PDA

View Full Version : World War 3



wowsa0
08-27-2008, 00:30
I've seen several threads now talking about a possible war between America and Russia and who would win, as if it would be some long lasting close cut conflict. If there was a war between America and Russia then both America and Russia would be nothing more than smouldering ruins within the first hour of the conflict. Both countries have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.

Reikson
08-27-2008, 00:31
thx for starting a new thread to rehash a tired argument

wowsa0
08-27-2008, 00:33
thx for starting a new thread to rehash a tired argument

As my comment was about a group of threads rather than a single thread, and the topic related to the actual threads themselves rather than the topics within the individual threads, I considered it appropriate to start a new one as my post didn't technically fit into any of the current threads.

Someone
08-27-2008, 00:38
World War 3 will probably either happen through a set of circumstances that quickly spiral out of control, similar to WWI. Or it will be because one nation feels confident in their ability to survive their enemies weapons, in this case probably nukes, so the key would be a say 95% proof nuclear interception system that would allow reasonably enough of a nation to survive through a nuclear war, once that happens the fear would start to go down and the cries of new wars to revenge old slights might start being called out again.

Jangang
08-27-2008, 00:38
I've seen several threads now talking about a possible war between America and Russia and who would win, as if it would be some long lasting close cut conflict. If there was a war between America and Russia then both America and Russia would be nothing more than smouldering ruins within the first hour of the conflict. Both countries have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.

Both sides know that, and neither would use them. As if they did what you describe would be the case.

You act like world leaders are less intelligent then retarded apes... No rational person is going to start a nuclear war.

Conventional war? Maybe... Nuclear war? Never.

At most you'd see the use of one or two, not used to destroy the enemy, but halt the advance into territory, at which point the other side would back off, and new lines would be drawn on maps.

wowsa0
08-27-2008, 00:42
Both sides know that, and neither would use them. As if they did what you describe would be the case.



This is the exact point I'm making. A war could never happen. Not even a conventional one as you suggest because no side is going to stand there losing while their men are killed knowing that they can just press a button and end it. At worst there will be 3rd party wars between one side and a smaller country allied with another side (such as there was in Vietnam during the Cold War and as is happening now to some extent in Georgia, where russian soldiers are fighting a US trained georgian army).

Teutates
08-27-2008, 00:56
Both sides know that, and neither would use them. As if they did what you describe would be the case.

You act like world leaders are less intelligent then retarded apes... No rational person is going to start a nuclear war.

Conventional war? Maybe... Nuclear war? Never.

At most you'd see the use of one or two, not used to destroy the enemy, but halt the advance into territory, at which point the other side would back off, and new lines would be drawn on maps.

Neither will use them? the USA trew 2 on Japan.

First of all countries with nuclear bombs aren't going to attack eachother. As they risk getting nuked.

Secondly if there's war, nukes will be seen as a repayment for civilian casualities at the minimum. Or they'll just totally nuke eachother(might be the result of such a chainreaction).

Pernix
08-27-2008, 01:00
Neither will use them? the USA trew 2 on Japan.

First of all countries with nuclear bombs aren't going to attack eachother. As they risk getting nuked.

Secondly if there's war, nukes will be seen as a repayment for civilian casualities at the minimum. Or they'll just totally nuke eachother(might be the result of such a chainreaction).

Nukes won't be used.. What happened in WWII is totally different.

And the US and Russia won't ever go to war with eachother.

Tharkon Fargor
08-27-2008, 01:03
I've seen several threads now talking about a possible war between America and Russia and who would win, as if it would be some long lasting close cut conflict. If there was a war between America and Russia then both America and Russia would be nothing more than smouldering ruins within the first hour of the conflict. Both countries have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.
The world will be a better place without two super mogul states directing the policy of free and unfree (making them even more unfree) peoples of the world.

alfaroverall
08-27-2008, 01:04
World War 3 will probably either happen through a set of circumstances that quickly spiral out of control, similar to WWI. Or it will be because one nation feels confident in their ability to survive their enemies weapons, in this case probably nukes, so the key would be a say 95% proof nuclear interception system that would allow reasonably enough of a nation to survive through a nuclear war, once that happens the fear would start to go down and the cries of new wars to revenge old slights might start being called out again.
Read up about MIRVs and Star Wars (no, not the movies or the books) and then get back to me on this.

Goty
08-27-2008, 01:07
All we really need to solve this problem is a private island, an artistic and scientific commune on said island, and a decent genetics lab.

Incanam
08-27-2008, 01:08
I have a rhetorical question of sorts. Both countries have a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. They both state, that if they are nuked, they will nuke the other country ensuring the destruction of both, if not the world.

Now enough nukes, if used could destroy the world. Let's say Russia for whatever reason actually nukes a major U.S. city. Would the U.S. actually go through with the M.A.D plan possibly causing the end of all human life on Earth. Would you support them doing this. If you answer is no, that the U.S. wouldn't nuke back if it meant the destruction of the Earth, does that mean Russia has a free shot?

Teutates
08-27-2008, 01:09
Nukes won't be used.. What happened in WWII is totally different.

And the US and Russia won't ever go to war with eachother.

So you think russia will let the tanks roll in, USA killing civilians, harming their pride and giving them a shamefull loss?


How so is it different?

Jangang
08-27-2008, 01:14
This is the exact point I'm making. A war could never happen. Not even a conventional one as you suggest because no side is going to stand there losing while their men are killed knowing that they can just press a button and end it. At worst there will be 3rd party wars between one side and a smaller country allied with another side (such as there was in Vietnam during the Cold War and as is happening now to some extent in Georgia, where russian soldiers are fighting a US trained georgian army).

I disagree.

A conventional war is very much possible, and their being no advantages to using nukes, they would never be used. Aside from the one scenario I gave above, and in that case it wouldn't be ICBM's, and thus wouldn't auto launch a world ending series of missiles.


Neither will use them? the USA trew 2 on Japan.

First of all countries with nuclear bombs aren't going to attack eachother. As they risk getting nuked.

Secondly if there's war, nukes will be seen as a repayment for civilian casualities at the minimum. Or they'll just totally nuke eachother(might be the result of such a chainreaction).

A, They were new...
B, japan didn't have any to launch back, thus we had nothing to fear from using them.

Pernix
08-27-2008, 01:14
So you think russia will let the tanks roll in, USA killing civilians, harming their pride and giving them a shamefull loss?


How so is it different?

There's no way in hell either country will ever get a foothold in the other. It's simply not geographically possible.

Jangang
08-27-2008, 01:16
I have a rhetorical question of sorts. Both countries have a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. They both state, that if they are nuked, they will nuke the other country ensuring the destruction of both, if not the world.

Now enough nukes, if used could destroy the world. Let's say Russia for whatever reason actually nukes a major U.S. city. Would the U.S. actually go through with the M.A.D plan possibly causing the end of all human life on Earth. Would you support them doing this. If you answer is no, that the U.S. wouldn't nuke back if it meant the destruction of the Earth, does that mean Russia has a free shot?

If they hit one city, we'd probably react by hitting two of theirs. If they upped they responded all hell would break loose.

Yes we would indeed be willing to go all the way in such a scenario. I know of precisely 0 Americans willing to live in fear of Russia. Fuck that, if it means mutual destruction, so be it.

Kuri
08-27-2008, 01:18
I have a rhetorical question of sorts. Both countries have a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. They both state, that if they are nuked, they will nuke the other country ensuring the destruction of both, if not the world.

Now enough nukes, if used could destroy the world. Let's say Russia for whatever reason actually nukes a major U.S. city. Would the U.S. actually go through with the M.A.D plan possibly causing the end of all human life on Earth. Would you support them doing this. If you answer is no, that the U.S. wouldn't nuke back if it meant the destruction of the Earth, does that mean Russia has a free shot?


If they hit one city, we'd probably react by hitting two of theirs. If they upped they responded all hell would break loose.

