It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why is WW3 always depicted as ending in Nuclear bombing...

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 07:22 PM

originally posted by: MX61000
This is the truth and people already know this, i am just refreshing your memory. Now, why is ww3 always depicted as ending qith nuclear bombs being detonated, the truth is... Right now there is a plane in the atmosphere that contains other planes, these planes are called ufos. At the climax of this ongoing war of armagedom, which is going now, at the climax others will begin to drop bombs from there planes on the ones who are on the side of truth, when this occurs these planes will be activated to drop there bombs on others across America and certain parts of England. These bombs dropped by the advance planes called ufos contain a destructive capability of destroying the civilization 50 sq miles from the point of detonation and sending a mountain up 1 mile high and releasing poison gas. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, you've been warned...

Thank You For Your Time...

Excellent point... you have remember your audience here... to these people; yes of course the earth ends in atomic weapons, fire and brimstone.

The reality is that you are likely right.

edit on 4-10-2014 by ArmyOfNobunaga because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 07:23 PM
No one thought that having a facination with technology would get us in so much trouble when we were simply playing video games. I'm very worried about the ideas and teachings of all the brainwashing games that everyone knows and loves. Most games have a dark side. Most people can't destinguish their own dark side from the good in them. It's a beautiful mess that will be repeated over and over. I want no part in it.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 07:38 PM
It is depicted that way because the alternative has always been massed conventional armies which can be destroyed with a single bomb. It's difficult to conceive of a scenario where someone agrees to be shot because they don't want to be nuked, so it is presumed that a decisive battlefield loss between two nuclear powers would result in the use of tactical nuclear weapons, at which point one or both sides are defenseless by conventional means and must play the mutually assured destruction card to return to the status quo ante. However since such a scenario would only be entered by an incredibly desperate nation, that stalemate would probably be unacceptable to the aggressor, meaning that if there were any hope of surviving the war as a dominant power in a devastated world and being the best able to rebuild, a strategic nuclear exchange would likely be undertaken. So war by miscalculation equals small nuke fight then back down. War of national survival equals full on nuclear war.

This thinking actually did begin to change during the Bush admin (and before in top circles) and may not be the archetype of the future. Between space based weapons, assymetrical warfare, non-state actors, and special forces/drone driven warfare, ideas such as a "limited global war" and what I call the "single nuke theory" (that you could nuke a non nuclear power on a small scale preemptively and the international community would negotiate a compromise with you) have gained some traction.

There's a reason no two nuclear powers have ever fought a direct major war, but that could change in the next decade or two.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 08:47 PM
Honestly I do not really see your point. WWIII is envisioned as being like prior conflicts, meaning they take place between HUMAN civilizations. An alien threat would not be the same thing as fighting other nations. Rather than an alien strike on the planet earth starting WWIII, it would do more than anything ever has in the past to unite various nations behind a common cause. Now WWIII between nations of humans here on earth is quite likely to go nuclear. It is not guaranteed, but I would say it is probable, granted that multiple nations participating in the war are nuclear, as well as on opposing sides of the conflict.

What undoubtedly would occur is that some event causes one nation to invade another, which in turn forces these nations to invoke alliances, embroiling multiple nations in a single, world-wide conflict. At this point the conflict will consist of conventional weaponry, and this conventional conflict is likely to proceed for some time. The longer the conflict drags out, the more likely nuclear war becomes, because the longer the war lasts the greater the odds that one side will be pushed closer to defeat. And the greatest threat of a nuclear attack comes when a nation is backed into a corner and, militarily speaking, they have no other recourse, except to allow their nation to be conquered.

This is why it is extremely important, if such a conflict does break out, to end it diplomatically. The idea that a nuclear war will start by a nuclear nation launching a salvo of nuclear ICBM's at an opposing nation, out of the blue, is highly unrealistic in my opinion. Yet the entire Cold War was based on this premise. Part of the problem was that both the US and the USSR thought they understood their enemy to a greater extent than they actually did. Neither side was actually prepared to start a nuclear war, and would only have responded to an attack by utilizing their nuclear weapons. There is not a single nuclear nation on the face of the earth at present who would be willing to accept total and utter destruction of their nation simply to eradicate an enemy nation. Mutually assured destruction is in fact a great deterrent, because it works.

No matter what a war is about, war is always the same in that one side is attempting to achieve its objectives in spite of the other side, that other side doing everything they can to stop their enemy from achieving those objectives. Destroying an enemy nation is not a very reasonable objective for any military, but especially not when the destruction of your nation is guaranteed. My point is that one nation will not destroy itself simply to achieve the objective of destroying its enemy, because then the objective doesn't even matter since your nation will also be gone. The only time this would be feasible is when responding to a nuclear attack.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 08:51 PM
a reply to: intrptr

Yeah, I think I've decided I'll take that right turn now. The OP is clearly just making this nonsense up in my own personal opinion. And for what it's worth, do you really think if aliens/ufo's visited Earth and saw what we've done to it would they really want to save us? Surely if they had these abilities and wanted to save us from ourselves they would magically make all our weapons disappear? Why wait until the edge of oblivion? Do they watch us like a doom porn movie waiting to save us at the last minute?

It's my fault, I know I should not entertain going into these threads.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 10:28 PM
a reply to: Qumulys

And for what it's worth, do you really think if aliens/ufo's visited Earth and saw what we've done to it would they really want to save us?
Personally, I think "aleeens" put us here. So yah, as much as a gardener wants to protect a crop of vegetables from blight, bugs, or vermin.

Surely if they had these abilities and wanted to save us from ourselves they would magically make all our weapons disappear?

Anymore that they make plagues, war or famine disappear? Kind of upsets the apple cart don't it?
Or does the belief in a supreme being influence your thinking along those same lines? I don''t really know either way. I also agree with you abut the scatter shot approach by OP. I was directing my comment at why some people think "they" may intervene at times on humanities behalf. You seemed confused.

After all there are reports of UFO"S visiting earth, not so many of religious supreme beings doing the same.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 10:42 PM
I think the current world war we are actually in is pretty well in place, I see the new Roman empire as we are, coming up against people that simply don't want to snap into line just because America says so.

But the cracks in this empire, are there, in the foundation and we are watching the next stage if empire, the endless wars of expansion, and the decadence and apathy of those at home.

The enemy we are told are always at the gates so that they can justify a overbloated military funding.

I recommend reading the decline and fall of the Roman empire to tell you what happens in America down the road.

Might add well be a dang script of what is going on today, there may not be, a nuke at the end, but some new dark ages are coming.

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 12:06 AM
a reply to: MX61000

what you just said.....oh f**k it, i'll let this guy say it for me..

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 05:34 AM
A Rhyme...

The Speed Of Computers...
When We're On A Wavelength....

But When I'm Seeing The Future...
We're Back To Rocks & Cavemen!!!

A Haiku...

No Nukes Please, Leaders...
As Nice As Mushroom Clouds Are...
Poetry's Better!!!

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 05:39 AM
Don't worry this ZOO is protected

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 08:38 AM
a reply to: bhliberal

I recommend reading the decline and fall of the Roman empire to tell you what happens in America down the road.

Or "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Best contemporary history book I have read. Except Gulag Archipelago. And maybe Animal Farm, Farhenheit 451, Brave New World, 1984 .

Also see Roller Ball (the original with James Caan) THX 1138, Logan's Run, and Soylent Green.

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 09:29 AM
Um,I must be honest and type that I did no read that huge chunk at the front, just read the replies, I think I got the gist of it anyway.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in