If America were to enter a ww3 situation. What plan would you propose?

[/backslash/]

With Russia and America's relationships these days, it seems most likely that they would be the two big players. The question is, who would ally with Russia and who with America?

What assets/relationship does either side have that would be an advantage?

[DimaMazin]

With Russia and America's relationships these days, it seems most likely that they would be the two big players. The question is, who would ally with Russia and who with America?

What assets/relationship does either side have that would be an advantage?

Now parameters of development are more important than advantage, even as a psychological factor,but important development should be a secret.

[Airbrush]

The "3rd World War" probably officially began on 9-11-2001 with the spectacular Al Qaeda attack.

 

The 3rd WW is a war between the ISIS style of extremist groups and ALL the world powers. Russia, China, Europe, and all the other world powers are officially at war with Islamic extremism. The jihadis may soon afford a nuke, purchased from Pakistan or Russia, and they will promptly set it off in a spectacular fashion in a major Western capital.

 

Then how do we bomb their capitaI since they are not centralized? We need a few hundred Agent 007s Sunni spies to dress up as rag heads and join jihad.

 

I don't know of any Christian, Buddhist or Hindu extremists groups waging war on the Western World.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Airbrush

[DimaMazin]

 

I don't know of any Christian, Buddhist or Hindu extremists groups waging war on the Western World.

I don't agree. And you assume that a nuke from Russia will explode in a major Western capital.

[Airbrush]

I don't agree. And you assume that a nuke from Russia will explode in a major Western capital.

 

Please tell us about the Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu extremists who are violently at war with Western Culture.

 

I am supposing that a nuke will go off in a major city someday, SURPRISE!!. Where did it come from? It came from any country, or wealthy organization, that can manufacture or purchase them. Russia and Pakistan are both unstable situations for safekeeping of nuclear weapons and materials.

[CharonY]

What do you define as Western culture and why do you think that extremism is target at that instead of, say, geopolitical actions?

[Phi for All]

We need a few hundred Agent 007s Sunni spies to dress up as rag heads and join jihad.

 

!

Moderator Note

Unacceptable violation of Rule 2.1,

• Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited.

Keep your bigotry out of this thread. If you disagree with this, report it but don't respond to it here.

[DimaMazin]

 

Please tell us about the Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu extremists who are violently at war with Western Culture.

 

I am supposing that a nuke will go off in a major city someday, SURPRISE!!. Where did it come from? It came from any country, or wealthy organization, that can manufacture or purchase them. Russia and Pakistan are both unstable situations for safekeeping of nuclear weapons and materials.

Hitler was a Christian. Putin is a Christian now.

Russian government supervises the nuclear weapon and mass media.

[CaptainPanic]

Please tell us about the Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu extremists who are violently at war with Western Culture.

 

I disagree with that sentence completely, because its tone suggests you already think you know the answer. (Hint: you don't).

 

I disagree with the first part, because Christians have fought violent religious wars too (Northern Ireland is a famous example), and Christians are also capable of atrocities - the latest example that I can think of was the Rwandan genocide, which wasn't a religious conflict (it was ethnic), but which took place in a Christian part of the world.

 

But it is the 2nd part of the sentence that I disagree with the most: IS is mostly at war with other countries in the Middle East, fighting fellow Muslims in a violent war. The Western countries have chosen sides, and that is why we are engaged in this conflict. Contrary to what propaganda such as FOX News try to say, Western nations are not the #1 target for IS. So, I disagree that IS is at war with Western culture. They are at war with everything and everyone who are different, including the Middle Eastern culture, and probably all other cultures of the world too.

[Strange]

Excellent post, Captain.

 

 

the Rwandan genocide, which wasn't a religious conflict (it was ethnic), but which took place in a Christian part of the world.

 

There is a statistic going around about the number of Christians who are killed each year "because of their faith". This number is massively inflated (by a factor of 10, approximately, I think) by this one event. Which also highlights the other problem with the statistic: they were not killed "because they were Christian" but because of their ethnicity (well, that was the proximate cause, the true causes are deeper and more complex, of course).

[too-open-minded]

I'm pretty sure if a Country or even extremist group is stupid enough to launch an intercontinental ballistics missile at us, we would be okay. They however, wouldn't.

 

The U.S military receives more funding per year than the rest of the worlds militaries combined. With Nuclear missile defense and our spy satellites. I think we can use our defenses to keep the warfare conventional, dismantle their communications, and bring them to a yield.

 

ISIS needs to be taken care of though in my opinion, but that's a whole nother story.

[TJ McCaustland]

First of all, mass produce ABMs, they will save our donkeys, then ramp up deuterium oxide, and lithium 6 and 7, high yield explosive, and fissile material production, then throw it all together to make nuclear salad, and launch em at all countries not bowing to our superiority.

in weaponry anyway (Not to be overly nationalist or racist.)

well not racist at all.

Note to anybody concerned, I did not explain how to make the nukes of course

[Airbrush]

Excellent post, Captain.

 

 

There is a statistic going around about the number of Christians who are killed each year "because of their faith". This number is massively inflated (by a factor of 10, approximately, I think) by this one event. Which also highlights the other problem with the statistic: they were not killed "because they were Christian" but because of their ethnicity (well, that was the proximate cause, the true causes are deeper and more complex, of course).

 

Exactly, the Rwanda genocide is irrelevant to this discussion. It was not a religious conflict. Northern Ireland has been quiet for a long time it seems.

 

CP: "I disagree with the first part, because Christians have fought violent religious wars too (Northern Ireland is a famous example), and Christians are also capable of atrocities - the latest example that I can think of was the Rwandan genocide, which wasn't a religious conflict (it was ethnic), but which took place in a Christian part of the world."

 

So your paragraph above is invalid. What's the point of mentioning it? I'm talking about the world TODAY which is a Sunni issue to resolve.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Airbrush

[Strange]

Do you need a hand moving those goalposts?

[Airbrush]

I'm talking about the world TODAY which is a Sunni issue to resolve.

 

What I meant to say is that...... today we have a "mini-WW3" and this is an issue for SUNNIS to resolve.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Airbrush

[Dekan]

Will there be a big nuclear war soon?

 

We seem long overdue for it. Just consider how long nuclear weapons have been available. They were invented so long ago as 1945. In that year, they were used only twice, on two Japanese cities. The results were moderately impressive. Though not much better than a thousand-bomber air-raid by B-29's. That's because the first A-bombs were puny low-yield fission devices, which gave a yield of only 12 - 22 KT

 

Since then, we've developed much more powerful fusion weapons. Which are very thrilling in their effects. They can burn down entire metropolitan areas. Whole cities taken out - with just one big warhead, or several MIRVS, distributed to maximise blast and heat effects. It's absolutely fascinating.

 

But the thing is - when will we actually put these marvellous weapons to use, in a proper World War III. With every continent engaged. Hundreds of cities turned into blackened glassy craters. Entire countries wiped off the map. Seas boiling from the multiple underwater detonations of SS-18 MIRVS, throwing up lethal spray in the form of radioactive rain. So dramatic - so appealing to human nature!

 

Nuclear weapons can give us all this. So surely it can't be long before we start using the weapons. The pause in their use since 1945, is starting to get unnaturally long. And increasingly strained .I reckon that the first (post WWII) use of nuclear weapons will occur fairly soon. It feels like the time is approaching, don't you think?

Edited October 15, 2014 by Dekan

[Airbrush]

I hate to agree with you, but I do.

 

A major city will be destroyed by a nuke in the downtown area. Nobody will know where it came from because it will be a terrorist group. How do you retaliate against an unknown attacker? They have no cities for us to destroy. They are everywhere, in our own cities. Eventually we may figure out who did that bombing. Maybe a few of them will be captured, convicted, and executed. This is asymetric warfare. A city is not equal to a few yahoos with a nuke, unless they succeed, just once, after untold numbers of attempts.