Discussion about WWIII

[Black Pawn]

I suggest this this thread for discussions about possibility of WWIII, it's reasons, possible strategies of sides and so on...
I suggest don't use language of hate - don't tell about "degenerated West population" or "corrupted Russian elites", avoid ideas of "quasitolkienism" with Russian as orcs and Putin as Sauron.
I'm not sure that such discussion is allowed by American or British laws, but if @Bombardier allow - why not?

 

[Bombardier]

I see no problem with a sensible discussion about this subject. It is likely to generate some interest in relation to the cause of such a global catastrophe and as you say strategies etc.

Thank you for making clear that any hateful remarks or blatant abuse will not be tolerated. We don't want to turn this into a pissing competition

Make your point subjectively and offer any evidence to support your view.

Anybody blatantly abusing anybody will be dealt with.

Enjoy

In my opinion a war such as this will serve no purpose for any participant because there will not be much left in the aftermath for anybody to enjoy. We have seen in not too distant history the effects of all out war. Lets hope our politicians can sort out our difficulties in a peaceful way.

 

[Conhoon]

I think we are very focused on Europe, while this piece of land will be increasingly marginalized. At the moment, Russia has a lot of problems with China, the population of the eastern part of Siberia begins to speak mostly in Chinese. I think that this problem will grow and attract more attention than the threat from dozens of fragmented and poorly organized states. Russians skilfully improved their position by annexing Crimea and everything related to it.

The importance and economic power of Turkey and India is growing. Iran will try to secure its position in the region, but rather I do not see a tendency to expand or rather defend. We do not know what is happening under the surface of global politics, but I also see a big threat in unregulated religious issues and migration related to climate change - and here I see a threat to Europe. I am afraid of the weakness of the lay faction in Turkey and the radicalization of attitudes in Pakistan. North Korea is also a very unstable element of this puzzle.

It all more closely resembles the "creeping" preparation as before the First World War.

 

[diman]

the population of the eastern part of Siberia begins to speak mostly in Chinese.

You are wrong in asserting that the population of Siberia speaks Chinese, even in the border areas, Chinese is rare. Seasonal workers are many, but they do not want to learn the cold and uncomfortable Siberian expanses of life. The northern provinces of China, bordering on Russia are not very much populated, in China, huge areas are empty, there it is cold, most of the Chinese live on the shores of warm seas

 

[Conhoon]

Forgive me if I've made a mistake somewhere. My information results from publications regarding travel to Siberia and not official data. As I understand from the traveler's point of view, it is impossible to distinguish a resident from a seasonal worker. But ... "Russian expert Jurij Soloduchin believes that "after signing the cooperation agreement with China, the Far East began to integrate with China as their resource base even faster than before". And he adds: "It can not be ruled out that in 5-10 years, when the Far East will reorient itself economically, spiritually and culturally, its liquid separation from Russia may arise. Two generations of young people have already grown up there, who have never been west of the Urals. And in China they have been repeatedly. "- assures the expert."

And once again - forgive me if I've made a mistake.
For that I would like to hear your opinion about the threats that the Russians are afraid of.

 

[diman]

Forgive me if I've made a mistake somewhere. My information results from publications regarding travel to Siberia and not official data. As I understand from the traveler's point of view, it is impossible to distinguish a resident from a seasonal worker. But ... "Russian expert Jurij Soloduchin believes that "after signing the cooperation agreement with China, the Far East began to integrate with China as their resource base even faster than before". And he adds: "It can not be ruled out that in 5-10 years, when the Far East will reorient itself economically, spiritually and culturally, its liquid separation from Russia may arise. Two generations of young people have already grown up there, who have never been west of the Urals. And in China they have been repeatedly. "- assures the expert."
View attachment 142178
And once again - forgive me if I've made a mistake.
For that I would like to hear your opinion about the threats that the Russians are afraid of.

Seasonal worker can be seen from afar))))
I think these cards need to look in Chinese so it will be more relevant
My personal information, and relatives living there,
Poland from the sea to the sea excites us as well as the Chinese threat)) (do not be offended)
Do not confuse economic integration with the demographic,
China now worries more its southern borders than the sparsely populated north, next is Kazakhstan, Mongolia, with an even smaller population and much more economically dependent on China, but the Chinese threat is not seen there

 

[Conhoon]

Poland from the sea to the sea ?! But why? After two world wars we have no problems with overcrowding.
(No, I was not offended)
I no longer speak about your country anymore, you know him better than I do.
I will try to explain differently - I think that the war in Europe is not profitable for Russia, neither Poland nor most countries in Europe. And I hope you share this opinion. Which does not mean that we should disarm ourselves right away.

 

[diman]

Poland from the sea to the sea ?! But why? After two world wars we have no problems with overcrowding.
(No, I was not offended)
I no longer speak about your country anymore, you know him better than I do.
I will try to explain differently - I think that the war in Europe is not profitable for Russia, neither Poland nor most countries in Europe. And I hope you share this opinion. Which does not mean that we should disarm ourselves right away.

I believe that the winner in World War III will be bored in the middle of the fiery radioactive hell
after that the main task of mankind will be the invention of the wheel again
I hope governments see the hopelessness of a global war!
But here local wars will arise more often than now
(Kadafi believed that the professional army was not needed, the result disappointed him)

 

[Black Pawn]

Ok. First of all we should answer a question of @Bombardier - "Is it possible to win in the nuclear war?". Obviously, answer depend from question "What are criterias of a victory?" For example, North Vietnam had lost in the war more that million of soldiers and near two millions of civilians, many of cities were demolished, 95% of soil were poisoned, but they won. USA had lost only fifty thousands of soldiers, no one bomb was dropped on their territory, but they lose war.
If the goal of war is "Don't allow to USA to establish Pax Americana" - even total chaotisation of the world and decreasing of planetary population to 1 billion is a victory.

Why I'm sure that the war is inevitable?
Basis of the rational understanding of the world is "principle of actualism" - "what was in the past, will repeat in the future". We are sure that there will be morning after night, day after morning, evening after day and night after evening because it was yesterday, at the previouse week, last year and all years in the past.
There will be spring after this wither, because there was spring after every winter many years... If we suggest, that there can be "year without summer", it's because there was such years in our history.
There will be big war with the West, because there was one or two big wars between Russia and West countries (united or not united) at least few times in century, and many small wars every decade. It's a tradition - Hitler, Napoleon, Carl XII, False Dmitry, Devlet-Gerey, Lithuania, Livonia, etc... Surely there will be big wars in XXI century.
It's a general thinking.
Talking more concrete - Europe is energydefficitic and overpopulated. Amount of available resourses are falling and earlier or later there will be only one way for them - "Drang nach Osten". Actually, their "Eastern Partnership" is already hybrid form of it.
Talking tactically, we can see concentration of NATO forces at our borders, destabilisation of our borderlands, creating of short-range missiles (masked as ABD) near us - all of this are classical signs of preparation for the sudden first strike.

 

[Conhoon]

I believe that the winner in World War III will be bored in the middle of the fiery radioactive hell
after that the main task of mankind will be the invention of the wheel again
I hope governments see the hopelessness of a global war!
But here local wars will arise more often than now
(Kadafi believed that the professional army was not needed, the result disappointed him)

Still on the horizon - even in Europe itself - there are many unresolved conflicts, and new ones will arrive. Yugoslavia has shown how fast and how bloody it can be.

@ Black Pawn - how do you convince me that this is a threat from the west? I would rather be afraid of threats from the south, at least when it comes to today. There is already an active ideology that has the strength to potential bonding and push people to war.

 

[Black Pawn]

@ Black Pawn - how do you convince me that this is a threat from the west? I would rather be afraid of threats from the south, at least when it comes to today. There is already an active ideology that has the strength to potential bonding and push people to war.

All is simple. How many people can feed European soil without import of any resourses, without oil, gas, fertilisers and so on? Less then 20% of current. What will preffer European leaders after collapse of the economic - kill 80% of their people from hunger or (if they will be lucky) - 30% in the big war with Russia?

 

[diman]

All is simple. How many people can feed European soil without import of any resourses, without oil, gas, fertilisers and so on? Less then 20% of current. What will preffer European leaders after collapse of the economic - kill 80% of their people from hunger or (if they will be lucky) - 30% in the big war with Russia?

The population in Europe is shrinking and aging. The southern European countries are very fertile, a good climate, robbing the resources of Africa is more profitable than fighting for resources and land with Russia
I'm more concerned that in many European countries one of the most popular names of newborns is the name of Muhamed, immigrants are increasingly unwilling to integrate. It seems to me that subsequent wars will not be ideological but religious

 

[Black Pawn]

I believe that the winner in World War III will be bored in the middle of the fiery radioactive hell

Nucleophobia detected.
https://life.ru/t/наука/1089058/kon...rnaia_voina_nie_unichtozhit_chieloviechiestvo

after that the main task of mankind will be the invention of the wheel again

Funny. It was promised by Herbert George Wells in his "The war in the air". He said, that unlimited use of aviation will lead war in the deep barbarism. We see, that he was wrong.

I hope governments see the hopelessness of a global war!

There are chances to win the global war if we'll have thousands of cruise missiles with nuclear engines for the hidden and sudden strike against US silos and airfields and high-speed long range torpedoes to hit their missile submarines, with sattelites for jamming orientation systems of enemies missiles, with the good anti-ballistic defence based on S-400 and S-500... It will be possible to decrease number of US warheads to the minimal level.

 

[diman]

Nucleophobia detected.
https://life.ru/t/наука/1089058/koniets_svieta_otmieniaietsia_pochiemu_iadiernaia_voina_nie_unichtozhit_chieloviechiestvo


Funny. It was promised by Herbert George Wells in his "The war in the air". He said, that unlimited use of aviation will lead war in the deep barbarism. We see, that he was wrong.

There are chances to win the global war if we'll have thousands of cruise missiles with nuclear engines for the hidden and sudden strike against US silos and airfields and high-speed long range torpedoes to hit their missile submarines, with sattelites for jamming orientation systems of enemies missiles, with the good anti-ballistic defence based on S-400 and S-500... It will be possible to decrease number of US warheads to the minimal level.

it seems to me that if at least 20% of thermonuclear warheads overcome the anti-missile defense system, the economic ecological and maral effect will be a colossal one
but if not 20% and more?

 

[Conhoon]

The population in Europe is shrinking and aging. The southern European countries are very fertile, a good climate, robbing the resources of Africa is more profitable than fighting for resources and land with Russia
I'm more concerned that in many European countries one of the most popular names of newborns is the name of Muhamed, immigrants are increasingly unwilling to integrate. It seems to me that subsequent wars will not be ideological but religious

I agree.

 

[Bombardier]

Ok I will play along with the Domesday scenario

I would have thought the most obvious threat in today's times to the sparking of a nuclear war would be North Korea and the regime of kim Jong-un.

Assuming he has the capability and the stupidity to launch a nuclear strike then clearly the US (if it is only them being targeted) would fire a huge arsenal of nuclear missiles that would certainly decimate North Korea. The issues then would be what will China and Russia do?

I have read reports (but not actually seen the article) that the Chinese have actually said in a Global Times editorial, that if the United States were to strike North Korea, China would aid North Korea.

Now this is all theoretical because NK would have to actually launch an attack and as I have said so many times before "The end result would not benefit anybody or any country". It would be pointless.

All is simple. How many people can feed European soil without import of any resourses, without oil, gas, fertilisers and so on? Less then 20% of current. What will preffer European leaders after collapse of the economic - kill 80% of their people from hunger or (if they will be lucky) - 30% in the big war with Russia?

I assume your percentages would be in the event of a non nuclear war? If not how do we come to those numbers?. I would have thought that a nuclear war would kill a much larger percentage of people and then at least the same again from radiation related illnesses.

If the goal of war is "Don't allow to USA to establish Pax Americana" - even total chaotisation of the world and decreasing of planetary population to 1 billion is a victory.

I would deduce that going to war for that reason alone (If establishing Pax Americana is even a thing) would be ridiculous and would not happen.

I seem to be getting the feeling from your comments @Black Pawn that you are not simply discussing will there be a WW3 and how would it start but expressing your wish that it should happen Am I right? if not accept my apologies just getting that vibe from you is all

 

[Bombardier]

Nucleophobia detected.
https://life.ru/t/наука/1089058/kon...rnaia_voina_nie_unichtozhit_chieloviechiestvo

After translating this i found it a very interesting and enlightening read

 

[Black Pawn]

I would have thought the most obvious threat in today's times to the sparking of a nuclear war would be North Korea and the regime of kim Jong-un.

He have no enough of nukes to start and win nuclear war (even with South Korea only), only for deterring USA and Japan.

