WWIII DIscussion Thread

DeletedUser

Guest
bigballerboy3259 said:
USA is to much of a nice guy to actualy be in the war, they may aid or try to stop it, but I doubt they will agressivley invade. For exapmle, Iraq or Afghanistan. Both countries we could overtake any minute we chose to IMO and they are both crucial countries that would aid us very much. Unfortunetly, we are to nice to invade.
Click to expand...


Really? I am an American and I believe we will be one of the main countries at the forefront of WWIII. No offense to anyone but leaders like Obama are the start to fixing our situation, but at the moment we have to have ourselves in every situation in the world currently underway. Every time the UN decides something is not right in a country and wants to get involved the US is almost always the country with the most troops there. A good example of why the US will be there is the current situation in N Korea(whom I believe will be the eventual country to start WWIII). Really I understand that we are allied with S Korea etc... etc... but why do we have more forces set to protect the country than they themselves do? Why did hundreds of thousands of Americans die in Iraq makin them a democracy? Our country has gotten to the point of arrogance to where we think we need to "police" the entire world and correct everything that we see as wrong. Now I am not saying that we can simply say N Korea if you want nukes have nukes, but I think it is either naivity or stupidity that says the US is "too nice" to be in a war when we have had a war of some sort going every year of the last decade.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
pyker42 said:
Pretty good.

Glad to hear you din't quit. (Or couldn't quit. :lol:) I tried to once, but the forums brought me back. There is no way to every quit this game if you can't give up the forums.
Click to expand...

:icon_redface:thanks

And i completely agree. :lol: And i thought i had a stron-will but apparently i do not, TW has weakened me. :icon_eek:
 

DeletedUser71940

Guest
I really don't see how Africa or any other 3rd world could possibly start a war, what, they will try to stone a superpower to death?

"You, 2nd regiment you get the duty of destroying the enemy tank division!"

"What, AGAIN!? We just replenished our squad after our last attack, I am telling you man, spears aren't working out"

"Treason, shoot the bastard*POWPOWPOWPOW*"

Oil seems like the only most likely reason, seeing as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were started because of that, might as well.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
RandomPoster said:
Really? I am an American and I believe we will be one of the main countries at the forefront of WWIII. No offense to anyone but leaders like Obama are the start to fixing our situation, but at the moment we have to have ourselves in every situation in the world currently underway. Every time the UN decides something is not right in a country and wants to get involved the US is almost always the country with the most troops there. A good example of why the US will be there is the current situation in N Korea(whom I believe will be the eventual country to start WWIII). Really I understand that we are allied with S Korea etc... etc... but why do we have more forces set to protect the country than they themselves do? Why did hundreds of thousands of Americans die in Iraq makin them a democracy? Our country has gotten to the point of arrogance to where we think we need to "police" the entire world and correct everything that we see as wrong. Now I am not saying that we can simply say N Korea if you want nukes have nukes, but I think it is either naivity or stupidity that says the US is "too nice" to be in a war when we have had a war of some sort going every year of the last decade.
Click to expand...

I must agree as I'm an American also. I mostly agree with you belief in how Obama is the start to a revolution in the positive direction. But once again, I still doubt America will be a major power in the War. We meerly just invade, get what WE want for every situation, we help, and we let them go back to whatever they want. I highly doubt we will send nukes at anyone besides possibly North Korea.

Also, in my belife, another major power/cause in WWIII can possibly be Mexico. That is my main belief.
 

eagleblaze29

Guest
Gotta be said, Americans, yes congrats, your country will be at the forefront, as will every other superpower, Britain, Russia, and so forth, not something to be happy about. As will every country in the UN, and also every country in the EU, which ultimately covers pretty much every advanced country in the world.

What most of you lack to consider however is the kind of war to be fought. A WW3 will be a nuclear war, whatever survives the initial missile strikes will look to consolidate and from there you have infantry and armoured divisions deploying, so you will see Russia and China taking the lead in such a war, until more nukes get launched of course. Oh and then the cockroaches will win because the fallout will kill us all anyway.

bigballerboy3259
As far as comments regarding "invading afgahnistan because we could do it easily" go. Well done, you don't understand anything about the war being fought by your country (amoung others).
It is not a case of occupying a country, it is a case of eliminating a guerilla faction. Simply taking over the country would not eliminate the problem, it would increase it substantially. The problem is anti-west ideals fueled by religous fanatacism, do you think that being seen as a occupying invasion force would help the cause?
It is not a case of being "too nice", it is a case of trying to get the job done.

The fact that you can be so dense and arrogant is sickening, and sadly all too common in people these days and is the cause of a great deal many problems in todays society.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
eagleblaze29 said:
Gotta be said, Americans, yes congrats, your country will be at the forefront, as will every other superpower, Britain, Russia, and so forth, not something to be happy about. As will every country in the UN, and also every country in the EU, which ultimately covers pretty much every advanced country in the world.

What most of you lack to consider however is the kind of war to be fought. A WW3 will be a nuclear war, whatever survives the initial missile strikes will look to consolidate and from there you have infantry and armoured divisions deploying, so you will see Russia and China taking the lead in such a war, until more nukes get launched of course. Oh and then the cockroaches will win because the fallout will kill us all anyway.

bigballerboy3259
As far as comments regarding "invading afgahnistan because we could do it easily" go. Well done, you don't understand anything about the war being fought by your country (amoung others).
It is not a case of occupying a country, it is a case of eliminating a guerilla faction. Simply taking over the country would not eliminate the problem, it would increase it substantially. The problem is anti-west ideals fueled by religous fanatacism, do you think that being seen as a occupying invasion force would help the cause?
It is not a case of being "too nice", it is a case of trying to get the job done.

The fact that you can be so dense and arrogant is sickening, and sadly all too common in people these days and is the cause of a great deal many problems in todays society.
Click to expand...

I would contend that the arrogance of which you speak is not limited to today's time period, but has haunted humanity throughout it's entire existence.
 

eagleblaze29

Guest
The arrogance of which I speak is that placed upon the power of ones home country. Do you believe that such arrogance was commonplace 1000 years ago?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
America doesn't have to worry about nukes that much anymore unless there sent by land, and not by air.

For evidence of this look up "killvech"

We have developed counter-measures to nukes. Eventually we smarted up, and decided you dont build enough nukes to kill the world 50 times over, you build enough to kill it once over, and enough killvechs to stop 50 times the necessary armament to kill it. We broke out of MAD because we knew there were psycho's out there willing to pull the trigger and kill everyone, so we need a way to stop that. Preparation for the worst and hope for the best is always the way to go.

As far as china and russia against america or any large land force against america. Just look at the weapons we have been developing over the past 30 years and tell me we haven't got that war in mind. More effective cluster weapons, longer range more accurate tanks that can fire on the run. To note a large land force means nothing if you can't commit it to sea and not get them all killed in the process, remember the worlds strongest navies are the UK, and USA. If one large land force committed there ground forces to sea, it is gunna be a huge bull's eye for our navies to aim at cause killing that off is what ya call a war winner. I dont think china would go against the USA this time around because we rely on each other for so much. Also china really would have some big issues in war against anyone considering they plan on there main energy source being one dam, and that would be a huge military target to kill there economy.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
China is more a threat to the Russians than they are a threat to us. Their amphibious capabilities are practically non-existent. Why do you think Taiwan, a few islands within spitting distance of the Chinese mainland, is still a breakaway provence?
 

eagleblaze29

Guest
A bit of trivia - what is the closest distance between Russia and America?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
bering straits.

good luck crossing them though, and even if they could it is a natural funnel allowing our navies to compete for ground support, and dimming down the advantage of numbers greatly.

Russia's navy would have the advantage of maneuverability since there ships are built to deal with ice more so then America's, however America would mantain range and techonolical superiority which is better then maneuverability in such a confined zone of operations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Thronx said:
As for WWIII, all i can tell you is that it will be fought over fresh water. IMO.
Click to expand...
I've heard this as well. I was watching something on TV a few weeks ago and they said that no one is really going to take the water situation seriously until people start to turn on their taps and nothing comes out. Then they will realize how screwed they really are.

Also a while ago the UN added access to fresh water as a basic neccessity or something along those lines to their millenium developement goals. Guess which country (which is part of the UN) opposed this strongest. Canada. And guess what... Canada is one of the countries with the most fresh water availiable.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It's ok we'll invade them for you, and then when the UN(USA) is called in we will send you some of it :p

j/k
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top