The New Cold War could possibly lead to WW3 Watch

Jaager
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report 10 years ago
#21
So basically you think it will Be SCO + a few others Vs NATO + a few others?

NATO's *******ed
0
quote
reply
crazygirl4521
Badges: 14
#22
Report 10 years ago
#22
(Original post by Good bloke)
You might be able to gather my attitude to it by my responses. :yep:
Ahh I see if that's the case then Fiji will probably take Americas side as we know its got the most underwater bases. The US can you this to geographical pressurise Russia and increase its sphere of influence.

(I actually think if I wrote that bit of text in a history exam I might just get a mark) :shock:
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#23
Report 10 years ago
#23
OP is a troll.
0
quote
reply
neo232
Badges: 0
#24
Report 10 years ago
#24
This is funny, but it could happen in near future. However I dont agree with the idea Russia + China vs USA + EU. That made me laugh so hard xD

The Cold War is the war between communist and anti communist (say, imperialist) countries, Soviet and the States acted like supporters, the results notably are the Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan War (in 1979).
The New Cold War could possibly lead to WW3
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990s there is no Cold War anymore. I dont understand what is the "New" Cold War. Plus, now Russia is NOT communist anymore. I dont think Russia and China will make a good axis ) Remember the conflict between Russian and Chinese, which is known as Sino-Soviet split lasted from 1950s to 1980s . Everything can change. Actually China is quite an aggressive guy, look up the China India war 1962, China Vietnam war 1979.. I think China will start the WW3 with some countries by some ridiculous territory problems. Probably North Korea. xD

About the participants..I support the idea EU will split up the "tight" connection with the American. The States, Russia, China, India, Middle East will be the main battlefields, but not sure who will ally who.. xD Hey, you guys forget Australia, African and south American countries? They are all potential to big battles lol
0
quote
reply
Ezekiel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report 10 years ago
#25
(Original post by neo232)

About the participants..I support the idea EU will split up the "tight" connection with the American. The States, Russia, China, India, Middle East will be the main battlefields, but not sure who will ally who.. xD Hey, you guys forget Australia, African and south American countries? They are all potential to big battles lol
You have a tit in your skull instead of a brian:woo:
0
quote
reply
neo232
Badges: 0
#26
Report 10 years ago
#26
(Original post by Ezekiel)
You have a tit in your skull instead of a brian:woo:
How to report abusing?

This gay Ezekiel sucks really hard. He doesnt even understand a joke. He doesnt understand what is "Cold War" and still make another "New Cold War" thread. Then spam here. His mom didnt tell him to show respect to others. Useless mom.
0
quote
reply
Tory Dan
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#27
Report 10 years ago
#27
(Original post by Jaager)
So basically you think it will Be SCO + a few others Vs NATO + a few others?

NATO's *******ed
Lol wut?

If anyone thinks Russia could beat NATO both conventionally or unconventionally then go read up on modern military strategy.
0
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#28
Report 10 years ago
#28
(Original post by neo232)
I think China will start the WW3 with some countries by some ridiculous territory problems. Probably North Korea. xD
How would a war between China and North Korea become a world war? China would win in ten seconds flat.
0
quote
reply
sahil112
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 10 years ago
#29
um i think i will like afghanistan to stay out of all this and not bother
unless someone attacks us then its revenege
0
quote
reply
Jaager
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 10 years ago
#30
(Original post by Tory Dan)
Lol wut?

If anyone thinks Russia could beat NATO both conventionally or unconventionally then go read up on modern military strategy.
well seeing as most of NATO's troops for afghanistan + Iraq are trained for Asymetrical warfare against insurgent groups, compaired to the Russian, Chinese + other SCO members forces who are trained for more traditional, combined arms action, then i would have to say that, in WW3, the Russians + Chinese would have the upper hand until nato troops could adapt to the change in warfare....
0
quote
reply
rosygarden
Badges: 0
#31
Report 10 years ago
#31
i thought china hadnt actually reckognised south ossetia as a right to be independent , and actually said the situation os worrying, therefore i think along with all the whoha of the oylmpics they are desperately trying to prove to the west they are responsible civilised country, so maybe china would side with the usa not russia ,as it would cement their new identity in the world not their old one.
0
quote
reply
Jaager
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#32
Report 10 years ago
#32
(Original post by rosygarden)
i thought china hadnt actually reckognised south ossetia as a right to be independent , and actually said the situation os worrying, therefore i think along with all the whoha of the oylmpics they are desperately trying to prove to the west they are responsible civilised country, so maybe china would side with the usa not russia ,as it would cement their new identity in the world not their old one.
they do quite a bit of training together.

These are from 2007's SCO Anti Terror exercise (hence why there are VV MVD taking part)

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/740/big28713sp0.jpg
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4967/big28828fv1.jpg
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/8189/big29034kl1.jpg
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2360/big29040iv1.jpg
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e239/AIKozlov/01.jpg
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/535/big28656im3.jpg
0
quote
reply
rosygarden
Badges: 0
#33
Report 10 years ago
#33
what is a VV MVD? well it sounds like we are a pick ********D then really, how much would it cost to build a nuclear bunker?
0
quote
reply
Jaager
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 10 years ago
#34
VV MVD, Soldiers of the Interior Ministary, thay are like a form of national guard, their used for anti riot, anti terrorism and they also have field units organised like a standard motor rifles unit. They also have their own spetsnaz units, such as Vityaz and Rus . In those pictures they are the guys in the red berets.
0
quote
reply
Tory Dan
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#35
Report 10 years ago
#35
All NATO needs to do is deploy its air force, bye bye Russian tank divisions, air bases, fuel depots...
0
quote
reply
Jaager
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#36
Report 10 years ago
#36
thats right because Russia doesnt have an airforce...

If you start on that route your going to get the whole stealth vs super manouverability argument, and you really dont want to go there...
0
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#37
Report 10 years ago
#37
(Original post by Jaager)
thats right because Russia doesnt have an airforce...

If you start on that route your going to get the whole stealth vs super manouverability argument, and you really dont want to go there...
But stealth allows you to destroy aircraft on the ground, regardless of how manoeuvrable they are in the air. Case closed, surely?
0
quote
reply
Jaager
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#38
Report 10 years ago
#38
this is why i said dont go there:


The general idea is that American's believe stealth gives their aircraft a competitive edge while other nations, primarily Russia, say they could have stealth but believe it can be countered.

-Aircraft can be tracked using infrared technology. While not nearly as effective as radar, it's enough to reduce stealth's advantage.
-Your aircraft is either stealth or super-maneuverable, it's extraordinarily hard to do both, nor is it worth the money if infrared technology reduces the stealth edge. [Stealthy designs often reduce maneuverability, speed, etc.]
-Super-maneuverable fighters can 'dodge missiles.'

Arms Development seeks relative gains. This means that, while great, absolutes are rare and small advantages are sought for. In other words, there's no such thing as a truly stealth or unlimitedly maneuverable aircraft. To have an aircraft detected 25% less or able to dodge missiles 25% more, though, would be a competitive edge. (These % are examples, and are not even educated guesses as to what capabilities really are).
0
quote
reply
Tory Dan
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#39
Report 10 years ago
#39
(Original post by Jaager)
this is why i said dont go there:


The general idea is that American's believe stealth gives their aircraft a competitive edge while other nations, primarily Russia, say they could have stealth but believe it can be countered.

-Aircraft can be tracked using infrared technology. While not nearly as effective as radar, it's enough to reduce stealth's advantage.
-Your aircraft is either stealth or super-maneuverable, it's extraordinarily hard to do both, nor is it worth the money if infrared technology reduces the stealth edge. [Stealthy designs often reduce maneuverability, speed, etc.]
-Super-maneuverable fighters can 'dodge missiles.'

Arms Development seeks relative gains. This means that, while great, absolutes are rare and small advantages are sought for. In other words, there's no such thing as a truly stealth or unlimitedly maneuverable aircraft. To have an aircraft detected 25% less or able to dodge missiles 25% more, though, would be a competitive edge. (These % are examples, and are not even educated guesses as to what capabilities really are).
Lol this isn't the Russian air force, who don't even have GPS guided bombs. NATO just launch air launched cruise missiles or JSOW's and destroy all the targets we need to well out of the way of Russian air defences.

F-22's just swat anything Russia has out the sky and the jobs a gooden.
0
quote
reply
Liquidus Zeromus
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#40
Report 10 years ago
#40
Of course.

I think this is actually realistic, considering that Mutally Assured Destruction is on the way out. The missile defence system means that the threat of nuclear strikes is diminished. Not gone, but it means that NATO can keep vital areas virtually undamaged. Russia doesn't know the capabilities of this missile defence system, and thus might be deterred from testing it altogether. I doubt that NATO would use its nukes against Russia without MAD, either. It would be terribly one-sided.
The missile defence system won't be enough to destroy thousands of missiles, let alone stop fleets of nuclear bombers, not yet, but it will likely act as a deterrent.
It could pave the way for a non-nuclear World War III.

Tensions between NATO and SCO camps have been escalating recently, but they don't seem to be so severe as in the first Cold War, not yet. I think that some sort of large-scale crisis is inevitable, and such tensions are to be expected. We're at that stage in the cycle of history. Revolutionary technology is changing the world, the balance of power is shifting, and new players have come to the forefront. It would be silly and naive to think that World War III or some other large-scale war is impossible.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (50)
27.17%
No (134)
72.83%

Watched Threads

View All