Which side do you think will win WW 3 ?

Question

Side one could be based on the following countries; China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea

On the other side, Australia, Israel, England, USA, Denmark, India, Germany, and France

My states say that side one is better, but lets see your comments

Answer 1

I guess the answer depends on who is leading each of the participating countries.  If for example Obama is president of the U.S. then side 1 would definitely win.  Obama lacks experience, good judgment, and the balls to wage a successful war.  He needs a poll to tell him what to say, he cannot think for himself and since his controllers are clearly un-American, as president he would bend over and take it up the rear.

Answer 2

I think that Pluto will win-it may just warm up enough to begin a new form of life.

Answer 3

side 2 would win, and it wouldn't be close

Answer 4

THE WORMS!!!

Answer 5

Side one definately. Any war at this level would involve large casualty figures which side 1 would find more acceptable. Do you think the US could endure casualties of 10 million? Could China?

Answer 6

It's obvious that you would prefer "side one" to win, since you named them "side one" and the powers of the West "side 2".

I doubt very seriously that if it came down to it, Russia would be on the side of the Islamists.  Korea - yes, Russia - no.  England, France and Denmark would be forced to solve their problems with Muslim immigrants, but when push came to shove, I think they could do it rather quickly.

China is the wildcard of the entire bunch.  If China wished to retain its prosperity through trade with the West, China would not remain on your "side 1" very long.

This is a rather stupid scenario, because we are already IN WWIII, even though ignoramus' like you fail to realize it.  It is a struggle between Islamo-terrorism and Western civilization and if the West would wake up to what is at stake, the Islamists would find themselves greeting God & Jesus in the flash of a nuclear blast.

Answer 7

dude side one cuz look they have the most powerful countries like china has necleur arms and iraq has the oil soo we are screwed if side one really joins up but then again half of those countries barely has any population soo yeah

Answer 8

Side one... sorry to say but United states is losing its "super-power" status.

Answer 9

Side two would win hands down.

Answer 10

If side one is to win it must do so quickly as its manufacturing capability would be dwarfed by side 2.  In a long war many of the Islamic countries you note have changed their equipment to US/European weaponry which could not be maintained (see the problems Iran had in the Iran/Iraq war).  In a long war, side 2 would also dramatically improve its ability to create synthetic fuels (as cost would NOT be an object at that point), etc, etc.  

So the question is could China, Russia, et al win a short war against the US, Australia, Europe, India and Israel.  Without using nuclear weapons none of the side 2 countries have the ability to lift sufficient forces to take over either the US or Australia.  So from a logistical basis side one will have to go nuclear from Day 1 and at that point, considering the likely response from side 2 the very concept of "winning" seems foolish.

So, the only possible winner would be side two, unless, of course we're all dead.  Given the thesis of On The Beach I guess side 2 wins because the Australians die last...