Are we heading for WW3?

[SH247]

Thought I'd be the first to post about this as I'm fortunate enough to be awake at this time

With all the news of the US and allies (UK included) bombing Syria in retaliation for the chemical attacks (logical I know), I can't help but wonder if we are all hanging on the cliff edge of an imminent nuclear bomb from Putin n' pals. Shall we all just quit what we're doing and chill out for our final days? Shall we all migrate to Australia in a hurry? Or are we all going to be absolutely fine and dandy.....

It's hard not to hate and despise the people in charge of running things but you can't spend your days stressing about things you can't control ay' ....

I can't post links but I'm sure there will be countless to come over the next few days.

 

[Deleted member 226268]

The start of World War 3

.........Still, at least we will not have to listen to all that mindless Brexit BS anymore.....

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/syria-air-strikes-live-updates-12360853


.

 

[The Byre]

.........Still, at least we will not have to listen to all that mindless Brexit BS anymore.....
.

We should be so lucky!

 

[SH247]

It's happening Gents... I'm waiting to hear from the next Steve jobs soon, hopefully he will reassure me that life is more simple and yet more complex than my brain can comprehend... that up=down and left=right but only because I was looking from a different perspective...

Anyway, all of this news reminds me of events that have played out through the previous two world wars and I can't help but question... are we on a collision course with doom?!

 

[Mark T Jones]

Having lived through the Cold War and exactly this question being repeatedly asked in the 70s, I’m fairly sure we’re not

Lots of willy waving. ‘My weapons bigger than yours ‘ and uneasy peace will be restored.

 

[Mr D]

Based on the fact we have had
The War to End all Wars otherwise known as The Great War.

Followed several years later (depending on your country) by world war 2 the sequel.

Plus tons of wars in history some of which were started for odd reasons (such as over who held keys to a door in Bethlehem). Or who had invaded who recently.

Came close to WW3 in 1980s. An exercise known as Able Archer in 1983.

So going from the last few hundred years then yes we are heading to WW3. Whether in a few weeks or a few centuries is more open to question.

 

[Mr D]

Having lived through the Cold War and exactly this question being repeatedly asked in the 70s, I’m fairly sure we’re not

Lots of willy waving. ‘My weapons bigger than yours ‘ and uneasy peace will be restored.

You are saying that only because for the past 70 odd years that has happened. Humans do not seek to repeat the past all the time.
I'd expect WW3 to be over major resources or who tweeted what, not over who used what weapon to try taking out a father & daughter or involvement in a civil war.

 

[Mark T Jones]

You are saying that only because for the past 70 odd years that has happened. Humans do not seek to repeat the past all the time.
I'd expect WW3 to be over major resources or who tweeted what, not over who used what weapon to try taking out a father & daughter or involvement in a civil war.

I think my point was more about the nuclear aspect than a good old punch up, which is really what the Cold War is all about.

Actually, as a child it was a thriller novel that taught me about this (the tightrope men, by Desmond Bagley, if you’re interested). Pushing that button is a far, far bigger deal than firing the first shot, and all sides know that there will be no winners

 

[Mr D]

Just so long as all sides know there will be no winners. So far North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan appear less sure about that.
And we know both the US and Russia have come close in the past to firing missiles. Turkey / Cuba missile crisis. The exercise I mentioned above. Good old fashioned Tom Clancy novel stuff.
We've blundered into an unthinkable war before. WW1.
Which helped set the stage for its sequel in one area of the world while foreign policy set its sequel in another.

 

[sirearl]

It only takes one lunatic,and we got plenty of them.

Not sure if I will be eating out tonight or cooking in doors.

 

[SH247]

"A Prime Minister without a majority has just bypassed parliamentary democracy and defied public opinion to join the most unpopular US President in history in attacking another country without even presenting the evidence.

This isn't just an attack on Syria, it's an attack on our democracy".

Theresa makes me heave. Wretch.

