Is the World in the Beginning Stages of World War 3? Are you #prepped?

[franky1]

As I have mentioned above, the era of nuclear weaponry negates all of this. Forget the military bases, stay away from the major cities. Doesn't take many nukes to destroy an entire nation. Take away the electrical grid and most military bases fail. The generators can only last for so long.

So it's really a pointless discussion. There is no prepping for WW3. The nukes come out and we're all dead. If the initial blasts don't kill you, the nuclear winter will. And it's over from there.

Prepping for WW3 only prolongs the suffering.

alot of people think a nuke is a continent/planet wide killing weapon.. they would be wrong.. on so many levels.
 
it all involves the yield of the radioactive substance determines how devastating it can be. in many developing countries they dont have much to produce something that can be a genocide level event. usually its only enough to affect a few city blocks or a city and so the enemy has to be choosy of their target.

much like 9-11 the plane could do alot of damage even without being nuclear. but they knew it is not city wide damage. so  they still chose specific targets. the reason they chose the world trade centre was not due to population numbers of citizens. it was about trying to take out the financial trade structure and the military HQ (pentagon)

so you can already see they dont want to target residential area's or normal people cities. they had a specific target of who the enemies enemy was.

so a city with no military or financial centre would not be a target. but a city with a military or financial centre would be a target.

but i do find it funny that you think that a nuke is 100% genocide scenario. where no where is safe and everyone will be dead, no option.

seems science, history and math has not gone too much into your thinking

yes the old advice of "if a nuke is targetting your city, hide under a table". is meaningless. but if your closest city is being targetted but you live 50miles+ away, so evacuate the city and go home. can help

when you realise in the past SEVERAL nuclear events have happened, in war, in tests, and in power plant malfunctions. and yet no continent wide "nuclear winter" caused genocide level death. in many cases it was limited to small area's. the marshal island testing site was so small they actually were able to put a 'concrete dome' over top of part of the island to contain the radiation

countries do not have enough nuclear yield to take out all cities, either as a continent wide genocide level single bomb or as multiple missile in their thousands for 1 per city. so they will choose best targets.

[1714747495]

1714747495

[1714747495]

1714747495

[1714747495]

1714747495

[1714747495]

1714747495

[1714747495]

1714747495

[NotFuzzyWarm]

"WW3 is coming!" has been proclaimed since the early 1950's...
Up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, ja, it was a valid concern but thankfully the various superpowers that own nukes have *mostly* came to their senses after that. They know that there will be no winners if they use even just a fraction of their nuclear arsenals against each other.

Unfortunately, these days a couple terrorist or otherwise loony nation states now have limited nuclear weapons capability as well and frankly do not care about 'winning' nor their survival if they actually use their weapons. If they do it will NOT be WW3 per se but I DO think that if for example, North Korea, used a nuke against ANYONE it would not be only their target country that responds in-kind. I personally feel that EVERY superpower with nuclear weapons - the US, Russia, China, France, etc - would pick a target in the offending piss-ant country and flatten it just to get the point across that actually using nukes as an offensive weapon is a very bad idea.

[Gyfts]

but i do find it funny that you think that a nuke is 100% genocide scenario. where no where is safe and everyone will be dead, no option.

seems science, history and math has not gone too much into your thinking

yes the old advice of "if a nuke is targetting your city, hide under a table". is meaningless. but if your closest city is being targetted but you live 50miles+ away, so evacuate the city and go home. can help

when you realise in the past SEVERAL nuclear events have happened, in war, in tests, and in power plant malfunctions. and yet no continent wide "nuclear winter" caused genocide level death. in many cases it was limited to small area's. the marshal island testing site was so small they actually were able to put a 'concrete dome' over top of part of the island to contain the radiation

countries do not have enough nuclear yield to take out all cities, either as a continent wide genocide level single bomb or as multiple missile in their thousands for 1 per city. so they will choose best targets.

Seems common sense has not gone too much into your thinking either.

Nuclear winters are a real concept and a real consequence to nuclear proliferation. If you'll recall to the Cold War, mutual destruction was the only thing keeping the Americans and Russians from deploying the nukes. You surely don't think either country would just stop at one, correct?

Consider that there is a difference between a nuclear test, and nuclear attack. A nuclear test stops at one deployment. Unfortunately, an attack would not, especially when there are nuclear weapons on both sides of the war.

So yes, very pointless to prep. Good luck trying to survive a nuclear attack.

[hornetsnest]

You should be more concerned about your own guberments and how they are waging war on you right now.

[cmg777]

As I have mentioned above, the era of nuclear weaponry negates all of this. Forget the military bases, stay away from the major cities. Doesn't take many nukes to destroy an entire nation. Take away the electrical grid and most military bases fail. The generators can only last for so long.

So it's really a pointless discussion. There is no prepping for WW3. The nukes come out and we're all dead. If the initial blasts don't kill you, the nuclear winter will. And it's over from there.

Prepping for WW3 only prolongs the suffering.

alot of people think a nuke is a continent/planet wide killing weapon.. they would be wrong.. on so many levels.
 
it all involves the yield of the radioactive substance determines how devastating it can be. in many developing countries they dont have much to produce something that can be a genocide level event. usually its only enough to affect a few city blocks or a city and so the enemy has to be choosy of their target.

much like 9-11 the plane could do alot of damage even without being nuclear. but they knew it is not city wide damage. so  they still chose specific targets. the reason they chose the world trade centre was not due to population numbers of citizens. it was about trying to take out the financial trade structure and the military HQ (pentagon)

so you can already see they dont want to target residential area's or normal people cities. they had a specific target of who the enemies enemy was.

so a city with no military or financial centre would not be a target. but a city with a military or financial centre would be a target.

but i do find it funny that you think that a nuke is 100% genocide scenario. where no where is safe and everyone will be dead, no option.

seems science, history and math has not gone too much into your thinking

yes the old advice of "if a nuke is targetting your city, hide under a table". is meaningless. but if your closest city is being targetted but you live 50miles+ away, so evacuate the city and go home. can help

when you realise in the past SEVERAL nuclear events have happened, in war, in tests, and in power plant malfunctions. and yet no continent wide "nuclear winter" caused genocide level death. in many cases it was limited to small area's. the marshal island testing site was so small they actually were able to put a 'concrete dome' over top of part of the island to contain the radiation

countries do not have enough nuclear yield to take out all cities, either as a continent wide genocide level single bomb or as multiple missile in their thousands for 1 per city. so they will choose best targets.

Why nuke something so it can end up like the northern coast of Africa or some of the other deserts across the world? Wouldn't it behoove the mighty victor whoever it might be to save the environment so they can exploit and use it for themselves as always? I'd say that WW3 will involve biologics, lasers, and geoengineering to kill the masses.

[Tash]

The war is nearing it's 2nd anniversary, many have been shot and died or wounded, many more to die in years to come from the needle attack.

Every war has traitors and sell outs. It is claimed Daniel Andrews is one such creature.
The claim is that Daniel Andrews acted against official Australian govenment foreign policy and for personal gain signed Victoira up to China's Belt and Road initiative. His corrupt secretive China deals will see the light of day. It also becomes clear from where his "virus" policies, orders come from.
So his unpaid leave has become a tax payer funded "tested positive and needs to isolate"

~Two weeks delay before the inevitable

Follow the money...

Another one of the many covid weapon attack implements.
https://recalls-rappels.canada.ca/en/alert-recall/masks-kn95-masks-biomass-graphene-2021-04-08



If anyone dares to look, plenty to be found
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/reminder-ilhan-omars-father-top-propaganda-official-genocidal-barre-regime-changed-name-entered-us-illegally/

[hornetsnest]

The EU will be the first casualty of WW3 if they keep provoking Russia and China. That's a guarantee like money in a swiss bank. WW3 would last 3 weeks at most and would be the most brutal firestorm unleashed on the earth since the big bang that will take out not only Europe and outlying island nations but the mega tsunami from what will be generated by targeting specific geo points in the atlantic will engulf the whole of the US east coast with waves over a kilometre high due to the gradual water shelf along these regions not to mention the targets already fixed in other countries that are not in europe.There will be a good chance of war in Europe but it hopefully will remain contained if it breaks out.


Besides war which may be inevitable you are going to see a major disruption to electricity,water,communications and the food chain first along with part deux of the "virus".

Bets anyone?

[suchmoon]

Bets anyone?

Sure. When is that war happening? I wouldn't want to wait 500 years for you to pay up.

[shogun47]

Bets anyone?

Sure. When is that war happening? I wouldn't want to wait 500 years for you to pay up.

"Are you prepped"? Yes, I have my own laboratories in the garden working on nuclear weapons just for defense reasons. A company is also building bunkers in my backyard right now, will be ready very soon.

Jokes aside, there is indeed some action going on in Europe between Russia and the Ukraine, which is quite intense. More intense than what most people in continental Europe are used to. I guess it is unlikely to escalate, but who knows...

[franky1]

but i do find it funny that you think that a nuke is 100% genocide scenario. where no where is safe and everyone will be dead, no option.

seems science, history and math has not gone too much into your thinking

yes the old advice of "if a nuke is targetting your city, hide under a table". is meaningless. but if your closest city is being targetted but you live 50miles+ away, so evacuate the city and go home. can help

when you realise in the past SEVERAL nuclear events have happened, in war, in tests, and in power plant malfunctions. and yet no continent wide "nuclear winter" caused genocide level death. in many cases it was limited to small area's. the marshal island testing site was so small they actually were able to put a 'concrete dome' over top of part of the island to contain the radiation

countries do not have enough nuclear yield to take out all cities, either as a continent wide genocide level single bomb or as multiple missile in their thousands for 1 per city. so they will choose best targets.

Seems common sense has not gone too much into your thinking either.

Nuclear winters are a real concept and a real consequence to nuclear proliferation. If you'll recall to the Cold War, mutual destruction was the only thing keeping the Americans and Russians from deploying the nukes. You surely don't think either country would just stop at one, correct?

Consider that there is a difference between a nuclear test, and nuclear attack. A nuclear test stops at one deployment. Unfortunately, an attack would not, especially when there are nuclear weapons on both sides of the war.

So yes, very pointless to prep. Good luck trying to survive a nuclear attack.

seems you dont understand things..
you say the "concept".

and then you imagine it being full US territory destruction and entire 320million US population death... as your 'concept'
you first flaw is using the cold war example to explain nuclear winter. it was funny because there was no actual nuclear winter. well more precicely no actual atomic war.. no actual cuban "boom, they all dead", so no nuclear winder fallout after..
so no proof of actual damage caused. to prove YOUR "concept"

the concept of the cold war was project fear. fear of the unknown. not knowing how many nukes or where the nukes would land. it was never about full america genocide. it was about the unknown damage. to unknown targets within US territory

secondly it seems you did not look into my hints about the marshal islands or fukushima or chernobyl

if them multiple nuclear incidents were as you propose guaranteed to be country wide genocide nuclear winters.. then how come the world is not extinct already..
heck the marshal islands(bikini) done 26 nuclear tests.. that compounding amount of radiation would have turned the moon to ice if your theory was true

common sense reveals that the amount of destruction is not continent wide nor genocide level event. and instead more confined to smaller area's
fukushima
hiroshima
marshal islands(bikini)
chernobyl

look them up.
oh spoiler..
japan, china, russia and the pacific/oceania still exist, no genocide nation wide population deaths occured

but hey, if you want to ignore actual evidence of actual atomic damage and instead spend more time making posts of your "fears" of destruction based on historic "fears" of destruction..well. you continue to not understand what the real possibilities are, and thus not be able to 'prep' effectively. so yea just sit where you are and expect to die, not due to any nuclear winter. but just you lack of wanting to live and prepare for eating and drinking daily because you want to remain sat there afraid, waiting for winter

[OgNasty]

Be ready for anything is just good advice. In finance you call it diversification of assets.

I don’t see the beginning of world war 3 at all though. If anything governments have shown that they’re trying to work together on this pandemic situation. Maybe if a couple countries banned together refusing vaccines for their citizens then you’d have some tension…

[franky1]

and on the subject of pandemic.
the lockdowns have proved that imports/exports have caused supply problems, access to goods and services at local retail problems. so instead of living a empty fridge, but daily snack/fast food life style.. atleast try to keep atleast a weeks worth, preferably a months worth of tinned food and groceries in your kitchen cupboards and freezers.

atleast if anything happened, you have supplies to live in your own home if there was any reason why you couldnt get out for a few days

oh and have a full tank of fuel. there are many people that prefer to wait for the E (empty) light to flash and then only put in a couple litres to get them through the day.. try keeping a full tank where you then only need to top up by a few litres a day.. it ends up costing the same daily cost to add the same few litres, but then you have excess for the 'just in case' situations you cant predict.

its just common sense stuff

[hornetsnest]

Bets anyone?

Sure. When is that war happening? I wouldn't want to wait 500 years for you to pay up.

Yeah no prob. My guess if it were to go outside of being regional would be it begins after the Catholic pope meets his Russian counterpart and the last ditch at diplomacy fails but before the end of 2022 if not sooner but only after Putin moves the "peace keepers" into the Donbass region to test the response. Then there may be a half assed incursion into Ukraine with only light infantry but no top cover to clear the path ahead to see if it can be done "peacefully". The reason for my guess is purely tactical due to the divisions among general populations in the EU and the confusion due to the pandemic and societal infighting unless restrictions are lifted to unite the dumb low IQ plebs behind a new cause/crisis. My guess would be during any of the coldest months because then you can leverage the threat of fuel starvation into the equation. The choice for europe would then to be use its reserves to supply citizens or its military unless they keep paying Russia for the gas and oil so that would help Russia counter sanctions and keep the cash coming in. An alliance with China and other key nations would allow quick disruption to the raw materials and other supply chains coming from outside the EU and a complete outflank of its territories once the west fights back with sanctions and attacks the logistics and financial flows of russian commodities etc. Allies outside the bloc would be faced with the decision to engage and be assured of mutual destruction or attempt conventional tactics which would be useless and only escalate it into global thermo nuclear warfare. Ukraine would not be the launch pad for this though and would be only a decoy to get resources away from where the real action would start. Then with mobile and barrage tactics cloaking warheads no defence would be useful so all sides would fight to exhaustion for about 1 day maximum before depletion by which time over 300 million people will be dead and hundreds of millions slowly dying waiting for nuclear winter where natural photosynthesis will stop and only stockpiles of food will be available to the remnant. Some satellite and radio communication will be useful but in a limited capacity. WW3 would mainly affect europe,Canada,US and a few middle eastern states but no nation would escape if it goes nuclear however once it remains regional it can be averted. It will look like it was badly planned in order to look weak and disorganised to give a sense of false confidence to enemy forces but this will all be a trick like a predator pretending to be wounded to draw the prey in while distracting them from the main event .

This is only a guess of course but I will honour that bet if it happens and am still alive for a can of beans and a cripsy 100 trillion dollar zimbabwae note because money will be worthless. I am good for the can of beans though and will send you the 100T zim dollars if I am wrong

[Ebede]

The world needs peace, we shouldn't anticipate for such a war.
This isn't what the world wants at the moment.
Too bad human beings, interprete things wrongly.

[suchmoon]

This is only a guess from a random internet troll of course but I will honour that bet if it happens and am still alive for a can of beans and a cripsy 100 trillion dollar zimbabwae note because money will be worthless. I am good for the can of beans though and will send you the 100T zim dollars if I am wrong

Sad backpedaling.

If you change your mind and want to do an actual bet, 1 BTC says that you're wrong about WW3 breaking out before the end of 2022. Should be easy money for you, and unlike dollars it will likely be worth many cans of beans.

[hornetsnest]

Sad backpedaling.

If you change your mind and want to do an actual bet, 1 BTC says that you're wrong about WW3 breaking out before the end of 2022. Should be easy money for you, and unlike dollars it will likely be worth many cans of beans.

ROFL youre a real baller eh? Your 1 BTC would be no good to me when it comes time for you to pay out and even if you were able to so it would be a ridiculous bet to take because if I win you can't pay but if I lose you have no reason to not get paid. 1 BTC wouldn't even get the bombardier ( I don't own one) far enough south if it all kicks off so do yourself a favour, head to vegas and spend it on the slots now before its too late or even better give it to charity. Appreciate the offer though. At least I know people read my posts now

[suchmoon]

ROFL youre a real baller eh? Your 1 BTC would be no good to me when it comes time for you to pay out and even if you were able to so it would be a ridiculous bet to take because if I win you can't pay but if I lose you have no reason to not get paid. 1 BTC wouldn't even get the bombardier ( I don't own one) far enough south if it all kicks off so do yourself a favour, head to vegas and spend it on the slots now before its too late or even better give it to charity. Appreciate the offer though. At least I know people read my posts now

You're the one who asked about bets and this is Bitcoin forum and I'm offering you a solid Bitcoin bet.

Not that ever doubted that you're completely full of shit just like all these WW3 nutcases, but now there's proof.

[cabron]

The US provoking Russia and China all the time, they'd really find a way to make this WW3 strike. And then Russia and China also see the US as weak due to them leaving Afghanistan and Biden not being a very sharp president, they are going to challenge. Challenging the sanctions imposed by the US on Russia. 

China is also about to make deals in the Middle East countries thru their belt and road initiative. There was a rumor that the deal they have with Iran includes a Chinese military base.

[yhiaali3]

At the outset, I would like to say: How sad are the figures you mentioned for military spending on weapons in the world, if these huge sums were spent on the poor in the world, we would be able to feed millions of hungry people around the world!!!
In any case, if the Third World War occurs, which is unlikely to happen in the coming years, but if it occurs, massive destruction will occur on the planet and it is possible that the Internet will be disrupted in most countries of the world, so the best solution will probably be to use the satellite Internet, but it will not be This is available to everyone around the world because many countries do not have the necessary technologies and the situation of the Bitcoin network will become very difficult due to the loss of many network nodes that were maintaining the strength of the network and decentralization, and the completion of transactions will become very slow and very difficult and fees are very high.

[Sayeds56]

ROFL youre a real baller eh? Your 1 BTC would be no good to me when it comes time for you to pay out and even if you were able to so it would be a ridiculous bet to take because if I win you can't pay but if I lose you have no reason to not get paid. 1 BTC wouldn't even get the bombardier ( I don't own one) far enough south if it all kicks off so do yourself a favour, head to vegas and spend it on the slots now before its too late or even better give it to charity. Appreciate the offer though. At least I know people read my posts now

You're the one who asked about bets and this is Bitcoin forum and I'm offering you a solid Bitcoin bet.

Not that ever doubted that you're completely full of shit just like all these WW3 nutcases, but now there's proof.

Certainly even thinking of WW3 when many counties own piles of Nukes is a madness. There will be no winners and no survivors if such kind of war breaks out. The huge sums of money countries spend to buy and develop weaponry if half of that is spent to fight poverty and save  environment  in the world this world will be more peaceful and a better place to live.