Can World War 3 be fought WITHOUT nuclear weapons? (legal, how much, cost)

[Del Boy]

Unfortunately, cannibalism, whether thought provoked or pathogenic is one of the theoretical capabilities of the weapon systems I discussed earlier. I stress that members of this board take the time to do research on longitudinal electromagnetic interferometers and take time to review Maxwell's EM theory, which make these possible. Feasibility is a question of course, but with all the anamolies that are occuring, including so called "UFO sightings," again another capability of these powerful weapons, it would seem that the word theoretical should be replaced with "real."

With that said, this technology is a double edged sword. It could also provide us free flowing energy from the vacuum and open up the doors to intergalatic space travel. Unfortunately, humanity will likely kill itself before any of this occurs.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by BMOREBOY

I believe it could be, as long as the wrong nation doesn't get a nuclear weapon.

You are seriously deluded if you cannot see American monkeys hijacking our own nuclear capacity conscripted for evil. Your enemy is closer than you believe. It is in part within you hiding behind your American flag and your Bible. Your obsession about other nations leaves you oblivious to yourself and vulnerable to exploitation by evil.

Originally Posted by Steve40th

Wars change , and right now, we are in WW3. Its just not as you would think it should be. COld war with Russia and China are ongoing, as well as a luke warm war with North Korea. We have some MOABs that will look and feel like Nukes, but obviously arent. So many ways to fight a war, but the one that works the best is financially kill a country.. And China is doing that to us right now...

China isn't doing this, Steve, it's self inflicted. You've got to own this as a national psychiatric condition. Governance was set to shoot itself in it's own head since Reagan. China is merely sitting still like a cheshire cat waiting for Americans to finish digging their own graves via monetary system & avarice controlling governance (and the will of the people) by proxy.

Originally Posted by Icy Tea

Nuclear weapons have prevented World War 3.

Strongly disagree. Like a nation that cements it's cannons in place, the national dialog obsessed with nuke supremacy left us militarily vulnerable to all other trojan horses. Hence, 911. Hence, the fiscal terrorism inflicted upon western civilization via political channels entirely unreported. It's a non event.

Originally Posted by 14Bricks

^^^^^^^this. If it weren't for the deterant of nukes, the U.S. and Russia/soviet union would have got it on a long time ago. Thats why Truman was hesitant to escalate the war in Korea.

That would be a longstanding delusion sold among hawks to justify their MIC existence. Neither side had authentic desire for world dominion. The political will of American citizens and Russian citizens were contrary to global dominion or colonialism, and at each step they were dragged against their will servicing that agenda, the wars were lost. Assimilating Yugoslavia, and most other satelite sovereigns, came to the detriment of communist rule. Vietnam much? Afghanistan 1 much? The results of Afghanistan 2 is shaping up to be the same. Fools errands only serve the clever Tom Sawyers, leaving all others at a loss.

England became stronger letting go of the colonial tar baby.

[GTOlover]

Originally Posted by GTOlover

Well we will just use the "theoretical" flux Capacitor to go back and stop WW3 from happening and go back to live 1985 because this time period sucks.

88 mph bttf Delorean - YouTube
here is some top secret Govronment tests that got leaked they happend in the 1980's I believe even used a dog to test it out for the first time.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

LOL!!! Oh GOD...Oh God, you are so funny!!!

You got me in tears!!!

Gosh damn. Tell me you got a sitcom or special on HBO!!!

Please tell me I can catch your act live.

You are just too damn funny.

Well we need to lighten up because the point is to prevent WW3 and we can all use a little humor now and them and no HBO special only PBS would give me a time slot.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by Del Boy

There are more pressing issues than alternative energy sources and/or terrorists possessing weapon systems capable of wide spread destruction that could cost the United States economy billions of dollars, and the lives of American citizens?

Yeah, pretty much. As scary as terrorist are, they simply don't have the ability to wage a war of any real size against the U.S. The flying planes into buildings thing was big but that's about as big as they get and yes it cost the U.S. trillions.

You don't seriously think a terrorist can carry out climate changing activities against anyone on this planet do you? It takes the cumulative power of several nuclear power plants to heat any part of the atmosphere up enough to cause global shifts in climate and wide scale destruction. Did you not see the small ass color TV OBL had in his room when the Seals ran in there and shot him point blank in the face?

And you think these terrorist are hiding a ICBM, HAARP or some other nefarious weapons system in some bunker in Pakistan, E. Europe, Siberia, etc, etc, etc?

As far as alternative energy goes it will be important but it's still not going to do anything to keep your way of life. There's simply no alternative to the American Lifestyle made from, by and brought to you with oil and specifically light weight oils.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

You can say something like medical coverage, but how do you expect to power the facilities or conduct daily business without alternative energy sources?

You're not going to be able to sustain anything if the U.S. doesn't get its fiscal house in order.

















And you want to, what, spend money using the S.S. to search every nook and cranny of the entire globe looking for theoretical WMD?

Originally Posted by Del Boy

I think there is no question alternative energy should be the number one priority. Do you disagree?

Sure, and you'll build that infrastructure with more falling-from-the-sky tooth fairy money.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by GregW

I wonder if the next WW will be fought with biological plagues instead of nuclear or conventional weapons. Conventional weapons destroy too much stuff. Plagues just remove the people. Weapons take massive industry to build and deliver (mostly) but a plague can be brewed up by a boiwizard in a bathtub.

Competing brands of avarice, one more intelligent, the other grossly ignorant... bioweapons that are poorly understood may so harm the eco system that whatever profit they were aiming for would render a world where their money is no good anymore.
Hooorah for asbestos. Get in on the ground floor of that industry. And lead paint. And snake oil with 500 side effects reaching 5 generations ahead. And nuclear face creams. Accountability when the profits are up front & golden parachutes leave the airplane to blame= zero.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

He's talking about false threats and how they take up tremendous resources and then he goes on to name more possible false threats that will take up resources like "some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

I take it that you think we should throws trillions of dollars at these possible threats from a vague answer from 1997?

Oh here we go again, Jon. Your own prejudices are your greatest nemisis. If you fail to see his temperance of justified political/ intelligence/ military responses... you have made yourself part of the problem. The moral of the tale is lost on you.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

You have no clue what I've researched and haven't so you can stop right there. You call it head-in-the-sand, I call it not willing to jump off a bridge for things that are theoretically possible. You're welcome to jump off the bridge so don't let me stop you. Donate all your belonging to help pay off the national debt before you do so please.

There are far more pressing issues facing this country which are directly in your face right now than worry about things that may or may not be possible 100 or 1,000 years in the future.

That can be solved by having those who've politically and materially invested the lions share in technology to provide the internet, space flight, cell phones... exact the point of sale fee from the end user with a permanent toll for those who voted against it and refused to invest. Stingy, hoarding, knownothings wanting free rides need only pay for their lifestyle directly. Let them abdicate citizenship formally.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

You're not going to be able to sustain anything if the U.S. doesn't get its fiscal house in order.

And the US will not get it's fiscal house in order until the litany of backyard mechanics you continue to send to DC impede the work. Which is the real end game of the think tanks leading you around.

[cruxan]

Originally Posted by harborlady

Nukes as bombs yield what fruit and benefit whom? Nuke material is a commodity. If I wanted to kill you, shall I use a gun or a gold brick risking loss of that gold brick? Avarice will win that argument, with the rest of us having secondary benefit of being spared it's infliction.

Nuke material is a liability and it is 'gold' for it's energy market potential. Fukishima, like any other reactor, is a potent target, true. Not a target of avarice, but a target by those who haven't anything to lose. The suicide runner. Nuke material targeted by avarice has the sole motive of acquisition. Not mass destruction.

all out world war dosen't work that way,, conventional power plants, nuclear power plants , as with large dams ,factories, oil refineries, bridges and so on would all be big targets, if the whole world was at war everything goes..

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by Oleg Bach

Hate to break it too you- World war 3 is being fought as we speak..and without nukes..Have you had a look around domestically and internationally- The world has been at war for about 10 years. The conflict is not like huge nuclear fires..it's little tiny fires - thousands of them every where that if put together have the same destructive impact as a nuke.

As we await for some nation to launch a nuke and do all to prevent it..our focus is taken off what is happening all around us..This war is humanity attacking humanity- as a world culture - auto-cannibalism is taking place- The human entity that is the human race is in the process of eating itself- First the fat- then the muscle- then the bone.

Agreed, but I don't think we're obligated to resign ourselves to that fate. I think grass roots demand for discreet systems- stand alone power generation, water capture systems, permaculture systems... the 'dreamer' stuff renewables, is going to be the survival of the species and perhaps the difference between sovereigns who survive vs the ones who don't. The more closely we're able to preserve democratic ability of individuals right to connect and disconnect from a grid at will, the more likely the solidarity of a nation will avert having it's will conscripted to unwittingly serve malevolence. The material basis for life in the control of a commodities market void of ethics is a threat immediately dangerous to life and health in ways not visible or spoken of in national or international dialogs.

How to translate old farmer wisdom, subsistence farmers, up to modern day survival is quite a puzzle to solve. But... necessity is the mother of invention. Try better not to economically, socially and politically kill the muses, please.