It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Are We Witnessing the Build-Up to WW3?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I think we are already in the throws of WWIII. It started w/ 911 and will keep going up 'till 2012[Mayan reference to end of world] This is just a thought. Can't we all just get along for a while and enjoy some simalance of peace? I can't speak for yall but to me this would be a good idea!




posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

In their last wrgames in which they launched nuclear missles, there was a 100% FAILURE rate of the missles.

Can you provide a reference for this?

You are saying that nuclear war is not anything to worry about. You are wrong.

Nuclear war due to accident is much more likely than purposeful launch as I have explained in other posts. It's stunning to me that you can toss out such blanket statements about what is surely the biggest threat to the human race. Your theory (stated elsewhere) that since the 'leaders' are in control of nukes there will not be a launch is also wrong.

World War Three will involve nuclear exchange. That's what war is: All the weapons get used. Nothing stays on the shelf.






[edit on 4-2-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Are We Witnessing the Build-Up to WW3?


No...that time has passed... We are witnessing the point where almost all of the pawns have been moved out, the black king has taken a rook, while the white king has captured a bishop and a pawn....sadly enough.... WW3 has already begun, we simply haven't officially recognized it as such yet...

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Why would they risk us reacting over something? All for Iran?? Please...
What makes you think they would be on the other side any way?


Because if the US attacks Iran, Adolf Bush will get even more excited.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I thought that someone will bring out the 2012 date for the world war 3, nobody did it so i'm impressed

The world war 3 will be in the next 10 years after that the US invaded Iran, the North Korea invaded South Korea, the China invaded Taiwan, the Pakistan and India fought together a terrible nuclear war.... and maybe the Russian invaded the old URSS parts to reunite the URSS??

So will see in the next few years



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
We are not near to WWIII. Those of you who believe that the beast or Daniel's 70 weeks are going to occur soon (paticularly in the next ten years ie.. 2012) simply do not understand history, biblical prophecy, or current political events - especially currency policy.

The famous 70 weeks theory going around and the wave of false prophecy that has been capitualted for the last 40 years since Hal Lindsey first wrote the Late Great Planet Earth has made your minds delusional with hurried hysteria.

The rapture is not going to happen soon and neither is WWIII. Let me give you a tid bit of reality. Future events never occur other than a natural flow of current events - they never have. China will be buying most of it's oil from the U.S., oops I mean Kazakhstan and Iraq in the future. Also the theories on the one world currency are extremely off into fantasy land and yet people still believe this garbage. Don't believe that the anti-christ is alive and well today because a TV personality, you view as being an authoriataive figure on the subject, says so. In reality the individual is merely copying the THEORIES of others and speaking the THEORIES of his own mind, and chooses to ignore current economics, and current political events and culture. And I assure you he IS manipulating bible verses to make his theories fit what he wishes you to believe.

Furthermore the year 2012 the planetary ascension is not the end of the world as so many ASSUME the mayans believe, and is certianly not the beginning of Armageddon or the end of the tribulation which many of you falsely think is starting in 2005. Many things according to scripture and ancient prophecy, if one believes in such, must occur first and contrary to what ministers are shouting from the pulpits to sell books and videos as they ride the 'armageddon retail wave,' have not occurred - such as a one world government with a one world CURRENCY. Such things are impossible to happen in ten years regardless of terrorist events or natural disasters, but those who think otherwise simply do not understand world currency and think a miracle will bring this forth. We have been in the end times since Christ was crucified - sorry folks we are not in the tribulation and the end of the world is not going to happen in ten years and you are not going to be raptured in 2005, 2007, 20010, or 2012.

Now I am speaking to Christians. As Christians you are to do as your are commanded to wait and watch not spout ridiculous theories and the delusions of your mind about when you THINK Armageddon will occur.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
American Mad Man, you really expect me to fall for that, without providing any evidence to back it up. Are you basically saying to me that the majority of Russian ICBMs are useless, and that they know this? I think not.

Also, if you actually read my post, I was simply saying that like any other "dictactor" who wants to rule solely without threat from other major powers, such as the US, then it could be in their interest to destroy them. Look at the underground complexes in Russia today. They can withstand something like 50+ direct nuclear hits. They also have large nuclear bunkers to house hundreds of thousands of their citizens incase of nuclear war - they are still working on these to, but wheres the threat?

All I am saying is that you shouldn't discount anything that is possible, especially in this day and age when it comes to relations between other countries. These are dangerous times we live in, where everyone is looking other their shoulders and trying to protect "thier" interests.

BUT, I guess these times are no dangerous than past times, just that we have bigger and better weapons.

BTW, a bit of research on the topic, and you'll find that the majority of ICBMs in service today (in both Russia and US, as well as other nuclear nations) are very reliable, safe and accurate with much less radiation left behind. As I have said, everyday, with new technology coming along or advancing ie ABM systems, we will see an ever increasing threat of nations willing to use ICBMs, just like any other weapon developed in human history.

[edit on 4/2/05 by NoobCommando]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
No matter how powerful our nukes our now, the chain reaction still uses very little of the uranium or plutonium. Most of it is atomized and sucked into the fireball. It attaches itself to dirt particles in the cloud and floats for miles. No, our nukes produce tremendous radiation.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
World War III was the cold war. I thought we went over this a million times.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

In their last wrgames in which they launched nuclear missles, there was a 100% FAILURE rate of the missles.

Can you provide a reference for this?


Of course. I forgot I wasn't posting in the military forums where it is well known.




Russian President Vladimir Putin has enjoyed extraordinary success in rebuilding his shattered country over the past four years, but the humiliating public fiasco of two failed missile launches in a single naval exercise this week shows he still has very far to go.

The military exercises in the Barents Sea were intensely ambitious and involved the test firing of several nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles. But in a test Tuesday, one missile to be launched from the nuclear submarine Novomoskovsk either failed to fire, or even worse, fell apart right after it was launched.

Russian Navy sources later cited by the official RIA Novosti news agency and the private, but still respectful, Interfax agency said the missiles were never actually launched but the exercise was aborted through an automatic shutdown transmitted by satellite relay. Later, yet another conflicting explanation was floated: the launch was never intended to be "actual" but was only "a "virtual" or cybernetic test.

Wednesday, however, another Typhoon class strategic nuclear sub, the Karelia launched a very real ICBM. But it then developed erratic fluctuations and self-destructed, according to Russian accounts.

The problems could not have come at a more embarrassing moment for the Russian Navy. Putin, proudly clad in naval officer's gear and insignia, was observing the exercises in person.


Source

It should also be noted that navl nuclear forces are considered the first strike platforms because of their unknown location versus land based ICBM silos. Not good for Russia, though they did fire an ICBM a few months (or was it weeks - I forget) that worked.

The point is that their military is not very reliable - something that is more then a little important in nuclear war.



You are saying that nuclear war is not anything to worry about. You are wrong.


Not at all. My point is that a nuclear war between Russia/China and the US is very unlikely, and more over more likely to be "won" (the term is relative) by the US do to the superior numerical and technological weapons the US has.



Nuclear war due to accident is much more likely than purposeful launch as I have explained in other posts. It's stunning to me that you can toss out such blanket statements about what is surely the biggest threat to the human race. Your theory (stated elsewhere) that since the 'leaders' are in control of nukes there will not be a launch is also wrong.

World War Three will involve nuclear exchange. That's what war is: All the weapons get used. Nothing stays on the shelf.
[edit on 4-2-2005 by smallpeeps]


What I posted on here had nothing to do with accidental launch. It was directed at the assertation that Russia and China would purposefully go to nuclear war with the US and more so attacked the idea that somehow Russia and China would win (Again in relative terms).

I must also dissagree with the statement that in war, nothing stays on the shelf. That is completely untrue. The US has gone to war in Iraq and has kept many of it's weapons unused. The same was true in GW1, Vietnam and Korea.

But, like i said, what is more relavent to this discusion is:

Why is Russia and China going to thermonuclear war with the United States? Over Iran? Why then? Oil? There are other places for both to get oil, and besides, what good is oil when your industrial base is non existant from nuclear war?

Basically, this idea that Russia and China would go nuclear over Iran has little if any reasoning behind it.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoobCommando
American Mad Man, you really expect me to fall for that, without providing any evidence to back it up. Are you basically saying to me that the majority of Russian ICBMs are useless, and that they know this? I think not.


Read the link provided above. No - I do not think the majority of Russians ICBMs are useless. In fact, I made sure to say otherwise. Please read my whole post and understand what I am saying. I said that the combined effects of their lack of upkeep and unreliable technology would cut the actual "usefull" amount of ICBMs (AKA those that would in the end actually hit their target, taking into account mechanical failure, computing failure, human error, etc) would limit their effectiveness. And yes, they do know this. Many Russian generals have been complaining for YEARS about their lack of funding/upkeep. That is not to say that their military is weak or anything, it is to say that of their vast military power, a large part of it will fail.



Also, if you actually read my post, I was simply saying that like any other "dictactor" who wants to rule solely without threat from other major powers, such as the US, then it could be in their interest to destroy them. Look at the underground complexes in Russia today. They can withstand something like 50+ direct nuclear hits. They also have large nuclear bunkers to house hundreds of thousands of their citizens incase of nuclear war - they are still working on these to, but wheres the threat?


First off, drop your anti-American slant. The US is not a "dictator" has never been a "dictator" and will not (in the near and medium term at least) ever be a "dictator". And no, it would NEVER be in Americas intrest to attack Russia - what part of MAD do you not understand??? (I guess the Mutual part)

Also on a side note, I guess you missed the thread where the US is designing bunker busting Nukes. By the way, a nuclear bunker in no way could survive multiple direct hits from todays nuclear weapons.



All I am saying is that you shouldn't discount anything that is possible, especially in this day and age when it comes to relations between other countries. These are dangerous times we live in, where everyone is looking other their shoulders and trying to protect "thier" interests.


In comparison with the last 100 years, this is the safest time in history. The chances for another WW are the lowest since te first one happened. The most dangerous times to lie were the second half of last century. You know - the cold war? When talk of WWIII was actually warented.




BTW, a bit of research on the topic, and you'll find that the majority of ICBMs in service today (in both Russia and US, as well as other nuclear nations) are very reliable, safe and accurate with much less radiation left behind. As I have said, everyday, with new technology coming along or advancing ie ABM systems, we will see an ever increasing threat of nations willing to use ICBMs, just like any other weapon developed in human history.


LOL - son, believe me, I know that which I speak of. You don't need to lecture me on the ability of todays nuclear arsenals. If these weapons are so reliable, then why is it the worlds second greatest nuclear power could not fire a single nuclear missle without failure when it had months to prepare? Not only that, but they were naval assets - clearly the most important of the nuclear trident. The fact is that any mechanical device as compleicated as an ICBM will have failures. That is the reason for stocking up on so many of them.

I believe the low radiation weapons you speak of are neutron bombs. If this is the case, it is actually quite the opposite. Nuetron bombs use high ammounts of radiation to kill people (usually to penetrate tanks and naval assets). However, a lot of the radiation released by the weapon is short lived, and the area covered by the nuetron and gama radiation is very small, allowing for the weapon to be the tactical nuclear weapon of choice. Thus, though the neutron bomb uses radiation as its main destructive force, since it has a relatively small radius that will be struck, and the radiation breaks down ver quickly - all coupled with a relatively small explosion - it is considered a weapon that can be used near populated areas.

As far as ABM systems, they will not make nuclear exchange between any two major powers more likely. There is no way that a system could be developed within the next 30 years that could shoot down 500+ ICBMs. It just doesn't work like that. The only thing ABM systems will do is deter minor nuclear powers (North Korea, Iran in the future) from launching their very limited numbers of ICBMs at other powers. It is one thing to shoot down 5-10 ICBM, it is entirely different to shoot down 100+ in a time span of 30 minutes.

[edit on 5-2-2005 by American Mad Man]

[edit on 5-2-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Correct me if im wrong but wouldnt lazers shoot donw missiles in 30 mins or pulse magnetic plasma guns????

also who knows whats really operational in secret now days you think we only have nukes an guns LOL bet your ass we dont 60+ years an no developments in weapons tech doubtful ( and dont say nukes have gotbetter an powerfull in those years, it deff dont take 60 years to max out your nuke tech, just look how long it took to build an invent em...)

who knows whats in space or even on moon or in orbit dark side of moon in secret, no one but goverment thats what.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
American Mad Man, what on Earth? Anit-American, dictactor, etc. You really need to learn to read my friend, because I wasn't talking about America in that paragraph, but about the Russian and Chinese leaders - geez. I hope you're not twisting my words on purpose.

ICBMs today ARE more reliable, accurate and safer than they ever have been in history, do you dispute this fact?

Dictactors are only interested in ruling and controlling people, keeping power and eliminating any threats to them, is this true in the majority of cases? If it is, do you believe that if a dictactor thought he and the majority of his people were safe enough from the effects, that he would not contemplate using nuclear weapons?

As for there being no other WW, ever, you are just kidding yourself, old man (I really hate it when people have to bring age in to a discussion, but hey, you started). These times are similar to the times before both WWs, many skirmishes, etc. I put my life on it that there WILL be another WW, maybe 10, 50, 100 or 1,000 yrs from now, but there will, it is human nature to start conflict, it certainly doesn't look any more peaceful today than any other time in history.

Also, the failures you have assigned to Russian ICBMs also happen with US ICBMs. Russia is very advanced in rocket technology, and I believe they are on par with their US counterparts, whether you like to admit it or not. ICBMs are still very accurate and effective, and I am sure that both sides have enough ICBMs to assign a few extra to each target of their targets.

Anyways, one story about a few failures isn't much to go by any means. All militaries, government and even people have their good and bad days.

Please understand that these are just possibilities, thats all!



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blobby 2
Correct me if im wrong but wouldnt lazers shoot donw missiles in 30 mins or pulse magnetic plasma guns????

also who knows whats really operational in secret now days you think we only have nukes an guns LOL bet your ass we dont 60+ years an no developments in weapons tech doubtful ( and dont say nukes have gotbetter an powerfull in those years, it deff dont take 60 years to max out your nuke tech, just look how long it took to build an invent em...)

who knows whats in space or even on moon or in orbit dark side of moon in secret, no one but goverment thats what.


The problem is not so much the weapons to shoot down the ICBMs, but rather the abillity to track and target them especially in large numbers.

In a nuclear exchange with Russia, we would see hundreds if not thousands (depending on who launched first) of missles shot at us. That means you would need at the very least a few hundred weapon platforms to take them out, a huge global tracking and targeting system....

It's just too much as of now. Shooting down hundreds or thousands of missles traveling at Mach 25+ is just not going to happen between today technology and the funding it would take to get a system that could reasonably be relied on to intercept say 70% of incoming missles.

It's funny you mention those two weapons though, beause a lot of headway is being made.

If you are interested in the subject, I would check out this thread.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoobCommando
American Mad Man, what on Earth? Anit-American, dictactor, etc. You really need to learn to read my friend, because I wasn't talking about America in that paragraph, but about the Russian and Chinese leaders - geez. I hope you're not twisting my words on purpose.


My mistake - I missread what you said.



ICBMs today ARE more reliable, accurate and safer than they ever have been in history, do you dispute this fact?


For the US, UK, France and Isreal? No - not at all. However, I believe that Russian equipment is not that reliable. In fact, I would not be surprised if it were less reliable then during the early 80's. The Russian military base has been neglected, and muh of their equipment is canabalized for parts to get others to work. They also lack funding and training.

The accuracy has improved, obviously... and as for safety, who knows - no one can get near a nuclear missle silo in China or Russia.



Dictactors are only interested in ruling and controlling people, keeping power and eliminating any threats to them, is this true in the majority of cases? If it is, do you believe that if a dictactor thought he and the majority of his people were safe enough from the effects, that he would not contemplate using nuclear weapons?


No, he would not. It would be counterproductive to himself. His entire country would be ruined - what good is being a dictator if your land is glowing and covered in nuclear fallout?

