Veeky Forums predicts World War 3

yep me :D

Putin invade Ukraine and Caucasus,in an attempt to recreate the Soviet Union,just not being communist;

NATO and UN get upset,Putin give the middle finger to them,NATO and UN give the ultimatum,Putin give the other middle finger(from the other hand),NATO declare war,Putin declare war on them,Putin allie himself with China and North Korea,war became nuclear wa,and,we fucked.

Underrated post.

>
>
> a rising China humiliating America in the South China seas.

With what? Frigates?

MAD has made world war an impossibility, if the cuban missile crisis didn't cause ww3 nothing will

Yesterday's Balkans is today's Middle East.

>reading through GDP, population, fit-for-service
>get to aircraft
>AFVs
>artillery
>aircraft carriers
>destroyers
>tfw

WW3 started after the cold war and is still going on.
The world vs the ""rogue states""

People said the same of the destructive capability of the Great War, which was thought to be the war to end all wars due to human beings not *possibly* unleashing such destruction again, much less greater than that.

Do not underestimate the collective human ability to forget, and adherence to ideology. Do nuclear weapons dwarf these? We are still watching. If these weapons are going to be around for a looooooong time, I think it stands to reason that they will be used again. Perhaps I am wrong, but humanity shall see with time.

why would anyone support either of those two countries?

It's already happening.

the destructive power of machine guns and the destructive power of nuclear weapons is incomparable

ww1 showed what happens when you allow kings to control industrial weapons of war, ww3 is not the same since no matter how egotistical a world leader might be there's no surviving nuclear war.

>there's no surviving nuclear war.

Says who?

Nuclear exchange is a guaranteed extinction level event because of the havoc the aftermath will wreak on the environment my man.

You've been reading too any outdated studies. The eco-papers of the 70's have been disproven time and time again since.

Not every city is Tokyo, not will every strike be an airburst.

long drawn Syria style civil wars in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Europe, with Iran and Russia and USA finding proxies by 2026

Screen cap this post

The eternal American will be triumphant

Yes, missile frigates are the future. Carriers are still necessary for force projection, but missile frigates are the new counter to carriers.

Care to link to a paper that argues it wouldn't be a total disaster that would severely fuck up all agriculture?

Here's the research I cited in a paper I wrote for my undergraduates

researchgate.net/publication/255062131_Nuclear_war_US_agriculture_and_biomass_energy

That seems to only deal with the radiation. What about the never ending firestorms and thousands of tons of ash going up into the atmosphere?

All the nuclear weapons in the world, even if used in an airburst, would not eject enough dust into the atmosphere to equate to a Medium volcanic eruption (i.e. Tambora, St. Helens, etc),

There certainly would be an EFFECT on agriculture for at least a year, but not an EXTINCTION LEVEL EVENT as you so fear.

And the Firestorm meme is literally 1970's eco-panic, not every city is a japanese paper-and-wood town.

you only read the abstract, didn't you?

I don't know how WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

>implying by this logic that governments and nation states will still exist in a hypothetical dystopian post WWIII scenario to fight out a hypothetical WWIV

When will this Einstein meme die already, the fucker already contributed enough to development of nuclear weapons

But relativity is pretty cool tbqh

Reddit-tier quote.

Maybe, just maybe, he was exaggerating to make a point, and the poetic value of the statement trumps its inability to satisfy literal autists like you.

Iran/US war starts, its allies invade Israel and Saudi as part of their MAD arrangement, US spreads all around MidEast, Chinks and Russia begin full damage control for their prospects in the region and something something WW3

>Implying WW3 will be nuclear and not conventional warfare

Whoever launches the first nuke will forever be seen as a nation of weaklings and cowards. Fix bayonets.

>fix bayonets
I like this guy

>implying that stupid things hasn't already happended there for some 14 years
South chinese sea. Failpenis and Gommie Chinkdonia will set it off.

Still fascinating that there hasn't been any use of nuclear weapons in war for 71 years.

