English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I dont think it would be possible to go into the detail I want in an answer, so if you have a link to a site or sites where they go into extreme detail on the question, that would satisfy my request.

2007-09-02 18:44:32 · 9 answers · asked by karl 1 in Politics & Government Military

9 answers

Unfortunately, WWIII will be global suicide, therefore in answer to your question, as long as there's rational superpowers who believe in MAD, there will be no WW3. By definition, the next world war wil be nuclear, how could it not. In a nuclear war there will be no winner. In a nuclear world, the only true enemy is war itself.

The next World War will involve a nuclear exchange, how could it not if both sides believe no price for victory will be too high. 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 what details are there in such a war, 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.

While we hear talk of a nuclear-Iran or a confrontation with NorKor, little is said about the 2 bulls in the glass shop. The arsenals of Russia and the US are enough to destroy a million Hiroshimas. But there are fewer than 3000 cities on the Earth with populations of 100,000 or more. You cannot find anything like a million Hiroshimas to obliterate. Prime military and industrial targets that are far from cities are comparatively rare. Our biggest threat is from an accidental launch by the Russians.

At the point of global suicide, it doesn't matter who is on what side....where you go to hide, or how long you can survive. In a nuclear age like i said before, the only true enemy is war itself

2007-09-02 19:13:25 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

Well the modern warfare of today is all about Maneuverability, accuracy, and the ability to get your troops in the right places at the right time. A perfect example was the Gulf War. Even though it was 16 years ago that is not a really long time. The US used a tactic called Blitz-Tactic or lighting warfare. It means quick attacks from Land, Sea and Air.

No more is the power in numbers a advantage, remember a single bullet can take out a man. In the modern war fare whoever control the sky control the battlefield. In the Gulf War we pounded the Iraqis into submission, we destroyed their Navy so they could not move their troops, and supplies, and took control of the whole country without stepping onto the ground. Now no war can not be won without a ground war of course. So that's why we sent in our M1A1 Abrams Tanks to completely rid the Iraqi Army from Iraq.

2007-09-02 20:44:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

World War III would involve a whole lot of nuces flying back and forth. Its hard to go in depth about it, but here are some websites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III
http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-3/ww3.htm

And here are sites that say WW3 has already begun!
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3357552,00.html
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=6936

Hope this helps.

PS. Some people aren't sure yet whether the Cold War should be considered a World War. So the next World War (if there is one) might be WW4. Yikes!

2007-09-02 19:02:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Nukes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III

2007-09-02 19:09:37 · answer #4 · answered by kewlkid92 2 · 0 0

There can be no modern world wars. It would risk nuclear exchanges. Modern wars will be fought in the style of Iraq or worse Mogadishu. Right now there is no power that could reasonably oppose the US. We were "nice" to Iraq but if we were angry we could have devastated them and anybody that helped them. A true world war would almost be unthinkable.

2007-09-02 18:50:13 · answer #5 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 0 1

What do you think Iraq and Afghanistan are? There are many nations who have serving soldiers and personnel. All you have to do is look on a website about these wars, governmental sites etc.

2007-09-02 19:43:38 · answer #6 · answered by MAGICKSTER 3 · 0 0

If you are referring to the next BIG war, it most likely will be nuclear in nature.

2007-09-03 06:43:11 · answer #7 · answered by WC 7 · 0 0

Global Thermal Nuclear War.........

Shall we play a game? (Wargames the movie if your to young to remember that one.)

2007-09-02 18:48:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

With an EQ or IQ?
What do you think?
Luke 9.55

2007-09-02 20:43:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers