World War III = Nuclear War?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I guess I will get this forum kickstarted.




"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein


I think it is pretty obvious to anyone that if WWIII were to happen the major fear would be whether or not countries would reach a point of utilizing their nuclear capabilities and causing MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

BUT, we know this as if it were general knowledge. So in a way wouldn't that assure that no country would actually ever threaten the use of nukes? Just because a country has a weapon does that automatically mean that they will use it?

I personally would hope that whomever is in power at the time of World War III would create a mutual agreement that nuclear arms could never be considered into use.

Any thoughts?




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 


I think that genetically specific bio-weapons will be more likely than nukes.

By the time an affected nation has realised that it is a weapon, it would probably be too late for retaliation and the disease would contine to spread even if retaliation were successful.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
....My thoughts....all its gonna take is one dumb ass of a nation to push the "red button" this time and when they do I feel the domino effect will occur.....and when that happens......well peace be with you all and may your bowls be full of popcorn...



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 


Hey if this means living a real world Fallout, I say bring it on



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
while I think eventually nukes may be used.
I think the first phase of WW3 will be
peoples actually fighting against their own
governments. The nuke dominoes come
later when a terrorist faction gets their overthrow
in before the rest.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Nobama
 


I think the real world would be less awesome than the one portrayed in Fallout.

The idea of countries having nuclear weapons has always made my stomach churn but add in that the abundance of the weapons that would mean the destruction of the Earth X 1,000 and the idea of World War III is downright terrifying.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
The US allready has proven to be willing to use nukes.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Do you think other countries wouldn't also?



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
25,000 hiroshima bombs worth of DU were used in Iraq
thats nuclear war
note the increases in cancer and diabetes...
downwind
mindprod.com...
(baby pix ...don't look)
hey
they can use that stuff in practice on the local range now...
just down the street...
edit on 13-4-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Birth defects in Iraq are basically an epidemic. It is terrible the things done in war.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 

they can use the DU on the range now
in the US

strontium - 90 was fond in the milk after atomic bomb testing in the US
so what did the dairy lobby do?

made it ILLEGAL to test milk for strontium-90



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 


I truely believe WW3 is already underway and it is the silent war - everyone knows nuclear weapons result in a no win situation.

So instead:
GM war
Patent war
Corporate war
Natural Disaster war
Sanction/Trading War
Cyber War
Info War
Economic war
Culture war
= WW3


You ask anyone who is a fan of the PC game civilisation and they will tell you a firepower war is not always the most effective way to destroy your enemy - infact once the game is in it's advanced stages it is by far the hardest victory unless you technology is light years ahead (if lightyears meant time not distance). This game is just a game, but the powers of this world treat life in the same way - it's a game to them.
edit on 13-4-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
All the countries including India,China,Israel and Russia have nukes stored in big warehouses
and I think that they will use them.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
The most realistic possibility of a nuclear arms detonation is that terrorists gain control of a nations weapons somehow. In countries like Pakistan this should be monitored closely to prevent fringe groups taking power via subterfuge, especially in light of uprisings across the Middle East. This is also, IMO, a likely flashpoint for WW3. There will be a lot of power changing hands across the world soon. We must ensure, as far as we can, that the power is not misplaced.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Info from CND website


Nuclear Weapons States Briefing Nuclear Weapons States Briefing
July 2009
www.cnduk.org...

(this part of the CND site appears to have been hijacked by big-pharma)

Total warheads per nation;
Russia, 13,000 nuclear weapons
USA, 9,400 nuclear weapons
France 300
China, 240
UK, 225
The above have signed and ratified the NPT, (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)

Israel, 80-100 (approx)
India, 60-70
Pakistan, 60+
North Korea, believed to have capability for 6-10
(Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) not signed and ratified.)



Fears grow over possible depleted uranium use in Libya
Thursday, 31 March 2011
(Issued jointly with the UK Uranium Weapons Network)

Campaigners from the UK Uranium Weapons Network and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament today expressed their growing alarm at the possibility that highly toxic and radioactive depleted uranium (DU) weapons have been used in Libya. The inhalation of DU particles, spread when the weapons hit their target, is thought to be linked to the sharp increases in cancer rates and birth defects reported in affected areas.

On Monday (28th March) the US Admiral William Gortney told the press that: "We have employed A-10s and AC-130s over the weekend" [note 4]. It is believed that six A-10s from 81st Fighter Squadron, which are typically armed with DU rounds, have been deployed [note 5].

A-10 gunships are designed to attack tanks, armour and other ground targets with their primary weapon - a cannon capable of firing either DU or high explosive rounds at a rate of 3,900 a minute. As armoured vehicles are being targeted it seems likely the cannons are loaded with the PGU-14 30mm armour piercing incendiary round, which contains a 300 gram DU penetrator. Strafing runs from A-10s can typically see hundreds of rounds being used, resulting in many kilograms of DU being fired.
www.cnduk.org...



International agreements relating to nuclear weapons: a guide

Disarmament treaties
Bilateral treaties between the US and Russia
Nuclear weapons testing
Space related
Nuclear Weapons Free Zones
Future treaties
www.cnduk.org...








edit on 13/4/2011 by teapot because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 


I think it will be more of an information war, after all, you can shut down countries with computers and history has shown us this before, as nearly everything is computerised.

-Naeem



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Claudius
 


That's why i doubt they would use them. Think about it: If Russia nukes another country, they will get nuked from the USA. All the countries know that other countries have nuclear weapons too and there's a very big chance of a retaliation strike. I highly doubt the leaders of the countries say 'so what, i don't care'. After all, you can't rule a nuclear radiated country.
Nuclear weapons are more a 'usefull' item to threat other countries so they don't start a war or an invasion - that's for me one of the reason that nothing happened during the cold war.

If anything i do believe that terrorists could smuggled and detonate some small nuclear bombs, though with all the safety going on in the world, that's doubtful. After all: Despite so many warnings and threats from the muslim world nothing big has happened in the past couple of years.

World War 3 could very well be a Cyber War, with all the computers and seeing how everyone is depending on computers
(I hope it won't be like in that one Star Trek episode, where two planets simulate a big war on computers and then send people to die
)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Joshua (WarGames) said it best, when talking about nuclear war..."Strange game....the only winning move is not to play..."

Like Tic-Tac-Toe, never a winner, just everyone losing. I don't think we'll ever be dumb enough to launch a full scale nuke attack, but I wouldn't rule out tactical strikes on main manufacturing and military targets (such as capitals, etc.). Although it only takes one side to start wasting civilians wholesale, to make it all go south.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
ww3 = EA inhabitants FAIL accepted GLOBALLY-UNIVERSALLY, sphere structure unstable, for other living life forms in complete innocent danger due to primary tech evolved species IGNORANCE. SOL activated SOL recharge EA, INHABITANTS discharged UP OR DOWN dimension--PLANET SLEEPING FOR SOMETIME EVOL influences hidden SEEKED/TAGGED---Armageddon Preparation complete.
Next phase WAR for SOULS or Peace depending

edit on 4/13/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Claudius
 
to answer you No they will not it is a last ditch weapon a nuke is for one you can not control fall out, it goes where the wind blows and second it would be certain death to the country that uses it, and thus the world one nation use it then all will use it , no there are cheaper less detectable weapons to use than a nuke Bio is one dirty bomb is next, conventional weapons seem to be the choice, car bombs and IED's, fear is the best weapon too use, it make's terror your weapon and look at the USA. yes a tactual nuke could be used like GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) same effect as a nuke but with out the fallout. and yes have been used.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Great responses on this thread! Many of them I didn't even think of...

I definitely agree that hopefully nation leaders do realize that using nukes makes it absolutely a no win situation for everyone.

Every time I listen to Anti-Flag's Depleted Uranium I get super angry.
I do, I spit flames. Probably why I listen to it only every once in awhile. We know the damage that DU does to a country so why do we still use it?! It is crazy.

I wonder what will happen first... WWIII or The Culling.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join