I don't know about us, but I think the Russian Army is busy watching cartoons...
I don't know about us, but I think the Russian Army is busy watching cartoons...
Intel i7 5820K (4.5 GHz) | MSI X99A MPower | 32GB Kingston HyperX Fury 2666MHz | Gigabyte Windforcex3 HD 7950 | Samsung 951PRO nVME 512GB | Crucial M550 256GB | Crucial MX200 1TB | Western Digital Caviar Black 2000GB | Samson SR 850 | Zalman ZM-Mic1 | Noctua NH-D15 | Fractal Define R5 | Seasonic X850
Former author of the TankSpot.com Protection Paladin guide
Also, I love how we outsourced to China for years now and in turn we have been feeding money to NK.
I should also mention, China is really bulking up their military and has been targeting a multitude of the United States' infrastructures. You really think China won't pull anything? You must be joking.
I can pull others very easily, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Let's also not forget the atrocities being committed in Syria. Want to guess the reason the U.S. hasn't stepped in to help? If you guessed Iran, Russia, and China as the reason(s) you got it right! Welcome to real world news!
Last edited by hanketsu; 2013-05-18 at 07:56 AM.
US vs Russia. China taking Russia's side, and Japan getting involved to destroy China. And Europe joining the US. Merely imaginating here but...
China is economically dependant on the US, and the rest of the western world. If the US falls, so does China. How many times haven't you heard about "MURICAN JOBS BEIN OUTSOURCED TO CHINA" or seen the label MADE IN CHINA. Cheap product-making is one of China's great points.
That doesn't mean that China doesn't want influence in the world. China is spending a lot of money on improving African infrastructure, China wants it's own satellite states (such as NK), and they sure as hell don't want the US to have a satellite state right next to them, that's not a good powerful image. Oh, and an intimidating army to control China's neighbours as well. God knows why China tries to hack US infrastructure, probably power play as well.
Your most sarcastic line is also the most clueless. Iran, Russia and China is not the right answers. They do play a small part but there's more to it than just those three countries. Two, even, China doesn't want military intervention simply because they know, unlike you, that a) there's an economic recession going on, you might've heard of it, and that economic recession will only get worse if you start spending money on military intervention in Syria, which won't help China's export and b) whenever the US has intervened in the Middle East the long-term effects have always made the situation worse (see: al-Qaida).
And even if Iran and Russia doesn't want the world in Syria, they can't do anything about it at this very moment. Russia needs about 2 decades before their military can get technologically competetive with the western world. Iran could probably put up a small fight but they don't really have any reason to attack Syria, Iran just wants to be left alone.
That should cover it all.
The Middle East, Africa, Russia, US, EU, Oceania, China, rest of Asia, South America, Canada,...
Basicly all nations of the UN, thats why its called a world war
Crossed fingers that it never happens, because it might be the last thing humanity does on this planet
World War 1 = Fought with guns.
World War 2 = Fought with guns.
World War 3 = Fought with Nuclear weapons from Space.
World War 4 = Fought with wooden sticks.
Reason why i say this is: When we have a World War 3, we are gonna bomb ourselfs to sinner bits. There are gonna be no more humanity on earth. And the human cyclus will start from the beginning again.
Last edited by EarthHoof; 2013-05-18 at 12:31 PM.
Multiple small wars happening all over the globe indefinately.
You know, kind of like what has been happening lately.
I don't hold out hope that there will be a time when there is no war, there will always be a conflict somewhere, maybe not large scale, but war will remain part of humanity for a looooong time to come. I don't think there will be anything of the magnitude of ww1/ ww2 though.
Every war these days have the world involved in some way or another. Iraq for example had a few nations joining in
The only plausible place for a large war to break out is in the Middle East. If it happens, it'll probably involve Israel.
Arguably, WWIII has already started, just like WWII had already started with events like the Japanese invasion of China (1931), the Italian invasion of Ethiopia (1935), the proxy-fighting during the Spanish Civil War (1937-1939), and the Soviet-Japanese War (1938). I suspect the Second Iraq War, the Afghan War, the Libyan War, the Syrian Civil War, and the Northern Mali Conflict will be seen as similar precursors and/or early stages of WWIII. The actual war will be Fourth Generation Warfare, not field-battles or the exchange of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. Although it's quite possible that a limited number of nuclear weapons weapons will be used in terror or tactical roles if the war continues for years.
WWIII will pit the United States and its allies against the countries of the "Gap" or the "Arc of Instability" that ranges from West Africa through the Middle-East and then down through South-East Asia. Whether or not these countries have a formal alliance is basically irrelevant. The United States opponents (or victims, depending on which narrative you prefer) will be actively supported by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and although its members, particularly China and Russia, will try to avoid being directly drawn in they may engage in limited offensive operations of their own to secure resources or border regions. The U.S. will likely be aided in certain theaters by elements of the E.U. and probably by India. (Once Pakistan's nigh-inevitable fall into the "enemy" camp happens, formal alliance with India is virtually certain to follow.)
Prominent U.S. allies will include Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and at least on paper, Israel and the Sunni Arab monarchies. (At least until the latter are overthrown.) Opponents will be mostly Muslim, and the potential area for conflict is huge - exactly which countries will be on which side isn't terribly clear at this point. For example, a Saudi Arabia that revolts against the House of Saud would almost certainly be on the enemies list, whereas as a pro-U.S. Indonesian government that continues debt payments and resource extraction would likely stay neutral or pro-American. The war may even reach into South America, especially if the U.S. decides to militarily tackle the anti-U.S. socialist regimes there.
The most likely scenario for an even worse escalation would be conflict between U.S. allies (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines) and China over control of the South China Sea, although for various reasons I don't see that as particularly likely. Tensions, yes. International legal disputes, yes. Even rare naval skirmishes, sure. But open naval warfare isn't something any side wants to see there. (It could still happen, but is far less likely than the U.S. vs. the mostly Muslim Arc of Instability above.)
I have no idea on the precise dates, but I would guess that if the WWIII scenario I pictured is going to happen at all, it'll happen within the next 15-20 years. Beyond that, the U.S. will likely be too broke to afford it, while many of the potential opponents will be too rich, too globally-connected, and too-powerful to make them even remotely realistic targets. Plus, given another generation, war fighting is going to experience yet another quantum shift as we move beyond drones, communications, and smart bombs into technologies that we can barely grasp right now.
(The above presumes we aren't counting the Cold War as WWIII, in which case it's about WWIV. )
"In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetent liars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)
Nuclear explosions or any kind of explosion in space is completly useless compared to their use in atmosphere. The reason why explosives are so effective is that they create shockwaves trough the air, exponentially increasing their destructive power.
In space there is nothing to create a shockwave. The explosive energy in space would simply flow in the direction that offers the least resistance. In other words, towards the vacuum. Plus, nukes are big and they are difficult to deliver in space, where you have an easier time intercepting them.
The most likely weapon you would see used in space warfare are Kinetic Impactors. Plain old simple bullets. Most likely cannons and machine guns, firing low caliber, high velocity rounds.
The Russians tested the use of cannons in space already.
But you are unlikely to see Battleship sized cannons on ships, because in space firing them would be a nightmare. They would act as propulsion, so you couldn't really fly straight or aim while firing. Plus the vibrations they would send trough the gun and the ship could break the ship or gun apart.
Again if you want to kill people on the ground from space, you would still use the same thing.
You don't need to fire big complicated nukes. Just aim a high density metal penetrator at something, fire it at an angle that prevents it from burning up during descent and enjoy the show. Descending from space at stupid speeds they could wreck anything, causing huge booms. But again you cant make the round too big, otherwise atmospheric friction would burn it up before it can hit anything.
Space warfare would be very different then in movies.
The whole deal is a mathematical game of orbits, velocity and angles. You don't need very big guns, you all you really need is to hit things with a solid slug.
Last edited by Mihalik; 2013-05-18 at 05:28 PM.
Anyways any sort of conventional future World War scenario is silly.
Thanks to globalization, international trade and resource distribution, combined with our dependance on the flow of commerce, any type of major distruption would cause a collapse of the markets, and immediate resource shortages of every type. Anything from technology to food stuff.
One of the issues is that there is no real incentive to fight a World War, and no real opponent to fight against.
There is nothing to gain. If one looks at the flow of resource, economic growth and stability, peace and economic competition and trade gives everyone more, then conquest or redrawing of spheres of influece.
The closest thing to a World War that we will see is something like the "War on Terror". Essentially established nations and power structures fighting distruptive agents, spread globally across many regions and across borders. They might spurr or occasionally provoke these assymetric wars, to accomplish this or that type of political goal or to expand spheres of influence for economic or political reasons, but there wont be a conventional confrontation.
If you look at the level of economic, military or intelligence cooperation betwen major power blocks you would be shocked. The EU, US, China, Russia are always on the same page when it comes to protecting global economic interests. Conflict occures when it comes to shifting spheres of political influence. China is trying to expand its Asian economic area of influence, to be able to resist European and American economic interventionism. Which still occures, despite China's rising influence. China is often sanctioned for their buisness practices. (Which are often sleazy.) Russia needs to maintain a grid of economic partners to maintain its resource industry and to have an area where it can export goods other then natural resources. But Russia's biggest trading partner by far is still the European Union, both in exports and imports.
Whatever games Russia plays it is usually to maintain this or that economic interest. Which is why are they are so vested in the Syrian affair. Russia is involved in Syria because, Syria falls into its traditional area of influence, plus the West is relativly uninterested to commit. If for exemple Nato would really really want to get involved the Russians after some harsh words would back out of the issue, as they had with Yugoslavia back in the 90's. But there is no point for the West to get further involved in Syria just to piss off the Russians.
Syria is not in Europe. So out it is out of sight and out of mind really.
Someone took the time to make a bad copy & paste job of the Russian navy shooting up a (empty) somali boat. lol
The nerve is called the "nerve of awareness". You cant dissect it. Its a current that runs up the center of your spine. I dont know if any of you have sat down, crossed your legs, smoked DMT, and watch what happens... but what happens to me is this big thing goes RRRRRRRRRAAAAAWWW! up my spine and flashes in my brain... well apparently thats whats going to happen if I do this stuff...
Of all the unlikely events, even fewer where a large portion of the world would be involved. I see China vs India as the closest thing we will ever experience to a world war 3. It's unlikely that many other countries would join in, but counting population, i don't see any other scenario.
Eventually maybe US VS China over dwindling resources, escalating until it's every man for themselves throwing nukes at each other. I doubt even a war that massive will eliminate humanity, but it'll definitely destroy society.