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.

 

Global War - WWIII: How close are we?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   
I wasn't suggesting that nuclear devices will be the primary weapon employed during WW3. In my scenario, such weapons would be used strategically, kind of a "shock and awe" thing. While the Americans are running about trying to figure out what's going on possibly with their defense communications network down, enemy soldiers could be landing on the shores and parachuting from the sky. Nuclear weapons are too useful to pass up, I think. The enemy could destroy everything the opposition has, or the enemy could only use such weapons on a small number of sites in order to conquer and control easier. It just seems logical to me, and a convenient tactic.

Sure, biological or chemical warfare may be used, it's not like it hasn't been done before. It wouldn't be that terribly difficult either, infect some of your own with something, send them over to your enemies land, and wait for them to weaken, cheap, effective, but a little more dangerous and underhanded than nuclear weapons. It would seem to me that an attack of that sort wouldn't occur until well past the beginning of the war though, when desperation sets in. A stalemate or a nation about to fall just might fight in that way.

I really don’t think Australia will be a reason for the WW3 getting underway. I can’t think of a motive, but that could change, and perhaps you will turn out to be right. In that case, Australia does store a lot of American biological agents, I believe. An insane leader could at any time rise up, take control of US biological supplies and “cleanse the world of non-Aussie filth.” I don’t believe Australia currently has the ability to distribute enough of that stuff throughout the world to keep itself from being destroyed in retaliation at this time though, luckily.

Because of the fact that a world war would include super powers, it is my opinion those super powers would play a vital role in such a war, and one or more super powers would have even played a vital role in instigating that war. You never know though, perhaps mighty Bhutan will launch an attack on Monaco triggering a war which engulfs the world someday. From high atop the mountains, the people of Bhutan could be plotting “the last fight.” The majority of the worlds’ soldiers fighting that war might die not because of bullets, but laughter as they think how ironic it is how it all began, an all too serious ending to a comical beginning. You’re absolutely right, it could happen.




posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkyFox2
I really don’t think Australia will be a reason for the WW3 getting underway. I can’t think of a motive, but that could change, and perhaps you will turn out to be right. In that case, Australia does store a lot of American biological agents, I believe. An insane leader could at any time rise up, take control of US biological supplies and “cleanse the world of non-Aussie filth.” I don’t believe Australia currently has the ability to distribute enough of that stuff throughout the world to keep itself from being destroyed in retaliation at this time though, luckily.



i nearly did myself a mischeif at the non-Aussie filth comment.

I would`nt have even entertained the idea that Australia could or would start WWW3 i dont think anyone really takes us seriously,i dont think we even take ourselves that serious,i mean come on take a look at our PM
sorry Jonny but your a goofy lookin fella



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkyFox2
I wasn't suggesting that nuclear devices will be the primary weapon employed during WW3. In my scenario, such weapons would be used strategically, kind of a "shock and awe" thing. While the Americans are running about trying to figure out what's going on possibly with their defense communications network down, enemy soldiers could be landing on the shores and parachuting from the sky. Nuclear weapons are too useful to pass up, I think. The enemy could destroy everything the opposition has, or the enemy could only use such weapons on a small number of sites in order to conquer and control easier. It just seems logical to me, and a convenient tactic.

Ok. I agree. It was more a question than a challenge, cause eveyone kept going on about Nukes, while there's so much more that could bring destruction.


Originally posted by SkyFox2
Because of the fact that a world war would include super powers, it is my opinion those super powers would play a vital role in such a war, and one or more super powers would have even played a vital role in instigating that war. You never know though, perhaps mighty Bhutan will launch an attack on Monaco triggering a war which engulfs the world someday. From high atop the mountains, the people of Bhutan could be plotting “the last fight.” The majority of the worlds’ soldiers fighting that war might die not because of bullets, but laughter as they think how ironic it is how it all began, an all too serious ending to a comical beginning. You’re absolutely right, it could happen.

LoL... Australia was just a random example... And do I sense some sarcasm...

My point was and still is that everyone is looking at the "big players" to cause WW3 and/or armageddon... But I can speak from what I know... South Africa has nuclear capability... We don't know what's going on in the small brooding countries living their humble lives... That's why the "sleeping dragon" reference...



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
i nearly did myself a mischeif at the non-Aussie filth comment.

I would`nt have even entertained the idea that Australia could or would start WWW3 i dont think anyone really takes us seriously,i dont think we even take ourselves that serious,i mean come on take a look at our PM
sorry Jonny but your a goofy lookin fella


Australia is a nation which could become very threatening very quickly. I wouldn't be too terribly surprised to see your country rise up and become a super power itself. Australia seems a lot like where the US was before WW1. Canada probably could do the same, anyone ever wonder if it might be Canada who starts the brawl? I'm not trying to point fingers by the way, but while we're on the topic of countries which one wouldn't suspect....



Originally posted by Gemwolf

Ok. I agree. It was more a question than a challenge, cause eveyone kept going on about Nukes, while there's so much more that could bring destruction.


I wasn’t taking it as a challenge, I understood why you asked. Nuclear weapons are an over used topic of discussion and are pushed pretty hard at times, but the reason for that is they’re such a destructive force. The USSR put the fear of ICBMs in the world, and the Cold War legacy lives on. It’s just what people associate with WW3, and for good reason. You might say it’s a good thing though, if it wasn’t for nuclear deterrence I’d be willing to bet a lot more bloody battles would’ve been fought in our recent past than there have been.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
LoL... Australia was just a random example... And do I sense some sarcasm...

My point was and still is that everyone is looking at the "big players" to cause WW3 and/or armageddon... But I can speak from what I know... South Africa has nuclear capability... We don't know what's going on in the small brooding countries living their humble lives... That's why the "sleeping dragon" reference...


Yeah there was a little bit of sarcasm implied, but I do agree with you, it's a very good point. Germany, France, Rome, they all nearly conquered Europe, but look at them now, and look at them before. They did it once, they could do it again…but how much do you fear the city of Rome today? We probably shouldn’t only reserve our paranoia for those who look threatening now, when even Caesar was a child at one point. Deny ignorance, right?



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
The temptation to use nuclear warfare is in place........that's why it could result in the defining exchange of conflict in WW3.........

for instance...........the US (cheny) has already explained that if we experience another 9/11 hit in this country that the US will retaliate against Iran (what's the logic here?).........and that since we are strained in troop personnel and many of Iran's nuclear sites are buried in mountains where conventional bombs are not effective that we would utilize "tactical nuclear" weapons to destroy those sites (we designing and building such devices in the US as we speak).........

.......now that's a problem that can lead to an escalation of nuclear exchange........

China threaten the US with nuclear exchange from one of their generals recently over the conflict of Tiawan.............China does not have the navy to deploy conventional warfare to other parts of the World and would have to make up the difference by launching nuclear weapons instead.......

.....now that's a problem that can lead to an escalation of nuclear exchange.........

Other countries with nuclear weapons but clearly lack the budget for convential strength in warfare........ie Indian, Pakistan for example would be tempted to defend themselves with such devices.............

.......now that's a problem that can lead to an escalation of nuclear exchange.........

When Bush says that "all options are on the table" regarding potential conflicts in the World, particularly with the axis of evil countries, well then there is a provision for nuclear weapons being used as an option..............

...............now that's a problem that can lead to an escalation of nuclear exchange.........

There are many other situations but the above outline some of the reasons why governments and nation states would opt for the insanity of gambling away society with a WW3 fought primarily with nuclear weapons instead of conventional forces.......

"War is an illness developed from childhood" - Albert Einstein




top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join