The movie was bad enough. LOL.
What would WW3 look like?
- Thread starter Steve Shannon
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2017
- Messages
- 2,886
- Reaction score
- 2,953
The thing about China is how utterly vulnerable they are to trade blockades.
Forget consumer goods.
China imports the bulk of carbohydrates and food that would be required to feed and provide creature comforts for its population.
If those are blockaded, we are not talking about economic contraction as with Russia. But rather, lights going out and full-on famine within a matter of months.
That, and China knowing it full well, is why they will NEVER pick a fight with the US.
Unless, of course, their leadership looses touch with the reality, and goes into full-on Putin mode. Then logic fails, and anything is possible.
a
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2017
- Messages
- 2,886
- Reaction score
- 2,953
Is World War III on Its Way?
Last edited:
Rocketjunkie
Addicted to APCP
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 5,555
- Reaction score
- 1,945
Nukes.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 569
World War III would look like World War II but shinier, MUCH shinier!
CNN article discusses shifts in thinking about preventive - or "disarming" - nuclear strikes.
CNN —
Russian President Vladimir Putin, for the second time this week, floated the possibility that Russia may formally change its military doctrine of not being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, days after he warned of the “increasing” threat of nuclear war.
“They (the US) have it in their strategy, in the documents it is spelled out – a preventive blow. We don’t. We, on the other hand, have formulated a retaliatory strike in our strategy,” Putin said at a news conference in the Kyrgyzstan capital Bishkek.
Even if Russia were to retaliate immediately on seeing the launch of nuclear missiles towards it, Putin said, “this means that the fall of the warheads of enemy missiles on the territory of the Russian Federation is inevitable – they will still fall.”
Putin said that United States’ policy was not to exclude the possibility of “disarming” nuclear strike, while Russia’s doctrine is to use nuclear weapons as the last resort.
“So if we’re talking about this disarming strike, then maybe think about adopting the best practices of our American partners and their ideas for ensuring their security. We’re just thinking about it. No one was shy when they talked about it out loud in previous times and years,” he said.
“If a potential adversary believes it is possible to use the theory of a preventive strike, and we do not, then this still makes us think about those threats that are posed to us,” he added.
Biden administration officials have previously said that Moscow has been warned at the highest levels of the consequences for use of nuclear weapon in the war.
On Wednesday, Putin warned of the “increasing” threat of nuclear war, while stopping short of pledging Russia would not be the first to resort to nuclear weapons in a conflict.
“As for the idea that Russia wouldn’t use such weapons first under any circumstances, then it means we wouldn’t be able to be the second to use them either — because the possibility to do so in case of an attack on our territory would be very limited,” he said Wednesday.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/09/europe/russia-putin-nuclear-weapons-intl/index.html
CNN —
Russian President Vladimir Putin, for the second time this week, floated the possibility that Russia may formally change its military doctrine of not being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, days after he warned of the “increasing” threat of nuclear war.
“They (the US) have it in their strategy, in the documents it is spelled out – a preventive blow. We don’t. We, on the other hand, have formulated a retaliatory strike in our strategy,” Putin said at a news conference in the Kyrgyzstan capital Bishkek.
Even if Russia were to retaliate immediately on seeing the launch of nuclear missiles towards it, Putin said, “this means that the fall of the warheads of enemy missiles on the territory of the Russian Federation is inevitable – they will still fall.”
Putin said that United States’ policy was not to exclude the possibility of “disarming” nuclear strike, while Russia’s doctrine is to use nuclear weapons as the last resort.
“So if we’re talking about this disarming strike, then maybe think about adopting the best practices of our American partners and their ideas for ensuring their security. We’re just thinking about it. No one was shy when they talked about it out loud in previous times and years,” he said.
“If a potential adversary believes it is possible to use the theory of a preventive strike, and we do not, then this still makes us think about those threats that are posed to us,” he added.
