When will the USA go to WAR?

[aysha9822]

The only way that can save US from falling from the world stage is another World War. Their will be a world within 10 years.

Another world war could mean the complete disintegration of the United States as a nation. Especially, if China and Russia could form an alliance against it, with support from Iran, DPRK, Venezuela.etc.

But we don't know for sure until it is finished. USA has the most advance weapons, china,russia and the world don't know.

This war would include

USA, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Australia, Italy, Poland and nato countries.

on the opposite

China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, venezuela, pakistan, Syria


Neutral for now. India, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina.

Pick your side.

[1713525805]

1713525805

[1713525805]

1713525805

[1713525805]

1713525805

[Bitcoin Magazine]

tomorrow, i'm killing all J-ws

[bryant.coleman]

But we don't know for sure until it is finished. USA has the most advance weapons, china,russia and the world don't know.

USA might be having the most advanced fighter jets and warships. But Russia is having the best air-defence systems and the most capable ICBMs. And China is having a population of 1.3 billion, which by itself is a weapon.  A Russia-China combo will be able to counter the US.

[aysha9822]

But we don't know for sure until it is finished. USA has the most advance weapons, china,russia and the world don't know.

USA might be having the most advanced fighter jets and warships. But Russia is having the best air-defence systems and the most capable ICBMs. And China is having a population of 1.3 billion, which by itself is a weapon.  A Russia-China combo will be able to counter the US.

Right now population does not have very big impact like the wars before. Unless that population is protected under the bunker and skilled that can help the manufacturing of weapons and equipments. Vaporising a few millions or vaporising a few billions has very little difference today.

[bryant.coleman]

Right now population does not have very big impact like the wars before. Unless that population is protected under the bunker and skilled that can help the manufacturing of weapons and equipments. Vaporising a few millions or vaporising a few billions has very little difference today.

Population has always been an important aspect of the warfare. The ability to withstand the long-term effects of a devastating battle, partially depends upon the population size.

There are many examples in history, the most recent being the withdrawal of IDF from the Gaza Strip. They withdrew, because the Palestinian population was rapidly rising and it was getting increasingly difficult for the IDF to control the area.

[aysha9822]

Right now population does not have very big impact like the wars before. Unless that population is protected under the bunker and skilled that can help the manufacturing of weapons and equipments. Vaporising a few millions or vaporising a few billions has very little difference today.

Population has always been an important aspect of the warfare. The ability to withstand the long-term effects of a devastating battle, partially depends upon the population size.

There are many examples in history, the most recent being the withdrawal of IDF from the Gaza Strip. They withdrew, because the Palestinian population was rapidly rising and it was getting increasingly difficult for the IDF to control the area.

Population is an asset if it is well protected and has resources to feed this population. Once the war starts, sea blockade, dams destroyed, airport, bridges and roads destroyed, water, electricity, food supply, communication are cut, access are block this population is useless and became a liability. This has a very big impact on counties that has most of its population on cities. War like this can start without you knowing it on advance, all you know your city is hit by raining missiles/warheads.

In this total last world war very few rules is followed. No human rights or geneva rules. 1 soldier can shot those hundreds of civilians. Killed or be killed.

[bryant.coleman]

In this total last world war very few rules is followed. No human rights or geneva rules. 1 soldier can shot those hundreds of civilians. Killed or be killed.

There will be no civilians. Machine guns such as AK-47s are very cheap now. We can train everyone to use a gun in less than two days. So China can have half-a-billion soldiers, ready to take on the Americans. 

[aysha9822]

In this total last world war very few rules is followed. No human rights or geneva rules. 1 soldier can shot those hundreds of civilians. Killed or be killed.

There will be no civilians. Machine guns such as AK-47s are very cheap now. We can train everyone to use a gun in less than two days. So China can have half-a-billion soldiers, ready to take on the Americans.  

This half billion soldiers can't go anywhere. They are already incircled, They can't go out china. Who they gonna shot? This guys would be likely die from famine, nuclear fallout and disease. Most of this militia not even see an enemy soldiers only the effects of war. The allied forces would only attack vital areas, vital infrastructure, vital supply lines.

[bitsmichel]

In this total last world war very few rules is followed. No human rights or geneva rules. 1 soldier can shot those hundreds of civilians. Killed or be killed.

There will be no civilians. Machine guns such as AK-47s are very cheap now. We can train everyone to use a gun in less than two days. So China can have half-a-billion soldiers, ready to take on the Americans. 

This half billion soldiers can't go anywhere. This guys would be likely die from famine and disease.

You can kill a lot of people with machine guns, but given enough people some get trough. This is what happend on d-day and afaik there were not a billion people arriving. Even if 50% of that billion soldiers die, you still got a quarter billion.

I think China would have other plans though, they would simply sit by and profit.. and become world market economy for the next decades while the rest of the world spends all money on wars.

[AnimeBoy_007]

I'm not sure when will USA go to war. But, when they do that'll end up killing lots of innocent peoples.

[dailey123]

its all about the money !!!

[Nathonas]

But we don't know for sure until it is finished. USA has the most advance weapons, china,russia and the world don't know.

Haha are you serious? Russia has some of the world's most advanced military technology. I would say it is relatively equal in terms of military technology between Russia and the US. Having said that though, it wouldn't really matter...if there is another World War, it will be nuclear...and its main portion wouldn't last more than a month because half the world will be destroyed by nukes.

[bryant.coleman]

Haha are you serious? Russia has some of the world's most advanced military technology. I would say it is relatively equal in terms of military technology between Russia and the US.

Fighter jets, warships, radars - advantage US.
SAM batteries, ICBMs, Heavy machine guns - advantage Russia.

Also, Russia possess more nukes when compared to the US, but that doesn't matter.

[Cryptopher]

I hate this thread, and while I could choose to ignore it I keep seeing it crop up - I must have replied to it in the past.

It's inevitable that a war will break out in the future, it is instilled within the nature of humans. Of course there are wars breaking out all over the world, just not so much on a global scale.

The number of nuclear warheads in the world is alarming, even if it is just considered as a deterrent. What would it take for a country to actually deploy one?

[bryant.coleman]

The number of nuclear warheads in the world is alarming, even if it is just considered as a deterrent. What would it take for a country to actually deploy one?

Most of the super-powers are having advanced air-defence systems. Even the best Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) will not guarantee you that the nuclear weapon is actually dropped in the enemy territory.

[u9y42]

The number of nuclear warheads in the world is alarming, even if it is just considered as a deterrent. What would it take for a country to actually deploy one?

Most of the super-powers are having advanced air-defence systems. Even the best Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) will not guarantee you that the nuclear weapon is actually dropped in the enemy territory.

That's why you can sneak in using a sub and launch the nukes from off the enemy's coast; the very short flight time will ensure there is little to no defense. This option is limited to only a few countries, though. But in relation to the anti-missile systems, I was under the impression it was mostly for show, with the system having very low hit rates. I guess part of the controversy about the missile shield installed in eastern Europe some time ago was because of this, and I remember a more recent American test that produced the same disappointing results. I suppose this hasn't really changed all that much in the meantime?

[bitmarket.io]

when the defense industry wants to.

[Gimmelfarb]

to be honest, it would seem inevitable. however, just like the market, timing it is nearly impossible. the USA could keep the status quo going for another decade or three i think before things really fall apart. everyone talks like doomsday is tomorrow, but you'd be surprised.

[Cryptopher]

The number of nuclear warheads in the world is alarming, even if it is just considered as a deterrent. What would it take for a country to actually deploy one?

Most of the super-powers are having advanced air-defence systems. Even the best Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) will not guarantee you that the nuclear weapon is actually dropped in the enemy territory.

The fact that they even exist to be launch though is concerning. I get the whole idea that they are a deterrent, like "don't try it on with us, because we can wipe you out etc", but what if one was actually used in this day and age, imagine the implications that it would have.

Aside from the mass devastation that it would cause, inevitably killing many innocent civilians, the economic and political effects would be felt for years, and that's before you consider the actions you might see in response.

[LostDutchman]

tomorrow, i'm killing all J-ws

Well, now, that's not very nice.