Is a non-nuclear WW3 possible?

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: MrSpad

Russia is limited by not only logistics but command and control if it is not along its border Russia would be hard pressed to deploy a force of any real size

During WW II they managed a force of 30 million. I would call that a " real size " Wouldn't you ?

This is not the 1940's and and Russia has a smaller population now then back then. And we are talking about now. Not what if Russia began a 20 year military build up. And of course Russia can barely afford the military they currently have, thus it being mostly a 1 year conscript force. With unlimited time and money could Russia field a large force? Sure. So could pretty much anybody. Today though the reality on the ground is Russia is having a hard time with just supplying manpower for Ukraine.

a reply to: MrSpad


Let's look at the figures.

The U.S. has a active military of 1.3 million personnel. A reserve of 850,000

Russia has a active military of 770,000 personnel . A reserve of up to 20 million.

A non nuclear WW3 yes and no.

North korea fires 3 to 5 nuclear weapons at the US South Korea and japan. And the US, Japan and NATO, under the old UN Korean war treaty pounds North Korea back to the stone age with non nuclear smart bombs and cruise missiles.

Iran fires 1 or more nuclear weapons at Isreal.

And the US and other countries even Arab countries agree to take out all of the Iranian military capabilities to keep Israel from turning Iran into glowing green glass and spreading a fallout cloud around the world.

a reply to: Guenter

I agree that WW3 will likely be us vs them. However ruling out the use of nukes in that scenario is naivety at its worst.

Consider the climate we live in. Banksters own the planet. They own our politicians, who have created anti-terror laws. If we gave them what they deserved, do you really think they would not fight back using their bought and paid for tools and minions? You have to remember that people willingly and knowingly join them as they are thoroughly selfish, as much so as the banksters themselves. Police, military, politicians, etc.

So as the masses are the enemy, what's the best way to get rid of them? Nukes, chems and bios. They will engineer some situation, as they always do, to get their way. If they are backed up against the wall with no other way out, they will unleash their last resort. We all know they have their safe havens from such attacks.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: MrSpad


Let's look at the figures.

The U.S. has a active military of 1.3 million personnel. A reserve of 850,000

Russia has a active military of 770,000 personnel . A reserve of up to 20 million.

20 million? That number is if Russia called all of its manpower out in a draft. Like the 16 million men in the US Selective Service System could be called out. However, since those men are not trained it would be a very long time before they would be of any use. Russia's possible reserve is couple million but, even that is doubtful. People just bribe somebody or refuse to show up as it is. Russia army is suppose to be larger and is authorized to have 1.2 million men but, nobody volunteers and the the conscripts either find a way around serving, bribe somebody or even just not bother show up so Russia can not even meet its current troop needs.

Not that I blame them between the abuse, lack of equipment, poor training and hellish living conditions why would they show up. They did not even how showers for most units until a couple years ago.

The only thing Russia can really count on are those 280,000 professional troops. They at least have more than a year of training and are loyal to the military.

a reply to: MrSpad

The 20 million figure... Are we sure he didn't confuse that with the number of people Stalin killed?

hell no! not in these crazy days.

a reply to: MrSpad

If I may turn reality on its side a bit for the sake of argument (after complimenting you on your analysis so far, which has been great), I would suggest that a world war by its nature breaks the old model of what is possible with new capabilities and new motives that were not accounted for in the old calculus.

I think a world war needs a global ambition, a messianic instigator, and the debut of a decisive new strategic element which is not fully implemented or understood at the beginning of the war.

The ambition and the leader could come from anywhere, but I think the logical scenario is that a financial crisis causes a major power to attempt to break the global economic system in order to force the establishment of something new.

I have difficulty putting a word on what I think the key capability of WWIII could be, but I think I see elements of it in how the US used the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, in how we took Iraq so quickly and how we failed to capitalize on it, in how terrorists organizations seem to have been used by the US throughout the war on terror, in what the Russians did in Ukraine, and in what we are training to do in Jade Helm.

I think in large part it's about exploiting the local population as a favorable condition or even an asset rather than viewing them as an objective to control or hostiles to suppress, bypassing regular military by stealth or by speed and removing their support and their reason for being, and creating chaos in the civilian population they'd rather be tending to. This allows an overwhelming force to appear anywhere at essentially anytime until the regular military can respond in force, which could be a day or two depending.

I envision something like a global coup attempt, probably by a radicalized United States. In place after place infrastructure and communications go offline amid engineered riots, varying narratives are allowed to filter through the cyberwar from different places, minor regional wars and civil disturbances occupy military forces with spotty command and control, while governments scramble to keep up with where enemy special operators are now and what exactly they're trying to accomplish. We corrupt records, expose secrets, threaten important people, and force support for the movements we have created, and overnight there are more fires lit than anyone can put out in key economic chokepoints, there are key people being held for ransom, key military assets are offline, and it's time to negotiate or watch the world burn.

I admit it's far fetched and movie-like, but really, how many buildings and how many people in any country are really relevant to what that country as a whole does? How many elite warriors with state of the art weapons would you really need to take those buildings and coerce those people if only you could prevent a rapid response? I think you could make the disruption of the current order fait accompli in under 72 hours, and bargain a partial return to the status quo ante with major concessions- or if you were a genocidal madman you could simply destroy the carrying capacity of an entire continent and guarantee tens of millions of deaths from lack of infrastructure with less manpower than it would normally take just to dig the mass graves.

S&F!

I think nuclear fall out from reactors and old power stations plus the likes of fukushima and Chernobyl. all we need is a few more yeas of innately trashing the planet and we won't even need a world war 3. but then thinking a tad out side the box is it possible that fuku meltdown was caused by another county.

It gets to me nuclear weapons and even power.

a reply to: Slickinfinity

I honestly don`t know if a real military non-nuclear WW3 is possible. What I do know is that the WW after that will for sure be non-nuclear because there will be not much left if anything at all. So it could well be that bows and spears will be used again in wars after...