Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Would the U.S. be on the winning side of WWIII?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   
For a group of people who pride ourselves on understanding the actions of our world leaders, we do appear very blind at times.
If there has been one constant in western politics its the necessity to have a boogeyman . A threatening force apposed to our way of life , and our quest for so called peace.
As soon as the cold war ended we found our new nemesis in the shape of Saddam Hussein . 2 wars later, and with the injection of global terrorism Russia is being thrown back into the melting pot.
Its all so hysterical , what i find funny is the fact they still use this technique even though as a collective, we are becoming ever more informed as to the methods used to keep us submissive.
I think nuclear weapons are a thorn in the side of our self proclaimed masters. No one would profit from WW3 and there will be no beneficiaries of such a conflict, hence there will not be a WW3.

The next great battle we will face is the fight for Oil. Unless an alternative is found, oil is the ONLY catalyst for war amongst two nations such as The US and Russia.




posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


There would be NO winners in a WW 3 scenario. The title is very misleading - it's an insane concept.

Jimbo.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Burginthorn

I see either 1 of 2 things.

1. The U.S HAS U.F.O technology that its has kept secret from the world. We all know what these craft are capable of, and for a fleet of these craft, knocking out incoming nuclear missiles will be a walk in the park. MUCH faster than ANY nuke, and one craft alone could more than likely knock out multiple missiles before impact. Absolute control of the skies and everything in them, including missile technology. Which means the U.S can strut around the world stage with the mother of all aces up its sleeve without fear of reprisal from any country in the world regardless how many or how big they build their bombs.



Or maybe nothing will happen and we'll all have to go back to work on Monday ....


nonsense
using your logic , then Russia must be having Scalar wepaons to blast the UFo's out of the sky and the USA will surrender and then russia achieves world domination with nukes and scalar weapons

bah...



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bradenbeattie
If WWIII Breaks Out, I'm more than certain The US would come out on Top as usual. Regardless of How many ICBM's or Nuclear Missiles other countries have - The US is the only Nation I am aware of that have Space-Based Weapons Systems that can take out Guided Missiles before they even reach the continent. Not to mention the highly-advanced Military Technology the US has in their arsenal.

If just One of the Major US Cities is taken out by nukes - Killing hundreds of thousands - if not millions of innocent people - The UN would impose Immediate and Radical Sanctions against the Hostile Nation, and Every Democratic or Allied Nation on the Planet would be outraged. When it comes down to it - Launching A Nuke against allied countries would be virtual suicide for any nation - and every world leader knows this.


blah blah bla..../

nonsense
using your logic , then Russia must be having Scalar wepaons to blast the american UFo's and space weapons out of the sky and the USA will surrender and then russia achieves world domination with nukes and scalar weapons

bah...



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   
My thoughts.

WWIII is going to be the world vs the US. Bush & Co has managed to rack up quite the hatred for the United States. I see Russia and China teaming up, I see Venezuela playing a small part, possibly using Cuba as a staging point. N. Korea will take the opportunity to overtake the south with the US tied up already. Our only allies would be Australia and the UK. No point looking to the middle east for support. I think we've done enough damage over there. That would be more enemies. Israel will be tied up in their own war with Iran and Syria. Turkey, who is supposed to be an ally, would be occupied with fighting the Kurds.

I agree that there will be no winners, and only losers, but I think in the end, Europe and Africa, maybe Australia will account for the highest survival rates. If you don't mind the cold, maybe head up to northern Canada.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Do you believe you are one of the good guys?


Tough to say anymore. On 9/11 yes. Now, not so much....



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Nobody would be on a 'winning side'.
I reckon a chain event of nuclear blasts all over the world would render bragging rights non existent from any side.

The smacktalk is already over, ego's are in place and bombs are armed, its going to take just one little accusation like children do "they hit me first!" for it all to kick off.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeroGhost
 


You're absolutely right. There aren't any winners, just losers. And the chumps are the ones running these countries, including ours.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Of course, everyone loves America. Remember all our friends that went into Iraq with us?



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Thanks for the post jimbo,

I stood corrected on the first page when I realized that yes, there are no winners. I understand that.

But given the state of our foreign policy, and the war in Iraq, and strained relations with our allies, how do you think we would fare in the event of WW3? Would we be defeated?



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Iran must see only hypocrisy from the world's nuclear powers
Israel has been developing nuclear material since 1958, the country has never formally acknowledged it has a nuclear arsenal. Analysts have estimated, however, that Israel is the fifth-largest nuclear power on the planet with much of its delivery systems technology funded by US taxpayers.

I'm sorry everyone, but right now America is Isreal's biatch, we borrow money from them so we can go kill their enemies.

If Isreal is allowed to have so many nuclear warheads why can't other countries have it too?



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Nukes provide leverage. That's why we let Israel have them and Iran not. Iran sits on top of one of largest oil reserves in the world, if not the largest. Now put nukes at their disposal. That's a lot of leverage and power, which the U.S. will not have. Bush will make certain of this. Russia knows this too, but they have interests in Iran in the way of nuclear power plant contracts.

If it comes down to an invasion of Iran, I believe Russia will back Iran. We'll also have Syria to contend with but Israel will be involved for sure because Iran said they'll fire missiles at them if we invade their territory. Israel has their lives to fight for, they are surrounded. If it came down to being wiped away or using nukes, which do you think they'd choose.

Do you see the players that would be involved here? Not to mention this is all happening in the region where most of the world's oil reserves are. So who else would have to get involved? Well China. They use tons of the stuff. And who's got the other oil reserves, Russia and Venezuela. Do you see the picture I'm painting? You see why WW3 could be a real possibility?

It's about oil. The lifeblood of the global economy.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Burginthorn
1. The U.S HAS U.F.O technology that its has kept secret from the world.


Do you even know what U.F.O means?? Please don't make up stuff.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


If explained why, but you didn't give your opinion if it's wrong or not.
So they sit in the largest oil pool in the world, so what it's their country.
and not in the sense like americans have america, for Iran it actually IS their country, they didn't invade it and kill it's natives.

There is no justification for America's actions, sooner or later the world will get fed up, form an alliance and everyone will attack america, it's inevitable.

America is like a high school bully on a global scale, someone needs to take care of this!

Of course peace would be the greatest option, but we all know that's not gonna happen!



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by section8citizen

Originally posted by West Coast

Infact, America is the one where all the latest ground breaking medical tech is coming from, the entire world really does 'leech off of' the US in these regards.


I disagree. The US has not found a cure to anything since Polio and the US is not interested in find a cure for anything. What the US is interested in is finding ways for you to live with whatever it is that you suffer from. There is no money in the cure, there is only money in the medicine.


Agree to disagree. The US is often known to have the best medical tech out there. Many of the worlds football players from europe, and else where, prefer the US medical treatment then they do their own countrys. Most world athletes preferred to be treated in the US for instance. A torn MCL and ACL, only in the US can they get you up and running in no time flat.

I agree with your pharmacist, Ron Paul for 08 is all I have to say. He would make all pharmaceuticals private like they used to be. Instead of corporate owned bullhulky,

[edit on 20-10-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Of course it's wrong. I'm not sure where Bush got the idea that it's ok to invade sovereign nations without any repercussions. Going into Iran will have major consequences. I hope diplomacy prevails, but when was the last time that happened?


EDIT to add: I'm not saying that it's right for us to invade Iran or that it's wrong that they sit on a huge pool of oil. I'm just saying that it seems inevitable that an invasion will happen.



[edit on 20-10-2007 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   
As for troops its not a problem to contract out armed forces aka Blackwater and others. Then there is all the current drafties in this country. Plus the support we would get from the UK, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and many others via world wide propaganda. Then you have to think of all the Uber advanced war machines we have made in Black projects over the decades. We keep these behind closed curtains untill the most opportune moment. Like the stealth fighter and bomber during the first Gulf war. People say we are spread thin and under manned, but I would not underestimate the US at any point in time.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Osyris
Then there is all the current drafties in this country.


What are you talking about? Do you mean "potential" draftees? What is a drafties?

Are you willing to be drafted? Most of the slackers I talk to aren't patriotic enough to even say the Pledge of Allegiance. The support for war in general has entered a new low. Even my "Love it or Leave it" mother can see thru the lies.

And if you think the Mexican and Canadians would join the US in the kind of wars we like to persue.....

How many Mexican troops are in Iraq?

[edit on 20-10-2007 by whaaa]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Once the North American Union happens we will have all the draftees we would ever need.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dark_matter06
Once the North American Union happens we will have all the draftees we would ever need.


You are probably right. But would they serve, would they fight, would they frag every officer in site? Would they be mutinous scum that would be worse than the enemy?






top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join