The War Room
Re: The War Room
Ghost, first of all you have included India on the opposite side. It should be on the other if there would be another war. India is diplomatically close to all the countries in Group B and as far as Group A is considered, Russia is the only country with whom India has enjoyed good relations. I doubt even if there's a war, there's even gonna be 2 sides because each country is gonna look to make most out of it and come on the type. I hope there's no war at all. India has border disputes with Pakistan and China. North korea has good relations with China. India would never team up with North Korea. one more thing, India is a democracy and we have lot of internal issues like poverty and other problems, so I dont think that we would enter a war, secondly even if we do, it would be never be on the same side as north korea and iran.
Things happen for a reason, I wish I knew these reasons.
-
Shadow00
Re: The War Room
ghost 9 wrote:World War 3:
Russia, India, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Latvia, Moldova, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan
V.S.
United States, Britian, Germany, France(possibly), Israel, Canada, Mexico, Japan(possibly), and South Korea
Uhm... Ok, look, there can't be a WW3 with US, Russia, China etc altogether in it.
Why? Well:
1. The preperations don't point to a WW3. In other words, if we were heading to a WW3, US movies would be even more cliche than cold war movies. But except 2-3 of them that i know of (echelon conspiracy for example), I don't see any other movies pointing US people against any other country. Also, 99 out of 100 companies have an anti-war policy... Games is a whole other sector though...
2. US army. Anyone aware that the country that is supposed to start the war (because, believe it or not, Israel won't declare a WW3. Ever.) has got GREAT weapons, but personnel... Ughh... You get my point.
3. Weapons: In mid 1950s (i think) the hydrogen bomb was invented. It is the worst bomb the world has known so far, and they said that after its invention, no world war could be made ever again (obvious reasons). That was said in nineteen-FIFTY. So in 2012, the weapon industry should have invented something even better, don't you think? So if US, Russia, China etc have weapons that are 10 times better than a nuke, then i don't really see a point to this.
4. A world war is exactly that. A WORLD war. Maybe in the 40s, it was kind of a problem to attack Chile from Germany, but in 2012 no country is safe. So most countries should now be participating. Except of switcherland.
5. Well this is not a simple thesis... So if you have seen John Carpenter's "They Live", you know where this is going. For the rest, I'll explain this as good as I can. The television is the #1 source of news. But it also passes you messages that you don't understand, only a small part of your brain does. Some time though, these messages will shape an opinion that will make someone act extreme. So if a WW3 happens, it will be from the web, the TV and the papers/magazines. Not like that movie you saw about " 'nam " last week.
Random: never take random "alliances" like US/Mexico/Canada for granted. In the 1st WW, Greece had a German king, but it stood against Germany. If canada or mexico sees that russia is more powerful, they'll go with them.
Re: The War Room
Shadow00 wrote:ghost 9 wrote:World War 3:
Russia, India, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Latvia, Moldova, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan
V.S.
United States, Britian, Germany, France(possibly), Israel, Canada, Mexico, Japan(possibly), and South Korea
Uhm... Ok, look, there can't be a WW3 with US, Russia, China etc altogether in it.
Why? Well:
1. The preperations don't point to a WW3. In other words, if we were heading to a WW3, US movies would be even more cliche than cold war movies. But except 2-3 of them that i know of (echelon conspiracy for example), I don't see any other movies pointing US people against any other country. Also, 99 out of 100 companies have an anti-war policy... Games is a whole other sector though...
2. US army. Anyone aware that the country that is supposed to start the war (because, believe it or not, Israel won't declare a WW3. Ever.) has got GREAT weapons, but personnel... Ughh... You get my point.
3. Weapons: In mid 1950s (i think) the hydrogen bomb was invented. It is the worst bomb the world has known so far, and they said that after its invention, no world war could be made ever again (obvious reasons). That was said in nineteen-FIFTY. So in 2012, the weapon industry should have invented something even better, don't you think? So if US, Russia, China etc have weapons that are 10 times better than a nuke, then i don't really see a point to this.
4. A world war is exactly that. A WORLD war. Maybe in the 40s, it was kind of a problem to attack Chile from Germany, but in 2012 no country is safe. So most countries should now be participating. Except of switcherland.
5. Well this is not a simple thesis... So if you have seen John Carpenter's "They Live", you know where this is going. For the rest, I'll explain this as good as I can. The television is the #1 source of news. But it also passes you messages that you don't understand, only a small part of your brain does. Some time though, these messages will shape an opinion that will make someone act extreme. So if a WW3 happens, it will be from the web, the TV and the papers/magazines. Not like that movie you saw about " 'nam " last week.
Random: never take random "alliances" like US/Mexico/Canada for granted. In the 1st WW, Greece had a German king, but it stood against Germany. If canada or mexico sees that russia is more powerful, they'll go with them.
I was under the impression a cobalt bomb was more deadly than an average hydrogen bomb, and I'll not even get started on the ICBMs. Also, movies are not the only thing that can influence people into making a decision, as you very well know.
"The costs of action are far less than the costs of inaction."
"If you don't want to be forgotten as soon as you're dead, write something worth reading, or do something worth writing"
"If you don't want to be forgotten as soon as you're dead, write something worth reading, or do something worth writing"
Re: The War Room
-_- ghost a cobalt bomb is exactly what i thought it was. a salted bomb. its designed more to contaminate than destroy. The lethality potential of such a bomb is theoretically high but since there are none made to date i doubt we will ever find out. Cobalt bombs are THEORETICAL. Hydrogen bombs on the other hand are very real and EXTREMELY high yield, capable of destroying not just entire cities but entire metropolitan areas.
To date, no weapon has surpassed the raw power of the hydrogen bomb, or its scale. This is because most weapon systems are relying on incapacitating countries via killing their tech. there are many wars being fought in cyberspace as we speak. i am not saying that boots on the ground conflict is gone but conventional warfare is evolving. With the development of more precise delivery systems and smarter weapons its becoming less and less about bombing and destroying a whole city to stop production, its more about "destroy these buildings, Hack these websites and organizations, emp over these areas."
the goal isnt killing the population, the goal is to make the population kill its own government or itself. Just think, for instance if ALL military production centers were hit simultaneously in america, along with emp detonations over major hubs in the power network. Ours ability to produce more weapons is gone, and the vast majority of the population is left without any power what so ever.
that is the war of the future. cripple the systems with minimal actual damage, occupy major centers of influence, declare victory in the media. that is how i see war being fought post 2020
To date, no weapon has surpassed the raw power of the hydrogen bomb, or its scale. This is because most weapon systems are relying on incapacitating countries via killing their tech. there are many wars being fought in cyberspace as we speak. i am not saying that boots on the ground conflict is gone but conventional warfare is evolving. With the development of more precise delivery systems and smarter weapons its becoming less and less about bombing and destroying a whole city to stop production, its more about "destroy these buildings, Hack these websites and organizations, emp over these areas."
the goal isnt killing the population, the goal is to make the population kill its own government or itself. Just think, for instance if ALL military production centers were hit simultaneously in america, along with emp detonations over major hubs in the power network. Ours ability to produce more weapons is gone, and the vast majority of the population is left without any power what so ever.
that is the war of the future. cripple the systems with minimal actual damage, occupy major centers of influence, declare victory in the media. that is how i see war being fought post 2020
True beauty lies in the heart, so i must look like stein 
Return to “Serious Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests
