Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

World War 3 case scenario


Detective Mystery

Recommended Posts

Interesting choice of words. What part of no winner did you not get? It is possible you misread my post as it is possible I misread yours as well.

But your right and the feeling is mutual, I don't wish to debate this with you any further.

I am sorry, I did not want it to sound insulting. We are just really far apart on this stuff. Do you at least understand what World Wars are fought for? They are fought to install New World order, and if there is "no win" then the war would last until such win is achieved. Because the political leaders are not of kindergarten age at all, and these wars equate to risk of the entire territory or maybe even entire population for each participant; so if the population finds out that the leader put it at risk just to achieve "no win", this leader would be hanged on the nearest tree. This is not a soccer match, this is SERIOUS. There must be a winner, and a peace or armistice do not resolve the contradictions, as all negotiations are made BEFORE the war starts - particularly now they are made through such mechanism as UN. When/if the war starts, UN would be immediately disbanded, as it is only needed for these negotiations. And there is no way back, as any delay only allows the adversary to refresh the military readiness and still continue the war.

Your reasoning about quality of someone's airdefences is infantile and irrelevant, as this someone sure knows their airdefences better than we do - and if they not up to scratch, they won't enter the war, but would continue stretching time in negotiations. And if they entered the war, then they do think everything is up to scratch. Same would refer to your reasoning about something "glowing" after the attack - the troops are supposed to occupy the destroyed territory no later than in 24-48 hours after explosion, otherwise why bother bombing it? Who cares if the troops die? Thats what the soldiers are for. War is not run in the wellbeing of the soldiers, it is soldiers who fight the war for the wellbeing of their countries. They order you to go and die - and you must go and die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • MARAB0D

    13

  • Stardrive

    6

  • jesspy

    3

  • Bill Hill

    3

When the aliens turn against the humans.

Then they start reviving the dinosaurs.

Then World War 3 will start.

Dinosaurs against aliens and humans.

xD

quick, can someone come up with a connection with alien attacks and the Mayan predictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the 3 world war is not a material world but more an intellectual and social one. look at what's happening now in honduras or china (its china right??) people are fighting for social democracies and that's exactly my point.

Any goverment knows the risk of getting into a big-scale war, and theres too much too lose compared what its to gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry, I did not want it to sound insulting. We are just really far apart on this stuff.

I am sorry also, I did not mean to sound like I was making fun of you or your way of thinking. It is important to keep in mind we have very different views on this subject and I will refrain from making any further humorous analogies.

Do you at least understand what World Wars are fought for? They are fought to install New World order, and if there is "no win" then the war would last until such win is achieved. Because the political leaders are not of kindergarten age at all, and these wars equate to risk of the entire territory or maybe even entire population for each participant; so if the population finds out that the leader put it at risk just to achieve "no win", this leader would be hanged on the nearest tree.

Good point which punctuates why such a war has not happened. Even if a country was able to “win” such a war they would only win a toxic wasteland engulfed in a world-wide nuclear winter.

This is not a soccer match, this is SERIOUS. There must be a winner, and a peace or armistice do not resolve the contradictions, as all negotiations are made BEFORE the war starts - particularly now they are made through such mechanism as UN. When/if the war starts, UN would be immediately disbanded, as it is only needed for these negotiations. And there is no way back, as any delay only allows the adversary to refresh the military readiness and still continue the war.

This is very serious. If compared to a soccer match it would be like making the opposing teams play on quicksand instead of solid turf.

Your reasoning about quality of someone's airdefences is infantile and irrelevant, as this someone sure knows their airdefences better than we do - and if they not up to scratch, they won't enter the war, but would continue stretching time in negotiations.

My comment about air defenses was in response to your comment that all aircraft would be shot down in the first week of a conflict. Do you honestly think the US could take out the entire Russian airforce in that short amount of time? I think it is very unlikely. Also, the US has more just 1,000 aircraft that can strike at any given target. Carrier based yes, total no. But like you said, I am not here to educate you or anyone else on these matters.

Also you stated the US used its entire supply of cruise missiles in one week during the Kosovo war. The US used all that was allotted toward that campaign in a week, not the entire supply.

And if they entered the war, then they do think everything is up to scratch. Same would refer to your reasoning about something "glowing" after the attack - the troops are supposed to occupy the destroyed territory no later than in 24-48 hours after explosion, otherwise why bother bombing it? Who cares if the troops die? Thats what the soldiers are for. War is not run in the wellbeing of the soldiers, it is soldiers who fight the war for the wellbeing of their countries. They order you to go and die - and you must go and die.

That’s an interesting take on it. From my point of view why even bother squandering what remaining resources you have to occupy a nuclear wasteland? Why bother bombing it in the first place you ask, answer: to stop the other side from bombing you.

But your comment about the soldiers is quite telling. The human wave tactic. Problem with that is during a nuclear exchange life isn’t cheap anymore.

In the end it’s called MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction. In terms that anyone can understand it means there will be no winner. Unless you can believe that a mere shadow of a nation emerging from a bomb bunker after 5 years of waiting for nuclear winter to subside is somehow winning. In my point of view there will only be survivors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also you stated the US used its entire supply of cruise missiles in one week during the Kosovo war. The US used all that was allotted toward that campaign in a week, not the entire supply.

No! It was exactly as I stated. USA had about 150 cruise missiles with non-nuclear charges, allowed by agreement with Russia. They used them all in one week, and if they wanted to use more they were unable to manufacture them that quickly, and the only option was to start dismantling nuclear warheads from the rest ones - but this was the same as to unilaterally disarm, as Russia was showing signs of hesitation, to enter the war for Serbia or not. Therefore after a week USA had to start using B-52 bombers instead (as the only stealth they used was downed by the Serbs).

Edited by marabod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree. The United States will not launch the first missiles, I'm pretty sure of that. IMO if there is need for a response, China and Russia will just be glad they didn't have to do it. As to whether this turns into bringing on WW3, that may not necessarily be the case. Attack-Responce-End.

I'm not convinced that the US will not launch missiles first. It all depends who is in political control. If a George W Bush type of person-- only more extreme-- were in charge, he/she might convince himself that he had to do it to precipitate the second coming or destroy the kingdom of Satan or something like that. To me the big threats to the world are people who believe that there's another world out there that's better than ours & so ours is dispensable .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the big threats to the world are people who believe that there's another world out there that's better than ours & so ours is dispensable .

I agree - but ironically from this it appears that North Korea is not really a great threat, as they do not believe in God or afterlife, and all what they do is done out of pragmatic considerations. On the other hand they may feel cornered and having little to lose, so they may take a risk - but they are sure not an offensive side, so the choice is up to US mainly, as this is the most active player on Korean peninsula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No! It was exactly as I stated. USA had about 150 cruise missiles with non-nuclear charges, allowed by agreement with Russia. They used them all in one week, and if they wanted to use more they were unable to manufacture them that quickly, and the only option was to start dismantling nuclear warheads from the rest ones - but this was the same as to unilaterally disarm, as Russia was showing signs of hesitation, to enter the war for Serbia or not. Therefore after a week USA had to start using B-52 bombers instead (as the only stealth they used was downed by the Serbs).

Now that I think about it, I remember something about that. My fault marabod, I was in error... as usual.

Still don't think a nuclear war would have a winner... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I think about it, I remember something about that. My fault marabod, I was in error... as usual.

Still don't think a nuclear war would have a winner... :lol:

The problem is this is a future war, and it is hard to predict the development in it - not for us only but for the military planners too. No one knows what would be actually happening. The Tactics I was learning in the past, suggests that the war would be carried by small mobile groups with very poor supply, because as soon as satellites register a larger concentration of troops, they would be attacked by a small nuclear tactical charge. This suggests the troops would be looting the population to find food, and this suggests massive guerrilla war all over the affected areas. Also it is hard to imagine how these small combat groups would be coordinated, as radio communications cannot be reliable in conditions of electromagnetic explosions. Obviously each such group would have a carte blanche to use tactical nuclear devices - missiles, landmines, artillery shells. It would be impossible to establish proper airfields or military bases, so the helicopters would replace airplanes with high probability, and this means there would be no big scale battles like in WW2, and large armies would not be used at all due to their vulnerability. Everyone would be relying on dosimeters and the victims among civilians would be horrific. I was studying this on the maps of West Germany - but only practice would show how correct this model was. Something may interfere as an unknown factor - for example the satellites can be taken off at the beginning, and then the larger groups can be operational too. Who knows, is the win possible or not - the wars are carried to find this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah I see, so you have studied this subject in school. Well.... I sure feel like a big dummy now. :lol:

Although I can understand the nature and the wisdom of such tactics used in a nuclear war setting that you described, I always come back to grappling with those pesky unforseen variables you mentioned. Still, short supply lines, scavanging for food, if you run out of ammo - no more food. Yeah it's ugly with civilian casualties on a gut wrenching biblical scale. And we could go on page after page with the, if X happens then what, debate.

In the end though, no one will be able to fight a global type battle because they will be to busy just trying to survive.

Now in a conventional world war3, that one gives me a headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah I see, so you have studied this subject in school. Well.... I sure feel like a big dummy now. :lol:

Although I can understand the nature and the wisdom of such tactics used in a nuclear war setting that you described, I always come back to grappling with those pesky unforseen variables you mentioned. Still, short supply lines, scavanging for food, if you run out of ammo - no more food. Yeah it's ugly with civilian casualties on a gut wrenching biblical scale. And we could go on page after page with the, if X happens then what, debate.

In the end though, no one will be able to fight a global type battle because they will be to busy just trying to survive.

Now in a conventional world war3, that one gives me a headache.

But maybe it is not necessary to have global battles to win the war. It is only necessary to isolate one side and force it to surrender and accept the conditions of New World Order. USA has much more chances to lose the war if it happens like that. What may happen (one of the options of course) is that China and Russia would manage to destroy the US force projecting capabilities (not very impossible at all), and US would lose worldwide bases and offensive navy. This would lock US into North America, which can be isolated by preventing navigation in Pacific and Atlantic. Germany and Japan were already doing this. In such case US loses as it has no resources to carry war of attrition, while Eurasia cannot be put under blockade even theoretically, it is too big. So, this way USA would have to sign peace treaty, in which UN is reconstructed and its Security Council includes OTHER permanent members with veto right, and this is NWO, if even US remains in UNSC as a nuclear power (the winners would not be able to ignore this fact). It is this veto in UNSC which makes any World Order.

Could be other way too - say, US and China together can attack Russia, and in this case Russia would lose 2/3 of its territory and most of the resources. But in this case both risk of going thermonuclear, as Russia would have little to lose... There are many possible scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.