World War III Prediction Thread

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Nuclear conflicts don’t tend to be fun for anyone since many people will die.

I doubt any conflict in the modern day goes nuclear.

If we went to war with Russia, for example, it definitely would once someone started losing. Russia is on record to be willing to launch their arsenal if the existence of the Russian state is threatened and in the event of a massive conventional assault of the Russian nation.

[Oil exporting People]

I doubt any conflict in the modern day goes nuclear.

If we went to war with Russia, for example, it definitely would once someone started losing. Russia is on record to be willing to launch their arsenal if the existence of the Russian state is threatened and in the event of a massive conventional assault of the Russian nation.

Sure, if NATO is at the gates of Moscow but that's not going to happen.

[Christian Confederation]

I'd be screwed an AFB is no more than 20-25 miles from my house.

Which one?

Moody afb

[Thermodolia]

It might if Russia got desperate. Or if NK actually did launch, or if nuclear terrorism occurs. Or Operation Sampson goes into effect

A North Korean launch and Nuclear terrorism are the only real threats I see; even then, damage would be extremely localized. The other two I just can't see happening.

Operation Sampson or the Sampson Option could definitely happen. It’s Israels way of bringing the world down with it

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

If we went to war with Russia, for example, it definitely would once someone started losing. Russia is on record to be willing to launch their arsenal if the existence of the Russian state is threatened and in the event of a massive conventional assault of the Russian nation.

Sure, if NATO is at the gates of Moscow but that's not going to happen.

I wouldn’t put it beyond any of the nuclear capable NATO nations to push the button when backed into a corner, especially France.

[Oil exporting People]

A North Korean launch and Nuclear terrorism are the only real threats I see; even then, damage would be extremely localized. The other two I just can't see happening.

Operation Sampson or the Sampson Option could definitely happen. It’s Israels way of bringing the world down with it

If they're getting overrun, yes. I just don't see that happening anytime soon; had you asked me a year ago, I would've agreed it's more likely. Iran had Iraq, much of Lebanon and Syria in its sphere and it appeared the Saudis were increasingly unstable, if you remember that drone incident among other things. Since that time Saudi has stabilized and Iraq has broke free from Iran while protests that seemed a serious threat broke out within Iran itself and their economy remains weak. Same goes for Turkey while Egypt has its own issues. In effect, I just don't see any power or coalition of powers arising sufficient to take down the Israelis.

[Heloin]

Because up until that a Third World War was a bundle of fun.

If its a couple of big battles and maybe a few nukes launched and it could all be contained in some way, maybe I could have said "Well... I wish it didn't happen but I'm fine with its happening."

However, as soon as I find out that my online gaming may be at risk, this is something that I cannot accept.

If the war is contained it's not a fucking World War now is it?

[Infected Mushroom]

If its a couple of big battles and maybe a few nukes launched and it could all be contained in some way, maybe I could have said "Well... I wish it didn't happen but I'm fine with its happening."

However, as soon as I find out that my online gaming may be at risk, this is something that I cannot accept.

If the war is contained it's not a fucking World War now is it?

I was thinking that it be contained in some way but still span multiple continents

[Oil exporting People]

Sure, if NATO is at the gates of Moscow but that's not going to happen.

I wouldn’t put it beyond any of the nuclear capable NATO nations to push the button when backed into a corner, especially France.

With what, is the real question. France no longer has ICBMs and quite possibly air dropped weapons beyond those carried on its carrier; it does have some SLBMs, but again they only ever have one boat active at best.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

The only real threat of nuclear warfare (A common trait of a supposed WWIII) is between Pakistan and India but that would be an extremely localized war... regardless it would still cause catastrophic damage to the earth.

As far as conventional warfare, Russias military is in no shape to win or even attempt to fight the US armed forces and the same goes for China so really I doubt a global war will break out unless the US collapses sometime in the near future which is just as unlikely

[Oil exporting People]

Thinking on the Nuclear terrorism, I'd be a lot more concerned about the aftereffects then the nuclear explosion itself and I'm not talking radiation. I've long thought a smart terrorist could take advantage of the fissure on La Palma to detonate a device and generate a mega-tsunami.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I wouldn’t put it beyond any of the nuclear capable NATO nations to push the button when backed into a corner, especially France.

With what, is the real question. France no longer has ICBMs and quite possibly air dropped weapons beyond those carried on its carrier; it does have some SLBMs, but again they only ever have one boat active at best.

Tbh I’m not super familiar with the operational status of their current arsenal, but IIRC they’re willing to launch their warheads in a similar vein as Russia, any massive assault on their sovereignty. So if Russia is on their doorstep then everyone is launching, no matter how many they have (the UK and US aren’t going to not retaliate).

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

At this point, I am more concerned about the world's current superpower (the United States of America) collapsing on itself than nuclear war.

This.... This would have catastrophic implications to the order of the world.... The United States has created a tense peace and if it were to collapse, all cards would be on the table

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Thinking on the Nuclear terrorism, I'd be a lot more concerned about the aftereffects then the nuclear explosion itself and I'm not talking radiation. I've long thought a smart terrorist could take advantage of the fissure on La Palma to detonate a device and generate a mega-tsunami.

Tbh I’m more worried about the nuclear terrorist who isn’t smart enough to think of that to begin with.

[UniversalCommons]

Iran and Israel would probably have more nuclear weapons in 20 years. Pakistan and India could have a nuclear war. North Korea and South Korea could unite then turn on China. There is a lot that can happen in 20 more years. Some clerical group from Africa or a splinter group from Iran could turn weapons over to an Isis like organization that were nuclear. A splinter group from the Taliban could somehow get nuclear weapons from Pakistan. A bioterrorism group could decide they want to reduce the world population size and release a variant on avian flu and ebola and things could get out of hand. Weapons from Russia could somehow end up in the wrong hands in Kazakhstan or Belarus. The United States could elect someone who was gung ho enough to drop a nuclear weapon 20 years from now without much provocation. There are proponents in the United States of using nuclear weapons on Iran. The old guard could reemerge in China or North Korea. Russia could run into trouble with NATO.

[Oil exporting People]

With what, is the real question. France no longer has ICBMs and quite possibly air dropped weapons beyond those carried on its carrier; it does have some SLBMs, but again they only ever have one boat active at best.

Tbh I’m not super familiar with the operational status of their current arsenal, but IIRC they’re willing to launch their warheads in a similar vein as Russia, any massive assault on their sovereignty. So if Russia is on their doorstep then everyone is launching, no matter how many they have (the UK and US aren’t going to not retaliate).

Their Cold War stance was indeed to launch all out if the Russians crossed the Rhine as Paris realized at that point in the conflict it would be entirely likely for them to get overrun as the Soviets would be on the North European Plain with no real natural barriers and the French Army would likely be destroyed in Germany. The problem, however, is that the Anglo-French arsenals of the Cold War no longer exist. They both got rid of ICBMs and air-based weapons, beyond those possibly carried by the French carrier. Both supposedly maintain at least one SLBM-equipped submarine at sea at one time, but it's hard to say; the French only have three in total IIRC while the English have four, so it's questionable in my eyes if France really does maintain a deterrent.

As for the Americans, as De Gaulle and Khruschev once pondered, is New York worth Paris? In the Cold War, probably, as Washington knew the score if the Soviets overrun Western Europe and kept it. Nowadays, not so much, given the disparities in Russian and Soviet power as well as the changed strategic circumstances.

[Oil exporting People]

Thinking on the Nuclear terrorism, I'd be a lot more concerned about the aftereffects then the nuclear explosion itself and I'm not talking radiation. I've long thought a smart terrorist could take advantage of the fissure on La Palma to detonate a device and generate a mega-tsunami.

Tbh I’m more worried about the nuclear terrorist who isn’t smart enough to think of that to begin with.

Such things keep me up at night. When I first read about "Grey Goo" (Don't look it up), it was about a week before I could sleep again.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

Even if Russia does overrun NATO defenses in Europe, there's no way they'd be able to keep it. It'd be a bargaining chip at best, and a costly expense in manpower and material at worst. I imagine Russia might do something similar to the looting of Germany post-WW2.

[Oil exporting People]

Even if Russia does overrun NATO defenses in Europe, there's no way they'd be able to keep it. It'd be a bargaining chip at best, and a costly expense in manpower and material at worst. I imagine Russia might do something similar to the looting of Germany post-WW2.

Pretty much my thinking exactly, NATO isn't going to go nuclear with this realization and the Russians have no reason to.

[Heloin]

If the war is contained it's not a fucking World War now is it?

I was thinking that it be contained in some way but still span multiple continents

So the quietest theatre of the 2nd World War the American Theatre still saw thousands die (not including Pearl Harbor), and every other region on saw much heavier fighting. A World War III would be even worse and more spread out. You can't contain total war and no one would try to.

[The Federation of Spokane]

I'd be screwed an AFB is no more than 20-25 miles from my house.

Same problem here. At least it will be over for me very quickly.
Edit:
I predict that the east would probably try to take the west coast of the USA first( because of Silcon Valley, Boeing and Microsoft and the fact that the west coast has numerous bases(naval and military). The entire strategic position to make America collapse on its knees would probably be to take the west coast. Considering that Fairchild AFB was useful in the Cold War with the Soviets and that I know that Fairchild has nuclear silos and other nuclear things, I can imagine the opposite forces taking the first chance to to snatch Fairchild AFB and other bases on the west coast quickly.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

I'd be screwed an AFB is no more than 20-25 miles from my house.

Same problem here. At least it will be over for me very quickly.

Trust me, you want to die in a nuclear war

[Shofercia]

Might want to check the dates on that one, chief

To be honest, the entirety of the 1840s-1870s was a world war of sorts.

Not really. World War means a war that takes place all over the World at the same time, not just various countries getting it on. The Crimean War involved Russia, France, and the UK, but it wasn't a World War in the sense that the UK and France probed Russian defenses, but they didn't prepare for an all out invasion. There was no objective to take Moscow and St. Petersburg. Prussia launched a series of wars, but the goal was to unify Germany, rather than conquer Europe; Bismarck was actually against the latter.

The Napoleonic Wars, or rather the British Empire desperately trying to rally Europe in the name of "muh Imperialism" and Napoleon failing at Diplomacy, ended up with Napoleon wanting to enter Madrid, Kaliningrad, Moscow, St. Petersburg, London, etc. He wanted total European domination. If Napoleon was as good in diplomacy as he was on the field, he could've kept the war between France and Britain, but his demand of "muh Europe" was the real British mvp.

World War I had two giant coalitions with opposing goals, so that war was destined to happen. That's not the case today. First, the World's a lot more globalized, and second, the coalitions are focusing on local goals, rather than global domination. While the SCO might rule Central Asia, they're not interested, (or unable,) when it comes to expanding to Latin America. The Middle East is a clusterfuck, the East African Community knows their shit and can go toe to toe with others in their region, and so on.

Furthermore, there is no one country that has the power of Napoleonic France, and there are no coalitions that could reach the power of the Entente. And even if those existed, there are no barriers to them. The World stood by as the US invaded Iraq for shits and giggles. There is no block that could actually attack NATO or SCO countries. Furthermore, with modern advances in PR and missile warfare, the attacker is the likely loser, unless a technological disparity exists.

Missile technology is not to be trifled with. Imagine a modern Crimean War:
"Sir, the British Armada is approaching!"
"Fire missiles!"
"Sir, the British Armada is sinking!"
"Inform London to pick up their junk!"

The minute that US ships are spotted near Russian bases, or Russian ships are spotted near US bases, they get targeted with enough missiles to destroy them several times over. The attacker's element of surprise is gone. Submarines can be quite surprising, but you're not going to land an invading army with submarines. During the Ossetian War, the Russians destroyed a Georgian tank battalion with missiles. Unless it's a curbstomp like US vs Iraq, the blitzkrieg is gone. Massive numbers advantage, like Napoleon had over the Russians - gone. Von Moltke's Schlieffen Plan? Gone.

And then you have to take the press into account. Despite the constant media assault on the American Public, the Americans took three years to figure out that the Iraq War was a lie. Mass media lies are exposed at a faster pace. Within a decade, it take less than a year. So nope, there isn't going to be a World War any time soon, and those wars weren't World Wars; they were like the modern wars of today, Great Powers using warfare to expand their Geopolitical Influence. Except it can also backfire, like it did for the US in Iraq, and for France in Libya, which wasn't the case with victories in the 1840s - 1870s.

[Oil exporting People]

I'd be screwed an AFB is no more than 20-25 miles from my house.

Same problem here. At least it will be over for me very quickly.

As long as you're in adequate shelter, at those distances you're more than safe.

[The Federation of Spokane]

Same problem here. At least it will be over for me very quickly.

As long as you're in adequate shelter, at those distances you're more than safe.

That’s mildly comforting to know.The first instance of war, anywhere I am going to get the heck out of there. I know my place is a perfect spot for the east.