World War Three, Not Gonna Happen !!

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

zatara

minkmouse
Full on ww3 without nukes? If humanity is sane, this can be the only plan. Small power struggles growing into major ones with untold casualties I can see because that's just the way we roll but bringing nukes into the deal would be a lunacy beyond comprehension. Economic wars perhaps will be the preferred route but are they not just a slow nuke? Somehow I think WW3 will be different than WW1 and 2. Some of it will be on the ground physical and some will be stuxnet derivatives etc, etc. At the end of the day, some twat will make a handsome profit. Nukes will be the forced checkmate, no resolve...All bets are off! And if there are indeed bunkers, that's where the architects will be.
edit on 3-4-2014 by minkmouse because: (no reason given)


Many people think that WW3 will start in the middle east. Not only because of the biblical armagedon but also because of the perpetual religious fanatics in that area. Hopefully the nuclear exchange between Israel and the many enemies will be kept contained in that region and will the nations with global distructive power not interfere. Once these heavy weights like China, Russia and the US start throwing nuclear bombs at eachother everything will be kaput.



thinking that "nuclear exchange" anywhere could be contained in that area alone is naive.




posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by demus
 


That's why you do it as a false flag.
2nd.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

demus

zatara

minkmouse
Full on ww3 without nukes? If humanity is sane, this can be the only plan. Small power struggles growing into major ones with untold casualties I can see because that's just the way we roll but bringing nukes into the deal would be a lunacy beyond comprehension. Economic wars perhaps will be the preferred route but are they not just a slow nuke? Somehow I think WW3 will be different than WW1 and 2. Some of it will be on the ground physical and some will be stuxnet derivatives etc, etc. At the end of the day, some twat will make a handsome profit. Nukes will be the forced checkmate, no resolve...All bets are off! And if there are indeed bunkers, that's where the architects will be.
edit on 3-4-2014 by minkmouse because: (no reason given)


Many people think that WW3 will start in the middle east. Not only because of the biblical armagedon but also because of the perpetual religious fanatics in that area. Hopefully the nuclear exchange between Israel and the many enemies will be kept contained in that region and will the nations with global distructive power not interfere. Once these heavy weights like China, Russia and the US start throwing nuclear bombs at eachother everything will be kaput.



thinking that "nuclear exchange" anywhere could be contained in that area alone is naive.


Yes, interesting reply..can you explain why that would be a naive thought? Why will a nuclear war in the middle east expand into a world wide nuclear war?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

zatara

demus

zatara

minkmouse
Full on ww3 without nukes? If humanity is sane, this can be the only plan. Small power struggles growing into major ones with untold casualties I can see because that's just the way we roll but bringing nukes into the deal would be a lunacy beyond comprehension. Economic wars perhaps will be the preferred route but are they not just a slow nuke? Somehow I think WW3 will be different than WW1 and 2. Some of it will be on the ground physical and some will be stuxnet derivatives etc, etc. At the end of the day, some twat will make a handsome profit. Nukes will be the forced checkmate, no resolve...All bets are off! And if there are indeed bunkers, that's where the architects will be.
edit on 3-4-2014 by minkmouse because: (no reason given)


Many people think that WW3 will start in the middle east. Not only because of the biblical armagedon but also because of the perpetual religious fanatics in that area. Hopefully the nuclear exchange between Israel and the many enemies will be kept contained in that region and will the nations with global distructive power not interfere. Once these heavy weights like China, Russia and the US start throwing nuclear bombs at eachother everything will be kaput.



thinking that "nuclear exchange" anywhere could be contained in that area alone is naive.


Yes, interesting reply..can you explain why that would be a naive thought? Why will a nuclear war in the middle east expand into a world wide nuclear war?




first of all, there is only one country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons so if they would use it to defend or attack it could be possible for the situation not to escalate.

if there would be "nuclear exchange" in the Middle East I just think there are too many things in the whole world that would be influenced by such an event for it to be contained there.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by alldaylong
 


All those links prove is that the US met with UK to keep them abreast of the progress of the bomb and subsequent agreements it should be built and used. I am sure that the US would have gone ahead any which way.

The fact remains the US invented, developed and deployed said weapons on Japan a_l_l b_y i_t_s_e_l_f. You act like they had to get Churchill's permission and he supervised it or something.

That wiki link states it is "in need of verification". Nice "rewritten" history lesson, though.
edit on 4-4-2014 by intrptr because: changed


LOL

The US didn't "Invent" the nuclear bomb.
They where one of three partners who did.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a snippet for you:-

" Research and production took place at more than 30 sites across the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada."
edit on 4-4-2014 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 



The US didn't "Invent" the nuclear bomb.

The bomb was "invented" in New Mexico by the best scientific minds that could be retained from all around the world.

In that vein I guess you could say everyone invented the bomb. Your insistence it was done "somewhere else" is just shifting blame or grabbing some glory.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

alldaylong

The US didn't nuke Japan.

Your original post in this thread is absurd. Now you are down the road around the corner and out in the parking lot with some half-baked ideas (and links that "need verification") about a distorted version of world events.

Done replying to you here. Go play somewhere else.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

minkmouse
reply to post by Boscov
 


Damn dude, my heads hurtin now, and you had to bring in the old false flag card? IMHO that's a very wild card that would only be brought on by a religious faction of some sort which is a scary thought because I'm surrounded by the dolts.


You are right. It is a religious group called by many different names but all serving the same master. Their sadistic master is bent on war and death. Every mainstream religion is tied to to the sadistic one but most followers are not aware of this.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

YoComrade
reply to post by zatara
 


I think if WW3 is to happen it won't be by conventional means. A nuke will go missing and set off a chain of events, or Israel will be threatened by too many enemies. There are prophecies about it being attacked on all sides.


That prophecy has already been fulfilled, perhaps more than once.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I am of the understanding that the United States, or a splinter faction originating thereof, will be the ones to kickstart WWIII, if they haven't already with the Global War on Terrorism.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   

intrptr

alldaylong

The US didn't nuke Japan.

Your original post in this thread is absurd. Now you are down the road around the corner and out in the parking lot with some half-baked ideas (and links that "need verification") about a distorted version of world events.

Done replying to you here. Go play somewhere else.


This may come as a complete shock to you. Americans didn't invent everything.
And that includes the atomic bomb. You can go and tell the families of the 60 British scientist's that worked at Los Alamos that they had nothing to do with the development of the nuclear bomb. I am sure they will give you a friendly welcome.

www.opendemocracy.net...

That articles is just yet more proof why Americans are despised throughout the world. It could read as "The History Of The World According To America.......But No One Else"



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
name another country in the world at that time ,who could have financed BOTH projects,,

and NOT i repeat NOT have used SLAVE LABOUR!

and deadly serious about the slave labour part.

a lot of people were feed ,housed AND PAID very well,, at that time. in America.

and u could smoke too.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


WWIII is plausible. A major catastrophe or shortage could easily kick start something.

We are poised to take advantage, to grow. Its true the winner will make the rules so you have to consider what you are following or influencing.

The hope is a small awaking with agreeable solution. The worry is something out with our control and a major conflict to survive or succeed.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   

BobAthome
name another country in the world at that time ,who could have financed BOTH projects,,

and NOT i repeat NOT have used SLAVE LABOUR!

and deadly serious about the slave labour part.

a lot of people were feed ,housed AND PAID very well,, at that time. in America.

and u could smoke too.


Hahahahaha!!! The US was not the only slave labour place i am afraid. The practice started in Africa then middle east and spread to all nations of the world back then. So do not even go there.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Wait. I thought it was common knowledge here that the Allies as well as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan all had viable nuclear programmes at the end of the war.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


A nuclear exchange in the middle east will have most likely an effect on (southern) europe, northern africa, central asia (think turkey) and the arabic emirates. So much for the "contained" conflict, the repercussions will most likely effect every country in the world to some degree.


And yes, Germany had a nuclear program at the end of the war, but hit a dead end in 1944, because they ran out on raw materials and secure facilities for scientiests and production. Nazi Germany had been capable of producing a "dirty" bomb, but nowhere near to start a nuclear reaction.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   

guidetube
reply to post by zatara
 


WWIII is plausible. A major catastrophe or shortage could easily kick start something.

We are poised to take advantage, to grow. Its true the winner will make the rules so you have to consider what you are following or influencing.

The hope is a small awaking with agreeable solution. The worry is something out with our control and a major conflict to survive or succeed.





Unless a WW3 is faught with conventional weapons there will not be much left to have control over. The winner after a world wide nuclear warwill be spending much of the remainder of his life and probably some generations after him in some deep underground bunker.

And that is why I think it is necessary to have rational thinking people in place that matter. But then again, what to do when you know missiles with nuclear warheads are inbound any moment? MAD is the only thing left to do if you do not what to be the loser...
or winner.

Read about MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) here

edit on 7/4/2014 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by yuppa
 


Please re-read my statement.

p.s u don't actually believe that SLAVERY statred in Africa????

And if u do,, why??





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join