StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Broomstick wrote: This isn't 1972, WWIII won't necessary start with a US v. Russia confrontation.

Oh really, care to name who else has the long range nuclear firepower to make it happen then?

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Broomstick wrote: This isn't 1972, WWIII won't necessary start with a US v. Russia confrontation.

Oh really, care to name who else has the long range nuclear firepower to make it happen then?

Assuming it starts with nukes. It's more likely to start conventionally and end nuclear...ly. And it's possible it could be US-China (in case some hardline Communist takes power alongside a hardline conservative President who decides to sever trade relations or something equally stupid), as China is about the only power who could really give the US a hard time. Well, India is possible, but... heh. And, I mean, there are some European countries (France, UK, Germany) who could also give us a hard time if for whatever crazy reason we started popping off shots with them, but we simply have way too much of a military edge in manpower and materiel over them.

But the point is largely moot because nobody cares to start WWIII. They'll certainly *fight* if it happens, but they don't want to *start* it. Putin is as aware of this as anybody else, which is probably part of the reason why he's been somewhat aggressive in past years-- he knows nobody will really stand in his way as long as he doesn't go too far.

Elheru Aran wrote: Assuming it starts with nukes. It's more likely to start conventionally and end nuclear...ly.

Oh right because having more time to think totally increases the probability of mass genocide between developed countries! Totally! Yeah sure. You people are all sounding way dumber then Trump at the moment. Deterrence works, suck down the horror of WW3 having become implausible.

And it's possible it could be US-China (in case some hardline Communist takes power alongside a hardline conservative President who decides to sever trade relations or something equally stupid), as China is about the only power who could really give the US a hard time.

Except China does not have a large long range nuclear arsenal, on purpose. Short of the US invading China again they would not use it, as a large portion of it would be negated by the US missile defense system in the first place while China has no operational ABM defense at all. Do you believe the US will invade communist China and then nuke it first to make it stick? And that Trump is more likely to do so then someone like HIllary Clinton? Because I say Hillary would be far more likely to end up in that kind of situation, but .000001% isn't any more relevant to real life then a .00001% risk.

Well, India is possible, but... heh.

No. Doesn't have the nuclear or conventional power to make it worth the name. Major regional conflict only. Though given the inefficiency of the Indian military its questionable they'd even be able to fight one of those... and the only enemy they could project power against is Pakistan.

And, I mean, there are some European countries (France, UK, Germany) who could also give us a hard time if for whatever crazy reason we started popping off shots with them, but we simply have way too much of a military edge in manpower and materiel over them.

So you admit your own claim is super nonsense. Why the shit are you wasting my time on it then?

Because I'm agreeing with you in a fairly roundabout fashion? Cool your jets.

Who says WWIII has to involve nukes? WWI certainly didn't, and WWII only at the very end. The war in Europe ended without atomic weapons.

I agree, it's unlikely, either via nukes or conventional means, but I would never say impossible. Given a sufficiently shitty, destabilized world things could get very, very ugly.

Broomstick wrote:Who says WWIII has to involve nukes?

The traditional and well established use of the phrase means such, and for good technical and political reasons. Are you honestly going to tell me that you don't think that's what the thread creator was concerned with? You want to argue you own definition of a well established term then the burden is on you to articulate that point. That much has come up in many threads many times before.

Meanwhile the conventional weapons just don't exist to wage a world war with conventional arms. Even the heavily militarized US only maintains 30 days of war stocks, and the World Wars both came after large scale arms races, ones noticed by commentator of the era, even in an era in which universal conscription was the norm. The modern Russian Army meanwhile has fewer troops then the Soviet Army kept in East Germany alone.

Also key in this is while some fairly large armies still exist, of them only India is seriously expanding its actual order of battle, and only then on a very modest scale. That's vital because as far as offensive warfare goes, numbers still count. Without numbers you cannot take and hold ground. Defensively you can replace numbers with technology, and that's the world wide trend. Smaller, more effective troops. But ones whom are better suited to carrying out specific missions at the same time, not conquering whole states.

Even China with its huge yearly increases in defense spending is still reducing the actual size of its army and air force, only its navy is growing, and honestly only then because in the past its Navy functionally didn't exist. It was only the coastal defense arm of the PLA.

