What would a third world war really look like?

Kind of eerie watching the intel channels - higher than normal coverage from surveillance aircraft with eyes on Russia, etc., doubling down on nuclear deterrent readiness, etc. a bit disingenuous to say we aren't firmly re-entering Cold War ground :|
 
Rroff said:
Kind of eerie watching the intel channels - higher than normal coverage from surveillance aircraft with eyes on Russia, etc., doubling down on nuclear deterrent readiness, etc. a bit disingenuous to say we aren't firmly re-entering Cold War ground :|
Click to expand...

What intel channels?
 
We know what WWIII looked like. It was fought between 1945 and 1990. (Aprox)

The Soviet Union lost.

However, it was mostly fought in the Third World, so despite the fact that millions died and whole continents had their political and economic systems disrupted blighting the lives of possibly billions of people, most of "Us" never really saw it happening.

Of course, much of the problems in the world today are "Fallout" from this conflict. So its consequences will continue to rumble on for some considerable time.

The question is, will this result in a WWIV, and what will that be like?? :/
 
Rroff said:
Kind of eerie watching the intel channels - higher than normal coverage from surveillance aircraft with eyes on Russia, etc., doubling down on nuclear deterrent readiness, etc. a bit disingenuous to say we aren't firmly re-entering Cold War ground :|
Click to expand...
are they fear mongering to increase their chip price, or something?
 
MookJong said:
Yeah, what he said! Spill the beans...
Click to expand...

Whole host of sites and feeds out there devoted to tracking military movements, etc. I don't really stick to any one source just skim them time to time - enough to have a rough idea what is regular day to day traffic and when there is a higher operational level, etc.
 
I actually think USA is the most dangerous when nuclear use is considered.

Since WW2 they have been a very military focused country and have an ego to match it. I think they would rather wipe out humanity then lose a war.

With that said they did lose Vietnam and didnt use nukes. But that had massive opposition from civilians.

I also wonder of the reliability of nuclear weapons, we have a testing ban and it seems a lot have been just sat unused for decades, so the affect of rust etc. has to be considered would they even work?

We had some leaks from the trident guy who claimed when trident test unarmed missiles the failure rate was high.
 
lunar said:
We have World peace due to nuclear weapons. It is a deterrent, which inhibits a full scale war.
Click to expand...

I think also a lot is down to what makes money.

Imagine the impact to corporations if e.g. america, france, germany, USA got reduced to rubble. How many tv's get sold if someone has no electric and is living in a tent?
 
chrcoluk said:
I also wonder of the reliability of nuclear weapons, we have a testing ban and it seems a lot have been just sat unused for decades, so the affect of rust etc. has to be considered would they even work?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they'll be maintained and seviced regularly, not left in a basement somewhere with a dust sheet thrown over them.
 
One of the biggest costs to missiles is their maintenance. That must be done regularly.

Our ships and submarines don't carry full "loads" of missiles, even the Vanguard submarines that carry our Trident 2 missiles only have half-loads because of the costs to maintain them and that it's peace time.

This also affects none nuclear missiles, anti-ship and anti-air missiles, they all gotta have maintenance on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom