World War III is near...the question is - will you be ready? Watch

the_decider
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#81
Report 7 years ago
#81
(Original post by Craiky1506)
It's not, but for the West to believe going in and bombing a country would ever cure anything is beyond me. Yeh, killing Gaddafi's son is going to make him back down and really happy. Stupid, ignorant, idiot West.
I want to give you more thumbs up but I can only do one
0
reply
Jacktri
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#82
Report 7 years ago
#82
i'm ready with my pitch fork yoooooooooooooo
0
reply
iainthegreat
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#83
Report 7 years ago
#83
(Original post by slavetosociety)
North Koreo? Pffft..they couldn't even hurt a fly if they tried to.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#84
Report 7 years ago
#84
(Original post by Drewski)
Because we've spent too long fighting fair.

In each of the scenarios you talk about, the periods of time when it was armed forces vs armed forces, the 'war' component has been over in virtually no time at all - it has been a cakewalk, any study of international conflict will tell you that. Where they fall down is on the rules we use when 'occupying' the country and in allowing guerilla movements to build up. It's the shoddy, half-arsed way we deal with anything 'in-country' that leaves us in the mire.

If the object is to stop them from fighting - which in the case of an actual war would be pretty sensible - then that can be fully achieved in less than a week from the air. Easily.
Well all you can achieve through the air is defeating the apparatus of the state and armed forces. You can't eliminate a shadowy guerilla movement from the air. The only way to do that is to completely obliterate the entire population and destroy the infrastructure. In regions of strategic importance to the world's oil supply that is not an option because aside from any human aspect...what is the net gain to the USA of spending billions bombing somewhere, for the result to be a spike of unparalleled proportions in oil prices which will bring the US (and the rest of the Western world) economies to their knees. Remember any US administration would soon be voted down if US citizens lost their right to cheap gasoline.
0
reply
damidude
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#85
Report 7 years ago
#85
(Original post by harvie_316)
nobody see it in that way because they are too ignorant to even notice, It is exactly that "A war on our world", we are destorying it every single day, testing A bombs in the atmosphere, chemical testing on animals, exploiting children the list can go on for days, If this is not a war on our world, then what is it?

What I said above the meida lable it as "economic development" or "economic growth", they just spin it and because people dont think for them selfs and they are consuming too much fluoride from there toothpaste and water, along with additives in food, we cant think.


We have sold our souls to buy these cars, Iphones, computers, designer clothes, and while we buy all these, we ignore what the power that be are doing.
That last bit is going in my sig
0
reply
lonelykatana
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#86
Report 7 years ago
#86
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
How come we didn't beat Afghanistan in 42 seconds? Or Iraq in 42 seconds?
What on gods earth are you talking about?
It took less than 20 days (Coalition troops took control of Baghdad within 16 days.) to completely dismantle and destroy Iraqi military resistance. The Iraqi Republican Guard were no resistance at all against the British and American military.
No doubt you will argue with this, but these are indeed the facts.

You are confusing a lengthy process of insurgent attacks (From different Islamic groups, fighting for control of Iraq) and peace keeping, with the invasion.
Fighting a true military is a very easy thing to do for western powers, especially the likes of the Iraqi republican guard or even the Libyan army... They know clearly who the military is, and who the civilians are.

Once insurgency rises, then real problems begin. They are a hidden enemy. Its very easy for a war plane to target a tank on the front line, but who's to say if that man walking down the road/driving through a checkpoint is a civilian doing no wrong, or a insurgent bomber? Its to high a risk to simply kill them and find out later, especially when the coalitions population, and the occupied population see the western intervention as the aggressors.

Look at the other wars the UK has been involved in. The Falklands is a prime example. British forces had to travel some 7500 miles to protect the Islands, yet the war was still over within 80 or so days.
Why? Because it was clear who the enemy was. It was an organised military aggressor. Yes, we took heavy losses, but lets be fair the Argentinian forces came off a lot worse.
The same thing happened in the early days of Iraqi occupation.
Like I've said, its comparably simple thing fighting a war against an organised military.

