WW3: The map. (Input needed)

Originally posted by GLontra
So, OP, you are ignoring my posts, and now you paint Brazil AND Peru as "yellow"?

Okay, keep your delusion. You really understand nothing about South American politics.

Keep dreaming that Dilma Rousseff from Brazil and Ollanta Humala from Peru are going to support any American / Israeli attack on Iran. Keep dreaming...


EDIT: now I realized that ECUADOR is also painted on yellow! THAT is delusional! Ahmadinejad just visited Ecuador a few weeks ago!!!

edit on 14-2-2012 by GLontra because: (no reason given)

Hey, I apologize! I'm trying to hit this thread at least once an hour, I'm a mom with small kids so my attention gets distracted easily when I have a bunch of posts to catch up on. You make valid points! I will change them to red, or at least orange do you think? Just those SA countries, or more?

With regards to those who believe India will remain neutral

IMHO

That is utter rubbish, in the mist of the chaos it is highly likely were going to see either China or India go for a pearl harbour, tensions are already sky high, and they have already fought over this bfore

India-China Border Dispute, land & sea

The McMahon Line boundary dispute is at the heart of relations between China and India. China has land and sea boundary issues with 14 neighbors, mostly for historical reasons. The Chinese have two major claims on what India deems its own territory. One claim, in the western sector, is on Aksai Chin in the northeastern section of Ladakh District in Jammu and Kashmir. The other claim is in the eastern sector over a region included in the British-designated North-East Frontier Agency, the disputed part of which India renamed Arunachal Pradesh and made a state. In the fight over these areas in 1962, the well-trained and well-armed troops of the Chinese People's Liberation Army overpowered the ill-equipped Indian troops, who had not been properly acclimatized to fighting at high altitudes.

Read more here
www.globalsecurity.org...


India-China Water Dispute

With China's damming up of vital rivers into Indian which are essential to its growth this is just another issue to add to the tensions

China's unique status as the source of transboundary river flows to the largest number of countries in the world and its water disputes with virtually all riparian neighbors has serious implications for its major south-westerly neighbor, India. Both China and India are major rising powers; both states have exhibited high rates of economic growth; and both states are heavily reliant on natural resources—especially water—for their sustained development. China’s control over the source of major Indian rivers, its construction of mega-dams, its ambitious water management plans, and its rejection of institutionalized water-sharing cooperation creates a potential for serious conflict with India. How can a Sino-Indian water war be averted as China seeks to disturb the status quo on international river flows? Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, and author of Water: Asia’s New Battleground (Georgetown University Press, September 2011), discussed tensions that could result from China’s control over important water sources

Read full here
carnegieendowment.org...


Not to mention it is without doubt allied with the west, India provided many troops during WWII to the allies, and receives billions in aid from the west, even tho it has its own space program, its very rise to power has been largely because of the western support, she will likely not forget that

Certainly yellow

Originally posted by jawnaw2000
I think your options are limited. I see in a SHTF scenario, that China and Russia wouldn't be on the same side. I forsee China and Russia being neutral and attacking SE Asia.

Japan will be yellow by virtue of all the US bases on that island, but I think it really wants to be neutral.

Europe would collapse.

But they kind of would, in the same way that they're both supporting Syria right now. They may not be BFFs with each other, or even launch any joint offensive, but they're not going to fight each other when it comes down to picking sides. They will, however, fight the US/Israel/maybe Europe-----if they're dragged into the conflict.

I'm not trying to make a map of the current delicate and intricate political associations right now, I'm trying to make a map of what the two "sides" might look like should a global war be sparked any time soon. There's neutral countries, but I'm not interested in who doesn't want to fight----I'm interested in whether they will ally with or fall to a side given the likeliest scenarios of threat to their countries.

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


Star for you! This is along the lines of what I read in another thread in Middle East Issues, which is why I had it yellow to begin with.

