WWIII who's it going to be with?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
WWIII we are all wondering when where how this is going to happen. some people believe that the current middle east conflict of war on terrorism is it. well i don't believe it that was just a retaliatory attack from the supposed 9/11 attack.be this will be the biggest so for and i can just bet nuclear forces will be in it.while the top superpowers of the eart sit waiting on someone to act first just so they can jump in.what do you believe and between who?




posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
When I was in High School my journalism teacher said China and the US, doesn't look that way now, but who knows, she said history repeats itself and China was once ruler of the civilized world. Religion would have us believe it will be Christians against Muslims, but really countries go to war over resources and money, not religion.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by chrismg
 


According to Albert Pike who predicted that the anti-Christ would return after 3 world wars, world war 3 is between Islam and Christianity.

Now look at all the conflict that has been going on since Gulf War 1 (1991).

If Albert was wrong then things will not get worse in Syria and between Iran and Israel.
If Albert was correct then all Muslim nations will gang up on Israel once America's power is destroyed.

Russia also plays its part and has to have a major route to transport its troops into the Middle-East. Now remember back to August 2008 when Russia's satellite nation Georgia almost went pro-West with Israeli and US naval boats off its coast.

Pro-west Georgia didn't have a hope in hell of winning against Biblical prophecy.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
see i agree the four main superpowers china,russia,uk,and us will fight together or against each other in something that might destroy us all.we may seem to be allies or in a close relationship now but we are just waiting to see what is to come?



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
What is your definition of WWIII?

If you mean nuclear or other non-conventional warfare then I think it could involve all the super powers.
I do not believe their will ever be a traditional boots on the ground type World War again.

No one has the ability tactically, supply chain, technology to successfully run a ground based invasion of the Mainland US.

Conversely the same limitations apply to a successful ground based invasion of China.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
there could be from another small nation being backed by someone more powerful for a direct assault with no aerial or naval coverage.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by chrismg
 


Clearly US, UK, France and Austrailia , Japan and traditional NATO on one side. I do not think we can count on any support from Middle East. not Iraq not Afganistan and not Saudi Arabia. I doubt much support from African Union either. I expect China, Russia. Pakistan, Iran on the other



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
There will never be another world war in the traditional sense. Globalization and nuclear proliferation have ensured that.

Basically there is nothing to gain for any major power that would outweigh the cost of going to war. All of our economies are so tied together that if China were to Invade Russia than their economy would collapse due to sanctions.

The actual fighting part is irrelevant.

Plus they would nuke each other making it pointless to begin with.

The closest you will ever see to major powers battling each other are through proxy wars and even those can only extend out so much.

Take the Syria conflict, that could have easily blown up in past decades but today...everyone rushed to the line then quietly backed down again.

Add on top of this the fact that very few countries have a population that would ever support another world war and its just an impossible scenario.

Not going to happen no matter how much some people want it to.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
oh well one day some country will get seriously angry at another and break that by sending nuclear weapons to destroy. to me it all describe to who,when,and why. but now i can guarantee this will happen in the future maybe not in our lifetimes but our childrens and then everyone will pay for the measures someone took because they got angry. just like we did to end WWII and we are still getting negative returns from all of that how the us military basically runs right over the foreign japanese defense ministry.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

chrismg
oh well one day some country will get seriously angry at another and break that by sending nuclear weapons to destroy. to me it all describe to who,when,and why. but now i can guarantee this will happen in the future maybe not in our lifetimes but our childrens and then everyone will pay for the measures someone took because they got angry. just like we did to end WWII and we are still getting negative returns from all of that how the us military basically runs right over the foreign japanese defense ministry.


You will probably see a rogue individual or group use nuclear material some day but it won't be an entire nation unless they have a collective death wish.

There is nothing to gain from it.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
well maybe the back up nation will include nuclear weapons as an end or for a first instant strike death toll.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   

chrismg
well maybe the back up nation will include nuclear weapons as an end or for a first instant strike death toll.


Honestly, if your concerned about global warfare I would point you in the direction of a biological attack as opposed to a nuclear one.

With the population centers rapidly gaining numbers, a released virus, or multiple ones, with short life-spans could have a much deadlier effect, and give anonymity to any country which released it.

You could theoretically incapacitate most of the major population of any given country with proper timing, at least enough to accomplish whatever goal it is that you had.

Set this up as a false flag and it would give a country motive to invade another one while taking the threat of nuclear retaliation off the table.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I don't think we'll ever see another "world war". There is nothing to gain. No trophy from winning a war of "mutual destruction". All out nuclear war will mean total destruction of each others nation.

Its a matter of "Oh YEAH?! Nuke us ONCE..and we'll nuke you back THREE times!" Then we'll nuke them back SIX times, and they'll respond TWELVE times...over and over until neither is left standing as a country(ies).



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


yes well when someone whoever launches the first a strong nation will back the one who is being attack and launch their nuclear arsenal against them.maybe?



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Hopefully never. I happened to watch a doc last night about the Cuban Missile Crisis and how close it came to a devastating nuclear war. Never knew America agreed to remove their missiles from Turkey if Russia removed theirs from Cuba. Plus Russia kept a lot hidden there but removed them much later due to the way Cuba was behaving.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   

chrismg
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


yes well when someone whoever launches the first a strong nation will back the one who is being attack and launch their nuclear arsenal against them.maybe?


Not at all.

If North Korea were to set off a nuke in South Korea I can guarantee that China will not back them up. They will probably nuke North Korea before we do just to make sure that they have control of the situation.

Its basically understood that whoever uses a nuke in anger will be hit back by someone, which is why nobody uses them.

If France were to set off a nuke in Northern Africa you are not going to see the US or Britain backing them up....they are on their own. We will set sanctions on them and cut their country off from everything and their government will collapse in a matter of weeks. That's assuming they don't strike a nuclear armed power who would retaliate.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by chrismg
 

That was my point. 2 countries argue...each has even more allied nations to fight on their side. Pretty quickly, all the nations...primary and their allies...will start throwing things at each other...until nothings left. Or at least....those areas destroyed in and around them...will be radioactive and uninhabitable for thousands of years to come.
No one wins.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

scotsdavy1
Hopefully never. I happened to watch a doc last night about the Cuban Missile Crisis and how close it came to a devastating nuclear war. Never knew America agreed to remove their missiles from Turkey if Russia removed theirs from Cuba. Plus Russia kept a lot hidden there but removed them much later due to the way Cuba was behaving.


Kennedy got manhandled by Nikita Khrushchev during that event and his whole presidency actually. Khrushchev allowed Kennedy to save face by secretly letting the US remove the missiles at a later date but he definitely got his way.

Did you also know that the missiles the Soviet Union had already placed in Cuba were run by Cuban military personal? That's right, the Soviet Union had no central command and although they had advisors in Cuba, the missiles were each run by Cubans with their own sets of codes meaning that at any time, one of those Cuban commanders could have launched.

Did you also know that at the start of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy's security council recommended a land invasion of Cuba and that Kennedy had quickly agreed? It was only during a brief break in the meeting when Robert Kennedy pulled his brother aside and asked him what the hell he was doing.

He talked JFK into telling the council to find another way and they came up with the blockade. Had Kennedy invaded, Florida would be a wasteland right now and he was that close to doing it.

Kennedy was an idiot and it was probably the reason he was shot.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


yes and as china helps out north korea the us will be there more with south korea. see that almost happen once before a chinese sponsored north korean missile was targeted at south korea us got the world and they changed targets to the U.S. which made us even more irritated towards them.to me me north kore is the small little punk kid on the block.



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

chrismg
reply to post by Spookybelle
 


yes and as china helps out north korea the us will be there more with south korea. see that almost happen once before a chinese sponsored north korean missile was targeted at south korea us got the world and they changed targets to the U.S. which made us even more irritated towards them.to me me north kore is the small little punk kid on the block.


Well contrary to popular belief, China doesn't actually like North Korea and only keep them around to keep US bases as far from them as possible, at least that was the reason for them entering the war in the 50's. The regime of North Korea was installed as a puppet government by Stalin and the Chinese absolutely hated Stalin with a passion.

China is not going to waste one drop of sweat on the North Koreans if it isn't in their interest, if North Korea does something stupid you can expect China to swoop in there, remove Kim and his military from power, and probably annex the country as part of their own.






top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join