Originally posted by: Mardeth
He said the WWIII killed 3 billion people. But if you think about the fact there isnt 3 billion people in Europe, N-America and China in total its kind a bullshit... (He said that Russia would attack Europ, China and N-America).
And that the US would counterstrike Russia, that without the defense of the US the Arab countries would try and attack Israel (resulting in the use of WMDs in the region).
It's a hoax, but WW III could easily generate a huge number of casualties, although there is no reason whatsoever Russia would interfere in such a way with the US policies. They don't depend on US resources, and although reduced money from the World Bank (or none at all) would hurt them, they'd be able to manage. They have no reason to attack China either, and Europe hasn't been an enemy of Russia for quite some time now.
Maybe Russia (and some European countries) would intervene, but then with forces to support whatever side they want to win.
For a civil war you need clear sides anyway, like North vs South or Serbians vs Bosnians. In the US there are far too many groups for that, which do not agree with eachother. None can win a battle against all the others, and none wants to join forces with another side. If the US will re-elect Bush so he can mess up internal and foreign policies even further people may revolt against it, but that will most likely result in demonstrations and here and there the torching of a few city blocks.