Scott. Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1288963,00.html Saw this today and Bush warned of World War 3... Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harwood Butcher Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 I've always thought this whole war on terrorism thing would lead to WWIII. Now it's finally being mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 WWIII has been on the edge of breaking out for a while now. And then, it could happen ten, twenty years from now, or never even happen in our lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayer Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Yeah, like Bush isn't a threat to a world peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charger Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Well this can be caused by Russia giving Iran Weapons and the threat it gave to the U.S, but I still think we won't see any WWIII anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris82 Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Yeah, like Bush isn't a threat to a world peace... That's the exact kind of ignorant comment I hate to see. Is he a bad president? Yes. Is the U.S. being in Iraq a horrible mistake? Yes. But George W. Bush isn't killing thousands of his own people for intolerance nor does he hate the Jews/Gays/Insert non-Muslim classification here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Jay Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 no one would ever win in a nuclear war, because so much of the planet would get destroyed. Whats the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Yeah, like Bush isn't a threat to a world peace... That's the exact kind of ignorant comment I hate to see. Is he a bad president? Yes. Is the U.S. being in Iraq a horrible mistake? Yes. But George W. Bush isn't killing thousands of his own people for intolerance nor does he hate the Jews/Gays/Insert non-Muslim classification here. Thank you, Glad to see some people can put a little thought into their comments. I think we'd be a lot worse off if Algore won the 2000 election (still can't believe ho won a Nobel Prize). My biggest gripe on Bush is letting gas triple on his watch. THAT'S what is screwing up this country. US in Iraq? Something had to be done about Hussein. Suggested reading would be any history text covering Germany circa 1930s or Russia under Stalin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheelman101 Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Im honestly not scared, well about Iran yes, but like America for a while has honestly bin trying to take our 3 provinces up north AKA North west territory's, Yukon, and Nunavut. last year bush said that those provinces didn't belong to Canada and he wanted to test nukes up there, theres allot of room, only 30,000 people live altogether in those provinces, and yeah, but like if America did any military movements into Canada, and if the Canadian government says screw off, and they insist, good fucking luck, i guarantee you will see china,Russia,and few more countries who are very close friends with Canada backing us up. and if you call me a idiot, easier way of what i said America tries anything stupid towards Canada, try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 WWIII has been predicted ever since WWII was finished. There have been a billion apocalyptic films and books since then. Thing is, we're not really likely to have a war on the same scale again. A couple of hundred years ago wars were fought in a field at a prearranged time for a battle. At the time of WWI, technology had advanced enough for armies to be deployed anywhere pretty quickly, and of course they could bomb each others countries instead, turning the entire world into a potential battlefield. It was actually these possibilities that forced many technological advances, particularly in aircraft. So in WWII, any country could bomb another nearby country without much warning. Nowadays our technology is so advanced that the richer countries (especially US, UK, Russia) could bomb any country in the world within an hour. Our missile systems and orbital weapons can do this without causing any immediate risk of home losses. Surely this would a war really easy? Just sit in the white house pressing a few buttons and wiping a few nations off the map. Not so, because there happen to be a few other countries with similarly large technology. Think about it - the second Bush launched a missile at Russia, they would detect it. It would be recognised as an obvious act of aggression and a big threat, and they could launch their own missiles before the American one got close. Within ten minutes of Bush's go-ahead you have two countries and two missiles pointing at each other. If these were big missiles, they could annihilate a few states each. Yes this is entirely realistic, not exaggerated. Why would anybody risk doing that? No country would launch a war unless they know someone else is trying to wipe them out, because the effects would be devastating. In cavalry field battles, you risk a regiment or two at most. In an air raid in the blitz you risk a squadron of planes, and a few cities might get blitzed. In a nuclear war, you risk your half of the planet. Nobody is that stupid. Why do you think the Cold War was cold? Because total annihilation is just too big a risk for anybody to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K9 Krew Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 No - One will ever use the Nuclear weapons because they know that if they use one the opposing countries will just send one right back on over and it will be hell for them two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charger Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Russia warned the U.S that they may Break the Deal of The Cold War, and I don't think U.S will take parts of canada, I was seeing the Military channel, and we got some crazy weapons, such as the laser.. and Aircraft. I was surprised.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonOfLiberty Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) Why would anybody risk doing that? No country would launch a war unless they know someone else is trying to wipe them out, because the effects would be devastating. In cavalry field battles, you risk a regiment or two at most. In an air raid in the blitz you risk a squadron of planes, and a few cities might get blitzed. In a nuclear war, you risk your half of the planet. Nobody is that stupid. I agree. Look how much human life was lost during WWI and II. There were millions, and millions. This is over 70+ years ago aswell, without the aid of Nuclear warfare. I couldn't imagine how much human life would be lost, if there were a World War to occur now. Edited October 19, 2007 by Johnny Fidalgo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas. Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I don't expect to see "The real WWIII" in our lifetimes. If it does it doesn't really matter because there is no chance of most people surviving this advanced technology. It is dangerous and I don't think any other countries worldwide wants another World War. Which would mean that many countries would join in and makin it even bigger especially with some of those leaders out there (aka Gordon Brown, President Bush ect) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheelman101 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 (edited) this may sound very stupid but look at the world population, its too high..its time to take a few tiks out, scientist say that the world wont be able to support over 7 billion.. Edited October 20, 2007 by wheelman101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charger Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I think back then, wars where often caused by not communicating well with other countries, so they pretty much went against them with what they had, now that leaders can meet much better than back then, and with the U.N, problems can be solved, without going to war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbia747 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I honestly don't think world war 3 will be like any other world wars, it will be a you push that button, i push 20 more buttons war, a try and scare the other guy, a bigger cold war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_91 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 WWIII will always be on the cards as long as nuclear weapons are in peoples hands. The Iranian president is a strange one but one things for sure he will never let go of his nuclear weapons. Even if America went to war with Iran he still wouldn't give them up and thats a seriosu problem but if you think about it does it really matter? Lots of coutries have nuclear weapons but America dont sem to be bothered about them. It seems strange that there only targeting Iran. WWIII could happen in our lifetime espeically after Russia's support of Iran, just wonder why the UK will sdie probably with the Americans if it does happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I think back then, wars where often caused by not communicating well with other countries, so they pretty much went against them with what they had, now that leaders can meet much better than back then, and with the U.N, problems can be solved, without going to war. Ah but there's a problem. A few hundred years ago, if some king or whatever wanted some more land, he could just send a small army out and take it. Not many people would even find out, never mind care. Nowadays, if (for example) Iran wanted to take over Iraq or something, the entire world would know about it and a hell of a lot more people would die, not just the leaders or people who resisted. You can't just take what you want anymore. I don't think diplomacy can help that. Lots of coutries have nuclear weapons but America dont sem to be bothered about them. It seems strange that there only targeting Iran. They're targeting Iran because that is a country very much likely to use them against the US, possibly without much provocation. Iran supports Al Qaeda, Iran supports the idea of making the entire world muslim, Iran thinks western democracy is stupid and deserves to be gotten rid of. It isn't countries like the UK or France that the States are scared of, because we're quite well behaved and aren't likely to turn round one day and bomb DC. Iran probably will, and with Russie supporting it WWIII could happen in our lifetime espeically after Russia's support of Iran, just wonder why the UK will sdie probably with the Americans if it does happen. The UK will side with America for three reasons. One is to keep the USA on our side, so that if we get bombed, you yanks come and save us. Another is to actually protect Christianity and democracy, which are the two things powers like Iran are trying to get rid of. The third is that we want to be on the winning side, and America has the best biggest military with the latest technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bossman Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Yeah, like Bush isn't a threat to a world peace... Just thought I'd mention this - today when I was walking around a shopping centre in Ealing, there were some protesters with some megaphones, and there were pictures of Bush with the words '#1 Terrorist' written over his face. They were generally moaning about his reign so far, and I just found it a little odd. Do it in America, not in England, surely? In regards to WWIII, I don't think anything will come of it. There might be a war in a few years, but it won't be a World War. These things are happening all the time behind the scenes, nuclear weapons being built for protection, and occasionally details slip out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheelman101 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Its a matter of fucking WEEKS now Putin Attacks US foreign polecy, announces new nuclear weapn. After a visit to Iran and making subtle threats of repercussion granted future US policy decisions, Vladmir Putin announced new Russian nuclear weapon. Stock up on food, its about to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charger Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Russias Military isn't that good, there aircraft are outdated, and it would be a big mistake for Russia to go to war. I still doubt a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheelman101 Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 (edited) yes, but they were the ones who invented the T90, which is a fact stronger then the Abrams Tank, Abrams tank was made to keep the crew safe at all times, T90 was made to kill. and go into the harshest enviroments. but the only threat both of these tanks would have would be the leopard 2 tank. but yet again im only talking about if there werent any nukes used and its another land grab situation. Russians they use the AK47 rated the best rifle in the world (its true, learn your fucking facks) and America uses there good ol M4/M16 but then you see germany, using there VHS rifle, Edited October 20, 2007 by wheelman101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_91 Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Russias Military isn't that good, there aircraft are outdated, and it would be a big mistake for Russia to go to war. I still doubt a war. It doesn't matter about who has the better weapons when theres street fighting. I remember when America went into Iraq and found it quite hard to kill soldiers and not civilienz, Iraq's were more experienced at this and so gave a good resistance, and only 15% of the Bath party actually fought America. Russia is the same they may have the old artiliary etc. but they know how to combat like street fighting something the British and Americans haven't conquered at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little_Chestnut Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Yeah, like Bush isn't a threat to a world peace... That's the exact kind of ignorant comment I hate to see. Is he a bad president? Yes. Is the U.S. being in Iraq a horrible mistake? Yes. But George W. Bush isn't killing thousands of his own people for intolerance nor does he hate the Jews/Gays/Insert non-Muslim classification here. However Bush is still a threat to world peace because he believes that it is America's job to police the world. Also, this may sound cold hearted, but what is all of this about rebuilding a country we are at war with? No other country would do this for us and quite frankly the US does not have the money. this may sound very stupid but look at the world population, its too high..its time to take a few tiks out, scientist say that the world wont be able to support over 7 billion.. Want to know a much easier way? Only have one child per couple. Population gets cut in half in just one generation. Yay population gets under controll and we bump it back up to two generations from now. The only problem is that we are too stupid to follow these rules and are driven by sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now