A Third World War on the cards.

AllGunsBlazing

The West and Russia will never come to direct blows. Proxy wars tend to be the favoured method of combat since ww2.

darkpagandeath

There were WW before the 20th century.

dxhound2005

bur wrote: »

Have you ever been called pedantic?

Not in my lifetime.

blatantrereg

Reiver wrote: »

Has the entire Ukrainian crisis been a fantastic case of maskirovka on the part of NATO?

No.

It takes two to tango.

No. Asserting yourself with an aggressor is more likely to avoid physical conflict than pandering to them. War with Russia wouldn't benefit any western nation.

The last thread with this sort of nonsense only petered out a week or so ago.

ComfortKid

catallus wrote:

I haven't heard anything about Ukraine or Crimea in ages, now that you mention it.

catallus wrote:

Maybe it wasn't such a big deal after all and someone in the media thought it would be a good idea to stir shíte.

Or maybe our 'Western' media doesn't want us to know what the West is doing?

Streetwalker

silverfeather wrote: »

The combined 28 nations of NATO have a combined population triple that of Russia. They have budgets many times he size of Russia. Their combines forces easily outgun russia many times over. NATO nuclear sharing vastly over powers Russia.


WWIII is a hypothetical event.

I think if you want to hypothesize you need to be aware of the actual military plans that automatically kick into place should this arise. Also the attack warning systems. Current ones are top secret but past ones aren't. Operation Behemoth ,NATO nuclear sharing,Exercise Internal Look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III#Military_plans

Exercises Grand Slam, Longstep, and Mainbrace.

Looking at historical close calls. Some of them believe it or not have been total accidents. The Norwegian rocket incident was a total accident. Nearly caused wwIII there were many false alarms during the cold war. The Crimean crisis.

With nuclear weapons none of those facts are valid. I'm more worried about American aggression than Russian aggression tbh.

darkpagandeath

Streetwalker wrote: »

With nuclear weapons none of those facts are valid. I'm more worried about American aggression than Russian aggression tbh.

MAD, No one will go nuclear It will be terrorist plot or an accident. There will be no purposeful launch of nuclear weapons by any country that has them In a war.

Akrasia

The MAD I'm worried about is Daenerys Targaryen when she lets loose with her dragons

traprunner

mad muffin wrote: »

A Third World War is sorely needed. It's benefits will be wide reaching. Just like the two before it.

Firstly it will thin out the herd.

It will advance science and medicine.

According to Breda O'Brien we will be extinct in 150 years because we allow gay people to get married so there really can't be a need for a world war.

The_Valeyard

Sure if worst comes to happen, I hear Vault 101 is pretty okay.

Vaults, designed and built by Vault-Tec!

kylith

I don't think we have to worry too much about Russia. It's the middle east that concerns me. The entire region is going to hell and I think it's only a matter of time before it kicks off over there.

Being rather callous; as long as it stays over there I'd be happy to let them kick the sht out of each other, and we can help the refugees. Unfortunately there's a trend these days for getting involved in other people's wars.

On the other hand maybe there's something to be said for apologising to the civilian casualties in advance and bombing ISIS strongholds flat because if they came out on top in a Middle Eastern war I don't think they'd be happy with letting the West live and let live.

faceman

I don't believe we will see WW3 in any fashion we expect. The world has changed. Wars don't need to be fought with guns anymore and nuclear deterrent is too high.

That being said, if there was ever to be nuclear war I suspect it would be on the back of an error or accident. You can thank the lad below that you still have your Corn Flakes in the morning. Scary stuff.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

SafeSurfer

The_Valeyard wrote: »

No there isn't. No one wants a major war. Most countries are deeply interconnected economically and tradewise. Not to mention cultural links and descendents etc.

This blip is temporary insanity that is curable through honest negotiations and compromise.

Just like countries were interconnected and dependent on trade before WW1.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You are probably as far away from South Ossetia as you are from Ireland. A little local difficulty in Central Europe is par for the course and hardly any indicator of Global Conflict Number Three.

http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/2000/index.html

One thing guaranteed, that map will not stay the same. It never has in the past.

A local difficulty in Central Europe lead to WW1.

KungPao

With trilogies, the third part rarely lives up to the original or the second in the series, so I won't be looking forward to it too much.

Egginacup

AndonHandon wrote: »

France would just surrender.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but France lost over 100,000 men and hundreds of thousands more wounded in the Battle of France against the Nazi invasion. And all while their British "partners" were running for their lives across the Channel from Dunkirk.

100,000+ in 6 weeks. That's twice as many as the US lost in Vietnam in over 10 YEARS. And they suffered that carnage not long after an entire generation of young men were wiped out just 20 years earlier.

Reiver

Anyone remember this game?

Oddly prophetic

The 2008 part was spot on! Although the Baltic states didn't get invaded.

circadian

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why would the UK goto war with the Republic ?

If the UK was involved then it wouldn't be a civil war.

circadian

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Sure if worst comes to happen, I hear Vault 101 is pretty okay.

Vaults, designed and built by Vault-Tec!

Make sure your Pipboy is in good nick.

Captain Chaos

Just remember to stock up on those expired iodine tablets and when you see the flash, duck and cover and you'll be just fine.

WakeUp

Eisenhower had it right when he talked about the lessons learned after world war 2. peace can only be maintained if the big boys work together and respect each others interests. this isnt the case which is evident in numerous situations. on its current trajectory some sort of conflict/war is unfortunately almost inevitable unless things change.

Chinese State Paper Warns "War Will Be Inevitable" Unless U.S. Stops Meddling In Territorial Dispute

at least China was mercifully allowed to stay out of the fray between the Cold War enemies.

This all changed this month when first the Pentagon's annual report to Congress this month cast China as a threat to regional and international peace and stability, followed several weeks ago when, with China aggressively encroaching into territories in the South China Sea claimed by US allies in the region such as Philippines, Vietnam and Japan, the US decided to get involved in yet another regional spat that does not directly involve it, and started making loud noises about China's territorial expansion over the commodity-reach area.

China promptly relatiated by threatening a US spy plane during a routine overflight, while immediately thereafter the US retaliated at China's escalation, and warned that building sea "sandcastles" could "lead to conflict."

Far from shutting China up, earlier today China said it had lodged a complaint with the United States over a U.S. spy plane that flew over parts of the disputed South China Sea in a diplomatic row that has fuelled tension between the world's two largest economies.

Quoted by Reuters, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said on Monday China had lodged a complaint and that it opposed "provocative behaviour" by the United States.

"We urge the U.S. to correct its error, remain rational and stop all irresponsible words and deeds," she said. "Freedom of navigation and overflight by no means mean that foreign countries' warships and military aircraft can ignore the legitimate rights of other countries as well as the safety of aviation and navigation."

China had noted “ear-piercing voices” from many in the U.S. about China’s construction on the islands and reefs.

In other words, China just imposed an effective "no fly zone" for US spy planes, a dramatic shift from its recent posture when it tolerated and turned a blind eye to US spy plane overflights. Going forward, the US has been explicitly warned not to fly over China or risk the.....

.................


A war between the United States and China is “inevitable” unless Washington stops demanding Beijing halt its construction projects in the South China Sea, a Chinese state-owned newspaper warns.

“If the United States’ bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a US-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea,” The Global Times, an influential newspaper owned by the ruling Communist Party’s official newspaper the People’s Daily, said in an editorial Monday.

“We do not want a military conflict with the United States, but if it were to come, we have to accept it,” said The Global Times, which is among China’s most nationalist newspapers.

Beijing last week said it was “strongly dissatisfied” after a US spy plane defied multiple warnings by the Chinese navy and flew over the Fiery Cross Reef, where China is reportedly building an airfield and other installations.

“The intensity of the conflict will be higher than what people usually think of as ‘friction’,” it warned.

The paper also asserted that China was determined to finish its construction work in the South China Sea, calling it Beijing’s “most important bottom line.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-25/war-will-be-inevitable-unless-us-stops-meddling-terrotorial-dispute-chinese-state-ne?

irishlad12345

the chinese are clever the have territorial claims over the spratley islands (i think thats what there called ) so what there doing is literally building islands making the islands the build there territory and according to UN law the automatically get a certain amount of the sea clever c**ts

darkpagandeath

circadian wrote: »

If the UK was involved then it wouldn't be a civil war.

That's kind of my point, Put it this way why would people in the Republic wage war with each other ? I think you were alluding to the north but being a foreign country it would not be a civil war.

darkpagandeath

circadian wrote: »

Make sure your Pipboy is in good nick.

Def as you will rely on your V.A.T.S. alot

MonkeyTennis

irishlad12345 wrote: »

the chinese are clever the have territorial claims over the spratley islands (i think thats what there called ) so what there doing is literally building islands making the islands the build there territory and according to UN law the automatically get a certain amount of the sea clever c**ts

Wha?

KomradeBishop

kylith wrote: »

I don't think we have to worry too much about Russia. It's the middle east that concerns me. The entire region is going to hell and I think it's only a matter of time before it kicks off over there.

Being rather callous; as long as it stays over there I'd be happy to let them kick the sht out of each other, and we can help the refugees. Unfortunately there's a trend these days for getting involved in other people's wars.

On the other hand maybe there's something to be said for apologising to the civilian casualties in advance and bombing ISIS strongholds flat because if they came out on top in a Middle Eastern war I don't think they'd be happy with letting the West live and let live.

The west created ISIS - given that they have risen from the indigenous population, bombing them and the resulting civilian casualties, will just flood their ranks with new recruits.

We're going to have to live with them, and once they successfully establish a state (only a matter of time now), we're going to have to use diplomacy rather than bombs - unless the west want to keep on murdering civilians causing 'collateral damage' in the ME perpetually.

darkpagandeath

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The west created ISIS - given that they have risen from the indigenous population, bombing them and the resulting civilian casualties, will just flood their ranks with new recruits.

We're going to have to live with them, and once they successfully establish a state (only a matter of time now), we're going to have to use diplomacy rather than bombs - unless the west want to keep on murdering civilians causing 'collateral damage' in the ME perpetually.

Yeah lets just forget about militants from 80 odd countries many countries created ISIS not only the west. It has a lot to do with the region it's self. Always a good crutch to blame the west for all the i'll in that area.

Grayson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yeah lets just forget about militants from 80 odd countries many countries created ISIS not only the west. It has a lot to do with the region it's self. Always a good crutch to blame the west for all the i'll in that area.

They created the leadership. Most of the senior leadership were interned together in Iraq during the US occupation.

Grayson

WakeUp wrote: »

Eisenhower had it right when he talked about the lessons learned after world war 2. peace can only be maintained if the big boys work together and respect each others interests. this isnt the case which is evident in numerous situations. on its current trajectory some sort of conflict/war is unfortunately almost inevitable unless things change.



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-25/war-will-be-inevitable-unless-us-stops-meddling-terrotorial-dispute-chinese-state-ne?

But to be fair....China would have already invaded taiwan were it not for US forces in the area and US support in the form of arms sales.

KomradeBishop

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yeah lets just forget about militants from 80 odd countries many countries created ISIS not only the west. It has a lot to do with the region it's self. Always a good crutch to blame the west for all the i'll in that area.

And why is the region itself a mess? Got anything to do with 'the west'...? You don't invade and continually blow the shít out of other peoples countries (and give weapons/funding for others to do the same) without any blowback.

darkpagandeath

KomradeBishop wrote: »

And why is the region itself a mess? Got anything to do with 'the west'...? You don't invade and continually blow the shít out of other peoples countries (and give weapons/funding for others to do the same) without any blowback.

Oh so the region was fine before the west got involved now ? So it's all the west's fault these people hate each other ok.

ComfortKid

darkpagandeath wrote:

That's kind of my point, Put it this way why would people in the Republic wage war with each other ? I think you were alluding to the north but being a foreign country it would not be a civil war.

The rich v the poor. Government supporters against people who are fed up of austerity. More of a revolution than a civil war.

darkpagandeath

ComfortKid wrote: »

The rich v the poor. Government supporters against people who are fed up of austerity. More of a revolution than a civil war.

Nah I highly doubt that, A water balloon was called a missile and a woman was in her car for a bit. And people ate up the hysteria shouting scumbags. There is no will for a revolution, I have seen since living here for over 2 decades. People are pretty passive here, Compared to their European counterparts.

Eugene Norman

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yeah lets just forget about militants from 80 odd countries many countries created ISIS not only the west. It has a lot to do with the region it's self. Always a good crutch to blame the west for all the i'll in that area.

I tend to blame the U.S. The West is too broad a term.

KomradeBishop

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Oh so the region was fine before the west got involved now ? So it's all the west's fault these people hate each other ok.

Eh...yes actually (to the former, I've never said the latter), compared to the shítstorm we've got now. As brutal as Saddam was, there wasn't a massive civil war going on before 'the west' went in - committing a war crime in the process, by engaging in an illegal 'war of aggression' - and destabilised the entire region including Afghanistan, and bordering regions in Pakistan (and has only recently stopped beating the war drums on Iran) - and now we're going to see a nation form, whose leadership will probably be far more brutal than Saddam ever was.

When has 'the west' not been busy destabilizing the middle east? (including by-proxy, through Israel)

WakeUp

irishlad12345 wrote: »

the chinese are clever the have territorial claims over the spratley islands (i think thats what there called ) so what there doing is literally building islands making the islands the build there territory and according to UN law the automatically get a certain amount of the sea clever c**ts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eSOMcpLdyk

Grayson wrote: »

But to be fair....China would have already invaded taiwan were it not for US forces in the area and US support in the form of arms sales.

yeah true they probably would have. China has maybe two options now with Taiwan the military option or just wash their hands of the place. any attempts by the Chinese to bring about unification through rapprochement or some system akin to the set up in Hong Kong is doomed to failure Taiwanese wont go for that. no invasion would be possible without a massive amphibious assault and a sh1t load of troops on the ground and all the stuff you have to do before hand for that to work. even just assembling the invasion force itself takes time and would give the US and Japanese time to figure out what was afoot and counter it which might compel the Chinese should they go ahead with an invasion to attack or destroy any US/Japanese forces capable of getting in the way. that would include US military bases. ifs and buts though any Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be a massive challenge on their part and not straight forward at all.

Grayson

WakeUp wrote: »

yeah true they probably would have. China has maybe two options now with Taiwan the military option or just wash their hands of the place. any attempts by the Chinese to bring about unification through rapprochement or some system akin to the set up in Hong Kong is doomed to failure Taiwanese wont go for that. no invasion would be possible without a massive amphibious assault and a sh1t load of troops on the ground and all the stuff you have to do before hand for that to work. even just assembling the invasion force itself takes time and would give the US and Japanese time to figure out what was afoot and counter it which might compel the Chinese should they go ahead with an invasion to attack or destroy any US/Japanese forces capable of getting in the way. that would include US military bases. ifs and buts though any Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be a massive challenge on their part and not straight forward at all.

I marched against the Iraq war and I'm a huge fan of Naomi Klein. I'm just saying that so you know what sort of tree hugging hippy I am. America has done some absolutely horrific things over the years, However they've also done some good.

Nearly 100% has been in their own interest.

Still, without them the world might be worse in a lot of places.

J Mysterio

Naomi Klein is brilliant. The Shock Doctrine is a great read.

The US has been meddling in global affairs virtually since its inception. They have done more to destabilise governments, countries and regions than any other nation and, as pointed out, almost always to further their own interests. Essentially they have been greedy, hypocritical, conniving feckers.

circadian

darkpagandeath wrote: »

That's kind of my point, Put it this way why would people in the Republic wage war with each other ? I think you were alluding to the north but being a foreign country it would not be a civil war.

I wasn't alluding to anything, I didn't post about a civil war.

wakka12

The only reason a third world war might start is if some loony militia took control of a powerful nation (wont happen), other than that theres no chance. NO functioning government, even North Korea, will start an all out war. War does nobody any good, there is no winner. I think ww2 made that pretty clear to everyone

Reiver

wakka12 wrote: »

The only reason a third world war might start is if some loony militia took control of a powerful nation (wont happen), other than that theres no chance. NO functioning government, even North Korea, will start an all out war. War does nobody any good, there is no winner. I think ww2 made that pretty clear to everyone

Absolute balls.

It does some people a lot of good. And there always is a winner. Tell the loser theres no winner.

tipparetops

I have always thought that a Third World War could be started by the USA.
Their debt is so high, they might repay it with a few nukes.
China should be very worried.

wakka12

Reiver wrote: »

Absolute balls.

It does some people a lot of good. And there always is a winner. Tell the loser theres no winner.

When has there ever been a war where the winners side significantly benefited afterwards? War is just loss, sometimes huge loss, and no gain.
And I mean actual war not like falklands 'war'..

wakka12

tipparetops wrote: »

I have always thought that a Third World War could be started by the USA.
Their debt is so high, they might repay it with a few nukes.
China should be very worried.

China and USA stimulate each others economies , it would make zero sense

Reiver

wakka12 wrote: »

When has there ever been a war where the winners side significantly benefited afterwards? War is just loss, sometimes huge loss, and no gain.
And I mean actual war not like falklands 'war'..

Romans did pretty well after taking care of Carthage. The Great Northern War saw decades of Swedish dominance halted and a resurgent Russia. The Persian Wars saw Athens and Sparta confirmed as the supreme powers in Greece that other city states looked to.

Loads of examples.

Reiver

tipparetops wrote: »

I have always thought that a Third World War could be started by the USA.
Their debt is so high, they might repay it with a few nukes.
China should be very worried.

USA could be the North Korea of the 22nd century. A wild card while China and India struggle to cope with dealing with it.

DoYouEvenLift

If I get drafted I hope they'll have 4G coverage in my foxhole!

ZeroThreat

jacksie66 wrote: »

If World War 3 kicks off I'll be grand here in New Zealand. Plenty of sheep to eat..

nah, a large radioactive cloud will slowly but surely drift towards the southern hemisphere, just like that film 'On the beach'.

blatantrereg

Reiver wrote: »

Absolute balls.

It does some people a lot of good. And there always is a winner. Tell the loser theres no winner.

Sometimes. The UK's involvement in WW2 left them fairly devastated economically and indirectly led to loss of territory. Japan lost territory but experienced great economic growth as a reult of imposed reforms. Poland was on the winning side and they had a nett territory loss in addition to the catastrophic consequence of being assimilated into the iron curtain. On the other hand the USA did quite well out of WW2 by staying out of it for longer than most managed to.

smurgen

Reiver wrote: »

USA could be the North Korea of the 22nd century. A wild card while China and India struggle to cope with dealing with it.

No one is going to mess around with nuclear weapons. If there's one used I reckon they'll all be used.the Russians would rather die that be dominated by the U.S in a conventional war.The nuclear weapons the Russians have will make any defence futile.the Americans can't do anything about it.they have icbm's scattered all over the country with multiple warheads.they will be able to flatten all major cities in the U.S, Europe , Asia and the Middle East if it all kicks off.

dxhound2005

WW3 will kick off in the Spratly Islands. You heard it here first.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/chinese-ambassador-fires-warning-over-spratly-islands-dispute-20150526-gha9xa.html