results of WWIII?

[Mind]

in your opinion who would win the war USA + NATO allies + Japan & other allies Vs Russia + China + Iran & some their allies. I mean without using of nuclear weapon?

[zakblood]

nobody,

as in nobody wins wars, only people lose

power is only in the eyes of a few death-pots as victory only seems a few hours or battles away, but it never comes, only more misery to the masses on either or all sides.

while history is written by the victors, in the end almost all knowledge is lost as we don't learn by our or others mistakes and keep on making them

[Lobster]

^ This a million times over.

[Yogi the Great]

ORIGINAL: Mind

I mean without using of nuclear weapon?

Would the side that's losing actually be willing or able to not use the weapons? If the winning side is just fighting to not lose and willing to accept the end just being the stopping of hostilities perhaps. However if the winning side is actually after world domination and/or control of important resources the side that is losing has a much harder choice. Unfortunately some winning or losing may choose to use them if they feel it will save them or give them the advantage. Or as has happened in the past, if the use of the weapon ends the war and saves the number of lives that would be lost otherwise, is it a good choice?

Food for thought, many questions, hard to predict good answers.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Mind

in your opinion who would win the war USA + NATO allies + Japan & other allies Vs Russia + China + Iran & some their allies. I mean without using of nuclear weapon?

The one that has the political/national will to endure casualties that would make what Russia lost in WW2 look small. And can go on no matter how long it takes.

[Rising-Sun]

Playing or studying war games is fine, but going to war world three isn't. Imagine how many lives would be lost compare to World War 2?

Not a good idea talk about that subject in here.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Mind

in your opinion who would win the war USA + NATO allies + Japan & other allies Vs Russia + China + Iran & some their allies. I mean without using of nuclear weapon?

warspite1

Who starts it? and why? Who are the leaders of the various powers at the time and what are their goals? How stable are they? What is the initial goal of the starting power/bloc - and is it really not something that can't be negotiated away? Why does it develop into a 'World War' given what the consequences are likely to be?

World War III is just impossible to contemplate. For a war to be so serious that all major powers are involved - and yet not so serious that nuclear weapons won't get used - seems so unlikely. The biggest danger to the world is some rogue element, with nothing to lose, doing something really stupid. But if that happens, why is everyone going to start shooting at everyone else?

[shunwick]

And when all the world is overcharged with Inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is Warre, which provideth for every man, by Victory or Death.
Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

Best wishes,
Steve

[U47]

Timber companies and stone quarry owners

[sullafelix]

I was thinking cockroaches and rats.

[Jagdtiger14]

Wording the question the way you did brought the philosophers out. Lets say its a game with cardboard counters or pixels.

I think Russia and China would hold most of their Asian mainland land mass, and there is nothing much anyone could do about that.

China and Russia, plus North Korea could probably take out South Korea. Maybe China could take Vietnam just by brute numbers. I highly doubt China could take Taiwan with conventional means even without the US interfering. China would not even try India. Russia could probably take the Baltic states, push into Ukraine, NE Poland, northern Scandinavia. The rest of the world belongs to the "Allies" including all sea areas and Earth orbit.

It would be a disaster for the Russia/China alliance. I'm not sure what their realistic goals could possibly be? Why would they do this? I'm sure they can imagine the end result which would put them much worse off. The above assumes there is not a pacifistic minded US President. If the US were to sit it out somehow, then it would become interesting.

The west just has too many tools combined with experience from the war on terror. Technologically the only way China and Russia can even fake it, is by spying and stealing tech. China would be better off just waiting...keep its economy improving, take small steps as it seems to be doing, and wait for opportunities. One scenario the US could implode politically (civil war, revolution), and that would be a huge opportunity.