- 2,744
- England
- RacerPaul65
You believe we've been there? I'm not convinced
World War 3
- Thread starter ULTRAVIOLENZZ
- 328 comments
- 21,636 views
- 2,744
- England
- RacerPaul65
Certainly not, but I don't believe everything I'm told willy-nilly
- 3,082
- Allen, Texas
- crispychicken49
- crispychicken49
He was talking about Moon Colonization causing a WWIII situation.
Please stop spreading your silly crack-pot opinions around as facts. It is a major disrespect to spread around silly conspiracy theories around because they just don't hold up. If you want someone to take you partially seriously, at least spell "colonization" right. You're welcome to believe them, but there is no basis to it. End of story. This discussion can continue in a thread of its own, though I don't think that will go over well.
As for WWIII? If things get really, really bad then maybe, but even then it is a long shot. Globalization has a big part to play in that as well. One nation can't do anything major without affecting a large part of the world. Besides nobody wants to piss off the United States too much.
Also Iran's want for Nuclear capabilities largely stems from a want for reactors to efficiently power their country. They might also want a nuclear weapon for defense, but who doesn't? If North Korea is smart enough to know that launching a nuclear weapon is a stupid idea, then Iran definitely is.
The more you know.
R5
(Banned)
- 7,527
- Location, Location
Can I move back to the topic and ask why when something happens to Russia, everybody cries World War 3?
I mean I get they have an extensive arsenal of weapons and a bear-fighting president but as far as I can remember people immediately point to WW3, over the simplest things.
I mean I get they have an extensive arsenal of weapons and a bear-fighting president but as far as I can remember people immediately point to WW3, over the simplest things.
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
If there ever will be a WW III, it will likely be ignited by resource war ( when fuel has been depleted, and clean water + food produce becomes rare commodity - quite likely if pollution and environment damage keeps on getting worse and population growth not kept in check ) or human race found something very valuable for the future generation - a solution to sustained renewable energy for example. Just imagine a smaller scale, the middle eastern countries holding the last few oil reserves for a couple of years with prices set by greed and maybe hidden intention for political leverage, while the rest of the world panicking to find another energy source. The last moments of fossil fuel would be thrilling years 
I can see wars as a tool to keep the world in balance ( population in check ), we have advanced so much in technology, but still lacking when it comes to control birth rate and securing the future of at least the next 3 or 5 generations ( primary needs of living - water, food, electricity and fuel ). I don't think many countries think or make preparations for 5 generations to come, it may not even existed yet
I can see wars as a tool to keep the world in balance ( population in check ), we have advanced so much in technology, but still lacking when it comes to control birth rate and securing the future of at least the next 3 or 5 generations ( primary needs of living - water, food, electricity and fuel ). I don't think many countries think or make preparations for 5 generations to come, it may not even existed yet
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Alas wars, even world wars, have a very poor track record on keeping population in check. So it's no good pinning your hopes for salvation on war.I can see wars as a tool to keep the world in balance ( population in check ), we have advanced so much in technology, but still lacking when it comes to control birth rate and securing the future of at least the next 3 or 5 generations ( primary needs of living - water, food, electricity and fuel ). I don't think many countries think or make preparations for 5 generations to come, it may not even existed yet
For population control enthusiasts, a better bet might be starvation due to global crop failures. These may be induced by weather/climate changes in either direction, drought, depletion /pollution of water tables, etc.
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
Alas wars, even world wars, have a very poor track record on keeping population in check. So it's no good pinning your hopes for salvation on war.
For population control enthusiasts, a better bet might be starvation due to global crop failures. These may be induced by weather/climate changes in either direction, drought, depletion /pollution of water tables, etc.
Starvation can be a seed of war, imagine each region, asia, europe, oceania and america with their own regional wars, desperate countries would invade others for food. I can see lots of people will die. In the past, wars were fueled by ideology, greed for power and religion, they were mostly isolated, until the last WWII, where almost all region have their own conflicts, asia with Japan, Europe with Nazi, while America and Oceania more like being pulled in
The last WW II didn't last for long with battles fought at closer distance. Today, wars can be waged in many different ways, it can go for years and years ( look at middle east and eastern europe ), as long as nobody hit the nuke button.I don't think UN can do much when every region are having bad times with starvation, plummeting economy and martial law. There will be leaders with their own agendas and ideals, carrying the people's hope, and suddenly war or military aggression won't be as bad as it sounds. Survival of the fittest.
Last edited:
- 30
- CUSE' NY
Please excuse my poor grammar.
Most, if not all of the Muslim and/or Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa.
I feel that it is only a matter of time before the Islamic/Arab countries in the Middle East make a move to destroy Israel. Israel would do it to keep it from happening.
I am talking about the whole Middle East. Please excuse my slang. When I say 'Gulf', I am referring to the Middle East as a whole.
Please see above.
I disagree, however, it remains to be seen. I hope you are correct.
- 23,800
- Philippines
We've got China's nuts in a wringer. China "owns" trillions worth of US Government Securities and bonds. All that means is that any war that devalues US securities would cause China to lose billions, at the very least. The only reason China has so much is that there aren't enough dollars in the world to fill China's treasury. And with other countries hoarding the gold, China needs an inflation-resistant tradeable good to store their money in.
A resource war at this point would be difficult to justify.
We're currently in the middle of an oil glut. If it's food we're talking about, any war conquering territory for food will destroy that territory's food production capabilities for at least a year afterwards... no dice. And none of the major superpowers actually lacks the capability to grow their own. In fact, the major superpowers all produce their own oil and/or electricity.
An oil war for control of more of the oil... to sell, not to use... there is some merit, but we're currently operating with oil supply vastly exceeding demand due to the stagnant global economy. A big war will slow down the economy even more. It might cause a price spike, but after that, whoever is left with the oil is facing a big dip in oil prices.
A resource war at this point would be difficult to justify.
We're currently in the middle of an oil glut. If it's food we're talking about, any war conquering territory for food will destroy that territory's food production capabilities for at least a year afterwards... no dice. And none of the major superpowers actually lacks the capability to grow their own. In fact, the major superpowers all produce their own oil and/or electricity.
An oil war for control of more of the oil... to sell, not to use... there is some merit, but we're currently operating with oil supply vastly exceeding demand due to the stagnant global economy. A big war will slow down the economy even more. It might cause a price spike, but after that, whoever is left with the oil is facing a big dip in oil prices.
- 11,624
- Intercourse, PA
- Carbonox
You do know though humankind is doing pretty well in the food production front right now?Starvation can be a seed of war, imagine each region, asia, europe, oceania and america with their own regional wars, desperate countries would invade others for food. I can see lots of people will die. In the past, wars were fueled by ideology, greed for power and religion, they were mostly isolated, until the last WWII, where almost all region have their own conflicts, asia with Japan, Europe with Nazi, while America and Oceania more like being pulled in
I don't think UN can do much when every region are having bad times with starvation, plummeting economy and martial law. There will be leaders with their own agendas and ideals, carrying the people's hope, and suddenly war or military aggression won't be as bad as it sounds. Survival of the fittest.
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
Can you guarantee that in the next 30 years ? Today, take a look at Africa, then consider the growth of India and China population. Have you looked at the yearly inflation rate on third world countries and how much food prices soar every year with rising fuel price ? Do you think Eastern Europe will get better soon ? Take a look at Russia economy now
How many people do you think Earth can support in terms of food production ? We may be doing well in food production, but not all people on earth can get food with the same opportunity / prices. I think if we stay the same like this for the next 10 years, things are not looking good, rising fuel prices will hurt farmers too.- 720
- Australia
Something's bound to happen but not in our life time. It will be a futuristic warfare I reckon. One day we will run out of oil. Also off topic but why do people complain about petrol prices? Yes they re high but one day we will run out we need to preserve it. Maybe that will trigger a war. I don't know but I'm happy there isn't one now.
- 22,550
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Makes hardly any sense, let's start from the top. Let's say for craps and giggles that Iran does have a serious nuclear program going on and they don't at all want to use it for energy due to political weight tossing and slandering they've done in the past, there are still a few problems. The IDF or better yet the Mossad have been killing off lead physicist and engineers in Iran for the past couple years related to this Nuclear program (un-officially). So to actually get it off the ground in any reasonable time seems to be slowed quite a bit due to Israel already. Even if they didn't do that then we get into the massive history of how they love to do highly secret airstrikes that blow Nuclear facilities to the stone age, while having their own non-NPT nuclear arsenal due to direct and circumstantial evidence.
Then we have the U.S. who themselves have done things to prevent it from getting off the ground...like stuxnet and various other covert projects.
But then even so, there is Iran themselves and having the capability and know how to actually get a device into an operational warhead and then be able to have the range to launch is with success, and or remotely detonate it and have it actually work. Synthesizing the product is one thing and really buying the product from some African nation would have just been as simple (think Iraq back in the day when they had their program). They don't have the launch system, the reach, or the positioning as of yet to do this. Sure one day they could just as much as NK could but then there is all these other things like actually going through with it.
Also if you actually learn about Iran they are a gulf superpower they have plenty of resources, a good military, good relations with may of their neighbors or at least working relations. IF you were to stop the UN imposing the heavy limits on them, they could easily be a top tier nation is many aspects, but it's safe to say for the region they're in the upper levels.
How would Iran go about making all these other unstable or even stable yet perfectly fine with Israel nations oppose or come together long enough to oppose Israel. I mean it just seems like you had too much fox news in the background one day and some of it stuck.
Gotcha
Makes me glad I'm getting into the aerospace industry soon.
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
I saw a lot of different predictions of when the fossil fuel will be gone. Could be be in the next 30 - 50 years, with the rising number of vehicles on developing countries like Asia ( India, China, Indonesia are increasing in large number ). We haven't talked about pollution from forest fires and vehicles emission, south east asia is getting worse now, Malaysia and Indonesia have been in trouble with thick fog ( from smokes due to fire, volcanoes and air pollution ).
Most of third world countries would naturally complain about fuel prices, their income do not increase in proportion to increasing fuel price. Some countries have fuel price subsidized by the government, and they are starting to let go, increasing fuel price almost every few years.
Back in 2004, fuel price in Australia was hovering around high 80+c to 100c per litre This year end, it averages at 136-140c with peak at 160c.
In Indonesia, 2004 was Rp 1650 ( low octane premium 88 RON ) and Rp 2450 for Pertamax ( 91 RON ), the US $ was around Rp 8000-9000
Now in 2014, government cut off subsidy with price increase at Rp 8500 for premium ( 88 RON ) and Rp 9950 for Pertamax ( 91 RON ), with US $ at Rp 12500. Imagine that kind of price on low income per capita. The highest RON fuel sold in Indonesia, Pertamax Plus at 94-95 RON sells at Rp 11600 as of Nov'2014, almost US $ 1 per litre. This is on a country that export oil.
- 4,792
- Canada
The face of WW3:
- 23,800
- Philippines
Easy to get oil will eventually run out... but I have a feeling the global economy will likely shrink ahead of it. As it is, we're on the cusp at where Solar and Wind are becoming economical because oil isn't... and oil prices are yoyoing precariously because producers need it at one level (common wisdom has it at $80-90 for new US wells) and buyers prefer it at another ($60 and it STILL isn't enough to cause a spike in demand!)... in the meantime, you have speculators either rushing in to buy oil or shedding oil futures like crazy depending on which direction crude prices go in the market.
The market is utterly, completely broken. Off the rails. And nobody knows if it will get back on them again.
The market is utterly, completely broken. Off the rails. And nobody knows if it will get back on them again.
- 30
- CUSE' NY
Ahoy LMSCorvetteGT2, thanks for the insights.
I'm not convinced that Israel and the United States 'intelligence' communities are totally on top of Iran's nuclear program. I think it will be done in the upmost secrecy, possibly underground facilities? In any case I would not underestimate Iran's counter-intelligence capabilities.
Think small tactical battlefield nukes delivered via scud launchers, not ICBMs.
I do know a little about Iran. ;-)
I think the Muslim Middle Eastern and North African countries might come together to destroy Israel out of pure hatred. They have tried in the past. I don't think any Muslim nation is 'perfectly fine with Israel'. I also project it would be a very short conflict, they would not have to come together for very long.
I steer clear of mass media for the most part, seems very biased, although I must confess I recently added RT to my Facebook newsfeed.
I'm not convinced that Israel and the United States 'intelligence' communities are totally on top of Iran's nuclear program. I think it will be done in the upmost secrecy, possibly underground facilities? In any case I would not underestimate Iran's counter-intelligence capabilities.
Think small tactical battlefield nukes delivered via scud launchers, not ICBMs.
I do know a little about Iran. ;-)
I think the Muslim Middle Eastern and North African countries might come together to destroy Israel out of pure hatred. They have tried in the past. I don't think any Muslim nation is 'perfectly fine with Israel'. I also project it would be a very short conflict, they would not have to come together for very long.
I steer clear of mass media for the most part, seems very biased, although I must confess I recently added RT to my Facebook newsfeed.
Lain
Premium
- 7,080
- Pasadena, TX
- Yaywalter
A thread for couch militarists? I already love it.
There's a guy I know who has a blog on "Typical Military" community on the Russian social network VK, and he posts very interesting military-related articles there. Like the "Russia vs. NATO" series consisting of:
Part 1. "Massive missile strike"
Part 2. "Massive missile strike (continued)"
Part 3. "Total war"
Part 4. "Total war (continued)"
Part 5. "Mobilization"
Part 6. "Mobilization (continued)"
Part 7. "Nuclear weapons"
Part 8. "Nuclear weapons (continued)"
Part 9. "Local conflict"
Part 10. "Local conflict (continued)"
Part 11. "Local conflict (conclusion)"
Part 12. "Sea war"
Part 13. "Sea war. Russian Navy"
Part 14. "A few words about Aegis"
Part 15. "Sea war (conclusion)"
I think they'll be interesting for you to read, so I'll be translating and posting them here, when I have enough free time.
What do I think in general? I think, a classic "total war" with one "big player" (Russia or US) invading another is veeery unlikely, almost impossible. But a collision of Russian and NATO forces on the territory of another country (Ukraine, for example) - "local war" scenario - seems more real.
"A few words about Aegis", eh? As an Aegis tech, my interest is piqued.
- 2,733
- Italy
- Yellohead
- Clydeyellow
Not happening - total war isn't politically attractive or economically feasible anymore.
On the other hand, "war" through economic maneuvers, political posturing and communications control are already a reality, one that is quite well-estabilished.
On the other hand, "war" through economic maneuvers, political posturing and communications control are already a reality, one that is quite well-estabilished.
- 22,550
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I am based on the fact that Israel is not the great savior that the West tries to make the public think they are, they are probably one of the best if not the best nations of military intelligence gathering and covert operations out there. And they could careless what the U.N. has to say. I'm not underestimating Iran I'm, just being realistic about it compared to most others.
The yield and to achieve it is more difficult than creating the FOAB that Russia did.
I'm sure you do I wasn't trying to say you were devoid of knowledge just informing you that they are currently a superpower in their region. This is based on the stats compared to all others around them.
They tried that once, and it blew up in their faces, they tried it again and it didn't go so hot then either, what makes you think another go around with a more heavily allied and advance nation compared to the earlier years would make the outcome any different? It wouldn't and if anything Israel would keep what it won and not give it back like they did before.
That's good, but if you comb over it by back checking you can still watch it and be sensible.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
Because hatred can be and often is irrational. That's why they keep trying. They only have to succeed once.
- 2,260
- N. Jessamine, KY
- JMoney-689
- Woodside689
A lot of speculation on here is saying that total war between leading world powers, as seen in WWI and WWII, would never happen again because of the intertwined global economy. But what if World War 3 didn't happen that way? What if there was a war between 2nd and 3rd-World countries across continents? Each smaller nation would be supported by the bigger powers without them being involved directly. The war wouldn't be as devastating if it occurred that way, yet because it involves nations around the world it would still be a "world war".
For example, say an African nation like Somalia sees a dictator come to power who starts cyber-attacking various small nations around the world because it may be easier to use cyber warfare on less-developed countries. Let's say Chile, Pakistan, and New Guinea discover these acts and form an alliance against Somalia, and possibly start an invasion. Other African nations come to Somalia's defense, and next thing you know, they're counter-attacking on different continents and the leading powers don't want to get involved for whatever reasons. It would be a "world war", just not on the scale most would expect.
For example, say an African nation like Somalia sees a dictator come to power who starts cyber-attacking various small nations around the world because it may be easier to use cyber warfare on less-developed countries. Let's say Chile, Pakistan, and New Guinea discover these acts and form an alliance against Somalia, and possibly start an invasion. Other African nations come to Somalia's defense, and next thing you know, they're counter-attacking on different continents and the leading powers don't want to get involved for whatever reasons. It would be a "world war", just not on the scale most would expect.
Similar threads
