World War 3

[whaawh]

Hillary Clinton, George Soros and the elite need world war 3 so that they can reduce population to their planned goal. under Trump their plan has been put on hold for a while.

You are a real sheeple.

Trump wants the global temp too increase. That means higher water level. That means the basis for life of hundred millions of people will be destroyed.
Trump wants to stop immigration. That means death for the refugees.

That is a good plan for reduction of the human population.

500 million means 2% of the smartest (= ~140 million) + 7% of the best workers (= ~350 million).

No one will ever reach a balance with nature, and this too. Following the example of how migrants try to break the balance of life in some country. Thus, the migration services try at least a little to restore order. We see very strongly What happens in Europe because of migrants and would not want such a problem to occur in the United States.

[Sithara007]

Very interesting question regarding the third world war. The fact is that if you look at all the military conflicts that are happening now and then Who is involved in them, clearly one can come to the conclusion that all these wars will not end so quickly yet. If you pay attention to Syria and even to North Korea, you can definitely say which countries will be the culprits of the 3rd World War

North Korea is not going to attack anyone. Their's is just empty talk. Let's focus our attention on Syria. It is true that most of the world powers are involved in Syria. But their involvement is limited to air-strikes and training. So the Syrian conflict also is not going to escalate in to a world war.

[seo11]

I believe the ww3 will not being allowed to use nukes, that will destroy the world and ruined the entire ecosystem. Lyrics Fed

[Proton2233]

Very interesting question regarding the third world war. The fact is that if you look at all the military conflicts that are happening now and then Who is involved in them, clearly one can come to the conclusion that all these wars will not end so quickly yet. If you pay attention to Syria and even to North Korea, you can definitely say which countries will be the culprits of the 3rd World War

North Korea is not going to attack anyone. Their's is just empty talk. Let's focus our attention on Syria. It is true that most of the world powers are involved in Syria. But their involvement is limited to air-strikes and training. So the Syrian conflict also is not going to escalate in to a world war.

This is incorrect. Syria is already a world war. The price of oil is low and likely to decline further. Russia is not interested in a stable situation in Syria. This can significantly reduce the volume of sales of Russian hydrocarbons to Europe. So they will do everything so that the world did not come in Syria.

[hovrah]

Very interesting question regarding the third world war. The fact is that if you look at all the military conflicts that are happening now and then Who is involved in them, clearly one can come to the conclusion that all these wars will not end so quickly yet. If you pay attention to Syria and even to North Korea, you can definitely say which countries will be the culprits of the 3rd World War

North Korea is not going to attack anyone. Their's is just empty talk. Let's focus our attention on Syria. It is true that most of the world powers are involved in Syria. But their involvement is limited to air-strikes and training. So the Syrian conflict also is not going to escalate in to a world war.

This is incorrect. Syria is already a world war. The price of oil is low and likely to decline further. Russia is not interested in a stable situation in Syria. This can significantly reduce the volume of sales of Russian hydrocarbons to Europe. So they will do everything so that the world did not come in Syria.

Today in the world very much heated atmosphere and can flash all at any minute. We see interference in the internal affairs of different countries, both Russia and the United States of America, and how this can end can be foreseen. As they say, we ourselves will be guilty of destroying ourselves.

[joebrook]

England Said they will use nuclear weapons to its enemies.
Everyone knows the consequences of a nuclear war.

Vote Now!

This is ridiculous! England is not even a super-power. Their armed forces are not even capable of defeating third world nations such as Nigeria or Pakistan. Even if they are having the nukes, what will they do with them? They don't have any ICBMs.

England seem to forget that without the help of USA, They are completely helpless, they may start the war but i doubt they will have the power and weapons to end it with help, Even the USA needed help in Afghanistan.

[darklus123]

I believe the ww3 will not being allowed to use nukes, that will destroy the world and ruined the entire ecosystem.

Lol are you going to tell the other countries to not use any nukes because it can destroy your county? Seriously? Isnt it obvious that if you are their enemy their main purpose is to destroy your country and your people

[Sithara007]

England seem to forget that without the help of USA, They are completely helpless, they may start the war but i doubt they will have the power and weapons to end it with help, Even the USA needed help in Afghanistan.

Yes.. decades of cost cutting measures have left the British Armed Forces as a toothless organization incapable of waging a war against well equipped armies. Without the USAF, they will find it difficult.

[Okurkabinladin]

England seem to forget that without the help of USA, They are completely helpless, they may start the war but i doubt they will have the power and weapons to end it with help, Even the USA needed help in Afghanistan.

Yes.. decades of cost cutting measures have left the British Armed Forces as a toothless organization incapable of waging a war against well equipped armies. Without the USAF, they will find it difficult.

And who exactly would start war with United Kingdom first? Ze Germans?

Much like North Korea or Unted States, UK has massive deterrent in form of sea and nuclear arsenal. So there are only two options for conflict.

1. Civil war.

2. Starting more wars on foreign soil.

I belive the second option is undesirable  the former doesnt really call for a strong army, since its weapons would end up on both sides of th war. Like in Syria or Yugo.

[matchi2011]

England Said they will use nuclear weapons to its enemies.
Everyone knows the consequences of a nuclear war.

Vote Now!

If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.

[2econd]

Sure there will be nukes!

[Sithara007]

If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.

I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.

[ecnalubma]

World war 3 will also include massive cyber attacks and hacking wars. Some countries are employing army of hackers in preparation for this kind of warfare.

[Proton2233]

If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.

I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.

This is only a theory. The Japanese survived after the nuclear bombings, and Chernobyl disaster. There are many people who never left the area of infection and safely live there still. Animals are also great feeling in there. The effect of radiation is still too poorly understood to speak of the destruction on the planet.

[Netnox]

World war 3 will also include massive cyber attacks and hacking wars. Some countries are employing army of hackers in preparation for this kind of warfare.

If that is the case, then be prepared to live without internet. 

How can a particular country prevent hacking attack by the outsiders? Should they cut the internet connection to the other countries, and restrict the access within that nation? But even this won't be fail proof. There can be foreign spies and hackers residing in that particular nation.

[Okurkabinladin]

Very interesting question regarding the third world war. The fact is that if you look at all the military conflicts that are happening now and then Who is involved in them, clearly one can come to the conclusion that all these wars will not end so quickly yet. If you pay attention to Syria and even to North Korea, you can definitely say which countries will be the culprits of the 3rd World War

North Korea is not going to attack anyone. Their's is just empty talk. Let's focus our attention on Syria. It is true that most of the world powers are involved in Syria. But their involvement is limited to air-strikes and training. So the Syrian conflict also is not going to escalate in to a world war.

This is incorrect. Syria is already a world war. The price of oil is low and likely to decline further. Russia is not interested in a stable situation in Syria. This can significantly reduce the volume of sales of Russian hydrocarbons to Europe. So they will do everything so that the world did not come in Syria.

Sithara is referring to world war as in all encompassing global conflict - in response to the OP  world had not seen such war since 1945. In this matter Syria is just another battleground where powers - both global and regional, settle their differences.

I am glad, that North Korea ended up to be what I guessed in the first place, foreign policy recon.

If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.

I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.

This is only a theory. The Japanese survived after the nuclear bombings, and Chernobyl disaster. There are many people who never left the area of infection and safely live there still. Animals are also great feeling in there. The effect of radiation is still too poorly understood to speak of the destruction on the planet.

It is not theory. Nuclear fallout is well documented. Bombs dropped on Japan were very inefficient by modern standarts, yet both managed to wipe in excess of 70 000 people on impact, killing about as many in fallout and related diseases. That was well before "dirt" bombs were developed.

Majority of fallout diminishes within first six months, but you are forgetting, that its particles stay in objects such as trees, buildings, even ground - in essense making the are infertile. Enough bombs would cause nuclear winter. Small amount would still kill majority of population as infrastructure, agriculture and health care would collapse.

[kevinn669]

If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.

I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.

This is only a theory. The Japanese survived after the nuclear bombings, and Chernobyl disaster. There are many people who never left the area of infection and safely live there still. Animals are also great feeling in there. The effect of radiation is still too poorly understood to speak of the destruction on the planet.

I read an article in which it was said that many animals were restored in Chernobyl, which scientists considered extinct. Not radiation destroys nature, but man.
But I have a hope that there will not be a third world war

[bryant.coleman]

If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.

I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.

This is only a theory. The Japanese survived after the nuclear bombings, and Chernobyl disaster. There are many people who never left the area of infection and safely live there still. Animals are also great feeling in there. The effect of radiation is still too poorly understood to speak of the destruction on the planet.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuild after a few years and hundreds of thousands of people are living there now. It seems like the radiation lasted only a few months, or years. And in Chernobyl, the blast radius was quite small. I really doubt whether it was greater than 100 meters. But the radiation was more spread-out. It even caused a spike in cancer incidence in the Scandinavia.

[PanGiMoon]

If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.

I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.

This is only a theory. The Japanese survived after the nuclear bombings, and Chernobyl disaster. There are many people who never left the area of infection and safely live there still. Animals are also great feeling in there. The effect of radiation is still too poorly understood to speak of the destruction on the planet.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuild after a few years and hundreds of thousands of people are living there now. It seems like the radiation lasted only a few months, or years. And in Chernobyl, the blast radius was quite small. I really doubt whether it was greater than 100 meters. But the radiation was more spread-out. It even caused a spike in cancer incidence in the Scandinavia.

You cited the example of Japanese cities, which at one time covered and nuclear bomb. Can you imagine what if the Japanese at that time had something to do with the Americans? If the answer were the same rockets, what would happen to the world then?

[Lampaster]

If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.

I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water.

This is only a theory. The Japanese survived after the nuclear bombings, and Chernobyl disaster. There are many people who never left the area of infection and safely live there still. Animals are also great feeling in there. The effect of radiation is still too poorly understood to speak of the destruction on the planet.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuild after a few years and hundreds of thousands of people are living there now. It seems like the radiation lasted only a few months, or years. And in Chernobyl, the blast radius was quite small. I really doubt whether it was greater than 100 meters. But the radiation was more spread-out. It even caused a spike in cancer incidence in the Scandinavia.

It is not scientifically proven. The growth of oncological diseases in Scandinavia could be associated with the secret disaster of some nuclear submarine or something. Even in Ukraine there is no data reliably supporting the heavy after effects of radiation. The growth of Oncology was only after the accident due to direct exposure.