WWIII Scenario
- Thread starter IDefy
- Start date
Kuzmich
Member!
[glow=red]Britain would be lost for sure and it would take US longer time to free Europe but outcome would be the same. Besides Brits did most work in Africa. Most german tanks were destroyed on Russian front, and even if Hitler did have all that oil he wouldn't be able to transport it to his tanks that needed it, German supply lines were stretched too thin, and such transportation would cost too much money so it would make allmost no difference on the eatern front, on the other hand if US opened western front earlier then 1944 then millions of Russians would stay alive, but you decided to go to Africa crossing your fingers and hoping that Russia will hold Germans until they move enough forces out of europe in order for you to attack them, if you attacked earlier sure many more of you would die but then 20 million a horrific number, wouldn't die, still millions would die but not as many as 20, they would go back to their home raise their children, live their lives, but instead they became a scape goat that saved all of earth from Nazism.[/glow]
vanilla_ice_cream
Member!
lol I can't believe people still think that Hitler was a military genius. He was the complete opposite. I said he was a horrible military commander, that's where the "period" was. History books make it seem like Hitler was a military genius and only America's superior weaponary/troops/startegies were the reason why the German's lost. Yeah, we clearly outmanuevered Hitler, who knew nothing about the military anyways. And how the hell do you lose a war with an army as powerful as Germany's with Erin Rommel under your command. Hitler was a horrible military commander. It was not American superiority that won the war. I could also point out how Hitler could have taken Russia or Britain but that take way too damn long. Oh and I got that info about Russains hating Stalin because he opressed them from primary sources when I did some more research. Hitler clearly misused his armies in Russia and against Great Britian. Oh and Mocow was saved because Hitler attacked at the wrong time, he really never took any advice from his generals. In fact, can anyone point out anything Hitler did that proves he's a military genius?
Anyways, I didn't mean for this to turn into a world war 2 thread, but I was just pointing out that it doesn't matter how strong your country's military is, if you don't know how to use it, you're screwed. There are plenty of examples in history that prove this, Hitler was just one of them. So when WW3 comes and ground troops are used, America wouldn't have a clear upperhand as a lot of people predict. In fact, if you aks me, today's military leaders focus too much on their superior technology rather than any clear-cut strategy. What exactly was our strategy when we went into Iraq? I really didn't see one being used, it's kinda like America had developed more bombs so they bombed them and then invaded. And then we made-up stuff along the way. It didn't seem to me that we were going to install democratic government in Iraq when the plans of invasion first started and was something Bush wanted to do while we were still in Iraq, that is, when we figured out there were no "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
Pale_Horse
Member!
While stationed in Germany, I noticed that the children their had a higher intellegence then a average american child of the same age. (By no means am I bashing my beloved land of America, just stating something I happed to notice.) Russia, and Germany's biggest problem is funding. They have the potental to be more powerful than the mighty U.S., but it seems to me that they cant keep their head above the proverbial water.
Someone stated in an earlier thread that Russian soilders see more combat then american, and by my accounts that is so true. This is also a major problem, if, ever a world war III was to happen. Due to moral and the normal pressures of fighting day in and day out, their army would slowly disband, or just die from mental stress.
If a world war was to ever happen, the outcome would differ, depending on the situations within the combat. For example what country would be envading what land and by what means.
A land war would be won most likely by either America, or any asian army.
A air war would be won by either UK, or America
By way of water hands down UK
But once again as I have stated befor, "this is a age of terrorism" the idea of war has chained so drastically. Everyone is wide open to an attack no matter how many defences their are in place their is always a loopwhole.
Any nation with nuclear reactors is most likely a huge target.
Any nation with electric power is most likely a target.
Any nation with a religion other then the terrorists is target.
Any nation is a target!
Case in point imagine the chaos that a reactor overload would cause, not to mention the fallout.
Case in point imagine a city wide power out ( like recent NYC) and what damage a terrorist group can do at that time with no order, or mass communitcation, no one whould know it till its too late.
Case in point look at all that have died from terrorism in all these different countries, in the name of "Alah" (who by the way is a peaceful "god")
Case in point look at how many terrorists are being captured or even planned acts in all these different nations.
We all are in trouble! I don't know about other countries but as I speak their is a alert on the United States. I am so supprised by the fact that the Olympics havent had trouble yet. God willing they wont.
