WORLD WAR 3

[wtfsvi]

I see. I'm certainly tired, since it's 6:40 am, but I sadly can't blame my sucking at English entirely on that.

[WhoIam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a scenario I've thought of. US bombs Iran's nuclear facilities. US realizes too late that Amadin...Ahmadhin...Iran's leader isn't bluffing and Iran launches a full-scale assault against spread-out US troops in Iraq. The US is forced to transfer troops from other parts of the world to deal with the conflict. As a result of this power vacuum, China and North Korea invade Taiwan and S Korea respectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are assuming that this is a napoleonic groundwar type situation. We wouldnt get sucked if Iran invaded Iraq, that would be enough of an afront that it would justify us carpet bombing half the middle east, civilian casualites be damned. Something like that actually means we'ed be pulling out troops, and the contigent that would be actually bombing would be very small. Our ground forces would actually be better regrouped than they are now. In fact, this would be the time to do it (invade taiwan/sk) becuase our forces are fairly spread out.

[/ QUOTE ] I've read that US troops would be extremely vulnerable to Iranian attack because they're currently spread out across the country on peace-keepking missions rather than grouped defensively as they would in a conventional war. They would probably be able to regroup, but there would be a major effect on morale and public opinion, much like the Tet offensive. Of course all this would depend on some sort of surprise.

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
War Nerd speaks!
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail....p;IBLOCK_ID=35

1. War involves battles.

Wrong! Most of the "armies" in the world right now avoid battle and focus on killing civilians. This is the hardest thing for Americans to understand: armies that don't aim at victory and actually avoid battle. So many war buffs who ought to know better just won't see this.

More at the link.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a jackass:

"And as for peace, I was always against it. Peace is for people who have satisfying lives. The rest of us want that flood, that real rain. Like the man said, "Bring it on.""

Sure you do chief:

As for trusting this guy watch my back, I was always against it. Trusting this doughy chump is for people who've lost their lives. The rest of us want that flood, that real rain of being alive. Like the man said, "Don't trust that fat chimp to guard a sack of potatoes."

[NT!]

if the US decided to bomb iran, i'm sure we would fortify or realign our troops in iraq beforehand or immediately following it. we also have air dominance over iraq so it's not as if the iranians would just be able to waltz in and start picking off platoons. you might surprise some people near the border, but we would make it hellish to move troops after that.

i don't think you will see major wars as wars of territory between major powers in the future, like the two world wars. the proxy wars of the late 20th century are a better example of what we can expect. trying to destabilize regimes from within, control resource-rich developing nations or crush our enemies economically seem to me like they will remain the primary form of conflict for the next decade or two at least.

[mookboi]

I've read the whole thread. FWIW, I'm Russian, and I don't agree with Anton.

I also fail to see why so many people are on the "Let's assume Russia, Iran, and the rest of the middle east unite to form an alliance" bandwagon.

WTF? We don't even like the middle easterners (from former southern USSR republics) that are IN Russia, what the hell makes you think we'd ally with a buncha people we went to war with 20 years ago, realizing that we'd effectively be against the US in that war? The middle east is valuable to the US because of oil. Russia has a ton of oil, and while we might go and build some nuclear power plants and ruffle some feathers for economic reasons, I just can't imagine a scenario where we'd go and ally ourselves with Iran if they decided to declare war on the US.

I think the theory that WW3 would start because of Israel getting attacked by like Syria or Iran and the US jumping in to retaliate/defend and basically becoming today's Iraq situation on a much larger scale has so far been the most likely in the thread.

[martijn]

I'm probably just clueless about this, but do find it interesting. But dont most countrys buy their tanks and whatever warfare toys from businesses in other countrys?Like France buying their tanks from a factory in Sweden etc. Which might create some problems if suddenly they need to import/order thousands of those in another country.

Also, doesnt the USA have a incredibly high debt with China/other countrys?Enough to start a war over this?

[demon102]

I highly dought this will happen cuz the whole mutual destruction deal, at least with other nuclear powers. If we/they mess with us then it means nuke time period and no one wants that period. Cold War period proved this whole deal, it will not happen as human's #1 goal is to survive period. Quote me on that now!!!!!!!!!

[five4suited]

[ QUOTE ]
I like this arguement.

Objective #1: secure oil-rich regions in order to feed economic growth.
Objective #2: secure other non-replenishable resources in order to feed economic growth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your terms, but I think WW3 may very well involve Team 3 (China) invading Team 2 (Russia) because of all the resources (including land for 1B people) in Siberia, unless they sign an economic agreement to develop the resources together, in which case WW3 will be humanity (+250) vs Mother Nature (-300).

[2/325Falcon]

This entire thread is like retard week on Jeopardy! WWIII is Earth vs. Aliens, obv.

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
in which case WW3 will be humanity (+250) vs Mother Nature (-300).

[/ QUOTE ]

lol - good one