Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

A Third World War on the cards.

1246789

Comments

  • #92
    tipparetops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭tipparetops


    I have always thought that a Third World War could be started by the USA.
    Their debt is so high, they might repay it with a few nukes.
    China should be very worried.


  • #93
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    Reiver wrote: »
    Absolute balls.

    It does some people a lot of good. And there always is a winner. Tell the loser theres no winner.

    When has there ever been a war where the winners side significantly benefited afterwards? War is just loss, sometimes huge loss, and no gain.
    And I mean actual war not like falklands 'war'..


  • #94
    wakka12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    tipparetops wrote: »
    I have always thought that a Third World War could be started by the USA.
    Their debt is so high, they might repay it with a few nukes.
    China should be very worried.

    China and USA stimulate each others economies , it would make zero sense


  • #95
    Reiver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 782 ✭✭✭Reiver


    wakka12 wrote: »
    When has there ever been a war where the winners side significantly benefited afterwards? War is just loss, sometimes huge loss, and no gain.
    And I mean actual war not like falklands 'war'..

    Romans did pretty well after taking care of Carthage. The Great Northern War saw decades of Swedish dominance halted and a resurgent Russia. The Persian Wars saw Athens and Sparta confirmed as the supreme powers in Greece that other city states looked to.

    Loads of examples.


  • #96
    Reiver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 782 ✭✭✭Reiver


    tipparetops wrote: »
    I have always thought that a Third World War could be started by the USA.
    Their debt is so high, they might repay it with a few nukes.
    China should be very worried.

    USA could be the North Korea of the 22nd century. A wild card while China and India struggle to cope with dealing with it.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    If I get drafted I hope they'll have 4G coverage in my foxhole!


  • #98
    ZeroThreat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,302 ✭✭✭ZeroThreat


    jacksie66 wrote: »
    If World War 3 kicks off I'll be grand here in New Zealand. Plenty of sheep to eat..

    nah, a large radioactive cloud will slowly but surely drift towards the southern hemisphere, just like that film 'On the beach'. :D


  • #99
    blatantrereg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    Reiver wrote: »
    Absolute balls.

    It does some people a lot of good. And there always is a winner. Tell the loser theres no winner.
    Sometimes. The UK's involvement in WW2 left them fairly devastated economically and indirectly led to loss of territory. Japan lost territory but experienced great economic growth as a reult of imposed reforms. Poland was on the winning side and they had a nett territory loss in addition to the catastrophic consequence of being assimilated into the iron curtain. On the other hand the USA did quite well out of WW2 by staying out of it for longer than most managed to.


  • #100
    smurgen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Reiver wrote: »
    USA could be the North Korea of the 22nd century. A wild card while China and India struggle to cope with dealing with it.

    No one is going to mess around with nuclear weapons. If there's one used I reckon they'll all be used.the Russians would rather die that be dominated by the U.S in a conventional war.The nuclear weapons the Russians have will make any defence futile.the Americans can't do anything about it.they have icbm's scattered all over the country with multiple warheads.they will be able to flatten all major cities in the U.S, Europe , Asia and the Middle East if it all kicks off.


  • #101
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,298 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    WW3 will kick off in the Spratly Islands. You heard it here first.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/chinese-ambassador-fires-warning-over-spratly-islands-dispute-20150526-gha9xa.html


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    HAHAHAHAHA!!!

    The latest dope move by NATO completely thwarted:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41969.htm

    :pac:


  • #103
    Irelandcool
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 266 ✭✭Irelandcool


    would the term second cold war be more accurate. While yes the threat of nuclear war is lower but still a lot of tensions that have arisen between USA and Russia. Not to mention a lot elements such as proxy wars are happening.


  • #104
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Irelandcool wrote: »
    would the term second cold war be more accurate. While yes the threat of nuclear war is lower but still a lot of tensions that have arisen between USA and Russia. Not to mention a lot elements such as proxy wars are happening.

    Russia is not a superpower.


  • #105
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    gandalf wrote: »
    And the Russians were involved in that as well helping out their buddies in divvying up Poland between them.

    And a couple of years before, the Poles had no bother teaming up with the Nazis to invade Czechoslovakia. Long before 1939 the USSR had called for a pact with Fance and the UK against Hitler but were rebuffed as the latter two were following a policy of appeasement. As such, the USSR found itself alone and needed to bide time.

    History isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.


  • #106
    Streetwalker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭Streetwalker


    tipparetops wrote: »
    I have always thought that a Third World War could be started by the USA.
    Their debt is so high, they might repay it with a few nukes.
    China should be very worried.

    The US have a track record of aggression around the planet, let's not forget they are the only nation ever to drop a nuke on innocent civilians murdering hundreds of thousands in the process.


  • #107
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Egginacup wrote: »
    I'm not sure if you are aware of this but France lost over 100,000 men and hundreds of thousands more wounded in the Battle of France against the Nazi invasion. And all while their British "partners" were running for their lives across the Channel from Dunkirk..

    And Britain lost many times that number after the French surrendered and started collaborating with the Nazis. Until they were liberated of course, thanks to Britain continuing the war in their absence.


