Is a non-nuclear WW3 possible?

It's a simple question I think but many complicated factors would determine how it would all unfold but simply asked, could the world powers ever fight a massive war without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons?
I hope we never see either but knowing our past I can't say I'm very optimistic and new technology can be a game changer so what's being kept secret?
War also happens for so many various reasons and in or near allies and fallout always has to be considered but would the person losing the war even care at that point?
If I am to guess I am going to say WW3 will be hell on earth with use of nukes, bio, chem and every nasty tool even using the net as a weapon so in the end we'd be left with a poisoned radiated planet! Luckily I don't really think we will see WW3 because only an insane person would want that.

a reply to: Slickinfinity

If we got rid of all of them before hand I think yes we could.
Otherwise no..it has been proved nations will use them.
But I do think it could just be a small exchange before it really hits the fan and that will hopefully wake people up IF it happens that is.

The short answer is no. There are too many countries armed with these weapons and one of them is bound to let a few loose should war come to their shores and borders.

The long answer is probably not. There are a number of societal factors in play determining whether nuclear weaponry would be used in a hot WWIII. Would the participants in the war follow the Geneva Convention? Would any nation want to be painted by future generations (If there are any) as the country that fired the first nuclear shot in the end of the world?

a reply to: Slickinfinity

I think it is , I believe WW3 started a few years ago so unless Islamic fundamentalists get hold of Nukes I doubt it will be a Nuclear war.
WW4 however .....


I think people expect all World Wars to look like the last one but that aint necessarily so , this World War will be a slow boiler.

a reply to: Slickinfinity

I just finished watching a video, - unfortunately in German so. It concerned the IMF. In this video interview the author predicted that something will "give" and according to him within months or just a few years. But he insisted it to be less than 5 years and not some decades down the road.
Naturally he spoke of a WW3 scenario but with 2 options. One that it goes nuclear as many fear and the other that it will be a massive "bare fists" rage of the common people against the "banksters". in this scenario all what we will encounter is plenty of |"street-lamp decorations" - (hanged bankers) and in essence a repetition of the French Revolution on a world scale.
Coincidently I have often cited the statement from late Archbishop Dom Helder Camara of Brazil who in the early 70's had claimed that: "WW3 will not be fought with missiles but with the rage and the bare fists of the masses of the dispossessed" I was quite stunned to hear a similar statement from the author on this book.

For those who speak German, here is the link:

Interview

a reply to: Guenter

I feel it is coming I really do not nuclear but the stringing up the bankers and starting again stuff.
Just talking to people wow something is going to pop.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Slickinfinity

But I do think it could just be a small exchange before it really hits the fan and that will hopefully wake people up IF it happens that is.

I guess this is a much more likely scenario. After all, for the exception of those still alive from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all others know a nuke-blast only from TV, movies or on rare occasions from test-ranges. A good "show" of a few small ones might get people to take their heads out from the x-box and away from the soap operas and think and act.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Guenter

I feel it is coming I really do not nuclear but the stringing up the bankers and starting again stuff.
Just talking to people wow something is going to pop.

It'll be hard to do when Bankers hide behind the guns of the military.

Though, if the military decides that Bankers have to go as well... Then, we have a chance.

Yes.......
Those in power like it too much where they at, that they wouldn't do anything to risk losing it....
Who wants to rule over a dusty parkinglot?

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Guenter

I feel it is coming I really do not nuclear but the stringing up the bankers and starting again stuff.
Just talking to people wow something is going to pop.

it sure does! I often claim that also most focus on the American revolution as the most seminal event in the 18th century, I say it was rather the French revolution that scared the living hell out of the European Elite. It is not surprising that many social reforms during the 1850's in Europe were caused doe to the "memory" of the French revolution. When disgruntled workers and masses marched for better pay, sick-leave and so forth, the elite quickly caved in. And today's so called "socialist Europe" with the basic health care, pensions and so forth has it's roots from back then. You do as we tell you or you hang... kind of message.

I just commented in another post, how I think WW3 will be a silent war, with a total destruction of a nations financial system, health, Media, manufacturing, education, etc... all with the use of big corporations, that are now being bought and owned by private businesses usually asian. Its a complete take over of everything that makes up a nation. All while dumbing down the population and feeding the citizens with false news items. Control the media, and you pretty much have half the battle won.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Guenter

I feel it is coming I really do not nuclear but the stringing up the bankers and starting again stuff.
Just talking to people wow something is going to pop.

It'll be hard to do when Bankers hide behind the guns of the military.

Though, if the military decides that Bankers have to go as well... Then, we have a chance.

Don't forget the oath: "... to defend against enemies Foreign and DOMESTIC ...

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I think those protecting these folk will pop with everyone else.
If it all continues the way it is going but it could be many years away and they may just blow it all up while we are too late.

The simple answer is no, nuclear weapons would be used, but not as you would think.
It is very unlikely you will see them being dropped on highly populated areas, but you would see them being used in a more tactical sense... military bases, industrial areas, navy ships and sometimes even land units. But they are nowhere near as big as those portrayed in videos you have seen from nuclear tests in the past or those dropped over Japan during the WW2. It is highly unlikely the "big ones" would ever see action, uninhabitable land is to no use to any given enemy trying to invade a nation.

The rusty wire, that holds the cork, that keeps the anger in, gives way, and suddenly it's day again.

I think it's inevitable. And the funny sad thing is, there will be a few generals standing on the smoldering ruins of humanity celebrating "victory". Which side they are on is not important.

a reply to: Slickinfinity

Personally I think World War III would in fact be fought without nuclear weapons . Unless A nvading army actually set foot into a country that has nuclear weapons . As long as it is happens in places that are not nuclear armed I doubt anyone would contemplate resorting to those weapons .

Check this out. www.vox.com...

I asked myself the same question yesterday. So I checked.. And I read That Russia, China and USA signed a military act that in case of loosing a war they will drop everything they have in their arsenal. Pretty scary IMHO. Can't post a link though, because I'm on my android device. I'll make sure to post it when I come home.

Cheers

a reply to: Clairaudience

your avatar is the sickest i seen on the forum

First their is almost no chance of a world war. Regional wars sure. A war with Russia or China is not going to span the globe because neither are global powers nor do they have any allies of note globally. In the case of both China and Russia neither has the capability to launch any sort of real invasion. So any conflict with them would likely be limited to certain area.

Say pro Russian rebels appear in Estonia grab a town just like they appeared in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Then declare themselves a new republic that is immediately recognized by Russia who just so happens to be ready to send in volunteer forces to assist this new republic. In the meantime NATOs reaction force shows up backed by US forces hitting pre pro equipment and they move against those forces. NATO defeats Russia's forces but, since Russia does not acknowledge they are what they are no further moves would come from Russia is outmatched in any large scale conflict with NATO. Putin would use nukes to defend Russia because his regular forces are not up to the job but, he has been very careful about allowing Russia to be put in any position where he would have consider using them to save face in one of Russia's conflicts like Ukraine. The main reason Russia denies they are Russian doing the fighting in Ukraine is if they lose Russia does not have to act.

The other chance of a large conflict could come in the South China sea of China attacked the other nations that have forces there. That would put China at war with most of the Pacific States and the US. Still China and the US would want to limit that conflict to that zone. That would be in everybody's best interest. The US would want to avoid becoming stuck in a long term conflict even if China could not hold its own in a nuclear conflict it would still be destructive. And China not only being out gunned nuclear wise would want to contain the conflict because otherwise it would have to deal with large armies on its borders in India, Burma and Vietnam.

A Chinese invasion of Russia is also not likely despite China currently stealing away the former Soviet republics in the east. China will simply buy up a desperate Russia's resources on the cheap.

India and Pakistan is always possible but, that as well would be a limited conflict with limited goals not an full invasion that could trigger a nuclear response.

Outside of that not much room for any other real conflicts, most Central and South America are tied by Treaty to the US through the Rio Pact. Africa is so far in the Western camp that the African Union and NATO have signed cooperation agreements. The Arab League has in many way become NATO's proxy forces in that part of the world and China has managed to united most of Asia into the Western camp as well.

That leaves us with North Korea. Another regional conflict. Nukes could be tossed if NK has them working. However again not a global conflict.