Topic: World War 3 - page 4. (Read 13292 times)
Albert Einstein once said "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".There is no matter who will use nuke weapons or who will "win".There is no winner in a war.We are manipulated by the government and the superiors there is no meaning doing a war.
i think that world war 3 started with the necesity of petroleum of the main countries.
You could argue though, that United Nations is a place for providing a levelled playing field for various states, not to prevent global war. Nukes are much better detterent in this regard.
It is turning out just like that. Iraq, Syria and Libya were invaded and none of these nations had nuclear weapons. The Americans don't have the balls to invade Iran and DPRK, because these nations are capable of producing nuclear weapons.
some people say that we are already on it, but i think it would have to do with internet
Our politicians of the moron will play to the point that the military will be firing to the right and left with all available weapons. Destroy the earth to hell and we will not be saved. It seems to me that the Third World War is just around the corner and we will see what kind of trouble we will bring ourselves to our home.
I must confess that I didn't follow the 'regular' news a lot lately so I might be wrong but is it just me or did these tentions between North Korea, Russia, China and USA kind off ended? There are tentions/problems in the Middle East (lol, when isn't there, right?) with the Dubai/Qatar thing but not much news on the bigger (potential WW3) conflict.
Recently North Korea stated that they are going to attack japan with a missile. As an update yesterday japan is now trying to buy a tomahawk missile from the US because of that treat
North Korea says a lot, but does little. She constantly threatens someone. It's just such a strategy of behavior. I'm sure that they will not attack anyone.
And in general there is no threat of a third world war. We live in a civilized world.
Could not have been a 3rd world war.
Because there is already a United Nations that keeps the world safe in the agreement of all countries.
If there is a world war 3 the world will doomsday we know itself the danger of nuclear for all people.
The United Nations is a toothless body, which is incapable of preventing any war on a global scale. The veto power for the super-powers is one of the reasons for its ineffectiveness. I can understand the Veto power for Russia, US and China. But what about the UK and France? They are not even among the top 10 military powers to deserve the veto.
The great powers that were the victors of World War II—the Soviet Union (now represented by Russia), the United Kingdom, France, Republic of China (now represented by the People's Republic of China), and the United States—serve as the body's five permanent members.
The most contentious issue at Dumbarton and in successive talks proved to be the veto rights of permanent members. The Soviet delegation argued that each nation should have an absolute veto that could block matters from even being discussed, while the British argued that nations should not be able to veto resolutions on disputes to which they were a party. At the Yalta Conference of February 1945, the American, British, and Russian delegations agreed that each of the "Big Five" could veto any action by the council, but not procedural resolutions, meaning that the permanent members could not prevent debate on a resolution.
You could argue though, that United Nations is a place for providing a levelled playing field for various states, not to prevent global war. Nukes are much better detterent in this regard.
Recently North Korea stated that they are going to attack japan with a missile. As an update yesterday japan is now trying to buy a tomahawk missile from the US because of that treat
North Korea says a lot, but does little. She constantly threatens someone. It's just such a strategy of behavior. I'm sure that they will not attack anyone.
And in general there is no threat of a third world war. We live in a civilized world.
Could not have been a 3rd world war.
Because there is already a United Nations that keeps the world safe in the agreement of all countries.
If there is a world war 3 the world will doomsday we know itself the danger of nuclear for all people.
The United Nations is a toothless body, which is incapable of preventing any war on a global scale. The veto power for the super-powers is one of the reasons for its ineffectiveness. I can understand the Veto power for Russia, US and China. But what about the UK and France? They are not even among the top 10 military powers to deserve the veto.
Recently North Korea stated that they are going to attack japan with a missile. As an update yesterday japan is now trying to buy a tomahawk missile from the US because of that treat
North Korea says a lot, but does little. She constantly threatens someone. It's just such a strategy of behavior. I'm sure that they will not attack anyone.
And in general there is no threat of a third world war. We live in a civilized world.
Could not have been a 3rd world war.
Because there is already a United Nations that keeps the world safe in the agreement of all countries.
If there is a world war 3 the world will doomsday we know itself the danger of nuclear for all people.
You paint a picture of the Apocalypse, but scientific confirmation of this. No one really knows how the radiation from the explosion. Maybe it's fake scientists to anybody in a head has not come to use nuclear weapons.
It has been scientifically proven. In addition to all those who died as a result of burn injuries in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many tens of thousands died later as a result of exposure to radiation. Also, there was a sharp increase in the incidence of cancer.
Actually yes, the person before you disputed those facts. Sithara rekted him.
"Artifical" winter already happened in Earth history, it is just matter of volume. Meteor, that ended reign of dinosaurs also didnt kill them overnight (atleast not those in the vicinity of several hundreds of kilometres or near shores). Massive firestorms that swallowed up both fauna and flora in the days after the fall created enough debris to block out sun for many years. Even oceanic creatures then started to die enbloc.
Much smaller Toba volcano explosion nearly exterminated humankind - likewise it happened in great distance from cradle of humanity but significant global cooling put a rift into enviromental stablity needed for development of species.
You paint a picture of the Apocalypse, but scientific confirmation of this. No one really knows how the radiation from the explosion. Maybe it's fake scientists to anybody in a head has not come to use nuclear weapons.
It has been scientifically proven. In addition to all those who died as a result of burn injuries in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many tens of thousands died later as a result of exposure to radiation. Also, there was a sharp increase in the incidence of cancer.
We won't really know for sure unless we're already in one. And the scale of radiation won't even be close to that of hiroshima or nagasaki in case we indeed are plunged into nuclear warfare. One or two nukes can flatten an entire town with radiation effecting surrounding areas, imagine how a full scale nuclear war would look like when it comes to the destruction it will wreak.
You paint a picture of the Apocalypse, but scientific confirmation of this. No one really knows how the radiation from the explosion. Maybe it's fake scientists to anybody in a head has not come to use nuclear weapons.
It has been scientifically proven. In addition to all those who died as a result of burn injuries in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many tens of thousands died later as a result of exposure to radiation. Also, there was a sharp increase in the incidence of cancer.
You paint a picture of the Apocalypse, but scientific confirmation of this. No one really knows how the radiation from the explosion. Maybe it's fake scientists to anybody in a head has not come to use nuclear weapons.
It has been scientifically proven. In addition to all those who died as a result of burn injuries in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many tens of thousands died later as a result of exposure to radiation. Also, there was a sharp increase in the incidence of cancer.
You paint a picture of the Apocalypse, but scientific confirmation of this. No one really knows how the radiation from the explosion. Maybe it's fake scientists to anybody in a head has not come to use nuclear weapons.
If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.
I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuild after a few years and hundreds of thousands of people are living there now. It seems like the radiation lasted only a few months, or years. And in Chernobyl, the blast radius was quite small. I really doubt whether it was greater than 100 meters. But the radiation was more spread-out. It even caused a spike in cancer incidence in the Scandinavia.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be rebuild, because all the rubble - which was radioactive, was removed. Those devastating atoms bind themselves to any sort of matter, so while you are right - air is poisonous for a few months, buildings and environment will stay so for many years.
Even after one month in shelter, single day of exposure would sterilize you. And make you lose your body hair.
Nuclear winter is also not a science-fiction. Large volcano eruptions are able to force regional climate cooling, enough nukes would block out sun for years globally - killing fauna a flora even in the areas unscathed by explosions and dropping temperature by as much as 15 degrees celsius.
If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.
I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuild after a few years and hundreds of thousands of people are living there now. It seems like the radiation lasted only a few months, or years. And in Chernobyl, the blast radius was quite small. I really doubt whether it was greater than 100 meters. But the radiation was more spread-out. It even caused a spike in cancer incidence in the Scandinavia.
If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.
I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuild after a few years and hundreds of thousands of people are living there now. It seems like the radiation lasted only a few months, or years. And in Chernobyl, the blast radius was quite small. I really doubt whether it was greater than 100 meters. But the radiation was more spread-out. It even caused a spike in cancer incidence in the Scandinavia.
If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.
I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuild after a few years and hundreds of thousands of people are living there now. It seems like the radiation lasted only a few months, or years. And in Chernobyl, the blast radius was quite small. I really doubt whether it was greater than 100 meters. But the radiation was more spread-out. It even caused a spike in cancer incidence in the Scandinavia.
If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.
I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.
I read an article in which it was said that many animals were restored in Chernobyl, which scientists considered extinct. Not radiation destroys nature, but man.
But I have a hope that there will not be a third world war
Very interesting question regarding the third world war. The fact is that if you look at all the military conflicts that are happening now and then Who is involved in them, clearly one can come to the conclusion that all these wars will not end so quickly yet. If you pay attention to Syria and even to North Korea, you can definitely say which countries will be the culprits of the 3rd World War
North Korea is not going to attack anyone. Their's is just empty talk. Let's focus our attention on Syria. It is true that most of the world powers are involved in Syria. But their involvement is limited to air-strikes and training. So the Syrian conflict also is not going to escalate in to a world war.
Sithara is referring to world war as in all encompassing global conflict - in response to the OP
world had not seen such war since 1945. In this matter Syria is just another battleground where powers - both global and regional, settle their differences.I am glad, that North Korea ended up to be what I guessed in the first place, foreign policy recon.
If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.
I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.
It is not theory. Nuclear fallout is well documented. Bombs dropped on Japan were very inefficient by modern standarts, yet both managed to wipe in excess of 70 000 people on impact, killing about as many in fallout and related diseases. That was well before "dirt" bombs were developed.
Majority of fallout diminishes within first six months, but you are forgetting, that its particles stay in objects such as trees, buildings, even ground - in essense making the are infertile. Enough bombs would cause nuclear winter. Small amount would still kill majority of population as infrastructure, agriculture and health care would collapse.
Jump to: