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.

 

Wolrd War Three Scenario - Possible?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I want to know what you guys and gals think about the below possibilities. Feedback please…

--------------------------------

I think Russia has been losing power decade after decade since WWII. I think they have always looked at ways in which they can regain/remain/rearrange world power in their favor.

I think 9/11 was an opportunity for Russia. Did Russia do what the US did in the past, sponsor OBL to commit 9/11? Maybe or maybe not, but Russia is using 9/11 as an opportunity to shift world power.

Why would Russia do this? Well, they didn't get blamed for 9/11. What a brilliant way to start/fight a war, get rouge countries to act out. The world accepted war in Afghanistan as retaliation for 9/11. The world really didn't support the war in Iraq; the US bullied the world into agreement and now we know the smoking guns were all rigged. The US looked too aggressive for the world's comfort.

Now two other countries, the remainder of the axis of evil, are pushing the US toward more war. The US is becoming to look like a world police regime. This only gives the other world powers like Russia and China a way to get world support to stop the US police state and create a new world order.

I think Russia has already negotiated and updated war agreements with China, to defend and support each other in the event either country is invaded. The US activity in their backyard should be very concerning to both countries.

I think Russia has also negotiated agreements with the two remaining axis of evil countries, North Korea and Iran. Russia would never fight a US led invasion for either country, but Russia could agree to directly or indirectly support both countries within the UN and international communities along with China. (Russia and China can delay UN actions without being obvious). This would give both axis countries time to develop their nuclear weapons, boosting their egos and confidence with their Russia/China support, and continue to act defensively and defiantly against an aggressive US.

Something is making North Korea and Iran feel righteous in their activities. Why should they conform to US or EU terms when they have the “illusion” of support from Russia, backed by China? Eventually the US may have to take military action in one of the two countries; making the US look even more like a police state.

This gives Russia and China the ability to sway world opinion. It gives them the ability to cry foul again the US, getting other countries to see the US as the newest threat since the Nazis. If the US keeps changing regimes, governments or maybe one man is going to start saying NO.

When the US looks bad enough, Russia will come forward to get support to take action against the US. Perhaps they will start by using the system to bring sanctions against the US, gaining more and more support from other countries. Perhaps they already have enough support and will just suddenly proceed with military operations.

Eventually the Russian alliance will attack the US with missiles. No ground invasion, no WMD (because the US never would dare to commit first strike when missiles are already showering down onto its soil), just months and months of missile attacks targeting one US government facility after another. The Russians know they are in for a long bombardment.

Then Israel freaks out over the outbreak of World War an allegedly nuclear Iran sitting next door. With US forces caught up fighting for their own homeland, Israel chooses a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran. It is an Israeli attempt to stop Iran from using its WMD while threaten/teaching other Muslim countries not to attack them during this time of war.

Russia reacts to Israel’s first strike. Since Israel is the first country to commit first strike during this war, Russia will teach the world’s nuclear powers a lesson by instantly destroy the country. Not with one nuke, but multiple nuclear detonations. Russia’s war plans contain a nuclear contingency plan to prevent the use of WMD by totally annihilating and destroying the country that commits first strike; no other country would dare attempt to commit a second nuclear strike after knowing the results of the first.

Eventually the Chinese break their alliance with Russia by turning against them in the later stages of this war.

This is as much as I am aware of.

-------------------------------------

What do you think of the above War scenario? Possible?

Leon S. L.




posted on May, 16 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
STOP BLAMING THE RUSSIANS

ever since the cold war : look my ballon popped answer russians did it
know you trying to blame 9/11 on russians wow you are an idiot. did you know almost 150 workers in the world trade center were russian or from russian descnt? and did you know that your the ultimate russian sterotype? im serios after the cold war 50% of books and movies had russians as bad guys. no we dont want to start wwIII and no we are not palnning an invasion or bombing. would you idiots plz stop blaming the russians?



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I said 9/11 was an opprotunity for Russia.

The US trained OBL to fight against the Russians. It is that crazy to suggest that other world contries would operate the same way, by operating through rouge countries

Just cause Americans have been racist againts Russians doesn't automatically make the Russian governemnt peaceful or honest. When looking at the motives of the world's powers, should I not even think about Russia cause people from the 50's were paranoind and racest toward them about them?

Russia and the US have been known to fight against each other through other wars - like Bosnia. This is nothing new. Even Geraldo Rivera saw Russian troops fighting aginst US interests in Bosnia.



[edit on 16-5-2005 by psychicmind]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Dude, this is bogus. First off, I worked at the Pentagon for the Secretary of Defense (Cowen and Rumsfeld) and this is never going to happen. Do you have any idea of the inaccuracy of soviet era nukes? They are on the scale of trying to hit the city of LA and landing in San Fran. Maybe a slight exageration but not by much. Our nuclear options are much more accurate. We can put a tactical nuke inside your bedroom. With the ground penetration feature we have incorporated, we can destroy "nuke proof" bunkers very easily. I haven't posted on this site too many times because I don't want it known what positions I have held as an Air Force member, but now I am being medically separated and can talk to a limited extent (no classified stuff). A real scenario is more like, we get the crap beat out of us economically. We have bad blood between us and the rest of the world for the most part and they can easily punish us using the TWO. As for military might, we beat all comers hands down. We have proved it time and again through two world wars multiple conflicts other than war and can do it again if the liberal media (and LOAC) would just let us take the gloves off. If someone nuked us or even sent a single missile our way that was identifiable as one from a recognized state, we would pound them (then rebuild them). If we fight anyone it will be China over Taiwan. I see Japan and the Aussies backing us up, as this is thier back yard. India could help out if we just got off our asses and committed to them instead of a terror infiltrated state like Pakistan. I know, I know "but they are our friends", so was the Shah of Iran and look what happened there. Same situation in Pakistan today. You have intel folks (and other in important positions) who are crazy fundamentalists who are thwarting any real search for bin laden. A less know area of contention that could draw us into war is the south china seas and natural gas fields. This area is claimed by many coutries and if the middle east goes up in flames (one way or another) this is a good source for contention.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Sorry for all the typos.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I'm asking about this because I'm worried about clairvoyant impressions and lucid dreams I've had and about this. I'm not a military employee nor do I have a PHD in world history - I'm ignorant about things which is why I would post something like this here. I'm just as skeptical at any of you might be

I've had enough experience with my precognition to know it can be deadly accurate, but of all of my abilities, precognition is the most mysterious and confusing and I can misinterpret things eaisly. I'm just trying to understand this information for myself.

I want you just to give me logical reasons why this scenario won't and can't happen (without calling me an idiot, thank you very much). Where I'm ignorant about military/history/etc. please fill me in and explain so I can be a little more knowledgeable about the world we live in.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
psychicmind,
Look, I didn't call you an "idiot". I said your hypothosis is flawed. I don't have a good take on any psychic stuff (read I don't believe in it). I don't know all things nor do I claim to. What I do have is current threat assessments of world governments. I did have access to code word classified information and do know how these people in our government think. So my posts are relavent in the terms of our current state of affairs. Sorry if you got the impression I was bagging on you.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Thanks Dude, I like your answers and I have a few more questions.



Dude, this is bogus. First off, I worked at the Pentagon for the Secretary of Defense (Cowen and Rumsfeld) and this is never going to happen. Do you have any idea of the inaccuracy of soviet era nukes? They are on the scale of trying to hit the city of LA and landing in San Fran. Maybe a slight exageration but not by much. Our nuclear options are much more accurate. We can put a tactical nuke inside your bedroom. With the ground penetration feature we have incorporated, we can destroy "nuke proof" bunkers very easily.


So you are saying that the reason this would never happen is because our nuclear technology poses a greater deterrent to any country, in this case Russia?



I haven't posted on this site too many times because I don't want it known what positions I have held as an Air Force member, but now I am being medically separated and can talk to a limited extent (no classified stuff).


Even more reason to take your info into consideration.



A real scenario is more like, we get the crap beat out of us economically. We have bad blood between us and the rest of the world for the most part and they can easily punish us using the TWO.


This is a similar energy that I'm seeing. Who would push this through the world system? That would be a shift in power and world attitude toward the US.



As for military might, we beat all comers hands down. We have proved it time and again through two world wars multiple conflicts other than war and can do it again if the liberal media (and LOAC) would just let us take the gloves off. If someone nuked us or even sent a single missile our way that was identifiable as one from a recognized state, we would pound them (then rebuild them).


Yes, I know this. It's part of the reason governments are making minor moves through other countries. Anyone who directly attacked the US or any nuclear power would get a good kick in the butt. It's more of a reason to use covert methods to shift world view. Make the world view the US an enemy to the world before attacking.

I'm not worried about the US being nuked. Just getting a missile strike that triggers a war. I don't think the US would instantly respond to a missile attack from three countries with a nuclear attack back (at least not in the first few weeks). We would probably respond with a much stronger, but similar attack back.

In this scenario, immediately after the first air strikes, the US would respond with equal, but greater missile attacks to the various states (making sure to hit hard, but not escalate it to the level of WMD) while at the same time organizing it's troops into two major places 1) Within the US homeland and 2) Mobilizing their military might in Asia.

The above could take weeks. Israel would be scared in this situation. They might use the situation to take out Iran if they feel threatened while intimidating and deterring their neighbors. The US might even back Israel’s use of nukes (publicly or privately) just so the US would avoid first strike. Why should the US risk first strike retaliation if Israel is willing to try first.

A lot can happen in a short period of time. The world might not jump right in and help us right away and if our allies see Israel melt within the first few weeks. They might think twice about supporting a country being attacked by another who has proven its willingness to use nukes.

And just for clarity-

I don't see the US loosing and Russia/China winning. I see us defending ourselves quite well. The US will take care of its own and the loss of civilian life is incredibly low. I’ve seen the US hitting very hard in Asia and the Middle East. Don’t assume the US is weak in this scenario

My problem, I see things escalating very quickly and peaking with Israel’s destruction. I don’t know where it goes from there.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
ROMAD - I didn't say you called me an idiot. Actually I said I liked your answers and had a few more questions

areyosicker used the idiot term

[edit on 16-5-2005 by psychicmind]

[edit on 16-5-2005 by psychicmind]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   


I said 9/11 was an opprotunity for Russia.

it was an opporrtunity for anyone. for all we know it could have been osama and china and you know what maybe it could have been osama(or watever)with russia im jsut saying stop pointing the finger at russia. and i did call you an idiot but was pissed so sry.
but dont you blame russia again without proof



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
OK - That's cool! I'm just asking for constructive feedback which I'm getting. I've lurked here enough to know I'll get a good reality check from you guys here.

I'm still interested in other people's feedback.



[edit on 16-5-2005 by psychicmind]

[edit on 16-5-2005 by psychicmind]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I'm worried that you might actually be serious. If this is a joke it's certainly oblique and lost on me.

Russia is desparately trying to hang onto its local sphere of influence & using the 'War on Terror' justification you've provided to bomb the sh1t out of anyone it can. Bush turns a blind eye to crimes like Chechnya as to criticise would open up criticism of his own bogus justifications.

Russia is no threat to the US - it's not the same the other way 'round. They kept their nuclear forces because you have yours. You have airbases as close to Russia as Uzbeckistan, their nearest base to you is in ... Uzbeckistan

The US is still obsessed with the Russians.

When the Russians drove 100+ miles into Kosovo in one night US General Clark(e?) ordered UK Gen Mike Jackson to head them off, at night.
Jackson replied to a direct order saying 'No. I refuse. I'm not starting WW3 for you. We'll go over in the morning and say 'Hello'. Unsubstantiated reports say he included the traditional UK Army phrase for 'no' namely - F*ckOff!

www.the7thfire.com...

www.tradingtimes.co.uk...

(doesn't include the sex&travel comment)

Now that's hardcore. Jackson's still in the Army, Clarke was IIRC an unsuccessful US presidential candidate. There but for Mike Jackson go all of us.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Russia and Osama? wasn't Osama trained to fight the soviets? but then again he was trained to keep american interests. As for a third world war. Russia's much too weak now to take on half the world. If any country was to try it would haveto be either the US or China. And as for current events it'll be more likely to be the US.

Despite their obvious differences, Russia and China have fairly close military alliances. For this reason, and for their close proximity they would more than likely back china over the US. As for the rest of the world, well US support is slowly dwindelling to nothingness. Granted you've still got lots of support, but if they keep up the charade of being world police (the violent type) well then sooner or later countries will start making alliances to keep american aggression to a minimum, and if anyone over exagerates their military prowess well then thats gotta be America. And as for first strikes, well i think america takes the cake again.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   


I'm worried that you might actually be serious. If this is a joke it's certainly oblique and lost on me.

Russia is desparately trying to hang onto its local sphere of influence & using the 'War on Terror' justification you've provided to bomb the sh1t out of anyone it can. Bush turns a blind eye to crimes like Chechnya as to criticise would open up criticism of his own bogus justifications.

Russia is no threat to the US - it's not the same the other way 'round. They kept their nuclear forces because you have yours. You have airbases as close to Russia as Uzbeckistan, their nearest base to you is in ... Uzbeckistan

The US is still obsessed with the Russians.


What you are saying makes crystal clear sense to me.

I agree that the US is the biggest threat and not just to Russia either. I think Russia must know this and have contingency plans in place. Russia may not be the first aggressor as the above implies. Perhaps the Russian plan suggested above is more defensive.

If North Korea actually does something to lead the US to invade, and Russia and China are not in agreement with those actions, it could cause a defensive reaction with both Russia and China that escalates out of control.

Perhaps the above scenario isn’t master minded by governments. Maybe it’s just series of events and reactions that unfold.

It bothers me though.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Don't honestly think Russia would risk Russia for N Korea or anyone else. Russia will only risk 'the motherland' if it's attacked directly. Bearing in mind their WW2 experience I think they know the real cost of total war which few others (Germany excepted) can begin to grasp.

The only danger is if Cheney & co see weakness they'll try and topple Russia for 'old times sake', hence the occasional sabre-rattling and retention of nuclear capability by Ivan. Assuming the US doesn't attack them first I don't think they'll be the agressor.

The other scenario that bothers me though is the US putting a USAF base in Uzbeckistan (Russia's back yard). With the Russian Air Force having a base in the same country the danger of some jet jockey blasting a Mig down is a very real one. If that happens just pray the hotline's still connected!

Trust me they want EU membership (ie money) far more than they want war.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
i agree russia at this time can not start a ww3 but it does have the wordls largest submarine fleet(or whatever they call a groupof subs) so it can help or defned it self if nessacery
btw Doorak in russian your name means stupid.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ROMAD
Dude, this is bogus. First off, I worked at the Pentagon for the Secretary of Defense (Cowen and Rumsfeld) and this is never going to happen. Do you have any idea of the inaccuracy of soviet era nukes? They are on the scale of trying to hit the city of LA and landing in San Fran. Maybe a slight exageration but not by much. Our nuclear options are much more accurate. We can put a tactical nuke inside your bedroom. With the ground penetration feature we have incorporated, we can destroy "nuke proof" bunkers very easily. I haven't posted on this site too many times because I don't want it known what positions I have held as an Air Force member, but now I am being medically separated and can talk to a limited extent (no classified stuff). A real scenario is more like, we get the crap beat out of us economically. We have bad blood between us and the rest of the world for the most part and they can easily punish us using the TWO. As for military might, we beat all comers hands down. We have proved it time and again through two world wars multiple conflicts other than war and can do it again if the liberal media (and LOAC) would just let us take the gloves off. If someone nuked us or even sent a single missile our way that was identifiable as one from a recognized state, we would pound them (then rebuild them). If we fight anyone it will be China over Taiwan. I see Japan and the Aussies backing us up, as this is thier back yard. India could help out if we just got off our asses and committed to them instead of a terror infiltrated state like Pakistan. I know, I know "but they are our friends", so was the Shah of Iran and look what happened there. Same situation in Pakistan today. You have intel folks (and other in important positions) who are crazy fundamentalists who are thwarting any real search for bin laden. A less know area of contention that could draw us into war is the south china seas and natural gas fields. This area is claimed by many coutries and if the middle east goes up in flames (one way or another) this is a good source for contention.


Why do all americans sound like you, boys dressed up like cowboys and looking to kill some indians. Its really sad n pathetic that people like u r terrorizing the world.
We only know the tip of the iceberg of all political games being played, and the US are the biggest and meanest players of them all.
I dont need hard evidence to know what is going on, i have the brains and the insight to see what only a few people see....and its not a pretty sight.

Blind nationalism en patriotism is so retarded, and doesnt belong in the 21 century.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by motionknight

Originally posted by ROMAD
Dude, this is bogus. First off, I worked at the Pentagon for the Secretary of Defense (Cowen and Rumsfeld) and this is never going to happen. Do you have any idea of the inaccuracy of soviet era nukes? They are on the scale of trying to hit the city of LA and landing in San Fran. Maybe a slight exageration but not by much. Our nuclear options are much more accurate. We can put a tactical nuke inside your bedroom. With the ground penetration feature we have incorporated, we can destroy "nuke proof" bunkers very easily. I haven't posted on this site too many times because I don't want it known what positions I have held as an Air Force member, but now I am being medically separated and can talk to a limited extent (no classified stuff). A real scenario is more like, we get the crap beat out of us economically. We have bad blood between us and the rest of the world for the most part and they can easily punish us using the TWO. As for military might, we beat all comers hands down. We have proved it time and again through two world wars multiple conflicts other than war and can do it again if the liberal media (and LOAC) would just let us take the gloves off. If someone nuked us or even sent a single missile our way that was identifiable as one from a recognized state, we would pound them (then rebuild them). If we fight anyone it will be China over Taiwan. I see Japan and the Aussies backing us up, as this is thier back yard. India could help out if we just got off our asses and committed to them instead of a terror infiltrated state like Pakistan. I know, I know "but they are our friends", so was the Shah of Iran and look what happened there. Same situation in Pakistan today. You have intel folks (and other in important positions) who are crazy fundamentalists who are thwarting any real search for bin laden. A less know area of contention that could draw us into war is the south china seas and natural gas fields. This area is claimed by many coutries and if the middle east goes up in flames (one way or another) this is a good source for contention.


Why do all americans sound like you, boys dressed up like cowboys and looking to kill some indians. Its really sad n pathetic that people like u r terrorizing the world.
We only know the tip of the iceberg of all political games being played, and the US are the biggest and meanest players of them all.
I dont need hard evidence to know what is going on, i have the brains and the insight to see what only a few people see....and its not a pretty sight.

Blind nationalism en patriotism is so retarded, and doesnt belong in the 21 century.


How is it blind nationalism to be proud of the history and traditions of your nation? BTW I am native american, you self inflated boob.

What I have done in the defense of an ideal called freedom you only scorn. Your reply is childish and ignorant. It is typical of the activists of our time. Uneducated except in the extremist views of thier professors who are themselves inflated on thier own ego's. If you knew the peace of mind that the righteous have you would envy how well we sleep. Instead you choose the path of denial of historical facts and evidence that is presented to you in a fashion that is unequivical and profound. Blinding and conforting yourself in the lies you repeat to makes your rants viable.

As to veracity of my claims, I worked at the highest level of government. Can you say the same? I thought not. Next.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by areyosicker
i agree russia at this time can not start a ww3 but it does have the wordls largest submarine fleet(or whatever they call a groupof subs) so it can help or defned it self if nessacery
btw Doorak in russian your name means stupid.


Not so I'm afraid

www.bellona.no...

When quality is taken into account it's even less balanced - Russian subs are noisy and therfore find it very difficult to go undetected (essential in a SSBN). A fair bet is there are one / two at most that aren't known to US/UK attack submarines - that's not enough when there are at least 15 Ohios out there (12 US / 3 UK - of 15/4 respectively) which Ivan can't find.

BTW China has one SSBN so for 25% of the time they, in effect, have none



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Don't know much about the fleet but I've got the Air Force angle. Good post BTW and relevent.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join