World War III

[Kurioxan]

This scenario wouldn't result in WWIII, as it would just be "everybody vs ISIS" and would be over relatively quickly. Remember a large part of the Arab world is involved in active military action against ISIS.

Except they aren't. They say they are, but do nothing about it and even help. Turkey, Quatar and SA actively fund and help ISIS with supplies and transport.
The current Turkish shelling of the region is to stop Kurdish from cutting supply lines from Turkey to ISIS.
Never trust what politicians and media says, look at actions and take conclusions from there.

[Deleted]

Because of the NATO (Turkey is part of it).

If Russia attacks Turkey, it attacks us all. This is why it won't happen.

Exactly, Putin knows how the NATO works. The NATO is a defensive pact not an offensive one.

[Deleted]

Finland is not So if Abdullahs and Vladimirs want to fight, by all means, but I have no interest in it ^^

Here's the deal, unlike WW2, fought with largely conventional arms, if a WW starts now, the loser will launch their nukes when they'll fear they're about to lose. Then, it doesn't matter that Finland won't be in the war when the radioactive clouds come over your country. Sure, you might not take direct hits (though you never know if someone misses or diverts a missle), but you would still suffer.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Except they aren't. They say they are, but do nothing about it and even help. Turkey, Quatar and SA actively fund and help ISIS with supplies and transport.
The current Turkish shelling of the region is to stop Kurdish from cutting supply lines from Turkey to ISIS.
Never trust what politicians and media says, look at actions and take conclusions from there.

Yes its a token effort. Yes, its more publicity than say a concerted ground effort, like when the female pilot from UAE was doing airstrikes. If SA or Pakistan, for example, decided to engage in a concerted ground offensive against ISIS with their full military capability this whole thing would be over fairly quickly, that's obvious and therefore obvious that the effort being put forth is minimal.

However the minimal effort, even as a token show, is there. Libya calling for increased Arab response against ISIS is there. ISIS, by their own admission, considers their greatest enemies to be "fellow Muslims" who don't follow their "true path of Islam". This includes most of the Muslim world. ISIS is another headache in the region and not exactly welcomed with open arms across the Arab region.
What I'm saying is that if they don't have open support of a coalition of Arab governments now, then them launching a nuclear attack is not going to give them a surge of official alliances across the region. There would be no point. The international response to ISIS launching a nuclear attack would be devastating, and no government in the region is going to want to sign up to be on the receiving end of that. Even countries that are giving tacit or discreet support would be quick to distance themselves were that to happen, and so it would be ISIS standing alone. That was my point.

[Deleted]

Nobody want's a new world war. Who benefits?

[caervek]

Nobody want's a new world war. Who benefits?

Arms dealers.

[Simulacrum]

Nobody want's a new world war. Who benefits?

Nobody benefited from WW1 either (except maybe the americans, but they didn't really cause it so that's moot). These things happen sometimes.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Nobody want's a new world war. Who benefits?

Not quite looking at it the right way. Instead of "Who would benefit from a world war?" you need to ask "Who thinks they could benefit from flexing their muscles regionally only to have it spiral out of control?"

Nazi Germany didn't invade Poland with the mindset of "It will benefit me to go to war with everyone in the world." German assumption was that Britain and France would not come to Poland's aid. Their plan was to make another land-grab on their march east, not to launch World War II.

[Mueller Greyhound]

I am more interested in conquering Russia and make it U.S owned territory.

[Deleted]

I am more interested in conquering Russia and make it U.S owned territory.

About as likely as me being named Miss Teen America.

[caervek]

I am more interested in conquering Russia and make it U.S owned territory.

Not satisfied with Alaska then? :P

[Cerilis]

About as likely as me being named Miss Teen America.

I'll kidnap you, put you in a freezer, then put myself in a freezer with the U.S. conquering Russia as a wake up condition (if it happens some day), just to call you Miss Teen America.

[Azadina]

Here's the deal, unlike WW2, fought with largely conventional arms, if a WW starts now, the loser will launch their nukes when they'll fear they're about to lose. Then, it doesn't matter that Finland won't be in the war when the radioactive clouds come over your country. Sure, you might not take direct hits (though you never know if someone misses or diverts a missle), but you would still suffer.

Then sue the one responsible for damages ^^

[Deleted]

I'll kidnap you, put you in a freezer, then put myself in a freezer with the U.S. conquering Russia as a wake up condition (if it happens some day), just to call you Miss Teen America.

I can see at least 3 problems with your plan.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

I am more interested in conquering Russia and make it U.S owned territory.

Do you have a fixation on impractical logistical nightmares?

[Cerilis]

I can see at least 3 problems with your plan.

Noooo! My plan is infallible!

[Deleted]

Not quite looking at it the right way. Instead of "Who would benefit from a world war?" you need to ask "Who thinks they could benefit from flexing their muscles regionally only to have it spiral out of control?"

Nazi Germany didn't invade Poland with the mindset of "It will benefit me to go to war with everyone in the world." German assumption was that Britain and France would not come to Poland's aid. Their plan was to make another land-grab on their march east, not to launch World War II.

It was Britain who started WW2 when deciding to interfere in a regional border dispute.

[caervek]

It was Britain who started WW2 when deciding to interfere in a regional border dispute.

I wouldn't call the invasion/conquest of another country a "border dispute", and IIRC France declared war on Germany the same time as us with Canada/Australia/etc following suit soon after.

[Deleted]

As long as I don't hear serious people (that is, actual global leaders) talk about a war scenario, I don't really care much.

Maybe you've missed the news but Russia is starting to reference a world war recently. It is certainly a possibility with the current world events.

- - - Updated - - -

It was Britain who started WW2 when deciding to interfere in a regional border dispute.

Britain and France started WWII, contrary to popular belief saying it's Germany.

[GennGreymane]