Iran Attack > WWIII

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Israel attacks Iran; U.S directs most resources to assist in conflict that spreads in the region, so while they are "bogged down".

North Korea attacks the South...

China takes over Taiwan...

Russia takes back Georgia..

Serbia/Kosovo erupts again...

Would that be considered a "World War".. Or will direct conflicts between China/Russia/US need to take place.

(real question)




posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Proxy wars all over would be considered world war imo



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
The scenario you lay out is very possible to me.....would certainly be a WW III at the level you've described....would think Pakistan will be involved at some level.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
and just to add, everyone starts to nuke everyone and were all de........



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
The scenario you lay out is very possible to me.....would certainly be a WW III at the level you've described....would think Pakistan will be involved at some level.


Since pakistan is in a limbo state with the US, I would imagine they would be arming the proxy forces against the US and allies.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
From my understanding there only needs to be 8 or 9 warring parties for that to be considered a world war, whether reliant on each other or not, i am uncertain. If they don't need to be reliant on each other, then it could be said that world war 3 has already started and possibly ended. If a civil war is war as well then the cumulative nations of the Arab spring, as well as NATO involvement in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as border turmoil between Cambodia and Thailand, and South Korea and North Korea, could constitute enough national conflict to be considered a world war.

My definition of war comes from what seems to be the 'common' understanding of it, which is just national conflict, even though the United States has not been in an "official" war since WWII. Just ask Rick Perry what he thinks war means, because apparently our national sanctions on Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, are enough to warrant torture and executive based assassinations.


Originally posted by diddy1234
and just to add, everyone starts to nuke everyone and were all de........


Additionally, this won't happen. If we did not nuke each other in Korea, it will not happen today.
edit on 18-11-2011 by Cilvanus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


We are in uncharted waters. Expect the weird because the illuminati are in the home stretch and aching to make the big push.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by LeoStarchild
 


That might be the case if they had a free hand to do so, but I think Pakistan will be too busy with India in its face that they wont be able to drum up an proxy forces. India is a big question mark they have a large population. Will they take a go at China or will they focus entirely on Pakistan.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
you forgot : Pakistan will move into India.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Times change. We live in a world run by psychopaths who get off on misery. The US & USSR conflict was contrived. If the nukes actually exist, then they will be used, ritualistically if for no other reason.


Originally posted by Cilvanus


Originally posted by diddy1234
and just to add, everyone starts to nuke everyone and were all de........


Additionally, this won't happen. If we did not nuke each other in Korea, it will not happen today.
edit on 18-11-2011 by Cilvanus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


This video will sum it all up for you!!
End of the world video



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by LeoStarchild
 
This is how it will play out I think. The major powers would not face off in direct conflict as the aftermath would be unthinkable for either side.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jcord
 


Well, it would have to be one of the world powers who would use it. For one, Iran does not have an air force to invade the united states, or to utilize in nuke deployment. So, knowing that, any nuclear delivery would have to be by ICBM. If we did not have the Reagan "Star Wars," the United States still has multiple surface based ICBM defense measures, which would be used to defend any nuclear attack on any of the "NWO" nations. Of course the idea is that any nuclear attack that is to be carried out on U.S. or the like, soil would be in a suit case bomb, which would be catastrophic indeed, but would not be as powerful as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This however would still not be enough to warrant nuclear retaliation.

Think about it this way, the only interest in capturing Iran would be in taking control of the oil wells. If we turned the entire area to radioactive glass then how could we possibly take advantage of the wells, if they are even still in existence.

I can see a valid argument in using a nuclear weapon on a nation like North Korea, as circumstances would be very similar to an attempt at invading the Japanese islands. But what do we have to gain from invading North Korea?

A better question is, what does any nation have to gain by attacking the United States? Any legitimate attack would unite the populations of the United States, which would provide a united industry as well as a massive boost in the number of soldiers in our military. But it wouldn't be necessary. Our greatest weapon, in my opinion, is our predator drones. Today, carpet bombing is largely unnecessary on soft targets, as one UAV is capable of eliminating a city, without, putting troops in harms way or giving the opposition a chance at fighting back. If our mission became as simple and draconian as killing scores of unarmed civilians, this is the weapon we would use, and we would become very skilled at it.

In my opinion, the argument of ritualism, does not hold it's water.

Sour Pill



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


I suppose it could be considered a world war. More correctly a world at war... But that's semantics...it would indeed be a world war.

In two of your scenarios I don't see them happening...(but than I've been accused of being overly optimistic...).

North Korea doesn't have the chops necessary, barring use of WMD's, to attack South Korea successfully.

Nor does China have the ability necessary to attack Taiwan successfully, again barring WMD's.

...and using them would seem to defeat the purpose of the attack in the first place.

But then I'm a cockeyed optimist...



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I don't think in modern society today a nuclear war would benefit anybody. The shear destruction and aftermath of it all would place the economies of the countries involved in ruins. Some countries enjoy 'saber-rattling' but as i understand it being suspicious of your neigbour and having nuclear weapons as purely a deterrent will be as far as it goes.

There is just too much at stake here, even with Iran, if a nuclear war was to erupt with them and Israel we would be in global recession meltdown with oil prices as high as ever!



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Sorry-gotta shoot this thread down too. The mentioned scenarios/hot spots have existed for some time so why didnt WWIII pop off when the US attacked Iraq the first time? The second time? Afghanistan? There have been plenty of opportunities for these events to have happened and they havent. Not saying they cant, but iuts not like there havent been other opprotunities and this situation with Iran isnt unique.

Carry on.



Originally posted by CALGARIAN
Israel attacks Iran; U.S directs most resources to assist in conflict that spreads in the region, so while they are "bogged down".

North Korea attacks the South...

China takes over Taiwan...

Russia takes back Georgia..

Serbia/Kosovo erupts again...

Would that be considered a "World War".. Or will direct conflicts between China/Russia/US need to take place.

(real question)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipperJohn
you forgot : Pakistan will move into India.

Pakistan would need someone else to fight their battles if they war with India as they just dont have a big enough army
Troop Counts by country





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join