Topic: Who will win WW3? - page 41. (Read 66663 times)

I still believe that the next World War will be between the ISIS and the Western nations. Leaders of Russia and the United States are not that stupid to fight against each other. Even if they fight against each other, it will be done using proxies. For example, the Americans will support Islamist rebels inside Russia and in return Russia will arm rebel groups in the Middle East.

video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSTPahY7XjQ

Russian S-400 defense missile system deployed in Syria

Rhetoric Heats Up As Russian S-400 Missiles Arrive In Syria; Germany Joins The Fight Against ISIS

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/rhetoric-heats-up-as-russian-s-400-missiles-arrive-in-s-1744914020

It´s nothing new. Most wars have totally been a racket. But in our time it´s more complicated because if the scam goes too far the racketeers themselves could get wiped out along with the usual cannon fodder, what with all  those weapons of mass destruction. So they need to keep it pretty low level and kind of simmering, exactly what we´ve seen for years now. But it´s dangerous. There can always be unexpected  wildcards. It´s very easy to start wars but can be much more difficult to control how they develop.

Ok they are the only ones who profit from other's misery when a war erupts on the world stage.

Who really wins at war? Well, I guess weapons manufacturers win big as well as financial institutions that fund the huge enterprise that is war. And since they win big they probably do their best to get the thing started in the first place.

I don't see anyone winning. Who really wins at war? Everybody suffers casualties on both sides.
That is not a win-win in my point of view.

Yes they keep putting up those nuke shields and missile systems, like if they can catch all nukes.

If there is a nuclear war, thousands of them will be launched, and if the shield catches only half of them, then it will be a disaster.

That wasn't an argument at all, it was an example intended to discredit the source of information. Russia admits to having a dead hand system, the US denies having one. I don't think it's very likely, out of character even.

Since I can't offer you any credible evidence to backup my claim, nor can you offer any credible evidence to disprove it, it's just another example of Russell's teapot.

The only nonsense argument being made here is that either side could possibly survive a nuclear exchange. It's just not a survivable scenario for either. Whatever remains afterwards of both sides would be too devastated to function.

If that's nonsense to you, then please enlighten me with your sense of how it could work any other way.

Most nonsense argument I have ever seen.

Hi

If i had to choose, i would say the west would win, especially the developed world as they have the superior weaponry. I would say a combination of the US, Europe, and other similar nations such as AUS, CAN and Japan.... would be very superior.

WW3 is highly UNLIKELY. The whole world is so connected that any attack with nuclear weapons especially on the major nations would be a very very bad idea.

Thanks

Who will win WW3?
The cockroaches ...

Everybody wants peace, but they want to kill each other. ...That makes sense. It matters who would side with whom, also. Russia is probably one of the strongest and most ready, Israel has the technology, and Iran, sadly, has the nuclear power. Sad to say, I think the US is falling apart... Hopefully not any more than we see, but the actions of our authorities speak otherwise. A socialist country cannot have a great army. I think Israel and US would hopefully unite once again (ahem) and Russia and Iran seem to be joining forces against Israel, though I somehow doubt Israel will die anytime soon. But the biggest war will definitely happen around the middle east.
joel.

They don't have an Area 51 either...

USA does not have a dead hand system. If all or most of the US nukes and people are destroyed it can't srike back.

You think people are required to be alive to launch nukes? Living people are required TO PREVENT nukes from launching on their own... It's designed this way because of what you just suggested... The mantra was "you either launch first, or convince your enemy that you can launch retaliatory after you're dead." The problem is that in the absence of human discretion, they will launch against multiple targets, not just the aggressive nation who launched the preliminary strike.

If one country were disabled by a nuclear attack, the nukes will launch themselves at targets permanently flashed into onboard hardware. Some from unknown locations in the oceans, some from satellite orbit...

There are nuclear weapons small enough to launch from a cannon, how many nukes do you think are orbiting the Earth right now?

What you're suggesting is childish and out of touch with reality...

I don't know how WW3 will end, neither do I know who will win it. What I know is that WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

Precautionary nuclear strike to completely destroy the adversary before it
make it to strike back will left the winning side with totally life-sustaining continent.
It will be a short war.

Iceland will win as the least involved country.

World War 3 won't be won. Period...

World War 3 will end with only two possible outcomes. Either a stalemate with a resolution by treaty, or the complete destruction of humanity.

Think of it like this, while the organizations we've created have prevented the outbreak of global war for a time, they haven't even come close to solving the root causes of wars between member-states. The tension keeps building up like a rubber band, driven by fundamental disagreements between societies. The only reason it hasn't snapped already is because the outcome of any war is decided before it starts. Every party involved recognizes the fact that they'll likely be destroyed.

The problem comes when certain actors face destruction individually, when self-destruction is no longer a deterrent to war but becomes a certainty in the absence of war, then the scales are shifted towards reckless desperation. The problem faced here is that individual self-destruction becomes international leverage when the desperate acts become harmful to other national actors who aren't facing destruction. The desperate party can use this threat as a way to lean on other nations and hopefully prevent its own demise. Unfortunately, this can't work when the financial system is in chaos!

NATO is one example of an alliance forged in a different time when the world was completely different, it's incompatible with the economic system of the present day. In its current form, given an infinite timeline, it can only lead to absolute global destruction. There's literally no way to view it any other way. Weak actors must be allowed to fail, it's the only way to relieve the tensions in the world...

I'm not saying NATO should be dissolved, but it certainly needs to be reconstructed! There needs to be an understanding between ALL parties that NATO isn't going to save them from their own self-destruction! Recklessness and desperate acts should void any military protections offered by NATO. It seems like common sense to me! Maybe I'm wrong...