World War III Prediction Thread

[Phoenicaea]

What were your suspicions?

That it was on some sort of path to self destruction

..wich is a further, valid reason, to claim truely elected representative of my electoral college, not a farse or a party's puppet, while attending this.

[UniversalCommons]

I have learned something new. If there is a nuclear war, Russia, Europe, the United States, China, Israel, and the middle east will be destroyed. Most of the places in the southern part of the globe won't be bombed. Nothing in Africa, nothing in Latin America, it is a stretch to bomb Indonesia or Australia. Half of the world will be intact. There will be hardship, but people will survive.

A scenario happens where there is nuclear war and most of Africa and Latina America come out intact. A coalition forms to take over the north to prevent the war from happening again led by Australia, Nigeria, and Brazil.

[The New California Republic]

I have learned something new. If there is a nuclear war, Russia, Europe, the United States, China, Israel, and the middle east will be destroyed. Most of the places in the southern part of the globe won't be bombed. Nothing in Africa, nothing in Latin America, it is a stretch to bomb Indonesia or Australia. Half of the world will be intact. There will be hardship, but people will survive.

I've been basically saying that for the past several pages.

[The Federation of Spokane]

I have learned something new. If there is a nuclear war, Russia, Europe, the United States, China, Israel, and the middle east will be destroyed. Most of the places in the southern part of the globe won't be bombed. Nothing in Africa, nothing in Latin America, it is a stretch to bomb Indonesia or Australia. Half of the world will be intact. There will be hardship, but people will survive.

I've been basically saying that for the past several pages.

Yo Cali, what do you think would be the best point for a nation attacking The United States of America to make America fall on it’s knees in WWIII?

[The New California Republic]

I've been basically saying that for the past several pages.

Yo Cali, what do you think would be the best point for a nation attacking The United States of America to make America fall on it’s knees in WWIII?

What do you mean by "best point"?

[Sovaal]

I've been basically saying that for the past several pages.

Yo Cali, what do you think would be the best point for a nation attacking The United States of America to make America fall on it’s knees in WWIII?

Launch all your nukes at once, then blow your own brains out before the American nukes wipe your country out as well.

[Oil exporting People]

I have learned something new. If there is a nuclear war, Russia, Europe, the United States, China, Israel, and the middle east will be destroyed.

Even this won't happen, there simply isn't enough nuclear weapons to do such.

[The New California Republic]

I have learned something new. If there is a nuclear war, Russia, Europe, the United States, China, Israel, and the middle east will be destroyed.

Even this won't happen, there simply isn't enough nuclear weapons to do such.

I interpreted the statement as meaning "destroyed as cohesive nations" rather than wiped off the map as such.

[Ifreann]

I figure they'll just reboot the series with a battle royale mode. World War I(2020).

[Dogmeat]

I have learned something new. If there is a nuclear war, Russia, Europe, the United States, China, Israel, and the middle east will be destroyed.

Even this won't happen, there simply isn't enough nuclear weapons to do such.

Tell that to Carthage.

[Abyssal Shipyard]

World War 3 would be the best goddamn thing to happen to any of us. Everything is hopelessly fucked, so might as well get a few laughs if everything gets to fall apart.

[Dogmeat]

World War 3 would be the best goddamn thing to happen to any of us. Everything is hopelessly fucked, so might as well get a few laughs if everything gets to fall apart.

I too was a teenager once.

[Ifreann]

World War 3 would be the best goddamn thing to happen to any of us. Everything is hopelessly fucked, so might as well get a few laughs if everything gets to fall apart.

I too was a teenager once.

The World Wars were famously very entertaining for all young men involved, so it only follows that a third World War would be the absolute maximum bantz.

[Abyssal Shipyard]

World War 3 would be the best goddamn thing to happen to any of us. Everything is hopelessly fucked, so might as well get a few laughs if everything gets to fall apart.

I too was a teenager once.

Enjoy your coming slavery or getting killed for no reason via redflag laws if you live in the US.
Enjoy getting replaced, raped, or beheaded in Europe.
Isn't peace wonderful? :^)

[Big Jim P]

There is little to no chance of another World War within the reasonably near future. I won't say there is absolutely no chance. If I could predict the future that well, I'd be far wealthier than I am.

[The New California Republic]

World War 3 would be the best goddamn thing to happen to any of us. Everything is hopelessly fucked, so might as well get a few laughs if everything gets to fall apart.

Enjoy your coming slavery or getting killed for no reason via redflag laws if you live in the US.
Enjoy getting replaced, raped, or beheaded in Europe.
Isn't peace wonderful? :^)

I bet you are fun at parties.

[Ifreann]

World War 3 would be the best goddamn thing to happen to any of us. Everything is hopelessly fucked, so might as well get a few laughs if everything gets to fall apart.

Enjoy your coming slavery or getting killed for no reason via redflag laws if you live in the US.
Enjoy getting replaced, raped, or beheaded in Europe.
Isn't peace wonderful? :^)

I bet you are fun at parties.

