Dynamite Sources!!!
I am 55....
We been worrying about so called WW3 since I was a kid.
Went to Catholic school in the 50's early sixties.
We used to have BOMB DRILLS.
Herd all of us kids into inner hallway. Crouch down, face wall, cover head with arms.
Recite / sing St Michael Archangel
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, Satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/prayer/michael.htm
WW3, 4, or 5.
Whats the difference?
2007-01-28 05:23:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The prevention of WW3 is by the 'cowards' by definition....in view of the fact that WW3 will global suicide. The next World War will involve a nuclear exchange, how could it not.
In the first 30 minutes, nearly a billion people will have been vaporised, mostly in the US, Russia, Europe, China and Japan. Another 1.5 billion will die shortly thereafter from radiation poisoning. The northern hemisphere will be plunged into prolonged agony and barbarity.
Eventually the nuclear winter will spread to the southern hemisphere and all plant life will die. You ask when is the apacolypse, you are asking when will we commit global suicide. My answer is it won't happen soon because the larger superpowers are more rational than the rump states in the middle east.
Our biggest risk is an accidental launch of nukes by one of the nuclear powers.
2007-01-28 08:00:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
First, who can say for sure we will have a WW III. We have gone 60 plus years since the last one.
Second, I am assuming you believe WW III would be fought with only nuclear missiles. I can't believe anyone would want to start this. You could blow the US off the face of the earth and the country responsible would still have to face our Navy. Do you know where our nuclear subs are? They alone have the power to wipe out civilization.
Can North Korea really launch a nuclear missile? What would be the point of only launching one or two. With the satellites in the sky, everyone would know who did it. With all of the thousands of nuclear missiles, only having a few would be like starting a gun fight against a Vulcan cannon with only a six shooter. You might inflict damage, but having your slate wiped cleaned is not cost effective.
My fear is not WW III, but a breakdown of society that would breed anarchy. There isn't enough law enforcement to stop world wide crime. It would be left to the citizens. It appears we would be to busy fighting amongst ourselves to have a concentrated effort at putting down warlords. Look at the problem we have now with gangs.
2007-01-28 05:47:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by jack-copeland@sbcglobal.net 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The next truly major war will not be fought with tanks and jets, it will be fought with nuclear warheads capable of wiping out whole nations.
When you look at th most dangerous nations on Earth (at the moment Iran and N. Korea) look at what they have in common: the quest for nuclear warheads. These nations couldn't last in a conventional war with the U.S. and other Western European nations, but nuclear warheads even the playing field like no other weapon in the history of man. So in the end if will not be a war fought by the brave men and women of the armd services but instead by cowards sitting in some secret control room out of harm's way.
2007-01-28 05:38:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by croatian_abomination 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's been supposed that WW3 (which we may be on the verge of at this moment) would destroy the majority of civilization as we know it, leaving a scrap of humanity left to use primitive means if they STILL want to fight to resolve problems. Maybe you're thinking of WW4:
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
- Albert Einstein
2007-01-28 05:00:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Zeera 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
properly, that is a grey area, because the lengthy sequence of skirmishes that comprised the chilly conflict reached 2 pinnacles contained in the Korean conflict, which will properly be stated to be WW3, and Vietnam, that could then be WW4. the position is Philip ok. Dick once you want yet another heritage and destiny?
2016-12-03 03:52:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It will be a war of cowards because the mickeymen who started it will all be safe underground while the rest of us will fry.
2007-01-28 07:06:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Brilliant!
2007-01-28 04:55:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't Know but If i'm still alive I'll fight in all of them. I foght in Iraq, going to korea next year, going back to Iraq this summer.
2007-01-28 05:00:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
why dont people of mentality like urs become presidant of US and other nations instead of bush and saddam....maybe then this world can be spared from WW3
2007-01-28 05:34:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by sCrUbs 3
·
0⤊
0⤋