The only time one would is if they were the leader of a minor nuclear power (Kim in Korea for instance) and they were being attacked by a more powerfull country (US). Then they would have no choice but to be overrun by a superior military or level the playing field wth nukes. Of course, this would be suicide as well, since the US would respond in kind.


As for there being no other WW, ever, you are just kidding yourself, old man (I really hate it when people have to bring age in to a discussion, but hey, you started). These times are similar to the times before both WWs, many skirmishes, etc. I put my life on it that there WILL be another WW, maybe 10, 50, 100 or 1,000 yrs from now, but there will, it is human nature to start conflict, it certainly doesn't look any more peaceful today than any other time in history.

I do not doubt there will be another world war. History repeats it's self. But now is not the time. And Iran is clearly not going to be what sparks it.



Also, the failures you have assigned to Russian ICBMs also happen with US ICBMs. Russia is very advanced in rocket technology, and I believe they are on par with their US counterparts, whether you like to admit it or not. ICBMs are still very accurate and effective, and I am sure that both sides have enough ICBMs to assign a few extra to each target of their targets.

Anyways, one story about a few failures isn't much to go by any means. All militaries, government and even people have their good and bad days.

Please understand that these are just possibilities, thats all!

Yes failures do happen on both sides. I fully support and admit that. However, there is a difference. For the US or UK, having a missle failure in war games usually doesn't happen. It's the exception not the rule. In Russia, it was the rule. This is not coincidental. The US is a lot better at maintaning it' sytems and gives them better financial support.

Russian missles are superior in their payload, but are far behind in accuracy. The US, like I said, has about a 10 meter area that the missle will hit. The Russians is much larger because they use only inertial navigation while the US uses that as well as GPS.

And while I understand that this is simple discusion, I think it is absurd to suggest that a global power such as China or Russia would go to nuclear war over Iran. I give the much more credit then that.

[edit on 5-2-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

World War Definition:

A World War is a military conflict spanning more than 2 continents, in which at least 20 major countries participate in an attack against a common enemy, and which has the attention of the man-in-the-street due to the significant loss of life.



Dictionary's version is a bit different.



1 entry found for world war.

world war

n : a war in which the major nations of the world are involved



According to this site there are 29 countries that currently have troops in Iraq, some of which have only deployed low numbers of troops but their participation is still counted. I guess all the major nations of the world are involed in this war somehow aswell, even if they arent actually fighting in it yet.

So judging by both definitions i conclude this is pretty much the beggining of World War III.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   
MERC

While it may fit a definition, I don't believe it in any way compares to the spirit of what a world war is.

By that definition, we are currently on something like WW38 (UN/NATO intervention...)



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Instead of Russia and China joining forces and launching attacks on America as would probably be in the best interest of the world, wouldnt it be ironic if, say, China backstabs Russia and obliterates their entire military with the same weapons they actually purchased from them? Or Russia could nuke China, China could conduct an invasion of Russia using it's unsurpassable manpower, and it would be hell on both sides of the table. Then, after millions are dead and both sides are war-weary and eager for an end to conflict, the U.S. can come in under the banner of "peace-keeper" and everything will be just fine. Another giant leap for the New World Order.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Im gonna start this off by saying that the only thing that will qualify a war as a "World War" is when everyone refers to it as such.

The economies of all the major nations are very strongly dependant on each ohter now, so any kind of rash action by a world power is unlikely. It would be suicidal for the U.S to engage China because our economy relies on us getting cheap goods from their factories, and China needs the multi trillion U.S. dollars that it earns each year as we buy the cheap things that they are making. In the maybe not too distant future, as oil becomes more expensive and scarce, some economies may be on the brink of collapse form a lack of cheap energy and so then may turn to using their military options to secure needed raw materials. As for the U.S. invading Iran I dont see how it would even be possible right now because we simply dont have the ground forces which would be necessary to maintain stability although the more frequent mentioning of Iran in the news by the govt is kind of unsettling.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Hey...
If you classifly the cold war as actually being WWIII,
then The War of 1812 was WW1
WW1 was WW2
WW2 was WW3
Cold War was WWIV
And this is WWV.

Interesting



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join