Enjoy all parties being slightly tedious forever ;v{

[Socio Polor]

Another World War starting is indeed possible, but not likely from how things are now. Currently overall international tensions have been on the chill side with the worst being mere threats (North Korea towards the U.S for example). However bare in mind that things can happen unexpectedly and realistically speaking World War 3 could start at any moment; all it takes is just one little spark to start a huge fire. After all, just look at how the previous 2 World Wars started to see what I mean.

[Oil exporting People]

I interpreted the statement as meaning "destroyed as cohesive nations" rather than wiped off the map as such.

Not even that. Doctrine has long since shifted on all sides to counter-strike instead of counter-value, at least among the majors; Supposedly the Anglo-French maintain counter-value since their arsenals are too weak to do counter-strike. Business-Insider has a good article on the subject:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that Russia had developed four new "unstoppable" nuclear systems devised specifically to render American missile defenses "useless" — and even played animations of launches toward the US.

The systems include a superfast underwater drone, a nuclear-powered "unlimited"-range cruise missile, a new intercontinental ballistic missile with several independent warheads, and a hypersonic missile to be fired from jets.

With most everything from the Kremlin, it's best to take its claims with a grain of salt. But one thing is certain: In a full-on nuclear attack from Russia, the US has little chance to defend itself and millions would die almost instantly.

Since the Cold War, the US and Russia have drawn up plans on how to best wage nuclear war against each other; and while large population centers with huge cultural impact may seem like obvious choices, a smarter nuclear attack would focus on countering the enemy's nuclear forces.


So although people in New York City or Los Angeles may see themselves as being in the center of the world, in terms of nuclear-target priorities, they're not as important as states like North Dakota or Montana.

According to Stephen Schwartz, the author of "Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of US Nuclear Weapons Since 1940," as the Cold War progressed and improvements in nuclear weapons and intelligence-collection technologies enabled greater precision in where those weapons were aimed, the emphasis in targeting shifted from cities to nuclear stockpiles and nuclear war-related infrastructure.

This map shows the essential points Russia would have to attack to wipe out the US's nuclear forces, according to Schwartz:

This map represents targets for an all-out attack on the US's fixed nuclear infrastructure, weapons, and command-and-control centers, but even a massive strike like this wouldn't guarantee anything.

"It's exceedingly unlikely that such an attack would be fully successful," Schwartz told Business Insider. "There's an enormous amount of variables in pulling off an attack like this flawlessly, and it would have to be flawless. If even a handful of weapons escape, the stuff you missed will be coming back at you."

Even if every single US intercontinental ballistic missile silo, stockpiled nuclear weapon, and nuclear-capable bomber were flattened, US nuclear submarines could — and would — retaliate.

According to Schwartz, at any given time, the US has four to five nuclear-armed submarines "on hard alert, in their patrol areas, awaiting orders for launch."

Even high-ranking officials in the US military don't know where the silent submarines are, and there's no way Russia could chase them all down before they fired back, which Schwartz said could be done in as little as 5 to 15 minutes.

But a strike on a relatively sparsely populated area could still lead to death and destruction across the US, depending on how the wind blew. That's because of fallout.

nuclear fallout blast zones terrorism explosion brooke buddemeier llnl
Dangerous radioactive fallout zones shrink rapidly after a nuclear explosion. Brooke Buddemeier/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
The US has strategically positioned the bulk of its nuclear forces, which double as nuclear targets, far from population centers. But if you happen to live next to an ICBM silo, fear not.

There's a "0.0% chance" that Russia could hope to survive an act of nuclear aggression against the US, according to Schwartz. So while we all live under a nuclear "sword of Damocles," Schwartz added, people in big cities like New York and Los Angeles most likely shouldn't worry about being struck by a nuclear weapon.

We also know the U.S. at the least was moving in this direction since 1956. FEMA looked at the parallel to U.S. planning in terms of likely Soviet targeting against the U.S. and came up with 500 and 2,000 exchange scenarios; due to cuts the 2,000 scenario is no longer possible and even the 500 scenario would mean the Russians expend half their force just targeting the 50 States. Overseas American assets and European allies would still be there in such a scenario for the remaining nuclear weapons. Given Britain was slated for 106 nuclear targets during the Cold War, you begin to see the issue here given the limited size of nuclear forces.

Finally, everyone, or at least the major players, have designed their Governments around having a surviving chain of command after such a conflict. The Russians, if they've maintained Cold War standards, have planning in place to directly preserve not just their Government, but also military and economic structures for continued war fighting after the bombs fall.

[UniversalCommons]

I can imagine a secret undersea base tunneled into the bedrock where the president would be sent with dozens of submarines.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-navy-bui ... 00582.html

[Deutschess Kaiserreich]

To quote my friend Bismark: "It will all be because of some damn thing in the Balkans"

[Frievolk]

To quote my friend Bismark: "It will all be because of some damn thing in the Balkans"

Not this time though. It's more likely for it to rise out of the Middle East or Far East than out of the Balkans.

[The New California Republic]

I interpreted the statement as meaning "destroyed as cohesive nations" rather than wiped off the map as such.

Not even that. Doctrine has long since shifted on all sides to counter-strike instead of counter-value, at least among the majors; Supposedly the Anglo-French maintain counter-value since their arsenals are too weak to do counter-strike. Business-Insider has a good article on the subject:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that Russia had developed four new "unstoppable" nuclear systems devised specifically to render American missile defenses "useless" — and even played animations of launches toward the US.

The systems include a superfast underwater drone, a nuclear-powered "unlimited"-range cruise missile, a new intercontinental ballistic missile with several independent warheads, and a hypersonic missile to be fired from jets.

With most everything from the Kremlin, it's best to take its claims with a grain of salt. But one thing is certain: In a full-on nuclear attack from Russia, the US has little chance to defend itself and millions would die almost instantly.

Since the Cold War, the US and Russia have drawn up plans on how to best wage nuclear war against each other; and while large population centers with huge cultural impact may seem like obvious choices, a smarter nuclear attack would focus on countering the enemy's nuclear forces.


So although people in New York City or Los Angeles may see themselves as being in the center of the world, in terms of nuclear-target priorities, they're not as important as states like North Dakota or Montana.

According to Stephen Schwartz, the author of "Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of US Nuclear Weapons Since 1940," as the Cold War progressed and improvements in nuclear weapons and intelligence-collection technologies enabled greater precision in where those weapons were aimed, the emphasis in targeting shifted from cities to nuclear stockpiles and nuclear war-related infrastructure.

This map shows the essential points Russia would have to attack to wipe out the US's nuclear forces, according to Schwartz:

This map represents targets for an all-out attack on the US's fixed nuclear infrastructure, weapons, and command-and-control centers, but even a massive strike like this wouldn't guarantee anything.

"It's exceedingly unlikely that such an attack would be fully successful," Schwartz told Business Insider. "There's an enormous amount of variables in pulling off an attack like this flawlessly, and it would have to be flawless. If even a handful of weapons escape, the stuff you missed will be coming back at you."

Even if every single US intercontinental ballistic missile silo, stockpiled nuclear weapon, and nuclear-capable bomber were flattened, US nuclear submarines could — and would — retaliate.

According to Schwartz, at any given time, the US has four to five nuclear-armed submarines "on hard alert, in their patrol areas, awaiting orders for launch."

Even high-ranking officials in the US military don't know where the silent submarines are, and there's no way Russia could chase them all down before they fired back, which Schwartz said could be done in as little as 5 to 15 minutes.

But a strike on a relatively sparsely populated area could still lead to death and destruction across the US, depending on how the wind blew. That's because of fallout.

nuclear fallout blast zones terrorism explosion brooke buddemeier llnl
Dangerous radioactive fallout zones shrink rapidly after a nuclear explosion. Brooke Buddemeier/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
The US has strategically positioned the bulk of its nuclear forces, which double as nuclear targets, far from population centers. But if you happen to live next to an ICBM silo, fear not.

There's a "0.0% chance" that Russia could hope to survive an act of nuclear aggression against the US, according to Schwartz. So while we all live under a nuclear "sword of Damocles," Schwartz added, people in big cities like New York and Los Angeles most likely shouldn't worry about being struck by a nuclear weapon.

We also know the U.S. at the least was moving in this direction since 1956. FEMA looked at the parallel to U.S. planning in terms of likely Soviet targeting against the U.S. and came up with 500 and 2,000 exchange scenarios; due to cuts the 2,000 scenario is no longer possible and even the 500 scenario would mean the Russians expend half their force just targeting the 50 States. Overseas American assets and European allies would still be there in such a scenario for the remaining nuclear weapons. Given Britain was slated for 106 nuclear targets during the Cold War, you begin to see the issue here given the limited size of nuclear forces.

Finally, everyone, or at least the major players, have designed their Governments around having a surviving chain of command after such a conflict. The Russians, if they've maintained Cold War standards, have planning in place to directly preserve not just their Government, but also military and economic structures for continued war fighting after the bombs fall.

I mean I don't agree with that interpretation of UniversalCommons's statement either, as I'm aware of the extensive CoG prep that nations take. Sure, if the shit hits the fan there will likely be some links in the chain that get broken, because shit happens after all, but the entirety of the structure should remain intact enough to ensure CoG succeeds.

[The Biggles Syndicate]

What would the chance be of it starting between India and China?

World War 3 would be the best goddamn thing to happen to any of us. Everything is hopelessly fucked, so might as well get a few laughs if everything gets to fall apart.

Chaotic Neutral, by any chance?

[The New California Republic]

World War 3 would be the best goddamn thing to happen to any of us. Everything is hopelessly fucked, so might as well get a few laughs if everything gets to fall apart.

Chaotic Neutral, by any chance?