Yes, I agree, that may be necessary to avoid the collapse of our proxy. Better hurry!
What would WW3 look like?
- Thread starter Steve Shannon
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
- Status
Well said!
Whatever happens, it’s on Putin. This is all his doing. He expected to invade Ukraine and force a surrender to his conditions within a few days with few casualties. Instead he found a leader and populace that was ready and willing to resist.
He also expected that western countries would stay out of it due to the speed and relatively low number of casualties. The west would issue condemnations and some of their usual ineffectual sanctions, but it would all blow over like Crimea. I believe the west would have done exactly that if Ukraine hadn’t been so successful at repelling Russian aggression.
But Ukraine was successful and to the west’s credit, they stepped up and started helping Ukraine. Although this has resulted in a much longer war, Ukraine has a good chance of prevailing.
I don’t believe this will lead to WW3, but things could get worse before Russia is finally forced out.
And, to answer the question posed by this thread, I don’t believe that any of the larger countries such as USA or Russia will launch all of its nukes at once in a scorched earth assault(although a smaller, less stable country such as North Korea might). Any military plan featuring nuclear weapons must plan to win. A desolate nuclear landscape isn’t a win.
So, I believe whatever nuclear strikes are made will be limited and as surgical as possible. They will be accompanied by conventional and electronic warfare to destroy the enemy’s critical infrastructures: gas, oil, electric, water, and communications.
We won’t be bombed into the Stone Age; we’ll be taken back to the early to mid 20th century, but with 21st century knowledge.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,751
- Reaction score
- 1,764
Having nukes isn't enough. You need a delivery system, which is usually much more difficult. Consider North Korea, which has had, at least, simple atomic devices for well over a decade. But they are still "testing" their delivery systems (aka Rockets). They seem to be pretty much there at this point, which is a cause for concern. Not so sure Iran has a delivery system, unless they fly it attached to a MIG fighter jet, which can get shot down. Speaking of which, Israel has a good chance of shooting down even a ballistic missile, as they've been developing that Iron Shield thing for a long time now.
RGClark
Mathematician
We should all remember the famous statement of Albert Einstein,
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Bob Clark
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Bob Clark
You mean they can't be delivered with $1000 of solid motors by any competent rocketry amateur?
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2022
- Messages
- 1,751
- Reaction score
- 1,764
Well, the CATO would be amusing at least.
RGClark
Mathematician
There goes my 'get rich quick' scheme!
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,411
- Reaction score
- 7,956
Wait a minute. Remind me again which army is on the verge of collapsing? Which army has the best gained/lost territory ratio for the last 6 months?
Yes, Ukraine has acquired the most territory recently.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,411
- Reaction score
- 7,956
So why do you think their army is near collapse?
So begrudgingly admitted… You're not just a little disappointed are you?.
The Russians “acquired” it by brutalizing a civilian populace.
The Ukrainians regained it by routing an occupying military force, causing them to flee.
The differences in discipline, training, and equipment are striking. Apparently other than the palace guards and May Day parade forces the Russian army is a sad reflection of its former self.
The last time I said anything controversial or off-script, I was banned from the thread. I don't want it to happen again. And I don't want to be drawn off-topic. So I'm extremely reluctant to get into nitty-gritty details of the war in Ukraine here.
But if you must have clue, check out the latest on Bakhmut. It has been penetrated from two directions, and encirclement attempts are also taking place. Now, the UK and US press express great puzzlement as to why Russia would put such importance to such an unimportant place. If you want more of my comment, get me back into the main thread.
rharshberger
Well-Known Member
Iran's version of a delivery system will probably be something out of a Tom Clancy book (Sum of All Fears anyone) they are a terrorist state. However they could put a mobile Scud launcher on a ship and possibly (though not without very high risk) and get to with hitting distance of a number of coastal cities.
You weren't banned from the thread. You made statements and, when questioned, were unableto provide evidence to substantiate them. You decided to leave the thread.
I agree that attacking Bakhmut makes no strategic sense as has been reported in UK news (see link to Sky News on other thread). The prevailing view is that its an action by Wagner Group for internal political reasons rather than an important military objective. Ukrainian advances to the north of Bakhmut have already made it militarily insignificant.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,734
- Reaction score
- 1,383
While that is the "modern" point of nuclear deterrence, I don't think it has the same value anymore. In today's nuclear environment, the 10 or so "state actors" who posse nuclear weapons, only a couple are likely to use them in reality. I've always said "Deterrence only works if you are willing to use the item upon which it's based" and to this point in history, the US is the only one to do that. We are also the only one to show that nuclear weapons are not necessary to dominate the world (mostly). A lot of that sentiment is changing though. For starters, China is growing in economic power and probably more importantly, nuclear weapons use by the lessor actors is no longer considered a "deterrence" weapon.
I don't think there will ever be a nuclear exchange between the world powers. The likelihood is it will be a "one off" by a rouge actor and a possible retaliatory strike in the spirit of "Eff around and Find out (FA&FO). That in and of itself, will start a whole new round of "modernized deterrence" that move nukes from a first-strike capability to a retaliatory strike capability (which has always been on the table but less talked about and propagated through social circles).
H_Rocket
Death by Powerpoint
This is apocryphally from a 1946 conversation
Professor Albert Einstein was asked by friends at a recent dinner party what new weapons might be employed in World War III. Appalled at the implications, he shook his head.
After several minutes of meditation, he said. "I don't know what weapons might be used in World War III. But there isn't any doubt what weapons will be used in World War IV."
"And what are those?" a guest asked.
"Stone spears," said Einstein.
I personally doubt Putin would use nuclear weapons. Biological and Chemical weapons would be more likely.
Professor Albert Einstein was asked by friends at a recent dinner party what new weapons might be employed in World War III. Appalled at the implications, he shook his head.
After several minutes of meditation, he said. "I don't know what weapons might be used in World War III. But there isn't any doubt what weapons will be used in World War IV."
"And what are those?" a guest asked.
"Stone spears," said Einstein.
I personally doubt Putin would use nuclear weapons. Biological and Chemical weapons would be more likely.
I respectfully disagree on several points. I did screw up when I became confused. Pretty easy at age 74. I decided to leave the forum for a week or so, which I did. But I still cannot reply in the Ukraine thread. With regard to the mainstream reporting on the importance of Bakhmut, I respectfully suggest the English speaking peoples are being (understandably) misled by their media and governments.
Edit:
Sky News reports 300k Russians attack from the north in February.
Last edited:
I'm going to use the fantastic and highly used/favorite button for this thread, "Ignore"
Not many people still living have seen a nuclear weapon detonated. Here is one account.
“I was aghast. I had never really believed in tactical nuclear weapons anyhow. I have always felt that if one were used on the battlefield, the war would escalate immediately to full-scale nuclear warfare. Here was proof! … The first flash would sear the eyeballs of anyone looking in that direction … Its intensity cannot be described; it must be experienced to be appreciated… everyone for fifty miles in any direction who lived through it would realize that it was a nuclear explosion. It would seem like the end of the world, and it probably would be, for any man who had a similar weapon under his control, who had a button to push or a lanyard to pull, would do so instinctively”.
From Bernard O’Keefe’s book, his words about witnessing a Nevada test of a so-called small “tactical” weapon from six miles distance. O’Keefe was chairman of EG&G at the time of writing. He had been for many years involved hands-on in the assembly and testing of nuclear weapons, starting in 1945 as a naval officer doing final assembly of the Nagasaki bomb. He remained proud of doing his duty to bring an end to WW2.
“I was aghast. I had never really believed in tactical nuclear weapons anyhow. I have always felt that if one were used on the battlefield, the war would escalate immediately to full-scale nuclear warfare. Here was proof! … The first flash would sear the eyeballs of anyone looking in that direction … Its intensity cannot be described; it must be experienced to be appreciated… everyone for fifty miles in any direction who lived through it would realize that it was a nuclear explosion. It would seem like the end of the world, and it probably would be, for any man who had a similar weapon under his control, who had a button to push or a lanyard to pull, would do so instinctively”.
From Bernard O’Keefe’s book, his words about witnessing a Nevada test of a so-called small “tactical” weapon from six miles distance. O’Keefe was chairman of EG&G at the time of writing. He had been for many years involved hands-on in the assembly and testing of nuclear weapons, starting in 1945 as a naval officer doing final assembly of the Nagasaki bomb. He remained proud of doing his duty to bring an end to WW2.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 2,460
- Reaction score
- 1,971
I wholeheartedly agree. While I believe that most on TRF today will move on within 1 second to 100 years, I have no clue when any of us will no longer be part of the world and reserve +/-10% tolerance.
I absolutely don't want any form of WW3 or terminal [enter the issue here - zero politics] issues to wipe out humanity, I would love to see humanity in general chill out a bit and quit screwing stuff up as much and as quickly as we seem to be doing. While I don't seek out news/videos about whatever is the next emergency and I 'know' in general that every generation believes they are at the end times (maybe wrong, don't really care), but we really do seem to be trending to accelerating high risk activity on a large scale.
Specifically for the Ukraine vs Putin aggression, I believe most have read a book, seen a TV show or a movie where someone realizes they are not going to win the game of chess/checkers and simply flips the board, pieces everywhere and nobody knows what happened. For me, that is the most sketchy thing, as it has a feeling of 'taking the ball and going home' without the realization that home will also be 2500 deg when you get there. If the aggressor realizes that they will never make it home anyway, the consequences may be less of a consideration. Hope not, but that's my concern/uncertainty vs. a US/NATO planned action where 'everybody follows the rules.'
I do trust the government/military of the US are generally coordinated and are working with the best info they have and I believe they are operating in the best interest of our population first and general welfare second while other concerns become third and so on. No clue how correct I am one those assumptions, but it is where I am today and have been for quite a large period of my life.
As I have become more focused on nature (deer, squirrels, rabbits, cats etc.) I have the belief that humanity is a gigantic cancer on the overall well-being of the ecosystem we have. Not saying to wipe out humanity, but the flip side is that all the cool and amazing things we've done (as well as some of the less ideal things) have had an impact on every other plant, animal, mineral etc. on this sphere and based on the history I believe to be true, a bunch of that has happened in more recent centuries than far prior centuries.
Maybe it will be the sun expiring, maybe it will be a huge asteroid or maybe it will be humans that end life on Earth. Maybe it will happen in my lifetime or maybe it will be a million years in the future - I have no clue, but I do pretty much feel like we are being assholes to every other plant, animal and mineral right now and it would be nice to stop arguing about various philosophies and fighting as much as we seem to do as humans.
Nobody knows their expiration date for sure, but at least we should hope for a future where the animals and plants can continue on vs. turning this planet into Venus. Hopefully we stick around as a species too.
Sandy.
As a reminder, the US is the only nation on Earth I know of that explicitly permits the first use of nuclear weapons.
snippets:
"Biden’s policy declares that the “fundamental role” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter a nuclear attack, but will still leave open the option that nuclear weapons could be used in “extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners,” officials told ACT. According to a March 25 report by The Wall Street Journal, this might include nuclear use to deter enemy conventional, biological, chemical, and possibly cyberattacks."
"Biden’s decision not to adopt a sole-purpose nuclear declaratory policy not only runs counter to his previous public statements, but it also ignores the advice of many in his own party. In July 2021, for instance, Democratic lawmakers from the House and Senate met with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan about the review, which had just been launched. Among other recommendations, they urged Biden to follow through on his pledge to adopt a sole-purpose policy. In their meeting, Sullivan told the lawmakers the president still supported that approach, according to sources who spoke with Arms Control Today."
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-04/news/biden-policy-allows-first-use-nuclear-weapons
snippets:
"Biden’s policy declares that the “fundamental role” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter a nuclear attack, but will still leave open the option that nuclear weapons could be used in “extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners,” officials told ACT. According to a March 25 report by The Wall Street Journal, this might include nuclear use to deter enemy conventional, biological, chemical, and possibly cyberattacks."
"Biden’s decision not to adopt a sole-purpose nuclear declaratory policy not only runs counter to his previous public statements, but it also ignores the advice of many in his own party. In July 2021, for instance, Democratic lawmakers from the House and Senate met with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan about the review, which had just been launched. Among other recommendations, they urged Biden to follow through on his pledge to adopt a sole-purpose policy. In their meeting, Sullivan told the lawmakers the president still supported that approach, according to sources who spoke with Arms Control Today."
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-04/news/biden-policy-allows-first-use-nuclear-weapons
“Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and France say that they will use nuclear weapons against either nuclear or non-nuclear states only in the case of invasion or other attack against their territory or against one of their allies.”
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Back at RAF Staff College the explanation was very clear. Policy is always to always to avoid first use HOWEVER never rule it out as an option. If your enemies know how you're going to act they know exactly how far they can push you and your advanatege is lost. Its best that your enemies are left uncertain about how you will behave. That's the key to deterrence.
Putin is teaching a masters level class in that.
Since I'm 74 and none of the younger males in my extended family have seen fit to reproduce, my own death in WW3 or otherwise can be seen in a calmer context. Sure, WW3 would be a real inconvenience or an active horror for most people still trying to survive and flourish in life. When it comes, I'll be among the first to die since I live only 25 miles from the nations biggest store of atom bombs - sub base Kitsap.
I am now almost sure that this year is it.
- Status
