How does WWIII go down?

[Dian Jie]

Just curious. Tell us you hypothetical WWIII scenario. Here is mine.

China attacks Taiwan. Taiwan screams for America to uphold the Taiwan Relations Act and come to it's defense. America however, having forces in Iraq and in other parts of the world is reluctant to come to Taiwan's aid and thus engaging China directly. In doing so, every treaty America has is now worth poop. To 'help' America mobilizes it's forces based in Japan to give the appearance of support. Seeing America hesitate on the China-Taiwan issue, North Korea feels this is the best time to take it to the South. American forces take a hammering here, national outcry, forcing retaliation. Japan, wary of North Korea, quickly militarize as does Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam now with the feeling that China is expansionist.

With American forces recalled from Iraq to tackle the Asian theater, Iran sees this as prime time to 1. Bring Iraq under it's control and 2. Take pot shots at Israel. Naturally, Israel take it to the Iranians in full force which then gets labeled an attack on Islam and boom all the Arab nations get involved.

With so many Muslims living in Europe, the European governments are again reluctant to get involved in a middle eastern war...at least openly. For fear of being labeled anti-semitic, European weapons flow into Israel, fulling and prolonging the war. Of course this gets found out by Islamic militants and wave after wave of retaliatory bomb attacks in Europe force Europe to either pull out or get in fully. They get in fully, but not on Israels side as the benefits outweigh the costs. European weapons go to Arab countries to wage war on Israel.

This creates an uproar in America and the frayed ties (from Iraq, and the lack of enforcing the treaty with Taiwan (and lack of trust from that) between Europe and America is final. With no end in sight America recalls all forces home, leaving Japan to fend for itself against a vengeful Chinese military and a North Korean military.

That's all I've go so far. But a teaser of how a little conflict could easily barrel out of control.

[Barotix]

Damn it couldn't you had put America into the fray, I want to fight on the battlefield. Pew, Pew.

The greatest honor a man can have is to die for what he believes in.

[AXII]

Results about ur world scenario:





















SO DONT WAR MAKE LOVE

[Breed]

China.


Period.

[Key-J]

Just curious. Tell us you hypothetical WWIII scenario. Here is mine.

China attacks Taiwan. Taiwan screams for America to uphold the Taiwan Relations Act and come to it's defense. America however, having forces in Iraq and in other parts of the world is reluctant to come to Taiwan's aid and thus engaging China directly. .../Snip/...

Does anyone else see the flaw in this thinking?

[Dian Jie]

Just curious. Tell us you hypothetical WWIII scenario. Here is mine.

China attacks Taiwan. Taiwan screams for America to uphold the Taiwan Relations Act and come to it's defense. America however, having forces in Iraq and in other parts of the world is reluctant to come to Taiwan's aid and thus engaging China directly. .../Snip/...

Does anyone else see the flaw in this thinking?

Well don't leave me hanging , if it did happen would USA come to Taiwan's aid? (The whole thing is a big if anyway) Or what do you think they would do? Only hypothetical thoughts here

[Key-J]

No bro,

I mean. You say they have depleted forces, but instead of Aiding Taiwan, they stage a full on attack.

[Dian Jie]

The States full on attack China? Hmmm, interesting. Fk, that would be epic ^^.

[Key-J]

I still don't think you get my point....

[Dian Jie]

[Xyzzzy]

He's saying that if you don't have enough forces to protect Taiwan, why in hell would we have enough to launch a full scale attack on China? (China is bigger btw ;])

Its like this:
You have $5. (U.S. Millitary)
You want to buy the $10 movie. (protecting Taiwan)
You don't have enough money though, so instead:
You go buy the $2000 entertainment center. (attacking China)

Make sense now?

[Key-J]

He's saying that if you don't have enough forces to protect Taiwan, why in hell would we have enough to launch a full scale attack on China? (China is bigger btw ;])

Its like this:
You have $5. (U.S. Millitary)
You want to buy the $10 movie. (protecting Taiwan)
You don't have enough money though, so instead:
You go buy the $2000 entertainment center. (attacking China)

Make sense now?

WOOT!

[Xyzzzy]

I don't think this thread is going to go anywhere now that after 12 posts, we've only managed to pick apart one sentence. People are going to read the first post, maybe two posts down, and then say screw it.

lol

[Dian Jie]

Holy shit I'm lost.

$5, protect taiwan $10. Too expensive so no way.
$5, attack china $2000. yes? -.-

[Xyzzzy]

Holy shit I'm lost.

$5, protect taiwan $10. Too expensive so no way.
$5, attack china $2000. yes? -.-

Lol no, that was the point of that.

Read my first post in this thread a couple more times. If the whole money thing makes you wig out, stick to the first couple of lines.

[Dian Jie]

So, America does not come to Taiwan's aid. At all. Period.

[Xyzzzy]

Yeah, thats what you said. You said that was because our forces were already stretched. But in the same sentence even you went on to say that we launch a full scale attack on china.

That takes more forces than protecting Taiwan. Thats what the money thing was. If you don't have enough money to buy one thing, you don't hae enough to buy another thing that costs even more. >.>

[Key-J]

Ok let me give it a go.

You are saying that the US has a depleted Army due to the wars in the middle east.

You are saying that the US will not go to help and protect Taiwan due to the depleted forces.

However,

You are saying that the US will attack China head on. (Even though they have their depleted force)

Do you see the error of your Logic now?

[ShadowSpell]

He's saying that if you don't have enough forces to protect Taiwan, why in hell would we have enough to launch a full scale attack on China? (China is bigger btw ;])

Its like this:
You have $5. (U.S. Millitary)
You want to buy the $10 movie. (protecting Taiwan)
You don't have enough money though, so instead:
You go buy the $2000 entertainment center. (attacking China)

Make sense now?

WOOT!

so where does the U.N. play into this scenerio? and BTW just because the U.S has troops in Iraq doesnt mean that its military is depleated, only 5-7% of their troops are in Iraq

[Xyzzzy]

He's saying that if you don't have enough forces to protect Taiwan, why in hell would we have enough to launch a full scale attack on China? (China is bigger btw ;])

Its like this:
You have $5. (U.S. Millitary)
You want to buy the $10 movie. (protecting Taiwan)
You don't have enough money though, so instead:
You go buy the $2000 entertainment center. (attacking China)

Make sense now?

WOOT!

so where does the U.N. play into this scenerio? and BTW just because the U.S has troops in Iraq doesnt mean that its military is depleated, only 5-7% of their troops are in Iraq

/facepalm
Obviously we aren't looking at facts here we were just trying to point out the error of his logic.

[---Rev---]

Basicly WWIII will not be fought for any other reason than natural resources and would not contain a nuclear strike of anykind.

Simple logic tells us that a nuclear strike of anykind would be more or equaly as harmfull to yourself as it would to your enemy, yes while in the short term you would win the battle you would ultimatly loose the war. If you strike any power with a nuclear weapon you would be instantly shuned by the world and your country would starve and die, if not simply be wiped off the map in a retaliatory strike.

And while many people see WWIII revolving around China or possibly North Korea they are IMO looking at it the wrong way, the most aggresive nation in the world at this time and for the past few decades has been America they have used political reasons as smoke screens to initiate and enter wars that they had no business being in, and doing it in atempts to further their grip on resources and important political powers.

America is the nation most likley to initiate WWIII and will most likley do so over a natural resource that we havent seen the value of yet. However there are many people that believe the next WW will be fought over something as simple as water, this would be a sad and tragic thing simple because of what it means for the world in which we would be living in.

The UN is not a military power in the current political climate, without America it is not a threat to many of the world powers and it has no power over America who does not listen to its laws or fear its reprecusions as in the current climate the UN is more of a detrament to its members than it is a help. IMO the future of the UN is in question simply because its leading members are constantly fighting over who should be doing what and in what numbers, meaning that in the future the UN may not exist at all but most probably will still be there but drasticly changed from its current state.

[Key-J]

so where does the U.N. play into this scenerio? and BTW just because the U.S has troops in Iraq doesnt mean that its military is depleated, only 5-7% of their troops are in Iraq

/facepalm
Obviously we aren't looking at facts here we were just trying to point out the error of his logic.

Double woot!

Mee eee eee eee

Me, me and Mr., Mr. Xyzzy, Mr. Xyzzy, Mr. Xyzzy,

Mr. Xyzzy, we got a thing going on.....

[Xyzzzy]

Argh. I hate when people assume that the know something the world at large couldn't conceive. Especially on the internet. Unless you've been apart of every decision to go to war made by the U.S. Government, you have no room to say that what their real motives were.
Yes, you Rev

[---Rev---]

Dan your theory is flawed in more than the one point being raised:

While you say america is spread to thin to help Tiawan you state the engage Chine Directly which requires more troops than a supporting role does.

Secondly NK would not attack SK whether America was there or not, the SK military is in essence a miniture US Army using the same basic equipment as the Americans with the best support systems money can buy. The defensive line betwen NK and SK is also to strong for a spure of the moment attack of the size you suggest.

Also you say that Forces would be withdrawn from Iraq, this would not happen it would be illogical and immensly difficult to do, you certainly couldnt withdraw the full force. And Iran would not enter Iraq and Israil is more than capable of defending itself as we have seen many times before. The middle east is probably the least likley place for this type of thing to happen, while it is unstable that is mostly down to the effect the western nations have had there and would not explode to this degree at the pace required to fit in with your plan.

You also disregard Russia in this whole plan, Russia is still a military super power and has many political ties to china and middle eastern nations, I find it hard to believe that in all of this theory they arent mentioned, as in this scenario their position would be pivotal to the outcome of the many different conflicts.

[---Rev---]

Argh. I hate when people assume that the know something the world at large couldn't conceive. Especially on the internet. Unless you've been apart of every decision to go to war made by the U.S. Government, you have no room to say that what their real motives were.
Yes, you Rev

Well the only War that has had any reason to happen in recent times that America has been involved with was the first gulf war.

Vietnam has been admited by military and government oficals to be founded on lies, vietcong gun boats did not attack military vessels, this being the reason for Americas entrace into the conflict in Vietnam.

The current military situation in Afganistan and Iraq is also founded on lies, they have no actual evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 the reason for entering Afganistan, if you dont believe me go look at his FBI wanted poster 9/11 is not mentions and the FBI has even stated that there is not evidence linking him to that attack. Iraq is aslo ounded on lies, no WMDs have been found, and the evidence put forward was fabricated and highly exagerated.

Even going as far back as Pearl Harbour, the US military had prior knowledge of the attack but let it happen because it would give them a reason to enter the war and fix the economic crisis currently griping America. However they did send out their best ships before the attack leaving only the scrap to get destroyed

[Vindicator]

No doubt WWIII will include america, but since America has the most powerful army in the world, and our military budget alone accounts for nearly 50% of the global military budget...our natural allies will not be abandoning us anytime soon.

Europe, although they may dislike us, will not go against us. I also dont agree with the point that America will initiate it. We may provoke it, but we have an uncanny knack of making sure they start what we provoke. One of our favorite tactics is to deploy a super aircraft-carrier to "troubled regions" of the world, which can often calm tensions. Aircraft carriers such as the USS Esienhower and USSS Nimitz are litterally an entire nuclear war machine, capable of 25 years survival without refueling, and delivering an entire arsenal to fight a war single handedly. They are even used as body guards to the Olympic games such as when they were held in Seoul S. korea.

And with such weapon systems as active denial, WWIII might have no casualties. Nuclear weapons are meaningless when you can destroy an enemy and leave their entire economic and structural integrity in tact.

Argh. I hate when people assume that the know something the world at large couldn't conceive. Especially on the internet. Unless you've been apart of every decision to go to war made by the U.S. Government, you have no room to say that what their real motives were.
Yes, you Rev

Well the only War that has had any reason to happen in recent times that America has been involved with was the first gulf war.

Vietnam has been admited by military and government oficals to be founded on lies, vietcong gun boats did not attack military vessels, this being the reason for Americas entrace into the conflict in Vietnam.

The current military situation in Afganistan and Iraq is also founded on lies, they have no actual evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 the reason for entering Afganistan, if you dont believe me go look at his FBI wanted poster 9/11 is not mentions and the FBI has even stated that there is not evidence linking him to that attack. Iraq is aslo ounded on lies, no WMDs have been found, and the evidence put forward was fabricated and highly exagerated.

Even going as far back as Pearl Harbour, the US military had prior knowledge of the attack but let it happen because it would give them a reason to enter the war and fix the economic crisis currently griping America. However they did send out their best ships before the attack leaving only the scrap to get destroyed

DEATH TO CONSPIRACIES!!!

ffs, keep the conspiracies out of this topic...nothing is worse than raving lunatic cosnpirators.

[---Rev---]

No doubt WWIII will include america, but since America has the most powerful army in the world, and our military budget alone accounts for nearly 50% of the global military budget...our natural allies will not be abandoning us anytime soon.

Europe, although they may dislike us, will not go against us. I also dont agree with the point that America will initiate it. We may provoke it, but we have an uncanny knack of making sure they start what we provoke. One of our favorite tactics is to deploy a super aircraft-carrier to "troubled regions" of the world, which can often calm tensions. Aircraft carriers such as the USS Esienhower and USSS Nimitz are litterally an entire nuclear war machine, capable of 25 years survival without refueling, and delivering an entire arsenal to fight a war single handedly. They are even used as body guards to the Olympic games such as when they were held in Seoul S. korea.

And with such weapon systems as active denial, WWIII might have no casualties. Nuclear weapons are meaningless when you can destroy an enemy and leave their entire economic and structural integrity in tact.

Argh. I hate when people assume that the know something the world at large couldn't conceive. Especially on the internet. Unless you've been apart of every decision to go to war made by the U.S. Government, you have no room to say that what their real motives were.
Yes, you Rev

Well the only War that has had any reason to happen in recent times that America has been involved with was the first gulf war.

Vietnam has been admited by military and government oficals to be founded on lies, vietcong gun boats did not attack military vessels, this being the reason for Americas entrace into the conflict in Vietnam.

The current military situation in Afganistan and Iraq is also founded on lies, they have no actual evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 the reason for entering Afganistan, if you dont believe me go look at his FBI wanted poster 9/11 is not mentions and the FBI has even stated that there is not evidence linking him to that attack. Iraq is aslo ounded on lies, no WMDs have been found, and the evidence put forward was fabricated and highly exagerated.

Even going as far back as Pearl Harbour, the US military had prior knowledge of the attack but let it happen because it would give them a reason to enter the war and fix the economic crisis currently griping America. However they did send out their best ships before the attack leaving only the scrap to get destroyed

DEATH TO CONSPIRACIES!!!

ffs, keep the conspiracies out of this topic...nothing is worse than raving lunatic cosnpirators.

Everything in that topic is fact, the American government and Military has stated so, this makes it FACT not consipiracy

[Xyzzzy]

Give us a source then.

[deep.in]

.

Russia > America. You can say whatever you want now, but Russia is the stongest

[heroo]

'' I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. '' - Albert Einstein

or something like that


it was in Deacon's sig.