It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do you all think that WW3 will be a Nuclear war?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
What is with the obsessions regarding a Nuclear WW3?

What is with the accepted belief that WW3 will be a Nuclear war?

Nearly every thread on ATS regarding WW3, i notice that the accepted belief is that it will be absolute destruction of all significant countries at the hands of nuclear weapons.

Why is this the accepted belief? Just because many countries have Nukes? Just because it is a lingering fear from the Cold War? I don't know.

Many countries are not stupid enough to use nukes, as if one were to nuke another, they too will be destroyed. It is in no country's best interest to use nuclear weapons. The only way i can foresee a nuclear World War is if one country (say Iran or North Korea) goes crazy and decides to nuke another country, or if some operator accidentally launched one. Even then, i still think that the receiving country will act rationally and not launch their own nuclear weapons for fear of an all out, disastrous war.




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   


Many countries are not stupid enough to use nukes, as if one were to nuke another, they too will be destroyed. It is in no country's best interest to use nuclear weapons.
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Than why are there so many nuclear weapons around the world?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Because we have lost our guts for real wars and its easier this way; cheaper, and a lot faster. Probably not gonna like the ending though. All major cities will be wiped out guaranteed



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTSECRET



Many countries are not stupid enough to use nukes, as if one were to nuke another, they too will be destroyed. It is in no country's best interest to use nuclear weapons.
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Than why are there so many nuclear weapons around the world?


I would imagine because of the nuclear arms race that was the Cold War. Russia feared that the US had nukes and made some themselves. Over time, it has been an increasing trend in up and coming countries.

The acquirement of nukes has always been a defensive measure. For example, if you had nukes and i got nukes, chances are, we aren't going to nuke each other, because we both don't want to die.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Because we have lost our guts for real wars and its easier this way; cheaper, and a lot faster. Probably not gonna like the ending though. All major cities will be wiped out guaranteed


You mean a war where both sides lost people on the front line, in an inevitable confrontation where if you got close enough to your enemy you shoved your bayonet into their stomach?

Yeah that was a real good time.

Now that one side can push a button, doesn't mean it's not a real war... It just means that the ENEMY will be the ones to die, and not the ALLIES.

It is after all, the point of war.

“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Why are people so convinced that there will be a WWIII at all?

Even a 'conventional' war fought by the major superpowers would have a devestating effect on the world and the environment etc.

The days where superpowers engaged in long, protracted all out warfare are over.

The majority of future wars will involve proxy and / or rogue states with minimal direct confrontation between the major protagonists etc.

Or they will be economic, technological or cyber warfare.

Personally, and I acknowledge this is purely opinion, I can't see a major confrontation between the superpowers and their respective allied nations in the foreseeable future, thankfully - they are far too busy dividing the world up between themselves.
edit on 3/6/12 by Freeborn because: typo



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Firstly, it's important to define what a "World War" is.

It's reasonable to define a World War as a war that involves most, if not all of the populated continents, and which is fought on numerous fronts/theaters - this was certainly true for World Wars I and II....this, as opposed to regional/localised wars.

Now considering the Nations that have nuclear capabilities....Israel, Pakistan, USA, China, France, Russia, England, India, Germany(??), Italy, South Africa(??), North Korea
, to name a few - it becomes a reasonable conclusion that a "hypothetical" WWIII will involve nuclear weapons.

Keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean that 50 MT nuclear war heads will be detonating around the globe ensuring a MAD scenario- with low yield tactical nukes, multi war head ICBM's and counter ABM's....it will make for an interesting "what if".
edit on 3-6-2012 by Perhaps because: add emphasis

edit on 3-6-2012 by Perhaps because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SGTSECRET
 


To prevent wars. By saying "We have nuclear weapons and can use them" other countries think twice about an attack. Without nuclear weapons, i'm sure the "cold war" wouldn't have been cold and also India and Pakistan would've been long engaged in a war or south and north korea or quite a few other countries who hate each other so much.
I doubt that any country would use their nuclear weapons, they know exactly what would happen (nuclear attacks from other countries) and what the outcome would be (complete devastation)

If there's a World War III, it will be a conventional War.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
What, Are you serious?

You don't think that during a World War when most of the worlds biggest economy's & military's are trying to win an outright victory over other massive military machines on steroids, that maybe one or both of them may be planning to delivery a killer blow to its adversary in order to win and end the war?

I don't think people fully understand the mind set of the people during these times, its a fight to the death & a fight for survival the world breaks down into chaos, there are no rules, no referees to split it up, you use every means possible to fight back at your disposal to win the fight, the gloves truly come off and you fight as long hard and dirty as you can to survive, the people are scare and increasingly stressed out to the point of a total mental & physical breakdown, when people are pushed to there limits and filled with venom & hatred, revenge, they will do anything they can to win

If you or anybody else believes that nukes will not fall in these times of chaos and lawlessness, then you do not understand War at all, let alone a World War and niether do you understand just what people are capable of and will do in times like these,

How many times has a human killed his adversary in a fight on the streets?

What about the Trayvon Martin & Zimmerman case?, how many cases world wide have we seen this? millions of time right? people being shot in self defence in a fight they was losing? i don't see why people wouldn't fire nuclear weapons for there own survival against people they hate

Maybe if the data suggested people would rather die than go to prison after surviving a fight for there lifes, or be honourable and dye without using that last option available to there own survival, maybe then id could well believe people would not use there nuclear arsenals, but unfortunately only a fool could believe such things

Be sure, Nukes will fly in WW3,



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 




Why do you all think that WW3 will be a Nuclear war?

Because a republican will be in office next year.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85
reply to post by SGTSECRET
 


To prevent wars. By saying "We have nuclear weapons and can use them" other countries think twice about an attack. Without nuclear weapons, i'm sure the "cold war" wouldn't have been cold and also India and Pakistan would've been long engaged in a war or south and north korea or quite a few other countries who hate each other so much.
I doubt that any country would use their nuclear weapons, they know exactly what would happen (nuclear attacks from other countries) and what the outcome would be (complete devastation)

If there's a World War III, it will be a conventional War.


Exactly



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TritonTaranis
 


The Cold War was a very dangerous situation, yet both sides (who hated each other) did not fire nukes. Why is this? Because it would have led to destruction. The same circumstance will be apparent if tensions were to rise dramatically again. If there was going to be WW3, the countries would be smart enough not to launch a nuke. If they do launch nukes though, it may lead to a chain reaction which may be the extinction of the human race.

it is idiotic and will not happen.
edit on 3-6-2012 by daaskapital because: eta



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Perhaps
 


First of all, why on earth is it so difficult to understand - it's not England when spoken about in this context it's the United Kingdom or simply the UK!



Now considering the Nations that have nuclear capabilities....Israel, Pakistan, USA, China, France, England, India, Germany(??), Italy, South Africa(??), North Korea , to name a few - it becomes a reasonable conclusion that a hypothetical WWIII will involve nuclear weapons.


Why considering the nations that have nuclear capabilities, (Russia is a noteable omission....neither Germany or Italy has any nuclear weapons and South Africa no longer has any...... the US has deployed nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey but they are under control of the US) is it a reasonable conclusion that a hypothetical WWIII would involve nuclear weapons?
en.wikipedia.org...

Considering their restraint from using them over the last 60+ years isn't it more reasonable to conclude that they WON'T use nuclear weapons.

The more realistic dangers come from rogue states and / or terrorists and extremists etc.



Keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean that 50 MT nuclear war heads will be detonating around the globe ensuring a MAD scenario- with low yield tatical nukes, multi war head ICBM's and counter ABM's....it will make for an interesting "what if".


Got to disagree there I'm afraid, once nuclear weapons are used, even if initially 'only' tactical weapons are used, I think it would soon escalate to full blown nuclear confrontation - with devestating consequences for the whole of mankind.

Let's hope we never find out.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
reply to post by TritonTaranis
 


The Cold War was a very dangerous situation, yet both sides (who hated each other) did not fire nukes.



I disagree that both sides (US and Soviet Union) hated each other. During the Kissinger years there was detente. Kissinger's realpolitik acknowledged that the Soviet Union was a 'great power', and therefore allowed them to have their own sphere of influence.

It was the election of neo-conservatives in the west that saw the end of detente.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by deessell

Originally posted by daaskapital
reply to post by TritonTaranis
 


The Cold War was a very dangerous situation, yet both sides (who hated each other) did not fire nukes.



I disagree that both sides (US and Soviet Union) hated each other. During the Kissinger years there was detente. Kissinger's realpolitik acknowledged that the Soviet Union was a 'great power', and therefore allowed them to have their own sphere of influence.

It was the election of neo-conservatives in the west that saw the end of detente.


Perhaps i should have rephrased myself. I would say that they were afraid of each other. While there were some relaxed years, the Cold War was an uncertain period, so it was natural that no one was going to launch nukes (even though it got "close").



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
The 12'ver mullahs are the only ones, seeking a nuclear war - in order to get the infidel powers (including the Sunnis) to nuke each other off the chessboard - that is the sole reason they have backed Israel into a corner.

It is quite obvious that TPTB have set the Western world up for complete social collapse via PC multiculturalism - as described in Albert Pikes letter.

They are going to get us all to kill each other off or starve to death whilst they ride it out in their underground cities. probably even managing the conflicts from both sides until the requisite no of usless eaters are dead.

Once they emerge they will rule as a seperate elite class, you will be allowed to work as a slave for them, once chipped and totally controlled and will be disposed of once no longer usefull.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


And what would they achieve by doing all that?

Consider the fact that to be able to manipulate a nuclear war, to build 'underground cities' and be able to stock them etc to survive a nuclear winter and then regenerate earth to be able to sustain life again requires an incredible amount of power and influence.

If they already have that power, influence and control why bother?
What do they gain?

Sorry, it just doesn't add up.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 



First of all, why on earth is it so difficult to understand - it's not England when spoken about in this context it's the United Kingdom or simply the UK!

Chill out dude, my error - the"UK" would be the correct term to use.





Russia is a noteable omission

I included Russia as an after thought during an edit - I knew I'd left out a major....damn!!





neither Germany or Italy has any nuclear weapons and South Africa no longer has any...... the US has deployed nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey but they are under control of the US)

Thanks for the update, particularly Italy - note my "??" beside Germany and South Africa.

I'm by no means singling any particular Nation/s as likely instigators - moreso, highlighting the broad spread of nuclear capable Nations and the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons were WWIII to break out.


That is MY opinion and in response to the OP.

Cheers



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


And what would they achieve by doing all that?

Consider the fact that to be able to manipulate a nuclear war, to build 'underground cities' and be able to stock them etc to survive a nuclear winter and then regenerate earth to be able to sustain life again requires an incredible amount of power and influence.

If they already have that power, influence and control why bother?
What do they gain?

Sorry, it just doesn't add up.


Um - that is the whole point - they are going to get OURSELVES to kill each other off via civil/racial/religious wars, without a nuclear armageddon - they will probably use EMP strikes to get it started and make sure everything stays collapsed.


The point of it is to create a clean slate - as described in PIKES letter.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Perhaps
 




Chill out dude, my error - the"UK" would be the correct term to use.


No probs.
Just happens all the time - bit like calling the USA California or Texas all the time.



Thanks for the update, particularly Italy - note my "??" beside Germany and South Africa.


Yeah..... I'm not quite sure that if I was Belgian, Dutch, German, Italian or Turkish I'd be too pleased about US having nuclear weapons stationed in my country and having only a limited input on their usage....but I guess it works.

I didn't realise that South Africa scrapped their weapons as long ago that they did.



I'm by no means singling any particular Nation/s as likely instigators - moreso, highlighting the broad spread of nuclear capable Nations and the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons were WWIII to break out.


I think the original five countries have shown that they are capable of restraint.

The India / Pakistan situation is a potential powder keg and I get the impression it's just a matter or time before it blows in one shape or another.

Israel puts Israel first no matter what - provided they aren't faced with over whelming numbers etc I don't think they'd use first strike nuclear weapons, but.......?

I think China will keep North Korea in check, but who knows?



That is MY opinion and in response to the OP.


And it's a reasonable and valid one.

Personally I just think that an all out WWIII similair to those of WW's I & II is unlikely and that we face bigger threats from rogue states and various extremist states / organisations etc.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join