WORLD WAR 3

[WhoIam]

I imagine a modern war between major powers would follow the 19th and 18th century European model of war where the losing side would negotiate concessions to the stronger side. I imagine these would be economic rather than ceding territories and such. The 20th century unconditional surrender model wouldn't work because, as stated, no nuclear power would allow itself to be occupied.

[wiper]

[ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]

this was once my wallpaper, and now, is again!

again, awesome thread...

without quoting, whoever said that, 'don't forget, when pushed, Americans are ruthless [censored]' is dead set on...attack us with something, see what happens to you...we got [censored] you've never SEEN before..

LOL at 'invaded and securing a coastal city, and then other see how weak we are'..

when has that ever happened? never. why? because it would neverevereverever happen, how many guns are in the country again? 500 million? i imagine that's off by 100%..

if ANY city were invaded, all of us duck-targeting, gang-banging, home-protecting, target-shooting, game-hunting, ruthless [censored] are coming...

would YOU allow the russian red army to impose a curfew on YOUR town? didn't think so...hell, iraqis fight back. what do you think billy-bob and kyree are going to do? hell, i'm a teacher and i'd be hanging out the window emptying .380 clips...

don't underestimate our military. please.

i've read and understand everyone's posts on how 'unprepared' we are...you are all wrong. in a situation where 'it's on', it's WW2 all over again..

[ArcticKnight]

[ QUOTE ]
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Albert Einstein

[/ QUOTE ]

And we thought this during the cold war. However, as others may have noted, most people don't think WW3, if it occurs, will resemble WW1 or WW2 much.

[MuresanForMVP]

That's a good point about all the different Billy-Bob's taking up arms, and taking the fight to an invading force. No doubt that would happen, but considering just how many people chose to enlist in the military following 9/11, how many do you think would do so if WW3 happened to roll around? the number would be enormous. Yamamoto said following Pearl Harbor "we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with a terrible resolve." Call it homerism or whatever, but no other country in the world can honestly say that if they got into a 1 vs. 1 total war with the U.S. they'd have a greater than 20% chance of winning. Hell the % should probably be lower.

I find it very ironic that the same people who claim that us Americans are so violent and gun-crazy are often the same people who claim that Russia or China would raise their flags on US soil if we ever got into a war with them. Maybe they think we're too brash or whatever, and want to take their shot at knocking us down a notch, but it just wouldn't happen.

[ArcticKnight]

Hi Folks

Almost all the talk on this thread is about conventional strategies, existing powers or superpowers, and conventional warfare.

There have been lots of more recent lessons about how NOT to engage an enemy on his terms. We just need to look at Vietnam for an example of how military superiority can be negated when you choose not to fight on the terms of the more powerful enemy.

Many people believe this is one of the keys reasons that the USA enjoyed the Gulf War - their traditional weapons and superiority became relevant again. They took out the communitications, they took out the fuel, they took out the airfields, and because they were dealing with primarily open terrian, they had tons of reliable intel and completed the attack with minimal losses.

But then was does Osama do? He decides the US should be attacked in a different way, and after that attack I truly fear that a sustanined attack on any power or superpowers will be like that in the future.

Lets' face it, any modern country (including the US) could have it's economy, water supply, communciations, airlines, railways, etc crippled or severely comprimised by a well coordinated enemy that may be very difficult to "identify," let alone locate.

I truly worry that the strategy to defeat a superpower in the future will be to slowly but stategically cripple the country until it does not have the capacity to coordinate a successful conventional military counter-attack.

I worry about this, because I think the power balance in the coldwar was, ironically, key to keeping the peace. The cold war is gone, and now anything is possible.

Anyway, that is my rant - excuse the typos. It's late.

[Subfallen]

Like a total of one person has observed that all-out war would not just constitute deploying the National Guard and extra reserves. Um, say hi to the draft? Say hi to martial law and nationalization of all industrial resources?

