If WW3 happened, which countries would be fighting?

Say if WW3 happened in the next few years. which countries would be on which side?

here's kinda my map. help me out with corrections

Allies - USA, Israel, England, South Korea, India, Germany, France, Brazil, Argentina

Neutral-leaning Allies - Canada, Australia, Mexico

Axis - China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Sudan, Egypt, Syria, Lybia

Neutral-Leaning Axis - Russia, Belarus, Burma, Turkey

so help me out with this map. who would the fighting sides be?

 

Allies: NATO

Axis: China, North Korea, Italy (seriously they were in WW1 and WW2 so they would be moronic and be in WW3)

 

The country where I was born and live isn't England it's the UK, from now on call it the UK and not England.

The allies would be Everybody in NATO and the EU, plus Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore.

The Axis would be China, North Korea, Iran.

 

allies and enemies..it ain't gonna matter at the end..........there won't be much left to fight over and fewer to fight over it

 

I guess Russia would be on the 'axis' side.

All of Europe would be with the 'allies'. Given that Turkey is a member of NATO it seems odd that you have them on the 'axis side'.

But really, it's hard to see what a war would look like. What with nuclear weapons and all.

Also, please continue to call it the UK, it's much easier that way.

 

Like the League of NAtions, the UN is being bastardised again by the same corrupt powers.

WW3, its already started! The skirmishes are already on going in Africa, Asia, the old Soviet block, Turkey, The US is even speaking about a pre-emptive nuclear strike against China!

Waken up and smell the coffee!

Regards
Highlander

 

I was thinking it would be more like the US vs the rest of the world.

 

We're already fighting WWIII.

 

There is no equivellent to WW2.

Nato will not come to Taiwan's defense if China were stupid enough to attack.

South America would likely be out of any conflict.

Oh an Italy? Italy was an ally in WW1.

What are the potential conflicts?

North Korea- about the only thing North Korea could attempt to do would be to invade South Korea. China is unlikely to support a confict which would stop China's export economy in its tracks.

China- potential conflicts are Taiwan(most likely) and its maritime neighbors. If this were to happen, there would be no alliance with China- they would be on their own.

Middle East- there are no good alliances amongst the Islamists or among the Arab states that would support a big war. Likely they would be fighting amongst themselves as soon as anything started.

Africa? There have been conflicts in Africa since the 1960's- and they never have gone beyond Africa before- no reason to assume that they would now.

Other than assuming that the world is one big Risk board, I don't see any likelyhood of a WW3 in the near future.

Thankfully.

 

If any two "great powers" go to war and one looks like losing, another will step in and save it to stop the other great power becoming to powerful. So if China and India go to war and India looks like losing the US or Japan would step in, or if the Europeans and Russia went to war and the Europeans looked like winning the Chinese would step in.

 

By corrupt powers you mean America?

 

A far more likely World War III would be flashed by Chinese expansionism in East Asia and Siberia.

A rivalry with Japan - a nation with a similar economy (heavily export-based) and having a similar set of problems (economy tangled by corruption, top-heavy population age structure) - could cause a naval/air war between the two. It wouldn't last long as neither can stand having its seagoing commerce disrupted very long.

Eastern Siberia beckons China. China has some historical claim to it and there are almost no European Russians living east of Irkutsk. An army travels on its stomach (and ammunition/fuel supply.) The Trans-Siberian railroad is the only logistical line supporting Russian control of eastern Siberia. The Trans-Siberian railroad cut be cut in any number of places but if the Chinese could seize the Kultuk Gorge southeast of Irkutsk and the Russian Army east of there starves. Of course the Russians could escalate into nukes...

 

i agree. if theyres gona be a WW3. its most certainly going to be started by or instigated by china. that is inevetable

 

The United States has over 800 military bases on foreign soil
China = 0

WW3 will probably be started by the United States given the historical precedence of said nation to initiate aggressive military policies based on a preemptive doctrine
of military force.

 

Negative, Herkdriver.

China feels they must push extra hard to get that first foreign base. Where do they go?

China's maritime problem is Taiwan. They cannot leave Taiwan in their rear if they develop a base elsewhere (say Burma).

Almost all US bases are "lily pads" - an airfield or port a few buildings and a local caretaker crew. Bases like Okinawa and Aviano are quite rare.


America was not in the League of Nations.

 

Mmm...... lies at the UN to enable the genocide in Iraq! Torture! Secret prisons! Kidnap and assassination! Gautanamo and the president unable to close it!
Africom! Libya! Somalia! Afghanistan! Yemen! Syria! Mercenaries!


What the hell do you think!

Regards
Highlander

 

MMMMmmmmmmmmm........... try removing ones head from ones rectum!

Hiughlander

 

But the UN was designed to allow the 'great powers' to have a greater say in events, to accept the role of power in international politics. Doesn't this just been it did so successfully?

 

Seems logical to me that the "great powers" have a greater say. Should Iberia have the same influence as Germany?

 

Is it possible to lie at the UN?

Given the UN is a body of liars, the truth looks like a lie to them.

 

Great power ...... go on your bloody kidding me!

Torture chambers, in many countries!!

Water torture, described as such in the German WW2 trials by AMERICA!

Secret assassination lists!
Secret prisons!
Illegal wars!
Lying to there own nation to start illegal wars!
Using illegal weapons against unarmed men women and children!
Genocide!
Wanton destruction!!
Do you want me to go on?

The UN was instituted to stop wars! Not like AIPAC America and UK committing genocide and calling it collateral damage! In illegal wars for financial gain!
The UN was developed to ensure nations adhered to International Laws! Which America and UK doesn't!

Regards
Highlander

 

Well then, highlander. We can agree the UN is useless and should be terminated.

 

So why would Australia be neutral?

 

Illegal is a silly term to use in international relations, there are no real international laws as there are no legitimate organizations to make them.

State kills people to maintain the security of their people, it is their duty to do so and always has been. It seems odd that you are just waking up to this fact.

 

Interesting concept but I don't think it really matches the current world situation.

If Russia and Europe went to war, the United States would be drawn in because of NATO. China might take advantage of the situation to grab Siberia but they wouldn't be supporting the Europeans- they would just love a chance to grab a part of Russia.

But more importantly I see no 'great powers' likely to go to war any time soon.