Biden administration officials have previously said that Moscow has been warned at the highest levels of the consequences for use of nuclear weapon in the war.
On Wednesday, Putin warned of the “increasing” threat of nuclear war, while stopping short of pledging Russia would not be the first to resort to nuclear weapons in a conflict.
“As for the idea that Russia wouldn’t use such weapons first under any circumstances, then it means we wouldn’t be able to be the second to use them either — because the possibility to do so in case of an attack on our territory would be very limited,” he said Wednesday.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/09/europe/russia-putin-nuclear-weapons-intl/index.html
I just read that China wants to increase the number of Nukes from 500 to 1400 in the coming years. WHY would you need more than 500? As of 2021, humanity has about 13,410 nuclear weapons, thousands of which are on hair-trigger alert. This article gives a list of what countries have in their arsenal:
https://www.iflscience.com/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-to-totally-screw-humanity-48281
It would take only 100 to end humanity
https://www.iflscience.com/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-to-totally-screw-humanity-48281
It would take only 100 to end humanity
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,764
- Reaction score
- 1,783
Russia has already lost. They aren't invading *anyone* else, and certainly not any NATO country. They already lost so much manpower and equipment in Ukraine, they now have the problem that it's more likely that China comes knocking to invade THEM, to gain some ground while they are militarily so weak. But let's assume that China has its own internal problems and is more sane and more stable than Putin.
Either way you cut it, all Putin has at this point are airstrikes into Ukraine. He keeps rattling the nuclear sabre, but he isn't likely to use it because it would mean he'd then have to then be ready to destroy the entire world, because the entire world will be coming for his ass if he uses even a small tactical nuke. Understand this: it doesn't matter what bunker he is in, once he authorizes the use of even a kiloton nuke, there will be 40 black ops teams from various countries that will kill him. If you don't think there's a scenario being practiced right now to remove Putin from power and put someone else in his place to end this madness, you are mistaken.
The fact that Russia had to "kidnap" 300,000 of it's own citizens to thrown them into Ukraine as cannon fodder should tell you how desperate the situation has become for Russia. This war will linger on through the winter and by spring Russia will be forced to withdraw for lack of troops, equipment and money. Zelenskyy will be hailed as the hero of this century. When Ukraine gets rebuilt sometime in late 2025, they will build a 100-ft statue of the guy. This tiny little country defeated Russia, a world superpower.
Either way you cut it, all Putin has at this point are airstrikes into Ukraine. He keeps rattling the nuclear sabre, but he isn't likely to use it because it would mean he'd then have to then be ready to destroy the entire world, because the entire world will be coming for his ass if he uses even a small tactical nuke. Understand this: it doesn't matter what bunker he is in, once he authorizes the use of even a kiloton nuke, there will be 40 black ops teams from various countries that will kill him. If you don't think there's a scenario being practiced right now to remove Putin from power and put someone else in his place to end this madness, you are mistaken.
The fact that Russia had to "kidnap" 300,000 of it's own citizens to thrown them into Ukraine as cannon fodder should tell you how desperate the situation has become for Russia. This war will linger on through the winter and by spring Russia will be forced to withdraw for lack of troops, equipment and money. Zelenskyy will be hailed as the hero of this century. When Ukraine gets rebuilt sometime in late 2025, they will build a 100-ft statue of the guy. This tiny little country defeated Russia, a world superpower.
I for one wouldn't appreciate the end of humanity, despite its problems and miseries. I have direct family from Tacoma to Camano Island that I don't want to lose. I have two properties worth a lot of money that are both within 25 linear miles of the largest store of nuclear weapons in the US, sub base Kitsap.I just read that China wants to increase the number of Nukes from 500 to 1400 in the coming years. WHY would you need more than 500? As of 2021, humanity has about 13,410 nuclear weapons, thousands of which are on hair-trigger alert. This article gives a list of what countries have in their arsenal:
https://www.iflscience.com/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-to-totally-screw-humanity-48281
It would take only 100 to end humanity
But perhaps there are others without family or property who think a WW3 nuclear holocaust would be a good thing if pursued for the right reasons and achieved the right goals. I'd like to hear from them. Perhaps the human race has become so corrupted it needs to die? Is there some Satanic religion out there that thinks so?
From Wikipedia:
The Doomsday Clock is a symbol that represents the likelihood of a man-made global catastrophe, in the opinion of the members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.[1] Maintained since 1947, the clock is a metaphor for threats to humanity from unchecked scientific and technological advances.
The clock's original setting in 1947 was seven minutes to midnight. It has since been set backward eight times and forward 16 times for a total of 24, the farthest from midnight being 17 minutes in 1991, and the nearest being 100 seconds, from 2020 to the present.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2015
- Messages
- 3,966
- Reaction score
- 2,745
Because they can use that increased capability as political leverage and there's nothing that anyone can/will do about it.
but once you have enough to destroy humanity, anything more is a complete waste of resources. If you have 200+ or you have 2,000 you've already shown your political leverage. There's only a very small group of humans that are intelligent, and as the one poster says,
" The difference between animals and humans is, animals would never allow the dumbest to lead the pack".
At the moment Russia is probably too weak to consider opening a second front, particularly against NATO. It's difficult to see a scenario where military action could further Russian interests without exacting a high cost.
An attack in the north might gain some initial ground in the Baltic states, particularly if they started by closing the Kalinigrad-Belarus gap first. NATO forces in Poland and Germany would be quick to respond and forces like the ARRC would deploy to reinforce them. I think its likely that Sweden and Finland would throw in their lot with NATO, even before any treaty is signed, making any Russian gains in the Baltic difficult to defend.
NATO's southern flank is more complex. To launch an attack on NATO Russia would need to occupy at least the Ukrainian coast then be prepared to sustain an attack through Romania or Bulgaria. I don't think Russia has the logistic capacity for that kind of protracted campaign, and NATO mobilisation would turn the tide very quickly. The complicating factor would be Hungary and Turkey who both seem to be weakly committed to NATO, the former being pro-Putin and the latter trying to be a peace-broker. If, for example, Hungary withrew from NATO and refused access it would make reinforcing Romania or Bulgaria more complex. NATO's better trained forces and technical superiority would prevail in a conventional conflict in the south but it could be messy and costly for both sides.
Would Russia launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a NATO country? It would be a suicidal move. Most launches and some bombers would be detected long before reaching their targets so full surprise is unlikely. The response would cause significant damage to Russia.
I suspect a more likely scenario is that Russia tries to attack western interests in other parts of the world through allies or proxies. Its relations with Syria and Iran leave the west vulnerable to economic pressure in the middle east. I could see a scenario in which Iran is encouraged by Russia to take action against the oil supply. A third gulf conflict would tie up a lot of forces normally allocated to NATO, easing pressure on Russia in Europe. This could become a flashpoint for WW3, but I suspect that Russia would not offer much military support to Iran.
Looking further afield, would China start a war? Possibly, but they have a lot to lose as their economy is currently based on manufacturing goods for the west. An invasion of Taiwan could not be tolerated by the west as it currently supplies a lot of the world's semiconductors. Like the middle east, this would absorb a lot of western military resources. Ultimately China would lose, but the cost to the west would be high. This would be a possible flashpoint for WW3.
Then there's rogue states like N Korea. The opening of a war there would have high civilian casualties as they reputedly have thousand of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul. After that initial barrage N Korea would swiftly be overwhelmed by American and Korean forces.
While Russia is currently on everyone's mind, I don't see them as triggering WW3. I think it more likely that Russia's allies or proxies will be the threats to watch.
An attack in the north might gain some initial ground in the Baltic states, particularly if they started by closing the Kalinigrad-Belarus gap first. NATO forces in Poland and Germany would be quick to respond and forces like the ARRC would deploy to reinforce them. I think its likely that Sweden and Finland would throw in their lot with NATO, even before any treaty is signed, making any Russian gains in the Baltic difficult to defend.
NATO's southern flank is more complex. To launch an attack on NATO Russia would need to occupy at least the Ukrainian coast then be prepared to sustain an attack through Romania or Bulgaria. I don't think Russia has the logistic capacity for that kind of protracted campaign, and NATO mobilisation would turn the tide very quickly. The complicating factor would be Hungary and Turkey who both seem to be weakly committed to NATO, the former being pro-Putin and the latter trying to be a peace-broker. If, for example, Hungary withrew from NATO and refused access it would make reinforcing Romania or Bulgaria more complex. NATO's better trained forces and technical superiority would prevail in a conventional conflict in the south but it could be messy and costly for both sides.
Would Russia launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a NATO country? It would be a suicidal move. Most launches and some bombers would be detected long before reaching their targets so full surprise is unlikely. The response would cause significant damage to Russia.
I suspect a more likely scenario is that Russia tries to attack western interests in other parts of the world through allies or proxies. Its relations with Syria and Iran leave the west vulnerable to economic pressure in the middle east. I could see a scenario in which Iran is encouraged by Russia to take action against the oil supply. A third gulf conflict would tie up a lot of forces normally allocated to NATO, easing pressure on Russia in Europe. This could become a flashpoint for WW3, but I suspect that Russia would not offer much military support to Iran.
Looking further afield, would China start a war? Possibly, but they have a lot to lose as their economy is currently based on manufacturing goods for the west. An invasion of Taiwan could not be tolerated by the west as it currently supplies a lot of the world's semiconductors. Like the middle east, this would absorb a lot of western military resources. Ultimately China would lose, but the cost to the west would be high. This would be a possible flashpoint for WW3.
Then there's rogue states like N Korea. The opening of a war there would have high civilian casualties as they reputedly have thousand of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul. After that initial barrage N Korea would swiftly be overwhelmed by American and Korean forces.
While Russia is currently on everyone's mind, I don't see them as triggering WW3. I think it more likely that Russia's allies or proxies will be the threats to watch.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,443
- Reaction score
- 8,038
It makes some sense when you consider that the US is working hard on ballistic missile defense. If you feel that you need to be able to land 100 nukes on your opponent to be considered a Real World Power, and you figure that BMD might catch 95% of launched ballistic missiles (an extremely optimistic figure!), then you'd need 2000 nukes ready to go. Also, there's leverage for arms treaty negotiations and general dick-waving.
Also, while Putin's saber rattling about first use policies are nominally a concern, they don't actually mean much in the grander scheme of things. The US has a ballistic missile sub fleet that can deliver a second strike. There is no way that a Russian first strike could eliminate all of the US' nuclear capability. That means we're back to MAD.
Nobody wants a nuclear war. That said, the mere fact of Russia having nukes doesn't mean that they get to run roughshod over the entire world (Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, ...). There are some escalatory actions we won't take though (eg no sending NATO troops over the Russian border, as I said previously in this thread).
Lots to think about there, touching eclectically on many possibilities in which things could go south. Which is the most dire?
I see you live in Wales! I've always wanted to tour some of those fabulous castles in Wales, and perhaps I will someday. I know they are a hated symbol of repression, if previous conversations with your kinsmen are correct.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,443
- Reaction score
- 8,038
Dire in the sense of worst case scenario, or dire in the sense of worst likely scenario?
The one about Hungary leaving NATO is an interesting question. I wonder if Hungary is actually more useful to Putin as a veto inside NATO/EU than it is on its own.
We're rather rich in castles. Within a few miles of home we've got an iron age fort, roman encampment, medieval castle and one the few gated bridges left in Europe. I'm an Englishman living in Wales so I'm one of the oppressors!
Possibly. We've already seen Hungary refuse to allow the passage of arms shipments to Ukraine. They've also acted against EU sanctions on Russia. They're not good Europeans.
Ez2cDave
Well-Known Member
"What would WW3 look like?"
(1) Bright
(2) Hot
(3) Windy
(4) Dark
(5) Quiet ( forever )
Dave F.
(1) Bright
(2) Hot
(3) Windy
(4) Dark
(5) Quiet ( forever )
Dave F.
The official Libertarian view on WW3:
https://libertarianinstitute.org/ar...es-red-lines-escalates-proxy-war-with-russia/
https://libertarianinstitute.org/ar...es-red-lines-escalates-proxy-war-with-russia/
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2016
- Messages
- 9,001
- Reaction score
- 3,528
A view purporting to be libertarian which appears to have at least some objectivist elements. If you are surprised to find about half of libertarians aren't strictly non-interventionist, you may not have been paying as close attention as you thought.
I can see WW3 starting as a cascade of events. Things that happen quickly. I think that as soon as Iran thinks they have enough nukes to keep the rest of the world at bay. They nuke Israel. Then Israel nukes them. Then perhaps North Korea thinks now is their chance. Flash points start popping up all over. The rest of the world would be trying to put out fires everywhere.
It's interesting to read an American Libertarian perspect of Ukraine, but perhaps this belongs in the Ukraine thread rather than WW3.
My opinion, for what its worth: In Europe both left and right wing governments seem to have a different perspective to that presented in this article. Apart from the pro-Russian government in Hungary, European nations see Russia as an immediate and real threat to our borders and liberties, and believe that threat needs to be contained. I don't think there was a concious decision to allow Ukraine to strike inside Russia, but there is a general acceptance that the consequences of Russia's aggression need to be brought home to the Russian people with a view to hastening the end of the conflict. European nations are not intrested in escalation as, if this war escalates, most of the conventional fighting will occur on our territory.
The argument that Washington and NATO 'picked a fight with Russia' shows a complete lack of understanding of Europe. Prior to the Russian seizure of Crimea some major European nations (notably France and Germany) were doing their best to build a positive relationship with Russia. Even after Crimea, and the imposition of sanctions by the EU, these efforts continued. Ukraine's applications to join NATO and the EU were handled carefully and slowly to prevent antagonising Russia. Russia was even invited to join the EU, not as a political sop but as a genuine effort to get Russia committed to peace in Europe. It's difficult to see how the European members of NATO can be accused of picking a fight.
now that we're into the forbidden area of politics, I'll stand by for the thread lock.
I think the door has been foreclosed on all normal forms of negotiation and diplomacy. Zero chance of that. It will be settled on the battlefield, one way or the other. But will that battlefield be restricted to Ukraine and Russia, or will it be broadened? Already the conflict is global in terms of energy, food and economics. Both Biden and now Putin have widened the door to WW3 by publicly going for 1st use of nukes as national policy. Russia has determined to destroy Ukraine and remove the government. If Russia breaks the center at Bakhmut and makes a new charge for Kiev from Belarus, it will be 1 second to midnight.
You are incorrect. Neither side will use nukes. This is a very naive way of thinking.
Russia is a paper tiger that uses the threat of nukes to get their way like an 8 year old threatening to take their ball and go home if your do not let them play guard or QB.
If you get three libertarians in a room, you'll get five different opinions on an issue. The idea that there is an "official Libertarian view" on anything is suspect.
Like asking for an opnion about which glue is best for rocketry?
That's true. All libertarians totaled up might amount to 3% of the population on a good day. I'm not from the Ayn Rand wing, more like the Pat Buchanan wing.
I'm certainly hoping neither side will use nukes. But just in case Russia turns out not to be a paper tiger and makes major breakthroughs that threaten the existence of Ukraine, then what?
We need to be prepared to support NATO or UN presence. I think you will be surprised with the planning going on behind the scenes.
- Status
