Topic: World War III - page 12. (Read 34342 times)

Result of #Russia aggression: #Finland to sign Memorandum of Understanding with #NATO

Cabinet Committee on Foreign and Security Policy issued statement on signing of Memorandum of Understanding on Host Nation Support between Finland and NATO

http://vnk.fi/ajankohtaista/tiedotteet/tiedote/en.jsp?oid=423180

why would he lose a war? you see what he is up against? a bunch of people with no army lol.

Here is my take:

NATO:

USA
EU
Israel
Turkey
Saudi Arabia + GCC
Japan
South Korea
Philippines
Pakistan
Australia + NZL
Canada
Colombia
Nigeria
Mali + Niger
Liberia
Haiti

BRICS:

Russia
China
Venezuela
Palestine
North Korea
Cuba
Syria
Iran
Argentina
Serbia
India
Myanmar
Belarus + Kazakhstan
Sudan
Bolivia
Peru + Ecuador
Zimbabwe
Ethiopia
Angola

Neutral:

Iraq
ISIS
Brazil
Indonesia
Chile
Mexico
Egypt
South Africa
DRC
Thailand
Malaysia

BitCoin might commit genocide on LiteCoin.....a "crypto-cleansing"!

World War III :
USA+Europe+Australia against Russia+China+Africa
muslims against christian
democrats against republicans
cars against cyklists, windows users against linux users, bitcoin against litecoin

it will be great computer game  

If the currency wars were played out as an isolated game (no military involvement) then the US$ would end up losing its global reserve status, this is simply what would happen mathematically if the books were balanced, US$ would be pwned.

And this is the reason we should worry, physical actions will be used to protect the US$ global reserve status, as it always has been since US$ gained global reserve status and increasingly so since it went fiat.

I think the first dire acts will be biological warfare, news could then spin it as a natural event, can't do that with nukes.

WWIII, if it happen, will not be fought by gun, bullet and nuke.

Trade and currency war are already on going, one could argue this is War on a global scale.

This one would be a nuclear war or say the apocalypse said to be in 2012 postponed till world war III

#russia is preparing for a large-scale "peacekeeping" operation



http://www.ng.ru/armies/2014-08-25/1_peacemakers.html

Russia is ready to annex new territory



http://sevastopolnews.info/2014/08/lenta/politika/069226221/

It is very unlikely that WW3 will be a nuclear war. Actually it is very unlikely that WW3 will actually happen because of nukes. The nuclear bomb has prevented any two countries with nuclear capabilities from going to war with each-other directly in what is now close to 70 years. WW2 started only a short decade after WW1 came to an end, but WW3 has still not started and the nuclear bomb was developed at the later part of WW2.

WW3 will happen. But not anytime soon.

Screw that, I'm planning on making a pot noodle in a couple of hours!

I agree with your sentiment, I really do!

But alas peoples trust levels are low, and the trend is worsening, most are afraid that if they embrace in a hug then they may get robbed, mugged, contract ebola etc.

Not only that, but a utopian ideal is very fragile, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole barrel.

A true utopian society in my opinion could only be formed with the aid of technology: A POB (proof of body) P2P system, akin to the borg only without any heirachy. Secrets between nodes would not be possible and so only truth could flow. We would need to be cyborg of course (neural implant). Roll on the singularity when we might become cells of a much greater being.

Former Defence Force chief: Russia not a military threat to Finland

Russia’s threshold for a military action against Finland is exceedingly high, says former head of the Finnish Defence Forces General Gustav Hägglund. However the retired army chief said that it’s important for Finland to understand that Russia is ready to use military force if it deems it necessary.
Speaking on Yle’s Aamu-tv breakfast programme Thursday morning, General Hägglund said that in his view while Russia is always ready to use force, Finland’s eastern neighbor hardly has plans to launch an attack against Finland, nor does it pose any current or acute threat.

“There are many more tempting targets. They were so badly beaten last time around in the Winter War and in the summer of 1944, that the threshold for attacking Finland is exceptionally high,” Hägglund said.

Instead the former defence chief said, Russia might seek to restore the kind of political leverage the Soviet Union possessed during the time of the Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance treaty that it signed with Finland in 1948.

Under the treaty the Soviet Union sought to deter attack from Western or Allied Powers through Finnish territory, while Finns sought to increase Finland's political independence from the Soviet Union.

Hägglund said that he believed that the Kremlin is satisfied with current Finnish-Russian relations because they are beneficial to Russia.

“Both countries’ economies complement each other. And this is a good example of how well Russia can get along with a neighbor,” Hägglund added.

Hägglund pointed out that Russia has many neighbours with whom it does not have good relations, some of which are Baltic countries.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/former_defence_force_chief_russia_not_a_military_threat_to_finland/7423824

World war 3 is already starting. its like waiting for a bomb to tick

Anyone building a nuclear under ground bunker?

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/08/17/west-respect-truth-longer-exists-paul-craig-roberts/

Zapad-2013
A View From Helsinki

By Pauli Järvenpää

As is the case with military exercises in general, the Russian exercises are important because
they reveal where, against whom, and with what kinds of capabilities Russia is prepared to
use its military forces. So it was with Zapad-2013. Though the exercise scenario and the force
strengths submitted to the OSCE notification regime envisioned a penetration of terrorist
elements and units into Belarus, Zapad-2013?s territorial coverage, scope of operations, and
the number of units and force types involved strongly indicate that Russia was training its
forces for a large-scale conflict against a conventional enemy.
Beyond this general point it is also clear that the troop strength the Russian authorities
declared to the OSCE and the NATO-Russia Council was considerably below their real
strength. The actual number of troops in the exercise through its various phases seems to
have been 4-5 times as high as the number given in official Russian briefings. The exercise
was split into smaller parts, and these parts were connected to each other.
As to the nature of the operations conducted in Zapad-2013, while the official exercise
description talked about counter-terrorist operations, the Russian forces carried out typical
conventional military operations, including rapid reaction force operations, airborne perations,
tactical operations, and amphibious operations. Naval maneuvers and live missile
firings were carried out in the Baltic and Barents Seas, and, in a spectacular case, Iskander-M
missiles were fired from one shooting range to another. Nuclear forces were put on combat
readiness, and strategic bomber flights took place along the Finnish eastern border to their
live firing ranges in the Barents Sea. All of this strongly indicates that the Zapad-2013 exercise
went far beyond counter-terrorist operations.
Who, then, was depicted as an enemy in the Zapad-2013 exercise? From all available evidence it was
first and foremost the Baltic countries? troops backed by other NATO forces thrusting toward Belarus
and Kaliningrad. But quite intriguingly, Finnish troops were also depicted as attacking the Russian
positions on the Karelian Isthmus. This is particularly puzzling, since Finland has, over the past
two decades, time and again, stressed its military non-alignment, and the Finnish political leadership
has bent over backwards trying to make sure that the Finnish position was crystal clear: membership
in NATO for Finland is not in the cards.
Yet, in Russian military planning Finland does not seem to receive any special classification
for being militarily non-aligned. While visiting Helsinki in June 2012, General Nikolai
Makarov, then Chief of the Russian Defense Staff, chastised the Finns for carrying out their
own, strictly national military exercises in the vicinity of the Russian border. Furthermore, in
his opinion, NORDEFCO (Nordic Defense Cooperation) was considered a threat to Russia.
He also warned Finland, in tough turns of phrase, not to entertain thoughts of joining
NATO. So did Defense Minister Shoigu, when he visited Helsinki in May 2013. Both men
spiced up their warnings with the threat of dire consequences?strengthening of Russian
forces near the Finnish borders?should Finland not heed their advice. Minister Shoigu went
even as far as tying the possible Finnish membership in NATO to the modernization of
Russian sub-strategic nuclear weapons in the Western Military District. 28 All in all, it seems
that Finland now lives in the worst of all the possible worlds: Russia regards Finland as a
threat, yet Finland, being outside of NATO, is not covered by the North Atlantic Alliance?s
Article V security guarantee.
Beyond the military exercises, there has also been a surge of other Russian military activities
in the Baltic Sea area. The Swedish air force experienced a shock on Good Friday in 2013,
when two Russian bombers, escorted by four fighters, simulated an air attack on Swedish
territory, primarily on Gotland in the middle of the Baltic Sea. Around the same time, there
was a probe against Stockholm, and in that attack the Russian bombers apparently simulated
a nuclear attack against targets in the Stockholm area.
It might be, as two respected diplomats argue in a recent article, that the Russian operational
interests are in the south and their strategic interests in the east, but it is also true that
President Putin and his defense ministers have put special effort into developing Russian
military capabilities in the Western Military District. 30 What Zapad-2013 has amply
demonstrated is that there is growing sophistication in Russia?s military capabilities,
including the command, control and communications systems. In the ground forces, the
transformation to a combined-arms brigade structure is proceeding, albeit more slowly than
originally envisaged. Also, interoperability with other government power ministries is
improving in leaps and bounds.
In sum, the overall reform aimed at developing better-trained, better-equipped and better-led
smaller and more mobile forces is well under way in Russia. It is clear that the Russian forces
are steadily marching toward that goal. It is also obvious that the 500 billion euros planned
for the development of the military forces is producing results. It is a long-term work in
progress but, as Zapad-2013 demonstrated, that work is proceeding and is producing a new
military reality on the ground.

full article: http://www.jamestown.org/uploads/media/Zapad_2013_View_From_Helsinki_-_Full.pdf

NATO-Based Nuclear Weapons are an Advantage in a Dangerous World

By Brent Scowcroft, Stephen J. Hadley and Franklin Miller, Washington Post


NATO's decreasing number of sub-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe (graphic: NATO)

When NATO's leaders gather in Wales in early September, they will address several issues critical to the alliance , including Russian adventurism in Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, members' contribution to collective defense, the adequacy of individual national defense budgets and plans for supporting the people of Afghanistan. In the course of their deliberations on these issues, however, they also should reaffirm the value to the alliance of the continued presence of the modest number of U.S. nuclear bombs in Europe. We believe this is necessary because we are again hearing calls for the United States to unilaterally withdraw its small arsenal of forward- deployed nuclear bombs. Those arguments are shopworn, familiar — and wrong. . . .

The newer members joined NATO in large part to get under this nuclear umbrella, and they have been vocal in expressing their concern that withdrawing the weapons would symbolize a diminution in the U.S. commitment to defend them. Their concerns are heightened as they watch a recidivist Russia conduct exercises simulating nuclear strikes on Poland and the Baltic states, threatening nuclear strikes on nascent NATO missile-defense sites and continuing to deploy a bloated arsenal of several thousand short-range nuclear weapons. . . .

With Russia continuing to support forces that are seeking to destabilize Ukraine and taking unsettling actions in both the Baltics and the Balkans, this is no time to destabilize the NATO alliance and traumatize our NATO allies by withdrawing our nuclear weapons from Europe.

Brent Scowcroft was national security advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Stephen J. Hadley was national security adviser to President George W. Bush. Franklin Miller was responsible for U.S. nuclear policy in the Defense Department for Presidents George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton and on the National Security Council staff for President George W. Bush.

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/nato-based-nuclear-weapons-are-an-advantage-in-a-dangerous-world