could we soon be facing world war 3 or at least a war with Russia and China?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
TEHRAN -- The United States is at the risk of a war with China and Russia as its main objective behind engineering the Libyan war and Syrian unrest is to remove the two major powers from the Mediterranean, a senior former U.S. official has warned.

notice the interest that China has in Lybia and the interest that Russia has in Syria



read the interview here, very telling >>>www.tehrantimes.com...




posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Lets see...the US, China and Russia want to commit mutual suicide over Syria and Libya? Hmmm...nah i dont think so.
edit on 3-5-2011 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Russia and China hate America, and although China might have it really good at the moment, if they got rid of America they would have it even better, and if China and Russia were to attack the US, and against 2 super powers like Russia and China they would lose.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


With all respect, that's just stating a fact on how beneficial it would be for them, not that it's a motive :/ Unless I've missed something.

Jamie.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by pandapowerjamie
reply to post by Itop1
 


With all respect, that's just stating a fact on how beneficial it would be for them, not that it's a motive :/ Unless I've missed something.

Jamie.


Why would you wanna start a war unless it benefits you?
Russia and China see the US as acting like the world police, they hate them and i bet you they would get rid of um in the click of a finger if they could.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


You make a fine point my good sir!
Do you think that is likely in the next year or so?

Jamie.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I personally think it would be cool to have an all our with China and Russia, just to see what a nuke would to an area like Beijing. Then I'd like to see Russias musty old nukes fail to launch again like they did when they werent 30-40 years old
I like how Russia randomly throws in "threats" to the west that go unnoticed always saying they will nuke the US, I guess it pleases Russians to think they are still the Soviet Union and still might be a threat.
edit on 04/28/2011 by 4Starlight2Decay0 because: silly typos
edit on 04/28/2011 by 4Starlight2Decay0 because: oogle



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
no there will be no nuke war , for i now you are disappointed to read this, no nukes, yes there will be ground wars China wants twain, Russia well get tired of the small border wars and will want to be one big USSR again will it be ??? will china risk being nuked would the west or any one else risk it??? i think not could it happen yes not by a GOV launch but by a fanatic.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Islam poses a threat. Russia has problems with Islamic groups, China has growing problems with Islamic groups, Europe and North America have problems with Islamic groups. Iran is calling for war, claming the Madhi will come and Islam will over-run the world. These forces control a large share of the most critical resource on the planet right now. What they don't control, they threaten.


I really don't see a world war coming from any sources other than these.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I like when people speak so confidently of there being no nuke war, why do you think governments create nukes, just for fun and show? No, they create them with the possibility of using them and they cost millions of £/$ to build, like the US did to Japan, the first one didnt create enough devestation, so they thought they would drop another, dont give me any crap saying "they didnt know what would happen", Nuclear bombs are tested, and with the case in japan, they dropped 2, so they knew exactly what it could do and theres nothing stopping a country in the future from using nukes, yes they are devestating, but war is war and war is devestating.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


The US was full aware of what would happen,Infact they had hoped for more, not even 2% of the explosives activated but still that was enough to level Hiroshima. They even gave a chance of surrender before and between the 2 bombings.
edit on 04/28/2011 by 4Starlight2Decay0 because: vgn



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


Thank you for pointing this out, anytime someone tries to bring up this possibility it's ignored. I'm sick of it, almost no one is willing to debate it, they just simply pretend like it's not a possibility.

Some people need to wake up and come back to reality. As I see it a large scale conventional conflict is an impossibility, few tangible benefits and a great many risks.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


The game has changed, we use missiles now, and missiles that shoot down other missiles that are more numerous than nuclear missiles. The US and Russia have some comparable defenses to ensure the survival of their military assets, but China would be obliterated in the attack. The hype around China is about their economic potential, China's military is far behind most of the west and their numerous army only applies to the area immediately around them, and would probably be decimated in a nuclear standoff.

China and Russia most likely wouldn't be fighting against only the US, but the entirety of NATO. With EU the combined NATO air power is the most advanced compared to Chinese and Russian aircraft, the US has vast naval superiority over pretty much everyone but Russia. Russia has some effective missile and torpedo technology that dwarfs anything China would bring to the table.

If a massive nuclear missile standoff was to be targeted at populations, the USN/EU and the Russian fleets would be left to duke it out, I'm sorry but I don't see how China has any kind of force projection or navy, except a few Russian built ships. I am not sure exactly where the missiles defenses are along the continental US, but the US has the most extensive ballistic missile defense systems compared to the rest of the world, but it largely applies to only military assets from what I can tell. The US does not appear to have ABM batteries near its cities, except for around some high value military bases.

The US military is custom build to survive a nuclear standoff, despite what happens to its population. Newer guided missile ships even have enclosed interiors designed to resist radiation and chemical warfare.

Strangely enough the most violent places on Earth, the Middle East and Africa, would probably be unable to destroy themselves or participate.
edit on 3-5-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Russia knows how difficult it was to try and occupy Afghanistan, and they know it would be even more difficult to occupy the USA.

Afghanistan is 647500 sq/km and has a population of about 32 million.

The USA is 9629091 sq/km and has a population of about 300 million.

So the USA has roughly 15 times the landmass of Afghanistan, and roughly 10 times the population.

Now add to that all the inner city gangs, groups like the KKK, Aryan Nation, biker gangs, various other extremist groups, normal gun owners, retired military, national guard, on and on, etc etc etc. If Russia thought Afghanistan bled them dry they would be shocked by what would happen with an invasion of the US. And considering Russia is a shadow of it's former military strength, it would be even more pronounced.

There is absolutely no way that any country on the planet would be able to successfully occupy the mainland USA as it stands right now.

Now, I'm not saying the US is invulnerable by any means. But a standard land invasion of the mainland USA would be a suicide mission and the leaders of every country know that.

People piss and moan about how awful and bloodthirsty the US military is right now. That's nothing compared to what would happen if the US actually got invaded. Do you think the Military would care about Chinese or Russian civilian deaths, or human rights violations if something like that happened? No. It would be all out war that would make our involvement with Afghanistan and Iraq look like a training exercise.

I have no doubt that China or Russia could get bombers or missiles over the US and do some damage. I have no doubt that it's possible for China, Russia, and the US to engage in remote wars fighting over territory outside of the US, China, and Russia's borders. Nuclear war would even be more likely than some sort of invasion.

But the US cannot be invaded. It is too large, too populated, and too well armed. I feel the same way about China and Russia, there is no way in hell the US would be able to invade them either.

If these three nations wanted to get into conflicts with each other, which wouldn't be good for anybody involved, it would be remote wars for territory, not actual invasions of anybody's mainland. It's just not possible at this point.

Now, say 10 years down the line if the US falls apart due to economic collapse or something along those lines, that's a different story.

One more thing, everyone seems to think the US military has crazy high tech weapons that we couldn't even imagine. What happened to those? Invasion isn't reason enough to use them?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 



Everyone still dies eventually thanks to nuclear winter, irradiated farmland, and thanks to no population whats left of the military can't really fight.

So it's a draw. I do agree that people on here seriously overrate China, which regardless doesn't really have a motive to fight the U.S. At least not now. As for Russia's navy it's still from what I can tell still rebuilding. They do have some decent subs and torps but that's about it.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by anilater
Everyone still dies eventually thanks to nuclear winter, irradiated farmland, and thanks to no population whats left of the military can't really fight.


With modern counter missile technology, would enough nuclear weapons be even able to detonate to create this amount of radiation traveling in the upper atmosphere? Remember interceptor missiles are much less expensive than nuclear ballistic missiles, and if everyone is following the rules these nuclear warheads are decades old.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Remember how the US lied and lost in Viet nam?
and now when faced with what some very astute forcasters figure is the end of this chapter
which is unfolding just like the last chapter
its all smack talk
you are doin a great job workin with alCIA duh
in Libya

depression then war
seen that before?

this business about attacking and murdering in Lybia and the FAKE OBL and the soon to be false flag involving pakistan..the chinese and the russians are just shaking their heads.....
like is the west on crack?

also
there are 6 million people living in Israel
Just recently they reached the number in the old prophecy
and with nuclear weapons
the prophesy can now become material
dimona
which would be the reason luciferian bankers would create the place in the first place....
edit on 3-5-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


Our current missile defenses aren't anywhere close to stopping an all out attack and from what I've been reading are almost laughably inadequate. Most of the "successful" tests of the SM3 actually still would've failed to destroy the warhead.

There are other difficulties as well



The FTG-06 test illustrates that no matter what sensor is being used, radar or infrared, if the missile defense system knows exactly how the warhead appears to the sensor, then the system can potentially identify a warhead among many other objects. It also illustrates that the appearance of the warhead must be exactly known, and that the warhead must look distinctly different from the other objects. If the other objects look similar to the warhead or if the warhead looks different from what is expected, the warhead can only be selected as a target by pure chance. Even if the warhead is correctly selected, hitting it may be problematic if it is attached to or enclosed in something that makes it not possible for the kill vehicle to determine where it must arrive to hit the warhead directly. The adversary can easily, perhaps inadvertently, change the scene and target appearance using simple measures, like cutting the upper stage into pieces. The adversary can also change the appearance of the warhead by covering it with radar-absorbing materials, surrounding it with a balloon, or other methods, with totally devastating consequences for the defense.


Link



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Very interesting observations!

I too was suspecting something like this, I fear, however that China and Russia are tight with eachother and we do not know it; attempting to invade Russia would be the worst mistake our Government could make, but like many issues, they will not listen to the people and will carry out whatever they see fit.

My guess is within the next 5 years; the U.S. will attempt to control the entire middle east, claiming the Taliban is everywhere. Our Gov is desperate with the down fall of the U.S. dollar, no countries will accept it for trade, it is useless. Now that they won't take our money; we will attempt to take the resources. Other countries will not accept this and will catch on to our agenda. Whoever owns the market, has the most power. BOOM war will break out, sadly America will be deemed the next global threat. World War 3

History does indeed repeat itself..I NEED TO MOVE TO ARGENTINA!



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


They would most definately participate silly. Everyone would participate even if they didn't fight. EVER HEARD OF RADIATION? that # will travel the entire world, OH YEA not to mention NUCLEAR WINTER does that ring a bell? Even if they didnt get hit by nukes, they would still have deaths in the hundred millions.

Even if it was only 3 countries that used nukes and had nukes hit them, the world population would most likely be reduced by 90%.
There would be lots of people around the first 3-4 months. But after that
a) The irradiated people die, and the not so irradiated people die because of lack of medical care
b) Starvation due to nuclear winter
c) Cannabalism due to nuclear winter
d) mass suicides

Yes all 4 of those would happen






top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join