World War 3!

World War III
Who?
WHat?
Where?
When?
How?
Why?

Discuss

>>1
already happened;
the cold war.

WW III will start if the united states of america along with brittain and other friends of the us invade Iran, they are half way there with the invasion of Iraq and showing no good result there....

North Corea.

>>3
With Iran attacked, China will be pissed and there, World War III.

Iran is only a trade partner with China, not an ally. They wouldn't  turn us into a melted mess over piddly shit like that. And yes, a war with another nuclear power will be un-survivable, probably for the entire world.

Don't forget about Japan

i'd say, form a world coalition this time and re-nuke pearl harbour.

>>7

HAHAHAHHA thats a good one .

>>1
Some fucktard will be killed for making fun of a chinese homeless man, and China will attack the first country they hear of. Which will be Canada. Canada will then attack China, missing and hitting Korea. Korea attacks Japan, Japan attacks Australia, Australia sits there going "wtf? we have no weapons lolz oh noes." Then the US, being bored, will attack mootxico, and also Britain, which will send multiple bombs to every country in the world. Except Africa, because then that's a waste of good nuclear weaponry.
Africa will then surprise the world, by pulling out the true Pandora's Box, which no one would expect because they're all greasy niggers, and they will then turn the earth into a nigger-topia, where crips rule the western continents, and the bloods rule the eastern. Constant barrages of biscuits will rain upon the earth for 20 years until they finally realize they're niggers, so they all go back to transmitting AIDS, thus destroying mankind.

japan is a weak military, korea always has better bigger military than japan at all times, and they do it because it's possible. following WW2 japan turned very peaceful.

japanese soldiers aren even considered soldiers! they're considered civillians working in DEFENSE AGENCIES, hahahaha.

that's some weak shit man, you should go read more about it, there much more about how weak they've become militarily.

>>11
oh following ww2 japan turned peaceful?  I guess they gave up their violent ways.  It couldn't be because of anything other reasons.

thanks to the us they become like that, South Korea need to be stronger, because they will be the first to fight when their northern brothers invade them. if they are as weak as the japs, the north korean gonna have fun fcking their asses.

>>11
japan can build a strong military very fast because they are strong economically.

they can build missles, machines, and weaponry fast, but it takes a long time to train competitant soldiers.

Other way around, mate. Training cannon-fodder takes a few weeks, although you'll need to set the whole thing up first.

No, building weapons takes time, no matter how good you are.

>>15
That's why they lead the world in video games, the government knew the only way to conquer the US is to train their troops secretly and then simply very quickly arm them.

Also the ephebophilia in Japan is due to the continuation of the fascist principles of population growth. If people have kids in their teens, they are more tied down to a work oriented form of life, also high populations are good for the economy, but make people poorer at the same time so there is more of an urge to go out and gain lebensraum (living room). Anime is a result of the fusion between Japanese and western culture. The reason why it works here is because they are monogenous aswell as multi-cultural. So instead of paranoid ethnic minorities being coerced into liberalism and going out and selling drugs to strangers instead of going to community college, every one is a conservative.

>>16
Cannon fodder, yes.  Competent soldiers, on the other hand, take years to train.

>>18
That's true. Regrettably, competent soldiers will be the first to die on the battlefield. Once you run out of them, as you quickly will in any protracted conflict, it's back to the cannon-fodder. :(

I don't think it's an accident that US soldiers don't compare favorably to other Western countries. The US army is still designed for big wars, and therefore tends to emphasize the skill of any one soldier less. Other Western armies aren't, so they emphasize the skill of individual soldiers more.

That's my theory anyway.

>>19 For evidence of this, see the Battles of Verdun and the Somme of ninety years ago, where the highly traned army of the German Reich was slaughtered in brutal battles of attrition.

>>19 The US army is still designed for big wars, and therefore tends to emphasize the skill of any one soldier less.

Oh, I dunno.  In how many other armies is an ordinary troopie trained to operate a radio?  In how many other armies is an ordinary troopie trained to call in artillery and air support?

Granted, the US Marines have somewhat higher standards of training all around than the US Army (their close support pilots are especially good).

It is one thing to compare training standards between, for example, US Army Infantry and the Royal Marines.  But when you say "other Western countries," that means we have to bring the French, the Belgians, and the Dutch into it too--who mostly do not have quite so good a reputation, militarily speaking.

I do not think, in any event, that it is so much that the US military is "designed for big wars" and no one else is.  The British for generations kept very well trained and equipped mechanized army in northern West Germany in anticipation of WWIII.  It is that the US military is an all-volunteer force, made up largely of people who do not plan to spend their entire lives there, and there are limits to how much training you can do in a two-year or four-year term of enlistment and still serve in a militarily useful capacity doing a militarily useful job somewhere.

>>21
I chose to differ somewhat. I don't believe the military or any other military for that matter is composed largely of people who will not call military their career. If any military were have a large ammount of recruits who were only in it for less than 6 years or so, then every military would lack a skilled and experienced NCO and officer corp. I think militaries in any nation that give their soldiers high status in society are more likely to have a larger percentage of them call the military a career, however. Like UK and US.

Also, US is very much designed itself for war. As Eisenhower once predicted, we have engulfed ourselves in what he called the Industrial-Military Complex. Believe it or not, a lot of military contractors are making heavy sums of money off wars, largely due in part to this business they do where they tell congress it costs less but actually ends up costing more and next thing you know the Department of Defense is buying $500 hammers.

As for the Japanese. The people of Japan were never into this war business. You folks confuse the people who ruled Japan in WW2 with the actual people of Japan. As soon as the war ended, large groups of people stepped up and said they wanted no more war. Of course there were still other "conservative" factions, but nonetheless, ever since WW2, the Japanese people in their congress and elections have consistently voted to keep Japan out of conflicts. The Japanese are even dubious to send their military forces to even help their own citizens being held hostage or whatever in foreign land. There's still those reactionaries tho that drive around in black vans, wishing for a pre-war Japan, I suppose, where they were the top dog in Asia.

Korea always keeps an army larger than Japan's deliberatly, whether they do it to piss them off because they don't like them, pure rivarly, or whatever, I don't really know, but that's always their intent. Of course, the North Korea issue is always a more compelling reason too...

I think back then everyone expected the Cold War to erupt into WW3, Democracies versus Communist nations. I myself thought it made a good setting, heh. I don't know now. Western world versus middle eastern nations now? Although I still think China and the provocative North Korea still have something to say in the world as communist nations. Wouldn't it be a riot if anti-american middle eastern factions formed a coalition with communist nations against America and her allies? Now that would be a great WW3. Sucks for humanity tho, lol.

Oh, I dunno.  In how many other armies is an ordinary troopie trained to operate a radio?  In how many other armies is an ordinary troopie trained to call in artillery and air support?

You'd be surprised. Your typical Western grunt is a better fighter than your typical US grunt. It's the reason why other countries still manage to routinely beat US at wargames, despite inferior equipment.

That's not to say the US doesn't have good fighters, since they obviously have elite units, but that's not the emphasis.

>>23
Define Western, so that I can understand.  Germany?  Belgium?  Argentina?

Weapons of mass destruction would/will be the main weapons of world war 3, petty differences between the skill of various infantry units are not important. Of course modernised loyal infantry are a necessity in maintaining whatever is left of a country after a nuclear exchange, however what is left of a country is more of an issue.

I think the nuclear powers will blast each other into obscurity, leaving Australia , Brazil and Argentina as the most powerful economic and military nations. Though this may mean they will be a target along with the nuclear powers. China, India and the middle east will be targets and experience dehabilitating environmental disasters and any current military powers there will collapse. Europe, eestern Russia, the mediteranean and North America will be sterilised by the radiation and chemical weapons, the radiation will wear off in 2 years or so, the much smaller areas affected by chemical weapons may experience permanent damage.

A few areas and bunkers in Europe and North America aswell as eastern and northern russia will still be habitable, though won't be able to produce much food and fall out will be a problem for 6 months after the nuclear exchange. People in these ares will have to move out after living off their tins of baked beans for how long they've been hidden away.

Unstable regions of the world would experience apocalyptic famine and no ozone layer, obviously they will be thrown into civil war and ethnic conflict. Eventually the ozone layer will reform. 10 years after the disaster and most of the military powers will be living off very crude fuel and ammunition industries supported by early 20th century style agriculture. Very little pre-apocalypse social structures will be left standing, just the remnants of the military forces that survived and those who claim to be a continuation from that wonderful pre-apocalyptic world.

>>25
Sounds like a happy ending, like Evangelion's ending.

>>24
England, Australia, Canada, Germany, and New Zealand are the ones I'm familiar with.

When I say "Western", I'm actually referring to any industrialized democratic country which can support a standing army, and has the political will to do so. Hey, if Canada can do it, with their stripped-down military machine, anyone can.

Fuck New Zealand and their Hobbit Arm!

Hobbit Arm?

I say, is there a hobbit around here missing an arm?  They have it in New Zealand.

>>29
YOU SO COMPLETELY MADE ME LOL YOU ARE A KING OF COMEDY GOOD SIR AND A GOOD POSTER!

>>30
gb2 germany

WHen I say "Western" I mean "White"

>>32
Thank us for creating democracy and ending slavery then. Since even though we are just as capable of crime as you, we are certainly doing a lot to put an end to it.

Even if you hate democacry and believe only whites are capable of evil, at least realise that your hero marx was white aswell as a myriad of other white intellectuals.


I don't want you to thank whites, but more specifically those who have sacrificed themselves for these noble causes. Since by west you mean white, you will just have to thank whites generally for these accomplishments.

>>14
Strong economicly? Japan? GO back to the rock you've been hiding under, you fucking retard. Japan's economy is struggling to gain strength. Fuck, its stupid people like you that shouldnt be allowed to have children or vote... jesus chirst

>>34
it's bad compared to previous years but it's still pretty fucking good compared to the rest of the world. try thinking some time instead of just absorbing newspaper articles.

>>35
I absorb newspaper articles through my ass.  Am I smart yet?

                  ∧＿∧
　 　　　　（　 ﾟ ヮﾟ）　- YOUR MOM IS A GYMNOSPERM!
　　　　　 （　⊃┳⊃
　　 　　 ｃ(＿)ﾍ⌒ヽﾌ
　　　　 （ 　　（　・ω・） - O RLY?
≡≡≡　◎―◎⊃⊃

>>34
Lester Thurow of the WSJ would say so, so I shall agree.

>>34
it is still good enough to be called strong economically.

>>26
NO, Evangelion's ending is in fact waay more apocalyptic than a general nuclear holocaust. Imagine all the nukes in this world going off at the same time...there would still be somebody living in some area of this world(struggling but still alive); in an Evangelion holocaust, nobody survives...exept for shinji. and asuka...