World War III = Nuclear War?

Originally posted by teapot
I call for Unilateral Disarmanent: Abandon the Nuclear Age!!!

Hmm... yes. The problem is: when a bunch of people are pointing guns at eachother the first to put down his gun is a fool.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by teapot
I call for Unilateral Disarmanent: Abandon the Nuclear Age!!!

Hmm... yes. The problem is: when a bunch of people are pointing guns at eachother the first to put down his gun is a fool.

Unless it is the heart felt desire of each party to just stop. So we continue to protest, to say no.

There have been reductions. We want more.

Governments that point guns at eachother are insane.

Originally posted by teapot

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by teapot
I call for Unilateral Disarmanent: Abandon the Nuclear Age!!!

Hmm... yes. The problem is: when a bunch of people are pointing guns at eachother the first to put down his gun is a fool.

Unless it is the heart felt desire of each party to just stop.

Unfortunately, this is unprecedented and therefore totally unrealistic.

It's also unnatural as it goes against the survival instinct developed over thousands of years of reliance on weapons for protection.

It would take a complete change in our nature, or intervention from an unknown source, for men to drop their weapons for good.

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


Unrealistic? For thirty years British nationals have campaigned against foreign WMD on our soil. Some of these individuals are members of mainstream political parties and well respected campaign groups. We have seen reductions and we continue to protest and campaign because we want more reductions and unless our governments decide to prove that democracy does not exist, we will see further reductions.

Realistically, any such reductions could be halted or even overturned as a result of the relentlessness of American interests driving the world to global warfare.

Realistically, peace campaigners would not cease to exist just because our insane governments take us to war.

Realistically, in a world of nuclear proliferation, the peace campaigns represent the voice of reason.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by teapot
I call for Unilateral Disarmanent: Abandon the Nuclear Age!!!

Hmm... yes. The problem is: when a bunch of people are pointing guns at eachother the first to put down his gun is a fool.

A better analogy would be that when six people are standing in a large barrel of gasoline, the sensible option would be to extinguish all the matches. The fool is the one who decides to keep his match burning.

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by teapot
I call for Unilateral Disarmanent: Abandon the Nuclear Age!!!

Hmm... yes. The problem is: when a bunch of people are pointing guns at eachother the first to put down his gun is a fool.

So there are 195 people standing on a small patch of land, 14 have guns staring at eachother, then there are some of those people hitting eachother with primitive weapons. Many of them are going to want a gun too sooner or later and not just for pointing at others but to wipe someone out of existence.

Joel 2:31 The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and awesome Day of the Lord comes .


The sun being turned into darkness might have something to do with a nuclear winter. I'm not sure on the moon yet.

reply to post by DuceizBack


I'm not saying that it will destroy earth, but do you agree that a nuclear war would do more harm then good to the planet and ultimately affect our lives?

Originally posted by chr0naut
By the time an affected nation has realised that it is a weapon, it would probably be too late for retaliation and the disease would contine to spread even if retaliation were successful.

And that's when they'd use nukes, they're dead already right?

reply to post by Dendro


If there were to be a WWIII it would be total kaos. First almost all the country's right now have very good army's I mean china has the biggest army in the world U.S.A the best equipment,Russia the best trained. I mean there would be no winners every one would lose.Even India has a Atomic bomb. If a country was to bring out one of his bombs it could destroy the world. I mean back when Kennedy was president imagine if Russia had fired there missiles. I mean all of North America would have been affected.

I don't see nukes being used, unless by a terrorist organization, and then probably in a "dirty bomb" configuration. With the vast number of nukes on Earth, using them would leave this little blue marble lifeless and void. TPTB would have no kingdom over which to rule, so they keep the missiles in the silos, choosing to instead kill us slowly through economic turmoil, disinformation, slow-growing cancers, funky new bio-weapons disguised as run of the mill stuff. Ya know...killing us all in a way that brings maximum smiles to their faces.

The nuclear option is always on the table. There are several leaders that would not hesitate to push the button. North Korea and Iran come to mind first. Kim Jung Il would just to prove the US can't intimidate him. It's general opinion that he's nuts anyway. I think Imanutjob would for the same reason. If a country was hit by an unstoppable plague, what would they have to loose by launching a nuclear weapon? Get the country who started it while you can would be the mentality.

reply to post by Dendro


It's kind of common sense to assume that world war 3 would be nuclear.

reply to post by RightInTwo


Going through the thread others have brought up valid points that the war could instead be digital or biological and I'm starting to agree in light of recent cyber attacks.

But thanks for the contribution.

There won't ever be a ww3. The world is too globalized and only getting more so. There might be conflicts here and there but you won't ever see everyone picking one side or the other and going at it.