Date: 24/03/2016 22:30:43
From: Bubblecar
ID: 864040
Subject: World War Three
Is it ever going to happen, or have we grown out of that sort of thing?
Is it ever going to happen, or have we grown out of that sort of thing?
It has already started. It is just a slow burn…
Bubblecar said:
Is it ever going to happen, or have we grown out of that sort of thing?
Ah …
I don’t know.
It would be a bold claim to say that there will NEVER be another world war but the major powers have too much skin in the game now.
dv said:
Bubblecar said:
Is it ever going to happen, or have we grown out of that sort of thing?
Ah …
I don’t know.
It would be a bold claim to say that there will NEVER be another world war but the major powers have too much skin in the game now.
They moved the doomsday clock back a bit due to the latest Iran agreement, so I heard.
Could a Hitler like personality arise again in China?
tauto said:
Could a Hitler like personality arise again in China?
I guess
Chances are there are one or two already there…
tauto said:
Could a Hitler like personality arise again in China?
Another one?
tauto said:
Could a Hitler like personality arise again in China?
You would have to be a moron to resemble his fanatacism in todays elite race…. a.k.a Kim Jong Un…….
tauto said:
Could a Hitler like personality arise again in China?
How about Kim in North Korea?
CrazyNeutrino said:
tauto said:
Could a Hitler like personality arise again in China?How about Kim in North Korea?
I would be more worried about a Hitler type personality becoming President of America at the moment.
Bubblecar said:
Is it ever going to happen, or have we grown out of that sort of thing?
I’m terrified of WW III, I just count myself extremely lucky that I’ve lived through a time where there has been no war in my country. It’s not so much the nuclear or biological weapons I’m worried about, nuclear and biological weapons are now “conventional”. It’s the new weapons that will be developed during WW III that terrify me, weapons so deadly that they make nuclear weapons seem harmless by comparison.
On the other hand, I disagree with the bulletin of atomic scientists doomsday clock. They put the time at 6 minutes to midnight in 2010, 5 minutes to midnight in 2012, and 3 minutes to midnight in 2016. President Obama’s decision to unilaterally reduce America’s nuclear arms in 2009 was a huge step in the correct direction, and things haven’t changed very significantly since then. In 1991, with the official end of the world war, the clock was placed at 17 minutes to midnight. Things are actually much better now than they were back in 1991.
I see a direct analogy between the “Pax Romana” and the “Pax Americana”. The Pax Romana (Latin for “Roman Peace”) was the long period of peacefulness and minimal expansion by the Roman military force experienced by the Roman Empire. Its span was approximately 206 years (27 BC to 180 AD). The Pax Americana started in 1945, so we can pray that it lasts as long as the previous “Pax Romana”. On the other hand, no analogy should ever be pushed too far.
mollwollfumble said:
Bubblecar said:
Is it ever going to happen, or have we grown out of that sort of thing?
It’s going to happen. You can be absolutely sure of that.I’m terrified of WW III, I just count myself extremely lucky that I’ve lived through a time where there has been no war in my country. It’s not so much the nuclear or biological weapons I’m worried about, nuclear and biological weapons are now “conventional”. It’s the new weapons that will be developed during WW III that terrify me, weapons so deadly that they make nuclear weapons seem harmless by comparison.
On the other hand, I disagree with the bulletin of atomic scientists doomsday clock. They put the time at 6 minutes to midnight in 2010, 5 minutes to midnight in 2012, and 3 minutes to midnight in 2016. President Obama’s decision to unilaterally reduce America’s nuclear arms in 2009 was a huge step in the correct direction, and things haven’t changed very significantly since then. In 1991, with the official end of the cold war, the clock was placed at 17 minutes to midnight. Things are actually much better now than they were back in 1991.
I see a direct analogy between the “Pax Romana” and the “Pax Americana”. The Pax Romana (Latin for “Roman Peace”) was the long period of peacefulness and minimal expansion by the Roman military force experienced by the Roman Empire. Its span was approximately 206 years (27 BC to 180 AD). The Pax Americana started in 1945, so we can pray that it lasts as long as the previous “Pax Romana”. On the other hand, no analogy should ever be pushed too far.
