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.

 

World War III

page: 6
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I just don't know about all that. Maybe you are right, but speaking from the point of view of the USA, all of the major wars we were involved in throughout history appear to have been due to circumstances elsewhere, not necessarily originating because of financial trouble within the US. The notable exceptions are the Iraq War, and possibly the Gulf War, depending on how one looks at it. Vietnam was likely initiated as a money making scheme by the higher ups in the government and large businesses within America, as they made a lot of money. Kennedy's assassination very likely had something to do with his unwillingness to involve America in Vietnam.

WWII also was not America's doing. Hitler basically started the war in Europe, and America was still relatively isolationist in its doctrine. But after the Japanese attack on Hawaii, we were forced to get involved. And America did not initially enter the fray in Europe by invading the mainland, as we went into Vichy France via North Africa, which at the time seemed strange, but turned out to be the savior of the US army. Had they attempted an invasion of Europe initially, they would have been crushed.

Anyway, even WWI was not initiated by the US. But other countries have waged war for some of the reasons you mention. The US really does not want to see a war with China, as they are the one country in the world that can go toe to toe with us. This is mainly because of their numbers of troops. WWII proved that even if your casualty rates are high, if you have the men to keep throwing at the enemy, they will eventually capitulate. This is why the USSR lost millions of troops in WWII, compared to the number lost by the Nazis on the Eastern Front. The USSR just threw men at the problem, and prevailed. This would have been the case even if Hitler had pushed much further into the USSR. The Germans were likely doomed from the start of Operation Barbarossa, and that, imo, is ultimately what lost them the war. Had they established a defensive front along the USSR border, and not invaded, and focused their strength elsewhere, they likely would have won...Barring any major blunders, which Hitler was apt to make.

Anyway, China actually can go toe to toe with the US, both on land and in the air. I think the US naval forces have an advantage on the sea however. Very few people know that the Chinese, through espionage, acquired the plans for the US F-35 fighter jet. This is our most advanced fighter, a new generation aircraft with stealth technology. And not only did they get the blueprints, not that long ago they unveiled a new jet of their own, which looks eerily similar to the F-35. That aircraft alone means that America will have a much more difficult time achieving air superiority, which is essential to winning a war.

This all may not matter that much though, depending on whether nuclear weapons are used. The reason that the US used two nuclear devices to end WWII is completely different. Do you know what the estimated casualties would have been for the US to invade the Japanese mainland? At least 10 million Japanese would have been killed, probably many more, along with at least a million US soldiers, probably more. That is why we dropped the bomb. Had it come out later that Truman had a new weapon that could have won the war earlier, and he didn't use it, he would have been viewed in a very negative light...Probably even run out of office. So ultimately that act saved many lives.

But in modern times, starting a war with nukes would not be saving lives, but taking them. I am not convinced that most nations would use nuclear weapons early in a war. A nuclear nation would likely withhold using nuclear devices until they were losing, or it became evident they were going to lose, or lose a great advantage that they may have possessed. The good news for the US is that we have the most advanced missile defense shield on the planet. Most of it is classified at this point, so we don't even know how advanced it is. But it is likely quite advanced. We did know that the US MDS could only bring down a couple of dozen ICBM's, but likely that number has increased. Russia and the US both knew that if the other initiated a nuclear attack, that it would come in a hail of missiles. They wouldn't just shoot ten or twenty missiles. It would be hundreds. If the US launched that many ICBM's against any other nation, it would be destroyed. I know China has no real missile defense system.

So in fact the US has the advantage in a nuclear war. But the US probably would never use a nuclear weapon again, unless they were first attacked with one. Unlike the 2 bombs dropped in WWII, no one knew the destructive power of these devices. Anyway, to sum things up, I do not see WWIII starting by 2014. It just is not very likely. Each nation has too much to lose at this point in time.




posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeP2247

Why do you assume a Pakistan/India conflict can be localized? It cannot. We are aligned with India - we will have to go to their aid - by treaty.


Who is aligned with India? Who are you talking about?



Mao overtook Chang Ki Shek in the 40's - we are aligned with Taiwan by treaty - we have to go to their aid.
And that pits the capitalists v communists in that country - by definition. Now the Maoists are challenging the capitalists in the mainland after they have been deposed - I do not know what you find unclear about this.

All societies suffer from internal struggles - and the one between haves and have-not is an eternal one.
You are assuming that China is not or will not be able to manage the difference in wealth between social classes.
You are forgetting the Chinese people are very money minded, and there is a strong aspiration factor. Everybody wants to get rich. As long as China maintains a facade of providing education and opportunities to all people, social strife cannot get out of hand.



Please explain what you think is not clear - I do not understand - and I really want to be wrong here.
Joe


Listening to other helps sometimes.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
World War 3 you can bet will include the same players from WW2, but on different sides perhaps. Japan, Germany, USA, Russia, and the UK will definitely be involved. It all depends on the playing field that is agreed upon. I think OP's theory of a China vs. India theater is a good one, because of the high population. Dropping those nations down a few notches would help a lot of the old world. Africa would be the other theater, because nobody gives a # about it. Ya, there's some oil, but it isn't the middle east which would screw everyone if that is wasted. Mainland USA/Canada along with western Europe/eastern Russia will not be fought over, because that is insta-nuke territory and everyone knows it.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
People tend to over simplify the use of nuclear weapons as being quite so "possible", IMO.

Historically in Wars, countries have tended to be extremely conservative about using WMDs. Even people's concerns about India and Pakistan being more likely to use them is more than likely incorrect. Even Saddam, as crazy as he was drew the line at actually using his chemical weapons against the US or even Israel.

It is a huge deterrent when the other side has the capability to retaliate in kind. It was routine for the Allies to keep chemical munitions in front line areas in WW2, simply because of the history of them being used by the Germans in WW1. Even at times where the War was going very, very badly for the Allies the use of such weapons was given pretty much zero consideration. Even in a War where the bombing of civilians became so common neither side wanted to escalate to that level.

Of course past history cannot completely determine future actions but it does give us some level of reference. There will continue to be conflicts of all types but the likelihood of them becoming nuclear is much lower than public opinion seems to put forth.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia

Originally posted by JoeP2247

Why do you assume a Pakistan/India conflict can be localized? It cannot. We are aligned with India - we will have to go to their aid - by treaty.


Who is aligned with India? Who are you talking about?

We have a defense treaty with India if they are ever attacked.



Mao overtook Chang Ki Shek in the 40's - we are aligned with Taiwan by treaty - we have to go to their aid.
And that pits the capitalists v communists in that country - by definition. Now the Maoists are challenging the capitalists in the mainland after they have been deposed - I do not know what you find unclear about this.

All societies suffer from internal struggles - and the one between haves and have-not is an eternal one.
You are assuming that China is not or will not be able to manage the difference in wealth between social classes.
You are forgetting the Chinese people are very money minded, and there is a strong aspiration factor. Everybody wants to get rich. As long as China maintains a facade of providing education and opportunities to all people, social strife cannot get out of hand.


No I see the Chinese as very survival minded - they cannot simply put up a façade - they will have to deal with those inland provinces they raped to get to where they are. Facades do not feed them.



Please explain what you think is not clear - I do not understand - and I really want to be wrong here.
Joe


Listening to other helps sometimes.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


Your post is very good.

Technology can advance very rapidly sometimes. I have found Chinese to be very smart people, in fact smarter than Americans.

I have no reason to under-estimate the Chinese.

The missile defense is difficult as missiles can be made smarter to defeat missile defense. It is much cheaper to modify the missiles to defeat missile defense. Missile defense is a very complex technology.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I don't doubt your thoughts. It is very possible that it could play out that way.

I feel that Israel vs Iran may be a more likely spark that ignites the powder keg.

I wouldn't doubt a that a nuclear device could play a role in any future battle. The thought of a former Soviet state having lost/sold a device or Paskistan losing/selling a device is worrisome.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


The Chinese smarter than the Americans? the Russian education system was better than the rest. Why? because if you were Doctor, the system wouldn't let you exploit the people for personal gain. Everyone had a job a place to live and medical care. Probably not great places to live or great jobs, but they were there. America never gave a crap with regards to its citizens, and still doesn't, because it was never considered an issue the bum in the street existed as a warning to other citizens to keep your head down and ass up or you'll end up the same. I know one thing as far as the West goes, young rhymes with dumb. A system that let a giant like Detroit go to the wall all those jobs and skills, has no mercy.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


Your post is very good.

Technology can advance very rapidly sometimes. I have found Chinese to be very smart people, in fact smarter than Americans.

I have no reason to under-estimate the Chinese.






I do - I think they just copy us - I've run into their students at grad school and they sure seem more like spies than students.

If they have to still copy us they are not in our league if war comes - I'd remember that.

Joe



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


Your Theiry is interesting, I would ass that we spend as much on defense as the next 6 countries combinedi think and that being said I just wonder what kind of real nasty # our government/military are working on that we have no fing idea about. I'm talking about black projects and such.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


they are not in our league tey by the chinese have been stealing our secrets for a long long time. They also have alot more population then we do so any war fought with them would have to vicous and short, a war of attrition with china would be bad for us



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Czulkang
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


Your Theiry is interesting, I would ass that we spend as much on defense as the next 6 countries combinedi think and that being said I just wonder what kind of real nasty # our government/military are working on that we have no fing idea about. I'm talking about black projects and such.


I don't think the US has too much to worry about - s long as we did spend the past 68 years coming up with an adequate response - And I am sure we have.

I do pity the bastards over seas though. That is where the real killing will be.

Joe



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


Like I said in many other posts, China is not dumb enough to wage war with US directly. I see China as a businessman more than a fighter, USA is a bully and a fighter.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Hard to say if there would be a WW III soon. To me, I doubt we'll have one on the horizon right now. The advances we've made in weaponry would devastate our planet far to much, if it were to be a all out world war (especially is there was usage of chemical/nuclear weapons.)

Let's hope it never comes, but let's face it, there probably will be one eventually. Most likely when our population grows way to high, and natural resources start really getting scarce. And that doesn't seem to long down the road if we keep doing what we're doing. If one were to occur, I'd have to say I'd be around 2030-2040.

Like Einstein once said; "I know not what weapons will be used in WW III, but I do know WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

We cannot handle another world war, for the sake of humanity, and our planet.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lingweenie
Hard to say if there would be a WW III soon. To me, I doubt we'll have one on the horizon right now. The advances we've made in weaponry would devastate our planet far to much, if it were to be a all out world war (especially is there was usage of chemical/nuclear weapons.)

Let's hope it never comes, but let's face it, there probably will be one eventually. Most likely when our population grows way to high, and natural resources start really getting scarce. And that doesn't seem to long down the road if we keep doing what we're doing. If one were to occur, I'd have to say I'd be around 2030-2040.

Like Einstein once said; "I know not what weapons will be used in WW III, but I do know WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

We cannot handle another world war, for the sake of humanity, and our planet.




unfortunately for the rest of the world -but the US probably can fight a tactical nuclear war and do very well (maybe lose a few cities in the process) but relatively well. And we probably do have some high card to play.

For example - China can forget about collecting on all those bonds - and losing most of it's territory in such a move if it came to it - all my pure speculation by the way.
Joe



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Lingweenie
 


It was widely expected that 2001 stock market crash is a prelude to a world war. However it proved to be a false signal.

Then 2008 crash happened (which looks like a real crash brought by real economic factors). This crash has shaken the Western economies like never before.

I think there are two critical issues - oil and demographic changes, that will dictate the course of near term future events.

Explosion of Muslim population in last two decades coupled with increasing radicalization is happening at a time of low fertility of Western population coupled with decline of Catholic church.

Oil has become a reason for serious competition between East and West, as East needs this critical resource in ever increasing quantity.

These two things are central, and we need to see how these will be managed.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Hopefully this does not come to pass - although I not holding my breath..
edit on 27-5-2013 by JoeP2247 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


Look, honestly look, at our US gov't - they are all traitors - dems and repubs alike -

The US is going down, unless God intervenes and the good people of the US win out.

They won't secure our borders, they won't get rid of the Fed, they won't fix our school and welfare programs -

Really - look at our US gov't.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I have to say that I think you are right on your calculation about the time period of the World War. The economic crisis is going to make people desperate, not just governments. I think that there are efforts being put into place to keep war from happening, but we aren't turning the tide.

I think that if there was another World War soon, there might also be a lot of civil wars all over the place, especially against corporate interests. People know that corporations are not their friend.

When the corporate interests decided they could openly express their distaste for commoners they made a huge mistake. Think about it - the were bailed out. Monsanto tries to keep their seeds from being regulated. Bankers in Europe taxed the people of Greece.

The entertainment industry tries to limit access to entertainment as one of their main strategies. Terrible ideas, all of them.

If anything, because the corporations are not playing by their own playbook. Take away entertainment?? Really? And openly rob people of their money at the same time? Are they insane? It will end badly for them eventually.

I've said this before, actually - escalating methods of control like surveillance and drones is going to have the unintended effect of escalating the eventual conflict, it will not keep it from occuring.
edit on 28-5-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sandcastler
World War 3 you can bet will include the same players from WW2, but on different sides perhaps. Japan, Germany, USA, Russia, and the UK will definitely be involved. It all depends on the playing field that is agreed upon. I think OP's theory of a China vs. India theater is a good one, because of the high population. Dropping those nations down a few notches would help a lot of the old world. Africa would be the other theater, because nobody gives a # about it. Ya, there's some oil, but it isn't the middle east which would screw everyone if that is wasted. Mainland USA/Canada along with western Europe/eastern Russia will not be fought over, because that is insta-nuke territory and everyone knows it.


A world war over high population? That is a funny theory. If it was true, many world wars would have already happened over high population.

You have to look for ideological fault lines - people who are highly antagonistic due to beliefs. This is usually the more likely reason to be exploited by power hungry leaders.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join