Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The developed nations are far too interdependent to ever risk total destruction. We'll continue to see brushfire conflicts like we've had since the end of WWII.
The developed nations are far too interdependent to ever risk total destruction. We'll continue to see brushfire conflicts like we've had since the end of WWII.
LOL! Now that is fricken funny.....
When i plant wheat. Why does corn grow?
It doesn't...
You reap what you sow. And we have sown the path of all out Nuclear war. To think that the developed nations are the one's to decide is laughable.
Pakistan and N. Korea have nukes. Iran will get them, or there will be nuclear war.
Why?
Because as we speak they have taken possession of the Syrian Chemical weapons, and the west will nuke them when they use, or threaten to use them.
Jerry Pournelle once wrote a book were an alien race subdued the Earth using using a kinetic weapon which had the impact of our largest hydrogen bombs. It was a small comet fragment not unlike the object that struck in Siberia in 1908. The Tunguska impactor was at best a few hundred feet in diameter but had the impact of a ten-twenty megaton hydrogen bomb and it was an airburst not a ground pounder. If such a impact was aimed at London, New York or Tokyo it would destroy the entire metro area of those cities and kill millions of people. One could choose comet material that is dark and is not gasy so its approach might not be detected at all and give no warning what so ever. There would be no radiation and no launch detection on Earth. As illustrated in the movie Deep Impact a larger comet fragment if directed into the ocean would produce an enormous tidal wave which if the impact point and size are optimized could for example take out nearly all of the Eastern or Western coasts or Gulf region of the USA. This might be a twofer since impacts in the Pacific or North Atlantic might knock out key US alies like Japan, Australia or the Western European allies. at the same time. Land based impacts might finish off the reat of the USA and even plunge the Northern hemisphere into a decades or even centeries long winter. Any power able to go to the Kuiper Belt and send small comets or fragments crashing into the Earth will no doubt have figured out how to survive the impacts and be able to return to Earth to rebuild and enjoy an American free future!
Maybe I'm wrong (although I know I have lots of company) but I feel like WW3 is nearly upon us (if not already here in the early stages), based on our unusually clever and quiet tactical conquering of the Middle East to the detriment of competing powers like Russia and China, as well as the timing of it all.
God I hope I'm wrong!
Anyway, my REAL question... Would it be humanly possible to experience another war on the scale of the last world war without anyone using nuclear weapons?
Or is it hoping for the proverbial "pie in the sky"?
they would have to nuke us, as many people as we have armed.....
Can World War 3 be fought WITHOUT nuclear weapons?
Depends on whose fighting. World War I, really only involved United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy and later the United States. I'm not sure how they get away calling it a World War when none of South America, Central America, Africa, Australia and most of Asia wasn't even involved.
World War 2 was more widespread, but there were plenty of countries that had zero involvement. South America, Central America, and most of Africa were completely uninvolved. Brazil and Mexico had some minor contributions but less then 40,000 combat troops from both countries combined were involved
So I guess technically if the Countires of South America squared off against the Countries of Africa, we could call that World War 3 even if no other countries got involved.
The third world war has already begun, I believe, the CIA and the KGB and al the other secret services have changed our view of war, during the first and the second world war, the armies went to war with entire companies at once, rarely with small teams, however, during the vietnam war and the korean war, there were not as much big encounters with big companies as before, the tactical fighting groups have become smaller and smaller, if you look at for example, the SEAL teams, they have small groups operating on one target at a time. With all the insurgency and counter-insurgency, the concept of war has changed to small attacks like the taliban against the NATO troups, these are almost always small encounters.
Also, with electronic warfare now becoming more and more popular, I think this is also a big part of WW3.
With all the governments being overthrown in the Middle-East and all the right-wing parties taking control, we are already in a huge ****pie.
My conclusion is that WW3 is already being fought and so far without nuclear weapons....for now at least.
The third world war has already begun, I believe, the CIA and the KGB and al the other secret services have changed our view of war, during the first and the second world war, the armies went to war with entire companies at once, rarely with small teams, however, during the vietnam war and the korean war, there were not as much big encounters with big companies as before, the tactical fighting groups have become smaller and smaller, if you look at for example, the SEAL teams, they have small groups operating on one target at a time. With all the insurgency and counter-insurgency, the concept of war has changed to small attacks like the taliban against the NATO troups, these are almost always small encounters.
Also, with electronic warfare now becoming more and more popular, I think this is also a big part of WW3.
With all the governments being overthrown in the Middle-East and all the right-wing parties taking control, we are already in a huge ****pie.
My conclusion is that WW3 is already being fought and so far without nuclear weapons....for now at least.
Nuclear weapons are about obsolete now. New weapons of war, weapons of mass destruction, have replace warships, fighter/bomber aircraft, conventional and nuclear missiles, and as you say traditional warfighters on the ground. The new weapons, like directed energy, electromagnetic warfare, weather warfare, spaced based weaponry, control by propaganda, mind control, false flag operations, staged events, and controlled terrorism are the weapons and tactics of war today.
I don't know about all potential wars in the future, but I'm sure the Ukraine crisis won't see any major armed conflict. I'm also sure that NATO won't be sending in troops into Ukraine or Crimea.
This fight will be done economically, not militarily. Russia has a stranglehold on Ukrainian energy, and NATO has plenty of countries who may be willing to respond with economic measure of their own against Russia.
We have seen what resolute economic pressure accomplishes with our policies on Iran; Adminijad's gone, along with all his militaristic threats, and the people of Iran are now demanding their leaders to quit their war building for more jobs, more civic development, and greater peaceful relations with the West and with their neighbors.
Iran still wants to be the greatest power in the middle east, but the government finally realized the power will come from a strong economy, not a strong military.
Russia is nowhere as united in religion, culture, language, or economics as Iran. Putin has troubles of all kinds in all corners of vast Russia, and he cannot afford to commit too deeply in the Ukraine and Crimea. Choking the Russian economy will work faster than it did in Iran, with no jets, tanks, A-bombs, or troops on the ground needed from us.
The greatest potential danger for all sides in this crisis is the possibility of Ukraine's economy flying apart and causing a civil war between Ukraine and Crimea. We all saw what happened in Bosnia-Herzegevina, and Ukraine is huge compared to that region. A similar civil war would be just as savage, as bloody, and have effects that are as long lasting. If Putin breaks it, he owns it, and he will not be so stupid as to break Ukraine in half; he would have to support both territories, which would cause major drain on the Russian economy. Over 20 years later, Bosnia is still impoverished, with no end in sight. It could remain a beggar nation for the next 50 years. Both were once the most prosperous of all the Soviet Union nations.
There will be small border fights, for sure; probably several of them. The Ukrainians are just as scrappy as we Americans, and they've been fighters for a thousand years on their home ground.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