In 1991, with the official end of the cold war, the clock was placed at 17 minutes to midnight.
it depends on your doctrine
a first strike is the only way to win a nuclear war – it has to be an overwhelming first strike to make sure the enemy can’t strike back or have limited ability for a counter strike – thus you point out that you can finish the job whilst only suffering limited casualties.
When fossil fuel reserves are low in the world ,the population levels are that high that fresh water is like rare gold and the world is running out of phosphorus the decline of civilisation could occur, that type of mass starvation could spark a global battle potentially. Those who can adapt technology to compensate for that global catastrophe could potentially be the world power at that time IMO.
wookiemeister said:
it depends on your doctrinea first strike is the only way to win a nuclear war – it has to be an overwhelming first strike to make sure the enemy can’t strike back or have limited ability for a counter strike – thus you point out that you can finish the job whilst only suffering limited casualties.
I have a strong dislike for the nuclear landmine, and for the nuclear artillery shell that is fired from a tank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
monkey skipper said:
When fossil fuel reserves are low in the world ,the population levels are that high that fresh water is like rare gold and the world is running out of phosphorus the decline of civilisation could occur, that type of mass starvation could spark a global battle potentially. Those who can adapt technology to compensate for that global catastrophe could potentially be the world power at that time IMO.
Therefore, learn how to reclaim phosphorous from the food chain as technology. Develop alternative off grid viable power systems at a faster rate and plan to manage fresh water like rare gold now. Do these three things well and the need to battle from desperation may be appeased in the global future.
mollwollfumble said:
wookiemeister said:
it depends on your doctrinea first strike is the only way to win a nuclear war – it has to be an overwhelming first strike to make sure the enemy can’t strike back or have limited ability for a counter strike – thus you point out that you can finish the job whilst only suffering limited casualties.
There’s no such thing as an overwhelming first strike in nuclear war, there never was. WW III will be nasty and prolonged, and will include nuclear weapons.I have a strong dislike for the nuclear landmine, and for the nuclear artillery shell that is fired from a tank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
first strike nuclear
the first use of nuclear weapons was the thought to clear a beach head on the Japanese mainland for American troops via an amphibious assault
they changed their minds and attacked a city instead
monkey skipper said:
monkey skipper said:
When fossil fuel reserves are low in the world ,the population levels are that high that fresh water is like rare gold and the world is running out of phosphorus the decline of civilisation could occur, that type of mass starvation could spark a global battle potentially. Those who can adapt technology to compensate for that global catastrophe could potentially be the world power at that time IMO.
Therefore, learn how to reclaim phosphorous from the food chain as technology. Develop alternative off grid viable power systems at a faster rate and plan to manage fresh water like rare gold now. Do these three things well and the need to battle from desperation may be appeased in the global future.
Leave a message in a bottle.
WWW
wookiemeister said:
WWW
Like the end of India versus Bangladesh at Bangalore.
world war wookiemeister
WW2 was about levelling cities
wookiemeister said:
WW2 was about levelling cities
And none of the Allies were hauled before war crimes courts afterwards for their deliberate terror bombing campaigns, but that’s ‘cos they won.
wookiemeister said:
WW2 was about levelling cities
Bubblecar said:
wookiemeister said:
WW2 was about levelling cities
And none of the Allies were hauled before war crimes courts afterwards for their deliberate terror bombing campaigns, but that’s ‘cos they won.
For that matter, Nixon and Kissinger were never prosecuted for war crimes in Vietnam and Cambodia, even though they lost.
Bubblecar said:
wookiemeister said:
WW2 was about levelling cities
And none of the Allies were hauled before war crimes courts afterwards for their deliberate terror bombing campaigns, but that’s ‘cos they won.
and because they were retaliating for having their cities bombed first.
wookiemeister said:
WW2 was about levelling cities
Perhaps, though, levelling cities was just something the top brass did as a diversion to hide the fact their troops had been making no progress.
roughbarked said:
Bubblecar said:
wookiemeister said:
WW2 was about levelling cities
And none of the Allies were hauled before war crimes courts afterwards for their deliberate terror bombing campaigns, but that’s ‘cos they won.
and because they were retaliating for having their cities bombed first.
cities absorb bombs. look at Syria.
mollwollfumble said:
wookiemeister said:
WW2 was about levelling cities
I hadn’t thought of that. But you’re right.Perhaps, though, levelling cities was just something the top brass did as a diversion to hide the fact their troops had been making no progress.
Yes civilian cities were certainly targeted, but the primary purpose of the bombing was to disrupt the machinery that made the weapons of war. Sometimes at a basic level, such as the attacks on the Ruhr dams. Mostly railways, power plants, fuel plants (Germany had to rely heavily on synthetic fuel products, which also dictated a fair of of where they tended to invade, so they could capture intact refineries), munitions plants, etc.
plus bombing in those days wasn’t all that accurate.
Spiny Norman said:
mollwollfumble said:
wookiemeister said:
WW2 was about levelling cities
I hadn’t thought of that. But you’re right.Perhaps, though, levelling cities was just something the top brass did as a diversion to hide the fact their troops had been making no progress.
Yes civilian cities were certainly targeted, but the primary purpose of the bombing was to disrupt the machinery that made the weapons of war. Sometimes at a basic level, such as the attacks on the Ruhr dams. Mostly railways, power plants, fuel plants (Germany had to rely heavily on synthetic fuel products, which also dictated a fair of of where they tended to invade, so they could capture intact refineries), munitions plants, etc.
The attacks by the dam busters were designed to rob the German war machine of power. Though the Brits were aware that the ensuing flooded valleys would kill a lot of innocent people.
ChrispenEvan said:
plus bombing in those days wasn’t all that accurate.
Very true, it was largely hopelessly inaccurate.
Spiny Norman said:
mollwollfumble said:
wookiemeister said:
WW2 was about levelling cities
I hadn’t thought of that. But you’re right.Perhaps, though, levelling cities was just something the top brass did as a diversion to hide the fact their troops had been making no progress.
Yes civilian cities were certainly targeted, but the primary purpose of the bombing was to disrupt the machinery that made the weapons of war. Sometimes at a basic level, such as the attacks on the Ruhr dams. Mostly railways, power plants, fuel plants (Germany had to rely heavily on synthetic fuel products, which also dictated a fair of of where they tended to invade, so they could capture intact refineries), munitions plants, etc.
the idea was to knock out entire cities
in WW1 the mindset was about “winning the firefight” and “ a war of positions”
in WW2 the mindset was about levelling cities. the luftwaffe changed tactics and stopped bombing valuable RAF bases and switched to bombing low value semi detached houses and high density housing. the docks and industry were attacked but far more importance was placed on knocking down houses than knocking out any strategic target; both sides wasted untold amounts of ammunition, men and machines for very little effect. the ultimate bomb was developed to flatten an entire city and was unleashed on hiroshima and nagasaki, its true these cities had some military value but the fact is that it knocked down far more houses than factories.
the WW3 mindset is one of eradication rather than hitting anything of any value. a nuclear missile is designed to completely eradicate cities, it splits into multiple heads and takes down entire population centres. The weapons we have now are so dangerous that they can’t be used!
wookiemeister said:
in WW1 the mindset was about “winning the firefight” and “ a war of positions”in WW2 the mindset was about levelling cities. the luftwaffe changed tactics and stopped bombing valuable RAF bases and switched to bombing low value semi detached houses and high density housing. the docks and industry were attacked but far more importance was placed on knocking down houses than knocking out any strategic target; both sides wasted untold amounts of ammunition, men and machines for very little effect. the ultimate bomb was developed to flatten an entire city and was unleashed on hiroshima and nagasaki, its true these cities had some military value but the fact is that it knocked down far more houses than factories.
the WW3 mindset is one of eradication rather than hitting anything of any value. a nuclear missile is designed to completely eradicate cities, it splits into multiple heads and takes down entire population centres. The weapons we have now are so dangerous that they can’t be used!
the only purpose of a nuclear weapon of any variety that explodes above the ground is eradication, its something that will always be used in practical terms to hit cities. its possible that you could use it to hit an armoured attack but hitting unprotected civilian infrastructure such as a city means higher casualties.
the poor man’s nuclear bomb are of the chemical and biological variety
chemical is better – you can march in after gas has cleared
if the americans had been more careful the thing could have been kept in the bag – certainly not allowing scientists to wander off and give secrets to the soviet union / israel and every other crack nation would have been the better option. israel was caught trying to sell the bomb to south africa. no one should be selling/ transferring knowledge of nuclear devices to any other nation. increasing the nuclear club makes disaster more likely.
wookiemeister said:
if the americans had been more careful the thing could have been kept in the bag – certainly not allowing scientists to wander off and give secrets to the soviet union / israel and every other crack nation would have been the better option. israel was caught trying to sell the bomb to south africa. no one should be selling/ transferring knowledge of nuclear devices to any other nation. increasing the nuclear club makes disaster more likely.
bombing hiroshima was probably a waste of time in the end
being a bastard i would have saved a lot of time and money by surrounding japan and then calling up the japanese emperor and telling him if he didn’t surrender immediately the royal palaces and anything of ANY historical value would be turned into match sticks
the threat would have been enough to make them lay down their arms
meanwhile on the mainland the japanese land forces would have been starved and cut down (no survivors), once the logistics trail faulters the imperial army would have staved to death, no need for a frontal assault on any more islands or hill tops. cut off the food and the whole thing stops
wookiemeister said:
bombing hiroshima was probably a waste of time in the endbeing a bastard i would have saved a lot of time and money by surrounding japan and then calling up the japanese emperor and telling him if he didn’t surrender immediately the royal palaces and anything of ANY historical value would be turned into match sticks
the threat would have been enough to make them lay down their arms
meanwhile on the mainland the japanese land forces would have been starved and cut down (no survivors), once the logistics trail faulters the imperial army would have staved to death, no need for a frontal assault on any more islands or hill tops. cut off the food and the whole thing stops
you could have fuelled up and sent every available bomber over japan with no payload as a show of force and made them circle around to give people the impression it was wave after wave of bombers
the yanks were already using high altitude bombing to turn tokyo into match sticks and then drop incendairies
it further pushes my opinion to that of sun tzu
wars should be short
to the point ie with an objective that halts the problem in practical terms
not waste time with sieges and destroying cities and population centres
“the art of war” by sun tzu is actually an anti war book – there are rarely any stories of “victory” most of the book is actually about military disasters and this is why he says think carefully about starting a war in the first place. don’t go to war unless you absolutely need to.
wookiemeister said:
you could have fuelled up and sent every available bomber over japan with no payload as a show of force and made them circle around to give people the impression it was wave after wave of bombersthe yanks were already using high altitude bombing to turn tokyo into match sticks and then drop incendairies
it further pushes my opinion to that of sun tzu
wars should be short
to the point ie with an objective that halts the problem in practical terms
not waste time with sieges and destroying cities and population centres
“the art of war” by sun tzu is actually an anti war book – there are rarely any stories of “victory” most of the book is actually about military disasters and this is why he says think carefully about starting a war in the first place. don’t go to war unless you absolutely need to.
what about the waves of drones dropping water balloons?
Tamb said:
wookiemeister said:
bombing hiroshima was probably a waste of time in the endbeing a bastard i would have saved a lot of time and money by surrounding japan and then calling up the japanese emperor and telling him if he didn’t surrender immediately the royal palaces and anything of ANY historical value would be turned into match sticks
the threat would have been enough to make them lay down their arms
meanwhile on the mainland the japanese land forces would have been starved and cut down (no survivors), once the logistics trail faulters the imperial army would have staved to death, no need for a frontal assault on any more islands or hill tops. cut off the food and the whole thing stops
Disagree.
The Japanese were fanatics who would have fought to the last man for their Emperor.
Bushido, which means “way of the warrior,” refers to a complex set of Japanese values stressing honor and loyalty to country and family above all else.
after the food supplies dried up they’d most likely try a break out – but to where? another line of defense being held by an army thats well supplied and prepared
the battle of the bulge typifies this – a break out to nowhere
wookiemeister said:
you could have fuelled up and sent every available bomber over japan with no payload as a show of force and made them circle around to give people the impression it was wave after wave of bombersthe yanks were already using high altitude bombing to turn tokyo into match sticks and then drop incendairies
it further pushes my opinion to that of sun tzu
wars should be short
to the point ie with an objective that halts the problem in practical terms
not waste time with sieges and destroying cities and population centres
“the art of war” by sun tzu is actually an anti war book – there are rarely any stories of “victory” most of the book is actually about military disasters and this is why he says think carefully about starting a war in the first place. don’t go to war unless you absolutely need to.
So often, modern wars are started without an exit strategy.
stumpy_seahorse said:
wookiemeister said:
you could have fuelled up and sent every available bomber over japan with no payload as a show of force and made them circle around to give people the impression it was wave after wave of bombersthe yanks were already using high altitude bombing to turn tokyo into match sticks and then drop incendairies
it further pushes my opinion to that of sun tzu
wars should be short
to the point ie with an objective that halts the problem in practical terms
not waste time with sieges and destroying cities and population centres
“the art of war” by sun tzu is actually an anti war book – there are rarely any stories of “victory” most of the book is actually about military disasters and this is why he says think carefully about starting a war in the first place. don’t go to war unless you absolutely need to.
what about the waves of drones dropping water balloons?
people will continue to die here from bush fires – that’s a given
there is no other option in the australian psyche except to willingly accept losses
the water bomber idea will be taken up by someone else with more brains
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
wookiemeister said:
Tamb said:
wookiemeister said:
bombing hiroshima was probably a waste of time in the endbeing a bastard i would have saved a lot of time and money by surrounding japan and then calling up the japanese emperor and telling him if he didn’t surrender immediately the royal palaces and anything of ANY historical value would be turned into match sticks
the threat would have been enough to make them lay down their arms
meanwhile on the mainland the japanese land forces would have been starved and cut down (no survivors), once the logistics trail faulters the imperial army would have staved to death, no need for a frontal assault on any more islands or hill tops. cut off the food and the whole thing stops
Disagree.
The Japanese were fanatics who would have fought to the last man for their Emperor.
Bushido, which means “way of the warrior,” refers to a complex set of Japanese values stressing honor and loyalty to country and family above all else.
yes well, given a few weeks with bugger all food people start coming around to themselves, the stomach is being called the second brain now.after the food supplies dried up they’d most likely try a break out – but to where? another line of defense being held by an army thats well supplied and prepared
the battle of the bulge typifies this – a break out to nowhere
Tamb said:
wookiemeister said:
you could have fuelled up and sent every available bomber over japan with no payload as a show of force and made them circle around to give people the impression it was wave after wave of bombersthe yanks were already using high altitude bombing to turn tokyo into match sticks and then drop incendairies
it further pushes my opinion to that of sun tzu
wars should be short
to the point ie with an objective that halts the problem in practical terms
not waste time with sieges and destroying cities and population centres
“the art of war” by sun tzu is actually an anti war book – there are rarely any stories of “victory” most of the book is actually about military disasters and this is why he says think carefully about starting a war in the first place. don’t go to war unless you absolutely need to.
So often, modern wars are started without an exit strategy.
the russians have packed up their bags after pounding ISIS and fellow travellers for months
maybe they decided that the kill rates per payload werent viable – after X amount of terrorists are dead its not economically viable to maintain the aircraft or drop the bombs, the british are using 100,000 pound sterling bombs to hit a car full of terrorists – not very effective.
given the bombs the russians were using it wasn’t viable to try and hit every target with bombs
btm said:
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
strike quickly and leave them limited options as the nuclear deterrent of the enemy has been vapourised -
wookiemeister said:
btm said:
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
unless you go for the first strike strategy where you overwhelm the defences and the enemy has lost the ability to give a counter strikestrike quickly and leave them limited options as the nuclear deterrent of the enemy has been vapourised –
Tamb said:
wookiemeister said:
btm said:
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
unless you go for the first strike strategy where you overwhelm the defences and the enemy has lost the ability to give a counter strikestrike quickly and leave them limited options as the nuclear deterrent of the enemy has been vapourised –
That theory was discredited in the Cold War.
The Americans & I assume the Russians had SAC 24/7 in the air with enough nukes to wipe out the enemy even after a successful first strike.
wookiemeister said:
Tamb said:
wookiemeister said:unless you go for the first strike strategy where you overwhelm the defences and the enemy has lost the ability to give a counter strike
strike quickly and leave them limited options as the nuclear deterrent of the enemy has been vapourised –
That theory was discredited in the Cold War.
The Americans & I assume the Russians had SAC 24/7 in the air with enough nukes to wipe out the enemy even after a successful first strike.
assuming they could get near the soviet union or america with the bombers
They could and did.
Tamb said:
The Americans & I assume the Russians had SAC 24/7 in the air with enough nukes to wipe out the enemy even after a successful first strike.
The Americans had bombers continuously in the air for years, but quit it in 1968. Look up Operation Chrome Dome.