 

[Mr D]

"A Prime Minister without a majority has just bypassed parliamentary democracy and defied public opinion to join the most unpopular US President in history in attacking another country without even presenting the evidence.

This isn't just an attack on Syria, it's an attack on our democracy".

Theresa makes me heave. Wretch.

So start whatever legal action you take against both the PM and the military.
Unless what she has done isn't illegal?

Not sure about defying public opinion, has there been multiple polls done regarding chemical weapon attacks in Syria? And do we give the public the decision making ability on military responses these days? I do not recall being asked about previous wars and bombings.

 

[sirearl]

I suspect there was no chemical attack in Syria ,looking at the video of the children being treated in hospital it would seem more consistent with smoke inhalation from the fire they were involved in.

The sheep following the wolves yet again.

 

[Mr D]

I don't recall seeing anything in news reports about what chemical was used. If indeed chemicals were used in the attack rather than stored on site and hit (same difference in the area).
Some chemicals will require autopsy with tests done on the blood to determine cause of death, not obvious by looking.
Mustard gas, as used in WW1, would be pretty obvious to most people as a chemical when seeing someone affected.

 

[SH247]

The sheep following the wolves yet again.

This.

Anything for an excuse to attack... and if they tell us it was Russia that administered the nerve agent in UK, it must have been Russia.

Can't help but question also, when we have powerful Political Leaders like Donald Trump, do these people we see every day on our TV screens actually have any power or are they just puppets...

So start whatever legal action you take against both the PM and the military.

I think we all know how far this would get me...

 

[Mr D]

I think we all know how far this would get me...

If you see a problem and refuse to do something about it then don't expect others to do it for you.
Including those who do not see the problem the same as you.
Roll on the 2022 general election eh?

 

[SH247]

If you see a problem and refuse to do something about it then don't expect others to do it for you.
Including those who do not see the problem the same as you.
Roll on the 2022 general election eh?

You have a good point, but when you see the amount of people that are or have been trying to make a change. Those with far more power, following and funding than I have, failing... I think i'll just opt for enjoying the small things in life that we have left to enjoy, and ignore as much of the bullsh*** as physically possible. That's not to say I agree with it, but I'd rather not waste my years stressing and burning myself out over things I can't change...

 

[SteveHa]

What concerns me most is the use of language. "Alleged chemical attack", "Russia highly likely to be responsible, Probably the Syrian government".

In my humble and, possibly, naive opinion, we should not be dropping bombs on anyone, or alienating powerful states on the basis of speculation.

 

[Mr D]

What concerns me most is the use of language. "Alleged chemical attack", "Russia highly likely to be responsible, Probably the Syrian government".

In my humble and, possibly, naive opinion, we should not be dropping bombs on anyone, or alienating powerful states on the basis of speculation.

Language is often used that is confusing. Writers can load a story with emotive language to gain a reaction - did it work on you? Can reach multiple groups with the same writing and get multiple different responses, though takes some skill to also have a good story at the same time.
If an image or two without truthful context can be shown too then the reaction can be enhanced.

 

[SteveHa]

Whether it worked on me depends on the intention. If intent was to justify, then it most certainly didn't work on me.

When reading a news article (especially on the BBC) I tend to take the meaning of the words used to be in accordance with their common use. My highlighted phrases all suggest speculation, and none suggest an absolute fact.

 

[Mr D]

Whether it worked on me depends on the intention. If intent was to justify, then it most certainly didn't work on me.

When reading a news article (especially on the BBC) I tend to take the meaning of the words used to be in accordance with their common use. My highlighted phrases all suggest speculation, and none suggest an absolute fact.

Someone covering their bottom, someone presenting Russia & Syria as the bad guys, someone looking to backtrack if the facts change later and they can claim they never accused those countries. That's what I get at a glance from the words you quoted.
BBC have some good writers. Not always good on the facts but good at presenting in language to get reaction.
Any good propaganda department or agit-prop group would love them.

Reality, as I'm sure we both know, may be something else. The first casualty in war is the truth.

 

[SteveHa]

The first casualty in war is the truth.

And in Politics.

 

[sirearl]

I suspect vested interests trump all.

 

[Mr D]

And in Politics.

Politics also relies on perceptions. A rabid Labour supporter does not care about what the Conservatives have done right if his perception of the action taken is that it is wrong. Because the Conservatives did it.
Merely an example, replace any party with any other party. Even use Judean Peoples Front and the Judean Popular Front instead if you want.

 

[The next Steve Jobs]

Right wing leaders love a war

Right wing leaders love to hate and finger wag



They do these thing for 2 reasons

Ego inflation and to 'distract' onlookers from their own misdeeds



While it's true that many nations are governed by iffy rulers it's also true that if half the money spent on arms was spent on effective diplomacy and effective aid there would be little need for war ... but war = easy profit for arms manufacturers and the business and political leaders who pave the way for hot and cold wars.

The world is ruled by force of arms
Those arms are paid for by the working and middle classes of the world


You are living on a planet without an asteroid defence
Our nukes are aimed at each other ... space rocks will take the win

Go figure !!!!!!!!


Yesterday I picked up a copy of the film Threads (TTL docudrama on nuclear war)
Harrowing and enlightening in equal measure

 

[The next Steve Jobs]

WHAT amazes me the most is how so many 'nobodies' fall over themselves to vote for a right wing 'somebody' who wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire

The little hater voting for the big hater I guess?

 

[MikeJ]

I think in the case of Trump, it's not him doing the pissing.

Allegedly.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Its interesting that the Soviet Union found no or little benefit in forcing itself on its nearest countries it had taken over, a massive bill for troops to keep the locals down and massive inter structure to govern them, Hence the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the new Russia

Nobody has one anything from wars in the last 70 years except hardship for its own population, there have been no winners. Israel and Palestine are perfect examples of this still fighting each other for 70 years since we intervened

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I think mutually assured destruction (MAD) plays a vital role in global peace, as horrendous as nuclear weapons are.

The human race has fought thousands of wars across history. It's clear we can't help ourselves. However, pretty much every war is fought on the basis of an aggressor being able to claim victory.

Now that's all changed. It's a simple fact that on the ladder of military escalation between superpowers, the end point is the annihilation of all parties involved. With the nuclear deterrents and defence pacts involved on the global stage, it's now impossible to destroy an enemy without destroying yourself.

People talk of how close humanity has come to all-out nuclear war (particularly during the Cold War era), but in reality, it was always a very, very unlikely event for that reason.

Take the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was a very serious situation, but both Kennedy and Khrushchev knew that any escalation would become a suicide mission. If one of them threw a grenade over the pond, they may as well pull the pin on another one and sit on it.

Many rogue states, despite their difficulties, still have a lot to live for. People keep living, the economy keeps turning and leaders continue to enjoy their powers. To escalate a conflict too far is to sacrifice all of that - including the lives of millions of their own people - in a matter of hours. There's no getting around it.

It's an uneasy, uncomfortable peace between major powers, but one that is here to stay. Sides will test each other and rattle their sabres as usual, but they will all stay within their lanes.

In truth, if nuclear weapons didn't exist, I think WW3 would have already happened decades ago.

 

[Mr D]

Its interesting that the Soviet Union found no or little benefit in forcing itself on its nearest countries it had taken over, a massive bill for troops to keep the locals down and massive inter structure to govern them, Hence the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the new Russia

Nobody has one anything from wars in the last 70 years except hardship for its own population, there have been no winners. Israel and Palestine are perfect examples of this still fighting each other for 70 years since we intervened

Won anything?
(cough) Jerusalem (cough)
(cough) Golan Heights (cough)

Sorry, bad chest.

Here's a few wars.
Any of them won anyone anything?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945–89

 

[Mr D]

I think mutually assured destruction (MAD) plays a vital role in global peace, as horrendous as nuclear weapons are.

The human race has fought thousands of wars across history. It's clear we can't help ourselves. However, pretty much every war is fought on the basis of an aggressor being able to claim victory.

