World War Three

[lottiepop]

I'm bored. Hypothetically of course. Let us just assume for a couple of minutes that World War Three has broken out. It would only be in it's very early stages, so technically may not be a world war. (Although the dictionary seems to define World War as: "war affecting the majority of the world's most powerful and populous nations", so it could still be world war between say America and Russia.)

Right, back on topic. Assuming this does happen who would be the main perpetrators and why? Think about this, realistically it probably isn't going to be the UK and America who start a world war.

Normally my immediate response would be "Germany, they've been too quiet for too long. It's about time we gave them another thrashing." Common sense however dictates that this probably isn't the right answer.

So if this were ever to happen I think the most likely candidate would be China. The fact that it has forced conscription certainly suggests that China will always be ready for war. Furthermore (and please don't take this personally) China has always been at odds with the capitalistic tendencies of the west, you know being communist and all. Jintao is also much more radical than his predecessor Jiang Zemin. China would most likely I think go to war with the USA and the UK, and would probably recieve help from Japan and possibly middle eastern countries such as Afghanistan, not for want of helping China but simply to quash what they believe to be the decadence of the West. I think it would end up being pretty close, China could give the earth a run for it's money.

Right that's my reasoning over, anyway else wana have a go?

[Jin]

Come on now. You can't honestly call China a communist country and keep a straight face. They haven't been communist since the "crisis of faith" that followed the Cultural Revolution. Deng Xiaoping's "communism with Chinese characteristics" is nothing more than a contrived slogan meant to justify the totalitarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party in an increasingly capitalistic country. Assuming WW3 is close at hand, ideology will not be the reasoning behind it, at least not in the East Asian Theater. Also, I find it unlikely that Japan would aid China and even more unlikely that China would accept Japan's aid. There's a lot of bad blood hidden beneath the surface between the two countries.

I must also ask why you believe the US is unlikely to start WW3? It seems roughly in line with their current policies. Only time will tell if Obama's administration actually will involve change, but if things stay the same, I think a War on Terror related escalation is a prime candidate to start WW3.

In my less than thought out opinion, 4 "sides" need to be considered (maybe 5 if you include India). The US (along with whichever NATO allies still care about the alliance), China, Russia and Islam. By Islam, I'm referring to the militant, supranational sects. Whether militant Islam can unite to form a cohesive group remains to be seen, but at the very least they'd act as the Greens.

Other than Islam, I don't see WW3 being about ideology. I think it's more likely that it'll be about resources and clout. Not necessarily in that order, but probably. We still use oil. Until that changes, I can easily see WW3 being about that. Also, China is eager to prove itself to the world (the Beijing Olympics showed that) and Putin's Russia is becoming more Nationalist by the day and seems really to be looking for a fight.

Of course, this is all speculative. I doubt anyone expected WW1 to have been sparked by some Serb assassin. Home by Christmas. Whoops.

[Meier Link]

Well I will start this one off by stating the Countries that will not (in my opinion) start WW3. First off Germany, for the most part they are nation of peace in conparision to what they where in WW2. Their leadership is more about stablization and neutralization then the days of old when it was centered around conflict and political gain.

France, this one is kind of a given in all Americans eyes. The odds of them starting it or even fighting through out the first part just does not seem like any type of possibility. The only way I would see them even joining a campign would be if they where drug into the conflict.

Australia. Best way to solve the fight, beat each other to bloody hell man to man and the looser buys the next round, problem solved (and possibly the best policy).

Ok now that I have those 3 out of the way I will move on.

I could see China as a possible threat, but as Jin stated, compared to how they used to be and how they are now, I doubt that the war would be started over Communism. I can see it starting over violations to air restrictions though and non compliance with NATO investigations. Plus the over growing populous of China and it's industrial revolution ccould add fuel to the gears of war. With the economic growths they are still in need of basic items such as coal, iron, wood and other simular biproducts to contibute to their massive growth spree. And when the supply and demand runs short I can see the possibility of conflict arising as the demand grows.

Now for the U.S., being a citizen here I personally think it is a possiblity that we could start the war. Look at the Iraq conflict. The U.S. went against the advice of NATO and went all out. This conflict could of possibly escalated quickly into more then what it has. And the "war on terrorism" still is a touchy subject with alot of us.

Ok I want to see some of the other peoples responces before I continue on with this so I will stop and be patient for once.

[Clint]

It's strange that nobody has yet suggested Russia to be the perpetrator in this hypothetical war. I guess nobody has found it strange that Russia is beginning to act once again like the Soviet Union. They sent a warship to Cuba, something they haven't done since the fall of the USSR. They suggested selling advanced surface-to-air missiles to Iran, which would heighten Iran's power, considering that as of right now, they're using outdated missile technology dating back to the 1960's. Then there's the Georgia conflict, which Russia took out of control when the Georgian army invaded a breakaway region of land backed by Russia. Hear me out, not even Russian territory. To top it all off, Russia set out plans to increase its military procurement over the next three years and commission 70 new strategic nuclear missiles. They're regaining power. They were hardly an ally in the last world war. They sold out France and backed away from the German boarder. If they stayed on, Germany would have been forced to fight a two sided war, and would never have been able to take France. Then after the war, they tried to turn the world into a communism. You can blame them for North Korea. If anybody is going to start World War III, it's going to be Mother Russia and her allies in eastern Europe in an attempt to follow through with their plans of world domination.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

The US. The warmongering, spin making tendencies of your governments are pretty much tiring the world out. I mean look at the Iraq war. Lied to the rest of the world, went in alone (Don't give me this coalition of the willing BS). Now you wanna attack Iran.

The other, more worrying thing is the increasingly powerful fundamentalist movement in the US. Governments are elected by the people, and an increasingly fundamentalist populace is likely to elect (or tolerate) a govt. that espouses greater ignorance. Not only that, most of the populace seem to be under this delusion that just about everybody acquiring arms (ironically to defend themselves against you) is seen as a threat.

Take the Georgian crisis for example. A country invaded another sovereign country. and who does the US back? THE AGGRESSOR.

[Sasquatch]

I mean look at the Iraq war. Lied to the rest of the world, went in alone (Don't give me this coalition of the willing BS).

If the U.S. "lied to the rest of the world", the rest of the world lied to the U.S. as well -- don't forget that every country that HAD any sort of intelligence at all had intelligence that backed the intel that the U.S. had. And why wouldn't you want anybody to bring up the Coalition of the Willing? Do the forty-eight other countries that support the operation kind of throw a wrench in your "they went in alone" idea?

Now you wanna attack Iran.

If Iran, a nation led by religious extremists with a very hostile history towards the United States and U.S. interests and allies, goes against the demands of the United States and most of the rest of the Western world and develops the capabilities to produce the most destructive weapon ever known to this planet ... yes, it would be a good idea to stop them.

The other, more worrying thing is the increasingly powerful fundamentalist movement in the US. Governments are elected by the people, and an increasingly fundamentalist populace is likely to elect (or tolerate) a govt. that espouses greater ignorance.

Well, you're right on this, but not in the way you'd think. The United States is quickly devolving into a welfare state -- around half of the population of the United States now receives more money from the government (i.e. the taxpayers) than they contribute to it. Thus, the majority of the population will support the candidate who promises them more money from the public treasure. As this happens, the rest of the population -- the ones who actually contribute, instead of drain -- will emigrate out of the United States. Just like Britain's "Brain Drain". And, unfortunately, the only thing a candidate needs to do to get elected now is promise the redistribution of wealth. Take promises of wealth redistribution, add color, charisma, and good looks, and BAM, you have Barack Obama, a man with no political achievements other than advancing his own career and with policies that are in direct assault to the United States Constitution and the concept of freedom itself.

Not only that, most of the populace seem to be under this delusion that just about everybody acquiring arms (ironically to defend themselves against you) is seen as a threat.

When the countries acquiring arms have a history of offense against the United States, and when those countries prove that they cannot be trusted to be peaceful even without those weapons, it's not a long stretch to say that they're not developing weapons designed for slaughter for "defensive purposes".

