Say if there was to be a WWIII, what do you think would be the new alliances? Would the old alliances exist? Now that China and India are emerging as the new super powers, how do you think this will change the war scenarios?

Well the Europeans have decided that a counterbalance is needed against the US. They have agreed to sell arms to the Chinese. IMO, this would never have happened without Bush's arrogance and disasterous foreign policy management. Of course, invading Iraq didn't help either.

The US are driving the Iranians into the arms of the Chinese as well in self defense.

Many oil producing countries are now looking at China as a better long term partner than the US.

Russia is selling arms to the Syrians.

Bush is making a mess of everything.

I think if there was a world war iii which is at this point an unlikely situation it would be something like this....(im going to us the U.S.A as the allies)

Allies: United States
Canada: Wouldn't make much of a difference but would without a doubt be on the U.S's side.

Great Britain: Would without a doubt also be on the allies; and would definetely be heavily in it

France: Would be on the allies side possibly sending them supplies and such; however i believe if there was a world war iii they would also get fully into it.

Germany: Would also without a doubt be on the United States side....They wouldn't make a huge difference but would however make a significant difference.

Japan: Japan would be on the allies side and would be battling in the pacific; mainly against north korea and possibly china.

Pakistan: Pakistan would be on the allies side and would make there difference by fighting against possibly india.

Axis:

Iraq: Yea.....they've sort of already been taken care of if there was a world war iii.

Iran: They would make a significant difference and would also be targeted considering they've got sort of a flat terrain (easy for tanks and transportation) and would also be an important air base to have military strike teams at for the allies.

Egypt: Egypt would probably join the fight but wouldn't make a whole lot of difference. Considering they have 3 borders they could be taken out rather easily.

Syria: Syria would be on the axis's side more than likely

North Korea: They would definitely be on the axis's side; their would also be a good chance that if they joined the alliance they would have been attacked; and according to Pyongyang if they're attacked China would retaliate with them. If China does join North Korea would quickly disperse their nuclear weapons and military stuff in China so it doesn't get quickly destroyed.

China: If china did join the war with the axis and this is an incredibly huge if....then it would definetely be a world war iii...China is the third leading country in possession of tanks...They have the largest man military and i believe they are up there in nuclear weapons (anywhere from 3rd-5th.)

India: This as well as China would be an incredibly huge if but they might join the axis by being persuaded by China or some other country...They also have a huge dislike for Pakistan...If they did join the war the allies would be at a huge loss for man power and would have to be much more strategic with they're warfare.

(Russia: Who ever side Russia was on would win the war.)

Total casualties:
United States: approximately 30% of the population would be killed or die of radiation within 5 years.

Great Britain: approximately 40%. (This one is hard to estimate....if the axis had control or somewhate control of the air this number will be much higher.)

France/Germany: approximately 25%

Japan: About 85-90%...The lucky 10% were able to escape to the United States.

Pakistan: approximately 85% of the population would be killed. (Considering they border iran/india. They are also near China.)

Axis: Death tolls of the population would be much lower.

Iraq: 5% (No need for many nukes on them.)

Iran: 20%

Egypt/Syria: Both would be around 30%

North Korea: 97-99%. (They are an extremely dense country with an extremely high amount of nuclear weapons. The allies would attack these places to diffuse or blow up there nukes.)

China: 40%. (I believe the allies would have a tough time conquering China so they would resort to just blowing them up.

India: 75%. They're high density would have many side-effects with the allies nukes.

(A world war iii situation like this would be highly unlikely but i included China and India just to show what could possibly happen if they do decide to join

WW3 will be mos likely world vs america, soon as the old alliances crumble, it will become communists+socialists vs capitalists, that is when america will get crushed along with its allies(probably their puppets in afganistan and iraq)

after the capitalists are destroyed, socialists and communists will have a war of words, after which a heavily socialist but not communist system will ewerge and become global

I think if there was a world war iii which is at this point an unlikely situation it would be something like this....(im going to us the U.S.A as the allies)




WW3 would consist of the world vs, America , Britain, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Israel
I think nukes would not be used. it would be smart weapons vs conventional military in large numbers. the war would last about 10-15 years.. and 30% of the world population would die.

WW3 will be mos likely world vs america, soon as the old alliances crumble, it will become communists+socialists vs capitalists, that is when america will get crushed along with its allies(probably their puppets in afganistan and iraq)

Yes, and then the Communist leadership will do what they do best;
- Argue incessantly about who is taking the “correct” path
- Establish personality cults
- Build “socialst realist” (meaning brutally ugly) monuments
- Rape peasant girls
- Imprison and slaughter their populace
Ahh, comrade, what a glorious future awaits us all!

Barkhorn

Bush is making a mess of everything.

.and we have another "reductum ad absurdum" WINNER!

Congratulations.

Hopefully the communist leaders wont make the mistakes of the past :(

Well, Russia has always been a strong ally for India, and now China and India are getting closer in relations. And the only country stronger than India and China is US. So if India, China and Russia work together, they could easily destroy the US. India has very powerful nuclear weapons, and if it is combined with the long range firing missiles then the alliance would be unbeatable. However, it is true, in a nuclear war you cannot decide which country is stronger. But if US and Canada launch the weaponization of the space program then US could survive.

We still hold mutual annihilation over each others heads... both with WMDs and economic interdependence. If anything, I expect America to be right there in the alliance with the only major powers on the face of the earth.

Well the Europeans have decided that a counterbalance is needed against the US.Jagger
Says who precisely?

If we are speaking of an event occuring right now;
Remembering that not all countries would become involved, I think that those who have already shown a willingness to participate in the deletion of 'potential' global tyranny would be staunchly on the side of true democracy. Whereby the remainder being those Nationales intent on the advancement of a select couple, or overly attentive to the way in which their country is presented to and appreciated by the wider world, pander to the wider world in general.

Liberals predicted, repeatedly, that Reagan would start WWIII.

Ralph Nader predicted in 1980 that oil would hit $300 a barrel by 1990.

In 1981, Business Week predicted Reagan's privatizations would mean the end of the equities markets (Stock tip: Business Week is the best counterindicator around).

In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted the world would run out of oil over a decade ago.

In the fall of 2001, Noam Chomsky and his fans predicate American would create a genocide in Afghanistan during the coming winter and 4 to 5 million Afghans would die.

Last fall, liberals predicted the elections in Iraq would be a failure and needed to be postponed.

Bottom line is these weren't rational predications. They were political statements disguised as prophecies.

In my experiance, theorizing about the future is a bad idea.

Aeroplanes wouldn't be used as military toys.

Y2K would kill us all.

Hilter is going to stop in Munich . . .

You get the idea. Predicting the outcome of a WWIII, or any war, lies almost entirely on the issue or catalyst that provoks it. On top of that, alliances depend entirely on the situation. That's why democratic America and Great Britian allied with the Soviets. Churchill even favored Mao over Chaing kaishek.

Bottom line: almost no one accuratly predicts these sorts of things. If we could, they would be avoidable.

BTW, Mr. Phoenix, another Star Wars test failed last week. The system needs a lot of rethinking before it can work.

Say if there was to be a WWIII, what do you think would be the new alliances? Would the old alliances exist?
Just the European Union , America is waning as evidenced by the current mideast morass .
Now that China and India are emerging as the new super powers,
China and India are possesions of western Finance and are totally reliant on access to the more advanced affluent consumer societies of the West . In fact China with a population of 1.3 billion has the same GNP of Italy which has a population of 60 million . And India is well behind China economically in fact China is just a vast factory for the production of out work for Western companies .
how do you think this will change the war scenarios?
You will see with the evacuation of the mideast of America the squabbling over that region by The EU , Russia and Turkey .

But if US and Canada launch the weaponization of the space program then US could survive.

canada would be one of the storngest allies against america, they can send as amny ground trops in as they want, and any attempt to use nukes against them will kill or sicken many americans too. so if bush really does have an IQ more than 50points it wont happen.

canadians hate americans, there is no way that canada will side with the yanks

canada would be one of the storngest allies against america, they can send as amny ground trops in as they want, and any attempt to use nukes against them will kill or sicken many americans too. there is no way that canada will side with the yanks.


Well the competition was fierce - but you managed to pull it out. The dumbest single post in this thread!!

Congrats.

Barkhorn.

Hopefully the communist leaders wont make the mistakes of the past :(

Oh yes they will, it's the nature of the system.

Barkhorn.

all leaders screw up, its just a matter of on whath scale they do it

and yes, my post would make more sence if i used correct grammar, i shall edit it now

Brian Folley, buddy, you got your info wrong. If you really want to know, China has one of the highest GDP in the world. Not even anyone country in the EEC is even close to it. Besides GDP per capita does not mean much in an event of war. India also has a very high GDP much more than you think. It is a well known prediction that in the next 50 years or so India and China will rise as powers that are much greater than the US and Russia.

With a social disparity and human rights situation infinitely worse. Yeah, a billion citizens each tends to give you a bit of muscle... but it doesn't ensure you will like what you get.

I hate to burst your bubble but india is not a majour power, nor are their nukes powerfull or accurate or good. China's nuclear arsenal is smaller than that of france and russia has too much financial dependance on other countries. And Yes china is growing extremely fast , india isnt...

Originally posted by vslayer:
canada would be one of the storngest allies against america, they can send as amny ground trops in as they want...

Hahah, I couldn't resist. I'm sure everyone else here knows what a pathetic thing of an army Canada has, and with the population of California we wouldn't survive even if everyone was conscripted.

yea, but we have allies, russia is only a quick sea trip away, then its on.

after the capitalists are destroyed, socialists and communists will have a war of words, after which a heavily socialist but not communist system will ewerge and become global
Hey buddy, Kruschev called and he wants you back in 1956.

You've all done a great job of explaining why certain alliances would form if WWIII happened. But nobody has made a very convincing case for it happening.

The only countries that have a proven taste for violence in recent time are the USA, the Muslim nations of the Middle East, and quite a few African countries.

Communism was overthrown with almost no shots fired. Russia and the rest of eastern Europe are tired of war.

Western Europe was opposed to joining in the Vietnam War or any of the Mideastern shenanigans. They are tired of war.

Japan hasn't gotten over the shame of WWII. It'll be the last country to enter WWIII.

North Korea hasn't fought a war since the Korean War. Kim may be a maniac but he's not stupid. He'll sell weapons but he won't shoot them at anybody.

China doesn't need a war to accomplish anything, they're about to become the world's leading economic power. They would not hesitate to fight if they were threatened, but no one's threatening them.

Ditto for India. The last thing their economy needs is the drain of warfare. Sure they have a historical problem with Pakistan but they're not dumb enough to piss off the entire Muslim world with an unprovoked attack.

If there is a WWIII, it will be the USA vs. the World of Islam. Indonesia and Malaysia would probably eventually come to the aid of their Muslim brethren, but despite their huge populations they probably would not affect the outcome with their modestly equipped forces. Yeah, Canada will stick up for Uncle Sam like she always does. Bless you, Canadian brothers. Even Australia might join us, they haven't forgotten the attack in Bali. And England. God save the Queen. Crap, are we still a single people at heart? One gets in a fight and we all join in, no matter how stupid the conflict?

The rest of the world will grit their teeth and sit it out while China and India take over the global economy.Y2K would kill us all.Obviously you don't work in I.T. If the entire industry hadn't stopped work on everything else and done nothing but Y2K remediation from July 1998 until Y2K, it would have been the disaster everyone predicted due to the shortsightedness of the non-IT managers who controlled the budgets, passing the buck and pretending that they couldn't read a calendar.

There were plenty of Y2K failures in 1998 and 1999, and the "yellow blanket" systems kept failing on into 2001. I purchased expired food with garbly printed expiration dates. Fortunately they remediated the expiration dating systems on medicines first. I didn't get a correct mortgage statement for all of 2000 -- which BTW according to the bank had thirteen months. Fortunately they remediated the ATM system first. My power company didn't send me a bill at all for six months and then they sent one for enough money to pay for the entire city. Fortunately they remediated the systems that control the generators first.

Y2K was the largest IT project ever undertaken. They were drafting retired Cobol programmers to review thirty-year-old code that the non-IT managers had casually promised us would be retired long before its Y2K non-compliance became an issue -- what they had meant was that they'd be retired too and the problem would occur on the next sucker's watch.

Y2K was caused by non-IT people insisting they had plenty of time to get around to it later. I'm getting sick of non-IT people saying lookee it was no problem, when every IT professional on Earth was working his butt off for 18 months to make up for everyone else's don't-give-a-damn-it's-somebody-else's-problem attitude. If it weren't for us, those airports would have shut down, those elevators would have halted, those mental hospital doors would have been thrown open, those traffic lights would have flashed random colors, those truck dispatches would have stopped being generated, and those police and fire systems would have been overwhelmed and running on manual backup, just like we warned you. I was there and I saw plenty of non-compliant code that would have failed. The rest of the world isn't quite so dependent on computers as we are, but the USA really would have ground to a halt and nobody would have been able to help.

It would have been "Dark Angel."

If there is a WWIII, it will be the USA vs. the World of Islam. Indonesia and Malaysia would probably eventually come to the aid of their Muslim brethren, but despite their huge populations they probably would not affect the outcome with their modestly equipped forces. Yeah, Canada will stick up for Uncle Sam like she always does. Bless you, Canadian brothers. Even Australia might join us, they haven't forgotten the attack in Bali. And England.

canada will never fall to the americans, america is considered evil by the majority of the populaiton, and that doesnt include those who just dislike it immensely.

I really think its out of our control to be honest.

its not out of our control, we control canada, and we will not let the americans win

Im sure canada is a majour deciding Factor in saving the world. :p

WWIII already happened, it was the cold war. Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and almost every third world nation were the battlefields of WWIII. If you add up the dead from places like Indonesia and the rest of the World the death toll probably exceeds that of WWII.

WWIV also has happened and is ongoing. The battlefield is Congo. When you have two million dead, five nations with troops in the field and many other nations tangentially involved then I think it qualifies as a World War. The USA for example was tangentially involved because of it's very close relationship with Uganda which is one of the Nations that sent troops into Congo. I don't claim to understand the war and the diamond trade and other minerals that seem to be at the heart of the war but I think we should call it WWIV.

So what about WWV? I think the most likely scenario is that it will be another cold war. I think resistance to the Anglo-American alliance's attempt to control the world will be the cause of the war. So It will Start with China, Russia, Iran, Spain, Venezuela, Argentina, South Africa, and Malaysia resisting The USA, the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, and assorted client me too states. The client me too states will fall into one of the following categories, 1: have a president who is deathly scared of the USA, 2: bought off by the United States, 3: relying on the UK and the USA and Italy to help smaller poorer EU states hold on to a larger share EU power verses the German French alliance.

France and Germany will start of as swing states because while they resent the USA's grasping for the ability to dominate the world, their ruling elites (particularly the French) have a common interest with the USA in maintaining the existing networks of global corporate kleptocracy. As the Germans and French see a growing resolve by China and Russia and Latin America to resist the USA the French ,Germans, post Burlusconi Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Czech, India, Brazil and more smaller nations will join the anti-imperial alliance against the Anglo Alliance. Eventually Japan and Korea will join the Anti Americans and the USA will be bankrupted and defeated.

The main physical battlefields will be the Middle East, former Soviet republics, South East Asia Pacific, Africa and Latin America. Equally important non military battles will take place in corporate boardrooms, at the WTO IMF and United Nations, with assassins spys terrorists and phony terrorists trying to create anger at the other side, smear campaigns, spin in the media disinformation world, in the media ratings world as new media emerges, in the blogosphere and at kitchen tables as families try to sort through the competing propaganda of the competing slates of political whores.

Canada and Mexico will be neutral for the last half of the war. The war begins when the USA invades it's next large country or if somebody with an as aggressive as Bush Neocon mindset wins the 2008 US presidential election. The War ends when the USA's economy collapses. The war also ends if the American people understand what was ugly and stupid about the Neocon mindset and also the Neocon light/ CFR mindset and then the American people stop electing the followers of these mindsets.

The Congo doesn't count as a world war because the fighting is taking place in one area, not spread around the globe. Deathrates alone do not a World War make.

I see your point. Congo is just one country. On the other hand Congo is 905,000 square miles and France, Germany, Italy and Poland combined are less than 600,000 square miles. Once I add the Russian, Hapsburg and Ottoman empires I have no doubt the WW1 land mass will vastly exceed Congo but WW1 was not a global war in the way that WW2 was.

WW1 drug at least three continents into the fray and so qualified. WW2 wouldn't have been a world war if it didn't also take place in the pacific and north africa.

Fraggle Rocker - i was merely pointing out that theorizing about the future is a bit of silly buisness. Nowhere did i say that not a problem. Besides, we're not all American here. I was living in indonesia adn the American ambassador was telling everyone to be prepared and buy canned food adn duct tape. Maybe it was a problem for the west, but we sure as hell didn't have traffic lights in Jakarta.

vslayer - I don't know what Canadians you know. We'll poke fun at the Americans, but i'm not really sure that Canadians hate anyone very much. That being said, the Canadian military is either overseas or of duty. We effectivly have no standing army at home right now.

Eventually Japan and Korea will join the Anti Americans and the USA will be bankrupted and defeated.

call me an ignorant american but i do not see america ever being defeated.



Firstly, the U.S air force has planes that have the capability to fire the first bullet, outmaneuver, and outspeed any other's country aircraft.

They're air force would demolish everything that stood in they're path. The bulk of all the opposing's combined airforce would be the only that could possibly challenge the american airforce.

Secondly, after the americans would acheive air superiority they could easily nuke their counterparts...

(It is true that some missiles could be launched into the U.S but those are inaccurate and for the most part weaker.

The U.S could directly drop them on Russia's Nuclear storage facility's and destroy there's. After that there wouldn't be many remaining nukes to launch.

And thirdly the U.S would also have some allies as well; Austrailia could help out with Naval battles in the pacific, and the United Kingdom could carry the bulk of the atlantic battles.

America will never be destroyed.

She might get severely bruised and battered but will never be destroyed.

Rome rotted from within as well.

Rome never died. First it packed up and moved and then it adapted a bit to the times.

call me an ignorant american but i do not see america ever being defeated.



Firstly, the U.S air force has planes that have the capability to fire the first bullet, outmaneuver, and outspeed any other's country aircraft.

.

I was talking cold war. In a cold war defeat and victory looks like the defeat of the Soviet Union and the victory of the USA.

A defeat of the USA means that the USA decides that it can no longer afford it's ambitions. In a defeat the USA pulls it's military bases out of most of the world. In a defeat of the USA in a cold war the world would gain freedom from being subject to the whims of the American president and American neocons would lose the dream of America becoming free from the whims of the world. America would become part of the world rather than master of the world.

The Neocons think that the victory of the USA over the Soviet Union was an opportunity that should not be missed. Anti-Neocons think that the destruction of the Stalinist dream was the victory. Anti-Neocons think the victory was very expensive and now want to receive the peace dividend. Neocons loved the stuggle and can not accept the anticlimatic nature of a the victory in the cold war.

The cost of the great American weaponry is the force that will defeat America.

But cold wars do often include misery and destruction. Angola was an example of the misery and destruction of the cold war. Afghanistan and Vietnam were other examples. America was defeated in Vietnam despite our great weaponry. Had the Soviets been willing to kill all of the Afghans they could have won that war. Had America been willing to kill all of the Vietnamese people then America could have won that war but would it be a victory?

With genocide off the table our great weapons lose their effectiveness. We really can't put genocide on the table while living in "the global village" economy in a easily outraged increasingly idealistic world filled with potential terrorists and filled with nuclear weapons.

Odin'Izm, sorry but tell you what, the only countries stronger than India in case of a war are America, Russia and China. So that surely makes India one of the strongest countries in the world. But I agree with Fraggle Rocker, India probably will not risk a war because it doesnt want to fight against the muslim community. But India's forces are one of the strongest in the world. The only problem they have is corruption. If they can overcome that factor which is slowing them down greatly, then they prove as an potential threat even to the US. Why, if US was trying to invade India without nukes, US would fail. And about Canada, I am a Canadian. IF like say 3000 US soldiers walked into Canada, Canada would like give up. Our military has never been strong and will never be strong enough to even scratch the army of the US. But if WWIII is between US and muslim nations, you can be sure that it is very hard to predict the outcome, if it is a nuclear war.

I am just waiting for George Bush Junior to call down his secret Star Destroyer Fleet and unleash a bombardment of lazers and Tie Fighters upon the everso innocent beings on this planet.

After the bombardment and centries later, by that time all of the bacteria and little animals would have been mutated from the highly sophisticated technologies and turn into massive Godzilla like entities. They all have lazer beam eyes and huge flamboiant butterfly wings and not to be fucked with.

That is who WW3 is going to be between.


(dont worry I'll close the door )

Odin'Izm, sorry but tell you what, the only countries stronger than India in case of a war are America, Russia and China. So that surely makes India one of the strongest countries in the world. But I agree with Fraggle Rocker, India probably will not risk a war because it doesnt want to fight against the muslim community. But India's forces are one of the strongest in the world. The only problem they have is corruption. If they can overcome that factor which is slowing them down greatly, then they prove as an potential threat even to the US. Why, if US was trying to invade India without nukes, US would fail. And about Canada, I am a Canadian. IF like say 3000 US soldiers walked into Canada, Canada would like give up. Our military has never been strong and will never be strong enough to even scratch the army of the US. But if WWIII is between US and muslim nations, you can be sure that it is very hard to predict the outcome, if it is a nuclear war.

the military has never been able to hold off an invasion by itself, but do you really think that we are just going to leave the guns in the cupboard and let america walk right in? anyone with a gun will be shooting them up, may i remind you of the french and dutch resistance durnig WW2 and the iraqi resistance in iraq now. ordinary people getting their guns and defending their homes

Odin'Izm, sorry but tell you what, the only countries stronger than India in case of a war are America, Russia and China. So that surely makes India one of the strongest countries in the world. But I agree with Fraggle Rocker, India probably will not risk a war because it doesnt want to fight against the muslim community. But India's forces are one of the strongest in the world. The only problem they have is corruption. If they can overcome that factor which is slowing them down greatly, then they prove as an potential threat even to the US. Why, if US was trying to invade India without nukes, US would fail. And about Canada, I am a Canadian. IF like say 3000 US soldiers walked into Canada, Canada would like give up. Our military has never been strong and will never be strong enough to even scratch the army of the US. But if WWIII is between US and muslim nations, you can be sure that it is very hard to predict the outcome, if it is a nuclear war.


Sorry but :

1, india is in deep poverty and would not sustain a war.
2, if your talking about nukes , france has the third largest stockpile after russia , america , followed by china and then by britain. Not only that but india's nukes are terrible worse then the rusty ones the russians have.
3, why would they want to go to war to begin with?

Man, Whats up with you guys? India is in poverty. Yes. But might I remind you that it has one of the highest GDP in the world.

On one side India has a billion people, a good education system an a tradition of deep thinking, wide spread use of English, and a developing high tech industry. India is like 300 x Jamaica. One Jamaica has no power but 300 Jamaicas would have some power.

On the other hand Indians are a little poorer than Jamaicans. Mid level political corruption is a serious problem in India. Quality control in manufacturing is a cultural problem for Indians. Most importantly in terms of vulnerability to outside power there are many serious divisions in India that could be easily exploited if something like the CIA wanted to send India into a chaos of civil war, terrorism, rage, desperation, hunger and economic collapse. Currently Assam, Kashmir and Punjab have independence movements. There are tensions between the educated / wealthy and the uneducated / poor. There are tensions between the Hindu fundamentalists and everybody (Moslems, all other religions, Hindu secularists, Western influence) else. There are Tensions between the Hindi speaking 35% and everybody else. There are tensions between the lighter and mid skinned Indo-European peoples and the darker Dravidian South. Each linguistic group (sample is 1st class train riders making conversation with an American in 1988) seem to enjoy putting down other ethnicites.

Nirakar, I agree. The point I was trying to make was that despite India's poverty and corruption, in case of a war, it would remain as one of the strongest countries in the world

Ye right , even if they can priduce alot with their GPD thats irrelevant during war , their army is badly trained , mal financed and unable to supress an invasion from a stronger power eg china their military technology consists of past-era soviet equipment which is usless when compared to modern technologies... look what america did to iraq. (exclude shooting down their own planes)

All that production capacity doesn't mean much when it should be easy to poison the country's two main rivers and carpetbomb its major industrial centers. The rest of the country is 100% third world.

well not so much as to poison rivers... civilians would die in masses

well not so much as to poison rivers... civilians would die in masses

That is OK. As long as one soldier was using the river as his water supply then any civilians that die are legitamite collateral damage. It is the moral responsibilty for weaker nations to never station any soldiers within the same watershed as any civilians when under attack from a stronger nation. Anybody from a weaker nation who resists an attack from a stronger nation or encourages others to resist an attack from a stronger nation should be hung as a terrorist war criminal because they are causing civilians to be killed as collateral damage.

I love sarcasm

Don't we all?

WIth the coalition of such alliances, how long would a wwiii last?

ww3 would not be an outright war, the begginnings of it are already in iraq, it will have to be an insurgency war, no force is going to openly start a war with the current nuclear capabilities of US, russia, france

Na, iraq isnt the start of it, but iran might be since its getting close to multiple interest.