World War III, fact or fiction.

[Wouter445]

facts,

 

thing's looking really tense in Syria, 2 world nations are going to war, US + Russia (not counting NATO as world nation they nothing this day's)

1.

Russia will not back down on Syria it will install Assad, US is bent down to remove Assad.

2.
Russia installed s-300 and S-400 batteries, a real s#*! load of them it's impassable for a airstrike

3.

World war III will likely end in a nuclear winter, Russia and or US can't loss face it will make them look weak their for nukes will be the end result, can't win with normal warfare both country's are just to large.

4.

US anti missile defense will not stop SATAN II missiles, they go mach 5 on top of that they detonation power to level whole France.

5.

Experts believe "cold war" is past we in prelude of war

 

so what do you think, all just is political crap and thing's will pass!? or is end day's really near?

[RGMage2]

When I was younger I used to wonder how a nuclear war could start, how it would ever be possible for anyone to even make such a decision. Now I am older and less naive and I believe I know how it will start... it will start with stupidity. Both sides are playing a dangerous escalating game of chicken; if the escalations continue without saner heads speaking some truth to power, then a nuclear exchange could happen.

 

The whole thing is like a turf war between two organized crime families - governments all over the world are always the most criminal of organizations, no matter their political stripes or pretense of altruistic motives. All the expressed concern for the lives of civilians (by both sides) is nothing but bulls***. Just statistics to be manipulated to put political spin on the narrative they are putting forward.

 

The best we can hope for right now is that Hillary Clinton isn't telling the truth (actually that might be a good bet) when she says she will enforce a no-fly zone in Syria and shoot down Russian planes if need be. Or maybe she will listen to the advise from her generals who will know far better than she does the direction this is going. Or we can hope for Trump, warts and all, at least he sees himself as a deal maker and has expressed a willingness to talk to anyone, rather than just standing off at a distance and vilifying and demonizing, but his chances of winning aren't looking so good.

 

I'm no military expert, but I think the press has some things wrong. They talk about the Admiral Kuznetsov (aircraft carrier) battle group heading for Syria. I don't think it's the Kuznetsov battle group, I think it is the Pyotr Velikiy battle group. This battle group isn't needed for the war in Syria, they are being positioned to deter or respond to an attack against Russian forces in Syria. That's not to say they won't be involved in attacking rebel forces in eastern Aleppo - once they are there they will be used. But their primary mission will be force protection. The Pyotr Velikiy (Peter the Great) battle-cruiser is essentially a carrier killer, and that will be it's mission. The Kuznetsov is there to provide air support for the Pyotr Velikiy whose mission will be to engage an American carrier whose aircraft would be attacking Russian forces. How such an engagement would end I don't know, but I think it would be a s*** show one way or another with a lot of people dying, and the door will be open for the use of tactical nukes and who knows where that could lead.

 

How would it get to that point? A simple progression. Enforcing a no-fly zone against Russia would involve more than just shooting down a couple of Russian planes. You would have to take down Russian air defenses, and there would be more to that than just destroying a couple of missile batteries on the ground. You would have to attack Russian surface ships like the Muskva that are integrated into the air defense system, pushing them away from the Syrian coast or sinking them.

 

So make your bet. Do you want to bet on human stupidity or do you want to bet on Hillary being a liar?

 

It's a tough call.

[CapnPicard]

If Hillary is elected, war with Russia is imminent.(Her vow to create a no-fly zone in Syria ensures that) As for whether that will develop into WW3, who knows? China isn't exactly in the best of positions to take on USA. China and Russia each have their own independent ambitions and their relations are not exactly BFF level. So I don't know about WW3.

However, if Russia adequately depletes US military resources, China would absolutely make a move to lay claim to disputed territories and countries. North Korea's invasion of South Korea is unlikely. Kim Jong Un must know that he is bargaining from a position of weakness. The middle east is a powder keg as always, it wouldn't take much to stir that region up.

Europe would as always try to take a neutral position, I doubt they have the guts to outright stand up to Putin. Other than maybe UK.

