World War III = Nuclear War?

I guess there needs to be a defination of World War III, and if we base a defination on the last worlds wars then we are looking at blocks of countries going to war, rather than just a two countries. Bear in mind that under NATO, an attack on one NATO member is deemed to be an attack on all NATO members, so there are few powers in the world that could take on NATO, so if we look at world war III in a military sense, it will fit a model of limited military engagements and not a global world.

Some posters to this thread have put forward the idea that world war III does not have to be a nuclear one, and this is something I would go along with.

So to answer the OP's question. World war III does not need to mean nuclear war.

I think so. In wars you tend to use the most powerful weapons you have.

I believe you are right. I don't understand why anyone needs nuclear weapons. The U.S. itself has enough nuclear warheads to destroy the Earth ten times over

reply to post by chr0naut


Already started with strange aids like symptom in China and H1N1 in Mexico.

Nuclear war is highly unlikely, Galactic Federation of light will shut them down.

UFO stop NUKE
www.youtube.com...

The united states will almost certainly be using tactical "mini nukes", in the not to distant future.
If you read the latest "nuclear posture" of the US, it clearly states their willingness to use them, even against states that don`t posess nuclear weapons.It goes as far as to even name such countries.

The Russians know that the US is developing a missile defense system, in order to give themselves cover in a first strike against Russia. Putin has even said as much.

It won`t work because even a schoolboy can outwit any missile defense system, by launching 100s of dummies the system will easily be overloaded and won`t be able to tell nuke from dummy.

The US is always losing/misplacing nukes, just last year it was reported that armed nukes were being flown all over with out authorization.

The Russians aren`t fools, they know what the US is planning. If the US say for example, decided to drop the bomb on Iran, it is possible the Russians will get very edgy with their fingers on the nuclear trigger, and if the ballon ever does go up, they will launch everything they`ve got. Basically, it is the US that is pushing the world towards nuclear war.

Originally posted by Gazrok
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.

Exactly. Hit the nail on the head about the only winning move is to do nothing at all.

Also, it's not about who's dumb enough to launch a full scale attack, it's about who's dumb enough not to anticipate every scenario that could lead to a full scale attack.

Click here for more information.

I don't think that major nations are likely to use nuclear weapons outright. I agree with the people that say terrorists getting a hold of nuclear weapons is more of a threat. But nuclear weapons are always a way to keep people in fear and further the desires and aspirations of the elites.

I think that there are many ways WWIII could be fought. But I think that it will be a fight of the common man against the elites and their governments. The world is becoming too small and people are starting to wake up and see that we are all one world and as this happens the elites are surely to become more underhanded in their attacks.

The more people start to wake up and want to throw off their oppressive rulers the more the rulers will want us to think that we need them. I think this is when things like epidemics and terrorism will become more rampant. We can already see this with the constant state of fear we are all trained to live in.

reply to post by Dendro


i get what your saying and looking for but..

i don't think the leaders of the world would fight with nukes anytime soon because, if enough nuclear weapons are launched say hello to nuclear winter for me

no matter who the winner of ww3 would be, if it was fought with nukes then everyone would loose

i honestly don't think another nuclear weapon will be used in our society because i feel as though leaders throughout the world know what a nuclear war will bring for the future of the human civilization

thats jsut me though

Originally posted by Dendro
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.

yes it is crazy, and thats what you can expect from lunatics. already hundreds of kilos of DU are floating around the world sickening people and blowing down the corridors of the pollies that ok'd it. it IS that time when those who should not have power, do have it. and those that would govern wisely are absent from our political groups world wide.
they will use nukes, ultimately; and chemical and biological weapons. the UN is a joke, why should some nations have veto powers and some not. and they enforce sanctions only when it suits the west.

It is really ridiculous the level of sophistication that is put into weaponry. Create biological weapons that will target only a certain genetic type of people but we can't cure cancer.

I wonder if maybe people should start petitioning for nuclear disarmament world wide. Destroy them before they destroy us.

Look at the levels of famine and crop failures worldwide. Last year Russia banned any wheat export and India/China banned rice exports because of crop failure and drought. They don't even have enough food to feed their citizens. That's why I believe when WWIII finally boils over the nuke use will be very minimal because starving people can't grow food on sheets of nuclear glass and fallout winter. If used at all the big nations will probably target each other's population centers and "thin the herd" but spare rural and agricultural centers everything but the radiation drift.

All bets are off if the world falls into a bunch of factions or warlords who all have a nuke or two. Then it may become a Mad Max kinda world.

May be odd to say, but some of the tribespeople in the Amazon, SE Asia, and the like may be the only large groups of survivors if this thing goes full bore Chem/Bio/Nuke. Oddly enough most of the "trouble" is from around the equator north. The southern half of Argentina may become a world power when it hits the fan.

I think - WWIII will not be nuclear war. That war will be most tactical war, with massive landing battles man vs man, and tank vs tank... Couple of nuclear explosions is possible, but no mass destruction. I think so.

Why would we need nukes when we can drop huge precision guided munitions from space with platforms like the X37A/B? You can't win a nuclear war. If there is another "World War" that starts, then we're talking in the context that it's nation vs nation and not like we're doing now with armies fighting islam, I mean, we're talking actual armed forces versus armed forces in battle and not guys in pajamas setting off ied's everywhere right? A scenario were war is actually "declared" by one country against another country? Were the concept of war is to exterminate every living thing on the other side until they ask for terms right? Were the idea is to destroy every and all means of the enemies capacity to engage in warfare to include the general populace? and not this stupid idealogical crap that's going on now? You mean that kind of war?

I've just had a horrifying thought. One of the drawbacks of a nuclear war is the radiation. This definitely factors in with why they are not used, its more devastating over a much wider area than the actual blast. But, with the recent fukushima and mississippi radiation leaks, which has spread far and wide, and who knows what else is being covered up, will they think "were #ed anyway" and just unleash the angel of death?

reply to post by Firefly_


I think it is a pretty clear consensus that any use of nukes in a war will equal total world destruction either through bombings or the fallout.

Ironically, I just did a college research paper on Nuclear War : the belligerents, the possibilities, etc. I honestly think very soon someone will strike with a nuclear weapon and our amazingly beautiful planet will go down the toilet.... quite sad.

Why do people think there will be a WW3.

Most of the countries that are allied nations are first world nations[more technologically, more intelligent, higher per capita nations]


Even if there is war it will be piss poor nations vs great nations, and it'll be a quick sweep.

I could see Iran, Venezuela , and Russia vs possibly Nato or something.. it's nothing to get worked up about.

Originally posted by JoeDaShom
Ironically, I just did a college research paper on Nuclear War : the belligerents, the possibilities, etc. I honestly think very soon someone will strike with a nuclear weapon and our amazingly beautiful planet will go down the toilet.... quite sad.

Smh another sheep.

Nuclear war can't physically destroy the earth.]
Learn about evolution, even if it does kill humans animals will ultimately end up surviving, and adapting to deal with the radiation.

I am a firm believer that there will be a nuclear war some day, and that we are already fighting WW3. I think we are all being dumbed down so that people will not understand or even try to survive a nuclear attack, so that in the aftermath, it will be much easier to control what is left of the earth's population.

I hope I am wrong though.