If it DID break out , whose side would you take ? \nU.S.A. or U.S.S.R. ?
201220
NEITHER I'M MOVING TO ALASKA, TO GET THE FARTHEST AWAY FROM IT WHEN IT HAPPENS; I MEAN BEFORE IT HAPPENS. WHY DID U ASK THIS QUESTION? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN WE HAVE WW3?
64368
It could crack or bust.
299138
S.A.\nI HARDLY COMPARED IT.\nYOUR OPTIONS ARE TOO BETTER THAN INDIA.
440261
This couldn't have been done 100 yrs. ago, let alone today.  No one in the states today wears clothes made in the USA.  We are so tangled with the Global Economy, we couldn't function if we withdrew.  There  would be no cars, computers, TV, trade of any kind, etc.  if we did that.  We have to be involved.  The question is about who is making the deals we get in, and who do they serve?  Today, we have been sold down the river by the powerful and they don't care what happens to you or your country.  We  should be telling them to go screw themselves.
41024
Two competative guys, both with their own personal agendas and priorities.  I'll root for both Americans.  You know people want to use the race card here but I don't see how it's applicable.  Go USA!
322414
Your right. You should probably take up arms against the US army to stop them.  I think after everything thats happended you are morally obligated to take a stand. Arent you?
534737
Mmm it’s hard to accept this fact, but it's true. The worst of this situation is that is too late to stop this process, and there's nothing we can do. The key for the success in the US was the relation of respect that we had with God and humanity, but at this time the US only cares about wars. Sadly, we'll have to accept the idea that US will collapse sooner or later, and that's when we will realize that we are not alone in this world, because there's others countries and we have to learn how to live together. If Empires like Roman fell down, why the US Empire had to be this exception? This is the hard reality. I just can’t assure you how long will this process take, but it’s for sure that it’ll happen, someday, somehow.
326316
USA all the way baby. if the mexicans don't like it let them get the hell out.
364833
Loaded question, anyone from either side will of course tell you its the other side that does.
669328
Option 1:\nChina invades Taiwan... US, Japan, Australia come to their aid. N Korea backs China by attacking US forces in S Korea... Russia does whatever it has to come out on top. If India gets sucked in than Pakistan will be at war with them. Mid-EAst might blow up with everyone distracted. \n\nOption 2:\nUS pulls out of Iraq early. Civil War immediately spreads starting with Kurdish uprisings in Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan. Next is Shites w/ Iran vs Sunnis with outside help. Mid-East destroys itself with all Europe & US trying to stand between them. Only thing that unites muslims again is common enemy attack on Israel. Western world takes Israel's side, crusades part 2. Genocide everywhere.
402190
If the USA threw the UN out of New York, it would likely decamp to Brussels (home of NATO, Council of Europe and capital of the European Union). I can't see the UN going anywhere else although I suspect one of the other Security Council members would offer to host it:- maybe London or Paris.\n\nIf the USA did this then they could either stay in the UN or leave. \n\nIf they decided to stay then I don't see much change from the status quo except everyone would decamp to another country. The USA might lose a bit of influence, but as it is still the most powerful economy in the Security Council and NATO, it would still be most able to act unilaterally in its own interest regarding world affairs. After all, no government in their right mind is going to stand up militarily to the US as has been seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.\n\nIf the USA were to leave, I guess the pro argument (from the US point of view) would be that they would be more able to act in whatever way they wished in world affairs, whether that be to withdraw completely from any world involvement or to force their will upon other countries with military backup.\n\nI can't see a pro argument for the USA leaving from other countries' point of view. The vast majority of countries look to the USA for world leadership, which is why they are trying so hard to get the USA onboard the Kyoto Protocol. The idea that any world issue can be resolved without the USA being onboard is naïve.\n\nThe main argument against the USA leaving the UN would be that it would set a precedent for other countries to follow. No doubt Russia and Israel would quickly follow suit so that they could go their own way in solving their own internal and external security problems. Maybe China, India, Brazil and the other big emerging markets would leave as well.\n\nI think what would be left would be Europe, South East Asia and Africa as these are the states that have most to gain out of the UN. Maybe Canada would stay as they are much more into consensus politics than is the USA, but the majority of others would leave.\n\nThe problem with this scenario is that world security, on a general level, would rapidly decrease, as there would be no supranational body to keep a check on the power of every country's government. There would be little consensus in world politics as countries went their own way politically. What we would be left with is a situation not much different from Europe pre-WW1, but on a global scale. The world would be governed by alliances between countries forming themselves into loose power blocs rather than with an overarching polity keeping a check on this.\n\nAs was seen in Sarajevo in 1914, the smallest action could trigger a conflict of massive proportions if there is no supranational body to keep watch. It took Europe until 1945 to realise that to stop a continual threat of war, some form of integration was needed to prevent war between countries. What we have seen in Europe since 1945 is truly amazing. Old enemies now resolve disputes in offices rather than on the battlefield. As a result the European citizen has a more secure life, is free to travel, free to say what he/she thinks... we've never had it so good.\n\nConversely, if there is no UN, then markets would likely collapse or depreciate due to a lack of security and the lives of people all over the world would no doubt get much harder.\n\nChris, Manchester, North-West England, United Kingdom, Europe.
674702
no\nno opinion\nlet the market forces shape it
651426
Well I guess that whoever wanted to lose would be on their side!!
306800
1. When at least one side adopts a stance of non-violence, or a non-violent reformer emerges, such as Gandhi did for India.\n\n2. I agree with the above answerer - the USA must get the heck out of all Mid-Eastern affairs.  Israel has a decent economy and a great army.  let them support themselves.
602996
America would win, hands down.
416619
My plan would be simpler and a bit draconian. I would withdraw all troops from the Middle East and let all the crazy people fight among themselves. I would announce to the world that if there are anymore terrorists attacks against the U.S., I would incinerate an Arab city for each attack starting with the capital of Saudi Arabia.
402381
Interesting question... both are awful choices. I'm not sure what the point of the question is (nobody would seriously propose either), but I'll play along.\n\nEither outcome would lead to mass regional destabilization, though the Israeli option would probably be better since they would turn it back over within five years. The splitting option would push Turkey and Saudi Arabia into civil wars, and an Iranian chokehold on that much oil would be bad for the world economy.\n\nThe best completely unrealistic option, though, is to turn over Iraq to the Finns. If they won't take it, I'm sure the Russians or the Chinese will.