However, the case is WWIII, not insurgency. World wars involve (or at least have done in the past) very clear front lines and very clear enemies. If we were to invade Libya, we would destroy their army in a matter of days. There is no doubt about that. Look at the devastation we have caused their Air projection and Navy... If we were to send troops to the ground, the Libyan forces would be crippled in days.
But, peacekeeping missions from insurgent attacks would take undoubtedly years to sort out.
3
reply
Elbonian
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#87
Report 7 years ago
#87
The only way I see this annoying Russia is the West's vested interest in Libya's oil, meaning less business for the Russians. But it's highly unlikely that this would catalyze a third world war.
0
reply
Ocassus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#88
Report 7 years ago
#88
(Original post by slavetosociety)
The Russians and the Chinese are the one to look out for. They've been sitting quietly and observing the scenes...
Except you know, China isn't going to do anything.

And Russia? Well, they might, but it'd be pretty easy for Europe to keep them at bay considering we have stupid amounts of Anti-Missle defenses around that area...
0
reply
Ocassus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#89
Report 7 years ago
#89
(Original post by lonelykatana)
What on gods earth are you talking about?
It took less than 20 days (Coalition troops took control of Baghdad within 16 days.) to completely dismantle and destroy Iraqi military resistance. The Iraqi Republican Guard were no resistance at all against the British and American military.
No doubt you will argue with this, but these are indeed the facts.

You are confusing a lengthy process of insurgent attacks (From different Islamic groups, fighting for control of Iraq) and peace keeping, with the invasion.
Fighting a true military is a very easy thing to do for western powers, especially the likes of the Iraqi republican guard or even the Libyan army... They know clearly who the military is, and who the civilians are.

Once insurgency rises, then real problems begin. They are a hidden enemy. Its very easy for a war plane to target a tank on the front line, but who's to say if that man walking down the road/driving through a checkpoint is a civilian doing no wrong, or a insurgent bomber? Its to high a risk to simply kill them and find out later, especially when the coalitions population, and the occupied population see the western intervention as the aggressors.

Look at the other wars the UK has been involved in. The Falklands is a prime example. British forces had to travel some 7500 miles to protect the Islands, yet the war was still over within 80 or so days.
Why? Because it was clear who the enemy was. It was an organised military aggressor. Yes, we took heavy losses, but lets be fair the Argentinian forces came off a lot worse.
The same thing happened in the early days of Iraqi occupation.
Like I've said, its comparably simple thing fighting a war against an organised military.

However, the case is WWIII, not insurgency. World wars involve (or at least have done in the past) very clear front lines and very clear enemies. If we were to invade Libya, we would destroy their army in a matter of days. There is no doubt about that. Look at the devastation we have caused their Air projection and Navy... If we were to send troops to the ground, the Libyan forces would be crippled in days.
But, peacekeeping missions from insurgent attacks would take undoubtedly years to sort out.
+rep for very sensible post.
0
reply
damidude
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#90
Report 7 years ago
#90
(Original post by im so academic)
Not my fault.



I didn't ask for it.



Blame their governments.



Hyperbole.



Eh?



Tell us then.



How convincing. :congrats:
With attitudes like this, its no wonder.
1
reply
Elbonian
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#91
Report 7 years ago
#91
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
Well all you can achieve through the air is defeating the apparatus of the state and armed forces. You can't eliminate a shadowy guerilla movement from the air. The only way to do that is to completely obliterate the entire population and destroy the infrastructure. In regions of strategic importance to the world's oil supply that is not an option because aside from any human aspect...what is the net gain to the USA of spending billions bombing somewhere, for the result to be a spike of unparalleled proportions in oil prices which will bring the US (and the rest of the Western world) economies to their knees. Remember any US administration would soon be voted down if US citizens lost their right to cheap gasoline.
Not really, in fact quite the opposite in Bush's 2004 re-election. It's only one factor from a multitude of factors.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#92
Report 7 years ago
#92
(Original post by Elbonian)
Not really, in fact quite the opposite in Bush's 2004 re-election. It's only one factor from a multitude of factors.
I was talking on a different scale. If there was World War III and the US destroyed some Middle Eastern country, and oil prices spiked to a point where the average family couldn't fill up their tank, goods couldn't be transported across the country etc, the administration may find it difficult to maintain the 'feelgood factor'
0
reply
Hamesh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#93
Report 7 years ago
#93
(Original post by Aj12)
Actually War with China would destroy the US and Chinese economies. China looses its biggest market. China also holds much of American debt. WHo are they going to borrow from to fund a war?

