Do you think there will be a World War Three?

Um, but such logic is not always uppermost in people's minds.

That is the worry. It only takes one irresponsible idiot to get his finger on the button (so to speak) and off we go.

What if (as a wild example) Pakistan gets taken over by an ultra-something-or-other military clique. The have a war with, oh, China, or India. The war goes very badly. Ultra-nutty leader screams 'no peace with the enemy devil', but his enemy's troops are with his borders and advancing rapidly. So he takes a bold move - he uses a tactical nuke to eliminate an enemy column.

And off we go.

 

I think the level of technology is also a factor. In the early days of the Cold War on paper it was possible to knock out most of the enemies nukes on the airfield or in the silo. So the idea of the winable nuclear war war born.

Once nuclear missiles were fitted to subs even if you flattened the enemies country completely you be on the receiving end of some crisp and refreshing return fire.

I think the concept of MAD rules out nuclear war between the current major powers. But between the smaller countries far more of a possibility.

 

We are in World War Three right now, it is the Western Liberal Democratic World against Islamofascist Terrorist scum.

 

That would bring the debate back to what exactly "war" is and who can and cannot wage it. Personally, I don't see terrorist organizations as entities capable of waging "war", but I believe that is entirely based on my subjective opinion; wars have often enough been fought by non-state institutions for various non-political ends.

One thing is for sure, though: neither the Western World nor the Islamic terrorists are a unified organization aimed purely at winning this war.

 

well, as long as iran isn't making any nukes and not fire them if they have one. i think we won't have WW3.
problem is, i think that that iranian president is wacko enough to fire a goddame nuke on isreal and/or Europe. we will invade iran, Isreal will fire their nukes, the moslims will hate the west more and start a big geurrilla offensive against us. (my personal worst case scenario these days)

 

I think that's a contradiction. Since guerilla warfare relies for its success on the support it has with the general population, it's impossible by definition to fight a guerilla war outside your own borders where you can count on this support. Therefore guerilla war will not harm the west unless we go over there; they will not come over here.

 

Um, except you can have a guerilla offensive outside your own borders if enough people over there support your views.

For example, if the Jamaican community in Britain decided to support a guerilla war against the British, it would be possible.

However, such an obvious 'us & them' split is easy to counter (see Malaysia).

But if the split was less obvious, some odd ideological difference that is easy to conceal like being a Communist or something, then yes it is perfectly possible.

 

well, i mean more like hit and run attacks by terrorists. they come, they do boom and they dissapear in smoke
i wonder, how stupid or fanatical can someone become that he blows himself up? and how do you recruit them? do you focus on people who want to commit suicide???

 

They obviously believe they are dying for a cause more important than themselves.

 

so it seems

 

I meant that an offensive, as in the conquest of enemy ground through attacking operations, is impossible to achieve by guerilla methods; it has to be done by open battle. A guerilla campaign such as you describe is essentially defensive, seizing an area where support is present and then defending it against counterattacks through guerilla tactics.

 

What, like Malaysia and Vietnam were?

Siezing an area (whether support is present or not) and then defending it against counter-attack is what an offence is, surely?

 

lol

 

the next world war will be an economic war..not fought with weapons but by trade and business..whoeva controls this controls the world!

 

No, only the seizing part is, and the amount of land you can occupy by such a "guerilla offensive" is determined 100% by the area in which the civilian population supports you. Hence a guerilla war waged by Muslims inside Western countries would be fought in a few scattered neighbourhoods in big cities that they can control.

 

Vietnam was not a guerilla war. It was a war fought mostly by regulars on both sides and included many major conventional battles. Our stupidity was in sending those kids there while playing with the term "limited war". Johnson et al, prevented the military from using air power and naval blockades to strangle the North because he feared super power conflict. Even the Tet offensive was a major defeat for the communists and caused serious strains between the north and south communist leadership. Eventually, with the Linebacker-ll attacks, we showed exactly what were capable of doing to an enemys industry with air power.

By that time it was to late. The American public would not support continued involvment and a peace deal with communists wasnt worth the price of the paper.

Stupid to send kids to die with no clear cut strategy for winning.

 

I wouldn't describe American soldiers as "kids". They were and are without question the most supported troops that ever existed; they have all recieved adequate training and preparation for war. Also, the fact that both China and the Soviet Union were increasingly edgy about US involvement in Vietnam meant that a super-power war as a result of a further escalation of the conflict was indeed probable. Would you have risked all-out war with the USSR over a stretch of jungle in South East Asia?

 

same here but I think america wouldn't let this happen they would just bom iran until a surrender I guess

 

well, they might start to hurry. every minute iran gets is a minute closer to the completion of their nuke.

 

WWIII will happen and it won't be pretty. I want to fight in it.