Scenario. Imagine Bin Laden dead, this might sound like a good thing but, when this happens in a "cell" orgaisation their is a internal test so to speak that the others must do to gain control of the group, if their is no one left in succession. Whoever can cause the most destruction and what have you in the name of Alah will then be the leader. Unfortunitly this means they must beat the previos great feat, (911) can you picture the mayhem that will happen and what might happen where. Everything is a potental weapon to a terrorist. Look at how many potential terrorists have been caputed in the states as well as other countries.
Without the use of nuklear weapontry, the biggest threat right now would most likely be South Korea. Their army is the second largest only to the states. Every man between the ages of 17-21 must serve. With their alliances of different nations they could be a major theat.
Someone stated in an earlier thread that Russian soilders see more combat then american, and by my accounts that is so true. This is also a major problem, if, ever a world war III was to happen. Due to moral and the normal pressures of fighting day in and day out, their army would slowly disband, or just die from mental stress.
If a world war was to ever happen, the outcome would differ, depending on the situations within the combat. For example what country would be envading what land and by what means.
A land war would be won most likely by either America, or any asian army.
A air war would be won by either UK, or America
By way of water hands down UK
But once again as I have stated befor, "this is a age of terrorism" the idea of war has chained so drastically. Everyone is wide open to an attack no matter how many defences their are in place their is always a loopwhole.
Any nation with nuclear reactors is most likely a huge target.
Any nation with electric power is most likely a target.
Any nation with a religion other then the terrorists is target.
Any nation is a target!
Case in point imagine the chaos that a reactor overload would cause, not to mention the fallout.
Case in point imagine a city wide power out ( like recent NYC) and what damage a terrorist group can do at that time with no order, or mass communitcation, no one whould know it till its too late.
Case in point look at all that have died from terrorism in all these different countries, in the name of "Alah" (who by the way is a peaceful "god")
Case in point look at how many terrorists are being captured or even planned acts in all these different nations.
We all are in trouble! I don't know about other countries but as I speak their is a alert on the United States. I am so supprised by the fact that the Olympics havent had trouble yet. God willing they wont.
Scenario. Imagine Bin Laden dead, this might sound like a good thing but, when this happens in a "cell" orgaisation their is a internal test so to speak that the others must do to gain control of the group, if their is no one left in succession. Whoever can cause the most destruction and what have you in the name of Alah will then be the leader. Unfortunitly this means they must beat the previos great feat, (911) can you picture the mayhem that will happen and what might happen where. Everything is a potental weapon to a terrorist. Look at how many potential terrorists have been caputed in the states as well as other countries.
Without the use of nuklear weapontry, the biggest threat right now would most likely be South Korea. Their army is the second largest only to the states. Every man between the ages of 17-21 must serve. With their alliances of different nations they could be a major theat.
vanilla_ice_cream
Member!
]
I though the largest army was China too. Of course America is in trouble. But people like George Bush don't want people to think that so he can get re-elected again. There' s no telling what he might do if he does get re-elected. Michael Moore stated that Americans are the dumbest people in the world, I disagree with that, we're the most mislead people in the world. If WW3 were to break out, everyone would eventually end up nuking each other. And America wouldn't dominate, we simply have a lack of leadership. When it comes to wars in recent history, America simply depends too much on superior technology rather than any form of strategy. If any other country comes up with just as powerful advances in technology, America wouldn't have the upper hand anymore. I would predict that an asian country would win the ground war. America would win air because they simply have far better technology, but there is a chance people would screw themselves over. And don't forget about Iran, they're looking for some of those Nukes too and if they ever get into the hands of the terrorists, well we're screwed.
Kuzmich
Member!
[glow=red]Alright first the only ones who think that americans won the war are americans, and that is not true cause Russians did much much more against the Germans and USSR was the main reason why war was won by allies. Russians didn't hate Stalin, get this i live in Russia i know a bit more about my own people's history then you do, Stalin being hated by Russians is just a fairy tale made by americans then they were making a list about how bad are the commies. Stalin was hated but only after Hrushiev came to power, before that he was loved by the people, he wasn't a good man he just had a very good propaganda machine. If russians hated Stalin then why did everyone cry with sorrow then he died, why did millions come out to the red square to see him for the last time? [/glow]
what the hell are you smoking kuzmich!? the americans did win the war! maybe not on their own...defiitly not on thier own seeing how the entered the war late...maybe win the war in the pacific...but nontheless, americans did win the war seeing how it was an allied operation. its just like how canada won the war, austrailia won the war, UK won the war, russia won the war, etc.