India won't be yellow or red. But it will lean towards America and Russia. No military help. But mostly intelligence help.
1) India was forced to help England at the start of WW II.
2) It is actually Russia that provided them aid first. America was only helped India to further their own goals(India is perfectly located. Near Middle East, near China).
3) Many Indian policticians support America but are too scared of China to do anything.
4) Lot of hate for white people because of racial attacks.
5) Still hate england for india-pakistan division.
6) Kashmir issue more important for India and Pakistan than any other conflict.
how it'll start:
Israel Screws with Turkey. Turkey attacks israel.

afaik india will refrain from agression. they have no first strike policy. So only expect them join the war if they are attacked
brazil too will mostly stay the f away. so will switzerland, new zealand(

Originally posted by sonik
Almost all British commonwealth countries will remain neutral or red, except the British Overseas territories and Crown Colonies/Dominions who will be yellow. Most of the non English speaking commonwealth member states (sadly) hate Britain and Europe in general.

Also most of the African states will not support Europe or its allies.

edit on 14-2-2012 by sonik because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2012 by sonik because: (no reason given)

Nonsense

So, who are these non English speaking commonwealth member states that (sadly) hate Britain

Perhaps you can back up your claims?

Personally i have served in the British Army and trained with many commonwealth troops from Ghana, Cameroon, South Africa, Nepal, Fiji & so on, and in a few cases even trained in some of those commonwealth country's on exercises, and they're all rather nice friendly people they had no problem with our presence there, at all,

and perhaps you missed where i wrote the recruits from commonwealth nations in the British Army are having to be capped sense there are to many signing up,

Sonk if i'm not mistaken you was also talking utter nonsense in the Falklands dispute thread with little to no evidence to back up your claims, i personally think your facts are based on anti British hatred and dreams


.

There is no way that Serbia will be on European side in case of war against Russia, Think it will be a more of a Slavic union between the coutnries so, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Serbia etc will form a pact if we go to war

reply to post by Vojvodus


I don't think Poland would. There's a mutual hatred between Russia and Poland over WWII and previous conflicts. I'm not sure if the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) should be orange. They were pretty quick to leave the Soviet Union and join NATO and the EU.

Originally posted by Nicodeme
reply to post by Vojvodus

 

I don't think Poland would. There's a mutual hatred between Russia and Poland over WWII and previous conflicts. I'm not sure if the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) should be orange. They were pretty quick to leave the Soviet Union and join NATO and the EU.

Cant answear to all Poles, but when iwas in Poland last summer they accapted russians more then they accapted Europeain union and so called "Westerns".

I talked to some organization in Kraków dont really remember what their name was that said more and more Polaks are against EU and have their eyes toward Russia and an so called "coorparation" between those 2 countries

In another thread, we talked about gameplaying the war from start to finish. I still think that's a good idea.

For what it is worth, I imagine a third world war as having three entities with different strategic goals.



1) A Western Axis centered around the U.S. and NATO whose end goal ends up being the destruction of any Islamic nuclear state, control of major waterways, and ensuring access to key energy resources

2) An Islamic Axis centered around Syria, Iran, and Pakistan seeking self-determination and the removal of western influences. I expect Egypt could join them as a wild card, but as an American client state, Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states will not.

3) A Chinese interest that is friendly to the Islamics states, if not their cause, but which does not want to seek direct war with the west, but advances interests in Taiwan and Korea.

If you want a parallel, I'd say the relationship between the USSR and the western allies in WWII is appropriate. They were allies at times, and yet, their interests and who they fought were different.

As I've said earlier in this thread, I think such a war would lead to the destruction of much of the Islamic world specficially because they'd effectively organize, and the fear of a radical state with nuclear weapons that far outnumbers the Israelis would prompt them to a nuclear response. Whether the world would then incinerate them in response is an interesting question.

I think we have a tendency to view the world wars through the prism of us vs. them, and it wouldn't be that way. It's more like thirty different what's in it for me groups acting at once in a land grab. WWI, especially outside the European theater, acted that way, and thought this would move faster, I don't think it would be that different. I think we're heading toward an era of resource imperialism, if we can call it that, where lands are valued for their resources more than their people. The Chinese believe this for pragmatic reasons, and the Americans will too because they'll be too afraid to leave behind everyone they pissed off.

reply to post by solarstorm


I Agree, no way Mexico is an ally to the US. IF there were a WWIII, they would be highly interested in reclaiming the south west as there own, not helping the US do anything. They would join forces with Venezuela.

Taiwan won't stand 5 minutes in an all-out war; China is more than poised to take it quickly. Iraq and Afghanistan, for the fourth time, are yellow because there is significant US military infrastructure already in place there.

reply to post by 00nunya00


Im sorry I thought your map was concerned with who is allied to who.

Taiwan is American and so should be yellow, America has armed Taiwan to the teeth.

If your map was the most likely outcome of an all out global war then you need to radicaly alter your colour scheme the vast majority of Central Asia and Eastern Europe will be in red and they will fall under the Red Team very very quickly. They will not be Yellow Team for very long.

Also following your logic with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan, they will fall to the Red Team very quickly as Yellow Team forces are forced elsewhere. So therefor should be Red Team.

Wow...Well, thanks for the laugh OP.

Originally posted by mcamp2011
reply to post by solarstorm

 

I Agree, no way Mexico is an ally to the US. IF there were a WWIII, they would be highly interested in reclaiming the south west as there own, not helping the US do anything. They would join forces with Venezuela.

I doubt it, but i agree they might want to

when a world war is in full swing we need to factor in other factors, such as

Available Manpower:
Fit for Service:
Labor Force:
Purchasing Power:
Oil Production:

etc etc

Generally in World War an entire nation turns into a military manufacturing monster, if that be the case, the US would walk through both those country's in just a matter of weeks and being far less bothered about winning hearts & minds should Mexico & Venezuela come marching over the US boarder there is no way in a million years thats going to succeed, Mexico for this reason would remain neutral when the US goes into military mode, while Venezuela will likely removes Chavez themselves for trying to drag them into it,

While were on to South America,

I believe Argentina will want to make a move on the Falklands,

But it won't happen either, reason being.

The Falklands will very very quickly become and alternative oil supply other then the middle east, its location makes it incredibly difficult for any REDS as we are calling them disrupt and vital oil for the machine so to speak, the allies would start the war with air & navel superiority making it even unlikely for it to attack,

The US/NATO have something like 40.000 aircraft to Russia/Chinas 8.000

US/NATO have 19 (2015) aircraft carriers to Russia/Chinas 2

with 2 aircraft carriers they're not going anywhere out at sea, the 2 aircraft carriers would become ZERO very quickly, it takes many years to produce carriers and 5minutes to sink, but with Chinas industry & work force the could produce them within a year,

US/NATO have 135 submarines to Russia/Chinas 111

The only chance Russia/China & its allies have is a MASSIVE land campaign over Europe & The middle east securing the oil,

And this is why the allies will fortify the Falklands, its incredibly difficult for them with the poor navy's they have compared to the west, Libya will become another key location to hold down by NATO forces, no threat will ever come from Argentina tho, what the British Navy has down there today is sufficient enough to repel such attack and that's very little 1 destroyer 2 subs & 4 typhoons, in a WW3 scenario its a 100% no go

Brazil, TBH i think they'd remain neutral if pushed or entered at all they'd be yellow, but frankly i haven't looked into there political agendas nore alliances, much of SA would be neutral imo,

This is all of course if nukes was not used, which i doubt, the reality is they'd be nothing but glass and the earth would be sterilized of life for thousand of years,

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


Yeah sadly people dont seem to understand modern industrialised nations going to war with each other is a grim nightmare scenerio that would render most the planet totaly uninhabitable. Every economic zone would put an immediate draft into affect over there respective nations and cities would be turned to dust overnight.

Sadly though peoples perceptions are war have been tainted with MSM coverage of our glorious victories in Iraq, where we succesfuly invaded a nation strangled with sanctions and bombed for ten years previous to a pre-industrial state.

The insane amount of carnage any modern European country alone could wreak is unthinkable.

Even nukes a side, any global war will leave us with a dark age for the next thousand years.

So, who are these non English speaking commonwealth member states that (sadly) hate Britain

Perhaps you can back up your claims?

Personally i have served in the British Army and trained with many commonwealth troops from Ghana, Cameroon, South Africa, Nepal, Fiji & so on, and in a few cases even trained in some of those commonwealth country's on exercises, and they're all rather nice friendly people they had no problem with our presence there, at all,

and perhaps you missed where i wrote the recruits from commonwealth nations in the British Army are having to be capped sense there are to many signing up,

Sonk if i'm not mistaken you was also talking utter nonsense in the Falklands dispute thread with little to no evidence to back up your claims, i personally think your facts are based on anti British hatred and dreams

.


