Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

reply to post by MischeviousElf


Calm down. In fact. People doesn’t talk too much about all of this except medias but even medias are concerned rather on Olympic games than all this stuff. People in Poland doesn’t hate ordinary Russians. In fact ordinary people from Russia and Poland could easily find a common language because of similar historical realties. What Polish people can’t stand is that the way of Russian politics behaves. We could understand them because our politics grown in similar post soviet world of corruption, ex secret agencies which changed into mafia organizations. We have all the same # in Poland like Russians with that difference that their # is bigger, connected to much bigger power and much much bigger money. I will not make a big mistake if when I say that Putin is the leader of two worlds in Russia. That official world of constitutional power as e politics and the leader of hidden world of organized crime. If not how could he earn in ten years a 150milonon of dollars. The Russian president doesn’t earn so much. It’s all about money, but not only his money but money of other members of that organized ex KGB club. That money comes from oil and gas. Because of that pipeline in Georgia some groups in Russia waist a lot of money. It’s not about any national interests, but only interests of that peoples. It is one more argument why I don’t afraid of any Russian attack. They could attack Georgia or other small countries in the parts of the world which no one knows but their main interest is to sell oil and gas to EU and make money so their rich class of people could buy more good European cars and houses on the southern shore of the of France or Italy. In fact if you ask me If I would fight for Ukrainian freedom I would answer you that it would probably never happen but in the next year I would go Ukraine and maybe later to Moscow for a trip. In the Ukraine there are many beautiful old cities and some mountains to climb and Moscow have very interesting and sometimes curious modern architecture.

And if you ask me if I believe in “limited exchange” I would say I don’t. Not between US and Russia. There could be “Limited exchange” between China and India maybe but not in our world between US and Russia because if it would start someday everybody would know that from the beginning that this act simply would end whole era, whole economic bases, all our construction of monetary system, there would be a giant panic and disorder. There would be no turning back so if only one missile would hit the ground it would be no difference if next 10000 would reach their targets. Probably we never faces our enemy because we would kill each other fighting to survive on the ruins of that civilization. This who wouldn’t be killed in the first day of the war would die because of lack of supplies for civilians. So there is no senesce to consider the possibility of any nuclear conflict because we couldn’t prepare to it at all.

Originally posted by malganis
reply to post by odyseusz

 

i think this Polish guy's hit a lot of nails on the head with this post. Apart from the bits about the number of citizens in each country lol you may want to edit that

Hehe, Thanks, I already did this.


[edit on 16-8-2008 by odyseusz]

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
reply to post by odyseusz

 

On your last statement I think the events of 9/11 and subsequent "pre emptive" action means that we can never be sure again that they, whoever they are "could do nothing" against any of us.

I think that is a bit off topic but after so many years and hundreds of materials and theories I don’t believe in official story. I don’t know what was a point but if you want me to convince that I should be afraid US to I would say I’m not afraid but I understand why I should. Hehe.

F#$% it's late, good night.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by odyseusz]

[edit on 16-8-2008 by odyseusz]

Originally posted by odyseusz
reply to post by MischeviousElf

 

Calm down.

I am odyseusz but passionate

However to be honest on this issue I am a bit fidgety, maybe like as we say because of "spiderman" I have that whole spider-sense, about this....

I used to many years ago work helping people with mental health problems and violence, in secure units and the like, you get a "feel" for the subtle undercurrents, sometimes where the truth is, certainly the intent, if not the displayed or acted on actions.

You have to or you leave the job, end up black and blue etc... I did it for many years and I have that feeling that Spidey feeling about this. well more specifically where its going in the next 12-24 weeks and beyond.

Thats just me being for once in a blue moon superstitious I suppose....

I wont quote and disect you post in response, I have gained much from your experiences, thank you!

I found you mention of the Russian black market and crime funny and as my post here in a different thread, on a similar topic yesterday:
Dimitri!

Thank you it is late so,

I hope you will keep us informed.

Kind Regards,

Elf

[edit on 16-8-2008 by MischeviousElf]for typing after a few glasses of red

[edit on 16-8-2008 by MischeviousElf]

in order to place a missile shield you are in need of a threat.
now i wanna ask where does the threat come from?
and if true cant poland take care of its own since the economy is booming overthere?
or is china the real threat to the us?

[edit on 16-8-2008 by yankeydooddle]

i do not get it ! it is called "defence" shield, why would Russia or US be worried to have it around their borders?

Russia isn't worried at all. They know they can fire off enough missiles to completely overwhelm that shield and not even use half their arsenal. They also know that their massive air force could annihilate the shield right from the outset, no nukes needed, if they really felt like it. And of course, they know that a few nuclear blasts would guarantee the shield's destruction.

What Russia is doing, is making excuses for being belligerent. What the United States is doing, is intentionally giving them excuses for being belligerent. I think the U.S. has realized that if Russia gets sucked into a regional war, their gradual return to "superpower" status will be brought to a halt because Russia's economy can't handle the challenge yet.

As for Russia's nuclear weapons... well, perhaps the U.S. feels that if they don't get involved in the fighting, they won't be attacked by Russia's nuclear weapons in retaliation. Whether that's a correct assumption or not is debatable.

Of course, this is all just speculation on my part and it's worth about as much as the paper it's written on. And it's not written on any paper, so there ya go.

Russia is not the type of country which attack first if they aren’t sure that it would be easy war. In their history they always attacked many countries and Poland to but they waited for the right moment. Usually they waited for a war between two neighbor countries and when everybody is tiered and week they engage. We have wars with Germans, Sweden, Turks, Ukraine and every time Russians entered when we were weak. Now there is no military threat for Poland so we can’t have such situation again. All our historical enemies are now ours closest partners which usually speaks the same voice. It is not comfortable situation for Russian interest because they can’t put between us even finger.

I just don't understand why people have to have a war. War doesn't make sense in my eyes. It doesn't make anything better. And I am getting tired of the USA, who puts their nose in others buisness. It's not their country, not their war. They already fighting a war in Afghanistan/Iraq and lost so many innocent young soldiers, broke so many families hearts and souls. I know that they wanna help, but what happen when you help somebody, who is the enemy of that country, that wants to fight? Yes right, revenge. I am talking from my heart and what is going on in my mind. I never been big in politican stuff, I don't watch the news. Life is difficult and challenging enough. It doesn't need more drama. Why they wanna make their own country more poor when it already is? We live in 2008 for crise sake and war is still going on. What is wrong with this world? Did people not have sacrifice enough? For nothing? I don't get it. They should swollow their pride, live their life and being happy with what they have.

I can't figure out why some people on this thread are sympathizing with Russia. I've seen a few times people saying that the Russians put missiles in Cuba and the US didn't like it and this is the same situation in reverse and how the US is hypocritical, blah, blah, blah.

I'd love for someone to explain why in the hell we should be worried about Russia's interests? What we are doing is common practice. Why would any country vying for power sit around and let its rivals get stronger? That would be stupid. If you have a rival, you crush them. That is common in every competition. If you are a liberal who thinks socialism is the best way and that competition is bad, research "sports". It'll help you understand this phenomenon of competition and rivalry.

The US does not like Russia. Why would we let them put missiles in Cuba? Why would we not try to put missiles on their doorstep when we are competing with them for power? Please don't say it's hypocritical, no one cares if we are doing the same thing they did. We are competing for power. This is common practice.

No more stupidity, please.

Russia has been a bully for at least 300 years. It has repeatedly taken other countries by force, and has killed millions because they did not agree with the various Russian governments of the particular age.

Keep in mind that the Soviet Union was just another version of the Russian Royalty. The top dogs lived well, while the peasants barely survived. Nothing really changed, it was just Russian serfdom under another name.

Russia (the Soviet Union) agreed with Hitler to divide Poland in two, and that is exactly what they did in 1939. Poland ceased to exist, and the Soviets murdered tens of thousands of Poles.

The Soviets murdered an estimated 25,000,000 of their own people, plus untold numbers from the countries they occupied, during their rule. They made the Nazi's look like beginners in the killing of people.

Now they are back to their old ways, use the bullet first.

But of course, the appologists will support them. They are so cowardly, that they pee their pants at the very thought of resisting such behavior.

The Europeans will give in 100%. All Russia has to do is cut of their oil, and they will have their lips plastered all over the the Russian asses. Keep in mind, the Europeans couldn't protect themselves against the Nazi's, couldn't protect themselves against Napoleon, couldn't protect themselves against the Soviets. It was always Britain and/or the United States that protected them.

But in their eyes, the US is always the bad guy, and the Russians are the good guys. They will follow that line right up until they are conquered. Then, they won't be al;lowed to say anything.

Originally posted by OldMedic
Russia has been a bully for at least 300 years.

Like all other imperialist European powers?

It has repeatedly taken other countries by force, and has killed millions because they did not agree with the various Russian governments of the particular age.

Like all other imperialist European powers?

Keep in mind that the Soviet Union was just another version of the Russian Royalty.

They killed the royal dynasty last i checked? Do you have information to the contrary?

The top dogs lived well, while the peasants barely survived. Nothing really changed, it was just Russian serfdom under another name.

Like in all other imperialist European powers?

Russia (the Soviet Union) agreed with Hitler to divide Poland in two, and that is exactly what they did in 1939. Poland ceased to exist, and the Soviets murdered tens of thousands of Poles.

Actually i think Stalin was doing what he could to create the same buffer zone Hitler wanted when he realised that the western allies were in fact planning to use Hitler to destroy the SU. As per historic record the SU did it's best to enable mutual defense treaties with Britain, France and Poland but when non were interested it took the steps required to fight the war against Nazi GErmany that was bound to come.

The Soviets murdered an estimated 25,000,000 of their own people, plus untold numbers from the countries they occupied, during their rule. They made the Nazi's look like beginners in the killing of people.

I don't really want to argue for the soviet cause but i have never seen data that comes close to justifying the oft stated 25 million; killing that large a proportion of the population has rarele in human history been required to make the point and i think the proof is entirely lacking in this instance.

Now they are back to their old ways, use the bullet first.

Just for interest sake the 'soviets' were the socialist organizing committees that did NOT managed to gain power in 1917; the self styled dictators who did take power merely used the term to pacify and fool the population into some measure of cooperation. As has often been declared the cause of 'international communist' ( nothing to do with the native movements that actually created the 1917 revolution) is to gain power by other means with bullets and actual war normally being reserved for last resort.

But of course, the appologists will support them. They are so cowardly, that they pee their pants at the very thought of resisting such behavior.

But of course i, the 'apologist' will support information as garnered from the historic record! What else am i supposed to?

The Europeans will give in 100%.

Like Poland did who fought Germans and Russians alike? What about the Fin's who so desperately and bravely fought the SU's invasion? Didn't the Germans fight the Russians and didn't tens of thousand of Europeans volunteer to join fighting SS formations to in the latter years of the war? You don't think France and everyone from the low countries would have resisted a Soviet invasion as best they could if they were not overcome by the far superior Nazi war machine?

All Russia has to do is cut of their oil, and they will have their lips plastered all over the the Russian asses.

There are other places to get oil from and there is as yet things Europe can do to resist if their leaders were not cooperating.....

Keep in mind, the Europeans couldn't protect themselves against the Nazi's,

Who could in the early stages of the war? What happened to the Americans when they at first tried? Yes....

couldn't protect themselves against Napoleon,

Napoleon was European so that's a bit of a senseless argument. All countries in Europe have lost wars at one time or another and that hardly proves a damn thing.

couldn't protect themselves against the Soviets. It was always Britain and/or the United States that protected them.

The British/Americans could not handle the Germans and would not have fared any better against the SU at that time. Britain were as always doing her best to manage the world but were outmanoeuvred by Hitler and lost it's empire in the process. The great victor in the second world war was the US and that is not in my estimation or knowledge some kind of fluke and most certainly not in the interest of protecting Europe from the SU.

But in their eyes, the US is always the bad guy, and the Russians are the good guys.

How do you come up with these ideas?

They will follow that line right up until they are conquered. Then, they won't be al;lowed to say anything.

Right and who's fault will that largely be when the US undermines European unity by sponsoring into power parties and leaders that wishes to undermine what unity they would like to organize amongst themselves? What would be worse for the US than a European union stretching from Spain to Germany and Italy including Britain and whatever relations it still managed with the commonwealth? You don't think such a organization could have resisted the USSR by it's own means? Who do you think the Turks would have sided with?

Stellar

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
However I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe in the "Limited nuclear exchange" scenario, so Europe and indeed most of the world would suffer Nuclear Attacks.

There are plenty of people who believe with great power and knowledge who believe exactly that and while some are clearly not people you want to trust non are 'stupid'.

If you do believe in the "Limited Nuclear Exchange" Scenario, and are willing to promote it, well, there is a guy by the name of Comic Ali or more correctly the ex Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Saha

loved that guy!

I am very much in favor of limited nuclear strikes in case of world war ever breaking out as such are normally counter force which does not involve purely hostage targets.

Anyhow if you truly believe that a limited exchange, without a resultant, even if months later, proliferation of use is a feasability, Or believe that in an all out nuclear war, if say only a hundred or so missiles got the US or Russia, and civilization would survive, well im sorry but you have been badly informed.

In fact a few hundred nuclear explosions wont end civilization as we know even if a good proportion falls on major economic centers in the US and Russia. There is a great deal of pretense about how intertwined our economies are but i can assure you that given such a scenario they will untangle far easier than many would believe. As for the fallout effects those are normally blown out of all proportion just as civilian casualties are when it's presumed that simply no one will have prepared themselves in any ways.

For human civilization to continue to exist we need a very small proportion of the 6.6 billion people alive and this is something that is well understood by those who are arranging the next great war.

There are a multitude of reasons for that;
Environmental, psychological, sociological, and they would all have a profound affect on our ability to survive.

Chernobyl was just about the worse it can get in terms of fallout ( if not destruction) and that turned out to be not severe at all as compared to other natural disasters or regular mortality rates by starvation and disease. In fact a limited nuclear exchange might not even come close to killing the 20 + million people that die each year due to starvation and disease.

Just one, one effect in one category Psychological... stress is the bigger killer in the world! think on that! How stressed would we all be after a nuclear war? That is not aimed at you odyseusz, its just a general observation!

Stress is not the biggest killer in the world by any estimation and i am not sure how you came up with that.

Certainly I think your right there in saying that Russia fears the former soviet states joining NATO, and the NATO expansion generally.

It does not fear NATO expansion as much as it fears what NATO has done during it's expansion and all the aggressive wars it has fought since it's inception.

I feel that Georgia will have to wait a while now before being invited to join NATO, and any move on Ukraines part would result in similar Russian reaction to the Georgia Situation.

Depending on the promises Rice were allowed to make to the Georgian president...

I just skipped all the questions and few statements as i had little to add to the statements..... I can provide you with a great deal of information that would prove the claim, fact as per manuals, that Nuclear wars can not only be fought and won ( any war can be won) but that we have probably been lucky in not having had any so far.

Either way thanks for contributing.

Stellar

What is most important which I don’t agree with you is about “limited exchange”. You said that even 100 nukes doesn’t change our civilization as we know in present. I could say that we even don’t need nukes to change our civilization. Look on that economic crisis in US which is spreading al over the world. We even don’t understand how it came. It’s nearly without reason. How do you imagine only one nuke explosion could influent on ale economies in the world. Even if war doesn’t blow up the lack of trust for the investments will start e global economic Armageddon. Everyone who are now starting with new investment’s would hold his money in case of loses. There is no worst scenario that fear which will stop the money circulation. It means that no one would earn any money even in the terms of decades maybe. Only governments interventions in economy would keep this going but let’s say the truth, that would put us back to the eighteenth maybe seventieth century. Our civilization used to exist in the world when nothing really important happens. That stabilization allowed us to develop very subtle balance. That balance is not self balancing as the liberal economist is trying us to believe. That balance need a lot of care to be kept. Changing climate, mayor bankruptcy, any war even butterfly in amazons jungle has great influence on that. Limited exchange is a bushtit.
One more thing. WWIII would not start with e conflict of two biggest military powers. It would start in a small local conflict which now could sounds exotic. For example something like second war between Iraq and Iran after US and the rest would live Iraq. War between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Turkey vs Iraq (Kurds minority), Morocco vs. Algeria, some Indonesian wars. That’s a potential wars which doesn’t sound scary but can engage military superpowers and we doesn’t now even understand why. Many of that county have or would have sooner or later nuclear weapon. Let say the truth, nuclear technology of constructing bombs is easy as construction of crank, it is only the problem of proper material possession which is matter of time. We doesn’t protect Iraq from Iran with a anti missals shield in Poland ore even in Israel ore Turkey. They don’t need missals to strike the bomb, they need only to park a car in the middle of any town.
That’s definitely is not a problem of Europe but even if it would be we couldn’t do anything about this even if we starts now.


What is most important which I don’t agree with you is about “limited exchange”. You said that even 100 nukes doesn’t change our civilization as we know in present. I could say that we even don’t need nukes to change our civilization. Look on that economic crisis in US which is spreading al over the world. We even don’t understand how it came. It’s nearly without reason. How do you imagine only one nuke explosion could influent on ale economies in the world. Even if war doesn’t blow up the luck of trust for the investments will start e global economic Armageddon. Everyone who are now starting with new investment’s would hold his money in case of loses. There is no worst scenario that fear which will stop the money circulation. It means that no one would earn any money even in the terms of decades maybe. Only governments interventions in economy would keep this going but let’s say the truth, that would put us back to the eighteenth maybe seventieth century. Our civilization used to exist in the world when nothing really important happens. That stabilization allowed us to develop very subtle balance. That balance is not self balancing as the liberal economist is trying us to believe. That balance need a lot of care to be kept. Changing climate, mayor bankruptcy, any war even butterfly in amazons jungle has great influence on that. Limited exchange is a bushtit.

[edit on 18-8-2008 by odyseusz]

One more thing. WWIII would not start with e conflict of two biggest military powers. It would start in a small local conflict which now could sounds exotic. For example something like second war between Iraq and Iran after US and the rest would live Iraq. War between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Turkey vs Iraq (Kurds minority), Morocco vs. Algeria, some Indonesian wars. That’s a potential wars which doesn’t sound scary but can engage military superpowers and we doesn’t now even understand why. Many of that county have or would have sooner or later nuclear weapon. Let say the truth, nuclear technology of constructing bombs is easy as construction of crank, it is only the problem of proper material possession which is matter of time. We doesn’t protect Iraq from Iran with a anti missals shield in Poland ore even in Israel ore Turkey. They don’t need missals to strike the bomb, they need only to park a car in the middle of any town.
That’s definitely is not a problem of Europe but even if it would be we couldn’t do anything about this even if we would start now.


[edit on 18-8-2008 by odyseusz]

Originally posted by candyfloss
Better warn my bro as he's living in Gdansk.Surely ,what the fine general means is'you are leaving yourself open to attack ' with the idea of getting rid of the missile shields rather than 'we will promise to bomb Poland now they will have the missile sheilds'.I wonder what the feeling in Poland is?I'll contact my bro for the lowdown...

