What if WW3.....

I'm not healthy enough to be enlisted so I'd just have to take a back seat and support you all from the sidelines during the forum cull, I mean the war.

Christ, can you imagine the RIP threads on here. Let's face it, most of us are pretty techy nerds who'd succumb to the first spraying of shrapnel.
 
Scrutinize said:
Despite the warmongering and posturing there are only a couple of nations that would truly consider a nuclear attack and they don't have a big enough arsenal to instigate a full on world war.
Click to expand...

Huh? The USA has the biggest arsenal in the world? Or are you assuming that the USA would not use nuclear weapons? Because they're the only nation in history that ever has. Twice.
 
I'd like to be on the front line with a TV.
Watching the lefties go to full melt down would be funny.
 
robfosters said:
I'm not healthy enough to be enlisted so I'd just have to take a back seat and support you all from the sidelines during the forum cull, I mean the war.

Christ, can you imagine the RIP threads on here. Let's face it, most of us are pretty techy nerds who'd succumb to the first spraying of shrapnel.
Click to expand...


Worry not! Those not able to contribute on the front lines in the glorious battle for supremacy can lend their strength to the war effort by toiling in the uranium mines! Because how can we run the Country's fleet of radioactive battle titans without vast quantities of uranium? If WW3 does break out I do hope it's a bit camp.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Huh? The USA has the biggest arsenal in the world? Or are you assuming that the USA would not use nuclear weapons? Because they're the only nation in history that ever has. Twice.
Click to expand...

Russia has more warheads than the US. Has done for some time, and they're on average a larger MT. Either of them could ruin the world for everyone else with relative ease though. Even the smaller nations with a few hundred warheads could kickstart a full on world war.
 
deuse said:
I'd like to be on the front line with a TV.
Watching the lefties go to full melt down would be funny.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting - I think a lot would find the realities traumatic - for instance if there was large scale draft dodging then very much examples would be made and even potentially corporal punishment brought back in if it was a time of real war - while I think many couldn't even imagine that happening.
 
inflames said:
So the question is if WW3 was to break out what would you do?
Click to expand...
I'm too old now, at least for general duties, but I imagine I'd end up being recalled before any conscription was implemented. There's always someone who thinks it's fun to lay great swathes of mortar fire down on a target, and if it really gets to post apocalypse stage I might even get to bring my quarterstaff out! :p

I'd be looking forward to all the forum posts from CoD players getting their wake-up calls, though!

touch said:
There won't be any infantry or artillery roles in WW3.
Click to expand...
I promise you there will.
All those drones and missiles and things will get EMP'ed and hacked and bricked to hell and back, before most of them even have the safety tags removed. You're then back to more conventional, less-electronic warfare.
 
Lol, if an EMP is used you can be damn well sure your city is about to become ash, as the only source of viable EMP is a medium altitude nuke.
 
it would be interesting for drone warfare, drones to kill people, drones to kill drones, drones to block drone frequencies, emp missiles....

But then it would be like terminator.
 
I'd be off to my nearest church to make myself a suit of lead.
Then I'd sit on the roof, w***ing.
 
StriderX said:
Lol, if an EMP is used you can be damn well sure your city is about to become ash, as the only source of viable EMP is a medium altitude nuke.
Click to expand...
Plenty of NNEMP devices available, smaller than nukes but with far finer target discrimination. Chances are that, at the same time 'The Powers' are publicly posturing and bigging themselves up in preparation for the Nuclear War thing, each will also secretly be inserting covert operatives to place NNEMP delivery solutions to stuff the opposition, as well as having hackers and teh like do their thing... precisely so they don't have to go full Nuclear in the end.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Russia. Weak against conventional warfare.

You have to be kidding. Right? Right?
Click to expand...

Russia isn't weak, but they stand zero chance against what is basically America and Europe combined. For some perspective, America in a conventional non-nuclear war would beat China and Russia simultaneously on their own. I think some people don't actually realise the scale and power of the US military. Their Navy has the second largest airforce in the world, second to the USAF. They can put 800+ fighters on the coast of another country. America outspends Russia on their military by almost 10 times, year on year. They are on another level to other countries.
 
Roar87 said:
America outspends Russia on their military by almost 10 times, year on year. They are on another level to other countries.
Click to expand...

That is a bit deceptive mind you - US military spending is notoriously inefficient - over the last 2-3 years or so Russia on the other hand has massively increased the efficiency of their spending to the point that for their ~$70bn they are getting around about the same as the US does in terms of actual capabilities when spending around $250bn. (For clarity this is only recent history - Russia's military spending in the past was rife with corruption, etc. and probably still is).


(Obviously the US also has decades of spending 100s of bn on their side as well).
 
Not sure drafting would actually work any more, especially after all the army cuts despite everyone saying it's a bad idea. I think most people would tell them to sod off and fight their own war.
 
Nasher said:
Not sure drafting would actually work any more, especially after all the army cuts despite everyone saying it's a bad idea. I think most people would tell them to sod off and fight their own war.
Click to expand...

If stuff really hit the fan though - emergency powers would be pushed through, etc. I think many people would be in for a rude awakening as to the realities in times like that.
 
Rroff said:
That is a bit deceptive mind you - US military spending is notoriously inefficient - over the last 2-3 years or so Russia on the other hand has massively increased the efficiency of their spending to the point that for their ~$70bn they are getting around about the same as the US does in terms of actual capabilities when spending around $250bn. (For clarity this is only recent history - Russia's military spending in the past was rife with corruption, etc. and probably still is).


(Obviously the US also has decades of spending 100s of bn on their side as well).
Click to expand...

Well some of the big US programs have definitely been wasteful, they still have much more equipment that is also more modern and reliable, plus the command structure and experience to actually fight a war. They have 19 aircraft carriers by any countries standards but their own, officially they say 10. China has 1 and Russia has 1.
 
Nasher said:
I think most people would tell them to sod off and fight their own war.
Click to expand...
And when Them are dead and soldiers are still needed, what are people gonna do?
We'll have Brexited by then, so it's not like they can hop the border or anything...

Roar87 said:
Well some of the big US programs have definitely been wasteful, they still have much more equipment that is also more modern and reliable
Click to expand...
Doesn't seem like they were wasteful, so much as they kept upping the spec while running other similar programmes in parallel, which negated and killed off the initial ones.
They definitely have all the kit - Used to meet US soldiers issued with rifles and pistols and grenades and LAWs and Claymores and all sorts... apparently they often didn't get the training to use much beyond the rifle, though!!
 
Aircraft carriers are 20th century power players, not this century.

The advent of hyper-sonic missiles puts just about everything in threat without viable defences, plus i trust the Chinese to turn their rather extreme amount of factories into the war effort that they would have plenty of such missiles that no amount of interdiction is enough. Lets not also forget about mass drivers now entering the playing field, though only the US currently has the technology in rare usage (though i believe their latest frigate doesn't use a mass driver, but special ammunition that can travel exceptionally far).

Regardless hypotheticals are boring.
 
Rroff said:
Depends what your definition of weak is I guess - against multiple NATO entities where they would struggle significantly the more extended their offensive was then yes they are weak - but compared to a single other country it is another matter.

EDIT: Though what would happen in a 1 on 1 slug fest with both NATO and Russia on an equal footing without any terrain or logistic considerations might be another story again but that isn't what he is inferring.
Click to expand...

Implying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom