Is There Going To Be A Conventional World War 3?

I read the news daily and I wonder. It seems the cold war has been brewing back up the last decade or so. Probably never went away, but it's been heating. Russia and the US sparing around Europe and other places. Iran talking about doing what Russia invaded Afghanistan for (shutting down US oil shipping lanes). North Korea and China being the dog eaters they are.

So we never really can predict what will be in the news tomorrow. Do you read international political stories? Maybe it will be small conflicts and wars here and there or all out fury? The news gets me wondering sometimes. Feel free to share how you would handle a draft or where you would move. Assuming there is no nuclear war, as that would be suicide for any dim whit who starts such a task.

 

Seems to me that there always Wars which are going on - some overt but many Covert.
'Conventional' wars are probably the better of two evils - for the result/s of any Nuclear related acts in warfare are inconceivable.

Wherever mankind treads; sadly. there is always a desire to claim land area for acreage or resource gain along with those whose intent to conquer has more sinister reason - it is those whose mind-set is such where the real danger lies - for within an unhinged mind lies the capacity to act without any kind of consideration for the consequences that follow

 

I wonder if Russia trying to move people into their eastern part of the country says what they expect could happen.

I sorta think covert operations are smarter. Not that they are in theory always the best idea as bad crimes could occur. But I think being tactical and quite about things is much better. I am not so sure America can group together as they did during WWII for another long drawn out costly war. Maybe they could as there are a lot of people that would 't pay the costs.

I suppose it depends on who moves where and how others respond. I doubt I would be drafted, I'm on their shit list. I really wouldn't want to be in a unit that is all misfits. I'm getting older day by day also.

I just know that China is making waves for offshore oil and territory to protect those interests. Russia is having a very difficult time economically and strategically. Most of their population is close to Europe and a lot of their economy depends on oil and gas moving that direction. I don't think the States care if Europe is out in the cold without much fuel.

Seems for now it's just a lot of shit talking amongst the countries that oppose each other. But I only know what is reported in the media.

 

Unfortunately nuclear war has been and continues to be mapped out. When you consider that we have already had around 2000 successful nuclear explosions within our biosphere, the results have been unexpected. Sure, the sites themselves are often poisoned for decades or centuries, but the fallout, which was certainly global in many cases, did not create the expected holocaust. Seems like it would have. I recall one claim that 15,000 Americans have died since the early 50s from nuclear testing fallout. I also heard a rumor that almond and soy milk was being pushed to get people away from the animal milk pathway calcium/iodine cycle.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that nuclear war is easier for our governments to debate than we may like, putting it mildly. We have been raised on a steady diet of post-nuclear scenarios for decades now. Most of them are total and horrific, as one would expect from total nuclear war. But what if it went another way? What if it dragged on for many decades. The first volley would render a lot of infrastructure useless which would lead to more collateral deaths than deaths from fireball or radiation. The next volley could be delayed by months or even years. The third volley delayed by a decade, the 4th by 20 more years. An agonizing fight to the finish as each side recovers enough to get back into the fight.

 

The problem with any man-made intervention (especially for use in conflict) has an effect on the Natural world - and Mother Nature will defend herself in order to survive - it is the world and not the people that will carry on - albeit not, in a way that enables mankind to be able to continue.
Nuclear War is the Monster that scares - although - it is moreover the silence assassin that strikes with more dangerous and deadly intention (the effects of which can be related to many a conspiracy theory)

Your second point reminds me of a Sci-fi comparison: - In the Dr Who 'Dalek' scenario, - the battle between the 'Thals' and 'Kaleds', the premise is that the conflict has lasted generations and near all natural resources had used been up before the 'finality; of the man/robot, is realised - the point being that from WMD, Chemical, Explosive, Nuclear, down to bow and arrows and stones - with any continuation of dispute, there is escalation of aggression and degradation of morality = A worrying, indeed frightening thought!

 

The worst that could happen is post nuclear war where biological weapons are used. Those probably freak me out worse than nuclear or chemical. It seems in peoples best interest that conflicts remain contained.

 

only if people get bored with the agony of dying too slowly once the ecopocalypse gets to really rolling.
we're already in both, and its only out of ignorance that we insist on remaining in either.
i'll give ecopocalypse odds of 60% of doing for us, and a big war that would actually directly threaten western powers no more then 5%, if even more then 2 or 3.

WE don't have to invent biological 'weapons', nature will. and once it gets going, it will 'invent' them faster then we can invent NAMES for them.

unless of course, we actually get our heads out of our asses, and not only clean up energy, but also transportation. and yes we have the technology and no we don't have to revert to any kind of drudgery to do so. and no that technology isn't nuclear. and no, alternatives don't lack the capacity to supply needs, only to supply greeds.

 

There is a lot more cancer these days but there are a lot more causes. Could be pesticides could be from nuclear testing, could be burning fossil fuels. Shit, it could be a million and one different things.

There is a website that shows where nukes would go off and there range. I'd be safe here but a near by city would be toasted.

I'm talking more conventional. I think people understand the risk of a nuclear war. One reason I believe there could be conventional conflict other than the shit we are numb too, is that Russia isn't so happy about the missile defense system in Europe. They seriously don't have the nuclear advantage that they had in the past. Also China and Russia are pushing for resource wars. It's not just the Russian naval base in Ukraine but there are oil fields that could help diminish the European dependence on Russian fuel. China also wants resources in the south china sea.

I really don't know of any Army that can operate without fossil fuels. My home can't even fully function without fossil fuels.

 

There are dozens of laboratory studies which have established a direct link between vaccinations you had as a kid and various forms of cancer



Hotwater

 

I never heard of vaccines and cancer at all being associated in any form. Either have I researched it at all.

I know we all have a certain time of radioactive particle in our bones from nuclear testing. But, none of this has to do with an actual shooting war taking place.

Not that this site is expected to be the most militarily.

 

So any war that was conventional that became world war 3, would then become nuclear. I really doubt anyone would keep there fingers off the trigger if the death toll started rising into the thousands and drafts were introduced.

The obvious problem with nuclear war, it's there's only two logical game theories when you and your opponent can destroy each other in one move. Avoid conflict or strike first.

So it's really a question of whether humans inherent survival instinct, outweighs there stupid barbaric instincts.

I've met a lot of humans in my day... I'd probably give it 45/55.

 

Politics intervene quickly so it is possible that there would be an agreement or treaty to not use WMD's. The Cold War is tit for tat and things seem to be kept that way. One side does one thing and another does something similar. The problem is with land grabs for resources and security when one side starts too much. I don't think anyone is crazy enough so far to use tactical WMD's without thinking one will be returned or things could escalate.

 

One thing is for sure: whatever enemy threatens America, extremists will blame America, first. They will alienate themsleves from the majority of people. Almost as if they have been the targets of a misdirection, by mysterious right-wing forces.