Ireland and World War 3

Logical Fallacy · 05-10-2011 12:04PM

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 · 05-10-2011 12:05PM

Cool_CM wrote: »

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

AKA "The War to Settle the Score"

Fishooks12 · 05-10-2011 12:05PM

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 · 05-10-2011 12:06PM

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 · 05-10-2011 12:07PM

I say surrender as quickly as possible.

Tabnabs · 05-10-2011 12:09PM

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 · 05-10-2011 12:11PM

Cool_CM wrote: »

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

Not likely though since they already own us.

wolf moon · 05-10-2011 12:27PM

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 · 05-10-2011 12:31PM

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 · 05-10-2011 12:45PM

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 · 05-10-2011 12:49PM

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 · 05-10-2011 12:50PM

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 · 05-10-2011 12:52PM

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 · 05-10-2011 12:56PM

4leto wrote: »

It is different now.

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

Nwm2 · 05-10-2011 01:00PM

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 · 05-10-2011 01:01PM

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 · 05-10-2011 01:08PM

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 · 05-10-2011 01:20PM

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 · 05-10-2011 01:41PM

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 · 05-10-2011 01:43PM

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

Johnny Bitte · 05-10-2011 02:18PM

Can't see nuke's being used if it ever came to all out war.
From what I can see resources will be whats fought over and a iraditated wasteland is no go to anybody.
What will probably happen chemiacl warfare where the population will be wiped out but the buildings crops water will be left intact.
Obviously at this point the governments ovf the world would be in tatters so whose to say some nut wouldnt let fly with the nukes.

I wouldnt worry, sur doesnt everyone love the Irish!!

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater · 05-10-2011 06:16PM

Lower Manhattan

Immaculate Pasta · 05-10-2011 06:40PM

As long as we side with the Chinese that's all I'm bothered about. I don't know where I got it from and I hope I'm not alone in thing in thinking this it's just I think the Chinese are a great bunch of lads.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-10-2011 06:54PM

Tabnabs wrote: »

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...

Suicide pills it is then.

I would have thought northen Scanadanvia, but I think fallout from Chernyoble screwed up that idea. So then... Malta? Iceland?

ItsAWindUp · 05-10-2011 06:56PM

Tabnabs wrote: »

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...

Your still just as likely to be eaten alive by brain dead zombies though.

AgileMyth · 05-10-2011 06:58PM

Cool_CM wrote: »

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

Can't imagine them doing too much with those little knives.:D

Latchy · 05-10-2011 07:03PM

mikemac wrote: »

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

Opps ...aye ...actually ment to say Chernenko .:pac:

There used to be a running gag every week with Reagan and Chernenkos puppets on spitting image and F G T H did a music video which had them fighting in a boxing ring .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTOQUnvI3CA

sock puppet · 05-10-2011 07:03PM

Fishooks12 wrote: »

What happens when the credit runs out smart arse?

How would they wage a war without finance then?

Batsy · 05-10-2011 07:06PM

wolf moon wrote: »

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?

How can anybody answer the question as to whether or not they would think Ireland would be a safe place to live in during WWIII? Nobody knows what WWIII would be like.

For all we know Ireland may be relatively unscathed from the war, unlike almost all of its neighbours, as happened during WWII, or it could become an occupied country where people are shot dead just for saying the "wrong" thing.

It is impossible for anybody to be able to say whether they would consider Ireland as a safe or dangerous place during WWIII.

RoryMac · 05-10-2011 07:08PM

4leto wrote: »

I say surrender as quickly as possible.

At least we know there's 1 French poster on boards!

Ireland and World War 3

Comments