2006-10-02 16:38:09 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Third and final World War envisions an attack on Iraq, Iran and/or Syria (Pakistan) as being the trigger to set the entire Middle East into fiery conflagration. Once America is firmly entrenched into the Middle East with the majority of her first-line units, North Korea is to attack South Korea. Then, with America's forces stretched well beyond the limit, China is to invade Taiwan. This will usher in the start of World War Three.
2006-10-02 16:43:37 · answer #1 · answered by Jamil Ahmad G 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
attempt this immediately google... North Korea nighttime imagery the full united states is darkish yet one tiny little dot it quite is the capital. you'll detect South Korea is all lite up. the country is very undesirable and may want to have a huge military they're a comic book tale. Google usually happening flying time for N Korean pilots its an usually happening of 15-25 hours in preserving with twelve months they do no longer have adequate gas to do some thing. There Air rigidity is previous & old Untrained. ninety% of there military won't be able to flow previous 50KM of the country the ships won't be able to manage it. North Korea is all Bark no chew. The DMZ is full of land mines and they do no longer have the naval skill to launch a sea attack. the optimal class of people are fighter pilots and there luxury is being allowed to eat 800 energy an afternoon. human beings diets are in the 2500 determination. they could't feed there own human beings. North ok has in elementary words 2 reward one is they have the most massive air protection equipment in the international round almost each and every city. (Granted we've stealth for a reason...) North Korea has the most important artillery rigidity in the international. they could element S Korea's capital without crossing the border. There land in elementary words a million% of that's used to furnish plants the position in the U. S. that's round 35%. they're to some distance behind in almost each and every thing to pose a intense risk to the South. Why in the journey that they hit the South they hit the U. S. and then that's interest over for fat Boy. No united states might want to best pal with North Korea in the journey that they attacked the South. Why? properly China they own a lot of our debt they couldn't bypass to conflict with us they would not get it again and it might want to destroy there monetary equipment each and every thing we purchase is supplied there so your factories all shutdown and lose a ton of money China might want to stay impartial. Russia would not leap in this isn't the 50s or 60s that's 2013 they could favor no component to a conflict like this. NK has no offensive applications outdoors of foot squaddies and correctly the Air rigidity and can make speedy exercising consultation of them once they leave there safe practices internet. heavily guy they made a corny video of them hitting DC with rockets that for you would possibly want to't make it right here and 2 we would want to shoot down. We replied through flying 2 stealth fighters on practice bombing runs. it could be like Germany vs Poland in WW2 Tanks vs adult males on horses yeah thats the evaluation.
2016-12-04 03:58:39 · answer #2 · answered by fechter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hope not. But if so, would it be fair to suggest that the terrorists started it?
By leaving Iraq--could that stop it? What if that meant living with fear of constant terrorist attacks? Is that really living peaceably?
If the radical Islamic terrorists believe they are fulfilling their prophecy, and that of world domination, do we have any choice but to try and stop them? Do we take the "peace at all costs" road?
I don't believe in "peace at all costs." The costs of terrorism ruling the world are too high...
2006-10-02 16:49:15 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't. But I see Civil War II coming.
2006-10-02 16:41:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
If we leave the Republicans in power long enough, I believe it is inevitable.
2006-10-02 16:40:05 · answer #5 · answered by brian2412 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, the UN would prevent any large scale wars.
2006-10-02 16:41:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
If you're in love with war, Vote Republican.
2006-10-02 16:47:01 · answer #7 · answered by Reba K 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
We increase the possibilty each day this administration is in power.
2006-10-02 16:41:24 · answer #8 · answered by notme 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What you see now is the precursor
2006-10-02 16:40:37 · answer #9 · answered by dstr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
soon enough.
And the Americans are going to start it! Sad, but true.
2006-10-02 16:40:29 · answer #10 · answered by Villain 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