Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

World War III = Nuclear War?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Claudius
All the countries including India,China,Israel and Russia have nukes stored in big warehouses
and I think that they will use them.
well up to now it's only the good old USA who have used one or two,lets hope they hold that unwanted title for a very long time




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
If WW3 is a nuclear war, there won't be a WW4 IMO.
Full out nuclear war could set back the planet a billion years potentially.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DuceizBack

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.




Why is the poster a sheep for posting that the planet will go down the toilet? Initially, it will. Yes, after tens, hundreds, maybe even millions of years afterwards the planet will have a way to rehabilitate itself and filter out the damage but there is no guarantee to who or what will survive if the world's nuclear weapon holders decide to launch. We are allowed to speculate that, right?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Why is the poster a sheep for posting that the planet will go down the toilet? Initially, it will. Yes, after tens, hundreds, maybe even millions of years afterwards the planet will have a way to rehabilitate itself and filter out the damage but there is no guarantee to who or what will survive if the world's nuclear weapon holders decide to launch. We are allowed to speculate that, right?
well that will make me sleep better after reading that

any idiot country who fires a nuke will kill us all ..to be honest id rather take a direct hit than survive, once two countries start playing silly buggers with nukes ,they are affectively taken them selves out of a position of power in the world,who's to say they won't take everyone out with them..
edit on 06/-05004/2011 by sitchin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
You're all stuck in the 20th century. A full-scale nuclear world war is illogical for any country not suicidal; everyone loses. Either immediately, or later on from the radiation. What's the point in winning if half the world is a nuclear wasteland??

WW3 will be a war of information. Make no mistake, it will be digital.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
You're all stuck in the 20th century. A full-scale nuclear world war is illogical for any country not suicidal; everyone loses. Either immediately, or later on from the radiation. What's the point in winning if half the world is a nuclear wasteland??

WW3 will be a war of information. Make no mistake, it will be digital.
that may be true for some countries,do you think we would have have invaded Iraq ?or Afghanistan? if they had nukes??..countries are still trying to build them ..ie Iran .. probably for defense if nothing else,the point i'm making, if two countries went to war who had nuke capability..would it end up in a nuke end game scenario?,would a country allow it self to be taken over be a foreign threat??the USA has nuke silo's in UK and parts of Europe and in many of its own states Russia has its own allied countries ..who's to say the middle east, china,japan. India, Pakistan, France haven't adopted USA protocol placing silos in other allied countries ..it only takes one country to start the ball rolling



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
There would be only two players in the nuclear end-game: USA and Russia.

You could count an allied Europe as a third player, assuming unconditional agreement between all European nuclear states against Russia.

Europe would side with the USA, without question. Which means we're back to two players: USA/Europe and Russia.

China/India/Pakistan/North Korea don't possess the firepower to be part of the end-game.

So, see, it's an utterly pointless war. Russia cannot win, having half the firepower. And what would USA/Europe get?? A radioactive cold continent... Great!

It won't happen. Neither USA or Russia would be interested.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


If nuclear weapons weren't a likely choice of weapon in the future (because we're stuck in the 20th Century) why are so many countries trying to gain nuclear capabilities? Weapons are not made to look pretty on the shelf, they are meant to be used.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


If nuclear weapons weren't a likely choice of weapon in the future (because we're stuck in the 20th Century) why are so many countries trying to gain nuclear capabilities? Weapons are not made to look pretty on the shelf, they are meant to be used.

Wrong. Nuclear weapons ARE made to look pretty on the shelf. They are the ultimate deterrent.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by sitchin
 


Discovery Channel featured something on it... either Life After People or Aftermath where they did a nuclear scenario and showed the Earth's natural capabilities of eventually cleaning and recuperating over time if the world were to be subjected to a total nuclear attack. It was interesting to know that even after people were gone the Earth would still live and organisms would eventually flourish again.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


I disagree. They've been used twice before.

If it came down to a last stand scenario someone is going to use their nuclear weapons.

But I do see the potential in a digital war... just that it won't be a world war yet. If we make it out of WWIII then the digital wars will probably be WWIV or WWV.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


I disagree. They've been used twice before.

To end a non-nuclear world war. In other words, in special circumstances that cannot happen again.

Hundreds of thousands of nuclear weapons have been made since, and yet not a single one used against any country in any war. Many have been dismantled.

"made to be used"?? 100,000's haven't been.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


Having all that nuclear power is not a deterrent but instead dangerous paranoia. Stockpiling arms just makes other countries want to increase their own weapons and it then becomes a vicious circle. And yes, while some countries are beginning to have their nuclear weapons dismantled it doesn't cover the countries that are seeking to arm themselves.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I doubt nuclear war will happen either, as was previously stated, Japan was the exception to prove the rule. MAD was not in place then so the USA did not have the threat of nuclear retaliation and in fact effectively ended the war with Japan.

It maybe an information war, but more than likely a combination of surgical strikes combined with an information war. At the worst I can see it becoming a biological war especially if fought among countries that are oceans apart because the ocean would act as a natural barrier to infecting your own people. It would be difficult to immunize your whole population as well as the higher risk of mutation if the biological agent somehow gets to your population that has been immunized.
A biological weapon has the advantage of killing off the enemy population while leaving all the infrastructure intact when the physical invasion happens.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Dreamwatcher
 


It is MAD that I am concerned about. Get a crazy enough leader and they might go ahead with that idea. *Shrugs* I think as long as the weapons exist they are never fully off the table no matter how destructive they are.

Though, thinking on what happen in Iran recently, I could see the potential of a digital attack to disarm people. That might be the saving grace is if viruses render all launching capabilities moot and then we wouldn't have to worry.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
There would be only two players in the nuclear end-game: USA and Russia.

You could count an allied Europe as a third player, assuming unconditional agreement between all European nuclear states against Russia.

Europe would side with the USA, without question. Which means we're back to two players: USA/Europe and Russia.

China/India/Pakistan/North Korea don't possess the firepower to be part of the end-game.

So, see, it's an utterly pointless war. Russia cannot win, having half the firepower. And what would USA/Europe get?? A radioactive cold continent... Great!

It won't happen. Neither USA or Russia would be interested.
i understand your logic, i was merely pointing out that a rouge state could trigger an all out war ..with no regard of the world effects of radiation ..for example if a rouge state fired a nuke or placed a dirty bomb in a western city ..would that country not fight fire with fire? i would like to think no..but these scenario's are a real possibility if not now , certainly in the coming decades..look at the suicide bombers who happily go to there deaths while trying to take out as many people with them as possible..i would like to think we live in a safe world,though history shows that things have a habit of repeating it self ..nukes are a hell of a deterrent,but also hell on earth if used in aggression



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sitchin
for example if a rouge state fired a nuke or placed a dirty bomb in a western city ..would that country not fight fire with fire?

Well yes, but that wouldn't result in a full scale nuclear world war (which is what I'm talking about). Chances are the offending country would thus be pretty much obliterated, and that would be that. It's not like countries would start throwing nukes at eachother across the global map. Everyone knows at the end there are only two players, and one result. It's a non-issue.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by sitchin
for example if a rouge state fired a nuke or placed a dirty bomb in a western city ..would that country not fight fire with fire?

Well yes, but that wouldn't result in a full scale nuclear world war (which is what I'm talking about). Chances are the offending country would thus be pretty much obliterated, and that would be that. It's not like countries would start throwing nukes at eachother across the global map. Everyone knows at the end there are only two players, and one result. It's a non-issue.
ok thanks for the interesting discussion ,i'm off to get some sleep,paint balling tomorrow



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Personally, I don't think World War III will involve any sorts of weapons of mass destruction.

Why do I think this? Because I strongly feel that the next "world wide war" will be a class war, the poor and lower middle classes rising up against the rich in each country. I don't think it will be a clash of nations or religions, I think it will be a clash of ideologies.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sitchin
..would a country allow it self to be taken over be a foreign threat??the USA has nuke silo's in UK


Glastonbury Festival was originally set up to raise funds to protest about this. Successive people of government made Treaties that meant foreign WMD on our soil.

Thirty years later, a lot of people continue to disagree with it.

"Say NO to Trident"

Glastonbury itself has had to yield to state regulation or be forcibly shut down and the owners liable to prosecution.

We have NATO (Joint Permanent) HQ here.

Yeah I'd say odds on the UK being a good place to take a direct hit are pretty.

I call for Unilateral Disarmanent: Abandon the Nuclear Age!!!





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join