Take the Georgian crisis for example. A country invaded another sovereign country. and who does the US back? THE AGGRESSOR.

The U.S. didn't "back" anybody. But please, if you will, show me some credible evidence that Georgia invaded Russia.

Anyway. Back on topic. Most likely to be involved ... United States (since the UN is completely incompetent), Israel, and the UK on one side, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the "Palestine" area, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, UAE, and the rest of the Arab Muslim nations on the other. China might join up with the rest of Islam, seeing as they would have mutual enemies. North Korea probably would, which would bring South Korea into it, which would mean North Korea would get its ass kicked (unless, possibly, backed by China again). Russia would probably stay out of it, seeing as even they know that they're not the superpower they once were (apart from nuclear weapons), though you never know, with their recent aggression.

As for a trigger ... if I had to guess at something soon, it would be Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. would probably do the same thing it did with the nuclear equipment that France gave to Iraq -- say, "Israel, hey, we'll let you take care of it." Israel would take out what Iran should have never had in the first place, Iran would attempt counterattacks on civilians, Jordan, the "Palestine" area, and a few of the other countries that surround Israel would attempt invasion, the U.S. would go to back Israel, the rest of the Arab world would see it as a holy war and join in. Plus, like I said, North Korea, or possibly even China (if North Korea did), would join in against their mutual enemies.

France won't even be involved, but they'll surrender anyway.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

If the U.S. "lied to the rest of the world", the rest of the world lied to the U.S. as well -- don't forget that every country that HAD any sort of intelligence at all had intelligence that backed the intel that the U.S. had. And why wouldn't you want anybody to bring up the Coalition of the Willing? Do the forty-eight other countries that support the operation kind of throw a wrench in your "they went in alone" idea?

Rolls eyes dude. I can bully with a gun too. 'Faulty intelligence' is just about the worst excuse I've heard. There was no credible intel. Blair even admitted that the dossier had to be 'sexed up' to sell the damn thing.

If Iran, a nation led by religious extremists with a very hostile history towards the United States and U.S. interests and allies, goes against the demands of the United States and most of the rest of the Western world and develops the capabilities to produce the most destructive weapon ever known to this planet ... yes, it would be a good idea to stop them.

Perhaps you can refresh your memory with US aggression against Iran? Why should everyone answer to the 'demand of the United States' and the rest of the Western world anyway? There's no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Oh hold on, will we find out about the 'faulty intelligence' on this one too?

When the countries acquiring arms have a history of offense against the United States, and when those countries prove that they cannot be trusted to be peaceful even without those weapons, it's not a long stretch to say that they're not developing weapons designed for slaughter for "defensive purposes".

Which country has a history of offense against the US? I can think of one. Japan. That's it.

The U.S. didn't "back" anybody. But please, if you will, show me some credible evidence that Georgia invaded Russia.

You'll find they did, by denouncing Russia. South Ossetia clearly request Russian help to defend it's sovereignty.

Anyway. Back on topic. Most likely to be involved ... United States (since the UN is completely incompetent), Israel, and the UK on one side, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the "Palestine" area, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, UAE, and the rest of the Arab Muslim nations on the other. China might join up with the rest of Islam, seeing as they would have mutual enemies. North Korea probably would, which would bring South Korea into it, which would mean North Korea would get its ass kicked (unless, possibly, backed by China again). Russia would probably stay out of it, seeing as even they know that they're not the superpower they once were (apart from nuclear weapons), though you never know, with their recent aggression.

What aggression?

As for a trigger ... if I had to guess at something soon, it would be Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. would probably do the same thing it did with the nuclear equipment that France gave to Iraq -- say, "Israel, hey, we'll let you take care of it." Israel would take out what Iran should have never had in the first place, Iran would attempt counterattacks on civilians, Jordan, the "Palestine" area, and a few of the other countries that surround Israel would attempt invasion, the U.S. would go to back Israel, the rest of the Arab world would see it as a holy war and join in. Plus, like I said, North Korea, or possibly even China (if North Korea did), would join in against their mutual enemies.

France won't even be involved, but they'll surrender anyway.

Why 'shouldn't' they have it anyway. US are the only ones that have a history of deploying nuclear technology for the purposes of war.. Compromising the sovriegnty of another country is never

[Sasquatch]

Rolls eyes dude. I can bully with a gun too.

... what?

'Faulty intelligence' is just about the worst excuse I've heard. There was no credible intel. Blair even admitted that the dossier had to be 'sexed up' to sell the damn thing.

And every other country with an intelligence system "sexed up" their reports, too? Saddam just refused to comply with demands because he felt like it, even when he was threatened?

Perhaps you can refresh your memory with US aggression against Iran? Why should everyone answer to the 'demand of the United States' and the rest of the Western world anyway?

Do you NOT think Iran hates the U.S.? How big is that rock you've been living under?

There's no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Oh hold on, will we find out about the 'faulty intelligence' on this one too?

Iran has a nuclear program -- and it doesn't have to have a "nuclear weapons program" to still develop the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons. Iran was developing nuclear weapons, and stopped in 2003, but is still enriching Uranium (and enriching it to the point of weapons-grade Uranium, not just for use in reactors) and refusing to comply with the UN and the IAEA. But let me guess, they're just hiding things and refusing to comply to throw people off, right?

Which country has a history of offense against the US? I can think of one. Japan. That's it.

Against the U.S. directly, sure -- but you're not including United States allies and interests. Maybe I'll have to explain that further every time.

You'll find they did, by denouncing Russia. South Ossetia clearly request Russian help to defend it's sovereignty.

First, saying, "you shouldn't do that, stop it" is not "backing" anybody. And second, South Ossetia has no sovereignty.

And I ask again -- please show me some credible evidence that Georgia invaded Russia. Especially when Russia did the invading.

Or is your argument that Georgia "invaded" South Ossetia, a part of their own country?

What aggression?

The whole invasion thing. Try to keep up.

Why 'shouldn't' they have it anyway.

Why shouldn't Iran, a country hostile to the United States and the Western world, which has repeatedly called for the brutal slaughter of millions of people, which refuses to admit the sovereignty of the nation of Israel, which has supported terrorism and attacks against the United States and its ally Israel, be allowed to possess the most dangerous weapon known to man? You serious?

US are the only ones that have a history of deploying nuclear technology for the purposes of war..

Deploying it? No. Using it, yes. And nuclear weapons technology isn't like a firearm -- there is no other use for it than offensive war.

[Jin]

Although you two are getting completely off topic, I have to add one thing which actually is in defence of Sasquatch (I'm like Fox news, fair and balanced )

You'll find they did, by denouncing Russia. South Ossetia clearly request Russian help to defend it's sovereignty.

South Ossetia is not sovereign. It has de facto autonomy, but is not recognized by the Georgian government or the international community as being a sovereign nation. The Georgian "invasion" was an independence struggle, not an act of war. You can't pull these things.

[Casanova[OCAU]]

And every other country with an intelligence system "sexed up" their reports, too? Saddam just refused to comply with demands because he felt like it, even when he was threatened?

Doesn't absolve the US.

Do you NOT think Iran hates the U.S.? How big is that rock you've been living under?

How is that enough a reason? Read up on Iran US relations.

Iran has a nuclear program -- and it doesn't have to have a "nuclear weapons program" to still develop the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons. Iran was developing nuclear weapons, and stopped in 2003, but is still enriching Uranium (and enriching it to the point of weapons-grade Uranium, not just for use in reactors) and refusing to comply with the UN and the IAEA. But let me guess, they're just hiding things and refusing to comply to throw people off, right?

Not up to the US to judge and police.

First, saying, "you shouldn't do that, stop it" is not "backing" anybody. And second, South Ossetia has no sovereignty.

i'll give you the sovriegnty bit. But for the rest, re read my post.

