World War III

[kuusj98]

Lel, Mr. Putin thinks he can handle every-fucking-situation he can imagine would happen.
Fact is, is that Russia is very big, and has very much material left from USSR era, we have not that much material, but we have much more modern stuff tho.

I don't know.

[pajrinn]

I hope this news is hoax   
world peace 
like katrina africa indonesia, and now palestine they need us 

[u9y42]

Well, it only needs to happen once...

But yes, this seems more like saber rattling, than anything else - it's always useful to have a scary "enemy" you can point to, after all.

I would argue that nuclear weapons/bombs have actually decreased instances of war. With nuclear bombs, countries are not going to want to go to war with other countries that have nuclear weapons as they are afraid that that the nukes would be used on them.

See how that since WW2 no two countries that both have nuclear weapons have gone to war with each other.

That might be how it turned out, but I'd say that not only are we not out of the woods yet, but also that there were several times in which it was sheer luck a nuclear war didn't start - the Cuban missile crisis comes to mind.

But there is something else you have to consider: even if not directly, these nations didn't stop fighting amongst themselves - they instead turned to proxy wars and other indirect means (though arguably no less significant for those caught up in them).

[Fray]

Well, it only needs to happen once...

But yes, this seems more like saber rattling, than anything else - it's always useful to have a scary "enemy" you can point to, after all.

I would argue that nuclear weapons/bombs have actually decreased instances of war. With nuclear bombs, countries are not going to want to go to war with other countries that have nuclear weapons as they are afraid that that the nukes would be used on them.

See how that since WW2 no two countries that both have nuclear weapons have gone to war with each other.

That might be how it turned out, but I'd say that not only are we not out of the woods yet, but also that there were several times in which it was sheer luck a nuclear war didn't start - the Cuban missile crisis comes to mind.

But there is something else you have to consider: even if not directly, these nations didn't stop fighting amongst themselves - they instead turned to proxy wars and other indirect means (though arguably no less significant for those caught up in them).

You are correct to say that we have had several close calls of nuclear war breaking out, however I doubt that either country likely has the balls to be the first to attack the other because of the probably consequences. I think most countries would be willing to get all the way to the brink of war, but would likely not want to cross the threshold of attacking another country with nukes.

Proxy wars are generally not as damaging to society and the world as a whole when compared to larger conflicts. Fighting is generally much more localized and done in places that are much less developed. 

[BigBoozie]

Putin just said, that there will go 10 trillions rubles into russian army industry, he wants to have best guns on planet, he said, that technology they want  to have for new generation of russian guns, will be unmatched and they gonn ause only the most modern stuff there is.

I dont think that he wants war, he always tries to do things withou brute force (no matter how western media demonize him), but it is clear, that he wants to be invincible.

he is strongly against NWO, he even say it often, that there are people - he called them global elites, that want to have unipolar world, with one government, and he thinks, that it is not right. he always says, that there have to be two parties, to control themselves.

he is something like super hero for conspiracy theorists 

[humble77]

Hope no Word war 3... Actually I don't care but I'm up for peace

[blumangroup]

The only chance of World War III would have to be around the middle east conflicts. I doubt this incident will rise, it'll be nothing in a month or two.

[ajareselde]

The only chance of World War III would have to be around the middle east conflicts. I doubt this incident will rise, it'll be nothing in a month or two.

I agree, and highly doubt that theres a chance for a WW3 in the near future.
Most of the great forces are fighting remote wars, fighting not directly, but rather using other countrys as puppets.

It would be futile to start a direct war between any of the bigger forces, since they would eliminate each other in no time.

[u9y42]

That might be how it turned out, but I'd say that not only are we not out of the woods yet, but also that there were several times in which it was sheer luck a nuclear war didn't start - the Cuban missile crisis comes to mind.

But there is something else you have to consider: even if not directly, these nations didn't stop fighting amongst themselves - they instead turned to proxy wars and other indirect means (though arguably no less significant for those caught up in them).

You are correct to say that we have had several close calls of nuclear war breaking out, however I doubt that either country likely has the balls to be the first to attack the other because of the probably consequences. I think most countries would be willing to get all the way to the brink of war, but would likely not want to cross the threshold of attacking another country with nukes.

Proxy wars are generally not as damaging to society and the world as a whole when compared to larger conflicts. Fighting is generally much more localized and done in places that are much less developed. 

Sure, I don't believe anyone is crazy enough to push for a major nuclear war either, as I said above - but that doesn't change the fact that those close calls we've had in the past can still easily occur in the future; and we might not be so lucky next time.

As for proxy wars, coups, support of dictators, and whatever other means are used, they certainly aren't as immediately destructive as a major conflict would be, especially for those of us in a first world country that won't go through any of it. For anyone living through, sometimes, decades upon decades of these sorts of things however, I'm not sure they would necessarily care about the difference - dying at the hands of the local friendly dictator or with a bomb dropped on them by another nation, might not make much of a difference. Further, dismissing them as less developed and so not as important for society as a whole, ignores what part they could take, had they been given the chance. Finally, I see that line of reasoning as a sort of fallacy, in that it says that it's better for these types of policies to be followed, than a major conflict to occur - well, that ignores the obvious question: what is the reason for these conflicts to occur in the first place?

[cinder]

The only chance of World War III would have to be around the middle east conflicts. I doubt this incident will rise, it'll be nothing in a month or two.

I agree, and highly doubt that theres a chance for a WW3 in the near future.
Most of the great forces are fighting remote wars, fighting not directly, but rather using other countrys as puppets.

It would be futile to start a direct war between any of the bigger forces, since they would eliminate each other in no time.

Exactly.

US is trying to bluff Russia using Georgia and Ukraine as a front men. Russia called the bluff and attack them without suffering any consequences from US retaliation.

The rest of Russia neighbors should know by now not to be depended on US and should be go on friendly term with Russia for their own survivor.

[egghead123]

If there is a world war 3 at least there will be no world war 4 because there will be nobody left to fight each other except a few cockroaches maybe.

[MakeBelieve]

If there is a world war 3 at least there will be no world war 4 because there will be nobody left to fight each other except a few cockroaches maybe.

What makes you think that? I don't understand the logic behind your post.

[fdiini]

If there is a world war 3 at least there will be no world war 4 because there will be nobody left to fight each other except a few cockroaches maybe.

What makes you think that? I don't understand the logic behind your post.

WW3 will be fought using economic warfare. Only the smaller nations will get hit the way Ukraine did.

[MakeBelieve]

If there is a world war 3 at least there will be no world war 4 because there will be nobody left to fight each other except a few cockroaches maybe.

What makes you think that? I don't understand the logic behind your post.

WW3 will be fought using economic warfare. Only the smaller nations will get hit the way Ukraine did.

So that's going to wipe the human existence is it? He was talking about there will never be one because there will be no one left well in fact even if it's economics we are talking about a lot of people benefit from world war in the long run look at germany they are now a super power and US & other countries are stil recovering years after.

[arbitrage001]

If there is a world war 3 at least there will be no world war 4 because there will be nobody left to fight each other except a few cockroaches maybe.

What makes you think that? I don't understand the logic behind your post.

WW3 will be fought using economic warfare. Only the smaller nations will get hit the way Ukraine did.

So that's going to wipe the human existence is it? He was talking about there will never be one because there will be no one left well in fact even if it's economics we are talking about a lot of people benefit from world war in the long run look at germany they are now a super power and US & other countries are stil recovering years after.

More likely certain nations will starve of food, water or energy. There will be civil war inside the country where bigger nation won't even need to lift a finger.

[Pagan]

Putin confidant: "There will be war in Europe"



(DE) Putin-Vertrauter: „Es wird Krieg in Europa geben“  http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2014/07/29/putin-vertrauer-es-wird-krieg-in-europa-geben/

[pajrinn]

Hope no Word war 3... Actually I don't care but I'm up for peace

I'm Aggree with you bro
But this about the world :v

[ajareselde]

I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth — rocks! - Einstein

This pretty much sums it up. Thats why i agree that the war fought will be only economic like previously stated, actualy it has allready begon with sanctions
that are coming from all sides.

[Daniel91]

I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth — rocks! - Einstein

This pretty much sums it up. Thats why i agree that the war fought will be only economic like previously stated, actualy it has allready begon with sanctions
that are coming from all sides.

Yes this is true and because of this ''Cold war'' between USA and USSR never become ''Hot war''.
In this recent conflict between Russia and USA, we will also not see real, hot war betwen nATO and Russia but ''Cold war'', mostly through economic sanctions.

[zedicus]

That might be how it turned out, but I'd say that not only are we not out of the woods yet, but also that there were several times in which it was sheer luck a nuclear war didn't start - the Cuban missile crisis comes to mind.

But there is something else you have to consider: even if not directly, these nations didn't stop fighting amongst themselves - they instead turned to proxy wars and other indirect means (though arguably no less significant for those caught up in them).

You are correct to say that we have had several close calls of nuclear war breaking out, however I doubt that either country likely has the balls to be the first to attack the other because of the probably consequences. I think most countries would be willing to get all the way to the brink of war, but would likely not want to cross the threshold of attacking another country with nukes.

Proxy wars are generally not as damaging to society and the world as a whole when compared to larger conflicts. Fighting is generally much more localized and done in places that are much less developed. 

Sure, I don't believe anyone is crazy enough to push for a major nuclear war either, as I said above - but that doesn't change the fact that those close calls we've had in the past can still easily occur in the future; and we might not be so lucky next time.

As for proxy wars, coups, support of dictators, and whatever other means are used, they certainly aren't as immediately destructive as a major conflict would be, especially for those of us in a first world country that won't go through any of it. For anyone living through, sometimes, decades upon decades of these sorts of things however, I'm not sure they would necessarily care about the difference - dying at the hands of the local friendly dictator or with a bomb dropped on them by another nation, might not make much of a difference. Further, dismissing them as less developed and so not as important for society as a whole, ignores what part they could take, had they been given the chance. Finally, I see that line of reasoning as a sort of fallacy, in that it says that it's better for these types of policies to be followed, than a major conflict to occur - well, that ignores the obvious question: what is the reason for these conflicts to occur in the first place?

Proxy wars are no where near as destructive as "real" wars are as they generally take place in one smaller country as opposed to potentially the entire world.

The reason we have had many close calls and not actual outbreaks of war is because countries are afraid to "pull the trigger" against other countries that have nuclear weapons.