We have nukes and so do they, that is the reason that no World War 111 will happen

Also can you imagine enemies using nukes over nuclear power plants. Come on guys, that will only happen if the populace has gone made and nothing to do with wars.

World War One Hundred and Eleven???? Damn, what year is this????

Don't be too sure, stupid is as stupid does. Have you seen the psych report on any of the world leaders holding nukes? I haven't.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Ha!

despite the odd mistake in the title, firing nukes would pretty much ruin the planet forever and no one wants to do that.

no ones going to fire nukes unless theres some sort of epic battle and the losers get pissy and launch the first strike. which would lead to some insane number of other strikes.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
World War One Hundred and Eleven???? Damn, what year is this????

Don't be too sure, stupid is as stupid does. Have you seen the psych report on any of the world leaders holding nukes? I haven't.

I didn't know how to write it. world war 111 (3)

a reply to: musicismagic

I'm just mess'in it's my schtick. But you could write it WW3 or WWIII. The capital "i" representing Roman Numerals.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: musicismagic

I'm just mess'in it's my schtick.

But you could write it WW3 or WWIII. The capital "i" representing Roman Numerals.

ありがとう
thanks

a reply to: musicismagic
Your theory discounts the possibility of an accidental launch, or rogue elements in a country causing a launch.

Real possibilities that should not be discounted. Accidental launches nearly happened at different times during the Cold War.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: musicismagic
Your theory discounts the possibility of an accidental launch, or rogue elements in a country causing a launch.

Real possibilities that should not be discounted. Accidental launches nearly happened at different times during the Cold War.

I agree.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
World War One Hundred and Eleven???? Damn, what year is this????

Don't be too sure, stupid is as stupid does. Have you seen the psych report on any of the world leaders holding nukes? I haven't.

This is exactly right.One unstable leader,under stress,breakdown could pull the trigger.It could only take one launch to start WWIII.Not to mention terrorists acquiring a crude nuke.

a reply to: Rosinitiate
I just lol'd way too hard at your comment.

"world war one-hundred eleven?!"

if humanity could survive to WW 111- I'd be like:

a reply to: musicismagic

I respectfully disagree....WW3 will happen someday. I cant say it will happen this time but all you have to do is look at how easy they find killing people. They put national security and pride over common sense. They justify every death...especially America. Although I dont think America would ever launch the first nuke a conventional war could easily turn into a nuclear war because mankind is a douche.

It has been put that there will be no winners in a nuclear exchange. Each will keep dropping them until...mutual annihilation is complete.

In the case that one or pieces of another country survives...the world will no longer support normal life, and a nuclear haze will block the sun for years and years: no food-no people.

The men with their fingers on the buttons know that one push for their own country...and shortly thereafter their countries will cease to exist.

This all assumes sane and/or competent people in charge.

a reply to: musicismagic

WW3 will happen.
It is just a question of when!
The big bully on the block always falls. There is always someone tougher!

In a sane world, then nobody would launch nuclear weapons. Not just because of fear of reprisals but also out of not murdering a crapload of people, poisoning others as well as messing up the planet.

They've been used twice before, N.Korea are actively testing theirs. Iran may or may not be doing the same. All it takes is Lil Kim or one of the old guard to be hit either in the pocket & realise they cannot live their cushy lifestyle any longer or even catch a terminal disease & say feck it. Nuke S.Korea & possibly Japan & it will all stem from there.

Then there is the chance that Jihadists get their hands on one & sneak it in somewhere.

Then there is is whole big picture. The population will rise by a further 2 billion in less than 50 years. What about another 100 or 200 years. There simply isn't enough resources to go around! Look at China, they are building up their navy, air force, going hypersonic in their r&d. Developing carrier killer missiles. Regional disputes with Japan, Philippines, Vietnam etc.

Then you have the west going into Iraq, Libya under phony pretences.

A major war over land & resources is inevitable, it might not be here for 10 years or 100 years but it will come. Ultimately 2 nuclear (or worse) nations will butt horns. The loser will have nothing left & decide to press the big red button & huge portions of human life on the planet will go bye bye.

The only real question isn't how or why it will happen, only when!

a reply to: musicismagic

In my opinion, the idea of an apocalypse because of the use nuclear weapons is a consequence of the mass panic throughout the Cold War. Back then the bombs were increasing regularly in destructive power, and also learning how to make more of them faster.

But that philosophy has been changing in the past 20 years. I don't think it's about M.A.D. anymore. In a modern global war we will hear about "tactical nukes". Smaller in size, capable of confined destruction and minimized (but still present) hazardous particles, and used only one at a time. A small nuke won't defeat a nation, but it will wipe out a whole battalion.

As brutal as it may seem, a country won't risk launching full-scale nuclear war if it knows that the other side is just using a single strategic nuke to wipe out a military unit, or a power-plant. It would be a huge loss, and inhumane, but it would happen. It has happened before in WWI. Chemical weapons were easy enough to produce so that they could make enough of it to attack whole countries. But it's use was confined to battles, throwing gas between trenches, and attacking around it or using gas masks.

Chernobyl, one of the worst nuclear accidents in History, is in Ukraine. The same Ukraine is being fought over between the West and Russia. So, in a war, a small area affected by a nuke blast isn't that scary anymore when in desperation of war. A country can still function with one "spot" or two.

Nukes are just a bigger bomb. The fear of nuclear weapons, as real as it still is, wouldn't play out like we are still used to think about it. Also, EMP's... Cleaner bombs or things we don't even know about. Nobody wants to win a war where you are alone to boast about it.

no one wishes a nuclear war; however it would be ignorant of us to assume that the most powerful weapons are still nukes.

no, i think a third world war is inevitable. i do not think nukes will be used. we will see weapons used that we probably won't ever understand.

a reply to: musicismagic

You seem to forget that the world is over populated and is running out of energy and even the fish in the sea have been over consumed.

I am not going to get into a debate about if we do this and that we can all survive.

Our masters on both sides will ensure we are all dead long before they go hungry and the one to fear is biological weapons and not nukes.

Must go now to play my latest shoot em up zombie game if you catch my drift.

The US has used nukes already, and to go against the US you must assume they will use them again.....therefore the only way to act is to go nuclear first, and hope you can intercept what comes back.

a reply to: VirusGuard

i'm more worried about chemical weapons over biological weapons. biological weapons are unpredictable. once you open that can of worms, there is no closing it. chemical weapons, however...what if a heavy and highly reactive (to organic material) powder were dropped in a huge line across the sight of an invasion? everything would die that crossed that line. how about deploying some kind of gas that knocks everyone out or one that causes paralysis?

no. i think we will see chemical weapons, weather weapons, devices to cause tsunamis, etc.

the reason i don't think we'll fully understand what happened afterwards is because most things will be destroyed.