|
|
#141
10-18-2007, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: WORLD WAR 3
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] our navy = #1 in the world. our air force = #1 in the world by far. our military technology = #1 in the world without question. [/ QUOTE ] These things mean nothing if your enemy decides to spread some kind of smallpox superbug in NY, LA, etc.... [/ QUOTE ] Seriously, comments like this are borderline retarded. "Yea, America may have the strongest (by far) Navy, and the (by far) strongest Air Force, but Russia and China can....well they can...use smallpox! Yea,that's it!" [/ QUOTE ] Well it IS a viable option for an enemy that's obviously outmatched. All it takes a is few infected people and media coverage before massive panic and chaos ensues, followed by economic chaos, etc... 
|
|
#142
10-18-2007, 04:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WORLD WAR 3
if the russians release a super strain of smallpox in the US, what do you think we'll do? my guess is we'll start sending it right back to them and i'm sure they know that. going down the engineered bio warfare path is in the same category as nukes - more for deterrence or last resort.
|
|
#144
10-18-2007, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WORLD WAR 3
[ QUOTE ]
I personally think our society has advanced too far and is too civilized to come to it again. [/ QUOTE ] I read OP and couple of other replies, and it soon turned retarded into if US is gonna defeat some countries or not. So to bring the topic back LOL at our society being too civilized, you're fighting a war right now vs. Iraq. No matter how advanced we are, the shortage of natural resources is always going to force a war. Heck, it forced the war vs. Iraq, and I think there's gonna be a really big war brewing pretty soon. There's a ton of rivalries, for a lack of a better word, going on right now and once one big war breaks out, the whole world is gonna start. I do agree that if there's a war, Ind vs Pakistan is gonna happen no matter what. The middle east is also an almost certainty as well, esp between the Shi'ia and Sunni Muslim countries.
|
|
#145
10-18-2007, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WORLD WAR 3
[ QUOTE ]
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article.php?nid=352648 tell that to Putin [/ QUOTE ] There's like nothing in that article that suggests military alliance in case of Iran vs. USA war. It even states "Most important, it is unlikely that Russia will support any further UN Security Council resolutions against the Islamic Republic, as long as no hostile intention in Iran's nuclear program can be discerned." Also, alliance w/ Cuba/Lybia? Why? For what purpose? Those countries are meaningless militarywise. I get the point that most of the discussion is hypothetical "what if" scenarios. I just don't think Russia being involved against the US is a likely candidate. There's not enough oil in the Caspian sea.
|
|
#146
10-19-2007, 02:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WORLD WAR 3
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] our navy = #1 in the world. our air force = #1 in the world by far. our military technology = #1 in the world without question. [/ QUOTE ] These things mean nothing if your enemy decides to spread some kind of smallpox superbug in NY, LA, etc.... [/ QUOTE ] Seriously, comments like this are borderline retarded. "Yea, America may have the strongest (by far) Navy, and the (by far) strongest Air Force, but Russia and China can....well they can...use smallpox! Yea,that's it!" [/ QUOTE ] Well it IS a viable option for an enemy that's obviously outmatched. All it takes a is few infected people and media coverage before massive panic and chaos ensues, followed by economic chaos, etc... [/ QUOTE ] Followed by us deploying any of the notorious NBC (Nuclear,Biological,Chemical). Enemies on the run may choose to open Pandora's Box, but ultimately they will be completely destroyed by that decision. When pushed, us Americans are ruthless mother [censored], which seems to go unnoticed by a lot of people. If someone were to choose to attack us That Way, the whole "winning hearts and minds" idea goes right out the window. Picture to illustrate my point:  [ QUOTE ] Testing of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight (ten capable) fired from only one missile. Each line represents the path of a warhead which, were it live, would detonate with the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-style weapons [/ QUOTE ] That image is self-explanatory. "Accuracy is expressed as circular error probable (CEP). This is simply the radius of the circle that the warhead has a 50 percent chance of falling into when aimed at the center. CEP is about 90–100 m for the Trident II and Peacekeeper missiles." For those keeping score at home, there is a 50% chance that each warhead will strike within 90-100m of its designated target area. Oops [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#147
10-19-2007, 03:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WORLD WAR 3
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article.php?nid=352648 tell that to Putin [/ QUOTE ] There's like nothing in that article that suggests military alliance in case of Iran vs. USA war. It even states "Most important, it is unlikely that Russia will support any further UN Security Council resolutions against the Islamic Republic, as long as no hostile intention in Iran's nuclear program can be discerned." Also, alliance w/ Cuba/Lybia? Why? For what purpose? Those countries are meaningless militarywise. I get the point that most of the discussion is hypothetical "what if" scenarios. I just don't think Russia being involved against the US is a likely candidate. There's not enough oil in the Caspian sea. [/ QUOTE ] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_alert_2 Great game
|
|
#148
10-19-2007, 03:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WORLD WAR 3
"All it takes is a couple infected..." yadda yadda yadda. This isn't 28 Days/Weeks later, and this isn't Outbreak. Mass hysteria doesn't destroy a country, and it does not win a war. If any sovereign country used nuclear,biological, or chemical weapons on our soil they would be completely leveled within a week. We have enough conventional weaponry to destroy the world many times over, God help us all if we choose to use our nuclear arsenal.
|
|
#149
10-19-2007, 08:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WORLD WAR 3
[ QUOTE ]
"All it takes is a couple infected..." yadda yadda yadda. This isn't 28 Days/Weeks later, and this isn't Outbreak. Mass hysteria doesn't destroy a country, and it does not win a war. If any sovereign country used nuclear,biological, or chemical weapons on our soil they would be completely leveled within a week. We have enough conventional weaponry to destroy the world many times over, God help us all if we choose to use our nuclear arsenal. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not disputing the fact that if an enemy chooses to go the biological route, they're done. I'm simply saying that even with your technological superiority, there are still devastating ways you can be attacked on your own soil.
|
|
#150
10-19-2007, 11:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WORLD WAR 3
you all seem to be thinking that WW3 would/will be fought using conventional weaponry, and that nuclear weapons are not that likely to be used. ... ... Of all the countries that have access to nuclear bombs, none will think twice about using their arsenal if on the verge of losing. Think the US would just let itself be invaded without using bombs? Think any country would? Sure mutual destruction is a good deterrent to STARTING the war but once actual territorial invsasions start to occur bombs would definitely be used. As a last resort, sure, but unless participating countries decide that war is dumb and stop without invading each other and having a winner, that last resort will come. And then it's apocalypse. 'cept for Australia.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
