World War 3

[Rage Racer]

Don't worry about this guy. He's practically always like this.

I've voted for him three years ago

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Apparently N.Korea has a Hbomb now.
https://www.rt.com/news/325300-north-korea-hydrogen-bomb/

 

[G.T.Ace]

Not giving Russia Today any clicks. Any other sources for that claim?

 

[Rage Racer]

Not giving Russia Today any clicks. Any other sources for that claim?

Afraid of enemy propaganda?

Here's a CNN link.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/10/asia/north-korea-thermonuclear-claim/index.html

 

[G.T.Ace]

Afraid of enemy propaganda?

Here's a CNN link.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/10/asia/north-korea-thermonuclear-claim/index.html

I just don't want to give Moscow's troll factory another click, not afraid of any crappy nonesense.
Too bad CNN recently lost pretty much all creditability as well (doesn't matter for this "news" though).

 

[Keef]

Not giving Russia Today any clicks. Any other sources for that claim?

Still bitter about that winter war, eh?

 

[G.T.Ace]

Still bitter about that winter war, eh?

I still remember the screams in the back of my Ju52, from the wounded and crippled soldiers.... then that Iiljuschin dived through the clouds. We took a hit in the left engine, it was a harsh landing, the soft snow helped us. The 4 of us who survived, tried to stay warm at the burning wreckage, but of course this also attracted Ivan.

I was captured, thrown in a Gulag, but here I am, over 70 years later, 25 years old, still remembering like I just made-up all of this, because I am bored. You can't deny that some sort of bitterness is just natural, can you?

 

[Akira AC]

I just don't want to give Moscow's troll factory another click, not afraid of any crappy nonesense.
Too bad CNN recently lost pretty much all creditability as well (doesn't matter for this "news" though).

Isn't it the same as BBC or CBS or whatever, heck even Al-Jazeera.


CNN look more like troll propaganda ironically giving Trump free press (tons of it, it's insane), which is (in my book) below in the credibility than RT.

 

[Dotini]

"If you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate."

So said Rand Paul, looking directly at Gov. Chris Christie, who had just responded to a question from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer as to whether he would shoot down a Russian plane that violated his no-fly zone in Syria.

http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2015/12/17/america-first-or-world-war-iii/

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Nearly every repub old do the same, with Hilary as well. I'm not sure if Bernie has said anything about a no fly zone though.

 

[Dotini]

Scary pre-Halloween WWIII scenario. Predicted to commence shortly after the Nov 8 presidential election.

Key elements of the administration, military and elite media have at length formed consensus on no-fly zones in Syria. That results in shooting down Russian planes, attacking government positions, and much harder sanctions against Russia including Putin himself. Russia will respond, and WWIII is on. All for the sake of regime change in favor of non-existant "moderate" rebels. And there's nobody and nothing to stop it but Obama, now in his final weeks in office.

 

[Dotini]

http://abcnews.go.com/International...esponse-us-missile-shield-42721535?yptr=yahoo
Amid escalating U.S.-Russia tensions, the Russian military said Tuesday it will cooperate with China on efforts to fend off a threat posed by the U.S. missile defense program.

Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir of the Russian military's General Staff accused the Pentagon of developing the shield as part of planning for a possible first nuclear strike. "The missile defense system considerably shifts the balance of offensive weapons, allowing the planning of a more efficient pre-emptive strike," he said at a security conference in China.

 

[BobK]

...fend off a threat posed by the U.S. missile defense program.

Just an aside, but I've always wondered how a defense system can be considered a threat (assuming it's truly defensive, of course).

 

[mistersafeway]

Just an aside, but I've always wondered how a defense system can be considered a threat (assuming it's truly defensive, of course).

If it can really stop a nuclear warhead hitting a country then it could be considered an offensive threat, as both sides are sitting around thinking that M.A.D is the only thing keeping them safe. Politicians are such 🤬 children sometimes...

 

[BobK]

If it can really stop a nuclear warhead hitting a country then it could be considered an offensive threat, as both sides are sitting around thinking that M.A.D is the only thing keeping them safe. Politicians are such 🤬 children sometimes...

But it's not a threat in and of itself, it's only when it's coupled with an offensive system that the combination becomes a threat.

 

[mistersafeway]

But it's not a threat in and of itself, it's only when it's coupled with an offensive system that the combination becomes a threat.

True, but politicians treat the world as very black and white on certain subjects, if x (nuclear defence) then y (nuclear attack), no ifs, ands or buts. I can't work out if they're idiots or they just think their counterparts are idiots, because nuking a country makes no sense, you don't gain any useable territory or resources and the rest of the world thinks you're a bully if you're lucky.

 

[BobK]

True, but politicians treat the world as very black and white on certain subjects, if x (nuclear defence) then y (nuclear attack), no ifs, ands or buts. I can't work out if they're idiots or they just think their counterparts are idiots, because nuking a country makes no sense, you don't gain any useable territory or resources and the rest of the world thinks you're a bully if you're lucky.

Oh. Well once the politicians get involved words tend to lose their normal meanings. For instance, what the meaning of the word "is" is.

 

[Rage Racer]

Just an aside, but I've always wondered how a defense system can be considered a threat (assuming it's truly defensive, of course).

By ruining the nuclear parity.
The guarantee of mutual annihilation assures that no one will strike first. That's how nuclear deterrence works.
If country A develops a "shield" that can protect it from nuclear strikes of country B, then country A gets the opportunity to start an agression against country B without worrying about retaliation.

it's only when it's coupled with an offensive system

It already exists.

 

[mistersafeway]

If country A develops a "shield" that can protect it from nuclear strikes of country B, then country A gets the opportunity to start an agression against country B without worrying about retaliation.

On the bright side, if it really works then this could be the first step towards total nuclear disarmament. If one of these systems really ends up working then country A could get rid of their nuclear weapons, give it to all countries without nuclear weapons, then hand it out to the other countries if they disarm. Sadly it's unlikely to happen, even though there could be a nice profit in it. I'm sure that any country that perfected a nuclear defence system would just wave it in front of anyone else during all sorts of negotiations.

 

[Jawehawk]

As far as I understand it, the missile shield set up in Europe (for instance) is not capable of doing anything against modern ICBM's. They are too fast and work at too high an altitude for the defense system to do anything. It's meant as a defense against unstable states that may or may not possess nuclear weapons, such as North Korea, Iran and so on.

 

[Gil]

As far as I understand it, the missile shield set up in Europe (for instance) is not capable of doing anything against modern ICBM's. They are too fast and work at too high an altitude for the defense system to do anything. It's meant as a defense against unstable states that may or may not possess nuclear weapons, such as North Korea, Iran and so on.

 

[Gil]

So, it's been a minute since I checked in here. So bear with me.
WW3 has, imho, already occurred.
Was not the entire world in a war footing against terror for a number of years?

The next war will technically be ww4.
And to be truthful, the world is so messed up right now that just about anything could precipitate it.
Lack of respect. A perceived slight, the wrong person dying and leaving an influence vacuum.
I hope and pray daily that it won't happen. But I know that as tense as the world is, it could be a thing at any time.
So, if you are worried....you are likely right to be.

 

[Exorcet]

On the bright side, if it really works then this could be the first step towards total nuclear disarmament.

I don't think that would be desirable at all. It makes it easier for a rogue state to gain an advantage in firepower by developing their own nuclear weapons (and unless the defense system is 100% effective, you can still suffer a strike).

Disarmament also takes away from our options when it comes to asteroid defense and perhaps even space travel. Nuclear weapons may be associated with war, but they are certainly not limited to that single use.

 

[Jawehawk]

So, it's been a minute since I checked in here. So bear with me.
WW3 has, imho, already occurred.
Was not the entire world in a war footing against terror for a number of years?

Considering that one side has trouble fielding anything bigger than pickup trucks with mounted machine guns, and doesn't fight with anything resembling an army, I struggle to define it as a world war. If you want to argue for the existence of more world wars, then the Napolean Wars might be a good place to start.

 

[mistersafeway]

I don't think that would be desirable at all. It makes it easier for a rogue state to gain an advantage in firepower by developing their own nuclear weapons (and unless the defense system is 100% effective, you can still suffer a strike).

Disarmament also takes away from our options when it comes to asteroid defense and perhaps even space travel. Nuclear weapons may be associated with war, but they are certainly not limited to that single use.

While I can agree, particularly on the asteroids, the main problem I see with keeping them around is that they're just used to threaten each other, and even if it's just posturing it only takes one complete moron/lunatic getting elected somewhere and taking the nuclear threats too seriously to see the whole planet getting destroyed. We could also still deal with asteroids by having a global network of warheads that need a certain amount of countries to agree to fire off-world and practically unanimous agreement to target the surface of the planet.

Considering that one side has trouble fielding anything bigger than pickup trucks with mounted machine guns, and doesn't fight with anything resembling an army, I struggle to define it as a world war.

That, and the other side consisting of the US, a couple of European nations, and not much else. It'd be more accurate to call the "war on drugs" a world war.

 

[Michael88]

Disarmament also takes away from our options when it comes to asteroid defense and perhaps even space travel.

Please explain to me how you are going to destroy an asteroid with a nuclear bomb. In space. In vacuum.

 

[Dennisch]

Please explain to me how you are going to destroy an asteroid with a nuclear bomb. In space. In vacuum.

Here ya go.

And here's some insight from NASA.

 

[BobK]

Please explain to me how you are going to destroy an asteroid with a nuclear bomb. In space. In vacuum.

Not so much destroying it as changing its trajectory.

 

[Michael88]

An atomic explosion in vacuum creates a relatively small extremely hot bubble with a lot of radiation. A little sun for the fraction of a second. And thats it.

There is no blast wave that tears apart stuff like here on earth. The best you can do is cook the asteroid a little.

Thats why NASA uses impactors and not bombs, projectiles with a lot of mass and speed, and you can only destroy little asteroids with that. Big ones need to be deflected with such device.

I hope you people won't be in charge of the planet defense when aliens attack in their huge spaceships.

 

[Dennisch]

There is no blast wave that tears apart stuff like here on earth. The best you can do is cook the asteroid a little.

There's an ginormous burst of high energy particles going in every direction. A nuke inside an asteroid will tear it apart. Unless it's a rubble pile of course. A nuke close to the surface will cook the asteroid, and the escaping gasses will nudge the asteroid out of space.

Thats why NASA uses impactors and not bombs

And NASA still see nukes as a viable short term solution.