Assuming he has the capability and the stupidity to launch a nuclear strike then clearly the US (if it is only them being targeted) would fire a huge arsenal of nuclear missiles that would certainly decimate North Korea. The issues then would be what will China and Russia do?

If USA going to attack DPRK with the risk to lost one or few their cities, it means that question is not in simple robbering (as in previouse local conflicts). There are no REMs enough to worth one or few cities. If the USA going to attack DPRK, it is obviouse that their real target is Russia and/or China. If the USA will waste few hundreds of nukes to strike DPRK, it decrease their arsenal to very little level - and it will be trigger to attack USA and Japan with Russian and China arsenal (not all, because few hundreds of warheads will be reserved to detterent EU, India and other countries.

I have read reports (but not actually seen the article) that the Chinese have actually said in a Global Times editorial, that if the United States were to strike North Korea, China would aid North Korea.

Yes, they said.

Now this is all theoretical because NK would have to actually launch an attack and as I have said so many times before "The end result would not benefit anybody or any country". It would be pointless.

It will not be pointless for example EU. Crushing USA by the hands of China and Russia (with seriouse devastations in them) will allow possibility "to make Europe great again". So, there are good situation for the "false flag operations".

I assume your percentages would be in the event of a non nuclear war? If not how do we come to those numbers?.

Its a very rude numbers, for the first, limited strike for remains of cities after evacuation - near 10%, and near 20% of total population for the rest of war with wide using of tactical nukes.

I would have thought that a nuclear war would kill a much larger percentage of people and then at least the same again from radiation related illnesses.

Depends from the readiness for war, initiative and active actions (as in other wars). Meta-strategy of nuclear war is same for all sides:
1. Create reserves of the food, fuel, clothes, ammo, vechicles, equipment and so on.
2. Prepare evacuation sites and all system of evacuation.
3. Make a secret weapon for the sudden counter-force strike.
4. Create a false-targets to force enemy waste his nukes.
5. Create complex ABD system from hacking his HQ computers (first line of defence) to SA-missiles with nuclear warheads (or direct hit).
6. Create Army of invasion.

Force enemy to attack false targets, provide evacuation of cities, hit his strategic weapons, hit as much of warheads as you can, restore industry, attack enemy with other forces, capture his territory and build The New World's Order.

I would deduce that going to war for that reason alone (If establishing Pax Americana is even a thing) would be ridiculous and would not happen.

Depends from how much losses is in the "peaceful alternative". For example, after fall of Americans dollar's Ponzi scheme there are good chances for social unrests and may be, even civil war.

I seem to be getting the feeling from your comments @Black Pawn that you are not simply discussing will there be a WW3 and how would it start but expressing your wish that it should happen Am I right? if not accept my apologies just getting that vibe from you is all

Oh, no... I'm not sort of ill-head murder, who wants to kill billions of people just for fun. I want peace for my children. Better world, more safe, without USA and NATO (nothing offensive, of course).

 

[Black Pawn]

@Conhoon , may be, this discussion will be interest for you:
http://forums.cbtbooks.ru/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=6585

 

[Conhoon]

Thank you very much @ Black Pawn, interesting reading. Do not you appear there under the nickname "Ярс"? I wonder one thing - the whole assumption is still revolving around the use of nuclear weapons. And what if it will be a conventional war? Do you like to quote historical analogies - and what if (I hope) it will be as during World War II when, due to the consequences, all countries refrained from using chemical weapons? Well, maybe with the exception of NK, which unfortunately is a completely unpredictable participant in international politics. There were, however, completely new elements of the mass war, more subtle but equally effective. How long will your country survive, for example: with an infected rail, energy and water supply system after attacks in cyberspace?
Well, Russia is immune and can deal with it for a long time. Poland also for a certain period of time - many systems here are still mechanical or not controlled from the central control room. Our backwardness can be an advantage here. But further west it can be a serious problem.

Sorry for my English.

P.S. Russia also has something that can decide on survival - a strategic depth. You have where to dissipate your forces in case of limited nuclear conflict. In the case of my country, with its size and location - it will be a nuclear desert. I have no illusions, so the discussion of how the world will look after the first attack is an abstraction for me. There is one more thing to keep in mind - nuclear war will be associated with climate change and long-term hunger. It will not be that the governments will survive. And they should rather take this into account.