What would a third world war really look like?

IronWarrior said:
If WW3 ever happens, I think only a few parts of Scotland, Wales and Midlands will be safe. Everyone else is screwed.

I know am pretty dead if it happens. :(
Click to expand...

It'll be a few parts of the country all over - South East probably one of the worst for surviving - Wales has a lot of military targets, Scotland has a few like the Sub facilities (though hitting them with nukes wouldn't be the smartest way to deal with them) - Midlands has a lot of cities which would be targets plus nominally in the path of several fallout corridors and so on.

That many places these days would probably be hit with 100-300KT devices rather than multi-megaton devices as per the Cold War would mean all kinds of patch work areas where people could survive if they were prepared (and wanted to).
 
I live in Stoke-on-Trent so I'll be alive because satellite/aerial surveillance will show that it's already a decaying wasteland so there's no need to waste a nuke on it :)

Joking aside, if there was a full on nuclear war I'd rather be right under a bomb. Any life afterwards would be very unpleasant and I'd probably die shortly afterwards anyway. Radiation, thirst, starvation, cholera et alia, murder...it would only be a matter of which killed me first.
 
Angilion said:
I live in Stoke-on-Trent so I'll be alive because satellite/aerial surveillance will show that it's already a decaying wasteland so there's no need to waste a nuke on it :)

Joking aside, if there was a full on nuclear war I'd rather be right under a bomb. Any life afterwards would be very unpleasant and I'd probably die shortly afterwards anyway. Radiation, thirst, starvation, cholera et alia, murder...it would only be a matter of which killed me first.
Click to expand...

You've got most of that in Stoke already ;) Surely a little extra burden could be borne?
 
I recently watched a documentary about Hiroshima and was shocked by horrific devestation shown.

It's off topic , but I think it's disgusting those bombs were dropped on essentially women, children and the elderly by the USA.

Quite a lot of historians claimed Japan was trying to surrender too. Kind of makes you wonder if it was done out of pure hatred.

Lots of innocent dead women and children is what a third world war would look like.
 
neocon said:
I recently watched a documentary about Hiroshima and was shocked by horrific devestation shown.

It's off topic , but I think it's disgusting those bombs were dropped on essentially women, children and the elderly by the USA.

Quite a lot of historians claimed Japan was trying to surrender too. Kind of makes you wonder if it was done out of pure hatred.

Lots of innocent dead women and children is what a third world war would look like.
Click to expand...
That's the greatest irony. In 'punishing' Syria and Russia this situation might escalate into an exchange of the most ghastly indiscriminate weapons ever created. As I mentioned earlier, only those seeking to punish will be protected from the devastation. We're as good as toast. Why would anyone support the PM on her decision? I mean for what? It's already been discussed here but there are atrocities being carried out around the world on a daily basis, some of which we're happily providing the hardware to kill innocents with.

Ian Duncan Smith was on the news just now and it was comical. "We've seen chemical attacks in Salisbury and now in Syria. It's time to act". Just connecting those two events is preposterous and yet undoubtedly there'll be some people out there applauding this nonsense.

QT should be interesting tonight.
 
neocon said:
I recently watched a documentary about Hiroshima and was shocked by horrific devestation shown.

It's off topic , but I think it's disgusting those bombs were dropped on essentially women, children and the elderly by the USA.

Quite a lot of historians claimed Japan was trying to surrender too. Kind of makes you wonder if it was done out of pure hatred.

Lots of innocent dead women and children is what a third world war would look like.
Click to expand...

In the current rush in the West to allow women to fight on the front line, pilot fighter and bomber aircraft, et al, do not forget this brings with it a justification to take out not just fighting age men... And in a drawn out war, of which there have been many, a child of today is your enemy of tomorrow. Such are the gruesome realities of warfare, especially tribal and civil warfare.
 
The media appear to be goading/encouraging ministers to go to war. Quite irresponsible really.
 
neocon said:
I recently watched a documentary about Hiroshima and was shocked by horrific devestation shown.

It's off topic , but I think it's disgusting those bombs were dropped on essentially women, children and the elderly by the USA.

