Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ruffneck

Countdown To World War 3

Recommended Posts

I dont think there is much chance of this. A war of this scale in a modern age where we have such advanced and destructive weaponry would be too devastating for any of these countries to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see it. But as the previous commenter suggested, it'll be very different.

With the invention of drones armies no longer need to worry about having large numbers anymore, so they're far more likely to engage in unpopular war because they no longer need to convince the population to put their lives on the line. This has had the effect of increasing civilian casualties massively (from 1 in 9 in WWII to 8 in 10 these days I read somewhere).

America and Britain were built on Imperialistic foreign policy. We're one trick ponies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No chance. None of those countries are stupid enough to do it knowing that even in the best outcome they would be very, very badly damaged. An escalation of poking around in other countries and fighting some wars by proxy is vastly more likely. Also, unless you go in for everyone nuking everyone else (and quite honestly if they weren't mad enough to do that before I doubt they'll be now) the West doesn't have the numbers to attack the East and the East doesn't have the technology to attack the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see it. But as the previous commenter suggested, it'll be very different.

With the invention of drones armies no longer need to worry about having large numbers anymore,

Drones are all nice and well, but in a real war they would be completely useless, China, Russia and India have kill sats and anti satellite missiles. Since this is how the drones are controlled over these sorts of airwaves they would be useless from day 1. China tested it sucessfully in 2007

so they're far more likely to engage in unpopular war because they no longer need to convince the population to put their lives on the line. This has had the effect of increasing civilian casualties massively (from 1 in 9 in WWII to 8 in 10 these days I read somewhere).

America and Britain were built on Imperialistic foreign policy. We're one trick ponies.

Except all that hightech gear costs money lots of it! Which means infantry wars... infantry wars mean conscription and rushing enemy machine guns with one rifle between ten men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No chance. None of those countries are stupid enough to do it knowing that even in the best outcome they would be very, very badly damaged. An escalation of poking around in other countries and fighting some wars by proxy is vastly more likely. Also, unless you go in for everyone nuking everyone else (and quite honestly if they weren't mad enough to do that before I doubt they'll be now) the West doesn't have the numbers to attack the East and the East doesn't have the technology to attack the West.

The tech gap is narrowing quite quickly. Also asymetric warfare. What the Russians learnt in the 1980s was simply not to fight toe to toe with Western weapons since they'd lose. So they developed cheap counter measures. Apache helicopters spoiling your day? They developed anti helicopter mines which are artillery deployable. Yout £7 million apache is defeated by a £2K mine.

Same with anti tank missiles, where the Israelies got their asses handed to them on a plate in Lebanon when they made a show of force as anti tank missiles were used against their 'invincible merkevas'

Anyway we already are fighting proxy wars, where do you think those weapons in Afganistan and Iraq come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except all that hightech gear costs money lots of it! Which means infantry wars... infantry wars mean conscription

Good luck with that, we barely have enough room for actual prisoners never mind objectors.

See how long any state lasts today should they start shooting any of the millions who refuse to be fodder.

As already suggested, more likely states will continue the ruse with proxy and myth wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with that, we barely have enough room for actual prisoners never mind objectors.

See how long any state lasts today should they start shooting any of the millions who refuse to be fodder.

It'd be fine because the British way is merely to grumble and not take direct action. So they shoot a few objectors, the BBC would label them as paedos and terrorists. The 'enemy' would also be labeled terrorists and paedos at which masses of infantry would sign up to rush enemy machine guns with one rifle between 10 men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tech gap is narrowing quite quickly. Also asymetric warfare. What the Russians learnt in the 1980s was simply not to fight toe to toe with Western weapons since they'd lose. So they developed cheap counter measures. Apache helicopters spoiling your day? They developed anti helicopter mines which are artillery deployable. Yout £7 million apache is defeated by a £2K mine.

Same with anti tank missiles, where the Israelies got their asses handed to them on a plate in Lebanon when they made a show of force as anti tank missiles were used against their 'invincible merkevas'

All true, but your examples are of defence against a US attack. Given the US is predominant they are unlikely to start the fight. If someone is going seriously unseat the US they are going to be able to need to attack, not just decide a crowning achievement is not getting their **** handed to them on a plate in their own country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be fine because the British way is merely to grumble and not take direct action. So they shoot a few objectors, the BBC would label them as paedos and terrorists. The 'enemy' would also be labeled terrorists and paedos at which masses of infantry would sign up to rush enemy machine guns with one rifle between 10 men.

A few objectors? They'd have to shoot them all, and the masses wouldn't have it. Even if a govt propaganda machine painted them as paedoterroristchildeater sympathisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tech gap is narrowing quite quickly. Also asymetric warfare. What the Russians learnt in the 1980s was simply not to fight toe to toe with Western weapons since they'd lose. So they developed cheap counter measures. Apache helicopters spoiling your day? They developed anti helicopter mines which are artillery deployable. Yout £7 million apache is defeated by a £2K mine.

Same with anti tank missiles, where the Israelies got their asses handed to them on a plate in Lebanon when they made a show of force as anti tank missiles were used against their 'invincible merkevas'

No-one seriously claims any piece of military hardware is invincible. I don't think that the tech gap is narrowing either, and that you overestimate the results of cheap countermeasures. They'll claim a few, but enough high-tech stuff will get through to cause you a whole load of problems, whereas the other way around and the low-tech attackers won't last five minutes. Cheap defences will cause some casualties but won't stop an attack.

What all the technology in the world can't do is hold ground, which is where the West went badly wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan. In warfare nothing has changed in that respect for thousands of years - you can't do it without a hell of a lot of soldiers on the ground.

Anyway we already are fighting proxy wars, where do you think those weapons in Afganistan and Iraq come from?

Hence "escalation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one seriously claims any piece of military hardware is invincible. I don't think that the tech gap is narrowing either, and that you overestimate the results of cheap countermeasures. They'll claim a few, but enough high-tech stuff will get through to cause you a whole load of problems, whereas the other way around and the low-tech attackers won't last five minutes.

Anti tank missiles are the biggie though, they've proven themselves consistently in almost all conflicts since the Eygpt Israeli war, where the Eygptians bought tons of them and took out loads of the Israeli tanks. There is quite an interesting documentary on RT about it, whereby the Israeli tank commanders were very surprised when the Eygptians didn't run away when they saw Israeli armor.

Also there is something to be mindful about, Stalins old Quote quantity has a quality all of its own. The T34s were seriously inferior to the German Panzers. Yet after the battle of Kursk it was the USSR that was left standing. The Sherman tank was also a piece of junk compared to the panzers again who was left standing at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few objectors? They'd have to shoot them all, and the masses wouldn't have it. Even if a govt propaganda machine painted them as paedoterroristchildeater sympathisers.

They would as history has proven time and again masses of people can be caught up in the fever of such movements. I.e. the Nazis and what they did could not have occured without the support of the German people. Look at the USA, the whole nation was tricked into bombing Iraq.

A few Reichstag fires, and people will lap it up. Then they blame all the crap on a specific ethnic groups to stir up more hate.

I would say modern propaganda is probably even more powerful than 50 years ago and it is much much more devious. I mean they brainwash children about MMCC these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would as history has proven time and again masses of people can be caught up in the fever of such movements. I.e. the Nazis and what they did could not have occured without the support of the German people. Look at the USA, the whole nation was tricked into bombing Iraq.

A few Reichstag fires, and people will lap it up. Then they blame all the crap on a specific ethnic groups to stir up more hate.

I would say modern propaganda is probably even more powerful than 50 years ago and it is much much more devious. I mean they brainwash children about MMCC these days.

For Iraq? I don't recall invading Iraq being particularl popular, with countries being whipped up into a "Let's get them!" fervour at the time. There was quite a lot of support for invading Afghanistan, far less for Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Iraq? I don't recall invading Iraq being particularl popular, with countries being whipped up into a "Let's get them!" fervour at the time. There was quite a lot of support for invading Afghanistan, far less for Iraq.

Labour still got voted back in, which means it was popular enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More chance of Muslims versus the rest at the moment.

Russia, India, China, NATO have all been fighting them.

No actually or it would have kicked of in a big way already what with 2 uncalled for invasions of muslim countries and a million or so murdered muslims. The warmongers must be wondering what to try next to get a reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone else see it coming?

Pakistan + China + Russia vs The West + India ?

This sounds like a bit of British Bulldogs to me.

P6 and P3 vs P5 and P4. Always a close call - and invariably some sore faces as a result. I imagine it is banned in school these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour still got voted back in, which means it was popular enough.

It means that it wasn't unpopular enough to be a key issue at the polls. Most voters will have no doubt been swayed by issues closer to home, such as who was most likely to keep paying their benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No actually or it would have kicked of in a big way already what with 2 uncalled for invasions of muslim countries and a million or so murdered muslims. The warmongers must be wondering what to try next to get a reaction.

A great number of which were murdered by slightly different shades of Muslim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A great number of which were murdered by slightly different shades of Muslim.

Which we created the conditions for. In the USA when you are the perp in a crime you are responsible for creating the conditions and consequences of the conditions you cause. Thus if you go into a shop to rob the owner. A cop spots you and takes a shot at hitting you in the head but misses and hits the shop keeper in the head. You are thus responsible for the death of the shopkeeper because YOU created the conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.