Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

World War 3


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,002 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 26 March 2001 - 05:51 PM

This isn't really related to the unexplained, apart from a possible conspiracy connection - but if another world war does take place - which world powers would be the most likely to start it, and what sort of tactics would be used ? If Nuclear weapons were used, there wouldn't be much left of the earth for the victor to claim.
:-/


#2    Lori Cordini

Lori Cordini

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 132 posts
  • Joined:14 Oct 2002

Posted 27 March 2001 - 02:32 AM

I think the internet interactions between people all over the world has revealed that the average man on the street does not favor any kind of war and it would appear that the war mongers are the same folks who run the presidency in USA and I find it easy to believe that the major countries are indeed part of the whole arena of politics, economics and yes even war...it has become big business.  I don't think a third world war would be profitable..these little wars here and there are more feasible and able to handle....a third world war might get too out of hand.

Also, they may even work to conspire against an off-world faction that they have, or are, building up to be "THE" enemy and have a more logical enemy that would unify their purposes as world leaders...

just a thought to ponder!:original.gif


#3    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,002 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 27 March 2001 - 03:37 PM

Perhaps in the future, what we will see is like something out of a science fiction film. The term "World War" could be taken literally, if we ever have military conflicts with an Extra Terrstrial race. Heaven forbid we should take war to the stars.


#4    ghuk

ghuk

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:14 Oct 2002

Posted 12 April 2001 - 08:09 PM

:-/Well I feel that if we do encounter a third world war. If it isnt started by some tinpot dictator somewhere. War on a extra terrestrial scale is the most likely event. After all what do we do to reported UFO`s? Scrambler fighters and try to bring it down. A very warm welcome indeed.
Imagine doing that to a forign government, thats just asking for trouble.


#5    dalia

dalia

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 365 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:United States

  • Purrrrr-fect Mystery

Posted 21 April 2001 - 09:39 PM

Seems that is what China did to the U.S.
Sent a fighter to down the recon. plane.
Maybe WW3 will be on the economic front. I for one will be boycotting Chinese products. I guess I will not be buying anything for a long while.

Purrr-fectly happy

#6    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 23 April 2001 - 06:26 AM

World War 3 may come, not in the form of military might against military might, but to set them so far back technologically/militarily/economically/politically, that they would no longer be a threat to our global political goals. And achieving this victory by releasing massive amounts of computer viruses simultaneously, thereby cripeling their countries temporarily, long enough for our military to destroy theirs without a fight. What do you think?

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#7    FarvLarion

FarvLarion

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 135 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2001

Posted 31 May 2001 - 01:12 AM

World War 3, in my opinion will be started by us, and will end by us.  One country attacking another for reasons of mere power.  Former President Bill Clinton picked and pocked at Iraq by sending one or two smart bombs over there at a time, I think that if you pick and pock at someone for too long of a time, then they will be bound to attack back.  What will be used, perhaps this may not even be to our comprehension it may be that complexe and or 'Alien'.

Abiogenesis (ab-i-o-jen`-a-sis) n. (Biol.) The theory of spontaineous generation from non-living matter [Gk. a-: neg.: bios, life, genesis, birth].  Farv Michael Larion

#8    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 31 May 2001 - 10:05 AM

Regardless who starts it, if it involves strategic nuclear weapons (tactical nuclear weapons are a given), wouldnt it also involve M.A.D.(matually assured destruction)? Unless, of course, a nation has the ability to neutralize the rockets in their first stage.

With strategic nuclear missiles and thermo-nuclear war, there are no winners. Even if only one region is destroyed, the resulting environmental and ecological damage sustained, not to mention radioactive fallout, would encompass the globe. All sides know this.

If there is to be another world war, it would have to be a different kind of war, if there is to be any winnners. This is just my opinion.

Homer

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#9    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,002 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 31 May 2001 - 08:43 PM

I think that if there was a Nuclear War in the future, it would not be the result of two nations' disagreements. It would more likely be the result of a terrorist organisation. Imagine what would happen if such an organisation acquired nuclear missiles and the like - they would be able to hold the world to ransom more or less. Unless their demands were met, they could threaten to attack Washington DC for example with a Nuclear bombardment. A future terrorist organisation would also be a likely candidate for releasing computer viruses into world computer networks for their own gain. Maybe the threats of the future will not be from countries or their leaders, but from members of an extensive underground terrorist organisation.


#10    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 01 June 2001 - 11:03 AM

I wouldn't think a terrorist attack would cause a world war. If there was to be a nuclear attack by a terrorist organization, what would be the retalliation? What could the government who's country that was just on the recieving end of a nuclear attack do? If the terrorist group was based out of country "X", do you attack the groups base, knowing country "X" would be destroyed too?

If the group wasn't completely wiped out with 'special' weapons, then they would have won. If the group gets wiped out, would there be further retalliations for THAT attack?

Another scenario is what does a government do if gets attacked with nuclear weapons by a terrorist group that doesnt claim responsibility?

Homer

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#11    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,002 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 01 June 2001 - 03:06 PM

Homer,

A terrorist threat wouldn't result in a World War of the sort that has occured in the past, since it would be mainly a single group of people rather than countries threatening Nuclear attack. Although it's unlikely that terrorists would be able to get a hold of weapons of mass destruction, the possibility does exist.

If a country was to be threatened in this way, it's initial retaliation would likely consist of an assault against those responsible, making the conflict considerably limited in relation to a war between two countries. It's likely that a terrorist group would not be acting on official behalf of their country of origin, therefore their own country as a whole would not be the target for such retaliation.

If a country was threatened by someone who did not openly reveal their identity or intentions, then that would be a big problem. Everyone would start pointing their finger towards other countries without really knowing who was to blame. Perhaps that would be more devastating in the long run than a straight forward threat and demand.

Although such events wouldn't lead to a world war, they may still result in Nuclear weapons being used, which would have reprocutions devastating to the planet and everyone living on it. It might not need a world war to start a Nuclear Apocalypse - an organisation of terrorists with a motive and a means with which to acquire such weapons, could be more dangerous than any major world power at war with another.


#12    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 01 June 2001 - 06:45 PM

SaRuMan

I think it's likely that a terrorist group would gain access to a nuclear devise in the near future, especially if a country has an aging stockpile of weapons, and they are near economical collapse.

As far as retalliation against a known group inside a sovereign nation who's only crime was a safe haven for the terrorist group, the only thing that would be effective is what I stated in an earlier post, and that is TACTICAL nuclear strike. Which is a more precise missile used to completely destroy a specific target, and not create great destruction of the surrounding areas.

I agree with you in that there would be a lot finger pointing if nobody claimed responsibility. Im sure every government would agree that such an attack would warrant a brutal return strike, and nobody would want to get involved with that.

I also agree that a terrorist group with nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous than another nation with nuclear weapons, in part because they are willing to die for their cause and they have much less to loose. A really scary thought isn't it? Hopefully nothing like that will ever happen.

Homer

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#13    Mentalcase

Mentalcase

    Space Cadet

  • Member
  • 5,346 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chi-Town

  • Most Thugish Member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 23 August 2001 - 11:11 PM

If we found other life out in space, we would pick, probe and kill just for science needs.  that could be taken the wrong way. ohmy.gif

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/  <~Ancient Aliens DEBUNKED!
I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence ~Richard Feynman http://www.myspace.com/7leafclover

#14    tsky63

tsky63

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:11 Mar 2001

Posted 06 September 2001 - 06:31 AM

I have always thought that if there was a another global war, it would begin with a bang and end in a slow wimper. We have seen video of the destructive power of the atom bomb,watched the news of victims in Chernobyl dying from radiation sickness and yet we still persist in making the ultimate weapon.

Actually the entire world seems obsessed with building the ultimate killing machine, in the name of peace of course. Now we can sit in our comfortable underground bunkers and watch as the missiles hit their designated targets miles away, without any remorse. Our computers confirm the kill and we proceed to the next target, no real emotion needed,just the strong desire to be the victor. And to the victor go the spoils of war...............

I truly believe if there has to be another global war, then fight it out face to face. In the 1600's countries dreaded war for two basic reasons money and time.  Now, we seem to savor the possibility of conflict; like children with new toys we hope to show the neighborhood that our toy is the best. War is brutal,long and deceptive. We seem to have lost the memories of those from past wars who could verify this.

It has always been foolish to think that it will matter who wins a war, for there will always be a challenger waiting in the wings. If there is intelligent life elswhere, I'm sure that they have commented amongst themselves how we have learned very little from our past mistakes. And if they attempted to intervene, I 'm sure we would try to kill them as well.........we have a bad habit of destroying anything that we do not understand . I guess that is why we very seldom have peace around the entire world. It's not that it is unattainable, it's just that we do not understand how to truly attain it and make it last. sad.gif


#15    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 06 September 2001 - 09:59 AM

tsky63,

When referring to a global nuclear war, you stated: "And to the victor go the spoils of war". In reality there will be no victor and there will be no spoils in that type of war.

You stated: "In the 1600's countries dreaded war for two basic reasons money and time. Now, we seem to savor the possibility of conflict...". In reality, war still costs time and money, and the world dreads war just as much now as it did then. There was roughly just as much warfare going on then as there is now. The real difference is information supplied to us by the media enables us to hear it and see it all the time.

You stated: "War is brutal,long and deceptive".  In reality, war is less brutal and doesn't last anywhere near as long as it used to.

You stated: "It has ALWAYS been foolish to think that it will matter who wins a war".  In reality, sometimes it is wrong to not go to war, because by that statement you SPECIFICALLY implied that it didn't matter who won World War 2

I believe with your GENERAL line of reasoning, but couldn't find any truth to these SPECIFICS.

Homer[glow=color,strength,width]

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users