Will There Be A WWIII. Thoughts?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by clayton, Mar 31, 2010.

  1. clayton Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    Will World War III happen and will it destroy the planet or just be another war?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Yes, it will happen. Or I guess you could call it the second revolutionary war

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Time to fight for our freedom anyone? :m:
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. clayton Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    That is a good start.WHY/HOW will it happen will we be affected.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Who are the bad guys?

    Who are the good guys?

    What happens when one side "wins" , will they just become like those they overthrew? :shrug:
     
  8. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    Well, it is an uncertainty. Probably Communists against The Free World. But that is one of many theories. It all depends on what problems are going on. It depends on the incident that starts it to decide the good guys and bad guys.
     
  9. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    There are no good guys and bad guys. Only bad guys and worse guys. Communists are falling, they lost much of the power they had at their prime.
     
  10. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    True, but don't count them out. North Korea is becoming a pretty big threat.
     
  11. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    They can be easily bought back in line with the US presence at Japan. Not to mention the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, and the Peoples Liberation Army of China, plus South Korea. I don't think China, Japan and South Korea are very happy about North Korea.
     
  12. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    True, but I would further argue that South Korea alone has the capacity to respond to any threat the nKPA stands to muster on its own.

    There is a somewhat commonplace belief that "WWIII" began with the rise of international terror groups and the willingness of nations to respond to their threats with military action. This line of thinking defines what the NATO and most other western militaries call "fourth generation warfare" - the soft power stuff we've seen in the counterinsurgency and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan - while the initial toppling of the regime in Iraq was a model for third generation warfare.

    I personally think that the concept of 4GW is bullshit. The Mongols and the Romans did this stuff, so it's hardly an evolution from 3GW's hallmarks - network-centric operations, rapid dominance doctrine, etc. Insurgencies and nation building have been around for millenia. It is just a new name for a really, really old problem.
     
  13. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Omega,

    North Korea is not a threat.

    To say it is would just be an insult to Russia.

    During the cold war Russia was the prime threat, thousands of nukes, thousands of tanks, hundreds of thousands of soldiers. That is a threat.


    North Korea has at most less than a dozen nukes, no way to effectively deliver them. And dont even get me started on their pathetic military.

    To equate North Korea to Russia is at best, insulting.

    They aren't a threat at all, they are just a little fart that will go away as soon as someone opens a window and turns on a fan.
     
  14. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Ehh.

    The fact is that we are fighting Guerrilla wars because our opponents have no other choice but to fight that way.

    Nobody fights a Guerrilla war if they have to. The reason why is because they just suck, they are just as much a pain in the ass for the person using them as the person whom is getting attacked with it.

    They never do eneough damage to really harm the enemy and it's always superficial.

    It's a propaganda war in the end.

    China, North Korea, they wouldn't fight a Guerrilla war if they had the option not to.

    The reason why is because the second you declare a guerrilla war, you lose 60% of any advantage you ever had.

    Take China for example.

    Their soldiers are trained to fight en masse, they don't know how to fight as tiny units.

    They would have to give up their thousands of tanks. Thousands of artillery pieces, most of their light vehicles.

    They would have to give up ships, and they would have to give up pretty much all of their planes and helicopters.

    They would have to give up reliable access to supplies.

    They would have to give up hundreds of thousands of troops.

    How can you supply, fuel, and feed an army of more than a million people using donkeys to transport supplies?

    You give up the ability to fight together, the instant more than a hundred of them show up to fight, it becomes a battle, not guerrilla warfare. And they instant they do that, they would get hit with artillery, bombs, tanks, and American infantryman. They would be torn apart.


    Guerrilla warfare may seem like a great idea, killing your enemy with a thousand cuts and all that. But in order to fight as a Guerrilla, you have to cut off your right arm and a leg.

    You lose your arm because you have to sacrifice massive amounts of equipment and armor, and you have to cut off a leg because you have to sacrifice your ability to gain supplies through reliable means.

    And it only works so long as you can do a better job fighting as a Guerrilla than your enemy can do fighting against you.

    Considering the US had fought two medium scale wars against Guerrillas, the US would have the advantage of experiance.

    For example, there are veterans that can spot an enemy bomb or an ambush on a road not because they see any evidence of it, but because they know how the enemy thinks and how they fight.

    The sad thing is that the military needs to bring more of them back as teachers to pass on that skill. That's not to say it's not being done, I just figure they can do a better job of it.


    The Chinese won't fight a Guerrilla war because their strategy is one of quantity. And in a Guerrilla war that is the first thing to be thrown out the window.


    In order to fight a Guerrilla war you have to stab yourself in the back. You have to win the war before all the blood leaves your body. If your enemy fights a war of attrition, you will not win.
     
  15. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    Keep in mind that neither of our world wars were actually started by communists.

    The first was basically a shoving match between European empires. The second was started by racist imperialists in Asia and crazed, anti-Semitic/anti-Slavic, socialists in Europe.
     
  16. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    True, no world wars have been started by communists, but they came close with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
     
  17. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    China, Japan and South Korea doesn't need to fight a gurellia war with North Korea, they just fire a few missiles and wait for the white flag. War on Terror is not a world war, because terrorists don't represent a specific country, nor is it big enough a concern. China doesn't need to fight gurellia wars, nor does it want to, it is stupid to not take advantage of your advantages.
     
  18. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    but remember that in both those cases the communists were in no position to start a world war.
     
  19. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    You and I had this discussion before. And while I agree that North Korea is a small Fry we were talking about "Communist threats". Russia is not Communist anymore.


    Never compared Russia to North Korea. That would be like comparing Chuck Norris to a street brawler. Be careful what you say, The Germanic tribes weren't a threat to Rome, and we all know how that turned out.
     
  20. Nyr Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    102
    A swerve from the current flow, but rather than between the different political systems, the largest wars of the future will be wars of resources. Much larger than any war for oil that we've seen right now. Resource exploitation is rampant even today by first world nations on third world nations, but it hasn't quite reached the stage where the resources are a matter of survival for a country... I don't think it'll be long before they will be. I don't think that countries are still so immature as to fight over normal diplomatic mayhem or influences of foreign political philosophies they'd consider harmful to their own. It'll take something more serious... Dystopian as it may sound, water *conflicts* may soon become water *wars* .
     
  21. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    You've got a point there. There have been several conflicts over in the Middle-East over water. It does seem likely that the rest of the world would fight over something like oil. Or other resources as needed.
     
  22. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,891
  23. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    Oh, we're calm. It's not as if were panicked by any of this. We are merely discussing one of the numerous things that could happen within the near future. War is a very natural part of the world.
     

Share This Page