It wouldn't be far from the truth to suggest the neocons in congress want another war, one that they'll have to put all their resources by means of sucking out every dollar they can from the federal reserve for the US to remain globally dominant. Essentially, it would require a war with China & win. This would mean it resets its economy & all the debt borrowed from China gone!

After all, the last Great War was concluded with the US's use of atomic weapons.

However, I agree, the US has neither the troop or manufacturing strength at this time to pursue any further sustained conflicts than those in which it is already embroiled, all of which are going catastrophically badly.


As I said before, it's likely to kick off in the Middle East though. We've already seen Egypt open the Rafah border crossing, just as the Tunisian revolution set a domino effect, the unity of Hamas and Fatah, the border opening could as well maybe be a greater & more direct challenge to Israel.
0
reply
Elbonian
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#94
Report 7 years ago
#94
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
I was talking on a different scale. If there was World War III and the US destroyed some Middle Eastern country, and oil prices spiked to a point where the average family couldn't fill up their tank, goods couldn't be transported across the country etc, the administration may find it difficult to maintain the 'feelgood factor'
That's pretty much what happened in Bush's 2004 re-election. Invasion of Iraq followed by an increase in oil prices. Though not to the point where most families couldn't afford oil. That's ridiculously unlikely.
0
reply
Kenocide
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#95
Report 7 years ago
#95
Loving the 'Oh no, I'm well scared of Libya innit!' comments. Not retarded in the slightest.

As for WW3 though, I'm not sure. Now that so many countries have nuclear capabilities I don't think there can really be another World War - if there is, we'll all be royally fooked.

As it is, it's become a kind of Wolrd War of Words III. Alliances and allegiances are already coming to the fore, but rather than the likes of Russia stepping in and fighting, they're just sticking their noses in and politely offering their 2 cents.
0
reply
Elbonian
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#96
Report 7 years ago
#96
(Original post by Aj12)
Actually War with China would destroy the US and Chinese economies. China looses its biggest market. China also holds much of American debt. WHo are they going to borrow from to fund a war?
Can't you just say the U.S. owes China a lot of money?
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#97
Report 7 years ago
#97
(Original post by Hamesh)
It wouldn't be far from the truth to suggest the neocons in congress want another war, one that they'll have to put all their resources by means of sucking out every dollar they can from the federal reserve for the US to remain globally dominant. Essentially, it would require a war with China & win. This would mean it resets its economy & all the debt borrowed from China gone!

After all, the last Great War was concluded with the US's use of atomic weapons.

However, I agree, the US has neither the troop or manufacturing strength at this time to pursue any further sustained conflicts than those in which it is already embroiled, all of which are going catastrophically badly.


As I said before, it's likely to kick off in the Middle East though. We've already seen Egypt open the Rafah border crossing, just as the Tunisian revolution set a domino effect, the unity of Hamas and Fatah, the border opening could as well maybe be a greater & more direct challenge to Israel.
I could easily see a large proxy war fought in the Middle Est between China and the US though tbh. Not now but in ten years or so.
0
reply
slavetosociety
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#98
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#98
(Original post by im so academic)
Not my fault.



I didn't ask for it.



Blame their governments.



Hyperbole.



Eh?



Tell us then.



How convincing. :congrats:
God, you are such a tool sometimes :facepalm:
0
reply
slavetosociety
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#99
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#99
(Original post by Hipster)
I love u.
Ok...
0
reply
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#100
Report 7 years ago
#100
(Original post by Drewski)
If WWIII equals the west vs. Libya then I think I fancy our chances of us winning and it lasting about 42seconds.
About 10 minutes, but Drewski is right.

Unless we wanted the oil that was left over. That way we would need to fight with conventional methods.

Nuclear attack, however; we'd send four ICMB missiles from the Nuclear-capable Submarines in the Med and we'd have shock-victory in about 5-10 minutes.

We've really nothing to fear. Libya's armed forces aren't equatable to the smallest NATO Armies, never mind the combined force of the Western Alliance.
0
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

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (499)
37.83%
No - but I will (101)
7.66%
No - I don't want to (90)
6.82%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (629)
47.69%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed