World War III

reply to post by 2012newstart


TR3A/TR3B are NOT UFOs.

The FAS site says 'subsonic spy planes'. Do you get it?

"Subsonic spy planes" haha! Thank you, you make my day! On which airport did anyone of us see Tr 3A or TR 3B? The drawings online say "nuclear powered". We know such plane failed construction efforts in both USA and USSR. In fact they are element 115 powered according to Bob Lazar leaks.

Of course they are part of what is popularly called UFO. Triangles large as one street block have been reported by countless witnesses, including police officers near Bushes ranch in Texas. They are part of the UFOs, not all of them, I agree. But here they are, a fleet that is now widely posted online. Could you imagine that to happen 10 years ago?

Another "UFO" are the saucer shaped (smaller) that Bob Lazar talks about. Another UFO are cigar shaped (bigger) that Bob Dean talks about. Another UFO are pyramid shaped that fly above Kremlin and China.

CIA recently admitted of Area 51 existence without admitting of UFO only secret planes. That is good enough!
Where is the tiny line between secret planes next generation, with propulsion next generation (obviously not aerodynamics in those cases), and the UFO? We shoud admit they are a matter of fact and they fly on all sides.

Then, some may try to investigate if there is something more behind.

FAS might be the first official site after CIA admission of Area 51 to say of TR planes, don't know. It wasn't spoken of sometime ago. Much more will be posted as "usual, secret spy plane" pretty soon. Because it is needed, now. Including for evacuation purposes as I talk in length.

Of course that topic could be enlarged quite much. For the purpose of WW3 discussion, of course the most advanced weaponry will be used, including the above mentioned "planes"

the evacuation in the short pre-WW3 period is needed for another reason. I talk more in another thread with a link several posts above. The other reason is the radiation will change human genome. So even if there are survivors on the surface, they will be genetically hurt. And because nobody can say if one bomb to srael will result in 10 bombs to Iran and Syria, and it will result to 100 bombs from Pakistan, and so on and so forth, the worst should be assumed. I maintain that Russia will resort to use of its arsenal only after we see Moscow streets emptied of people. This will be a sign for all the others.

If I have to quote Bible (for some), let remember Jesus warned evacuation of Jerusalem. The armies are now at a distance of missile to reach it in 5 minutes. Many will say, it was fulfilled in 70 AD. Many others know it is not fully fulfilled. I don't know if the time is now or not. But Jerusaem is virtually surrounded by missiles on 10 min reach from all sides, incl Iran.

TR3B compared to Jumbo jagace2000.webs.com...
this may be even lessened because people say it is bigger and quite tick as well. In anyway it cannot fly using aerodynamics laws. It hovers silently, it makes turns, it disappears. It corresponds to what some call hyperspace physics. This thing does exit and is made on earth, as we are already told even by FAS, yes? subsonic, BS. It defies the sonic barier as well as the light barrier. It is hyperspace engine powered craft. Believe it or not.

It remains to ask the question how we got it in first place. The same question could be asked for V2 von Brown rocket, or for the Nazi saucers reportedly flying in Antarctica during admiral Byrd's mission. The answers are not simple. I will not try to give them in this thread. What is important though is to accept as a matter of fact the highly more advanced capabilities of USA, Russia, China and others. They will be used in WW3 scenarios.

First of all they will be/should be used for evacuation purposes. Indeed if you have a craft that can hyperspace jump, you can switch it on while still on earth and bridge by hyperspace two places (very rough explanation). Here it is the portal tech that could transport vast number of people from one place to another without actually put them on a plane to "fly" them to there. It is not needed to go into details here. Especially if it will encounter discussion of the nature "it can't be" in principle, and then "no aliens in it because they don't exist". This is not my purpose to bring those topics here.

I will repeat that the superpowers have tech to make super-war and also to rescue the people shortly before it starts. Why then to have a war in first place. It depends on who stays behind and the final goals they want it, may be not only to rule the earth if the planet wil be devastated for centuries as result. Then why? I don't know.

temporarily, I will have to cease my participation in this thread, and in the one similar to it, for personal reasons. What is next on the ground in Syria: a kind of a large evacuation of people who already seek refuge abroad as we speak. Even before the US rockets, as it happened in Lebanon - Israel war. Obama has key speech and vote that also will bring weight. Russia still hasn't defined how exactly will help Syria (that is the other thread quoted here). I am in expectation as probably everyone of you. Thanks for the good discussion!

reply to post by 2012newstart


Linking FAS page for your benefit:

www.fas.org...

Please get over your UFO delusion.

reply to post by GargIndia


Hold on there, we have NO IDEA what a TR3B is,hence the term "secret" It is sighted it is often read about but what it can do or for that matter what America has in her box of war we have no idea.All we do know is we keep the super advanced stuff under a lethal cloak of secrey.We can't even figure out how many people have been killed for these items of intrest.
They are "Last Use" weaponry or "5th tier" tech.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Cavtrooper, I can assure you that USA has NO working flying disks.

You can believe what you want, and I cannot change your views, but what I state shall be proven true.

reply to post by GargIndia


I would like see some facts come to light as well,but I trust certain people's opinions over civilians with visions.
Nor would I presume God would work through me.If as you say we'll see it soon,what comes to pass will suffice.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


The real dynamic in this world is greed, hatred, violence perpetrated by the elite.
It is not about somebody having a specific weapon.

I admire Americans as largely honest and upright. But American elites have devised ways to manipulate and misuse these people.

While America has better weapons than rest of the world, American power is based heavily on two components - space and sea. Adversaries like China have been unable to directly challenge American lead in these areas. However beware of developments that will surprise you as America gets challenged in other areas where it does not have lead anymore.

America is still dominant on sea but losing on land. It exited Iraq without its objective being met. It is exiting Afghanistan without rooting out anti-American elements. The Af-Pak area has not changed due to America's occupation. These are very serious failures.

Unable to learn from these failures, US now intends to repeat same with more countries. This is causing a retreat of American power (hard power as well as soft power) on land.

As regards air-power, I no longer consider USA as having a great advantage. It is a draw, as adversaries have weapons that can successfully attack US mainland.

More than military, US has become economically vulnerable. The reason is over-spending for decades by the government, largely on items that do not contribute to economic strength. There is runaway increase in social expenditure, without the corresponding increase in productivity.

Great power like USA runs the risk of over-estimating its strength. if history is any guide, the final moments of empires have not been pretty.

reply to post by GargIndia


Then it should be interesting I have performed "Not Pretty" mostly on the recon squad level.

reply to post by GargIndia


I have to disagree here, America still has most feared military force in the world. Iraq was not a search and destroy war, instead it was a occupied the area without wreaking everything war. If America went to war with Syria just to 'destroy' and not build the country we would come out on top. If Syria conflict is about nation building it would be hard war, because foreign militants from over the border and radicals on the rebels side would take advantage of the situation after Assad gone.

To deal with foreign militants/radicals I would place ammo stock piles in key locations in Syria with significant cultural heritage or nation pride. These ammo stock pile in cultural/tourism areas would serve as places headquarters of the more cooler head political powers. If any attack is launch by proxies or radicals on the headquarter of the reasonable power brokers, they will obliterate a cultural area of Syria. By the radicals destroying the cultural, they will lose goodwill with Syria's citizens and be kicked out of the country.

My situation is if you want a stable democracy use landmarks and infrastructure Syrian citizens care about as a bargaining chip.

If Syrian citizens refuse to 'maintain' postwar democracy one of their landmarks get destroy in the crossfire.

Winning hearts and minds should be important in any civil war.

reply to post by Upton33


Well China has come out with a whitepaper challenging USA's military power:

blog.heritage.org...

China is pulling Muslim countries one by one towards it. Pakistan and Iran are already China's client states.

Russians have been forced to take a stand of Syria, also because of rising Chinese influence in Muslim sphere.

China is rapidly advancing in Africa and Latin America.

USA is facing many fundamental problems, like aging population, declining productivity, increasing social stress, and increasing adverse perception of USA abroad.

Being superpower is much more than being a military power. It is about being a political power that is accepted by most of the world as a leader.

reply to post by GargIndia


Lie down with dogs and you get fleas. The Chinese are infidels, in the end they too will see Jihadist action.
Two eastern powers that are allies until it becomes unpopular.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Cav, the massive industrial engine of China is producing goods and capital needed by a lot of countries.

USA neither produces goods nor capital.

People cannot eat airplanes for lunch.

The Chinese influence is increasing as it provides many countries what they need in return.

You may not like the Chinese (even I have problems) but the bigger picture is they are succeeding.

Sunday morning bomb at Christian church in Pakistan kills at least 75

worldnews.nbcnews.com...

Till date I have not understood why USA supports Pakistan? This is a country where the military and secret services are engaged in genocide. This military killed millions of Bengalis. Now they have moved to Christians, Shia and Baluch. Is this USA's idea of freedom?

We want to understand USA's political beliefs but are unable.

The Syria episode did not happen as it not time yet.

US attack on Syria will inevitably start a chain reaction in the middle east. It is not a simple hit and run.

Things are starting to hot up between India and Pakistan. The whole problem is Pakistan's deep sense of vulnerability versus India. (Which is not unfounded). Pakistan engages in many aggressive actions against India, but has not found the success it so desires, despite going nuclear. It has already amassed a nuclear arsenal that it can afford. It can no longer increase the arsenal size without risks (like stealing of warheads by terrorists)

The problem with Pakistan's strategy is 'technology'. Pakistan's strategy of breaking up India by fomenting rebellion has not worked due to better surveillance technology adopted by India (and fencing off border). India has also been able to increase its forces wherever needed due to economic clout, thus negating any advantage that Pakistan may have obtained.

Pakistan has twice gone to war over Kashmir but did not succeed.

The problem now is that Indian Army is deeply entrenched in Kashmir. Pakistan cannot dislodge Indian Army from Kashmir through conventional means. Pakistan's think-tanks talk freely about using tactical nukes on Indian bases. However I doubt that Pakistan has any maturity or serious capability in nuclear war fighting. The chances of errors of judgement are highest in nuclear war fighting. The most likely scenario is that Pakistan will fail and the result will be nuclear strikes by both sides on cities.

The loss of life in such an exchange can reach 10 million on each side. While India can survive such losses, I doubt that State of Pakistan will survive. It will collapse if its major cities like Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Peshawar and Lahore are struck.

INDIA's NUCLEAR CAPABILITY

There is a tendency of Western analysts to under-estimate India's nuclear missiles and warheads. It looks more like a deception as Indian government does not give much useful information, and Indian public turns to Western sources for information.

My analysis of Indian arsenal is that India's short to medium range missiles (150-1200 km) are extremely reliable and proven. This includes 350 km range Prithvi-3 and 700-1200 km range Agni-1 and derivatives. The nuclear warheads have been refined and tested repeatedly (without Physics package, but triggers and electronics have been extensively tested). The results of last tests have been analyzed and warhead design has been improved. India has reliable warheads now from 10KT-200KT range.

I have gone through Pakistani blogs and discussion boards and they have a tendency to believe that India's missiles are 'unreliable' and warheads are 'defective'. This is a very dangerous belief.

reply to post by GargIndia


Good post.

Look, the US will not tolerate any serious attack on India. If Pakistan does try some sneak attack India will not be alone at all.

The US will back India, probably Russia will too.

I do not think US will help India by selling 1.5M howitzer for 5M.

India bought Il-76 for 50M. The C-17 cost India 400M. While C-17 can carry 70 ton compared to 43 ton of IL-76, the price difference is quite remarkable.

India wants to acquire US arms but is constrained by steep price quoted. This is in addition to risk of sanctions and disruptions that always exist.