PDA

View Full Version : World War III


Kiklo
07-23-2006, 02:40 AM
I was wondering what everyone thinks World War III would be like, if there is any. What countries do you think will be involved the most? What will start it? What will it lead to? Post your views here.

Personally I'm guessing one of the Middle Eastern countries will start it since they're already so pissed off.

Taure
07-23-2006, 02:58 AM
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

I think that the most likely way WW3 will start is that a country will get nuclear weapons that the US doesn't want to have nuclear weapons, and then everything will escalate, with more and more countries joining each side.

Shezza
07-23-2006, 04:06 AM
I think that it will either be China and America duking it out, or Africa finally deciding that it's a bit too crowded and expanding its borders out a little.

Dubrichius
07-23-2006, 04:09 AM
World War III will last twenty minutes and end with the cockroaches in charge. That's the only realistic way to describe that war.

Geisterstunde
07-23-2006, 05:51 AM
WW3 would be like HELL !!!
I can see it before my eyes... we will shoot at each other with our big nuclear weapons ( or something worse if we have developed such a weapon to this time) being like little kids with "your are guilty 'cause you have begun" till all living things (except from cockroaches^^) are dead and mother earth is a chunk of dead stone in the space ...
It doesn't matter who will begin I'm afraid of the end...

Midknight
07-23-2006, 05:56 AM
It'll be between China itself i'd imagine.

Billions of folsk in there, maybe a civil war, we back one side, other world powers back another, Korea jumps in with a nuke, etc.

it's going to involve China somehow, there's just so many damned ppl there under some fucked rulership

Zevrillion
07-23-2006, 07:35 AM
I don’t think WW3 will have anything to do with politics. At the time of the beginning of the WW3, we as the human race have consumed most of our natural resources, so the main objective will be who get the last remains.

Or for something really stupid like if Jesus was a cross-dresser or not.

Athenia
07-23-2006, 08:09 AM
I'm with Taure and Einstein here. If it ever got big enough to be called a World War (and by that I mean the US, UK and several other nuke capable countries did more than ally themselves with fighting nations, but actually got truly down dirty and fought in an all out war) then very little of us would be left. If it happened anytime soon, I have no doubt the Middle East would play some role. However, anything that didn't happen within the next 10 years is really up in the air as to who would be involved.

Lord Blackmore
07-23-2006, 08:49 AM
It'll be between China itself i'd imagine.

Billions of folsk in there, maybe a civil war, we back one side, other world powers back another, Korea jumps in with a nuke, etc.

it's going to involve China somehow, there's just so many damned ppl there under some fucked rulership

You have a point. But as long as the economic growth continues, people here are willing to put up with it. They expect that with an increase in wealth a more liberal government will take shape.

It's kinda funny to see that I can't access wikipedia from Beijing. Guess it's true what they say about the censorship. :p

The school I'm currently visiting every other day even has a shelter! (In case North-Korea decides to press one button too many)

ip82
07-23-2006, 09:45 AM
There won't be WW3 in the foreseeable future. Even if India and Pakistan blow each other out, or Korea uses up all their atomic bombs on surrounding countries, the conflict will be continental at best. Fear of total nuclear destruction of the world is the thing of the past IMO.

But we will have are more and more of these regional wars, like these in Middle East. West-European countries and America will keep barricading themselves from the rest of the world, while their armies will go out and bully African and Asian savages for the last scarps natural resources left there.

If we're talking about mass destruction, then we could expect some mysterious virus to hit Asia or Africa and wipe out a large part of population; After all, there's just so much space for population to grow, before using up all the space and food available to them. Western countries won't allow them to just overpopulate and start warring against each other over food and water, taking those resources down with them. AIDS is already doing this job, but its just not fast enough to beat the rampart birth rate in these parts; they'll have to send in something faster one of these days.

Of course, sooner or later, problems of overpopulation will hit home too. After all, there's already lack of nature in Western Europe and America will soon enough get there too. Once that happens, our civilization will have to take its ultimate test - it'll either manage to overpower basic human instincts and declare the laws limiting number of children people could have, or crumble in civil wars and ethnic cleansings of groups various sides deem unfit to waste precious resources on.

Of course, population-reducing laws would increase number of old people to ridiculous amounts and create such a deficiency of work force, that a whole new theory of economy would be needed (all current theories are based on constant growth of population). This will then create a whole succession of new conflicts and problems, including appearance of new extreme schools of economy and reappearance of some old ones (Communism).

In short, our civilization has 50 to 100 years of life left, tops. During that time, number of regional wars and tensions will steadily increase, with a small calm down once the oil runs out (likely followed by heavy crisis in USA and devaluation of dollar). But eventually, we are doomed to overpopulation, followed by either quick collapse, or slow, difficult and bloody change to some new, probably worse society.

Heh, thank God I'll be dead by then (which is how most people feel and the reason why no one will do anything about this, until it's already too late).

Giovanni
07-23-2006, 11:07 AM
Personally the very concept of World War III scares the hell out of me for one simple reason, it is unwinnable. Traditional victory will not happen and it will be won by annihilation. Most of the people here talk about it being fought with nukes, I disagree. Nukes will play a small role, but the majority of it will be fought with viruses, bacteria, and chemical weapons.

I agree with IP's assesment of Regional Wars.

My prediction is that we will see the wars in North Korea, the Entire Middle East, China, and South America.

South America because they also have tremendous amounts of oil and several governments that the US Government's Warhawks have issues with.

If the US Dollar collapses it won't just fuck the US Economy -- it'll take the World Economy down with it as well.

Spacks
07-23-2006, 11:33 AM
and in the meantime, Australia will be down there saying "wtf mate?"

World
07-23-2006, 12:21 PM
and in the meantime, Australia will be down there saying "wtf mate?"

Haha, indeed.

I also believe that, at least in the beginning, nukes will play more of a threatening role, a bit like in the cold war, since no one will survive a fight with nukes and they know it.

Geisterstunde
07-23-2006, 02:49 PM
Haha, indeed.

I also believe that, at least in the beginning, nukes will play more of a threatening role, a bit like in the cold war, since no one will survive a fight with nukes and they know it.

Yeah, they know it but that won't stop them... after all there is someone determined to do something stupid and puff within less days we wouldn't have any problems 'cause a dead man (or woman) can't cause any of them.
Whether nukes or viruses or something else it runs out on the same

Kiklo
07-23-2006, 04:46 PM
The safest places to live would probably be Australia, northern Canada, maybe Africa and Mexico?

Also, I heard that in some Bible, it was written that WWIII would wipe out most of the population. And I agree with Giovanni about the usage chemical weapons and viruses. It's going to be a royal mess.

Giovanni
07-23-2006, 09:15 PM
The safest places to live would probably be Australia, northern Canada, maybe Africa and Mexico?

Also, I heard that in some Bible, it was written that WWIII would wipe out most of the population. And I agree with Giovanni about the usage chemical weapons and viruses. It's going to be a royal mess.

Africa, Mexico, and Canada won't be even remotely safe. In WWIII Africa will be invaded and carved up for it's raw materials, Mexico is too close to the USA, and Canada is too tightly linked Economically and Politically to the USA and Britain to stay out of a World War.

Australia, maybe... But right now I'm thinking that the safe-spots will be Iceland, New Zealand, and Mongolia... All three are fairly isolated and weak enough militarily to just avoid the conflict altogether.

draco664
07-24-2006, 12:44 AM
Africa, Mexico, and Canada won't be even remotely safe. In WWIII Africa will be invaded and carved up for it's raw materials, Mexico is too close to the USA, and Canada is too tightly linked Economically and Politically to the USA and Britain to stay out of a World War.

Australia, maybe... But right now I'm thinking that the safe-spots will be Iceland, New Zealand, and Mongolia... All three are fairly isolated and weak enough militarily to just avoid the conflict altogether.

The scientists down in Antarctica are probably going to be OK too.

Organising a boat *back* may be a bit of a bother, though.

Draco

draco664
07-24-2006, 12:49 AM
Australia, maybe...

Actually, are you aware that there is a theory going round that Australia was the test site for the world's first (and only) non-government nuke?

Apparently, the Japanese mob that gassed the subway years ago bought up a heap of land in Western Australia, and one night a massive flash was seen for hundreds of kilometers around, but no one ever found out what caused it.

It was only ten years later that people began piecing it all together.

I remember reading Bill Bryson about it. Something along the lines of - "A country where a band of amateur enthusists could set off a nuclear bomb, and no one noticed for ten years was obviously a country worth getting to know."

Draco

Giovanni
07-24-2006, 02:29 AM
The reason I was excluding Australia from the list is their proximity to China and their ties to both the USA and Britain. I figured if there was a World War/Regional War they would be likely to get involved.

Antartica is off my list because it's not possible to survive there without massive amounts of aid from various governments and those govs wouldn't do shit if they had a massive war going on :)

Lord Eros
07-25-2006, 11:30 AM
I personally aggree with giovanni... nukes will have a very small role in world war III beacause most of the powerfull countries know that if they start a all out nuclear war that most of them woudlnt survive it. but it will be fouht withh viruses, gases, or diseases. I think the middle east will start it beacuse they are already really mad and when there oil runs out they will become even more angrier and will start attacking.

Giovanni
07-25-2006, 11:35 AM
The Middle East isn't capable of starting a World War... They don't have the Military capability of doing it.

If a true World War starts it will be China + Allies v. USA + Allies and it will be over trade.

Regional Wars:

North Korea -- Unchecked Aggression + Nukes (within 20 years)
Iran -- Unchecked Aggression + Nukes (within 10 years)
Africa -- Resources (within 100 years)

UnholyWarlord
07-25-2006, 11:47 AM
With the way things are going with North Korea, a nuclear war doesn't seem far-fetched. That damn little country and their insane leader will begin the war to end all wars. No chance of war when the land is atomic dust.

carvell
07-25-2006, 11:48 AM
want a safe place to hide how about south america ( brazil, etc) that's far away from the rest of the world or even better easter ireland, the safest place on earth 100's miles from the mainland who's gonna drop a nuke there?
i'll have my bag's packed see you (i hope you get internet there)

Giovanni
07-25-2006, 11:58 AM
Brazil is close to Venuzuela and Venuzuela will be invaded for Oil.

Ireland is close to England so you'll get swarmed with refugee's, fallout, and probably be dragged into a war anyway due to Northern Ireland.

Litha Riddle
07-25-2006, 12:11 PM
I personally would go underground, literally.

It probably doesn't matter where but under ground you wouldn't need to worry about nukes.

Even Nottingham has a huge cave system underneath it, so I wouldn't even have to move far.

Litha

carvell
07-25-2006, 12:14 PM
you NEVER heard of EASTER IRELAND it's in the South Pacific ocean about 1000 mile's ( give or take ) from chile.
i don't mean ireland near the UK

Giovanni
07-25-2006, 12:27 PM
you NEVER heard of EASTER IRELAND it's in the South Pacific ocean about 1000 mile's ( give or take ) from chile.
i don't mean ireland near the UK

I've heard of Easter ISLAND, you fucking Dumbshit. And I also know where it's located

But your post said:



easter ireland



Therefore my post stands, learn your fucking Geography you fucking retarded dumbshit. Eat Shit and Die.

Fuegodefuerza
07-25-2006, 12:27 PM
It's Easter Island, idiot. Not Easter Ireland.

Personally, if WWIII starts up, I'm going to New Zealand.

EDIT: Fuck. Gio beat me to it. And was a whole lot nastier about it.

*shrugs*

Kiklo
07-25-2006, 02:25 PM
New Zealand is allied with USA, Britain, Australia (the ones I'm positive about) and I'm pretty sure the allies will get dragged into the war somehow.

Zevrillion
07-25-2006, 03:09 PM
Hopefully Sweden will be officially neutral like in WW1 and WW2, but if we are dealing with biological warfare, it doesn't matter where you live as long as you might get in contact with our humans or animals.

So I will buy long-lived food to last for 30 years and go into isolation in some remote location. But first I am going to rob the local library so I have something to do for the coming years.

draco664
07-25-2006, 07:45 PM
I've heard of Easter ISLAND, you fucking Dumbshit.


Therefore my post stands, learn your fucking Geography you fucking retarded dumbshit. Eat Shit and Die.

Nice. The sheer vitriol and malice you display is warming to my soul. It is wonderful to see the art of bastardry alive and well in the new generation.

I give it a 9, you could have used some of the more less-common insulting terms, even if your target had to go and find a dictionary to read your post.

You aren't a sysadmin by any chance?

Draco

draco664
07-25-2006, 07:48 PM
New Zealand is allied with USA, Britain, Australia (the ones I'm positive about) and I'm pretty sure the allies will get dragged into the war somehow.

AFAIK, the treaty between the US and Australia can only be invoked if the country is *invaded*. Not just *at war*. If that is the case, the US could have demanded Australia's involvement in Iraq, rather than just requesting it.

Draco

madeyemoody
07-25-2006, 08:07 PM
Hopefully Sweden will be officially neutral like in WW1 and WW2, but if we are dealing with biological warfare, it doesn't matter where you live as long as you might get in contact with our humans or animals.

So I will buy long-lived food to last for 30 years and go into isolation in some remote location. But first I am going to rob the local library so I have something to do for the coming years.

You will have arthritis in your wrist after 30 years alone:banana: :(

New Zealand sounds good to me, nice and quiet and lotr was filmed there can't beat that.

Litha Riddle
07-25-2006, 08:12 PM
You will have arthritis in your wrist after 30 years alone

Not if he takes some toys and lots of batteries.

I still think underground is the best way to go, I mean the caves under Nottingham were used as bomb shelters in WWII.

Also you'd have room for a friend or two. I actually remember watching a film about someone who did this, thinking a nuclear war had broken out. I think it had Christopher Lee in it, but I'm not 100% sure.

Litha

Giovanni
07-25-2006, 08:49 PM
Nice. The sheer vitriol and malice you display is warming to my soul. It is wonderful to see the art of bastardry alive and well in the new generation.

I give it a 9, you could have used some of the more less-common insulting terms, even if your target had to go and find a dictionary to read your post.

You aren't a sysadmin by any chance?

Draco

No, I am not a sysadmin... I'm not a Mod either.

I could have used less common and more creative terms... However the sheer dumbassery of his post which sparked the telling off was just so idiotic that I felt he wouldn't be able to look them up.

Plus it's really annoying when someone makes a condescending "OMG u r teh dumbsit" if they can't even refer to the place by it's proper name.

In short, Carvell can take his extra Chromosome, eat shit, and die.

But back on topic:

Litha, do your duty and make sure Zevvy doesn't get an arthiritic wrist!

Actually, if I had 24 hours to hide myself before WWIII broke out and I couldn't leave the country I would probably head for Minnesota. There's nothing in the rural area's, not even military stuff... I could hunt and chill out in relative safety.

Zevrillion
07-26-2006, 10:13 AM
Also you'd have room for a friend or two. I actually remember watching a film about someone who did this, thinking a nuclear war had broken out. I think it had Christopher Lee in it, but I'm not 100% sure.

Litha
Think you meant Christopher Walken
Blast from the Past --> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124298/
It's quite good.

