None. Well dependant on the method of warfare. If it came to the use of nuclear weaponry there is no winner.
The contamination of the planet would be too much. Those survivors would suffer from body deformation to new born. The destruction of life forms needed t keep the eco system alive. Cities would not be possible to live in. The ability to make use of utilities would fail without the cooperative work of a population. Monitoring and controlling the production of power water and refuse collection to avoid the spread of disease.
Vast lands for agriculture would be uninhabitable and dangerous to even cross without protective clothing. Any survivors would live in a life of horror. Not just in the visual sight of death all around them, But in their daily struggle for life, to survive. Radio active rain falls to be avoided, and any crops it did rain on destroyed.
though in time the eco system may repair itself. With this new life may form also and our ability to deal with these will depend on if they are predator or prey.
No one ever wins only losers in war, there is always more damage then can be repaired.
There would be no winners and just losers.
This would be disastrous and cannot afford to happen. We have progressed so much since the First and second world wars that this isn't going to be like those ones.
The world as we know it wouldn't be the same and the radiation fall out from Nuclear bombs would have devastating effects long afterwards. Look at Chernobyl twenty years later, is is still not safe.
Everything will be affected and there will be only a few safe places left on the planet. Those places would be the winners if you could call it that.
I find it funny that when people talk about World War III they're forgetting the fact that we're talkng about a nuclear war.
I can bet my bottom dollar that right now,every first world country possesses nuclear weapons that can cause mass destruction. Let's not forget North Korea, even though they're a third regarded as a third world country but they possess nuclear weapons. Who knows how many other " third world countries" possess such weapons.
The answer to this question is that no country would win the war because everyone would be killed either by bomb blast or due to radiation.
People keep saying America will win. Maybe they will but will they survive the radiation afterwards because that's what's going to be left after the war.
Many factors intervene in your question, for example what would be the hypothetical countries that would go to war and what would be the motives.
Certainly the winner for me beyond who deserves to win a hypothetical war of that magnitude by his military deployment or technological contribution or any other reason that gives him the advantage, should win who has the truth and reason on his side, ie the country that goes to war for the right reasons (if there is a reason that justifies a war).
However taking the antecedents that have generated the 2 previous world wars it is evident that the winner of a world war will be the one that has the greatest number of allies and the one that deploys the best strategy. Military superiority does not always guarantee to be the winner.
America is undefeated with a 2-0 record so my money is on them. U.S.A.= G.0.A.T.
It will be USA and its partners. The US is the sole nation on the planet that has the ability to extend drive over the globe on a substantial scale. Furthermore the US may be the main nation which is equipped for building up a full scale atomic impediment, however on the other side-It is for all intents and purposes difficult to dispense with the US atomic munititions stockpile since it depends on a set of three of land, air and ocean conveyance frameworks intended to give a counter-strike capacity. The submarine-propelled ballistic rockets specifically are generally acknowledged as the most survivable component of the US atomic impediment as a part of it is dependably adrift. The land-based rockets too are hard to dispense with, as they are in solidified storehouses amidst the nation. Any foe confronting the United States would need to either retain an atomic assault or build up a ballistic rocket safeguard framework at present past the extent of anything innovatively practical.
Expect for a minute that by some extraordinary supernatural occurrence, the whole world has framed an alliance and is battling against the US. The joined military air and ocean lift ability of whatever remains of the world would be lacking to try and get a solid footing on the mainland United States. The land and/or water capable attack capacity of the world's militaries, barring the United States, is basically too little.
That implies the enemy would need to seize and utilize regular citizen flying machine and ships not intended for non-lenient conditions. These boats would require secure bases in Canada and Mexico, since they come up short on the capacity to convey powers onto unchanged shores. Hence, any endeavored attack of the US would initially resemble a somewhat diverse convoy of defenseless regular citizen boats and flying machine.
Not persuaded yet? Perhaps this will:
Since because of a worldwide full scale war with a nuclear option, Europe, Russia, the middle east, North and South america, Canada a smidgen, and Australia, and Africa, will be pulverized.
The reason WWIII doesn't happen is a consequence of M.A.D
Regularly Assured Destruction if you execute me, I will butcher you
The overall condition will be genuinely hurt and debased, with nuclear weapons, and additionally with invention and possibly regular. Structure in first world countries will be totally crushed. Mass strife will manage, and millions, potentially billions of people will kick the basin. Sealand is a bit "country" in the midst of the ocean, disengaging it from typically spreading bioweapons, or engineered mixes, and no one will waste a nuke on it.
Sealand wins since it will persevere