All I know is that [censored] with the US would be an immoderately bad idea.

[MuresanForMVP]

In my mind, World War 3 is between super powers and nations with standing armies, not suicide bombers and VBIEDs. In Vietnam, and virtually all the examples you suggested, the U.S. was still concerned with winning hearts and minds. The Vietnam War was a military victory, but a massive political defeat. If you're suggesting that what's going on now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what happened on 9/11 are examples of how to take down a super power I'd have to say that you are out of your mind. My qualification for this scenario was that we toss all that feel-good [censored] out the window and get down to the business of winning the war. When that happens it's game over, and if we did that in Vietnam that place would have been a crater in SE Asia. Christ look at the major cities all over Europe and Japan after WW2. That's a total-war right there, not this occupation BS we have over in the Middle-East right now.

Considering we were discussing warring superpowers (ie Russia or China) how would you suggest they get us to fight on their own terms?


edit: another problem with "slowly and strategically" crippling the US is that if you take more than a couple weeks-a month to do so, the US will already have eradicated your country's ability to even make war. I just dont think that in this day and age contaminating someone's water supply, railways, etc. would be effective at winning a war. Massive amounts of force distributed through the land, sea and air, and projection of force are first and foremost what you need. All of that sabotage is secondary

[ArcticKnight]

[ QUOTE ]
In my mind, World War 3 is between super powers and nations with standing armies, not suicide bombers and VBIEDs. In Vietnam, and virtually all the examples you suggested, the U.S. was still concerned with winning hearts and minds. The Vietnam War was a military victory, but a massive political defeat. If you're suggesting that what's going on now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what happened on 9/11 are examples of how to take down a super power I'd have to say that you are out of your mind. My qualification for this scenario was that we toss all that feel-good [censored] out the window and get down to the business of winning the war. When that happens it's game over, and if we did that in Vietnam that place would have been a crater in SE Asia. Christ look at the major cities all over Europe and Japan after WW2. That's a total-war right there, not this occupation BS we have over in the Middle-East right now.

Considering we were discussing warring superpowers (ie Russia or China) how would you suggest they get us to fight on their own terms?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the OPs post.... it was "what is the most likely total war to come up?" You and others may think it's Russia or China versus US, I don't. I was just giving my 2 cents worth on the question, and wondering why all the responses dealt with conventional warfare.

[YTV]

Assuming no nukes will be used in WWIII is a dumb assumption to begin with. Invading each others countries is pretty much out of question too. Its not just about who is the strongest its also about who is the smartest. Reading your guys responses, you must literally be picturing a bunch of little green army men fighting against each other. Here's just a couple scenarios that could easily become the future.

1. A half dozen nuclear bombs ALREADY in the US could be detonated and take out everything (everything worth taking out) on the whole eastern seaboard of course including Washington and New York. These bombs could have been smuggled in piece by piece and assembled over the last 50 years. This could happen at anytime even without the hint of war. This is a situation where there is no defense against and one that could easily be true. You wipe out the whole eastern seaboard with no warning and then tell me what the US chances are?

2. Anytype of conventional non-nuclear war with China that stopped complete trade with China, would grind the US economy to a halt in a matter of months, perhaps as short as a few weeks. This in turn will have a ripple effect in all forms of industry. We depend on China for ALOT.

IMO, WWWIII will involve Israel eventually. Any of these or other scenarios could easily touch off WWIII and end with Israel.

Most of you guys are underestimating China let alone Russia, but combined to say its US (AA) vs Russia/China (23o) have seriously been successfully brainfed your entire life.

[sharkscopeaholic]

I doubt if the world all grouped up together( minus the British since they've always got our backs [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) that we could lose a war. Obviously this would be including any and all weapons. Any one want to estimate the worlds ratio vs ours when it comes to nuclear weapons? I have no idea but im sure we are close to THE WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD if not more. We americans our badasses so no one ever [censored] with us.