To be fair no but he seems to have an intense loathing for the West.
What would a third world war really look like?
- Thread starter Domo
- Start date
To be fair no but he seems to have an intense loathing for the West.
We'd been doing that going back to around the late 1800s (obviously razing cities goes back beyond that) so I suspect it wasn't seen in the same way back then - in the early 1900s we carpet bombed Egyptian towns, etc. on a semi regular basis - between 1915 and 1920 we flattened numerous towns and villages in Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.
Is this the one where an off-target Soviet missile aimed at RAF Manston hits Rochester? I may watch it, but Threads was chilling enough, and given I now live in Rochester, I'm not sure I need the emotional scarring of a story so close to home
child soldiers have been used all through the history of warfare and still goes on.
Russia now saying the attacks were staged and warning of escalation. I can’t believe May et al are effectively acting on a hunch. Well apart from Macron who reckons he has evidence.
Why don’t they allow the inspectors time to conduct a survey? What’s the rush? We’re not at risk. Haven’t we been here before?
Why don’t they allow the inspectors time to conduct a survey? What’s the rush? We’re not at risk. Haven’t we been here before?
Got any kids of your own?
Looking at it logically:
Rebels: It was Assad!!!
Assad: It was the rebels!!!
Russia: It's fake, it never happened!
Well we know right off that Russia are lying as their story contradicts both Assad and the Rebels, so between the Rebels and Assad I believe the rebels purely because if Assad's version was true Russia would be backing him on it.
All circumstantial I know, but in absence of proof either way I will go with what makes the most sense until I see otherwise.
Rebels: It was Assad!!!
Assad: It was the rebels!!!
Russia: It's fake, it never happened!
Well we know right off that Russia are lying as their story contradicts both Assad and the Rebels, so between the Rebels and Assad I believe the rebels purely because if Assad's version was true Russia would be backing him on it.
All circumstantial I know, but in absence of proof either way I will go with what makes the most sense until I see otherwise.
Yes.
Threads is a friendly little Janet and John book compared to The War Game.
I'm not sure I need the emotional scarring of a story so close to home
Just pretend it hits Essex instead.
Quite a good way of looking at it.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2018
- Posts
- 71
Since when was anythng Russia said true?
Given their track record, if their mouth is moving, they are lying. They are experts at political and social manipulation.
Lots of people seem to take anyting Russia says as gospel yet the gov must be lying etc etc.
I'm not dismissing the horrendous deaths of children, simply stating they were unavoidable unless you completely stopped strategic bombing and gave the enemy a massive advantage which they wouldn't return in kind.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 May 2017
- Posts
- 1,122
- Location
- Aberdeen
Russia now reckon it was us. Russia are hilarious with their comments. Q: How do you know Russia is lying? A: Their mouth is moving.
I don't see how there can be a (long) war between the West and Russia/China. As soon as one side starts losing the nukes will start flying. The conspiracy theorists might say that the NWO have pre-agreed a war and will want, say, a billion or two billion people to die and then they'll call a ceasefire.
I think in terms of conventional military battles the USA would win again Russia or China (maybe not both together) although Russia have some good individual areas of technology I don't think they have the breadth of items available to the US. Not really keen to see my theories tested though.
I don't see how there can be a (long) war between the West and Russia/China. As soon as one side starts losing the nukes will start flying. The conspiracy theorists might say that the NWO have pre-agreed a war and will want, say, a billion or two billion people to die and then they'll call a ceasefire.
I think in terms of conventional military battles the USA would win again Russia or China (maybe not both together) although Russia have some good individual areas of technology I don't think they have the breadth of items available to the US. Not really keen to see my theories tested though.
Try 7.1 billion.
On paper not a chance - also a lot of Russia's cutting edge stuff is highly dependant on Japanese electronics - they are still around 8 years from producing some of it domestically which would hurt them in all out war - one of the reasons probably they've been staging assets in the Kuril islands - though not sure it would be wise fighting on that many fronts.
What I don't get is why Assad would risk more foreign involvement by using chemical weapons. He's winning anyway albeit slowly so is he that desperate to get things moving or is it just a deliberate middle finger to the west thinking we won't act.
It's hard to get any idea of what the rebels would do as they aren't a unified force, hence the question of what happens if Assad is removed.
With the chemical attack here as well it all seems very odd, perhaps Putin wants to see the USSR reborn as his legacy or perhaps they are going to keep pushing until trade restrictions are removed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 2,614
- Location
- East Sussex
It's probably less true these days but certainly during the cold war there were major concerns that the west's technical superiority would not count for enough if there was a major conflict between NATO and the USSR, this was one of the reasons the Americans had woven the use of tactical nuclear weapons into the doctrine, and why they 'lent' them to non nuclear NATO powers - it was thought to be the only way to breakup mass Soviet tank formations, and authority to release could be preauthororised if certain conditions would be met - potentially putting the decision in the hands of a theatre commander (possibly lower in the 50's)
For example the tank number problem was one of the major reasons for the cost justification on what would eventually become the M1 Abrams - it was designed with the idea it would need to knock out at least 10 inferior Soviet tanks for each loss, but by the end of the program there still major concerns that reds Reds actually had 11 tanks or more for every modern MBT that could be fielded.
2017 estimates put Russia as having over 20000 tanks, and nearly 30000 AFV not counting self propelled artillery.
What have we got? 300 challenger 2's, Germany maybe 500 Leapord's, USA has 5k+ M1's?
Any fight with Russia will be a major ballache - hopefully most of the stuff is so old and poorly maintained its completely unserviceable, but who knows, it probably doesn't cost a lot to maintain a dry stored tank in Russia.