World War 3

fryup

Could it happen in this modern age?? or have we learn't our lesson from mistakes of the past?

If it does happen what are the likely scenario of it kicking off??

the middle-east + another 9/11 ??

Captain Chaos

Some people would say we are in it right now and that it started on 11/9/01. It's just not traditional nuclear war of the 1960s vision.

RobertKK

The world is preparing for war. Obama is looking to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years on the US nuclear weapons sector which includes delivery systems, 1,000 nuclear bombs, newer nuclear subs, and planes.

NATO currently have the most troops and military on Russia's border since WW2.

US and China are preparing to fight over the South China sea.

Obama who won a Nobel peace prize for what he said about nuclear weapons, is currently going ahead with the development of mini nuclear bombs which can be used more readily than conventional nuclear weapons.

The world has been in a downward spiral for a long time now.

Jimbob1977

It's an outside possibility. However, it's hard to identify the spark. Could be something like....

o Russia gambles that a weakened United States won't react to a takeover of the Baltic States. However, the Americans respond with a conventional or nuclear strike.

o China has a major dispute with Japan or Taiwan over contested islands. The USA guarantees the security of Japan and Taiwan, bringing China into a conflict with the USA

o Europe is constantly attacked by terrorists. Eventually, NATO strikes at the Islamic World. Lines are drawn in the sand. Russia becomes involved.

WW3, in my opinion, is highly unlikely. China need to trade with other countries. Russia knows that it cannot defeat the USA militarily. There's no more superpowers.

Need to rewatch Red Dawn or The Day After!

Your Face

Like totes.

Junkyard Tom

As Marilyn Monroe said:

I don't know how WW3 will be fought but I know WW4 will be fought with spears.

RobertKK

There is a very interesting John Pilger radio interview in the link which shows the dangers of when Hillary becomes President, everything up to nuclear war is discussed.

http://store.counterpunch.org/john-pilger-episode-47/

Fleawuss

RobertKK wrote: »

The world is preparing for war. Obama is looking to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years on the US nuclear weapons sector which includes delivery systems, 1,000 nuclear bombs, newer nuclear subs, and planes.

NATO currently have the most troops and military on Russia's border since WW2.

US and China are preparing to fight over the South China sea.

Obama who won a Nobel peace prize for what he said about nuclear weapons, is currently going ahead with the development of mini nuclear bombs which can be used more readily than conventional nuclear weapons.

The world has been in a downward spiral for a long time now.

The world is always preparing for war. Tactical nuclear weapons have been part of arsenals since 1980's. Obama isn't doing anything new there.

There are two main threats: Putin who is a lunatic, an opportunist and a man prepared to gamble on destabilizing neighbors and exploiting that with military force. He is a real threat and there is good reason for NATO strengthening the Eastern European borders. These countries do not want to return to some Putin version of the Iron curtain. He is capable of gambling that a local war would not become a wider conflict; given the idiocy of Trump's NATO comment he has been given encouragement.

The South China Sea is a real issue. The loss of US warships could trigger something worse. Putin would encourage that too: gambling that the US would backdown and be weakened.

Gatling

Fleawuss wrote: »

The South China Sea is a real issue. The loss of US warships could trigger something worse. Putin would encourage that too: gambling that the US would backdown and be weakened.

Putin is sending several warships and submarines to the south China Sea to take part in long term wargames with China many actually believe that they will be setting up joint patrols of the area and to shore up the Chinese military presence,
America is also sending B1 bombers to the area to carry out patrols ,
With all that going on we have the other wackball In north Korea who might have a go knowing america is a little stretched military wise

RobertKK

Fleawuss wrote: »

The world is always preparing for war. Tactical nuclear weapons have been part of arsenals since 1980's. Obama isn't doing anything new there.

There are two main threats: Putin who is a lunatic, an opportunist and a man prepared to gamble on destabilizing neighbors and exploiting that with military force. He is a real threat and there is good reason for NATO strengthening the Eastern European borders. These countries do not want to return to some Putin version of the Iron curtain. He is capable of gambling that a local war would not become a wider conflict; given the idiocy of Trump's NATO comment he has been given encouragement.