Now that's all changed. It's a simple fact that on the ladder of military escalation between superpowers, the end point is the annihilation of all parties involved. With the nuclear deterrents and defence pacts involved on the global stage, it's now impossible to destroy an enemy without destroying yourself.

People talk of how close humanity has come to all-out nuclear war (particularly during the Cold War era), but in reality, it was always a very, very unlikely event for that reason.

Take the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was a very serious situation, but both Kennedy and Khrushchev knew that any escalation would become a suicide mission. If one of them threw a grenade over the pond, they may as well pull the pin on another one and sit on it.

Many rogue states, despite their difficulties, still have a lot to live for. People keep living, the economy keeps turning and leaders continue to enjoy their powers. To escalate a conflict too far is to sacrifice all of that - including the lives of millions of their own people - in a matter of hours. There's no getting around it.

It's an uneasy, uncomfortable peace between major powers, but one that is here to stay. Sides will test each other and rattle their sabres as usual, but they will all stay within their lanes.

In truth, if nuclear weapons didn't exist, I think WW3 would have already happened decades ago.

MAD was only followed directly for a short time, then governments started figuring out ways to survive and keep some population alive. Which destabilises the concept of MAD.

Limited nuclear war is a concept that does not mesh with MAD at all.
Add in poor command & control - including officers taught to refuse an order if they believe it to be wrong.

There's an idiot who wants to keep in power in North Korea, knowing there is no way the foreigners can invade while he has nukes. To give up the nukes would take considerable payment, including most likely a guarantee to never seek regime change or invade.

There's Iran - a country that has said in the past it wants to destroy Israel. Iran gets nukes is any Israeli safe? So what should Israel (itself nuclear armed) do? Wait for the first half dozen bombs to go off?

There's a .... Ok I'll be kind and call him a businessman .... in the white house. President of the USA. If he ordered a nuclear strike at a military target would his own officers, taught about bad orders, obey?
Few military strikes would only affect military personnel.

 

[Deleted member 226268]

Over 2000 nuclear bombs gone off in just 50 years
Did anyone here actually notice ?
Shaken out of bed ?

How many bombs will it take to make a REAL nuclear war 3 ?
And where will they be dropping ?

.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

MAD was only followed directly for a short time, then governments started figuring out ways to survive and keep some population alive. Which destabilises the concept of MAD.

It doesn't require annihilation of every human. Far from it.

What benefit does any leader have in launching a strike first if their victory is to keep alive a small percentage of their population, have every major city destroyed, and rule over a barren wasteland where their quality of life is non-existent, presuming they even survive themselves? It's well-known that even the most hardened nuclear bunker is highly unlikely to survive a direct hit.

Figuring out ways to keep some people alive is a redundancy measure in case the opposition strikes first. It's not an attempt to make the opposition's deterrent less effective.

Limited nuclear war is a concept that does not mesh with MAD at all.

Opposing super powers go to extreme lengths to make sure they never have direct, conventional military conflict. And in situations where deaths do occur, it's often swept under the carpet.

Tactical nukes are far detached from reality at the moment. It's a huge escalation that no sides will be willing to take because it's a big step closer to mutually assured destruction.

That being said, even if opposing sides started to use tactical nukes on military bases etc, they will both be acutely aware that there's still time to prevent destroying each other completely where there's literally nothing left to fight for. Diplomacy would most likely continue.

There's a .... Ok I'll be kind and call him a businessman .... in the white house. President of the USA. If he ordered a nuclear strike at a military target would his own officers, taught about bad orders, obey?
Few military strikes would only affect military personnel.

Who knows. But with these deterrents in place, the only way to find out is the hard way.

As much as I hate nuclear weapons, denuclearisation of the world would just create a race to be the only country on the planet with a nuclear bomb. And because the retaliatory deterrent against attacking with one is gone, conventional warfare would be significantly more common as countries attempt to stop other sides from doing it first.

Take Iran and North Korea. Whatever nuclear weapons they manage to create, they both know that with their enemies being US allies, any use of the weapon would result in a mutual response that wipes them out. It creates a safety net that provides time and patience for a diplomatic approach.

If the US didn't have nukes, and both of those countries were close to being the only two that do have them, conventional military strikes would have already happened long ago.

It's a shame that the situation has come to this, and it's seemingly what is needed to avoid WW3, but it is what it is.

 

[sirearl]

It doesn't require annihilation of every human. Far from it.

What benefit does any leader have in launching a strike first if their victory is to keep alive a small percentage of their population, have every major city destroyed, and rule over a barren wasteland where their quality of life is non-existent, presuming they even survive themselves? It's well-known that even the most hardened nuclear bunker is highly unlikely to survive a direct hit.

Figuring out ways to keep some people alive is a redundancy measure in case the opposition strikes first. It's not an attempt to make the opposition's deterrent less effective.



Opposing super powers go to extreme lengths to make sure they never have direct, conventional military conflict. And in situations where deaths do occur, it's often swept under the carpet.

Tactical nukes are far detached from reality at the moment. It's a huge escalation that no sides will be willing to take because it's a big step closer to mutually assured destruction.

That being said, even if opposing sides started to use tactical nukes on military bases etc, they will both be acutely aware that there's still time to prevent destroying each other completely where there's literally nothing left to fight for. Diplomacy would most likely continue.



Who knows. But with these deterrents in place, the only way to find out is the hard way.

As much as I hate nuclear weapons, denuclearisation of the world would just create a race to be the only country on the planet with a nuclear bomb. And because the retaliatory deterrent against attacking with one is gone, conventional warfare would be significantly more common as countries attempt to stop other sides from doing it first.

Take Iran and North Korea. Whatever nuclear weapons they manage to create, they both know that with their enemies being US allies, any use of the weapon would result in a mutual response that wipes them out. It creates a safety net that provides time and patience for a diplomatic approach.

If the US didn't have nukes, and both of those countries were close to being the only two that do have them, conventional military strikes would have already happened long ago.

It's a shame that the situation has come to this, and it's seemingly what is needed to avoid WW3, but it is what it is.

You seem to forget tha people who run countries are not reasonable people.

See history.

 

[Mr D]

It requires basically the state to no longer exist.
If one side builds sufficient facilities and can keep fighting then the war isn't over. The US president is vulnerable due to being airborne, the US system of government has probably sufficient succession capacity to survive both a first strike and multiple follow on attacks.
Missile shields, anti ballistic missiles, 'star wars' program associated with Reagan and such also destabilise MAD as requires more and more weapons to guarantee destroying the other side.
Very hard to actually destroy an entire population quickly but can be done with a small area like Britain.


Opposing superpowers go to extreme lengths not to have direct conflict? Somewhat problematic in Yugoslavia area and Syria more recently.

Yes if military bases are targeted, tactical or strategic weapons (little difference to the dead) then could have limited nuclear war.
Or when states don't have massive weapon stockpiles and lots of enemies - such as say Israel and Iran (in the future) or India & Pakistan.
Problem comes in that every nuclear power would go on alert. And easier to have a launch when preparing to launch than when at 'peace'. Events can be perceived differently, messages misconstrued, reaction miscalculated.

North Korea, if you'll pardon the expression, would be a bugger to nuke. Could be done, could not be sure all the missiles were taken out without hitting a lot of potential sites. And bordering North Korea? Other countries that would not be pleased to lose a major chunk of their population to fallout, lose tourism and farming, lose water and pets. Nearby? China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and so on. Further away can be impacted directly too.

Iran - would you rely on them being absolutely certain the cost would be too high to nuke their enemies?
Inshallah. Not exactly what you want the other side thinking in terms of nukes.

 

[Mr D]

You seem to forget tha people who run countries are not reasonable people.

See history.

What do these people who run the country read?
https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/yes_prime_minister/quotes/

The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.