Yes we would indeed be willing to go all the way in such a scenario. I know of precisely 0 Americans willing to live in fear of Russia. Fuck that, if it means mutual destruction, so be it.

Canada would be pretty pissed off at us for allowing it to happen though, and mexico would be like, "Hell yeah! lets get to the looting and welfare checks!"

Spineless_DoO
08-27-2008, 01:19
I've seen several threads now talking about a possible war between America and Russia and who would win, as if it would be some long lasting close cut conflict. If there was a war between America and Russia then both America and Russia would be nothing more than smouldering ruins within the first hour of the conflict. Both countries have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.

You really need to not watch any more 24 episodes.

Layedballer
08-27-2008, 01:20
Neither will use them? the USA trew 2 on Japan.

First of all countries with nuclear bombs aren't going to attack eachother. As they risk getting nuked.

Secondly if there's war, nukes will be seen as a repayment for civilian casualities at the minimum. Or they'll just totally nuke eachother(might be the result of such a chainreaction).

WWII was way different, we(USA) weren't in any risk of getting nuked back

Teutates
08-27-2008, 01:21
A, They were new...
B, japan didn't have any to launch back, thus we had nothing to fear from using them.


But they used them. And that's what it's all about. They had to balls to use it even though they knew what it could do.
Besides that in WW2 britain and USA fire bombed cities centers of Germany. Clearly as a way to take revenge for all the civilians casualties in London and other cities.

WHat makes you think Russia or USA wouldn't take revenge with nukes when their civilians get bombed (Fire bombing is basically the same as small nukes)


There's no way in hell either country will ever get a foothold in the other. It's simply not geographically possible.
Wait... what? they're like 20 km from eachother.

Incanam
08-27-2008, 01:26
If they hit one city, we'd probably react by hitting two of theirs. If they upped they responded all hell would break loose.

Yes we would indeed be willing to go all the way in such a scenario. I know of precisely 0 Americans willing to live in fear of Russia. Fuck that, if it means mutual destruction, so be it.

Ahh age old question answered. Humanity will kill itself.

We need to start colonizing space ASAP.

Jangang
08-27-2008, 01:28
Canada would be pretty pissed off at us for allowing it to happen though, and mexico would be like, "Hell yeah! lets get to the looting and welfare checks!"

Unfortunatley Canada would probably be targeted as well, along w/ Western Europe, and much of Eastern that broke off after the Soviets fell.


But they used them. And that's what it's all about. They had to balls to use it even though they knew what it could do.

Wait... what? they're like 20 km from eachother.

Yea, there was no such thing as mutually assured destruction at that time, and certainly not in regards to Japan.

It don't take balls to use a weapon when you know there is nothing they can do to respond short of dying, or whining...

alfaroverall
08-27-2008, 01:30
Ahh age old question answered. Humanity will kill itself.

We need to start colonizing space ASAP.
Tell NASA to bring back Project Orion and then kill every environmentalist in the country and that won't take long.

Kuri
08-27-2008, 01:31
But they used them. And that's what it's all about. They had to balls to use it even though they knew what it could do.

Quote:
There's no way in hell either country will ever get a foothold in the other. It's simply not geographically possible.

Wait... what? they're like 20 km from eachother.

#1. Hell it was 50/50 on it even blowing up, and with the amount of materials used in it, if they all blew, the thing woulda been allmost 6.5 times more powerful. And, having the balls to use, its already been stated, why the hell not when the most they can do is try and reach us with,. oh yeah nothing.

Pernix
08-27-2008, 01:32
But they used them. And that's what it's all about. They had to balls to use it even though they knew what it could do.

The balls? To use a nuke when you know you won't be attacked with nukes in return? If anything, it was the most cowardly act possible. Did you even bother to read the other posts?


Wait... what? they're like 20 km from eachother.

Wait... what? You mean 100km, bloody Alaska?

alfaroverall
08-27-2008, 01:33
http://ilapko.com/images/tsarbomba.jpg

Worth noting.

heroshade
08-27-2008, 01:33
You're a retard. Nobody is going to say "ZOMG THEY ARE IN A CRAPPY COUNTRY THAT NOBODY KNEW ABOUT TILL A FEW WEEKS AGO, FIRE ZE MISSLES!" The only time nukes will ever be a solution to war is when someone decides humanity has gone on to long. Therefore, no nuclear warfare. Even if there was a nuclear exchange, we can blow their missles out of the sky.

alfaroverall
08-27-2008, 01:35
Even if there was a nuclear exchange, we can blow their missles out of the sky.
Yet again, read about MIRVs and the failure of the Star Wars project and then get back to me on this.

Jangang
08-27-2008, 01:44
Yet again, read about MIRVs and the failure of the Star Wars project and then get back to me on this.

Star Wars?

I know a few people keep bring that up... But that was clear back in the 80's, we've moved on...

alfaroverall
08-27-2008, 02:09
Star Wars?

I know a few people keep bring that up... But that was clear back in the 80's, we've moved on...
I was retorting his idea of the US's ability to shoot Russian missiles out of the sky. With MIRVs in existence, it is not feasible to do that without the use of a Star Wars-like system, which does not exist and probably won't exist for many a decade.

Teutates
08-27-2008, 02:12
The balls? To use a nuke when you know you won't be attacked with nukes in return? If anything, it was the most cowardly act possible. Did you even bother to read the other posts?



Wait... what? You mean 100km, bloody Alaska?
Sigh this is again a discussion about assumptions, it will never end. So it ends here!


Yes alaska.

GRCPan
08-27-2008, 02:14
Well russia is allied with china. I don't think that there will be an america vs russia war soon though.

Pernix
08-27-2008, 02:17
Sigh this is again a discussion about assumptions, it will never end. So it ends here!


Yes alaska.

Wtf are you talking about? You make me reread my own posts to figure out if yours make any sense. Which they don't.

Teutates
08-27-2008, 02:28
Wtf are you talking about? You make me reread my own posts to figure out if yours make any sense. Which they don't.

Great, I succeeded.

Dragonfly
08-27-2008, 03:12
I've seen several threads now talking about a possible war between America and Russia and who would win, as if it would be some long lasting close cut conflict. If there was a war between America and Russia then both America and Russia would be nothing more than smouldering ruins within the first hour of the conflict. Both countries have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.

Why would America go to war with Russia? Russia already has Starbucks and McDonald's.

Feyrband
08-27-2008, 03:42
Planet of the Apes here we come.

Taroth
08-27-2008, 03:54
Well russia is allied with china. I don't think that there will be an america vs russia war soon though.

China would be committing economic suicide if it so much as sneezed loud enough to make the US put a itty bitty trade sanction on it.

Toxic Waste
08-27-2008, 04:26
Nukes will be used. It is not a matter of strategy or casualties, it is a matter of simple human nature. We wouldn't be able to resist, even if it meant blowing the planet apart.

Beorg
08-27-2008, 04:27
I've seen several threads now talking about a possible war between America and Russia and who would win, as if it would be some long lasting close cut conflict. If there was a war between America and Russia then both America and Russia would be nothing more than smouldering ruins within the first hour of the conflict. Both countries have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.


Russia could not support itself economically without America or America's trading partner allies--who would surely cut off trade with Russia. Russia won't attack America for such reasons, and because even if they did launch a nuke, we have the techonology to destroy them before they hit. However, if there ever is a World War III, you can bet that either one or the other would be destroyed into ruins.

Gaal
08-27-2008, 04:44
I personally hope for a Zombie Apocolypse because it would solve the worlds stupid people problem and China. Honestly, how stupid would you have to be in order to get killed by zombies?

paade
08-27-2008, 04:45
we have the techonology to destroy them before they hit.

no you dont.

WW3 wouldnt destroy the world, nor would there be nuclear winter, or mutant zombies. Those are just bs stories.

Well, maybe mutant zombies, but those are just awesome anyway.

strayfe
08-27-2008, 04:56
I've seen several threads now talking about a possible war between America and Russia and who would win, as if it would be some long lasting close cut conflict. If there was a war between America and Russia then both America and Russia would be nothing more than smouldering ruins within the first hour of the conflict. Both countries have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.

Nukes where banned. Unless somethings goes insanely out of whack, neither side will use them, because we know everything would become smouldering ruins...

heroshade
08-27-2008, 05:26
Well, I wouldn't mind playing some real life fallout. Anyway, no, we won't use nukes unless Russia does, and they won't use them unless we do.

Someone
08-27-2008, 09:24
Read up about MIRVs and Star Wars (no, not the movies or the books) and then get back to me on this.

I read up on it and I can't say it invalidates anything I have said. Star Wars systems didn't work and couldn't have stopped hundreds of simoultaneous launches from hitting most of their targets. The MIRV is simply a multistage ICBM with mutiple warheads that will scatter outside the athmosphere, thus reentering without the heatplume making them harder to intercept and able to cover a greater area per missile. None of those gave enough security to make any nation feel confident enough in their defences to launch any kind of attack because they knew that a nuclear retaliation would have destroyed them.

Dhig
08-27-2008, 09:52
I think its a good thing that Russia does the same thing Nato (America) did with Kosovo.
They only state that America (Nato) isnt the only nation with power in the world.
I think this is a way to say stop. No more action without the consent of Russia.
Perhaps in the future they can work together instead of fuckup by theirselves, all around the world.

And no, America cant go to war in europe. America is supported by the rest of the world and if they cant get that support America would be cast into poverty and misery.
Anyone that says America could do by themselves is wrong. 4% of the world population using 25% of the worlds oil. Cut that oil and America cant function.
What do you think Russias first step would be?

Ammon777
08-27-2008, 10:04
What do you think Russias first step would be?
I know! I know! To pee in a bucket and ship it to Syberia to freeze so they can make lemonade snow cones to sell in US cities by clowns to our children. A clown told me this.

Someone
08-27-2008, 10:36
I know! I know! To pee in a bucket and ship it to Syberia to freeze so they can make lemonade snow cones to sell in US cities by clowns to our children. A clown told me this.

Damn those Evil Clowns! For this, I the great Someone, will start the Clown Eradication Party, our goal will be the ultimate removal of all clown from life with the aid of the Pope and a holy sword, since the only way you can be certain a clown is really dead is by having the Pope decapitate it with a holy blade.

Haeso
08-27-2008, 11:21
All we really need to solve this problem is a private island, an artistic and scientific commune on said island, and a decent genetics lab.

Watchmen.

Titus Ultor
08-27-2008, 11:38
We would honestly whip Russia's ass.

And since odds are that Russia would begin the violence, NATO would be helping us and no one would be helping them. Not that the armies of NATO aren't anything besides U.S. + 5%, but all of Europe will be basically forced to enter the war against Russia to protect economic interests.

It would not be a world war. It would be a stomping on Russia.

Suho
08-27-2008, 11:38
LoL at the 1-2 yanks on these boards who think they'd even remotely survive a war with Russia :lmao:.

"we would blow their nukes out of the sky"

I think not.

That said, a nuclear war won't be started by any world super power, if at all. As for the taliban pricks, you never know what they'll come up with next.

Staatsschutz
08-27-2008, 11:39
well you are correct, if theres ever a war between usa and russia, the remains of the whole world will be smoldering ruins, with no intelligent life remaining on the earth

Fro
08-27-2008, 11:41
I've seen several threads now talking about a possible war between America and Russia and who would win, as if it would be some long lasting close cut conflict. If there was a war between America and Russia then both America and Russia would be nothing more than smouldering ruins within the first hour of the conflict. Both countries have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.

Yes but they wouldn't use the nukes atleast not on a large scale, there might the use of tactical nukes. If both countries are destroyed whats the fucking point.

SirStalker
08-27-2008, 12:34
For something completely mind altering to U.S and Europeans u should have a look into a movie called ZeitGeist

Fro
08-27-2008, 12:37
For something completely mind altering to U.S and Europeans u should have a look into a movie called ZeitGeist

the 2007 movie?