What would a third world war really look like?

Pretty sure White Phosphorus is not classed as chemical weapon by current CW conventions unless added recently - though how it's used plays a role in that definition I would suppose.
 
does that leave a toxic residue?
potentially DU rounds might be considered, possibly Bohpal if we veer away from the weaponry aspect, not like they did that stuff deliberately though
 
Nuclear attacks are increasingly likely, just by virtue of the eventuality of it was it exists and can be used. Beyond that tactical MIRV's are incredibly efficient weapons and aren't as radioactive as the old dirty ones from the beginning of the cold war.

Russia filled St Petersburg with their new platforms and systems because not only does it make it impenetrable (Russia literally burnt Moscow to the ground when Napoleon came knocking, their entire march was pointless) it also means they can quickly strike all military installations in the Eastern bloc, destroying the NATO contingent entirely. Of course Russia would also be practically destroyed and it'd be over within a day regardless.

If War is upon is, then i'm afraid it's probably the end.
 
Ok well that's my TV viewing set for tonight...

Threads
followed by The Day After
and finally a quick watch if The Road

:D
 
Russia has not only said it will shoot down the missiles, but also target the launch sites; which are of course US Navy guided missile destroyers. I guess we'll see who's got the bigger balls at this point then.
 
Pretty terrifying when Trump is allowed to post tweets like that with tensions so high. I hope this is just sabre rattling at its best, but it's all feeling very scary at the moment
 
Roar87 said:
Russia has not only said it will shoot down the missiles, but also target the launch sites; which are of course US Navy guided missile destroyers. I guess we'll see who's got the bigger balls at this point then.
Click to expand...

That is assuming they use ship launches - the amount of tankers up could indicate cruise missiles launched from B-52s or something which would be long gone.
 
Rroff said:
That is assuming they use ship launches - the amount of tankers up could indicate cruise missiles launched from B-52s or something which would be long gone.
Click to expand...

Yeah plus they have the option of using Submarine launched ballistic missiles no doubt

Steedie said:
Pretty terrifying when Trump is allowed to post tweets like that with tensions so high. I hope this is just sabre rattling at its best, but it's all feeling very scary at the moment
Click to expand...

You have to remember this is all one big game - this isn't the Cuban missile crisis where mainland America is at threat, or Russia is at threat. They're posturing and seeing how far they can push each other. It's unlikely to end in Russia firing at American military assets or visa versa because no one wants it to go that far. Trump can fire on Syria though, and Russia could shoot the missiles down if it's capable, but that's not the same as America firing on a Russian base or Russia sinking a US ship.
 
Roar87 said:
You have to remember this is all one big game - this isn't the Cuban missile crisis where mainland America is at threat, or Russia is at threat.
Click to expand...
I was about to ask the question, how do the two events measure up against each other? This must be getting close in terms of severity.
 
VincentHanna said:
Of course, the minute they fire missiles, they give away their position though.
Click to expand...

I bet the Russians already know where the subs are.

WnxO0eC.png


https://twitter.com/WaelAlRussi/status/982276004172492806
 
F15s etc are almost half a century old too, so what's your point? they still do what they're supposed to do perfectly well. and assuming a "57 year old turboprop" would not have adequate escort is dumb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom