Thread:Eureka Enderborn/@comment-26184570-20170116183956/@comment-26084195-20170117164100

ChazmanianDevil wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

ChazmanianDevil wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

ChazmanianDevil wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

ChazmanianDevil wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: India would be side A, Pakistan wouldn't really support B, Palestine wouldn't get involved in a full-scale war like that (at least not as Palestine), most of the Eastern European countries named would probably be even less enthusiastic about the war than Australia or Japan, China wouldn't necessarily join Russia, Azerbaijan is more likely to join A than B, if Armenia etc. join B especially so, Cuba wouldn't join B, Venezuela is a highly unstable country so probably wouldn't join either, and I'd like to know which hat you pulled Nicaragua from. It's purely hypothetical, and it doesn't really account for neutrals. Also, there's a point in war where being neutral is just as dangerous as joining a side. No, there isn't. Actually there is. If you join a side you also gain there protection. Yes you're making a bet, but if you're staying out in a world war there's the very real chance the winning side will turn on you. And if you're afraid of that, you're not neutral. I don't see your point. True neutrality because the war doesn't affect you is in no way negative.

The USA would probably like to think it was neutral before WWI. But even then, the stock markets and industries were heavily invested upon the allies… Fair point. Honestly, if the process continues of pretty much ensnaring every country in treaties and alliances, and that system fails, WW3 would be catastrophic, even without nukes. It was indeed catastrophic.