The South China Sea is a real issue. The loss of US warships could trigger something worse. Putin would encourage that too: gambling that the US would backdown and be weakened.

Obama said he was going to work towards a nuclear free world, and got a Nobel peace prize for saying it, instead he is doing the opposite and is spending money on a new generation of nuclear bombs.
This will lead to other nuclear nations spending money to do the same.

NATO are not in a great position, look what they did with Libya. Absolutely destroyed the country.
Trump only spouted what NATO members are suppose to be doing anyway when it comes to their military spending.
It is the build up of troops by NATO on Russia's border which is leading to Russia moving troops to the borders of former Soviet states now in the EU.

The main nuclear threat is Hilary Clinton who talked about obliterating Iran in 2008 if she became President, as in using nuclear weapons against Iran if they attacked Israel, Obama basically called her irresponsible.
Then again in 2015 she talked about a war with Iran if the Iran deal was not kept to. She seems mad for war.

China have reclaimed a reef at the contested Spratly islands in the South China Sea and built a large airstrip capable of taking bomber and fighter jets, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam also have airstrips on reclaimed reefs there too.
China are building a third airstrip there.
The US believes it has a right to enter Chinese waters by undermining what China believes is it's territory.
There was a recent ruling by an international tribunal in the Hague which really angered China, as it gave disputed waters which China said was a part of their sovereign marine territory to the Philippines, which China said they would not accept.
That could lead to a confrontation.

AngryDiMaria

Some amount of shoite talk going on in here

Strumms

AngryDiMaria wrote: »

Some amount of shoite talk going on in here

as opposed to your amazing contribution to the thread ? :rolleyes:

Cheerful Spring

World War probably not. The most likely scenario is we will see a war between United States and Russia or China that may drag in more countries.

The more i watch the more i am convinced a clash is highly likely. I would not be surprised to see a war like this in two years or less?.

Lets be honest here Trump or Hilary will be a terrible president. Both will make awful decisions that will lead to even more problems.

Cheerful Spring

Watch this speech by Putin (its recent June 2016) he outlines things are worse now then ever and war could be highly likely soon. People in the west are ignorant to the fact hes under extreme pressure to respond to Nato build up near the Russian border.

Supergurrier

Interesting watch

DEFTLEFTHAND

Nostradamus predicted that our end will come from the middle east.

sparrowcar

That scenario video is actually horrifying if you watch it with earphones in and get obsorbed into it.

Ted111

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As Marilyn Monroe said:

I don't know how WW3 will be fought but I know WW4 will be fought with spears.

I believe it was actually Jayne Mansfield that made that particular quote.

SpannerMonkey

i have a huge interest in the military and military history and try to keep an eye out on what all world countries are doing and TBH everything i have seen play out so far is almost a repeat of the events before WW2 . the amount of spending on arms worldwide at the moment is massive it has surged in the last 3 years . i even saw yesterday that smaller countries like norway are buying masses of light tanks . the russian president made some valid points in a speech recently and its worrying .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo

rjpf1980

fryup wrote: »

Could it happen in this modern age?? or have we learn't our lesson from mistakes of the past?

If it does happen what are the likely scenario of it kicking off??

the middle-east + another 9/11 ??

At the moment there is an ongoing NATO military build up in the Baltics and Poland to counter the threat of a possible Russian invasion. The United States has developed a missile shield designed to shoot down Russian ICBMs. Tensions are at their highest since the end of the Cold War.

Analysts say that Russian ground forces would easily overcome NATO forces in the Baltic States within a matter of days before NATO would be able to mobilize. Putin would have an easy victory at relatively little cost much like his recent victorys in Georgia and Crimea.

In such a scenario the only way to try and force Putin to back off would be the threat of nuclear war.

I don't think it would come to that but it would be possible.

Another trigger of WW3 possibility is a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or war between China and Japan over islands in the South China Sea or a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India.

shaunr68

Ted111 wrote: »

I believe it was actually Jayne Mansfield that made that particular quote.

Or Diana "Einstein" Dors: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

mad muffin

WW III has already bean fought and lost. As evident by the hordes invading Europe.

scooby77

A Putin/Erdogan alliance, which seems a possibility could be worrying. Turkey is an often underestimated key NATO ally, for the the moment...but Erdogan liable to do anything...and with US refusing to extradite Gulen???
If Putin felt Turkey would at least not support, if not veto, NATO action to defend the baltic region....

White Ninja

After every great war or revolution, people think humanity has learned it's lesson, then about every 80 years or so later, it happens all over again, WW2 ended in 1945, so around 2025 we're due one, this 80 year cycle has pretty consistent throughout history, no reason to suspect this time will be any different.

FURET

Such a wealth of foreign and military policy expertise on show here.

Jawgap

It depends on your view of "warfare"

If you subscribe to the idea of "hybrid warfare" then we're about 10 years in to WW3 already.

If you think warfare as declared inter-state armed combat then the chances of WW3 happening are remote even in the China Sea - the last thing China wants is to get in a shooting war with the US because the US might decide to pay of its debts and completely trash the Chinese economy (as well as their own).

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^

what do you mean by hybrid warfare ??

Jawgap

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^

what do you mean by hybrid warfare ??

Hybrid war – does it even exist?

Ted111

shaunr68 wrote: »

Or Diana "Einstein" Dors: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

"You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.”

Julie Andrews

Wanderer78

I think we're slowly heading back to another world war with the rise of global inequality and hatred, but I do like the term, financial warfare, so maybe we 're already experiencing ww3!

rjpf1980

scooby77 wrote: »

A Putin/Erdogan alliance, which seems a possibility could be worrying. Turkey is an often underestimated key NATO ally, for the the moment...but Erdogan liable to do anything...and with US refusing to extradite Gulen???
If Putin felt Turkey would at least not support, if not veto, NATO action to defend the baltic region....

Erdogan and Putin hate each other's guts. Erdogan is an Islamist and Neo Ottoman. The last person Putin would forge an alliance with.

Samaris

"world war
noun
a war involving many large nations in all different parts of the world. The name is commonly given to the wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45, although only the second of these was truly global."

"During the early-21st century the Syrian Civil War and Iraqi Civil War and their spillovers world-wide are sometimes described as proxy wars waged between the United States and Russia, which led some commentators to characterize the situation as a "proto-world war" with nearly a dozen countries embroiled in two overlapping conflicts." (Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war)

Maybe because we don't see this sort of thing until it's over, or maybe because we expect either nuclear annihilation or mass battlefield stages across Europe to count as World Wars, but it does seem like the world is indeed in a war period.

This one is mostly confined to Europe, Middle East, North Africa and America, primarily focused in a Middle East theatre. The far East isn't really involved, which does limit its globality a bit. Other countries (Russia) are as much taking advantage of everyone being distracted to be dicks, which may qualify as being part of it, even if the goals are a bit different.

Interestingly, and perhaps because it doesn't fit the historical definition of -war-, terrorist attacks, even those prompted by the same ideals that the war is based on, don't qualify as war. It doesn't help though that this war is immensely complicated and, much in the same way that an amateur onlooker -during- WWII might not have grasped all the points that we can get in retrospect, my analysis is going to be faulty. But I've found that most people don't actually understand it all anyway, so hell, maybe this will be interesting to explore. /lurks off to do some reading

Gatling

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Erdogan and Putin hate each other's guts. Erdogan is an Islamist and Neo Ottoman. The last person Putin would forge an alliance with.

And Erdoğan has been all over Putin publicly thanking him for his support during his show coup,
Likely Turkey will need Putin to deal with the Syrian kurds when they form their own state in the next 12-18 months ,

Jawgap

Samaris wrote: »

"world war
noun
a war involving many large nations in all different parts of the world. The name is commonly given to the wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45, although only the second of these was truly global."

"During the early-21st century the Syrian Civil War and Iraqi Civil War and their spillovers world-wide are sometimes described as proxy wars waged between the United States and Russia, which led some commentators to characterize the situation as a "proto-world war" with nearly a dozen countries embroiled in two overlapping conflicts." (Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war)

Maybe because we don't see this sort of thing until it's over, or maybe because we expect either nuclear annihilation or mass battlefield stages across Europe to count as World Wars, but it does seem like the world is indeed in a war period.

This one is mostly confined to Europe, Middle East, North Africa and America, primarily focused in a Middle East theatre. The far East isn't really involved, which does limit its globality a bit. Other countries (Russia) are as much taking advantage of everyone being distracted to be dicks, which may qualify as being part of it, even if the goals are a bit different.

Interestingly, and perhaps because it doesn't fit the historical definition of -war-, terrorist attacks, even those prompted by the same ideals that the war is based on, don't qualify as war. It doesn't help though that this war is immensely complicated and, much in the same way that an amateur onlooker -during- WWII might not have grasped all the points that we can get in retrospect, my analysis is going to be faulty. But I've found that most people don't actually understand it all anyway, so hell, maybe this will be interesting to explore. /lurks off to do some reading

There's an argument often discussed that we've had several 'world' wars already - the Napoleonic Wars had something of a global dimension - and that 'WW1' and 'WW2' were 'peaks' in a global war that ebbed and flowed during the first half of the 20th century - in that framework, 'local' wars such as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Spanish Civil War, and even the Irish War of Independence, are woven into a wider narrative.

Junkyard Tom

Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds.

Samantha Fox.

Samaris

Jawgap wrote: »

There's an argument often discussed that we've had several 'world' wars already - the Napoleonic Wars had something of a global dimension - and that 'WW1' and 'WW2' were 'peaks' in a global war that ebbed and flowed during the first half of the 20th century - in that framework, 'local' wars such as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Spanish Civil War, and even the Irish War of Independence, are woven into a wider narrative.

Yeah, it's one of the things that makes the concept of "world war" difficult to define. Where does it go from being a large conflict to a truly global war? Does this count, does that count, while trying to use the truly exceptionally disastrous occurrences of WW1/2 as the main point of reference.

I suppose I can only say thank god that we don't have enough of them at WW1/2-scale to have an absolute and definable list!

Fleawuss

FURET wrote: »

Such a wealth of foreign and military policy expertise on show here.

I don't think anyone here has claimed a status to bolster an argument they put forward. I think only you have used an alleged status in a sarcastic manner to avoid answering an argument put forward.

Snickers Man

Is there any likelihood that Putin would invade the Baltic republics to try and bring them back into Russian hegemony? What's in it for Russia? Anything that couldn't be delivered by peaceful negotiation?

What seems to have spooked many people is the annexation by Russia of the Crimea. But there was an obvious reason why he should do that. Sepastopol, on the Crimean Coast, is a major Russian naval base and in fact its only warm-water naval base. Granted, it only provides access to the Black Sea and Russia would have the tricky problem of exiting via Istanbul and the Bosphorus to get anywhere else but even to maintain a presence in the Black Sea is an important strategic goal for Russia.

When the Ukrainians held a coup to get rid of the pro-Russian Yanukovych the Russians got spooked and quickly moved to secure Sepastopol as a major naval base. By snatching Crimea, without too much difficulty since a majority there are Russian anyway.

Could America and Nato live with that? Of course they could. The price of removing Russia from the Black Sea falls a long way short of a nuclear war and that's what it would take to dislodge them. Right wingers and republicans might bluster about Obama's timid foreign policy but no sane US president of any hue would seriously try to dislodge Russia from the Crimea. They have been there for centuries, and it would take a lot more than a rattling sabre to remove them. It would have to come to blows.

The Baltic republics are different. I think. Members of the EU. No obvious assets without which Russia couldn't survive so far as I know. (Does anybody know different?) Why would Russia risk a world conflict just for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?

lawlolawl

Miserable shower of glass- half-empty types in this thread

Oops, almost forgot to add a notable quote.

"Find me in the club, bottle full of bub...... " - Curtis '50 Cent' Jackson.

Junkyard Tom

FURET wrote: »

Such a wealth of foreign and military policy expertise on show here.

Geri Halliwell (Ginger Spice)?

GerB40

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori - Rachel off s club 7

BoJack Horseman

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

the amount of spending on arms worldwide at the moment is massive it has surged in the last 3 years

It depends on where in the world I assume....?
Take NATO & your 3 year "surge".
The 3 year expenditure increase (adjusted) betweek 2014 & 2016 is 0.8%
For NATO Europe this "surge" amount to 3%.

i even saw yesterday that smaller countries like norway are buying masses of light tanks

40 new IFVs is a long way from the harbinger of doom.
It's far from "Masses" and will amount to about a half dozen per year.

You should relax, If WW3 is imminent, the world is doing a pretty poor impression of preparing for it!

lawlolawl

"I have become death, destroyer of worlds" - Phil 'The Power' Taylor.

Jawgap

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It depends on where in the world I assume....?
Take NATO & your 3 year "surge".
The 3 year expenditure increase (adjusted) betweek 2014 & 2016 is 0.8%
For NATO Europe this "surge" amount to 3%.



40 new IFVs is a long way from the harbinger of doom.
It's far from "Masses" and will amount to about a half dozen per year.

For anyone who grew up in the 1980s those figures as 'masses' of tanks are just laughable!!!

That's barely enough to equip one Soviet motorised rifle regiment!!

Cheerful Spring

Some breaking news on RT

Russia ready for constructive partnership with NATO, invites military experts for talks - MoD

https://www.rt.com/news/354141-russia-nato-partnership-ready/

The tension is building. Nato may drag us into a war if they don't talk to Russia. Putin can only keep the hardliners at the Kremlin in check for awhile. This will be the next Cuban missile crisis if America don't listen and keep on surrounding the Russians

Ted111

'Never in the field of human conflict was
so much owed by so many to so few'

Sinéad Desmond. TV3.

4068ac1elhodqr

If was offering a betting market on this it would be 5/1 odds <5yrs.

Noticed in just the last week there has been a escalation in the media of perceived threats (probably just looking for increase in big-stick buying budgets). Here's a couple of cheery articles anyway, including interactive maps. They naturally feature the 50mt for which you'd need to wear a hard hat and most probably good sunglasses. (Think there some 100mt made also).

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1518917/what-would-happen-if-a-nuclear-bomb-hit-britain-look-at-this-map-to-find-out/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-would-happen-nuclear-bomb-8514152

Pakistan and the unsuitability of Turkey's bases would be more of a concern that the three main organised superpowers.

Quote from one Superhero to another:
Q. If you could have just one superpower, what would it be?
A. Probably... Russia?

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

if America don't listen and keep on surrounding the Russians

Actually it's the other way round Russia over the last few years has pushed it's troops westward towards Europe and NATO ,

BoJack Horseman

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The tension is building. Nato may drag us into a war if they don't talk to Russia

Come off the hysteria wagon comrade.

Russia has been in partnership with NATO for many years & things aren't as frosty as some would like to portray, there have always been channels of dialogue.

Your link is further to Moscow agreeing to the idea of a joint conference back in June

Cheerful Spring

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Come off the hysteria wagon comrade.

Russia has been in partnership with NATO for many years & things aren't as frosty as some would like to portray, there have always been channels of dialogue.

Your link is further to Moscow agreeing to the idea of a joint conference back in June

I guess you did not bother to watch the video i posted of Putin speech only a month ago. If you don't see that hes facing pressure within Russia to respond i give up. He said he will respond to the actions of the west if they don't stop what there doing. Its hes job to protect 146 million Russians and the missile shield is a security risk.

BoJack Horseman

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Its hes job to protect 146 million Russians and the missile shield is a security risk.

So, Russia's 40+ missile shield installations are ok...
But the 1 in Romania is a threat to the world and your boy must 'act' (whatever that means).....

Get a grip of yourself.

You can hoard canned goods and put tape diagonally across your windows.....
Elsewhere sanity will prevail.