We're on the brink of WW3

[Arkitecht]

So as of lately it has come up so many time's i have heard that we are going to have WW3.I have posted a couple of articles on the situation in the UK Europe forum's, and now i think this one does belong here,as we (The USA) will be the one's involved. Please feel free to go to the UK Europe forums and see what im speaking of.They are all related.Just seems like i keep hearing this over and over again.

Story:

World War 3 is inevitable and some experts agree that there are a number of assumptions to conclude that it is only a matter of time until the third World War is here. Many analysts believe that sooner or later, the US will attack Syria. And according to a Sep. 17 report from The Inquisitr, the restoration of Ukraine’s nuclear weapons could potentially be the match that lights the flames of World War 3.

http://www.examiner.com/article/world-war-3-is-inevitable-and-it-will-begin-sooner-or-later-analysts-warn

[aztek]

you do not have to be an expert to see nukes will fly one day.

[Mr.United_Nations]

I thought WW3 was in the early 90's

[Arkitecht]

No you do not need to be an expert to say that one day nukes will fly...But,people could have been saying that back in the 1950's and it would have been reasonable to assume it could back then.But since that time,i myself have never seen a more dangerous situation one that really could make the nightmare of a nuclear war a reality.Honestly, i believe that once we go into Syria, the Russians will do as they have promised.

As of late,the Russian threat is being waved in our face as we get ready to go into Syria. They have warned us over and over that they will Nuke us...And they even did dry runs,i.e.,practice ( intimidation ) maneuvers just to make sure we get the message. We have ignored all warnings. And even got a great new reason to go into Syria... ISIS...pretty convenient timing and a great excuse.

[Eldorado]

Aye. 'Tis a MAD world. We're all doomed.

[Jeremiah65]

Well when you consider that much of the "political" environment is created for and played out to suit the will and desire of the super rich corporations and individuals. Now factor into that equation that some of these people and organizations believe we are heading toward a population versus resources problem...depopulation plans are not just the stuff of crazy conspiracy theorists...

[shrooma]

"I know not with what weapons

World War III will be fought, but

World War IV will be fought with

sticks and stones."

-Einstein.

.

[sean6]

U.S. ready to strike ISIS in Syria

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

[XenoFish]

Maybe we need to hit the reset button and start over.

[Ashotep]

Experts are always warning us the sky is falling.

I hope someone isn't dumb enough to think they can nuke another country and not get nuked. There would be no winners and nothing left to win.

I though Ukraine had to turn over all their nuclear weapons to Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

[pallidin]

I thought Ukraine had to turn over all their nuclear weapons to Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

You are correct. 9 nations are currently known to possess nuclear weapons:

* United States... 7,315 nuclear warheads

* Russia... 8,000

* United Kingdom... 225

* France... 300

* China... 250

* India... 90-110

* Pakistan... 100-120

* Israel... 80

* North Korea... <10

Total: 16,400 nuclear warheads

Source: http://www.icanw.org...clear-arsenals/

EDIT: There are approximately 196 countries in the world, depending on your source.

Edited September 19, 2014 by pallidin

[TonopahRick]

Well there you go, there's only 16,400 of them all you got to do is find a place to hide so one won't hit you. You know, Mars or maybe the moon.

[Gromdor]

Well look at the bright side. Probably only Russia will nuke us. So we only have to worry about 8000 nukes. About 500 cities have a population of 50K or more in the US. So those will most definitely be targeted. That only leaves 7500 nukes for the towns with populations under 50,000 of which there are roughly 20,000 of. So about 1 in 3 chance that your particular town will get nuked if you live in a small one. See that's not that bad!

[shrooma]

nuclear warheads

* United Kingdom... 225

* France... 300

.

we have less than France?!

.

quick!

pass me that fekkin' button!!

.

[XenoFish]

Anyone know where I can find a vault and a pip-boy. Seems that the powers that be can't help but act like playground children with grudges.

[pallidin]

That is a truly disturbing amount of total nuclear warheads.

I know many have different "megaton" ratings, so I do not know how the 16,400 declared in worldwide inventory compare to the relatively weak A and H-bombs used on Japan.

Likely much, much higher(of each one NOW) in comparison. I don't know.

Anyway, the arsenal that both Russia and the United States seem like serious "overkill", though I do understand that initially, the targets are the other countries launch facilities first( so we have to have a duplicative "backup"), or in concert with, a countries non-nuclear infrastructure(cities, dams, etc..)

These number, of course, also take into account the non-ICBM nuclear cruise missiles, as well as the nuclear-equipped secret submarines.

Still, this is serious overkill and, with so many of these weapons, that a few might fall into the "wrong" hands.

Edited September 19, 2014 by pallidin

[XenoFish]

Those are the nukes we know about. Plus the as of yet unknown types of weapons created through secret projects. I'm more worried about bio weapons than nukes. Either way, we all lose if either is unleashed.

[pallidin]

I agree, bio-weapons can be incredibly devastating.

[aztek]

That is a truly disturbing amount of total nuclear warheads.

I know many have different "megaton" ratings, so I do not know how the 16,400 declared in worldwide inventory compare to the relatively weak A and H-bombs used on Japan.

Likely much, much higher(of each one NOW) in comparison. I don't know.

Anyway, the arsenal that both Russia and the United States seem like serious "overkill", though I do understand that initially, the targets are the other countries launch facilities first( so we have to have a duplicative "backup"), or in concert with, a countries non-nuclear infrastructure(cities, dams, etc..)

These number, of course, also take into account the non-ICBM nuclear cruise missiles, as well as the nuclear-equipped secret submarines.

Still, this is serious overkill and, with so many of these weapons, that a few might fall into the "wrong" hands.

do not worry after first couple hundered you'll prbly be dead, and wont even notice as other 15000+ go off.

[questionmark]

Let me guess: those are the same experts who convinced us in the 60s that the USSR had a gazillion more nukes than we did?

[Jeremiah65]

Let me guess: those are the same experts who convinced us in the 60s that the USSR had a gazillion more nukes than we did?

Prob so...and the same ones that told school children to crawl under their desk when the nukes came...

[pallidin]

Let me guess: those are the same experts who convinced us in the 60s that the USSR had a gazillion more nukes than we did?

Feel free to give better statistics on the current world-wide nuclear arsenal.

I am no expert, and I'm sure no-one is, as some is secret to be sure. But let us at least agree that it's a "ballpark" figure.

[questionmark]

Feel free to give better statistics on the current world-wide nuclear arsenal.

I am no expert, and I'm sure no-one is, as some is secret to be sure. But let us at least agree that it's a "ballpark" figure.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/Wordwide-Nuclear-Arsenals-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Where you will see that the USSR and the US keep very well balance regarding systems that could be used to harm each other. The only so-called imbalance are the short range systems that would require the Russians to be on American soil before they become a danger.

[S2F]

Mutually Assured Destruction. Look it up. Putin, or anyone in Russia for that matter, would have to be certifiably insane to launch nukes for any reason. There is far less of a nuclear threat now than during the Cuban Missile Crisis certainly. We've been to the teetering edge before and nukes were never launched then either.

[bee]

.

It may be that the public have been kept in the dark over nuclear weapons and that they cannot be popped off anywhere

at any time.

They may require certain conditions and positions in relation to the Earth and Sun and need a window of opportunity to be detonated

for the big mushroom type bang...and all nuclear powers will be aware of the windows of opportunity and have the possibilities covered..

For example North Korea could never get a nuclear weapon off the ground even if they had the window of opportunity...

As that would be covered and the weapons destroyed on site..?

The same could go for any attempt to use a nuclear weapon...anywhere in the world...?

What I'm trying to say is that nuclear war may not be possible under the circumstances......

But there are plenty of other deadly weapons...

I began questioning this kind of thing after hearing what Bruce Cathie had to say about it.

Anyone interested can search Bruce Cathie nuclear bomb...there's a youtube video about it

and there's another guy Keith Hunter who has studied it as well and has got stuff on line...