WWIII

[Cenna]

What would the result be if WW3 started in the middle east? Who would be on what side? Are there more than 2 sides? What would happen with ISIS (this is implying it started the moment you read this). Will nukes be a way of war? Take it as far as you feel possible but be prepared to have it debated. Debate in a clean and fair manner.

 

[japan77]

Interesting question, It's hard to say, but I would definitely assume that there would be more than two sides, probably an American one, Russian one, Chinese one, and a Terrorist one. Once nukes are fired, there is an obvious end result of MAD.

 

[Patrick MacFarlane]

America and the West v. Russia, the East, and former Soviet Union (because Russia will bully them into assisting)

And I think China would stay out of it. Because it doesn't benefit China to emerge onto the global stage that way. I would expect increasing levels of involvement by the two main sides through increasingly intense proxies until someone fires a bullet in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hot spots will be the middle east, the ukraine (which is mostly stable now, thank god), and Afrika. As the two sides wage war I believe China, rather than deploying into the conflict, will instead sit back and increase presence in bordering nations of SE Asia, Central Asia, the Pacific, and others "for thier protection" much as other leaders havedone before. "These are ethnic Chinese people, they need out protection!" "these are small, defenseless nations, they need our military presence and government advice while we station the occupation forces"

So while Red and Blue fight it out, China is just going to expand their sphere, harvest the resources, solidify bonds, and grow and grow their war machine. Then, when the smoke clears and if no one has bombed and dragged China into the firefight like an idiot, then we will see a new world where China is on equal footing, if not ahead of, the next world power. Small nations in the pacific and around Asia and Afrika will begin looking to China for military aid instead of the United states who is now far away and a shell of the military might it once was. 

 

[Rin]

I would expect Russia to be the first to use nukes. They're facing some tensions up there and it's not aligned against them. They're doing this crazy posturing about willing to let loose some nukes to discourage war, but actually going full nuclear war would be bad for them.

I know you said middle east, but a war would hurt the balance of power greatly and ignite all the tensions. Aside from Russia, Korea might see battle again.

Israel would almost certainly be involved. Saudi Arabia as well. Saudi is not much better than ISIS. USA picked really bad allies in the middle east and might end up the bad guy this time.

Iran would likely be on the other side, but tensions between them and USA has gone down lately. Iran will be a game changer in any middle eastern war, with more influence than any superpower.

War is going to create a lot of power vacuums and ISIS has done a good job of exploiting those.

 

[Abdul]

 

[Patrick MacFarlane]

I honestly think that full-scale nuclear war will never happen. I normally don't have any faith in humanity but I guess that in this I do. I don't think anyone will be able to push the Big Red Button. I do think, however, that we will see the use of small tactical nukes like are possessed by GB and France. Not as offensive but as defensive weaponry to make a buffer between the home nations border and the heartland. But that would be a last ditch attempt to stall the advancing enemy that endangers the actually borders of the nation. 

And I agree with just about everything Alex said. Korea, not an international, global war hot spot but definitely there will be conflict there. Japan v. China in the Yellow and South China Seas. Israel v. Jordan, Syria, Egypt, SA. Definitely central Afrikan conflicts coming up as a result of conflicting ideologies and lack of international aid all of a sudden. 

And I think the Middle East is very feasible as a catalyst to the next global war. BUT I don't think ISIS will play a big role, honestly. Once foreign boots get on the ground in large numbers ISIS will struggle to survive. I say this because, in stark contrast to Al Qaeda, ISIS is dependent on having a physical caliphate defined by political borders. It is not a shadow govt and a a group that sponsors and acts solely through other governments. Once foreign militaries get into the MEast in large numbers, ISIS will we sandwiched in between and uprooted. They won't disappear, I'm not dillusional, but they will be forced to adapt to lacking a physical caliphate. They will have to morph into a government like Al Qaeda or risk fizzling out altogether. They will be limited in potency for several months, maybe even a year or more, but they will continue to wreak havoc while the world is at war and too busy to pay them much mind as a nationless government in exile.