Litha Riddle
07-26-2006, 10:36 AM
Think you meant Christopher Walken

Yeah, I knew it was a Christopher. It's a good film so thanks for reminding me:)

Litha

Geisterstunde
07-26-2006, 01:22 PM
And where would you built your underground hiding place?
'Cause there is still the risk to being hit(?: I'm not sure if that's the right word for that:o ) by a bomb...
I suggest we take south or north pole (wich is better) and dig there..after all there isn't anything near what could be a good target...(I hope)

Fuegodefuerza
07-26-2006, 01:33 PM
I still think underground is the best way to go, I mean the caves under Nottingham were used as bomb shelters in WWII.

Antartica is off my list because it's not possible to survive there without massive amounts of aid from various governments and those govs wouldn't do shit if they had a massive war going on

I hope that those answer your questions.

Litha Riddle
07-26-2006, 01:39 PM
I think Nottingham's cave system would be big enough, but it could be anywhere really. I mean with several tons of rock separating you, from the bombs you should be safe.

When I say cave system I mean huge tunnels underground. That way you could seal off the tunnels, which of course would have ventilation.

I don't know if there are bigger cave systems, my geography isn't that great. It would be safer than the surface because biological/chemical/nuclear warfare, would probably destroy all natural resources for a while.

Then once the dust clears the surface would be there, presuming the vegatation survives, the world would be available for taking back.
But maybe I've watched too many sci-fi films:)

Litha

Geisterstunde
07-26-2006, 02:02 PM
I only wanted t say that you can't built a hiding place ( and if it is one mile under!) everywhere you would like to! Theses where only suggestions...

The cave system sounds good but it is probably on the wrong country (if my geography talents aren't lost^^°)..but there are still other such systems on the world I think...

draco664
07-27-2006, 12:56 AM
No, I am not a sysadmin... I'm not a Mod either.

Well, you've already got the right mindset for it. If you do happen to go down that path, remember that you are god, and the scurrying insects that use your network are to be crushed and humiliated on a regular basis. Seriously. If you don't, they'll take whatever good will you have and turn you into a suicidal wreck within months. There are only so many times even someone with the strongest constitution can handle pressing CAPS LOCK every time someone tells you their password isn't working.

I could have used less common and more creative terms... However the sheer dumbassery of his post which sparked the telling off was just so idiotic that I felt he wouldn't be able to look them up.

Excellent. It is never a good idea to over-estimate someone's intelligence, especially given their writing habits.

Draco

MrINBN
08-10-2006, 08:06 AM
I do have to agree with a great deal of the posters here. It definitely won't be a nuclear war. I believe the term applied for this scenario would be MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. He fires his nukes, I fire mine, we all die. But I digress. If anything, it'll be a ground war, and China will be leading the front. They've got what, 2 billion people just sitting there? Considering that most of them have been brainwashed by gov't propaganda, they'd be willing, or even eager to die for their country.

We also can't forget about the underhanded tactics, like poisoning the water supply, killing the farmers and livestock, and psychological tactics. Though nowadays we're nowhere near as effective with psychological warfare. Look at the medieval age. They'd fling bodies over city walls to scare and demoralize the enemy.

Though I suppose the medieval tactics wouldn't apply, since it'll probably be a war for resources, which means no waiting games. What would apply, however are weapons that they swore never to use again, like Agent Orange. Agent Orange was a highly toxic (to humans and plants) herbicide used during Vietnam to deny the Vietnamese food and cover.

Lucas13
08-13-2006, 06:29 PM
Well, Im brazilian so I think im pretty safe from the "Regional Wars" because all the surrounding countries in South America are pretty small... even if our relation with Bolivia are a bit tarnished right now...
I dont really believe that WW3 will happen any time soon because there is only war when there is profit and no one would profit by killing everyone...
But with recent tensions in the ocident Im actually surprised that no atomic bomb has gone off there yet... (sorry about the english)

Xanatos
08-13-2006, 06:55 PM
I think i'll be with Litha, in the caves, but even if people survive, there will probs be fights between them all, with gangs fighting for resources. Its gonna be a sad end to such a lovely spiecies

Giovanni
08-13-2006, 07:12 PM
Well, Im brazilian so I think im pretty safe from the "Regional Wars" because all the surrounding countries in South America are pretty small... even if our relation with Bolivia are a bit tarnished right now...
I dont really believe that WW3 will happen any time soon because there is only war when there is profit and no one would profit by killing everyone...
But with recent tensions in the ocident Im actually surprised that no atomic bomb has gone off there yet... (sorry about the english)

Nah, you guys will have a few... Although it will probably be the USA and somebody else fighting over Venuzuela's oil.

Mercenary
08-14-2006, 04:14 AM
A nuclear war does not sound feasible. I mean whats the use of bombing the living crap out of a country and making it unlivable. No, it would be biological, economical, and political warfare that would make World War 3 a reality. However the above reason only applies when the attacking country wants land to expand into. If the main reason for starting a war is to just cause chaos and destruction well, theres nothing you can do. But what I don't get is that, why is there not a reliable missile interception/defense program? I mean I heard of a Patriot system but thats basically throwing up a bunch of missiles in the air and hope one hits. You might as well use flak cannons.

Giovanni
08-14-2006, 09:20 AM
I mean I heard of a Patriot system but thats basically throwing up a bunch of missiles in the air and hope one hits. You might as well use flak cannons.

The PATRIOT Rockets are only partially effective, and when they hit it's 85% luck. Those things are about 20 years past the due date and Billions overbudget.

SushiZ
08-14-2006, 02:24 PM
World war 3 will break out because of Fresh water. Once oil runs out, the only other valuable resource will be water. Fresh water. I think America will decide to invade Canada and take its fresh water. And the canadian government being a bunch of bitches will do nothing about it.

Giovanni
08-14-2006, 02:36 PM
World war 3 will break out because of Fresh water. Once oil runs out, the only other valuable resource will be water. Fresh water. I think America will decide to invade Canada and take its fresh water. And the canadian government being a bunch of bitches will do nothing about it.

Nah, the War over Water won't be fought for another 70 Years. Oil meanwhile will be fought within 30.

fantasyfreak
08-14-2006, 03:15 PM
ok I just want to say this allot of people are saying hide underground while if your deep enough normal bombs won't kill you modern nukes do have the force to kill you if your underground and also in WWII the problem of normal bombs not being able to destroy bomb shelters underground were solved by a British scientist who created the Tall Boy a bomb that burrows itself underground before it explodes and causes massive earthquake so basically hiding underground is a out-dated idea

sirius009
08-14-2006, 04:08 PM
did anyone else read this? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel_1097
To sum it up it talks about how Hezbollah has claimed victory over Israel and how life will return to normal in southern Lebanon. My question is, how long until the fighting begins again?

Giovanni
08-14-2006, 05:18 PM
Well anything less than being totally annihilated is a victory for Hezbollah. Their entire goal by kidnapping the two soldiers was to goad Israel into making an ass of itself on the International Stage.

Israel was willing to oblige them of course.

As for how long until the fighting begins again, my money is on soon. Israel continued to attack even a couple hours AFTER the cease-fire became official. So Hezbollah will use that as justification claiming "Well the Cease-Fire never really started because Israel took pot shots after it became official." Israel meanwhile will cite all of the ridiculous suicide bombings that are bound to restart again.

My money is that it restarts in under 12 months.

Violent Seas
08-14-2006, 05:57 PM
12 months? don't you think that's a little too long for them to not be fighting?

bleh. the fact that Nasrallah is alive after all of this means that there are going to be even more (vocal)supporters, and that in the mind of Hezbollah would of course be 'victory,' even if many of their soldiers died...

of course, if he dies, he'll be called a martyr and there'll be even more (vocal) supporters anyway...


as for hiding/cave system, isn't there a rather large cave system in Kentucky, or Tennessee or something? I'd probably go there...

Easter Island sounds nice, though. Nice climate, right?

Giovanni
08-14-2006, 06:20 PM
12 months? don't you think that's a little too long for them to not be fighting?

I mean all out war. Not the usual "Oh I'll cap a couple of civvies and build a wall in response to a bus getting blown up" kind of fighting.

Rob
08-15-2006, 09:16 PM
By way of reintroducing myself, let me dredge up an old post.

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/83898-0/

Speaking of World War III...

Kiklo
08-15-2006, 09:56 PM
By way of reintroducing myself, let me dredge up an old post.

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/83898-0/

Speaking of World War III...

I read the article and I feel as if it is still too early for a nuclear war. They said it would start on the 22nd, which is exactly 1 week from now, but I doubt it would happen. It just seems too soon to me. But I guess we'll just have to wait and watch.

Duke of Rothwood
08-15-2006, 11:28 PM
I agree with Kiklo, the 22nd seems too soon for that.


However I agree that the next World War will likely start in the Middle East, that entire area is a firecracker just waiting to explode and the people in charge are insane enough to go ahead and do it.

I predict World War in (at most) 35-40 years, it will be fought over oil and will be centered in the middle east, though it will probably spread around to Europe, Africa and the rest of Asia

Violent Seas
08-16-2006, 01:07 PM
I mean all out war. Not the usual "Oh I'll cap a couple of civvies and build a wall in response to a bus getting blown up" kind of fighting.

ah.




As for the 22nd being World War III.....look at where Israel is on the map - a littletoo close for comfort to the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt - basically all the potential allies....It'd be so fucking STUPID strategically to nuke the location that 1. the Palestinians want, and 2.is so close to people that you want to be friendly with - all of this has been discussed before in this thread. I just don't see any nuking (specifically nuclear warfare, not to say that there won't be 'conventional' warfare) happening any time soon.

Rob
08-16-2006, 03:55 PM
It's rather interesting to note the source of the article. The Pravda was the official newspaper of the Soviet bloc during the cold war. Since then it's been reformed quite a few times, but nevertheless.

On the subject of the article, I don't honestly think that there will be nukes flying, and to be honest - I really don't think there will be nukes flying ever. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 63 was the closest we've ever come in my opinion, but I think many countries - nearly all of them with nuclear capacity - would not utilize nuclear weaponry. Tactical nukes? Yeah, maybe. Carpet nukes? No, I think the second world war was the first and last time we'll see nuclear weaponry used. The real catch with them is that you can use them, but there's absolutely no chance that if you're going after any country that has defense allies with nukes that you won't get assraped with five hundred of their own. There's monumental loss of life, and ultimately firing them is useless, because you don't live to see it. There was a term coined during the Cold War (forgive the IB History student in me, please) that was known as MAD - mutually assured destruction. That's the problem with nuclear arms.

The two situations where I could see nuclear weapons actually being used would be in some sort of terrorist attack, either by radicals or by the agency of a government. I think if there's an attack, it will happen not by missile delivery but rather by conventional IED means. Missiles are useful in implicating people; rather, I think it would be planted somewhere in the target and let explode (a la Tom Clancy's 'The Sum of All Fears'). The other situation I could see would be North Korea nuking South Korea, just for the hell of it. I don't think they'd get nuked back, either - I think they'd have every square inch bombed by most countries, but I can't see any G8 country using nuclear weapons. There's far too much pressure by the UN, and the use of nuclear weapons by any UN country would result in the dissolution of the UN itself by necessity. Far too many civilian casualties would result, and many countries would pull out so they're not bound by the UN charter. The modus operandi of the UN is the prevention of war as it is - we've had a chance to see how ineffective the UN is during the Israel/Lebanon crisis. No country with fear of nukes in their heart wants to sit around for two months and debate how many troops to send.

Giovanni
08-22-2006, 02:17 AM
Tactical nukes? Yeah, maybe. Carpet nukes? No, I think the second world war was the first and last time we'll see nuclear weaponry used.

The difference between a tactical nuke and a carpet one is the target selected dude.

For instance if another Country -- say, I dunno, China decided to nuke Dover Air Force Base (which is right near an urban area) that would be tactical. If they aimed for Philly instead it wouldn't be tactical.

But either way, a nuke is a nuke.

Rob
08-22-2006, 12:07 PM
The difference between a tactical nuke and a carpet one is the target selected dude.

For instance if another Country -- say, I dunno, China decided to nuke Dover Air Force Base (which is right near an urban area) that would be tactical. If they aimed for Philly instead it wouldn't be tactical.

But either way, a nuke is a nuke.

Tactical nukes usually have reduced payload and are designed to completely obliterate a single target.

And I disagree, a nuke is not a nuke is not a nuke. There are certain allowable instances of nuclear weapon usage - on invading troops inside your country is fine. Aiming nukes indiscriminately at areas occupied by civilians and military alike, not focusing on killing just the soldiers, but the civilians too - that's unforgivable. Tactical limited-payload nukes on soldiers isn't retaliable by mass-scale strikes on civilians, was the point I'm trying to get across.

Mage
08-24-2006, 06:52 PM
I think that World War III will be fought over oil, with mostly germ warfare and such, but i do think at the end if north korea or some other country is losing they might send up a nuke just so they wouldnt be the only ones losing, and that could start a nuclear war. Not a whole lot else to say as you guys covered most of it.

Violent Seas
08-25-2006, 11:15 PM
I think that World War III will be fought over oil, with mostly germ warfare and such, but i do think at the end if north korea or some other country is losing they might send up a nuke just so they wouldnt be the only ones losing, and that could start a nuclear war. Not a whole lot else to say as you guys covered most of it.



rather intriguing idea. I'm a little unsure about oil being the cause of WWIII though it's a popular idea; but, I guess it's a good enough factor as anything else. But wouldn't it be just as bad to use germ warfare to conquer an area for its resources? I mean, not as bad as a nuke, but like the bio or chemical agents would have long, long-term effects on the surroundings, and make the area uninhabitable for anything, let alone humans. So everyone would be waddling around in protective gear............


Then again, that would keep the enemies out. xD


It'd be interesting if the losing country sent up a nuke. But I don't think it would be making another country 'lose' rather than just bringing civilians to the afterlife with them - 'If I'm going down, you're coming down with me.' (or however that quote is supposed to be stated)

Son of the Forsaken
08-26-2006, 02:59 AM
My thoughts on World War III is that as of now if a true world war broke out the nukes placed around the world may be used.But beyond that i don't know,My next thoughts are how it will be started and how it will end and where to be so my ass doesn't get fried,blown up,shot,etc.Thats what I'm wondering.

Hadoren
08-26-2006, 03:44 AM
Here's my theory:

Japan, afraid of North Korea's crazy guy with a nuke, decides to make its own.

North Korea nukes Japan-remember its ruler is crazy.

The U.S. and Japan nuke North Korea for revenge.

China nukes the U.S. and Japan just because...I don't know, maybe it's convinced we'll strike it next after North Korea. How would you feel if the country next to you was being nuked? Or maybe we'll nuke China first because a stupid President like Bush is convinced China'll do this.

Russia starts nuking everybody just for the fun of it.

We all die. Or Russia rules the world since it doesn't nuke anybody.

MrINBN
08-26-2006, 07:38 AM
Dude, everyone knows that Australia will win. They'll just be sitting there, like "wtf mate?"

Giovanni
08-26-2006, 11:44 AM
Tactical nukes usually have reduced payload and are designed to completely obliterate a single target.
.

Rob, Tactical Nukes like the ones you described are still in the R&D phase. At the moment, the real difference is the use you put them to.

Spokojnyj
08-27-2006, 11:22 PM
I read about a much bigger danger from nukes. Detonate them somewhere in the atmosphere above a continent and you destroy all technology with electromagnetic pulses. Decades to rebuild, back to prehistory.

The Fine Balance
08-28-2006, 01:16 PM
I believe that the World War III, beyond anything, will be fought over nukes, and not water and not oil, though they could be secondary reasons.

Already there is so much unrest caused due to North Korea’s entrance into the nuclear stage, and as China advances and begins to archive more political, social, and economic dominance over the south, south-east Asia, it is my pet belief that these countries could, in effect go nuclear. Another backup - since both India and Pakistan are in the possession limited nuclear capability, in a rapidly ‘drying’ up world, with high political tensions, these countries might resort to nuclear capability as deterrence.

Iran has also gone ahead with its program, despite repeated warnings, again.

And since you need less money to make nukes than to feed all you’re starving and drying millions, a lot of Middle-East countries could be suspect of going nuclear. And eventually a war would start because the U.S.A, (most assuredly if another person like Bush is at the helm) would feel threatened (anti-US sentiments are after all, pretty widespread) by these almost rogue-nuclear powers.

Mage
08-28-2006, 07:19 PM
rather intriguing idea. I'm a little unsure about oil being the cause of WWIII though it's a popular idea; but, I guess it's a good enough factor as anything else. But wouldn't it be just as bad to use germ warfare to conquer an area for its resources? I mean, not as bad as a nuke, but like the bio or chemical agents would have long, long-term effects on the surroundings, and make the area uninhabitable for anything, let alone humans. So everyone would be waddling around in protective gear............



The kind of chemical/germ warfare im thinking of would be creating a new deadly disease, but keeping a vacination for your troops. This would allow you to actually be able to live in the land you take. Whether this is how it works or not im not sure, but that is what i think of by germ warfare.

Violent Seas
08-29-2006, 12:08 AM
...well, if you're talking about JUST oil and keeping only your troops there, it's still risky b/c vaccines don't always work. But mostly i was thinking farther into the future, in a time where that land could be utilized for expansion, like building a city, or whatever. You'd be making the area less suitable for living for a fair while. Or maybe I'm wrong.

Moloch
09-02-2006, 09:08 AM
The kind of chemical/germ warfare im thinking of would be creating a new deadly disease, but keeping a vacination for your troops. This would allow you to actually be able to live in the land you take. Whether this is how it works or not im not sure, but that is what i think of by germ warfare.

Yeah, but making a vaccine(sp?) for your troops in mass? Considering the number of men in teh US army and whatnot, it'd be a tad easy for the enemy to get a hold of the vaccine wouldn't it?

the-caitiff
09-05-2006, 11:07 AM
I don't know how or why, but I do firmly believe that the end of the human race will happen within my lifetime. Either WW3 or pick any religion and read their book of prophecy. I really doesn't make much difference to me.

I'm of mixed opinion on what to do however. If I am still single when the time comes, I will probably stay where I am and revel in the destruction of a failed evolution.

If I have a family to support, well that's why I love my sailboat. Pack them up and visit the out islands Bahamas. They are tactically unimportant, mostly self sufficient, and too widespread to actually wage war upon. If you are adapted to the region (good thing I've lived in Florida or the Carribean a good chunk of my life), survival on your own is relatively easy. Food is everywhere if you know how to look. Water is plentiful if you are intelligent. Shelter can be built, or just live on the boat. The sails on the boat make me independant of the need for fuels. I am an old school sheet sailor (sheets are the proper term for lines on a sailing vessel or "ropes" in the common vernacular), and understand how to be a marlinspike sailor (marlinspike sailing is about building/sailing/repairing everything on your vessel with no tech whatsoever). My astro-navigation is adequate, my instincts for unknown waters are alright, and my dead reckoning sound if not perfect.

So my solution is to just give the world the finger and go directly to "Waterworld" living.

The Duke
09-07-2006, 01:05 AM
To bring Canada into this as a Canadian I say this:
Don't come here. Period.
We are simply to close to the states (no offence to the Americans). Any bomb either chemical or nuclear dropped near or on the northern USA would have the fallout shifting to at least within 50 or so km's(big guess there) of the border which is essentially where 7/8(educated guess) of our population is.
We would also more than likely be supporting the USA, the UK and essentially the other western European countries as well, because of old and new alliances AHH MOTHERLAND!!!(England and France) and all that, and they are our most important economic partners other than some Asian countries, coughchinacough. Also if North America would ever be invaded by an Asian force we have an great chance of being in the direct line of fire... we have no military other than a few reserve units stationed within British Columbia and absolutely no naval or air force units at all in BC., not to mention Alsaska being invaded. It is also well known that Canada and America have the longest undefended border in the world.

To bring a smile out of a frown though....
The Canadian and American Rocky Mountains would have great defensive and offensive capabilities(they are also very much like thick jungle in most spots) and would be a big fat bitch for any invading force to take once you destroy Highway 1... mmmm snipers, fixed arty, infantry, mines, and booby traps mmmm..

Waytoobored
09-07-2006, 03:17 AM
I think WWIII if there every is one will be in Asia and will be brought about by either India or China trying to gain more land for their growing populations and other countries rising up to stop them from taking land from other countries. It will be similar to the previous world wars where Germany and Japan were looking to create empires or lebensraum like Hitler refered to Poland as. Oil wont cause a world war becasue if that was going to be the case then it would of happened already with all of the military action in the Middle East or especially in the 1970's when oil prices shot through the roof.

Mage
09-07-2006, 03:35 PM
Yeah, but making a vaccine(sp?) for your troops in mass? Considering the number of men in teh US army and whatnot, it'd be a tad easy for the enemy to get a hold of the vaccine wouldn't it?


Yes, producing in mass would be difficult, but i think the difficulty would be in the expense. As for keeping it out of the hands of the enemy, have only your most trusted work on making it, presumably machines could mass produce it. Then distribute it to the troops right before the attack, while im sure the enemy would get some, they wouldn't have enough time to produce it for the troops. It's also possible that i have no clue what im talking about though, so feel free to say so.

Gorriller
09-17-2006, 11:14 PM
When I was in my late teens, I thought I would experience WW3 as a bright flash before moving onto the next life.

Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" is a pretty good idea of how I thought WW3 would start...only in my mind it went nuclear and escalated too rapidly to control. Much like Clancy's "Sum of All Fears" ran. In my mind, they didn't cool off and back down. They ramped up and pushed the button.

I expected the USSR to the be enemy in WW3, all 30 to 60 minutes of it. Never did I imagine the USRR collapse and fragment.

I expected the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe to go up or down with a bang as part of WW3. Nowhere was the idea of it being torn down by the citizens of BOTH sides!

That's what I used to think. Now, I haven't a clue what will spark WW3. I am not even sure we will see a WW3.

I thought 9/11 was going to launch WW3. I worried that after the shock wore off, the President would confer with the military on what parts of the world to turn into glass craters and do it.

One thing I'm certain of is that we will see WW3 coming WELL before it hits...if it hits. A quick study of history points out that war doesn't just instantly appear. It builds and ferments and grows and spreads until it breaks wide open to no one's surprise.

JGT

Fey Athene
09-26-2006, 05:32 AM
Not to sound frivolous, but after reading this thread I'm afflicted with the oddest compulsion to go out and buy Dr. Strangelove.........

In regards to what the cause will be I'd have to side with those who say it'll be oil...or at least some form of energy.

Erotic Adventures of S
09-26-2006, 09:39 AM
I was told by a oil truck driver once that when he worked somewhere in the middle east there was always talk of war between Turkey and several and several other middle eastern countries who were angry at Turkey for building dams in the ufraties and some other river (Sorry I have no idea how to spell that and the spell check doesn't know) Now I know that isn't a world war but it would effect oil which would most likely bring other countries in. Not WWIII but a pretty decent fight I would imagine.

Mercenary
09-28-2006, 12:45 AM
Nuclear war is unfeasible to me since well... The United States has like what? 226,000 more than anybody else? What the fuck are we going to do with all those. Hell, we'ld destroy the world 4 times over.

carvell
09-28-2006, 08:35 AM
you NEVER heard of EASTER IRELAND it's in the South Pacific ocean about 1000 mile's ( give or take ) from chile.
i don't mean ireland near the UK

SORRY about my typo in my last post on this thread, you are all right it's ISLAND and not IRELAND, it's all my fault i got :confused:

Mage
09-28-2006, 07:21 PM
Nuclear war is unfeasible to me since well... The United States has like what? 226,000 more than anybody else? What the fuck are we going to do with all those. Hell, we'ld destroy the world 4 times over.

True, but thats the point, you dont need many to kill everything. All it takes is one crazy bastard getting his hands on a nuke and it could start up a nuclear war. While we could destroy the world 4 times over what would be the point? It's not going to stop us from dieing if we get nuked.

fantasyfreak
09-28-2006, 07:29 PM
Nuclear war is unfeasible to me since well... The United States has like what? 226,000 more than anybody else? What the fuck are we going to do with all those. Hell, we'ld destroy the world 4 times over.

I believe that Russia has roughly 1000 more nukes then we do because we are destroying many of are nukes so Russia has more then we do

Xanos
09-30-2006, 05:24 PM
safe spots my ass if those viruses get out the only safe spot would be of planet!!

Mercenary
10-01-2006, 03:57 AM
I believe that Russia has roughly 1000 more nukes then we do because we are destroying many of are nukes so Russia has more then we do

Assuming they could find them...still I think we have the most amount... dont know why though.. all it takes is one...

lilabet
10-07-2006, 10:53 AM
New Zealand is allied with USA, Britain, Australia (the ones I'm positive about) and I'm pretty sure the allies will get dragged into the war somehow.

This isn't completely correct. As a New Zealander i have to say that there has been a serious shift away from Europe toward Asia as thats where most of our trade is. If we got called to war at the moment i think we'd sit on the fence and then decide, however if it was invasions into area we have interest just like any nation we'd get shitty and pick a side.

Personally i wonder about the people fighting, WWI was about empires, WWII was about nations, i believe WWIII will be about ideologies accross borders. With globalism and things such as the internat and planes etc it would not be hard to fight from inside countries and win a war that way.

All that being said i think NZ would definately give you the best survival rates as we have a low population and enough natural resources. As long as we blew up any planes and ships trying to come in! But then again we also have a crap defence force as most of it's off on peacekeeping missions!