Topic: Who will win WW3? - page 9. (Read 66607 times)

I agree, that world peace is at best guaranteed not by words, but by power balance. And with the level of technology at mankind disposal, that means mutually assured destruction (MAD).



    To continue to deter in an era of strategic nuclear equivalence, it is necessary to have nuclear (as well as conventional) forces such that in considering aggression against our interests any adversary would recognize that no plausible outcome would represent a victory or any plausible definition of victory. To this end and so as to preserve the possibility of bargaining effectively to terminate the war on acceptable terms that are as favorable as practical, if deterrence fails initially, we must be capable of fighting successfully so that the adversary would not achieve his war aims and would suffer costs that are unacceptable, or in any event greater than his gains, from having initiated an attack.
    — President Jimmy Carter in 1980, Presidential Directive 59, Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy

The doctrine of MAD was officially at odds with that of the USSR, which had, contrary to MAD, insisted survival was possible. The Soviets believed they could win not only a strategic nuclear war, which they planned to absorb with their extensive civil defense planning, but also the conventional war that they predicted would follow after their strategic nuclear arsenal had been depleted. Official Soviet policy, though, may have had internal critics towards the end of the Cold War, including some in the USSR's own leadership.

    "Nuclear use would be catastrophic."
    — 1981, the Soviet General Staff

Fair enough. It will be next to impossible for the Americans to invade all of Russia. This is something which even Napoleon and Hitler couldn't achieve. If the Americans attempt this, then there will be tens of millions of American casualties, without any good results to speak of.

Russia is modernising it's equipment, and by 2020 they will have 99% of modern weapons. And if the war start, there won't be winner. You can't destroy such big countries. Russia have good rockets, USA have good rockets, planes and so on.. So it will just be stupid war.  If they use nuclear weapons, than, I think we won't find out who is winner because we can't survive that.

Russia and China will not be the countries that will be the winners of WW3 if it was to ever occur. Just because China has the largest standing army and Russia has a ton of military equpment doesn't mean anything when a lot of the equipment on both sides from those two countries are from the Cold War.

I'm not going to say this article is from an amazing source but it does display the old military from Russia - http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/11/how-powerful-russias-military/99062/
They may be attempting to improve their military, but it's going to take some time for a full improvement to occur. America is already on the area of improvement in their military and isn't going to need  to go through this at all.

So to finish that up, I think America would come out as the winner if something like WW3 occurred.

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense element of America’s missile defense system successfully shot down an Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile target from Alaska this morning, according to a statement by the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. It’s good news, but it’s not a full safeguard against an increasingly belligerent North Korea.

An Air Force C-17 fired the target over the Pacific Ocean and a THAAD system in Kodiak, Alaska detected and shot it down. Launcher, fire control and radar operations were conducted by soldiers from the 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade out of Fort Bliss, Texas.

This was the 14th straight successful interception of a missile target since 2006.

But as Foxtrot Alpha has consistently reported, we can’t put too much stock in these missile defense tests, be it THAAD or the Ground-midcourse Defense system.

The agency says today’s successful THAAD intercept was conducted using procedures they’d undertake in real combat conditions, but that is impossible. Neither North Korea or Russia would let us know when they planned on launching a real nuclear weapon at the United States. And the Missile Defense Agency also wouldn’t have the luxury of knowing in advance which delivery system would carry out the launch.

Moreover, we aren’t sure if THAAD could take out more than one missile at a time. Or, say, 15 of them at once.

Simply put: Washington can’t rely on missile defense alone to address its issues with Pyongyang.

But, for now, this is where we are. It is promising that THAAD can take out an IRBM in a simulated situation. But, hopefully, the Trump administration will eventually lean on diplomacy even more so that THAAD won’t ever have to be an option in the first place.

U.S. government officials said today that they believe Russia has secretly deployed two battalions of the SSC-X-8 cruise missile, which violates a 1987 treaty, according to the New York Times. At the same time, a Russian spy ship, the SSV-175 Viktor Leonov, is now hanging out off the United States’ East Coast. And it could not come at a worse time for U.S. President Donald Trump.

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, known as INF, bans U.S. and Russian ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles capable of flying between 300 to 3,400 miles. The Pentagon has known about the development of the new SSC-X-8 cruise missile since 2008, when the Russians began test-firing it. The Obama Administration had worked to persuade the Kremlin to end the tests and to adhere to the terms of the INF after concluding the test occurred in a 2014 report. Both Obama and then-Secretary of State John Kerry told Russia to back off.

Clearly, the Russians didn’t listen. Officials told the New York Times that the missile has been removed from current intelligence reports, meaning it is fully operational.

During one test on September 2, 2015, the missile did not fly beyond the 300-mile ban range, according to the Washington Free Beacon. However, the SSC-X-8 is capable of reaching distances beyond that range, which clearly violates the INF. While the missile is not capable of reaching the United States, it can certainly hit NATO alliance members in much of Europe, especially the Baltics and Poland.

Making matters worse is the optics of a Russian spy ship, the SSV-175 Viktor Leonov, just chillin’ 70 miles off the coast of Delaware at the same time, according to Fox News. The ship can intercept communications and measure U.S. Navy sonar capabilities. It was in international waters and the spy ship’s sighting was not a big concern, but “we are keeping our eyes on it,” one official told Fox News. By the way, the Leonov is armed with surface-to-air missiles.

This kind of nautical trolling is not unusual. During the Cold War, Russian spy ships regularly spied off the U.S. east coast and American ships spied on Russia as well. And the the SSV-175 Viktor Leonov has visited America before: it and another Russian ship were seen near our waters in 2014.

But both of these developments come at an extremely difficult time for the Trump administration. The president’s national security advisor, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign after it was discovered he wasn’t completely forthcoming about his contact with a Russian diplomat.

As I said in my analysis this morning, Flynn’s departure already makes Trump look like a Russian pawn. Though the development the SSC-X-8 took place on Obama’s watch, Trump will be tasked with how to best deal with its deployment. It is one thing to test a missile that violates a long-standing treaty. It is another thing completely to deploy missile battalions in blatant defiance of that treaty.

NATO members have long expressed concerns over Trump’s commitment to the alliance, so this deployment surely will not put them at ease. Moreover, it will also test the mettle of how tough Trump will negotiate with Putin, who, by the way, he has yet to criticize. One has to think what Ronald Reagan, the GOP hero lauded for leading the fall of the USSR, would do in this situation. The INF was signed by Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev as the Soviet Union was on its deathbed. Now, it seems like American diplomatic power finds itself in the same predicament with the Kremlin in light of the missile deployment.

Additionally, this could potentially complicate any efforts for Trump to negotiate other arms treaties with the Kremlin, as the New York Times wrote:

Before he left his post last year as the NATO commander and retired from the military, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove warned that deployment of the cruise missile would be a militarily significant development that “can’t go unanswered.”

Coming up with an arms control solution would not be easy.

Each missile battalion is believed to have four mobile launchers and a larger supply of missiles. The launcher for the cruise missile, however, closely resembles the launcher used for the Iskander, a nuclear-tipped short-range system that is permitted under treaties.

“This will make location and verification really tough,” General Breedlove said in an interview.
Putin is winning the diplomacy battle, and Trump has not so much as condemned the Russian leader for hacking the election—let alone this latest show of strength.

This is going to get far worse before it gets better.

All the world will suffered from the war. Not only the looser but also the winner will expereince effect of the war. War need cost. Money, properties, and souls. The worst is children.

All the world will suffered from the war. Not only the looser but also the winner will expereince effect of the war. War need cost. Money, properties, and souls. The worst is children.

No. Nuclear war can be won. It doesn't mean the whole planet will be destroyed like in some Hollywood films but it will make some parts of the planet uninhabitable.

For me the best thing we can hope for is that may the war never happen because there might actually be no one left to count the scores and determines who is the winner or loser. World War if it happens now, then the effect will be devastating with all countries having nuclear and anti nuclear weapons, countries that have not even stabilised the country investing in weapons, thats how bad it is and the citizen who care less about world politics including myself and you will be the one to bear the brunt of such endeavour.

What about several France ? I'm sure that within the 15 newt years there will be a civil war that will split the country in several sides.

Long time ago I heard the best answer to this question.
We don't know who will win WW3 but we know how we will fight in WW4. With stones and sticks.
So, you better hope that WW3 will never happen or we will see the end of our civilization.
Nobody can win WW3.