WW3 Scenario

[bobthedinosaur]

Was just thinking. If there was another world war, what do you think it would be about, and who would be fighting on what side?

From what I can tell, both India and China are huge in population and have disputed territories, in the tibet are. Currently Russia also has some joint manufacturing efforts with India, and is pretty pissed at China's reverse engineering and no tribute to many russian designs (although its nothing to go to war over).
These are all just examples of how factions of the future super powers might, start to form. How ever factions are more likely to form over larger economic ties, with a historic alliance. Also the war would be over resources, but what for instance? The last bits of Oil?

Well thinking of this one can run many simulations. Would the United States help China when our political ties are so weak, yet our economic ties are almost dependent?

And then of course you have to define the boundaries of a simulation. For instance the claim that once the armament of the world's super powers with nuclear power, the likely hood of a world war is very little for pain of nuclear holocaust.

So, I was just wondering if any one else thinks about similar simulations and how they would turned out?

[SinbadEV]

I'm just glad I'm too old to be drafted early enough not to be wiped out by the bomb.

[Neddie]

I do sometimes contemplate it, but there isn't much I don't worry about. Either the exhaustion of crucial resources or mass genocide will probably be behind the next world war, knowing the general disregard for life, I'd bet on the former.

[Teutooni]

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

[yuritch]

Scenario 1: some powerful countries (USA, Britain and maybe some more) campaign for world-wide ban on nuclear weapons and somehow do achieve that goal, disarming 'rogue states' of Iran, N.Korea and such in the process (I don't see how that might work with China, but whatever). There you have it, suddenly there are as many reasons to start a war as you like.
Scenario 2: USA + China form a G2 (there were news to that matter quite recently). There you have it again, rest of the world combined cannot compare with those two in military power (not very likely to happen because of Taiwan).
Scenario 3: somehow an anti-missile system that actually gives close to 100% probability of mass nuke interception is developed. The nation who introduces that first can just nuke all the rest. Not likely at this stage because it's hard to intercept hundreds of missiles at once, but combined with my scenario 1 (ban or at least great reduction in missile numbers) might work. You can probably build a defence to intercept 20-50 missiles with close to 100% probability, you cannot hope to do so with 200-500 missiles.

[ralphie]

it will be asia vs USA+friends

[Teutooni]

The central government agrees to make the transfer of consciousness' into machines mandatory for all citizens. Some bleeding heart hippies decide to resist and start a war.

[PicassoCT]

Massmoving of the poorer to the rich countries.. we can see it over here in Europe - and you will see it in the US... countrys who will dig in, having endless inbetween burning boarder country wars for Example (Turkey vs Iraq/ Israel vs. Egypt/Sudan)

The times were people stay in a doomed country, waiting for the end, they are over.. somalias Pirates proof that theory in a sad way

[bobthedinosaur]

I don't think a nuclear first strike is in any countries list of good ideas, even with missile shields it effectively radiates most of earth making it a big nasty shit hole.

g2, with usa and china, was kind of what i was thinking. however tactical nuclear weapons are very feasible since they would be hard shoot down, and could be a deciding strategy on some battlefields.

i guess in a way it might be more likely that the stronger powers will avoid large wars with each other and instead invade/ occupy 3rd world nations to spread their power and take resources and fight puppet wars.
i would imagine allied nations of super powers getting into wars will not be enough to drag them in their selves. look at the iraq/ iran war in th 80s, and the disputes of india and pakistan.

[Sabutai]

On countering nuclear missile attacks:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-DEW-HEL- ... s.html#ABL

Anyway we can see a distribution of cutting edge technology in our globalized world. Russia is selling top notch Flankers that can shred anything except the F22.

IMO the next WW will be fought with nano technology. Whoever gets molecular factories first wins.

[zwzsg]

India and Pakistan nuke each other, rest of world wiped as collateral damage.


More realistically, nowadays wars not won with military superiority, but through gaining the public opinion support by clever use of the medias. For instance, U.S. lost Vietnam not because they had worse tanks or planes, but because a dude published the photo of a nekkid girl in the newspaper, which made smokin' singin' hippies lobby the governement into retreating. Another exemple is that guy living in cave who managed to terrorize the one super power and force them into a global war just by talking in his webcam. Or that everlasting conflict between palestine and israel where european peeps obviously sympathize more with the street kids than with the huge tanks: potential repercussion to the public image swap the balance of power, making the weakest the strongest and the strongest the weakest.

Another possibility, is that wars will be fought on the economic front instead of with regular armies with regular weapons. For instance U.S. brought Cuba and Irak to their knees by embargoing then. Chinas is already using its economic size leverage to harm countries it doesn't like.

[Muzic]

All i know is... F-22 Raptor>Typhoon fighters>MiGs

[bobthedinosaur]

i'm going to have to say economic leverage is the most likely battlefield, as well as a cyber war. how ever both can lead a country to conventional warfare.

however no laser or interceptors are really proven effective in test, and with multiply reentry vehicles and the sure number of over kill per target, no interceptor system would ever effectively work.

[yuritch]

On countering nuclear missile attacks:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-DEW-HEL- ... s.html#ABL

ABL is only expected to have range of 300 km max AND it's supposed to shoot missiles at the ascending stage (it's kind of offencive missile defence system). That means the weapon carrier (HUGE jet liner) has to enter deep into enemy airspace (missile silos are usually quite far from the borders). If you can go that far withough being shot down, it's very unlikely the enemy in question has any nuclear missiles at all.

[Sabutai]

Econonmy is obviously the basis.

On countering nuclear missile attacks:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-DEW-HEL- ... s.html#ABL

ABL is only expected to have range of 300 km max AND it's supposed to shoot missiles at the ascending stage (it's kind of offencive missile defence system). That means the weapon carrier (HUGE jet liner) has to enter deep into enemy airspace (missile silos are usually quite far from the borders). If you can go that far withough being shot down, it's very unlikely the enemy in question has any nuclear missiles at all.

This system will prevent the minor players of dislodging the US, Russia and China.

The ABL would be deployed in time of crisis to the borders of a nation threatening the use of ballistic missiles, and should they be launched, destroy them, ensuring that debris with WMD warheads falls on the launching party. At the time the ABL was conceived, these nations included Iraq, Iran and North Korea. With ongoing growth in Iran's and North Korea's arsenals, and their efforts to deploy nuclear warheads, the ABL could prove to be a vital asset if either of these nations achieves their aims.

however no laser or interceptors are really proven effective in test, and with multiply reentry vehicles and the sure number of over kill per target, no interceptor system would ever effectively work.

We are talking about WW3 after all. No wonder Russia is feeling cornered by the encroaching NATO.

In perspective the AL-1A ABL is a revolutionary weapon which once mature will render ineffective arsenals of short, intermediate and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and high flying aircraft and cruise missiles, where conditions permit the ABL to operate within lethal range of the target. How soon the ABL matures into an operationally viable system remains to be seen.

On Risks concerning nanotech weapons:
http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#arms

Molecular manufacturing raises the possibility of horrifically effective weapons. As an example, the smallest insect is about 200 microns; this creates a plausible size estimate for a nanotech-built antipersonnel weapon capable of seeking and injecting toxin into unprotected humans.

[BaNa]

go read Neil Stephensons "The Diamond Age", now.

[Peet]

If you ask Fox, the cold war is still going on and will escalate to WW3 with those commies any minute now.

[Lolsquad_Steven]

WWW3 will be held in the octogon with big john mccarthy as referee.

[[TS]Lollocide]

China's communist government turns to civil war as well-off Chinese realise that the government is holding back their 'rights' to be just like the American's . And/or China's government does something monumentally stupid like making talking about the government a death sentence.

China collapses, world economy goes to shit as supply of cheap goods disappears and civil war breaks out in China. Major countries push to arm the 'Freedom fighters' with weapons, investing in the hope that their contribution leads to the newly democratic government being favourable towards them.

Civil war fails, communist government collapses anyway, new communist government established, country now back in shit with no benefits and tons of dead. The aftermath of the war leads to disease as infrastructure breaks down, millions die from disease.

China is out of the game. Rising global temperatures cause farmers difficulty, decreasing food yields force governments to stop exporting food to keep prices reasonable for their citizens. International price of food dramatically increases as demand strips supply, food importing countries fail to meet their food import requirements. Dietary crashes may cause those governments to either be forced from power or take drastic measures to ensure food security.

Cold War 2 is declared as countries fear invasion from other countries who lack the basic food to feed their people, everyone eyes their nuke buttons and hopes for the best.

Work out the rest from this.

[SinbadEV]

Didn't read all of that because I had the best idea... Who cares about WWIII when there's Space War I to worry about! If we terraform and colonize Mars the global genocide issue associated with nuclear war no longer mean the extinction of the entire race.