Here's what he said;
Ihave asked my Polish colleagues about the missile shield thing and the replies are as follows:

(a) It turns out that the US is selling the majority of the missiles to Poland not giving them and so the Poles consider this to be a very expensive political maneuver.

(b) They are concerned that should the Russians launch a missile attack on the US, Poland will be the first line of defense i.e the Polish missiles will shoot down the Russian missile first and then Russia will launch an attack on Poland. Thus it is a Win-Win situation for the US and a loose-loose for Poland.


I must have missed something as I did'nt know the Poles were buying most of the missile sheilds.What I don't understand is,if it's a lose lose situation for Poland then why are they buying them at all?Some kind of clandestine pressure from the US?Does'nt make any sense.

Poland has sould out, They should work on their own problems within the country rather than trying to be big shots because they have been in the EU for a few years. When they joined to help out in Iraq the US promised them the stars what did they get nothing. Poland has gotten to big for its boots the last couple of years.

It is very simple, the US is not using the ABM to attack or thwart an attack from Russia. Russia placing bombers in Cuba would be viewed as directed aggression from Russia towards the US. So, what you have is Russia openly threatening the US whilst the US does not threaten Russia. The US, does not view Russia as an adversary, nor does it view the Russians as an ally, it looks as though someone cannot get past the cold war mentality.


Perhaps the Russians are just being sore losers...

[edit on 20-8-2008 by West Coast]

Originally posted by Justice11
Russia has been so busy suppressing internal dissent the last ten years they have fallen behind in technology with the West.

What dissent? Putin enjoyed 80s% popularity. If there are any countries with internal dissent, it's USA.

And fallen behind in technology how? Are you familiar with the PAK-FA? Topol-M? Buliva? T-90 and T-95? S-400?

I beg to differ.

Originally posted by Justice11You see a free thinking society tends to throw ideas around more and those ideas get to the drawing board faster if you know what i mean.

A society of sheep, who listen to propaganda? Yes, I know what you mean.

Originally posted by Justice11So russian can swallow their own news invincibility but i doubt its true.No actually i know it not true.

You are entertaining.

Originally posted by odyseusz
What is most important which I don’t agree with you is about “limited exchange”. You said that even 100 nukes doesn’t change our civilization as we know in present. I could say that we even don’t need nukes to change our civilization.

Your right off course. We don't need nukes exploding to chance society anymore than nukes might not change anything beside the population numbers and the availability of infrastructure in the short run.

Look on that economic crisis in US which is spreading al over the world. We even don’t understand how it came. It’s nearly without reason.

We do know how the US economic crisis came about in the same way that we know how all economic crisis's comes about. It is for the most part in the public record and that which isn't can be found with a little bit more effort. .

How do you imagine only one nuke explosion could influent on ale economies in the world.

Two nuclear explosions in Japan didn't chance world economies one bit. I can imagine how one nuclear explosion over the greater new york could chance a lot of things but all it would in my knowledge do is very slightly chance the size of the world economy. New yorkers might not appreciate such comments but it's true for most major cities or even countries.

Even if war doesn’t blow up the lack of trust for the investments will start e global economic Armageddon.

Or usher in a far more fragmented world order where major powers can not dominate smaller countries at will without risking far more serious consequences than the US national security state ever did.

Everyone who are now starting with new investment’s would hold his money in case of loses.

People will always try to make money with the capitol at their disposal and if the world lost a few countries due to nuclear devastation that would obviously create massive new opportunities for investment/exploitation.

There is no worst scenario that fear which will stop the money circulation. It means that no one would earn any money even in the terms of decades maybe.

Now your just sounding like a uninformed alarmist who sees doom at every and all turns. The loss of a tens of millions of lives did not destroy the global economy back in in the 40's anymore than the loss of a hundred million or more will today. Sadly the world wont just end and thus we will in fact have to prepare ourselves to best meet that horrible eventuality. The money wont stop circulating, people will get paid, and humanity and civilization will continue

Only governments interventions in economy would keep this going but let’s say the truth, that would put us back to the eighteenth maybe seventieth century.

Only government interventions are keeping the current western economic 'boom' going by injecting massive amounts of dollars/Euros to enable the payment of debt and the the continuance of massive loans. I don't see why such heavily regulated systems wont be easily adapted to general warfare or limited nuclear exchanges. What i understand even less is how this would put us back centuries!

Our civilization used to exist in the world when nothing really important happens.

Maybe you need to read seventeenth and eighteenth century history to see just how much happened and how the world managed to survive it all and continue it's general progress?

That stabilization allowed us to develop very subtle balance. That balance is not self balancing as the liberal economist is trying us to believe. That balance need a lot of care to be kept.

The world has never been a 'stable/balanced' place and i would dare you to attempt proving that the world has not in fact become more balanced; not that that is the source of the progress ( wars can destroy progressive gains) but the relative scale of devastation have not in my knowledge actually increased hence the fast growing world population. Economist are not liberals and the 'balance' they mostly attempt to keep in the west are very much in favor of creating the illusion of prosperity for the masses while the means that could guarantee such are in fact being sold or bartered away for a temporary maintenance of power. I obviously do not believe in corporate globalization and i would very much like to see national governments be able to protect their citizens from foreign economic predation.

Changing climate, mayor bankruptcy, any war even butterfly in amazons jungle has great influence on that. Limited exchange is a bushtit.

Which would explain why those who want to rule the world wants everything to become interconnected for easier manipulation; you can think of them as the proverbial butterflies only with actual power to affect statically very significant change unlike the much talked about butterfly. Limited exchange is admittedly 'bs' in that nothing HAS to chance as smaller events have had larger consequences. I should be more specific in stating that the event might or might not be significant depending on how those who hold economic powers decides to employ the crisis.

One more thing. WWIII would not start with e conflict of two biggest military powers. It would start in a small local conflict which now could sounds exotic. For example something like second war between Iraq and Iran after US and the rest would live Iraq. War between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Turkey vs Iraq (Kurds minority), Morocco vs. Algeria, some Indonesian wars.

Sure, i don't see why yet another world war can't happen due to larger powers choices to escalate a local war. What i will argue with is that great powers always get 'sucked' into wars they don't want to fight when the record indicates that powerful men will always seek pretexts to do what they want. This is not to deny that there wont be real victims or countries that really had no choice but just to dispel the myth that great events in human history are largely coincidental and not due to the reasoned decisions of the powerful men of the time.

That’s a potential wars which doesn’t sound scary but can engage military superpowers and we doesn’t now even understand why.

I think you should speak for yourself when you claim that 'we' don't understand.

Many of that county have or would have sooner or later nuclear weapon. Let say the truth, nuclear technology of constructing bombs is easy as construction of crank, it is only the problem of proper material possession which is matter of time. We doesn’t protect Iraq from Iran with a anti missals shield in Poland ore even in Israel ore Turkey. They don’t need missals to strike the bomb, they need only to park a car in the middle of any town.
That’s definitely is not a problem of Europe but even if it would be we couldn’t do anything about this even if we starts now.

But so what? Ancient tribes were all but annihilated in tribal conflict which is something even a full scale nuclear war is going to have a impossible/very hard time emulating today! Human society have grown far more resilient and given proper preparation there is no reason why nuclear war will not be fought or won. It only takes one leadership to believe that they can win or at least keep power in such a a conflict to enable it.

In conclusion a nuclear war WILL change the world for at least very many hundreds of millions with my question largely being if it will on balance be noticeable bad/good for the majority of the worlds population that have not found much benefit by the current system.

Stellar