As for point #3, USA far outclasses Russia both by numbers and technology. A US-Russian war would undoubtedly create a death toll, but Russia would have a rude awakening, specially since much of their fleet and weaponry is just modified cold-war era gear. Here's a website that compares military power, you'll see why Russia cannot compete with USA. http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-states-of-america&country2=russia&Submit=COMPARE

Edited November 1, 2016 by CapnPicard

[HeyYou]

Russia has already implemented their own 'no fly zone' in Syria....... Will they shoot down american aircraft? Not really a good idea, but, given their actions of late, it wouldn't surprise me.

 

In all reality, the US record on nation building is abysmally bad...... I think we should be supporting Russia/Assad there, at least Assad could keep some semblance of stability there. That is certainly not the case in other countries we have interfered with.... Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, et. al.

[Signette]

Pretty interesting topic here.

Personally I don't think it's all as simple as it looks. let's face it, Syria is lost, it will be war ridden for maybe next 10-30 years, just like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, you name it. Russia got into Syria pretty late, when US already captured and established routes for transporting oil and other resources. Surely Russia has some pretty big business interests in Syria of their own, but I'm not sure they got there by their own initiative, I think it was very convenient for both sides.

What both of these countries do, is funding and leading terrorist groups, one known as Bashars' forces (Government Army) along with Iranian forces plus mercs. And another known as opposition (Free Syrian Army), there are other sides and each has lots of groups in it which isn't worth listing. If we pay attention to some military footage we get from there, you can spot lots of both US and Russian arms from both sides, that means there's really big armed traffic going on, and it certainly isn't free, so we can try to estimate profits of weapon trade for both sides. Clearly no one is interested in defeating so called "terrorists" and ending conflict. On the opposite, both sides go lengths to keep Syria burning, because it will take many years ahead to bleed this country dry of resources at make max profits for them. Just as it happened with Iraq, and other mid-eastern countries.

Now, let's pretend Russia didn't send their forces in Syria, US would have several problems on their hands very tricky to explain and deal with. Another Iraq scenario, where US invades and burns state in war for no apparent reason, where every half-brain understands, that either US or Russia can end ALL terrorist forces (if there would be any) in several hours. So now US has Russia as legitimate rival, and by spreading military hysteria in media, they lead people to believe, that Russia prevents US from liberating country from dictator and funding terrorists which oppose. Because it's much more believable that internal Syrian opposition with NATO help can't deal with Government Forces when they are supported by Russian military as quickly as the supposed to.

So, either side puts blame on each other in this conflict, while using internal (Syrian/Iranian/Iraq) and outside human resource as fodder, while staying away from one another and not suffering any losses of their own forces at ALL. Seems like no one is noticing it by any chance, which is quite surprising...

Assad himself is a play toy, if anyone wanted to remove him, he won't be alive today, he needs to be kept alive, to show the world that there is still dictator that needs to be thrown down (from US side) and still there's hope for restoring state of Syria with Bashar as the legitimate head of the country (from Russian side).

I believe there simply can't be any real face-off between US and RU, it's not profitable and no one has interest in it. I'm sure everyone here is aware what kinds of internal problems both US and Russia has, I'm not sure whose even worse, but just imagine for a second there won't be US for Russia, and there won't be Russia for US? When you stop telling people, that it's not the sworn enemy on the other side of the ocean, who makes your lives miserable, but it's your own government who robs you blind and rides on your back, just imagine, what would happen. Do those who depend to keeping the sheep in line ever allow it? I don't think so.

Now few other fun facts, there was an interview of Hillary Clinton when she was a secretary to famous russian journalist Vladimir Pozner in 2010, you can read it in full here:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2010/03/138712.htm
Just a few quotes:

One of the fears that I hear from Russians is that somehow the United States wants Russia to be weak. That could not be farther from the truth. Our goal is to help strengthen Russia. We see Russia with the strong culture, with the incredible intellectual capital that Russia has, as a leader in the 21st century. And we sometimes feel like we believe more in your future than sometimes Russians do.

We have 40,000 Russians living in Silicon Valley in California. We would be thrilled if 40,000 Russians were working in whatever the Russian equivalent of Silicon Valley is, providing global economic competition, taking the internet and technology to the next level. But in order to achieve each of our goals in our relationship, we have to break with the past. We have to be committed to an open and honest and dialogue. We have to be very honest about our differences, and I think we’ve begun to establish that level of communication. And we have to find ways of working together.

 

 

Many people think that what candidates or actual presidents say is their own agenda. I'm sure neither of them have their own opinions or agenda, they just say what they've been told to say, and things that will benefit certain campaign and formulating mindset of masses in certain period and circumstances. That means either if Hillary or Trump wins, external politics rhetoric will be absolutely the same.

 

If we take a look at forces, I don't think I need to remind here anyone of what is US military budget compared to Russian, so if NATO will strike against them, Russia will be completely crushed without any chance, CapnPicard is right, most of their weaponry is modified cold-war era gear, so they know that the only chance they have are nukes, and both sides have very clear understanding, that no one will survive nukes.

 

Those talks about someone losing face is completely irrelevant I think, as of today both sides are only interested in making profits, no one cares about face. Just remember when Russian plane was shot down by Turkey military and then pilot along with part of the rescue group were intentionally killed. What did Russia do? Banned Turkish tomatoes... Do you think they have balls to shoot down US aircraft? It all looks like sad spectacle of trading human lives as cattle rather than some upcoming WW3 events. Too much things simply don't add up to think of real confrontation between those two countries. They need each other, and use each other, more than ever.

[TheMastersSon]

For me it's like watching actors perform a scripted play, right down to the current co-popes in the Catholic Church. The inside word is that even the RCC believes the current popes are the last ones.

 

The poll numbers astonish me. Apparently something close to half of our electorate are desperate enough for change that they're willing to go back to $500/mo. health insurance extortion to Big HMO and Big Pharma, and finally open the door for the multinationals to gut our last few remaining national benefit entitlements/programs, namely Social Security and Medicare. A Trump victory means immediate and imo probably permanent chaos in our federal government, with a president accountable to nobody including his own political party. Trump is calling for his opponent to be jailed, so we already know what his presidency would consist of. Our conversion to pre-war Germany is thus complete imo.

Edited November 13, 2016 by TheMastersSon

[Darthsith]

If Hillary is elected, war with Russia is imminent.(Her vow to create a no-fly zone in Syria ensures that)

 

Right, because an individual who blows a gasket anytime someone makes a critical remark is great for not sparking wars. I mean, the last world war was certainly not started by a shouty, paranoid, self aggrandizing, hate spewing individual with bad hair for us to draw experience from for this situation.

 

As for whether that will develop into WW3, who knows?

 

Any war that would involve U.S. and Russian ground troops and aircraft engaging one another on a large scale would lead to a global and eventually nuclear conflict. It is why the conflicts since world war 2 between major powers have been through proxies to prevent an escalation to a nuclear event.

[TheMastersSon]

According to Gorbachev the "Cold War" was a colluded effort between two ingrained military-industrial establishments. We have no problem with Russia just as we had no problem with the USSR. Our only problem is our Pentagon and really, really bored career public teetsuckers.

[HeyYou]

According to Gorbachev the "Cold War" was a colluded effort between two ingrained military-industrial establishments. We have no problem with Russia just as we had no problem with the USSR. Our only problem is our Pentagon and really, really bored career public teetsuckers.

And one of the first things the donald wants to do, is implement term limits for congress. :) I really don't have a problem with that.

[Beriallord]

facts,

 

thing's looking really tense in Syria, 2 world nations are going to war, US + Russia (not counting NATO as world nation they nothing this day's)

1.

Russia will not back down on Syria it will install Assad, US is bent down to remove Assad.

2.

Russia installed s-300 and S-400 batteries, a real s*** load of them it's impassable for a airstrike

3.

World war III will likely end in a nuclear winter, Russia and or US can't loss face it will make them look weak their for nukes will be the end result, can't win with normal warfare both country's are just to large.

4.

US anti missile defense will not stop SATAN II missiles, they go mach 5 on top of that they detonation power to level whole France.

5.

Experts believe "cold war" is past we in prelude of war

 

so what do you think, all just is political crap and thing's will pass!? or is end day's really near?

#1 - Donald Trump is willing to work with the Russians to defeat ISIS, and without any strings attached.

#2 - Trump set no ultimatum saying Assad has to go.

#4 - Which is why escalating tensions with the Russians over Syria is a fools game. Assad might be a tyrant, but we can't just go around ousting every tyrant in the world without serious consequences.

#5 - Why would Russia "level" France? Unless France attacks Russia?

 

WW3 with the Russians would have been more likely had Hillary Clinton got elected. Because she would have continued Obama's foreign policy agenda.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Beriallord