What would a third world war really look like?

I wouldn't be so quick to undersell Syria's importance to Russia. Lots of people (not you) seem to write it off because "Russia won't fight us just to keep an airbase/port" and "Russia won't fight us just over Syria's oil". But most of them don't seem to have actually looked at a map, Syria is less that 400 miles from Russia, it's closer to them than Aberdeen is to London.

I am not convinced they won't fight (at least a small skirmish) to ensure they don't end up with Islamic extremists taking over a country so close to them.

Theres also the fact that they are trying to stop American imperialism in the region, protecting it's allies sovereignty is an important policy for Putin at the moment, it gives him clout in other neighbouring areas. While also being convenient for him in his ability to poke NATO enough into being the aggressor.
 
...

Not so sure why France seems so eager to get involved aside from some French citizens apparently killed by Syrian regime awhile back.

I think the French possibly feel some responsibility following their interventions in Syria in the 1920s.
 
On other fronts looks like Greek and Turkey had a bit of a military spat earlier today and India/Pakistan border saw some pretty intense exchanges of fire.
 
Well if a serious conflict does occur you'd imagine all these tensions would allow for them to escalate, as everyone else is too busy fighting bigger issues.

With the loss of the Cold War stalemate, it's all being stoked into a very chaotic fire.
 
It is a safer place though, factually proven.

MEDIA is only here for one thing.... Generating INCOME nothing more.

The day of serious journalism is 7 days out of a year.
 
Love the indepth military analysis from Ubersonic and Roar87 regarding the IL-38N and it's capabilities - I'm sure the military professionals who face these aircraft are breathing a huge sigh of relief because a few internet people say it's "old" :D
 
It is a safer place though, factually proven.

MEDIA is only here for one thing.... Generating INCOME nothing more.

The day of serious journalism is 7 days out of a year.

Didn't really explain myself very well - some seem a bit too used to the relative peace and stability we've enjoyed in much of the Western world over the last 3 decades or so and seem to imagine that it is both self-sustaining and means we can simply get rid of things like our military and/or nuclear weapons, etc.
 
I never ridiculed it for having propellers, not once, I said it's from the 60's and has a top speed of 400mph and likely hadn't been upgraded to the same standard as the Maritime Patrol planes that Russia has in it's Pacific fleet. I understand that they use propellers to have a long loiter time. Maybe you could try reading the actual content of posts
well maybe you could do a modicum of research before spouting, cos one of the very first links on a simple search is about the launch/unveiling of a fully updated/modified variant that has all necessary latest tech. do you honestly seriously think a world superpower like Russia wouldn't?
 
some seem a bit too used to the relative peace and stability we've enjoyed in much of the Western world over the last 3 decades or so

I think a lot forget just how the peace the "western" world has generally seen in their own countries over the past 70+ years was brought about, by massive military strength, not by any form of "pacifism". However the rest of the world has remained a dangerous place to be regarding conflict at home, whether it be external or internal conflicts.
 
well maybe you could do a modicum of research before spouting, cos one of the very first links on a simple search is about the launch/unveiling of a fully updated/modified variant that has all necessary latest tech. do you honestly seriously think a world superpower like Russia wouldn't?

I think Russia is trying to maintain a military on a similar scale to the US with a fraction of the budget, and accordingly there will be a lot of equipment that is out of date and poorly maintained. I'm not sure why you think they're a world super power when they spend about 20% more than the UK on defence with a country 70 times the size, and spend 10 times less than the only actual super power which is the US.
 
Didn't really explain myself very well - some seem a bit too used to the relative peace and stability we've enjoyed in much of the Western world over the last 3 decades or so and seem to imagine that it is both self-sustaining and means we can simply get rid of things like our military and/or nuclear weapons, etc.

It's a bit different when you're not the US or Russia when it comes to nuclear weapons, because the idea of nuclear deterrent is theirs and theirs alone. What we use it for is conventional deterrent, to stop perhaps current allies from turning against us.

Why it isn't laid out like that, is probably propoganda to make it seem like it is worth the terrible waste of money it is, while we destroy our armed forces instead.
 
I think Russia is trying to maintain a military on a similar scale to the US with a fraction of the budget, and accordingly there will be a lot of equipment that is out of date and poorly maintained. I'm not sure why you think they're a world super power when they spend about 20% more than the UK on defence with a country 70 times the size, and spend 10 times less than the only actual super power which is the US.

It is a bit deceptive in a way - the US wastes vast amounts of their budget on halo R&D, etc. massive amount of ineffective spending, etc. Russia the last few years has tried to increase the effectiveness of their spending. When it comes down to the stuff that tends more often than not to win wars - cheaper and easier to produce in numbers while having "75%" of the capabilities of the high tech stuff the disparity between the US and Russia isn't as great (though its still a fair gap). While we have to concentrate on making the most of our man power, etc. with more expensive force multipliers and so on.
 
The US spends an absolute fortune on politically motivated "pork" as they call it because it's such a big industry and vote winner to keep them employed making things like tanks, even when they don't need them.

It's illegitimate to say the US has the military budget it does because it uses it well, it really does not, it still gets enough out of it to maintain its size, but it could a lot more with a lot less frankly.
 
Wealth inequality is main culprit, pretty much everything the USA stands for is the more wealth i have the better person I am and hence better than you.

The system needs to constantly expend to achieve the same goals they have always had, they are too stupid and greedy to understand the goal needs to change. (much like Tory`s but worse)

Europe generally went through all this backwater bickering centuries ago, the rest of the world is catching up (slowly)
 
Actually I explained exactly why they still use them: because they can't afford to replace them like everyone else has (hell some countries have even replaced the replacements).

Not believing the myth being pushed that they are as capable as a modern plane or even as capable as a more modern obsolete plane doesn't mean people don't understand what they are capable of, it just means that they aren't buying into the hype/myth, because they understand what they are/aren't capable of.

You didn't explain anything, you just said they old and nothing else. lol

It's true that their reasoning that they didn't design a whole new plane is because it costs more while upgrading the ESM and combat systems the plane carries is cheaper.

Myth? The information on what they are capable off and what equipment they have is available on the internet, military hardware expects discussing them in no different then PC tech sites discussing the latest graphic cards. lol
 
Back
Top Bottom