Kuzmich
Member!
[glow=red]Seens we suffered the most and we killed the most i don't think its fair to say that americans won the war, we won it, with your help but it still was Red Army who took Berlin, i am not smoking anything even not drinking right now, my mind is clear.[/glow]
Kuzmich
Member!
[glow=red]You took most spoils, all we got was a bunch of half dead people and burned cities what you got was lots and lots of moneyall those european nations paid you for helping them to rebuild, they gave you a lot of gold, thats what your today's capitol is build on, thats why you are a superpower. You might have won as much as we but you didn't do us much as we. [/glow]
are you sure thats spoils? perhaps you forgot about how the US shipped weapons and the occasional soldier to the uk and france as well as russia. Did you forget that that kinda thing costs money and well, maybe we expected a little money for the effort. Even with the money were still in debt. And those half dead countries? well, they do come back, and they were a part of your country durring the commie days.
Kuzmich
Member!
[glow=red]First everyone payed or is still paying for the weapons you sold them. Second it wasn't a little money, those were billions of dollars. But anyway to saty on topic as i think i said before WW3 will never happen everyone is afraid of getting nuked, and in WW3 nukes will be used for certain.[/glow]
Kuzmich
Member!
[glow=red]I can see that you disagree with me on WW2, no offence but all that you have said about WW2 is kind of naive, sorry man it just is.[/glow]
ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Like my cute wabbit?
Helllooooooooo, I see someone has revived this thread (not saying you bumped it, actually it was quite refreshing, some slightly different views than normall WW2 convos)
.
I don't think that Britain would simply lose for sure, if they were to they would cause heavy losses and probally retreat to other areas of Africa while still fighting the enemy and also both sides would send more men in. With the SAS type forces eg the desert rats causing heavy damge to air fields ect I think the Germans would suffer badly even if they could beat the British forces.
He said nothing in his post about Hitler being a Genious at all, he even pointed out mistakes please give a example of someone saying he was a genious.
Even the greatest Armys fall, you should know that. There were 3 powerful countries attacking them, they had advanced planes like jets but the spitfire and some of the other better piston powered planes could beat them without much difficulty, they had a more advanced propulson but they hadn't progressed enough to compete with the type of plane we had for decades and made considerable improvements so they were a hell of a lot better than earlier kinds.
No.... it was a hell of a lot of other countries all doing thier bit.
Try to....... give a link?
Haha, you're arguing with yourself, you imagined that someone said that Hitler has a good military commander and now you argue against something that nobody said I hope you manage to win this argument :rolleyes.
You have a lot of numbers but a better trained army could make their numbers count for more but would probally get over run eventually.
Pretty much all nations have electric power
.
I don't belive that, certainly Chinas Army is bigger, and bigger than the states as well, China has a pop of over two billion and the states is probally around 300 mil.
I really disagree with that, they concentrate on stealth they make out like that raptor is undetectable, but other countries planes are only a step behind concerning stealth. Look the Eurofighter, its older, faster, more manuverable and 3 times cheaper than the raptor, also they don't really have many of the raptors yet. The harrier version of the joint strike fighter is likely to be abandoned, it is too heavy to hover, just like the Americans trying to build a better concorde but they bit off more than they could chew. The earlier Russian fighters have been proved to beat f15s ect.
That is a bit arrogant, other countries were in the war for longer and suffered more civilian causaulities (I suspect) so they could be reasons of why they won the war, it was a combined effort.
That is bullshit. You know the space race was basically between the Germans, it was the Russian taken German scientists vs the American taken German scientists. One example of a Germans scientist although not taken was Albert Einstein.
You would be in debt if you wernt in debt by the end of the war. Your debt has always been rising, Bush increased it by 1 tril on his own almost.
vanilla_ice_cream
Member!
Believe me, a lot of Americans think they were the only reason why the allies won the war. Second of all, I was just bringing up the fact that American textbooks generally portray Hitler as a military genius and I even know some people who say he was. And then they further say Americans defeated Hitler due to their superiority. And second of all how can I give you a link to that if I found it off of a book I read a while ago? I never really do too much research on internet sites.Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Helllooooooooo, I see someone has revived this thread (not saying you bumped it, actually it was quite refreshing, some slightly different views than normall WW2 convos) I don't think that Britain would simply lose for sure, if they were to they would cause heavy losses and probally retreat to other areas of Africa while still fighting the enemy and also both sides would send more men in. With the SAS type forces eg the desert rats causing heavy damge to air fields ect I think the Germans would suffer badly even if they could beat the British forces. He said nothing in his post about Hitler being a Genious at all, he even pointed out mistakes please give a example of someone saying he was a genious. Even the greatest Armys fall, you should know that. There were 3 powerful countries attacking them, they had advanced planes like jets but the spitfire and some of the other better piston powered planes could beat them without much difficulty, they had a more advanced propulson but they hadn't progressed enough to compete with the type of plane we had for decades and made considerable improvements so they were a hell of a lot better than earlier kinds. No.... it was a hell of a lot of other countries all doing thier bit. Try to....... give a link? Haha, you're arguing with yourself, you imagined that someone said that Hitler has a good military commander and now you argue against something that nobody said I hope you manage to win this argument :rolleyes. You have a lot of numbers but a better trained army could make their numbers count for more but would probally get over run eventually. Pretty much all nations have electric power
A better trained army with what military commanders? Look how poorly Iraq was executed. We clearly had insufficient troop numbers and a lack of long-term strategy. This is what basically happened:
"let's just bomb Iraq and then invade with our troops and then when we find the WMD, we'll just say 'HAHA I TOLD YOU SO' and remove Saddam Hussein in the process."
My entire point, is that a lot of people here are talking about who has the more powerful military, but who has the better minds commanding the military? There have been battles in history where inferior armies defeated stronger ones simply because they had a tactical advantage. I'm not saying that other countries have better commanders, but that the ones in the US right now probably aren't the best choice if America got into WW3. Once again, that's assuming ground troops are used. But most likely, nukes would be involved.
ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Like my cute wabbit?
"A survey by the All-Russian Centre for the Study of Public Opinion released this week showed that 53% of 1,600 people polled said Stalin had played a "mainly positive role" in the country's history."
A total of 33% thought his role negative, and 14% didn't know." Well, if most people think he had a positive role now what did they think during the war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2820061.stm
I am gonna find another link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2822029.stm Another recent bbc link
A total of 33% thought his role negative, and 14% didn't know." Well, if most people think he had a positive role now what did they think during the war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2820061.stm
I am gonna find another link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2822029.stm Another recent bbc link
http://www.courseworkbank.co.uk/coursework/stalin_s_russia_source_coursework_1010/
Lights
Member!
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Messages
- 898
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Beyond Religion and Science
- Website
- Visit site
Americans did not win the war by themselves, any fool that thinks that is a... fool. However, neither di the USSR win the war by themselves.
As for who had the greatest influence to the end of the war? Well, Normandy (Which wasnt just Americans, though most) and the Atomic bombs did a LOT towards the end of the war, causing a sooner end. Not that just those two events completely balanced the hundreds of skirmishes and battles the USSR fought with Germany, but it did end the war sooner. So... that can go either way, but it is still a stupid arguement. The ALLIES won the war, not a single country.
And Hitler was a TERRIBLE military commander, absolutely terrible. Anything he planned or coordinated was a horrible failure. His ideas were pathetic.
As for WWIII, I believe it will either start in the Far East or Middle East, so it will definantly start from some place in Asia. It could be becuase of Korea's nukes or the middle eastern oil, I dunno. :\
As for who had the greatest influence to the end of the war? Well, Normandy (Which wasnt just Americans, though most) and the Atomic bombs did a LOT towards the end of the war, causing a sooner end. Not that just those two events completely balanced the hundreds of skirmishes and battles the USSR fought with Germany, but it did end the war sooner. So... that can go either way, but it is still a stupid arguement. The ALLIES won the war, not a single country.
And Hitler was a TERRIBLE military commander, absolutely terrible. Anything he planned or coordinated was a horrible failure. His ideas were pathetic.
That is true, China has the worlds largest standing army; i.e. they have the most manpower. However, they are not the most technologically advanced military, but they are getting more advanced quickly. Thought I'd clear that up.
As for WWIII, I believe it will either start in the Far East or Middle East, so it will definantly start from some place in Asia. It could be becuase of Korea's nukes or the middle eastern oil, I dunno. :\
New threads
-
-
-
-
-
Diablo 2 ladder: D2R ladder reset may be in April 2022
- Started by HaydenTownson
- Replies: 0