I would think that Southern Cyprus, with its orthodox religion and communist government friendly to Russia, will side with them.
They hate the English even more than they hate the Turks.

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

These are all highlighted in red, they would never in a million years fight for/with Russia they're ex soviet and have quite a hatred towards Russia, especially Georgia with the recent invasion of Russia, Kazakhstan is home to Russia's space fleet/launch sight with its location being perfect, but i don't think we can simply include them in the fight simply because of that Kazakhstan's have just as good relations with the west as they do with Russia,...

Eastern Euro block, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, can't see them remaining natural like the map suggests there part of the EU, and have been in countless arguments with Russia namely over the US missile shield, and also the gas pipeline & debt for gas supplied by Russia...

1. Kazakstan people are Russians that moved there. They see themselves as being part of Russia. The more indigenous population are mixed. This may not be true of Georgia because the people were refugees from the Turks and are more autonomous. In any case, none of them can do much except act like Mullahs

2. Belarus would connect with Russia. They already have an open border. Ukraine would stay close. None of them would be bothered by war, since Europe on the other side is a big wall to them.

It depends on how desperate things get. There is an obvious fight for commodities that has already started.

Originally posted by GLontra
Countries that are probably going to remain neutral:

- India

- Japan

- Indonesia

- Brazil

- Chile

- South Africa

The fact is: this is not their war. They have nothing to do with it. They are not willing to take sides in this "game".

Japan will be firmly with America. They have to be given the revenge their neighbors will have in mind for them. Both countries share missile technology.

All the other countries are far to big not to take a part or be too negligible to count. Their allegiances will matter a lot in a war of attrition. If people think Iran is targeted because of resources think about that. Iran has less to offer, (except geographically).

As for Indonesia and India go, think about who they buy their arms from. They are allied to everyone. India has a credible army and they would kick-off as soon as it starts if they could! China keeps them in tow...

Interesting thoughts. I can see how easily the whole game plan changes where any one of a few countries becomes week.

Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

Yeah sadly people dont seem to understand modern industrialised nations going to war with each other is a grim nightmare scenerio that would render most the planet totaly uninhabitable. Every economic zone would put an immediate draft into affect over there respective nations and cities would be turned to dust overnight.

Sadly though peoples perceptions are war have been tainted with MSM coverage of our glorious victories in Iraq, where we succesfuly invaded a nation strangled with sanctions and bombed for ten years previous to a pre-industrial state.

The insane amount of carnage any modern European country alone could wreak is unthinkable.

Even nukes a side, any global war will leave us with a dark age for the next thousand years.

All this talk i find quite funny tbh, people having a colouring in contest somehow thinking the largely one coloured side would win or bares any significance at all, the fact is...Nukes aside, the combined "active" military's of the west out numbers that of Russia/China/Iran nearly 10x in most areas that are important or key to military success, not to mention its a more modernised Army, numbers out weigh technology and even then its still a struggle, look how long and many millions died taking out Nazi Germany who had better everything, but numbers and tech? not a hope, (the numbers being hardware) also the manufacturing industries & capabilities are far greater, it would be incredibly one sided, should they survive phase one of the war, phase 2 would be production & resources, it is extremely likely those will be hit hard at the end of phase1 making it increasingly difficult to go for the next option resources, in a no nukes scenario, there is only one winner, i don't believe it will be as clear cut or be a short and easy war, million & millions & millions will die on both sides

In a real world scenario,

At phase1/5 we all die, YAY
It would leave the earth uninhabitable probably resembling something much like venues then eventually Mars, nothing would survive, once one city goes bye bye they're all programmed to launch in quick succession,

Unless of course someone has much much more capable space based Lazar weapons program they're not telling about in which case only most will die, while the rest live in small sections of the still habitable zone, my guess is that would be somewhere in the neutral zones in the southern hemisphere

End of the day, which ever way you want to look at it its just pure and utter stupidity,

The only ? I have is .......

Where is Hawaii?

Cause that's where my butt is gonna be.