  • #108
    Reiver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 782 ✭✭✭Reiver


    Streetwalker wrote: »
    The US have a track record of aggression around the planet, let's not forget they are the only nation ever to drop a nuke on innocent civilians murdering hundreds of thousands in the process.

    So the people who had supported a violent fascist regime responsible for the rape and destruction of large swathes of south east Asia were innocent?

    The Nuremberg defense doesn't cut it.


  • #109
    blatantrereg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    Reiver wrote: »
    So the people who had supported a violent fascist regime responsible for the rape and destruction of large swathes of south east Asia were innocent?

    The Nuremberg defense doesn't cut it.
    They were actively trying to surrender during the few days between the first and second bomb though.
    To paraphrase the response:
    "Not accepted... Let's see what this this one does."

    The civilians including children in those cities were probably not all part of the decision making process regarding Japan's exploits in SE Asia.


  • #110
    Reiver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 782 ✭✭✭Reiver


    blatantrereg wrote: »
    They were actively trying to surrender during the few days between the first and second bomb though.
    To paraphrase the response:

    The civilians including children in those cities were probably not all part of the decision making process regarding Japan's exploits in SE Asia.

    Neither were the children of the Blitz or those killed in Dresden.

    But the civilians, these were the ones who supported a government that slaughtered thousands of Chinese in Nanking. It's just like the Germans who tried to pretend they knew nothing of the concentration camps.

    And do you agree the first bomb was necessary then?


  • #111
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Japan would not have surrendered unless they were bombed. It's not in their cultural nature. They had to be shown there was a will to finish the war by any means. That they understood.

    Yes it was horrific but think of the lives it saved in the long term.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,309 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    Reiver wrote: »
    It's just like the Germans who tried to pretend they knew nothing of the concentration camps.

    I would think a majority didn't know they were being killed but would have thought they were being put to work or whatever.


  • #113
    blatantrereg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    Reiver wrote: »
    Neither were the children of the Blitz or those killed in Dresden.

    But the civilians, these were the ones who supported a government that slaughtered thousands of Chinese in Nanking. It's just like the Germans who tried to pretend they knew nothing of the concentration camps.

    And do you agree the first bomb was necessary then?
    Don't leave out the USSR. I think their tally of WW2 atrocities might be the highest. I posted a summary on another thread recently http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95515164

    Atrocities are atrocities. They're not justified by previous atrocities.

    If you don't think that dropping atomic bombs on cities is inherently bad then you can make a case for the first bomb. Personally I do think dropping bombs on cities is inherently bad.


  • #114
    checkyabadself
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 471 ✭✭checkyabadself


    (scratches head) "Honey, where did I put those iodine tablets?

    .......Wife: "they're in the bottom drawer in the kitchen next to the millennium candle and the free cheese"


  • #115
    ComfortKid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,169 ✭✭✭ComfortKid


    This thread is going more towards a discussion on WW2 than 3


  • #116
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Reiver wrote: »
    So the people who had supported a violent fascist regime responsible for the rape and destruction of large swathes of south east Asia were innocent?

    The Nuremberg defense doesn't cut it.
    You're trying to justify murdering civilian populations. Targeting civilians is a war crime.


  • #117
    Playboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    Reiver wrote: »
    Neither were the children of the Blitz or those killed in Dresden.

    But the civilians, these were the ones who supported a government that slaughtered thousands of Chinese in Nanking. It's just like the Germans who tried to pretend they knew nothing of the concentration camps.

    And do you agree the first bomb was necessary then?

    Why was any bomb necessary? They were trying to surrender before any bomb was dropped. The bomb was dropped to send a message to the USSR not to get Japan to surrender.


  • #118
    Playboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭Playboy


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Japan would not have surrendered unless they were bombed. It's not in their cultural nature. They had to be shown there was a will to finish the war by any means. That they understood.

    Yes it was horrific but think of the lives it saved in the long term.

    They wanted to surrender... the idea that dropping the bomb saved lives is nonsense

    In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

    "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

    - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

    http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

    There are many more quotes on the same thing at that link.


  • #119
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    You're trying to justify murdering civilian populations. Targeting civilians is a war crime.

    unfortunately 'war crimes' generally only apply to the losing side.

    and then the history books get written.


  • #120
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Japan would not have surrendered unless they were bombed. It's not in their cultural nature. They had to be shown there was a will to finish the war by any means. That they understood.

    Yes it was horrific but think of the lives it saved in the long term.
    The Japanese surrendered because the Soviets went to war with them on August the 8th - rendering any action other than complete surrender and ending the war, unsustainable.

    The Japanese didn't even have enough time to investigate Hiroshima properly, before the US dropped the bomb on Nagasaki.

    Only 3 days had passed before they dropped the second bomb - how could that be in any way justified?

    If the atomic bombs really did convince Japan to end the war, why also, not just do an atomic bomb test on an island, to show Japan of the potential?

    Completely senseless waste of human life.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    pueblo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 728 ✭✭✭pueblo


    It is most likely to be US-China and to start over territorial disputes in the south seas...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11630185/US-China-war-inevitable-unless-Washington-drops-demands-over-South-China-Sea.html


Advertisement