Quite a lot of historians claimed Japan was trying to surrender too. Kind of makes you wonder if it was done out of pure hatred.

Lots of innocent dead women and children is what a third world war would look like.
Click to expand...

Why do you think men would survive a nuclear bomb? Seems like an odd idea to me. I'm not aware of any significant differences between men and women when it comes to surviving a nuclear bomb.

I've read some historians claiming that Japan would have surrendered at some point after the USSR invaded Manchuria whether or not the atomic bombs had been used, but not that they were trying to surrender.

Mass killing of civilians was going on before the atomic bombs. It takes a lot more conventional bombs to kill as many people as a nuclear bomb, but the Luftwaffe, USAF and RAF had a lot. 4kt was dropped on Dresden in one particularly infamous raid, for example. At least 20kt was dropped on London.
 
I probably wouldnt stand much of a chance, where i'm located has probably got one of the biggest bullseyes in the UK painted on it... If that didnt get me the ensuing conflict probably would.

But on a more serious note, I dont see the next world war (not a matter of if, when?), I dont see it being a nuclear affair, I reckon it'll be more likely be the first "drone" war, where the casualties wont be so much the combatants (located in remote command modules) but the civilian population under which the conflict takes place.


ethan said:
The media appear to be goading/encouraging ministers to go to war. Quite irresponsible really.
Click to expand...
Media are after a conflict they can report on and make monies...
Saying that though I do believe the the world needs to take a united stance against the use of Chemical weapons (Lets not forget the other 7 years of crap thats gone on there), however we need to tread very very carefully.
 
Great tune! There was a busker in Paddington station today and I was going to suggest he plays it :)
Think it was used in Independence Day back in the 90s.
 
If WW3 happens first we'd get a constant barrage of fake news to confuse everyone, the gas from Russia would be cut off, lots of cyber attacks, then subs would cut all our internet lines. It'd probably be followed by nukes over the country in space to cause the EMP effect without all the collateral damage + radiation.
 
OK it's from RT (https://www.rt.com/news/423925-russia-air-defense-syria/) but it's an interesting option for the Russians.
In a limited missile attack scenario, the Russian military may deliver on the threat it made and retaliate against the origin of the missiles – the US guided-missile destroyers and possibly attack submarines currently deployed in the Mediterranean. Attacking them with lethal force would be a major escalation in the conflict, but the Russian military may use a limited response – using airborne electronic warfare equipment to harass the American ships, messing up their target acquisition, geolocation or even AEGIS anti-aircraft systems. The extent of damage this may cause is debatable, but it would certainly make the job of destroying whatever targets the US command has in mind in Syria much more difficult.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Russia's plane borne e-war is very range limited (in reality) and if they start using it against actively tasked with a fire mission ships all bets are off - they'd probably be warned off on approach and if they continue probably start dropping from the sky.
Click to expand...

Isn't Syria in range of Russias big radar installations within their own border, i'm not sure about the efficacy, i know it was supposed to see well into the Mediterranean.

mrbazmondo said:
If WW3 happens first we'd get a constant barrage of fake news to confuse everyone, the gas from Russia would be cut off, lots of cyber attacks, then subs would cut all our internet lines. It'd probably be followed by nukes over the country in space to cause the EMP effect without all the collateral damage + radiation.
Click to expand...

Lol, why do that when you can just nuke the cities, you're just wasting time.

Angilion said:
Why do you think men would survive a nuclear bomb? Seems like an odd idea to me. I'm not aware of any significant differences between men and women when it comes to surviving a nuclear bomb.
Click to expand...

The old adage of "men don't matter" is getting really ******* tiresome.
 
StriderX said:
Isn't Syria in range of Russias big radar installations within their own border, i'm not sure about the efficacy, i know it was supposed to see well into the Mediterranean.
Click to expand...

Talking about their jamming and other types of offensive e-war - despite the talk of 100s of KM for things like Richag-AV in reality to jam something like a destroyer's systems effectively from a plane you'd have to get pretty close and then the source of jamming itself is a pretty big source for certain types of homing systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom