World War III breakdown map!

There will be no WW III, only cold war II. The cold war was very profitable for elites, and so of course they want it back. Too many nations are starting to develop into demcractic style governments, and too many people are threatening to start living normal lives outside of the control of the elites. This is why the world economy has been destroyed, and hostilities are rising.

Fortunately for the average person, the world's elites have cut their own throats with this economic crisis. Without consumers there can not be commerce, and without commerce, wealth built on a fractional reserve system disappears extremely fast.

you're leaving out a huge Muslim population in Indonesia. Please correct me if I'm wrong, cuz I could be remembering something else, but isn't that also a place that preaches hatred towards The West and has a lot of internal violence? If this is started because of an Israeli air strike on a Muslim site, The Temple or Mecca or anything else, we would see a massive uprising in all the Muslim countries. I don't think your map truly represents the power in numbers.

We should never count a government as the player for a country until we count how the people feel. There is nothing stronger than a common cause that people will defend to the death. The United States was founded by revolution and war, so we should know that just as well as any ancient civilization conquered by Rome...or the ones that conquered Rome. And how many times has 'The Holy Land' changed hands? It's the same thing.

The people of Saudi Arabia, who are taught to hate the West in some of their schools, would try to overthrow their government if they continued to stay friends with the West. It is then that the leader has a choice; either stay with the West and hope that your people don't try to overthrow you or do what your people would want.

It would happen in Egypt, it would happen in Indonesia if it hasn't already...cuz i really don't know, it would happen in Iraq, it will happen in Afghanistan, and it would happen throughout the entire South American and Central American regions. I also think it will happen in Cuba (in our favor) with help from the US.

The only way that this plays out in the West's favor is if we take out our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Who is there left in the homeland to fend off hundreds of thousands of Southern and Central Hispanic invaders? We may have the guns, but they got the numbers.

Originally posted by TheRepublic
reply to post by InvisibleHeroes

 

well I have to disagree, the A bomb is precisly what this war is all about!
thats why we are building a missle sheild right in the ruskies back yard! so we can threaten to nuke them but they will not be able to nuke us back. mutual assured destruction weill be off the table for the russians. that is why putin is taking a do or die stance to western postering.

I think a missile shield in russia's back yard would only protect russia's back yard. How would N.A. be protected by a missile shield on the other side of the world?

America's irrational insistence on a missile shield in Eastern Europe have done more to destabilise East/ West relations than anything else. The middle East doesn't have the kind of long-range missiles to threaten Western Europe and especially not the USA.

It's standard Bush behavior to p**s in someone else's backyard. How will this global economic meltdown be helped by a new Cold War? The Russian presence near S America is a response to Bush planning to point missiles at Russia. Can anyone argue that the Bush Government has made the world a safer place? It's heading toward East, West and Far Eastern blocs.

I don't expect a World War 3, but if we carry on with political brinksmanship, we're going to see conflict.

Question, how would the U.S government be able to achieve a NWO stance without having a world war? If it's not a world war, it would be a chaotic civil war. If that was the case I would have to move down to Antarctica, Austrailia or New Zealand. I wonder what kind of army Antarctica has? AHHHH IT'S THE NAVY SEALS!!!!!

reply to post by heyo


the reson is the missle sheild is designed (from my understanding and research)is to hit intercontinental missles at the early stages of their flight when they are most vulnerable. when the missles are at their later stages they are much higher (practically outerspace) and harder to destroy.

there are currently anti missle sheild positions in california alaska and Fylingdales in the UK. one is planned for greenland also. they are also planning one for poland. the polish one is the one that is generating all the controversy. there are also many ship based anti ICBM systems that the us has stratigically placed in all the worlds oceans.

news.bbc.co.uk...

why is the polish one worthy of starting ww3?

first of all the official US story is a flat out lie. the us claims the sheild is to protect europe from iranian nukes. iran has no such technology. none of their missles can hit europe, and they have no nuclear warheads.
if you were to look at the globe from google earth right over the north pole you would see why. the us is building a anti nuke fence around russia.
russia has even offered to work with the us and let the us borrow some of its existing sites in a partnership if it is really worried about iran. the us has not taken up the offer...because everyone knows russia is who the us really seeks to nuetralize.

alaska
california
greenland
the UK
and now poland.

the ruussians arnt stupid.
they know that the real reason for the sheild is to render all of russias nukes useless at striking back. if russia cant strike back the US can force russia to do whatever it wants. if russia dosnt comply then they will be nuked plain and simple.

if the japs had a-bombs in ww2 the war may have neded very diffrently. that is how important nuclear weapons are.

the russians have made very clear that they know full well what the us is doing. the us keeps publically stating the russians have nothing to fear. to make an illistration it is much like a schoolyard bully punching a classmate when the teacher isnt looking, and when the teacher looks the bully pretends he isnt doinganything wrong and the other kid is making stuff up.

in fact as of today the russian president medvedev has said:

Russia's interests must be secured by all means available, this is my deep conviction. First of all, by international and legal tools ... but, when necessary, by using an element of force,

uk.reuters.com...

they ARE serious about this.
ww3 is closer than most people have any idea of.

I think that I follow international politics much more closely than the person who made this thread and here's how I break it down in this hypothetical W.W. III, where we'll assume nuclear bombs are no longer available:

West: United States, Canada, UK, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Japan, Australia, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, Romania, Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Czech Republic, 50% of the Ukraine

leaning West: Norway, Sweden, Finland, UAE, Kuwait, Lebanon, Philippines, Mexico, Peru, Chile

East: Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Venezuela, North Korea, Indonesia, Iran, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Bolivia, Libya, Algeria, Syria, Turkmenistan, Serbia, Cuba, 50% of the Ukraine

leaning East: Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, India, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, Moldova, Nigeria, Egypt, Angola, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Malaysia, Mongolia, South Africa, Sudan, Zimbabwe

wildcards: Israel, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Portugal, the Benelux countries

I think there's a good chance that all of the wildcards will go East but I don't have the guts to say so and I also think that a lot of the unlisted countries in Latin America and Africa will probably go East, too.

I think my most controversial picks are that the wildcards are not guaranteed West, which I standby, as well as the status of India, Azerbaijan, and Hungary as leaning East, which I also standby.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by db330]

[edit on 24-12-2008 by db330]

reply to post by db330

I think that I follow international politics much more closely than the person who made this thread

woah ho ho way to be modest there buddy! haha.

first of all if you follow international politics so closely how on earth would you put israel as a wildcard? they are as western as western gets...in fact they control my country, the US anyway. you honestly think theyd let a world war go on without trying to score some more prime realestate for their "settelers"?

and germany and france wildcards? i highly disagree other than that id say your map looks alot like mine but make your own if you want and post it. it would be intresting to see.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
you're leaving out a huge Muslim population in Indonesia. Please correct me if I'm wrong, cuz I could be remembering something else, but isn't that also a place that preaches hatred towards The West and has a lot of internal violence? If this is started because of an Israeli air strike on a Muslim site, The Temple or Mecca or anything else, we would see a massive uprising in all the Muslim countries. I don't think your map truly represents the power in numbers.

Just because those countries possess populations that have a general hostile view toward the west does not mean they will automatically align with a Russian/Chinese bloc. These populations also consider Russia as "the west" and are extremely wary of the atheist Chinese government.

It's not everyone against the US. The reality is much, much more complicated than that. If we were to have another global spanning war the breakdown of sides would be quite fractured and I guarantee there would be many surprises.

[edit on 12/24/2008 by clay2 baraka]

Nice Post!

Star and Flag!

I believe the Orange or "are you smart countries" and light purple or "light weights" should really be called the fence sitters or "We will see who wins first" IMHO!

[edit on 12/24/08 by mel1962]

Originally posted by db330
I think that I follow international politics much more closely than the person who made this thread

You follow international politics "closely" and yet you think several Western European countries and Israel (!) are wildcards?

Excuse me while I

[edit on 24/12/08 by YourForever]

Originally posted by InvisibleHeroes
Im sorry but I disagree, there will never be another world war.
Since the invention of the A bomb there will not be another world war.
There will be many wars and conflicts.Possibly even nuclear weapons used.
But not a global world war.Because there would be nothing left, everything would be dead.
And if both sides know that they would see it as pointless.The idea of war, is to try and win.Knowing either cant win makes it futile.

I guess you have not heard of suicide bombers. For some, the only point is destruction of the opposition.

I guess I generally agree; although given the current climate things can flip quickly.

I would modify the following:

Japan: In a "world war" scenerio there is no question in my mind that Japan would alter its constitution to allow for offensive military cooperation with your Western Bloc. Japan fears nothing more in this world than an aggressive China, let alone North Korea.

Tawian: Obviously in a "world war" scenerio; its sovereignty would quickly be decided; and if stable would 100% line up pro-western.

Turkey: I think the true power in Turkey, the mostly secular military, cannot for a moment tolerate the idea of a theocracy and to keep stability would side with its NATO allies. The prosperity they enjoy and eurozone ambiton is too much to sacrifice for siding with Eastern Powers and namely persia.

South Africa: A former satellite of the West, but never a mainstream 1 rate power, this country is currently staving off 3rd world status. There is a Disporia of educated and formerly nationalistic young people, leaving a vacuum of increasing extreme political parties. While harldy contributing to either bloc, in my estimate this nation cooperates with the Eastern Bloc but remains largely nuetral.

Belarus: In a nutshell: Russia Jr. No if ands or buts.

Ukraine: 100% Pro-western and in any west/east engagement most likely the first place to see blood spill. The Ukraine wants more that anything to be a first-rate EUROPEAN country, and not a former Soviet state made Russian quasi-province.

Former Eastern Bloc countries excluding areas of Serbian Ethnicity: On the whole the Eastern Porton of Europe would side with its Western neighbors. Love or hate America; they would rather shop for Chanel then stand back in line all day for cabbage and tomatoes.

All traditionally nuetral European countries: Scandinavia, Ireland, etc. would all be bound be mutual EU security arrangement or jump on board none the less, once again the aforementioned shopping choices.

The "Muslim Crest" from the Indian Ocean to The Horn of Africa: Who cares, there isn't a situation where, except for terrorism, could any of this demographic contribute in a meaningful way.

Non-State Actors: Non state actors don't exist in a world war scenerio; everyone will carry a nationality and every nation will be held accountable. Trust me, a World War would end asymmetric warfare as we know it today.

Outside the industrialized world all other countries would most likely flow with the current victor. As things progressed one would see people pick sides accordingly. I hardly worry about the vast majority of nation-states. Besides, the stability of G20 countries internally plays far more into this thant anything else....if youd like to hear more on that (wink)
Ok- now back to my job at the state department! Ha Ha!

Although another World War is unlikely, although not impossible, I see wars being fought by proxy. Most smaller countries have a sponsor (i.e., Lebanon/Russia and Israel/USA, and I could mention more, like Georgia/USA and Iran/Russia.

Yes, the Georgia confrontation was a provocation to Russia by Georgia. But who was behind Georgia. I'm sure you can fill in the blanks. That is the new trend. Let others do the dirty work for the big powers. But as they say, if you poke a bear too many times (Russia), eventually it will become disagreeable and unpredictable.

Listen to the first 10 minutes of my show for an example of analysis on the India/Pakistan escalating conflict: The Veritas Show


[edit on 12/24/2008 by manticore]

Why are you guys assuming that Israel is guaranteed pro-US?

There is a remarkable amount (20% of the population) of ex-FSU immigrants there now with some devotion to Moscow.

And, like the rest of the world, Israeli officials are perplexed and worried about the bounds and extends of American imperialism and our country's right wing Christian fundamentalism.

Regarding Pakistan, Russia has absolutely no relations with that country and is a strong ally of India. For the past few decades, Pakistan's leaders have been American puppet so Pakistan being West and India being leaning East are quite definitive.

[edit on 26-12-2008 by db330]

Originally posted by db330
Why are you guys assuming that Israel is guaranteed pro-US?

Cause they are afraid of getting "wiped off the map" from Iran. Isreal is now like, help us America, help us! We don't know what to do! We can't handle this by ourselves! Didn't you read about that?

reply to post by db330


my reason for putting pakistan on the eastern bloc is that they are one of chinas allies. it has more to do with china then russia. china has talked about running an oil pipeline through pakistan to the aranian sea so they can access their african oil easier.

like i said earlier its very complex and not all set in stone. im not nostradomus so some of these countries may go diffrently than i think. this is just my best estimate from everything i have researched.

as for israel, i am aware that there are minorities there that are russian, but israel is pretty totalitarian. if ww3 breaks out i dont exspect anyone in the israeli government will give a hoot. their government is as western as western gets.

Originally posted by db330

wildcards: Israel, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Portugal, the Benelux countries

I think there's a good chance that all of the wildcards will go East but I don't have the guts to say so and I also think that a lot of the unlisted countries in Latin America and Africa will probably go East, too.

I think my most controversial picks are that the wildcards are not guaranteed West, which I standby, as well as the status of India, Azerbaijan, and Hungary as leaning East, which I also standby.

There is a 0 % probability that Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the Benelux countries will 'go East'. In all your wisdom concerning international affairs, you obviously missed the fact that Belgium holds both NATO-hq and SHAPE. Most countries in your wildcard-list have troops in Afghanistan and generally support US policy. Just because some NATO-partners don't blindly follow the US, does not put them in the camp of the Russians or the Chinese.

To the OP: I doubt that WW3 will be a simple two-sided conflict. As several previous posters have already noted, chances are that we will be stuck with proxy-wars and regional conflicts for a long time to come. During the Cold War, allegiances depended largely on ideological stance (i.e. capitalism vs. communism). This is no longer the case: everybody's a capitalist now (with some - rather irrelevant - exceptions), so allegiances can be bought a lot easier. Moreover, I don't think the East-West division will be the dividing line for future conflicts: IMHO resources and/or religion will be much more decisive in chosing sides.

One final note: the OP suggests that certain countries will remain neutral (light blue), while others would not. Some countries can make this choice (prime example is Switzerland). However, in most cases, wars choose countries and not the other way around. In the East-West scenario you suggest, it is highly unlikely that Sweden can remain neutral. The situation can be compared to WW2 Belgium: while the country wanted to remain neutral, the Germans had to invade it in order to get to France and to deny the allied countries through the port of Antwerp. Despite all of its claims to neutrality, in the end they just got occuppied too. Similar examples can be found throughout history.

The sixth trumpet war prophesied in Revelation predicts a war in which 1/3 of mankind will be destroyed, if taken literally.

Rev 9:13 The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the horns of the golden altar that is before God. 14 It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, "Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates." 15 And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind. 16 The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number. 17 The horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this: Their breastplates were fiery red, dark blue, and yellow as sulphur. The heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulphur. 18 A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulphur that came out of their mouths. 19 The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury.
20 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshipping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood--idols that cannot see or hear or walk. 21 Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.

Only a nuclear exchange could reduce the earths population by a third. India and China would have to be involved as well, since that’s were all the people are. I sure hope these passages are symbolic, or perhaps that it only refers to 1/3 of the people involved.

for those of you who doubt that russia and china would ever be allies, i must say at one time i would have agreed with you, but the world is changing a ton every second these days and this newspaper artical today is perfect evidence of increasing teamwork between both countries:

Put simply, the Chinese can now pick up the phone when there is a crisis and ask the Russians what is going on and what they are doing about it.

The two soldiers exchanged views on the international and regional situation, bilateral relations and other issues of common concern.

There is still no hotline between China's armed forces and the Pentagon in Washington.

big changes people, big changes...

news.bbc.co.uk...

(Edit to show link to artical)



[edit on 29-12-2008 by TheRepublic]