Why shouldn't Iran, a country hostile to the United States and the Western world, which has repeatedly called for the brutal slaughter of millions of people, which refuses to admit the sovereignty of the nation of Israel, which has supported terrorism and attacks against the United States and its ally Israel, be allowed to possess the most dangerous weapon known to man? You serious?

Deploying it? No. Using it, yes. And nuclear weapons technology isn't like a firearm -- there is no other use for it than offensive war.

Rolls eyes. Sounds a lot like the rethoric coming from pre Iraq war. Iranians had a democratic govt., which the US overthrew. You make your bed and you sleep in it.

Adding to the string of lies over which the US has been to war over, here's another article.

Secret of the Lusitania: Arms find challenges Allied claims it was solely a passenger ship | Mail Online

Her sinking with the loss of almost 1,200 lives caused such outrage that it propelled the U.S. into the First World War. But now divers have revealed a dark secret about the cargo carried by the Lusitania on its final journey in May 1915. Munitions they found in the hold suggest that the Germans had been right all along in claiming the ship was carrying war materials and was a legitimate military target.

The Cunard vessel, steaming from New York to Liverpool, was sunk eight miles off the Irish coast by a U-boat. Maintaining that the Lusitania was solely a passenger vessel, the British quickly accused the 'Pirate Hun' of slaughtering civilians. The disaster was used to whip up anti-German anger, especially in the U.S., where 128 of the 1,198 victims came from.

A hundred of the dead were children, many of them under two. Robert Lansing, the U.S. secretary of state, later wrote that the sinking gave him the 'conviction we would ultimately become the ally of Britain'. Americans were even told, falsely, that German children were given a day off school to celebrate the sinking of the Lusitania. The disaster inspired a multitude of recruitment posters demanding vengeance for the victims.

One, famously showing a young mother slipping below the waves with her baby, carried the simple slogan 'Enlist'. Two years later, the Americans joined the Allies as an associated power - a decision that turned the war decisively against Germany. The diving team estimates that around four million rounds of U.S.-manufactured Remington .303 bullets lie in the Lusitania's hold at a depth of 300ft. The Germans had insisted the Lusitania - the fastest liner in the North Atlantic - was being used as a weapons ship to break the blockade Berlin had been trying to impose around Britain since the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914.

Winston Churchill, who was first Lord of the Admiralty and has long been suspected of knowing more about the circumstances of the attack than he let on in public, wrote in a confidential letter shortly before the sinking that some German submarine attacks were to be welcomed. He said: 'It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the U.S. with Germany. 'For our part we want the traffic - the more the better and if some of it gets into trouble, better still.' Hampton Sides, a writer with Men's Vogue in the U.S., witnessed the divers' discovery.
He said: 'They are bullets that were expressly manufactured to kill Germans in World War I - bullets that British officials in Whitehall, and American officials in Washington, have long denied were aboard the Lusitania.' The discovery may help explain why the 787ft Lusitania sank within 18 minutes of a single German torpedo slamming into its hull.

[Megatron0000]

Not entirely sure who would start it but if it broke out i think on one side you have:
US
Canada
Australian
Armenia
UK
Russia

US because there's nothing we don't have our nose in,Canada because what happens to us effects them heavily, Australia because they have been one of the biggest military supporters of the War on Terror just not covered as much (every where i went in Iraq and Afghanistan there were Aussies with their sweet-a** guns(I want one)), Armenia because of how close to home this war would take place, the UK because they are smart enough to know that if a war of this magnitude erupts it's only a matter of time before something hits them, and Russia for the bad blood with the middle east dating back to the '80s.
on the other:
Korea
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iran
Israel
China

Iraq Afghanistan and Iran due to our recent involvement, Korea has been itching to fight us but hasn't had the backing, China really doesn't have any love for Western civilization, Israel to get us out of the way so they can hit Philistine.

