It can be a never ending chain of world wars where man goes up against something new every time.I am Omega said:
How do you think World War III will pan out?
- Thread starter Nouw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
One think people might want to keep in mind is that while nuclear weapons could (and certainly would) wipe out all cities and civilian infrastructure, the military was preparing for a nuclear apocalypse long ago and today they are quite well defended against it. Missile launch sites are still secret (and missile subs are absolutely impossible to find), critical command centers are buried underneath mountains and shielded against the EMPs of nuclear weapons, and troops are distributed enough that it would be very hard to have a Pearl Harbor-like attack that crippled a nation in one stroke. Such an exchange would probably involve all nuclear powers western, eastern, and everything in between--I don't think anyone would be able to get away with sitting out the war.
The war itself would probably be very short as all civilization is wiped out. But the military will survive to prowl through the wasteland afterwards. Of course, there won't be electricity to keep most things running, and running a radar station would be suicidal (as soon as anyone detected radar emissions, they would route a nuke over to it). And while the popular belief is that a nuclear war would result in extinction, I'm not so sure. It would depend on if the survivors could figure out a way to survive after. Keep in mind that the evacuated zone around Chernobyl, instead of becoming a dead radioactive wasteland, is actually a thriving nature preserve with abundant wildlife and plants. It is more radioactive than most other places, but the animals seem to be able to deal with it. I bet humans could, too. At least enough to continue the species. But a nuclear war would probably be the death of whichever societies participated in it. And that could be good or bad.
On the one hand, it would be pretty scary if a powerful military were suddenly stripped of all civilian controls and obligations. Imagine a US military that could pursue pure power without voters to slow it down or territory or colonial interests to defend? They might become the next Mongol Horde. But their power would definitely depend on how much of their command and control structure they were able to preserve. For example, fighter jets are pretty powerful, but it takes a LOT of work, parts, and fuel to keep them flying, and an awful lot of that is outside the military's control and would be eliminated.
Assuming the military was reduced down to the level of everyone else, would the destruction of superpower society really be that bad? I mean, I don't want to die, but my country, the US, has quite the stranglehold on the world and is keeping a lot of places pinned down. Imagine if that power monopoly was removed? Areas that would likely be spared from the attacks--Africa, Central and South America, and places like that--would have a chance to grow without being held down. Instead of being the downtrodden masses, they might be transformed into the seed of the next civilization. As long as somebody survived, I would be content (though very, very dead).
Maybe it's just the contrarian in me, but I doubt that a nuclear war would eradicate all of humanity--it would probably just eradicate the people and countries who are too self-centered to realize that there is more to humanity than just them.
The war itself would probably be very short as all civilization is wiped out. But the military will survive to prowl through the wasteland afterwards. Of course, there won't be electricity to keep most things running, and running a radar station would be suicidal (as soon as anyone detected radar emissions, they would route a nuke over to it). And while the popular belief is that a nuclear war would result in extinction, I'm not so sure. It would depend on if the survivors could figure out a way to survive after. Keep in mind that the evacuated zone around Chernobyl, instead of becoming a dead radioactive wasteland, is actually a thriving nature preserve with abundant wildlife and plants. It is more radioactive than most other places, but the animals seem to be able to deal with it. I bet humans could, too. At least enough to continue the species. But a nuclear war would probably be the death of whichever societies participated in it. And that could be good or bad.
On the one hand, it would be pretty scary if a powerful military were suddenly stripped of all civilian controls and obligations. Imagine a US military that could pursue pure power without voters to slow it down or territory or colonial interests to defend? They might become the next Mongol Horde. But their power would definitely depend on how much of their command and control structure they were able to preserve. For example, fighter jets are pretty powerful, but it takes a LOT of work, parts, and fuel to keep them flying, and an awful lot of that is outside the military's control and would be eliminated.
Assuming the military was reduced down to the level of everyone else, would the destruction of superpower society really be that bad? I mean, I don't want to die, but my country, the US, has quite the stranglehold on the world and is keeping a lot of places pinned down. Imagine if that power monopoly was removed? Areas that would likely be spared from the attacks--Africa, Central and South America, and places like that--would have a chance to grow without being held down. Instead of being the downtrodden masses, they might be transformed into the seed of the next civilization. As long as somebody survived, I would be content (though very, very dead).
Maybe it's just the contrarian in me, but I doubt that a nuclear war would eradicate all of humanity--it would probably just eradicate the people and countries who are too self-centered to realize that there is more to humanity than just them.
Batman will fight the joker
One will accidentally hit some elseone, they join in, the other brings in their friends
It will grow from there until world war 3
One will accidentally hit some elseone, they join in, the other brings in their friends
It will grow from there until world war 3
Well whenever it starts, I just hope the only thing Germany has to offer to the war is the Millitary fasion sense. Face it, in WW2 Germany took hone the "best dressed" medal by far.
I mean come on! No other country was sporting black trench coats, imagain a general dressed like Neo.
In all seriousness though, war (contrary to fallout) has changed. Modern war (against another country, not against terrorists) is about destroying the milllitary targets only in the hopes of rebuilding the two countries relationship after the war ends. The World wars where about destroying the country as a whole, Millitary and civilians alike.
I mean come on! No other country was sporting black trench coats, imagain a general dressed like Neo.
In all seriousness though, war (contrary to fallout) has changed. Modern war (against another country, not against terrorists) is about destroying the milllitary targets only in the hopes of rebuilding the two countries relationship after the war ends. The World wars where about destroying the country as a whole, Millitary and civilians alike.
What's America's beef with North Korea anyway?
I mean, why do you think they'll ever start a war? NK doesn't have shit, a war with SK is pretty much impossible (good luck trying to cross that border, especially with your military being inferior on all levels), so who and how should they ever fight?
Same thing with China, a country that is entirely dependent on foreign countries will suddenly attack them? Why? So that their entire economy crumbles? Great plan.
Face it, the time of grand scale wars is over. Say what you want about globalization, but international dependency has made the world a whole lot more stable, wars are fought economically these days.
The worst thing we might ever see in the future is Iran vs. Israel, which would end with Iran getting "liberated" before Israel even realizes that they are under attack.
I mean, why do you think they'll ever start a war? NK doesn't have shit, a war with SK is pretty much impossible (good luck trying to cross that border, especially with your military being inferior on all levels), so who and how should they ever fight?
Same thing with China, a country that is entirely dependent on foreign countries will suddenly attack them? Why? So that their entire economy crumbles? Great plan.
Face it, the time of grand scale wars is over. Say what you want about globalization, but international dependency has made the world a whole lot more stable, wars are fought economically these days.
The worst thing we might ever see in the future is Iran vs. Israel, which would end with Iran getting "liberated" before Israel even realizes that they are under attack.
This how I see it happening. China becomes for too overpopulated and begins border disputes with other surrounding countries. When the fails it forcibly annexs land from other countries and eventually India and Pakistan then war starts between the three countries. The three nations can't gain a clear adavantage so they launch nukes. When that fails they all turn to there allies for help but Russia turns China away because it doesn't wish to become involved in a nucular war but Britain, America, Canada and Austrailia come to Indias and Pakistans aid but only strike with conventional weapons. Taking advantage of the chaos and lack of amrican forces North Korea invades the south in response america launches tactical nucular strikes against the north but some missles over shoot and hit China and in return the chinses launch missles that hit Hawaii, Alaska and nothern Austrailia.
America and Britain launch strikes against Bejing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Then they launch a ground assualt from the border countries driving back chinese soldiers into there own borders. With that a mass radiation cloud forms and spreads over Asia causing crops to fail and livestock to die causing mass tsarvation. Russia and other nations help out by sending food, water and medical supplies but eventually China spills into another civil war and it's current territorys take advantage of this and gain independace.
Because of the war other 1st world countries hit another recession because of plumiting trade due to the civil war and lack of import and export but they still manage to stay affloat, food prices also sky rocket because of this and poverty grows in developed nations immigration also rises due to the war in Asia and people fleeing the violance to seek a better life else where. Racial tensions rise due to the refugees and overstrecthed resources in the developed world. China's civil war ends with a treaty signed by both sides and a stable government is put into power with free elections. Then over the coming decades the global situation would settle and things would return to a much more stable enviroment.
America and Britain launch strikes against Bejing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Then they launch a ground assualt from the border countries driving back chinese soldiers into there own borders. With that a mass radiation cloud forms and spreads over Asia causing crops to fail and livestock to die causing mass tsarvation. Russia and other nations help out by sending food, water and medical supplies but eventually China spills into another civil war and it's current territorys take advantage of this and gain independace.
Because of the war other 1st world countries hit another recession because of plumiting trade due to the civil war and lack of import and export but they still manage to stay affloat, food prices also sky rocket because of this and poverty grows in developed nations immigration also rises due to the war in Asia and people fleeing the violance to seek a better life else where. Racial tensions rise due to the refugees and overstrecthed resources in the developed world. China's civil war ends with a treaty signed by both sides and a stable government is put into power with free elections. Then over the coming decades the global situation would settle and things would return to a much more stable enviroment.
The war will most likely be waged in no obvious way via hackers over the internet. A wise man one said he who controls the internet controls the world. So if somebody wants global domination thats what he will be going for, country or man. The war will most likely be started due to America's huge debt to China. And seeing how some of their future presidents might not be as smart as this one they might even be the one starting it causing the EU not to aid them in any way and Nato not being able to due to it not being for defensive actions. But they will not help China either due to them wanting good relations with the US and NATO largely being the US... It will probably end with both country's trying to heavily focus on developement of "Future-Tech" like a spaceship that can travel to a new up-and-comming Earth. Or perhaps a large Virus that can black out a whole country's computersystem. It will probably be the end of many country's but not many will die. Unless ofcourse somebody is immature enough to use nukes which everyone knows is too obvious and stupid to be valid and is therefor cheating.
So yea.. A larger scale Cold War. Raged across the world rather than between two superpowers.
So yea.. A larger scale Cold War. Raged across the world rather than between two superpowers.
AxCx said:
Flame me? I wouldnt even know if someone was flaming me? what does that even mean. Spend a little time away from the internet and have areal conversation.
My comment about the British Empire kicking ass was in realtion to the topic. Example being that if there was a WW3 then I would like to see us win.
I hope you are not suggesting the BE killed millions of people. It did far more good than bad. Look at all the countries that were ruled by it. All of them are living under a democracy yet all those who broke away such as Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Iraq etc, look at the places they have become.
And yes those places are backwater and shitty. I wouldnt waste a nuclear missile on them. They aren't fit for human survival. And don't try to blame western governments for selling them weaopns, these people have been at war for centuries with neighbours and each other. They sell their own people for slaves and are incapable of living a humane existance.
I would much rather come across as a right wing pig as you put it (i would prefer realist) than a left wing, liberal, namby pamby human right preaching fool who thinks that the world would live happily in peace without weapons and the like. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst
There wont be another WW, there are far too many alliances and treaties for another WW to even be remotely possible.
Now I've just about had it with all you "OOH!! WE'LL GO NUCLEAR BOMBS AND BLOW OURSELVES UP CUZ I HAVE NO FAITH IN HUMANITY" people...
/rant
Now I've just about had it with all you "OOH!! WE'LL GO NUCLEAR BOMBS AND BLOW OURSELVES UP CUZ I HAVE NO FAITH IN HUMANITY" people...
/rant
This may be true, but I never fail to underestimate the extent to which a nation will go to win. Especially if they have such destructive power at their finger tips. I'm taking into account humanity's propensity to be especially atrocious when things go south. Tactically nuking is effective given the information you've given, and the shock and awe is rather impressive at the localized level it occurs at, but dropping a tactical nuke only spurs more nukes. Perhaps a nuclear winter is a tad much, I think the probability of widespread destruction and Chernobyl-esque wastes increases rapidly as soon as the first nuke is dropped in just the right (or wrong) place. It becomes less a matter of what you explained, and more a matter of "What? They have bigger guns? MAKE BIGGER ONES." As comical as that statement sounds...well, like I said, I never underestimate humanity at war.thiosk said:
Perhaps I'm a bit sensationalist.
wait, what? ...are you seriously trying to imply that the british empire was the greatest thing to happen to the world? if so please tell me thisshaneriding said:
what good, pray tell did the british empire ever do?
they did kill millions over the time its been in existence (add up the numbers of people killed in the wars it has waged from the middle ages onwards and then factor in various initatives it put into work, (for example: the white australia policy, a deliberate attempt to force aboriginals into extinction by 'breeding them out') and it very quickly reaches that six figure bracket) and nearly half the places they took were used to dump convicts
and not all the countries that were ruled by them are democracies, some are constitutional monarchies. and most of these commonwealth nations aren't actually doing that well at all
funfact: you know all these things modern western people take for granted like medicene, clean water, education, hygene and the like, those 'backwaters' as you put it are where those ideas came from, but were 'claimed' by westerners when they had their crusades against them and turned those places into backwaters, repeatedly, over hundreds of years.
penicillin, the jet engine, the internet, computers, telephone, electricity, flight, combustion engine, the TB vaccine. Im sure these were all ideas stolen by the oppressive white man. Nearly half the places were used to dump convicts? I'm guessing you mean Australia and then thought that one in god knows how many must mean half? Also i don't think these people INVENTED clean water and education.blind_dead_mcjones said:
These backwater countries have been destroying themselves for thousands of years, long before the crusades etc. If i am correct it was those who came here first,pillaging and destroying before the crusaders drove them back.
Which Commonwealth countries arent doing well? I cant remember the last time a suicide bomber or car bomb blew up in Ontario, Wellington, Sydney, Mumbai, Los Angeles. It seems to me that they live in their "constitutional monarchies" (and which are still democratic, and for all intents and purposes the Queen has no power over them) quite peacefully with their neighbours. Look at Egypt, one of the largest stable democracies in Africa which was a former British colony. South Africa now has peace (don't mention the Boers - that isnt a result of the British, it was Dutch settlers).
These other countries have been destroying themselves for millenia, not just a few hundred years as you put it. Tribes from Africa would come up into Europe and enslave entire villages before taking them back to their own hell holes throughout the Greek and Roman Empires.
Whilst the British Empire wasnt always good, it brought infrastructure, hospitals, roads, schools etc to many parts of the world. It fought back against the Nazis, Napoleon, Bismarks armies. It abolished the slave trade and introduced many parts of the world to the french idea of democracy. Instead of looking at those who died, look if you can at those who have lived because of it. Those who have had chance to go to school etc.
Whilst I can see that we aren't very likely to see eye to eye please don't piss in my bucket and tell me its raining when you say these countries would be better without us. They need countries like GB, France and USA because without someone steering them in the Humane direction they will continue to oppress and fight amongst themselves like they have for as long as they have existed. They are backwards countries who feel that murder is OK, women are a mans possession and that by blaming everything on everyone else they will get by. Sorry Once people like yourself wake up, stop apologising for everything and realise it isn't all flowers and peaceful singing around a fire, the world will move forward.
Bombs. Lots of them. None of us will survive. If World War III actually happens, we're all dead.