Ireland and World War 3

wolf moon

Hello,
It's all pure theory -but I have been recently thinking what happens if World War III starts, if most of European countries get engaged, etc. would you consider Ireland to be relatively safe place to live in? Eventually, what other country in Europe you think would be better to move to with family to avoid the trouble?

Dotrel

Switzerland.

Biggins

Nowhere in Ireland would be safe for a start.
Any part of England gets nuked, the radiation clouds for many years would leave Ireland devastated.
Nowhere in Europe would be safe unless its in a self sustaining far underground bunker for generations.

I'd move to the top part of Canada or New Zealand.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

kfallon

Lamb of jaysus! :rolleyes:

Jesus Wept

Countries? WWIII will be the Zombie war.

ejmaztec

Narnia.

Full.Duck

The-Rigger wrote: »

Countries? WWIII will be the Zombie war.

Thats WWZ :eek:

OakeyDokey

Get out of Europe! Head to Antarctica.

Corvo

All I can hope for is that the nuclear radiation will give me super strength and turn me green.

Latchy

It's that Eurozone Debit Crisis isin't it ...spreading paranoia

Nowhere is safe .

Cool_CM

Dotrel wrote: »

Switzerland.

Exactly, nobody wants to bomb their own money!
For a neutral country their army is fairly well armed and equipped too!

wolf moon

Latchy wrote: »

It's that Eurozone Debit Crisis isin't it ...spreading paranoia

Not really paranoia. Just looking back at the XX century and the recession in the 30's... We all know that war (the bigger the better) is an excellent mechanism to wipe off the remainings and start everything from scratch. But that's more the Conspiracy Theory forum I'd say.

Cool_CM wrote: »

Exactly, nobody wants to bomb their own money!

Unless its in Chinese banks...

Latchy

wolf moon wrote: »

Not really paranoia. Just looking back at the XX century and the recession in the 30's... We all know that war (the bigger the better) is an excellent mechanism to wipe off the remainings and start everything from scratch. But that's more the Conspiracy Theory forum I'd say.

Starting again from the stone age would be a pain in the ass

mike65

Who would be attacking who to create a World War?

Fishooks12

It would have to be the US against the Chinese

Cool_CM

mike65 wrote: »

Who would be attacking who to create a World War?

The AH response would be Germany versus everybody: Round 3.

mike65

Fishooks12 wrote: »

It would have to be the US against the Chinese

Ah that makes sense, China attacks main export market, or US attacks primary creditor. Hmmm.

OneArt

The-Rigger wrote: »

Countries? WWIII will be the Zombie war.

No it'll be a war between witches and vampires. I've already got my pointy hat and enchanted stakes!

Fishooks12

mike65 wrote: »

Ah that makes sense, China attacks main export market, or US attacks primary creditor. Hmmm.

What happens when the credit runs out smart arse?

faceman

As long as you hide in a fridge in Ireland you'll be grand. Worked for Indy.

BraziliaNZ

Germany are already the rulers of Europe financially.
Ireland would probably be taken over immediately by some power involved in the war as it would probably be deemed strategically important for bases etc, and there would be no resistance as we are neutral and have no army really.

mike65

Fishooks12 wrote: »

What happens when the credit runs out smart arse?

Excuse me, who are you?

Seachmall

mike65 wrote: »

Excuse me, who are you?

Some leading economist and futurist presumably.

Gunmonkey

Latchy wrote: »

Starting again from the stone age would be a pain in the ass

True but ya get to invent all the stuff again and become rich. Dibs on the wheel!!

Seachmall

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Dibs on the wheel!!

I'll trade you fire on a stick!

Fishooks12

mike65 wrote: »

Excuse me, who are you?

A poster on boards. DO you have a superiority complex given the amount of posts you have?

It's a possibility that the Chinese could get annoyed with paying the US debt and could lead to an armed conflict. Very slim but possible nonetheless so get over yourself

mike65

Right so you are actually taking this topic seriously? Okaaaaaaaay.

Latchy

Gunmonkey wrote: »

True but ya get to invent all the stuff again and become rich. Dibs on the wheel!!

I could make some clubs to beat the women around the head with ...that would be a start .

Fishooks12

mike65 wrote: »

Right so you are actually taking this topic seriously? Okaaaaaaaay.

Your the one who went on the spiel about US and Chines relations after I suggested It could be those too that start WW3.

You sir seem to be taking it seriously. When the war starts you'll be well prepared though

goalscoringhero

Latchy wrote: »

It's that Eurozone Debit Crisis isin't it ...spreading paranoia

Nowhere is safe .

It's not an outlandish thought at all...

I think it's a matter of how easily the people will be divided.
And divided we are already pretty much, with generalisations internally and gross accusations against each other: private sector vs public sector, single mums claiming state benefits, the unemployed living the easy life on welfare, debt forgiveness big no no for those who were feckless to borrow etc. etc.

Nationalistic thoughts and resentments are already gaining ground (lazy Greeks, feckless Portugese, ze Germans bailing out German and French banks).

The climate in Europe is pretty bad already between the people of those nations who formed the EU with the original motivation to never wage war in Europe again.

Then there's the US and Europe, and here we already do have a war-like situation, albeit from the financial aspect, (see Geithner/Obama vs Europe/Berlin fiscal policy, bailout funds, see the cold response from some European 'leaders'). It's currently a matter of who blinks first.

All it takes is to sell the people (that's us btw.) that an attack will be necessary. This is usually disguised as 'defense' (they attacked first), see WW2 ('since 5:45 we're retaliating'), Iraq (dangerous WMD capable of reaching Israel and even the US).
And usually this doesn't happen as an all out attack, it's some attack that gains a strategic advantage to some party, that another party is not willing to tolerate.

Especially with upcoming shortages of resources (oil, food, water!) it will be increasingly appealing for a sovereign to take what they want (by occupation), if they have the military means to do so.

Stranger things have happened.

Logical Fallacy

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Your the one who went on the spiel about US and Chines relations after I suggested It could be those too that start WW3.

You sir seem to be taking it seriously. When the war starts you'll be well prepared though

How is a single line post a spiel?

Dotrel

Cool_CM wrote: »

The AH response would be Germany versus everybody: Round 3.

AKA "The War to Settle the Score"

Fishooks12

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

How is a single line post a spiel?

Maybe spiel is extreme but you did try to point out the logical holes in my suggestion that it could be USA v China, therefore taking it seriously

Logical Fallacy

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Maybe spiel is extreme but you did try to point out the logical holes in my suggestion that it could be USA v China, therefore taking it seriously

It wasn't me at all.

4leto

I say surrender as quickly as possible.

Tabnabs

At the height of the cold war in the 70s the German media claimed that west Cork was the safest place in Europe from radiation due to prevailing winds and distance from military targets etc.

I think I'd rather take my chances in the fridge...

Son Of A Vidic

Cool_CM wrote: »

The AH response would be Germany versus everybody: Round 3.

Not likely though since they already own us.

wolf moon

goalscoringhero wrote: »

Stranger things have happened.

Slightly off topic:

So true. Looking back, it's funny how people were always very surprised "but how, no it's impossible...it's (.....) century now!"
I bet people in 21 century will be equally surprised, exactly like they were in 1939 and before - "how, why, it's 21 century, we are all friends now and we all have iPhones, what about credit rating and bonds!!?" When the sh1t starts no one is gonna give a damn about ratings, bonds or iPhones. It's not paranoia, it has happened before and I see absolutely no reason - looking at shrinking resources, increasing xenophobia, deteriorating western world leadership, etc. - why wouldn't it start again.

Fozzydog3

Biggins wrote: »

Nowhere in Ireland would be safe for a start.
Any part of England gets nuked, the radiation clouds for many years would leave Ireland devastated.
Nowhere in Europe would be safe unless its in a self sustaining far underground bunker for generations.

I'd move to the top part of Canada or New Zealand.

Why ?, What'd you do with your Iodine tablets ?

Pherekydes

mike65 wrote: »

Who would be attacking who to create a World War?

Germany Vs the PIGS.

And this time everyone else is on Germany's side.

Except Israel. And Iran.

And Switzerland.

It'll be bitterly ironic from our point of view, because the Yanks will be using Shannon as a base to bomb our major cities.

4leto

wolf moon wrote: »

Slightly off topic:

So true. Looking back, it's funny how people were always very surprised "but how, no it's impossible...it's (.....) century now!"
I bet people in 21 century will be equally surprised, exactly like they were in 1939 and before - "how, why, it's 21 century, we are all friends now and we all have iPhones, what about credit rating and bonds!!?" When the sh1t starts no one is gonna give a damn about ratings, bonds or iPhones. It's not paranoia, it has happened before and I see absolutely no reason - looking at shrinking resources, increasing xenophobia, deteriorating western world leadership, etc. - why wouldn't it start again.

It is different now. If 2 major military powers were to go to war, who would fight that war and how. The weapons are so sophisticated and are effective over such a vast range you couldn't have the ould style battle fields,

Just suppose it was America and China with things like cluster bombs, smart mines and drones counter measures and other counter measures, both countries are with-in range of each other. Then any war would be a 24 hour war, there would be no nighttime or daytime it would be the same intensity night or day.

How long would a soldiers moral last on each side in that very high casualty war fighting 24 hours. So with this the use of mass destruction weapons would become almost inevitable early in such a conflict and everyside has these and all the other sophisticated weapons the other will have and of course develop new ones.

And you could not see a war from present weapons. In WW1 and 2 all the stockpiled weapons before these conflicts quickly became obsolete. So things like the Aircraft carrier or the strategic bombers would be usurped by who knows what.

So a world war on the previous world war scales is probably impossible now, there would be no winners,,,,but I am sure someone will give it a go as the Earths resources become more stretched.

280special

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

Why ?, What'd you do with your Iodine tablets ?

You mean the ones that were almost out of date before they arrived ???

Those posts that assume that war means an almost instant nuclear attack might want to consider the more probable scenario of a conventional war. The worry might be the desperate last swipe using a nuke by an almost defeated nation.


It might be better to assess who might be a potential attacker/attacked. Would Germany or France have the stomach for another war ? Would the Uk with its much reduced military strength ? Could the US really justify an attack on a Western Democracy ? Will China not be happy to continue their financial/manufacturing take over of the world ? What about India and a potential attack on SE Asia ?

As recently seen, most major wars will be motivated by market sentiments/greed as much as any moralistic reason.

SafeSurfer

I think the chances of a major war at the moment are remote.

I also think that rather than the armageddon prophesised due to the financial crisis, life will carry on but with higher taxes, tighter austerity more emigration etc etc.

Wars take place between nation states and nation states are not in control any more.

wolf moon

4leto wrote: »

It is different now.

... and here comes the surprise element :rolleyes:

Nwm2

4leto wrote: »

And you could not see a war from present weapons. In WW1 and 2 all the stockpiled weapons before these conflicts quickly became obsolete. So things like the Aircraft carrier or the strategic bombers would be usurped by who knows what.

Eh, no.

Development cycles for major weapons systems are in decades these days, whereas an all-out WW would last a much shorter time.

So you're stuck with your starting hand.

Even the 'ammunition' factories couldn't keep up with the rate of usage in a WW - at least for sophisticated weapons (eg guided missiles). You're talking about a years worth of full production used in a week.

Matthew23

Biggins wrote: »

Nowhere in Ireland would be safe for a start.
Any part of England gets nuked, the radiation clouds for many years would leave Ireland devastated.
Nowhere in Europe would be safe unless its in a self sustaining far underground bunker for generations.

I'd move to the top part of Canada or New Zealand.

id move to washington dc, cos who wants to be around after ww3 anyway

4leto

Nwm2 wrote: »

Eh, no.

Development cycles for major weapons systems are in decades these days, whereas an all-out WW would last a much shorter time.

So you're stuck with your starting hand.

Even the 'ammunition' factories couldn't keep up with the rate of usage in a WW - at least for sophisticated weapons (eg guided missiles). You're talking about a years worth of full production used in a week.

You make the assumption that these weapons will be as big, they will have "intel" inside, they will be mass produced as quick as phones are now. Then there is the miniaturisation of these smart systems, we really don't know what that will and has led to.

But rest assured but sides will have them. There will be no tech edge, not that that ever really mattered. In |WW2 Germany had the big tech edge, they still lost.

Latchy

goalscoringhero wrote: »

It's not an outlandish thought at all...

I think it's a matter of how easily the people will be divided.
And divided we are already pretty much, with generalisations internally and gross accusations against each other: private sector vs public sector, single mums claiming state benefits, the unemployed living the easy life on welfare, debt forgiveness big no no for those who were feckless to borrow etc. etc.

Nationalistic thoughts and resentments are already gaining ground (lazy Greeks, feckless Portugese, ze Germans bailing out German and French banks).

The climate in Europe is pretty bad already between the people of those nations who formed the EU with the original motivation to never wage war in Europe again.

Then there's the US and Europe, and here we already do have a war-like situation, albeit from the financial aspect, (see Geithner/Obama vs Europe/Berlin fiscal policy, bailout funds, see the cold response from some European 'leaders'). It's currently a matter of who blinks first.

All it takes is to sell the people (that's us btw.) that an attack will be necessary. This is usually disguised as 'defense' (they attacked first), see WW2 ('since 5:45 we're retaliating'), Iraq (dangerous WMD capable of reaching Israel and even the US).
And usually this doesn't happen as an all out attack, it's some attack that gains a strategic advantage to some party, that another party is not willing to tolerate.

Especially with upcoming shortages of resources (oil, food, water!) it will be increasingly appealing for a sovereign to take what they want (by occupation), if they have the military means to do so.

Stranger things have happened.

The cold war with Reagan and Yeltsin back in the eighties thought us that we were never far away from the Nuclear Holocaust scenario and the banking crisis / world economy wasn't in as bad a shape then so it's natural that we resort to the worst case / bunker scenario .

RichieC

We don't need world wars anymore. our masters have found a way to make just as much money from smaller scale localised wars at a safe distance.

mikemac

Latchy wrote: »

The cold war with Reagan and Yeltsin

Yeltsin was such a drunk it's a good thing he wasn't in the power at the time
There were a few leader that decade, maybe you mean Gorbachev or Brezhnev