I could be way off but this is my uneducated opinion

[smurphy]

If theoretically a third world war were to start I think it would probably have to involve the "Banana republics" heavily in its origins, whether the countries of latin America start infighting which then brings in the "big-guns" as backers initially, then to states involved against each other or South America unites, starts flaunting its power, gains a backer in Russia or/and China and oversteps its power which then results in a truly international war.
If that were the case, I would back a US/UK alliance with whoever else, as it would be adequate in regards to the amount of servicemen/women, but these two combined have the most sophisticated and efficient military machine, ensuring the militaries in question are properly equipped

[Sasquatch]

Not entirely sure who would start it but if it broke out i think on one side you have:
US
Canada
Australian
Armenia
UK
Russia
...
on the other:
Korea
Iraq
Afghanistan
Iran
Israel
China

What? Why in the hell would you think that Israel would fight against the U.S., or that Israel and Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran would ally against anything? Keep in mind that Israel can take care of themselves, but they're using United States weapons and technology now -- they make an enemy of the United States, and the rest of the Arab Muslim world sees that Israel no longer has it's big brother to defend it. There's no friggin' way Israel would attack the U.S.

(every where i went in Iraq and Afghanistan there were Aussies with their sweet-a** guns(I want one)) ...

Meh. They're not bad, but too many of the internal components are plastic, and for a battle rifle, the good ol' M16 or M4 is much more durable than the AUG -- from what I've seen, it doesn't take much to throw off the sights.

... and Russia for the bad blood with the middle east dating back to the '80s.

Russia might have "bad blood" with Afghanistan because they couldn't finish the job, but that was because the U.S. was funneling weapons and training to them. If Russia kept all the same enemies that the U.S.S.R. had, they'd know better than to get into any war.

If theoretically a third world war were to start I think it would probably have to involve the "Banana republics" heavily in its origins, whether the countries of latin America start infighting which then brings in the "big-guns" as backers initially, then to states involved against each other or South America unites, starts flaunting its power, gains a backer in Russia or/and China and oversteps its power which then results in a truly international war.

Interesting idea, but I don't really see any reason for that large of a conflict to erupt in that area. Smart money would go on Southwest Asia or Southeast Europe.

[RamesesII]

Hmmm all good reasoning if it did ever happen like a few people have said it would be over resources I dare say, really in honesty I very much doubt it would happen everyone would loose to much in either resources or financially,

Not only that if WW3 started the whole import/export trade would be ****ed there goes all our cheap made goods from china, there goes our weapons and machinery parts from America and or China you could almost count Europe out.

Germany still has amnesia, Holocaust what Holocaust.

My bet would be on Japan or North Korea, Japan maybe because of the myth that they still have their hurt pride and need to prove themselves again.

Korea because Kim seems to be pushing his boundaries a bit lately maybe its just because he is on his death bed and then things will be left in his sons hands.

S*** Australia would most definitely have to side with US or Britain only because we like to f****** kiss their asses with them well ok I guess we still belong to the queen not really though that shit is so old that we don't even take notice of it any more what we celebrate the queens birthday and seriously that's just another day for us to hit the pubs and get knackered and the piss ass Governor waltzing around and she doesn't do shit let alone get recognised anymore.

You hurt one the hurt the others its is big friggin kamikaze chain it just won't happen, plus the moment anyone posses a true and real threat to US they will just pull out the big guns and its over with no one in their right mind is in any position to bargain.

Oh and lol so true we really just don't give a damn

Australia. Best way to solve the fight, beat each other to bloody hell man to man and the looser buys the next round, problem solved (and possibly the best policy).

The only reason we have men over seas is for good looks seriously but I think if anyone did come knocking on our door they underestimate Australia I think that's our biggest ally at the moment that and all our prime ministers love sticking their noses up US bums and following them. Pfft what you going to do haha

No disrespect to any countries either.

[Ragnarok]

I think that while the war may start out fairly even with the "West" coming out on top, there would be some of our allies turned hostile because, let's face it, everybody has a problem with how we run our country and, by extension, the world. I don't believe we have any ally nations, but nations waiting for the opportune moment. I pray I'm wrong (which I most likely am).

[Heartless Angel]

My theory, is that one of these days, China's going to decide to cash these bonds they have from the U.S. You know, because we've been borrowing trillions of dollars to pay for plans that acomplish nothing and put us further into debt. When this happens, the politicians over here will be sitting with their heads up their collective ass (as usual), and then realize we don't have anywhere close to enough to pay that. Now we gots us a problem. Whther or not that situation would escalate into war, and whether that war would escalate into World War, I can't say for certain, nobody really can. I doubt anybody saw a world war coming when the duke of a small country was assinated, but it happened.

As for the thoeries that Japan would be fighting, I must say I doubt it. They kinda gave up on war when they ended up looking down the business end of Fat Man and Little Boy.

As for Germany starting it, I also highly doubt that. I think they learned their lesson last time as well, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Trodorne]

A world war can not happen, not as long as many countries still have nukes, including the US. because everyone would be afraid that the other person is going to use their nukes creating a chain of events which would lead to nuclear winter and possible extinction of the human species.
war would not hurt the US infact it would probably benefit it. US economy was built on industry which thrived on war. so it only stands to reason that manufacturers would gain to make hefty profit. this would be a reality where nukes were abolished.
in politics its not alot of sitting around, every day deals have to be made and saying things that are not being said type conversations just to keep the status quo in the world. like look at the cuban missile crisis, for those who remember how close the world was at the point to a nuclear war. that was settled when to two leaders after many days of arguments and conflicting ideas from military chiefs, finally came to a decision which to turn its fleet around. if it also was not for the blockade then nukes would be on cuba.
I think Canada would survive pretty well during a nuclear winter, after all our people live in a sulpher enriched atmosphere. and yes its cold, 275 degrees below zero, but that's in Celsius. Also to mention that we only have gravity for 6 hours of the day so we have to hold onto something before we are thrown out into space.

but ive already a plan to stop nuclear winter already we have canadian agents replacing the rocket fuel of everyones nukes to maple syrup. good good.....

[Dynamo]

Hypothetically speaking, Like (i am assuming) every other post in this thread is, a world war 3 would be a nuclear one (we all know this).

In it's early stages no nukes will be used as (like as already been mentioned) everyone will be frightened of the events which would follow, but someone will eventully use one, as to who will use it first, who knows, could be anyone who had a nuke. However, once the first one has been used everyone will start using them.

Nukes have been used before back in WW2 when USA dropped 2 on Japan (6th August and 9th August 1945). However 2 were dropped not 1 and were dropped in a short space of time. IF 65 years ago alot countries had nukes, would have gone a completly different way.

The above post mentioned that a WW3 can't happen, because many countries have nukes. This isn't that true, ofcourse it can happen just means if it does will be a nuclear war, unless ofcourse ALL countries get rid of all of the Nuclear weapons, but who will seriously do that?. Alot have gotton rid of a fair amount of nuclear weapons, but none will get rid of all, as if someone did use a nuke on them, they would want to use one back.

Also in the above post, US will get affected practically everywhere will, no country will benefit from it. i understand your coming from a pure financial sence, and many that company will, but the country will not - unless of course a nuke doesn't hit USA, but chances are they would. Also, getting caught selling necular wepaons during a nucular war? This wouldn't go down well.

Many people in the earlier threads think that China are more likely to start it, I don't think this will be the case, Yes, they have they are ready for it, but it doesn't mean they will start it. As for Japan helping them, quite un-likely (at least to begin with) as they have a history of not getting on with each other, and yes they probably would go aganist the USA and UK, but will they actually start it No.. chances are it's going to be more towards a middle-eastern country, Or even more likely North-Korea, poping over the border and attacking South-Korea.

IF this was to happen it, then China would back North-Korea and America South. will nukes have been used by then? maybe, though probably not.

Now, who will drop the first Nuke? Personally (sorry to say it), i think it will be the US Middle East or North Korea. I don't think US will start the war.

Either way - if a WW3 happens most of us will be screwed, except perhaps those living in some of the southern hemisphere countries, and ofc those at the poles.

either way this is all Hypothetically speaking, based it on current conflicts, what countries have done it the past. I hope i am wrong in everything i have posted in this post.