i notice that you didnt put Russia anywhere

por que

Check the list again Nighthawk.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and several other Commonwealth countries would join with whoever Great Britain joins with.

However I think that Great Britain might well be on the other side since we have far more economically viable trade oppertunities with China than we ever had with the USA or some European countries.

That said, I doubt that WW3 will be a mere 2 sided conflict. The middle east will probably try to stay neutral and will be dragged into the war by an attack by the USA. But I doubt they will intentionally ally with the Eatern faction that you have suggested.

I also doubt that Europe and the Commonwealth would join the war at the start and would be dragged in due to fighting on their soil or by a 'pre-emptive' strike by either the US or Russia.

ah-ha
anyway....

yes that is a nice list you have there aoe3

Russia=Russian Federation

wow, I spent more than 3 minutes writing my first reply to this thread.
Meh.
WW3 will probably be closer to the overview of "Tom Clancy's End War" in terms of the sides, with Europe being drawn in to defend itself and hit back at agressors.

venezuela will join with russia I think, along with maybe cuba, and bolivia. and if they do I can see brasil being dragged into the war on the other side.
also depending on what happens in the middle east I can see jordan


but I think the most obvious is that Iceland will quickly become a world power and crush all other nations.

Haha okay Sicarius! Whatever you say!

I'm telling you man. in iceland they all get superhuman from fish paste and volcano fumes. they dont even have to use nukes or missles.
just clubs and whaling harpoons.

lol.
But once the worlds supply of fossil fuel runs out, Iceland will be one of the only countries in the world with electricity. So they may take over the world by dint of their energy industry. (Porbably only the worlds economy but thats still a huge amount of power for such a small country)

When East Asia kicks off I hope Europe has the common sense to keep it's nose out...

spartan492

Electricity is not a problem. Solar energy in deserts can provide all the electricity you need. It is more expensive, but still affordable and much cheaper than war.

Replacing fossil fuels for the car, is much harder.

Lucas

spartan, there is no way the UK will fight the USA.

Why?
The British populace right now hate the American system of government aswell as their foriegn policy.
If WW3 starts after the next general election (but before another puppet of the USA gains power), then GB will not join in on America's side.

I agree with Spartan on the part about it not being just a 2 sided battle.

I think that if there is a full-on war the main conflict wouldnt be the biggest problem. If the world leaders started fighting there would be no one to be a "good example" to the other nations. For example, if a two conflicting countries have their cease-fire or whatnot created and signed in a country that is now fighting one of its own enemies, who is to tell the country that had its cease-fire signed in the country now fighting that it cant fight to solve its problems. Therefore i believe that the conflicts in Africa(genocides/coups), Asia(China/Tibet), and the Middle East(Jews/Muslims) would become severly unstable and uncontainable.

It would be an overstatement to call WWI and WWII world wars if you call the next war WWIII. The percent of the world that would be involved would far surpass both WWI and II put together. If you dont think that is a valid statement i strongly urge you to check out this site...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

take the list the aoe3 and others have compiled that they think would be involved in WWIII and looking at the top 3 countries you will notice that that is 41.19% of the population. That is assuming that America, China, and India will get involved. America is a sure bet due to its recorde. Also China has Tibet which im sure they would love to squash into submission and India would be eager to take advantage of the opportunity to prove itself as a world power.

Russia is also almost certain to join in with the war, due to their new and rather disturbing foriegn policy

i wanted to talk about that originally but i hit the backspace button so it deleted my original post causing me to forget some things

sorry, did i forget to mention Venezuela and Cuba? crap.

by the way, this was originally posted in a claim on Jyte. here's a not i attached the first time i wrote this:

Nations denoted with (?) may be unlikely to participate. Also note that there might be more factions, but since many nations (North Korea and Pakistan especially) have a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset, if for example Iran and Russia are both attacked by the US, they would probably declare an alliance. The list was originally intended to be arranged by military power, but as the lists got longer, i decided "screw that".

and i think Britain is not nearly as likely to be America's enemy as France or Spain, whose populations absolutely loathe America, but the EU would probably stop them.

Might be better to state the conflicts that could result in a large scale war between industrial states rather thna a list of large countries.
as far as flashpoints go i think the ones with any global significance are

Tawain, china vs tawain/USA/japan

North Korea, china/NK vs SK and USA

Pakistan and india (others wont get invoved but due to both having nuclear weapons it could get real nasty)

Fomer Soviet states that Russian will/might seek to consume again, possibilities include Ukraine,baltics, georgia.
this might involve Nato vs Russia but i dont think the europeans have the balls/stupidity to take on russia. russia can throw away soldiers and tanks willy nilly, europe cant/doesnt have the politcial will. sorry ukraine you are on your own.

Iran.
most likely air raid by israel or the US to destroy nuclear storage and processing facilites. retatliation by iran...? iraq goes belly up, starights of homuz mined and closed down, oil prices rocket, major boost to terrorist recruitment drive.

as for the others
i love tibet, nicest people in the world...but sadly nobody is going to help them if china decides to crush them into submission. sure kind words from the west and music concerts galore but thats all.

Taiwan line: that would get involved with the others easily enough.

North Korea: that's probably the most likely to be isolated, unless China gets involved.

Pakistan v. India: neither state are stupid enough to use nukes, and not yet desperate enough. if Pakistan supports the Arab League, which is very likely, then America will probably get involved there as well.

Iran: would probably get sucked in to the mess eventually.

Tibet: they're not helpless. they have llamas, right?

Russia and the USA will not fight a war directly. proxies and other peoples blood is the name of their game. cuba/Ven vs the USA ? i doubt it. The USA might try naother coup in Ven or kill Chavez but their ability to strike back is very limited. also The USA could forget about any Christmas cards from any nation in central or south america (except lapdog columbia) for an awful long time.

Ecuador would give them a card. Or else face destruction of their currenty. (U.S. Dollar, *bitter laughter*)

The United Kingdom will not fight the U.S... not any time in the next 50 years at least. It doesn't matter that many people dislike Bush or their foreign policy. Dislike, or "hate" as you'd call it, is nowhere near a will to declare war on them. If you polled the populace you may find that they dislike America, but not in any political climate similar to the current one will you find that they will actually want to attack America.

Don't expect the Commonwealth countries to jump on the UK bandwagon. Loyalty to the queen is a farce in these cynical times. I wouldn't be surprised if Canada or Australia remained neutral. They have massive immigrant populations who feel no reason to assist the UK in war. If they participated in the war, it would be in their own interests, and not any historical imperative.

I would also not count on South Korean support. This is anecdotal evidence, but a South Korean friend of mine said that they polled his school in South Korea, and that most of the children said they would rather attack Japan than North Korea.

In the end, I doubt there will be a World War 3. The populaces of most developed countries are far too pacifistic. America may be a slight exception to the rule, but they would never launch an attack against Russia or China. Doing so would lead to America fighting on it's own territory, with it's own civilian casualties, something they would never stand for.

Chrispminis: if the UK DID join the war, they could easily get the other Commonwealth countries to join on their side. they have huge economic incentives to offer, and even if the populations don't particularly like England, the politicians do.

South Korea would get involved if North Korea and China invaded them.

America is a huge exception. Russia is a slight exception. The Chinese people don't want a war, but would of course be willing to fight if their government instructed them to and had a good reason - which they would. On the other hand, Europe's major powers, still collectively the strongest on earth, are so pacifistic it's not even funny. However, not all countries with large populations are very developed - Nigeria and Indonesia come to mind.

America would not be forced back onto its own territory. In war with China the front would freeze at about 20km from the coast - just out of range of China's overwhelmingly superior land-based artillery. but the US Navy would have such a large advantage at sea Chinese troops would never be able to reach the coast.

as for russia, they're not stupid/desperate enough to use nukes either, and we can't invade them, so it looks like a static war at sea.

so... add Taiwan and Georgia to the USA's side and Venezuela, Cuba, and Ukraine to the other.

aoe3rules, obviously there is incentive to not abandon UK, but no more than any other major trade partner with the UK. I would argue that the Commonwealth countries would not join the war simply because they are Commonwealth but to secure their own interests. This is contrast to the past when these countries viewed themselves as kin to the UK, in which the obligation to fight existed regardless it was in their best interests.

Why would North Korea and China invade South Korea? Just because they tried it before? With South Korea's sunshine policy and their mutual desire for re-unification I don't see why they would have to resort to violence, simply because the rest of the world was at the onset of a third world war. North Korea's official policy is to seek reunification without external pressures. Getting involved in a world war is the worst way to avoid international involvement. If Koreans want anything it's their independence. China is officially for the peaceful reunification of Korea, despite that such a reunification might be against their interests. They would absolutely not profit from a military takeover by North Korea. South Korea is a major economic power in Asia now and China very much values it's investors.

Actually, I would say that the Chinese people are more for a war with America than their government is. There is a lot of anti-American sentiment, and a strong held belief that the Western world is trying to interfere and exploit China. However, China's government would never go to war with America. It's vast treasury is almost all American dollars. If the two went to war they would both be economically crippled. It would undo decades of progress, if not more. There's just simply nothing to gain from it. Countries don't fight for nothing...

Nigeria and Indonesia are hardly imperialist countries bent on exploiting their neighbours... I don't we have to worry about them starting the next world war...

I would hope that USA can hold China farther than 20km from the coast, because otherwise they'll be chugging missiles. USA has significantly superior military than China, except perhaps infantry-wise thanks to sheer numbers, but it can not expect to tackle a giant like China without incurring significant losses, including civilian deaths. They're are many ways of hitting America that do not involve swimming. There are enough die-hard Chinese in America already. =D

It looks more like no war at all.

I agree with Chrispminis, and I like how Kissenger phrased it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIyMZ8zpHlM (though I'm probably using it out of context)

If things continue the way they have been over the last few decades that'll be just fine :-)

of course there's anti-American sentiment. the west IS bent on exploiting China. and as for their vast treasury being American dollars, it's not - it's actually debt certificates redeemable for American dollars.

Indonesia and Nigeria are not imperialist nations, no. why would you suggest that? is it stereotypes? you can't imagine anyone besides Germany being imperialist because of the other two world wars? remember, Nigeria has a huge Muslim population and a quasi-civil war going on, and if the Arab League countries promised to support them... As for Indonesia, their population is starting to get really ticked off at America diverting 20% of their food supply and starving them (remember, they're the ones who will be cutting down their forests for farmland when we use all our corn in our cars). and i never said they would START the war.

no, i said (or at least i meant to) that the US Navy would be 20km from CHINA'S coast.

got a map now.

http://www.freewebs.com/hiimme333html/factions.png

That doesn't change the overall situation.

I would suggest that the major players in world wars were all imperialist nations with increasing militarism. It's not so much stereotype as it is history. I have no idea what you mean by "you can't imagine anyone besides Germany being imperialist because of the other two world wars?".

Nigeria's huge Muslim population means what exactly...? That they would default on the side of other majority Muslim countries? The quasi-civil war that you mention would greatly deter them from participating in a world war. What would the Arab League countries promise to support them with? What would Nigeria have to gain from going to war with America and most of Europe?

I don't know where you're getting that statistic, so if you could please link me, I'd much appreciate it. Sounds like a very serious issue then. However, I'd say that the Indonesian populace might also direct their anger at the people responsible for allowing such massive exports at the cost of their lives. It's ironic that you mention American biofuels because Indonesia is undergoing massive expansion of it's palm oil production for precisely the same reason, to produce biodiesel. Which side would Indonesia enter the war on? They can't afford to alienate either side. Their current foreign policy has it's basis in co-operation with Western nations and it can hardly be expected to turn against Australia or America, let alone China.

I don't like arguing military capabilities because it's purely theory crafting and when it comes down to it, it's a lot more messy and unpredictable. I hope they'd be farther than 20km from the coast... you can only cover so much coast.

Saudi Arabia Monarchy is pro western.

@jack: that's why there's a (?). but that's only politically - you think the citizens there would just stand by and watch their allies, the few people on earth who share their ethnicity and religion, get invaded and destroyed by strange foreigners who seem bent on taking over the world?

@chris:
the first part was sarcastic. jk.
if the Saudis promised them money and help exterminating the "vile Christian fiends", which would help them end their violence (not really, but would it really be hard to convince them of that) then they would accept, no?
They haven't diverted 20% of Indonesia's food supply YET. with the motions in the senate to use whatever ridiculously high (and impossible) amount of corn for use in our SUV's (they've probably increased it to 259 quadrillion barrels by 2012 by now) that entail also cutting imports of oil to stop the GDP from plummeting, we would have to export practically nothing.
as for the Indonesian population hating those who allow the sales of their own food even more... how unlikely is it that the people would rise up and overthrow the government and kill the people who allowed the exports? very, but not inconceivable. then they establish a communist dictatorship and... and alliance with China would be the next logical step, no?
they can defend themselves from Australia easily enough. it's not hard when you have a 7x population advantage.
the only military theory we know almost for sure is that no nukes will be fired.

Their would be more for the top like the former Soviet republics due to the want to get rid of Russian aggression. (Only if they are pro-western) Georgia is the best example.

Also France, Spain, and Italy might join up with who ever UK chooses due to their closeness in the EU.

No, they would not accept. Wow, do you seriously think that the Nigerian government would be swayed into a World War in order to help exterminate "vile Christian fiends"? They are not so easily manipulated. There is no pragmatic benefit for them. Not to mention you haven't even determined which side the Saudi's would be on.

I'm not suggesting that the population of Indonesia would rise up against a corrupt government. I'm using the same logic that you used. If it's unlikely for them to uprise, how unlikely is it that they'll go and attack USA? I have no idea why you view a communist dictatorship as the natural follow-up, or how that has anything to do with their joining a world war.

It's not whether or not they can defend themselves against Australia, it's whether or not they can afford to lose such an important trade partner.

You're missing the point, and keep going off on tangents. World wars do not spontaneously arise and immediately every significant power in the world jumps in on it. There has to be a genuine belief that the nation will be better off going to war than it would be not going to war.

Yes crisp, wars might seem like crazy times with patriotic fever and calls for noble sacrifies for the sake of the nation etc etc..

but the people at the top will make a calm rational decision. maybe not a moral or wise decision but they are very concerned with survival and their economic wellbeing of themselves and their big business allies.

the UK didnt get involved in vietnam, the americans avoided the falklins(sp?) most of europe wisely opted out of the iraqi blunder and again america can expect to have maybe only israel and maybe tiny client states like georgia onside if they do anything in iran.

as for tawain, i belive the chinese when they feel confident will call the americans bluff, they will go for the island and we will only here loud claims of eternal friendship and solidarity for the tawainese from the americans and little else.
sorry tawain.