. It would require many years of arms race to restore the needed force structures for a conventional WW3 and why would anyone bother? Let alone Trump who dislikes government spending and is more worried about immigration then RUSSIA. In the time it takes to design new jet fighter even a third rate power could developed and deploy nuclear weapons to prevent itself from being invaded.

Meanwhile all of the powers big enough to think about this on a global scale either have nuclear weapons or are closely allied with people whom do. That's why nuclear weapons are stabilizing, and the only way I see WW3 happening is if we were insane enough to get rid of them. Nuclear weapon are only destabilizing in the hands of countries in which ambition far exceeds their other means of power. So far none of the countries to get nukes are in that boat. Even North Korea just wants to protect its own regime as its conventional military power steadily weakens.

Seriously. Life changed n 1945 and endless books have been written to explain how and why. It can never be the same again barring some utter collapse of civilization. This has been good, and we should be thankful for it. Worry about the moron destroying the value of our currency, not killing millions.

WWI certainly didn't, and WWII only at the very end. The war in Europe ended without atomic weapons.

Yeah, cause we didn't finish them in time. But that's irrelevant to the post Hiroshima world. Meanwhile if Hitler had 100 tactical nuclear weapons, do you think the US and Russia would have blindly kept invading Germany if he threaten to use them, while offering peace terms on the basis of 1934 borders?

The World Wars could happen because the governments involved could honestly expect and promise incredible wealth and power out of victory. They could tell their people and keep them motivated that just that little extra effort would mean something big. Conquering fully developed industrial states and all the loot and pillage that implied. Taking other peoples colonies ect.


Nuclear weapons entirely negate this notion, and in a manner anyone can understand. You go too far and you get nuked, at the least on the tactical scale. And if you nuke back everything you wanted to profit from is radioactive vapor. So why try? All the more so when you already can fact check the actual cost of warfare like that? Nobody could do that in 1914, and WW2 was just a war of revenge over the mistakes of 1914.

That's why the normal use of the term WW3 is to refer to a large scale nuclear war. Because any attempt to do what was attempted in WW1 and WW2 would turn into a large scale nuclear war anyway, making the conventional fighting irrelevant. And that's why nobody in the world is remotely interested in fighting anything like that kind of conflict. Nobody is preparing for it, nobody is armed for it. Nobody has points of contention worth it. Indeed the points of contention seem to get more lame by the day. China is blustering over uninhabited reefs. Pakistan and India dispute....one of the least economically important parts of either country and last seriously fought a war to control it in 1965.

Russia and NATO...actually seem to have no direct point of contention, neither side being happy with Ukraine being a 'thing' in the first place ect. North Korea long ago abandon any pretext of invading the South... see the point?

The closest we come to the cold war level of contention over existence is radical Islam vs. The West, but no actual Muslim country supports said versions of Islam wholesale, and none of them rank as global military powers in the first place. So it's moot. Wars, maybe a major regional conflict which one might class Iraq-Syria right now, but that's it. And indeed said war has basically made the US and Iran allies if they want it or not, so that only points further to how implausible and divorced from the world wars the world situation now is.

I find it not surprising at all. The default of humans is to be good to each other. I don't need complex moral logic or what the shit to know that. I believe it because if it were not true I do not believe human civilization could exist at all. Given that I think the future will be bright, and while serious threats to peace and order will continue to exist for centuries they will be ever more sub national and driven by economic and climate change rather then wonton wars of conquest for profit.

And like it or not, Trump is on the good side of this trend, not the evil side. He might spread hate and fear as tactics, but his end goal is peaceful power, and he's interested in making money, not irrationally destroying ideological enemies.

I agree, it's unlikely, either via nukes or conventional means, but I would never say impossible. Given a sufficiently shitty, destabilized world things could get very, very ugly.

Sure, nothing is impossible except putting the genie back in the bottle. But how many decimal points of improbability does it take before we label it pointless and unhelpful fear mongering bullshit? Trump could also bring an era of global peace by various convoluted and unlikely means for all that's worth. He might find the secret to fusion power by falling down the stairs and spilling coffee onto someones notes.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Broomstick wrote:Who says WWIII has to involve nukes?

The traditional and well established use of the phrase means such, and for good technical and political reasons. Are you honestly going to tell me that you don't think that's what the thread creator was concerned with? You want to argue you own definition of a well established term then the burden is on you to articulate that point. That much has come up in many threads many times before.

Meanwhile the conventional weapons just don't exist to wage a world war with conventional arms. Even the heavily militarized US only maintains 30 days of war stocks, and the World Wars both came after large scale arms races, ones noticed by commentator of the era, even in an era in which universal conscription was the norm. The modern Russian Army meanwhile has fewer troops then the Soviet Army kept in East Germany alone.

Yeah, Skimmer has good points here.

If people want to look at an example of this, think about the US invasion of Iraq. The US has indisputably the single strongest conventional military in the world, and has spent trillions of dollars over the last few decades building up a force of highly trained volunteer professional soldiers, sailors, and airmen armed with weapons so advanced that a typical military officer from the Vietnam era would look at them and say "the Martians have landed!" The US Air Force and Navy are both strong enough that, all else being equal, they could quite possibly win a cage match against the entire combined forces of the rest of the planet put together.

And yet the US, with all its military power, struggled to hold onto a territory with roughly the same population as Texas, despite the support of a considerable fraction of the locals and despite suffering casualties at only about one tenth the rate experienced in Vietnam.

This would not have been a difficult task by the standards of the mid-twentieth century... so what happened? As Skimmer outlines further down in his post, the US military decided to greatly increase its firepower while decreasing its manpower. And when it came to launching offensive wars and occupying territory, that lack of numbers became a severe handicap at the same time that the immense firepower became nearly useless.

In a war with a larger and better equipped army the firepower would matter more- but the lack of manpower would be just as severe a handicap, and you'd be trying to occupy a nation much bigger than Iraq, probably with a lot less popular support.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Broomstick wrote:Who says WWIII has to involve nukes?

The traditional and well established use of the phrase means such, and for good technical and political reasons. Are you honestly going to tell me that you don't think that's what the thread creator was concerned with? You want to argue you own definition of a well established term then the burden is on you to articulate that point.

I know the conventional definition damn well - I did grow up during the Cold War, after all. But just as the Cold War was a global confrontation between major powers that took on different characteristics from past conflicts, perhaps we should question if "WWIII" would be anything like past wars.

And that's why nobody in the world is remotely interested in fighting anything like that kind of conflict. Nobody is preparing for it, nobody is armed for it. Nobody has points of contention worth it.

Incorrect. There are two factions in this world actively interested in seeing WWIII happen, but they are not sovereign nations.

The closest we come to the cold war level of contention over existence is radical Islam vs. The West, but no actual Muslim country supports said versions of Islam wholesale, and none of them rank as global military powers in the first place.

They may not be military powers but they are killing people world-wide. The Muslim extremists are one of those two factions. They'd burn the world to remake it in their own image. The other faction are the equally whack-job evangelical Christians who have long looked forward to WWIII as a necessary prerequisite to their Messiah returning.

I don't think either of those two parties start a genuine global conflict right now, but I do believe they would like to do so.

Well, who could he start a war with?

Some Islamic nations? Well he has made negative rhetoric against Muslims, but even if he did, it would be devastating but not a third World war? Look at that idiot Bush and the clusterfuck in Iraq?

Russia? Even the US has limits, and even in the Russian conflicts with Georgia and Ukraine, the US did not directly send their forces against Russia because they didn't want WWIII. Could Trump be this stupid to do so? Possibly, but as noted he liked Putin, so unlikely.

What about China, the other big power. Well he has indicated with his rhetoric about raping the US with their trade policies (hey is this promoting rape culture) and may start a trade war. Which is not good, but a trade war hardly constitutes WWIII. In fact his stance outside of trade strikes me as borderline isolationist with his sitting on the fence on whether to help allies against Russia, which makes me think he might be less likely to confront China on non trade issues which doesn't directly affect the US.

Could he hurt the US (and maybe the world economy) with shitty policies? Sure. WWIII however seems unlikely.

If you can have break-out capability and build new nuclear weapons before a potential invader can muster up the forces to do so, then do countries need to keep stocks of currently functional nuclear weapons?

Guardsman Bass wrote:If you can have break-out capability and build new nuclear weapons before a potential invader can muster up the forces to do so, then do countries need to keep stocks of currently functional nuclear weapons?

How long does it take to build nukes, though?

Elheru Aran wrote:

Guardsman Bass wrote:If you can have break-out capability and build new nuclear weapons before a potential invader can muster up the forces to do so, then do countries need to keep stocks of currently functional nuclear weapons?

How long does it take to build nukes, though?

I was going off of Skimmer's remark up-thread that countries could build a few nukes faster than it would take a potential invading country to do an arms buildup for a conventional war.

Guardsman Bass wrote:

Elheru Aran wrote:

Guardsman Bass wrote:If you can have break-out capability and build new nuclear weapons before a potential invader can muster up the forces to do so, then do countries need to keep stocks of currently functional nuclear weapons?

How long does it take to build nukes, though?

I was going off of Skimmer's remark up-thread that countries could build a few nukes faster than it would take a potential invading country to do an arms buildup for a conventional war.

If they have the equipment to build nukes and the necessary reactors, sure... but those aren't exactly common, and as we saw just recently with Iran, the international community *will* lean heavily on anybody getting them that doesn't have the clout to tell everybody else to back off.

Elheru Aran wrote:

Guardsman Bass wrote:If you can have break-out capability and build new nuclear weapons before a potential invader can muster up the forces to do so, then do countries need to keep stocks of currently functional nuclear weapons?

How long does it take to build nukes, though?

Months, so yes, having an actual nuclear weapons stockpile is important.

Arming for a large scale conventional war takes years, but if your enemy feels they have a conventional military advantage they can always invade you right now and settle for taking a bite out of your territory that is small enough for them to hold. Or they can launch a surprise attack and hope to knock out enough of your forces on the first day to give themselves a decisive advantage.

"Breakout capability" is adequate if you are almost sure you will not be attacked next week, but think you may be threatened with attack in a few years' time. It is not adequate if you are presently being threatened with an attack. Or if you want the ability to tell a rival "don't mess with our ally, OUR WORDS ARE BACKED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS" as both the US and Soviets did during the Cold War.

Also, "breakout capability" doesn't really save money or serve a useful purpose except to make the superpowers feel a little better. Because you still have to maintain your conventional military, and if anything your conventional forces have to be stronger because they lack the option of going nuclear to cope with a threat.

I can answer this question shortly: no, a Trump presidency cannot lead to WWIII.

Also, why does this thread even exist?

Finally, the fact that Americans still fret over World War fears while the world has lots of other problems is, well, very strange. Trump is the closest that the US could have to an isolationist. He said he won't fight NATO wars, he will kill TTIP and TTP, and still he is somehow likely to provoke a war? With what, his HAIR?

God bless Trump, and the US should just get out and stop making war all over the world.

Broomstick wrote:I know the conventional definition damn well - I did grow up during the Cold War, after all. But just as the Cold War was a global confrontation between major powers that took on different characteristics from past conflicts, perhaps we should question if "WWIII" would be anything like past wars.

But it would be like past wars by definition. If it's not like other "World Wars" in scope, why are you calling it a "World War"?

Well, another fucked up thread by me.

I do apologize, but I don't think people will believe me as I've panicked before.

Still, I'm sorry.

I, for one, understand.

Learning not to be fearful and to not overreact to politics is a difficult thing. It takes time. And honestly, it's probably a good thing that you care right now and actually want things to be better, and grasp that there are real consequences to having bad government in charge of a nation.

It's simply that it takes time to realize that these consequences usually do not take the form of things like wars and apocalypses (which are easy to visualize thanks to the media). Instead, they involve grinding poverty for lots of people (which is practically invisible to many middle and upper-class Americans, thanks to the media again). They involve injustices that cause people to suffer and live worse lives than necessary. They involve opportunity costs- bridges not built, moon bases not constructed, scientific discoveries not made, inventions and works of art not created.

All of which is inherently bad, even if it doesn't make the headlines the way a war does.

K. A. Pital wrote:I can answer this question shortly: no, a Trump presidency cannot lead to WWIII.

Also, why does this thread even exist?

Someone with limited life experience and knowledge of international affairs panicked, and the rest of us tried to reassure him while implicitly calling him a moron. Very typical SDN, all around.

It's not a problem really, we needed to have this discussion on the board sometime and you weren't the only one overhyping the war risks.

Honestly for those more in the know what are your thoughts on prospective president Trump getting more involved in the various middle east brush wars?

I think it is entirely possible that Trump could get us into more Middle East wars than we otherwise would be if he is elected. He's an arrogant blowhard with a tendency to offend within his own culture, both deliberately and also apparently without intending to do so. The potential for giving and/or taking offense on the world stage, given his personality, thin skin, and arrogance, are simply breath-taking. His urge to do things large and publicly could also factor in.

On the other hand, if he goes full isolationist we might have less involvement in international affairs. Whether that's good or bad... well, that could get complicated.

As for the WWIII issue - we certainly could have a global conflict. We are, in way, in one already in the form of two competing ideologies, one represented by "the west" and the other by "extremist terror" which is killing people in nations around the world with alarming regularity. There are certainly cyber-based conflicts occurring behind the scenes with everything from petty theft to Stuxnet to WikiLeaks to... well, lots of other things, some of which I'm probably not aware of right now, which can and do have impact on real people in the real world.

Yes, I think nuclear warfare is less likely than when I was a kid and the Cold War still going full blast. That doesn't mean global conflicts are off the table, just that there's more than one sort of conflict. I think Trump could get us into plenty of "alternative conflicts" other than traditional shooting warfare.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-l ... e0d9c72f9e

Another war scenario prediction but this time involving Trump, or rather Trump doing jack and shit, ie being isolationist. Essentially this allows Putin to invade the Baltics.

I have to say, a refreshing war scenario which doesn't involve China falling into the Thucidean trap just like Germany did prior to WWI (because Germany totally went to war because it was jealous of Britain, and not because he had to back its allies up and deal with its traditional enemy France).

K. A. Pital wrote:I can answer this question shortly: no, a Trump presidency cannot lead to WWIII.

Also, why does this thread even exist?

Finally, the fact that Americans still fret over World War fears while the world has lots of other problems is, well, very strange. Trump is the closest that the US could have to an isolationist. He said he won't fight NATO wars, he will kill TTIP and TTP, and still he is somehow likely to provoke a war? With what, his HAIR?

God bless Trump, and the US should just get out and stop making war all over the world.

Aww, you take things Trump says at face value and think he actually has coherent, consistent policy goals.

That would be just adorable if the man in question wasn't so dangerous.

Seriously, Trump flips all the fucking time. He's an isolationist today, tomorrow he's talking about how he'll destroy Daesh (no plan as to how, of course).

And to paraphrase Clinton, do you trust a man who can be baited with a tweet with nuclear weapons?

Oh, and on the off-chance that you're not just trolling and actually mean what you say, on behalf of every person Trump would fuck over-

Trump will destroy Daesh by letting others do the dirty work for him, I guess. Typical US way.

Grow up, TRR. People have a right to their opinion here. My opinion is that Trump is more isolationist than Hillary (he's reprehensible, still, of course). Deal with it. I grew up in the long shadow of the American Empire and my view is that it should come to an end, be it through Trump or otherwise.

K. A. Pital wrote:Trump will destroy Daesh by letting others do the dirty work for him, I guess. Typical US way.

I don't think we know what Trump would do with regards to Daesh or anything else, and I'm not sure he does either. I don't think he gives a shit about government. He's in it for money, power, ego. For himself. And he'll say and do just about anything to get it.

Grow up, TRR. People have a right to their opinion here. My opinion is that Trump is more isolationist than Hillary (he's reprehensible, still, of course). Deal with it. I grew up in the long shadow of the American Empire and my view is that it should come to an end, be it through Trump or otherwise.

I never denied your right to your opinion, but I have as much a right to mine, which is that your willingness to condone a candidate who is a poisonous threat to the rights of hundreds of millions and to the stability and security of this world is idiotic and morally bankrupt. You are essentially saying that every group Trump targets, every country who's security he would jeopardize, is acceptable collateral damage to you.

You can't shut down criticism with "I have a right to my opinion". Because freedom of expression is by definition a two-way street.

You haven't yet even begun to show how Trump is a "threat" to the "stability and security of this world" - please, do demonstrate with an example, would you? I am quite open to other opinions and I'm pretty sure there are people who think Trump is bubonic plague incarnate, and I'm willing to listen right here right now.

The man said he doesn't want to mess with the world much. And he's been pretty consistent in that - if not in other things surely. Sure, he may be lying. But Hillary is a lying corrupt sell-you-and-your-friend already, so I don't trust a word that comes from that mouth either, sorry.

I understand that for you it looks like a colossal threat to "security" (an abstract concept that was used to strip millions of people from their rights and create a global total surveillance state under the pretense of fighting "global threats"). But you need to realize that not everyone thinks that this "security" is worth it, or that it is "security" at all...