I guess you think the operation in Vietnam was short and successful too?
 
I'll give you Panama and Grenada. After all the US only has 100 times as many people as Panama and thirty thousand times as many people as Grenada.


The battles in Iraq and Afghanistan are not conventional wars. The 'insurgents', if that is how you want to classify them, do not fight regularly because they would quickly be destroyed by the U.S. military. So, they set bombs, murder, and shoot and fade back into the civilian populace. These tactics do not occur in conventional war, which is why the U.S. is having problems.
 
The US is having problems because it is not as powerful as it thought it was because it has essentially wasted the money it borrowed on mostly useless weaponry.
 
You cannot seriously say (a) that you are the dominant military power and (b) that the enemy is too clever for you.
 
'Dominant' means you win. Not that you spend more money on your forces than anyone else.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 12-Sep-2006 at 05:23
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 05:26
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

It would be a religious war basically Muslims against everybody. I mean the Jews, the Christians, the Indians.

The theatre of war would be central, south asia & the middle east. 
 
Muslims against everybody in a world war is a walkover for the everybody.
 
However I also can't see Muslims burying their internal quarrels enough to start one.
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 05:46
How can you say it would be a walkover.
Muslims are the fiercest fighters in the world as seen in history. They can unite under islam & can very much destroy any enemy in the world.

You need to remember that Pakistan the leader of Muslims now has nuclear bombs made from the best technologies all over the world & Chinese logistical & other support.


Edited by Vivek Sharma - 12-Sep-2006 at 05:50
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Gundamor View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568
  Quote Gundamor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 15:36
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


How can you say it would be a walkover.Muslims are the fiercest fighters in the world as seen in history. They can unite under islam & can very much destroy any enemy in the world.You need to remember that Pakistan the leader of Muslims now has nuclear bombs made from the best technologies all over the world & Chinese logistical & other support.


In a war without limits the west would anhilate anything in that Scenario. The thousands of muslims that surrendered to us in the Gulf War were not that fierce nor do I call them cowards. But its unfair to use that kind of blanket statement of fiercest warriors. For any people or nation really. China would be on the wests side. It would probably allow them to scoop up Indonesia and other areas for doing their part in this hypothetical fight against Islam. They would want a piece of the pie and would want to be on the winning side. Though I doubt Islam will ever unite in that fashion. I dont see how pakistan would figure into any leadership role. They have their own internal problems to deal with as it is and would not want to sustain a war like that which it knows would risks its existance. I'm sure Indias mouth would water if this scenerio ever came about as well.
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
Back to Top
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230
  Quote Adalwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 15:56
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by Adalwolf

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Adalwolf


which will bring it into conflict with the U.S., as the U.S. is the dominant power at the moment.

"The US isn't dominant at the moment. Have you looked at Iraq or Afghanistan lately?"


The U.S. IS the dominant economic and military power at the moment. No other nation can compete with the U.S. military or economy. No other nation can defeat the U.S. in a conventional war.
What good is that? And how are you going to pay for it if other countries stop letting you have the money to do so?


That brings us to Iraq and Afghanistan. Ousting the Taleban and toppling Saddam were both short and successful operations-though much of Taleban escaped and are now trying to take bake Afghanistan.
To oust the Taleban you only had to lend support to the Northern Alliance which was already fighting them. That gave them most of the country. But not all of it, so it's not over yet. And if toppling Saddam was a short and successfulm operation, how come you still have all those soldiers there, with the dead and injured count at nearly 3,000 and over 60,000 and still rising?
 
I guess you think the operation in Vietnam was short and successful too?
 
I'll give you Panama and Grenada. After all the US only has 100 times as many people as Panama and thirty thousand times as many people as Grenada.


The battles in Iraq and Afghanistan are not conventional wars. The 'insurgents', if that is how you want to classify them, do not fight regularly because they would quickly be destroyed by the U.S. military. So, they set bombs, murder, and shoot and fade back into the civilian populace. These tactics do not occur in conventional war, which is why the U.S. is having problems.
 
The US is having problems because it is not as powerful as it thought it was because it has essentially wasted the money it borrowed on mostly useless weaponry.
 
You cannot seriously say (a) that you are the dominant military power and (b) that the enemy is too clever for you.
 
'Dominant' means you win. Not that you spend more money on your forces than anyone else.
 


I'm not saying they are too clever. I'm saying that we are not fighting the war correctly. We are not going on the offensive enough. The enemy needs to be pressed constantly and without remorse. Our tactic should be similar to that of General Grant in the Civil War: attack constantly wherever the enemy is. Grind the enemy down to nothing, beyond all hope of resistance.
Back to Top
OSMANLI View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2004
Location: North Cyprus
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 740
  Quote OSMANLI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 05:03
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

You need to remember that Pakistan the leader of Muslims
 
How did you figure that out?
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 05:27
I'm stunned at the number of people who think Islam is a country with borders and governments.

Seriously! Its a religion, a philosophy, an idea! Not a system of government and not a place.

Wacko
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 08:10
What you think might be the eason behind this ?
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 08:41
don't know with what ww3 is going to be fought with all I know is ww4 is going to be fought by sticks and stones (or some thing like this albert einstein)
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.