>Prediction
>3 out of 6 have already happened

Good job Miss Marple

Hardly, let's have a run-down of the points of :

>Muslim populations in Europe rise to the point they can implement their influence and laws
Easily countered by americanize european laws. For instance, the italian anti-blasphemy law was to placate the church. But they couldn't word the law to be against blaspheming the church. So it was worded in more generalistic terms. So muslims in italy use the law for their own ends. Now, are the muslims to blame for using the law? Or should the politicians apply themselves and get their fingers dirty abolishing that law?

>People react to that
The loud minority that can barely contain their racism?

>right wing parties rise
See above.

>EU collapses
And even if it did, it wouldn't set the stage for WW3.

>Civil wars break out in Europe
Between what states and/or parties? Democracies don't wage war on each other.

>Eventually becomes a secularist and Christians vs Muslim world war
Yeah, because this is not an abrahamitic civil war. It is totally a war between two totally different parties that totally doesn't both believe in the return of Jesus...

3rd impact when

nah railguns are :)

When one of the major powers starts to implode it'll start major shit to stave off the inevitable
Major conventional wars can't start in this age over flashpoints. Shit can just be blamed on terrorist factions and can be resolved via proxy war.
The powers major enough to kick off global war have too much to lose in nuclear hellfire, and have the aforementioned means of displacing blame in the case of another power feeling it has casus belli

Some assholes will sit down at Bilderberg and at some point, those assholes will begin a dick measuring contest that will end with other assholes getting mad and then those assholes will kill the first assholes and then everything goes to shit.

Like that.

Wew, it was a step by step famalam.

Also:

>Democracies don't wage war on each other.

Based on what? The fact it hasn't happened yet?

War seems so silly. Instead of risking my life firing over this razor wire to defend a piece of land, I'd retreat and then sneak in at night and poop in their food.

Democracies do AND have waged war against each other. Off the top of my head the Russo-Georgian War in 2009.

A lone Turkish nationalist assisnates a Russian politician in an art gallery. Despite assurances from leaders of both nations that this event will not negatively affect relations, the seeds of a new meme war have been planted.

The fire rises.

>The eco-papers of the 70's have been disproven time and time again since.
Citation needed

He probly meant Occidental Liberal Democracies. Not the illiberal ones.

read the thread

First off, there's a few theaters where a potential WW3 are much more likely than anywhere else, where more than 1 Great Powers are operating with conflicting interests.

1. The Middle East
>Sunni vs Shi'a tensions have flared into full blown proxy wars in Syria & Yemen. Russia & Iran's support of the Syrian regime run counter to American/Western interests. While the Syrian civil war seems to be winding down, the eventual result will probably do little to quell underlying tensions between the opposing powers.
>Israeli anxieties over potential Iranian nuclear capabilities remain a potential flashpoint for hostilities

2. Eastern Europe
>The current Russian Regime's aggressive policies towards its former soviet satellites had produced considerable tension between NATO & Russia. NATOs expansion into these states has been seen as a direct threat to Russian interests who have responded in kind with military adventures to shore up its 'sphere of influence' in Georgia, Ukraine & Syria. NATO has bolstered its forces on the Russian border to deter a potential invasion of the Baltic states.

3. The South China Sea. China has directly challenged US pacific hegemony with their rapid construction & militarization of contested islands in the SCS, flouting international conventions. Both sides seem unwilling to grant the other ground and the possibility of a international incident remains.

I believe most think-tank literature about a hypothetical war between modern Great Powers (either US&NATO/Russia, US&Israel/Iran or US&Japan/China) predicts a brief war of incredibly intensity, with the possibility of a limited nuclear exchange. These conclusions are a lot of speculation however.

I've always believed that the next great war will be fought over Antarctic fresh water supplies.

Do we have the technology or the drive to discover a faster way to desalinate salt water before that happens?

>"LONE Turkish nationalist"
>Implying it wasn't the dems tryna start shit with Russia before God Emperor Trump ascends to the throne and brings us peace.

Out of the 3, Middle Eastern conflict seems to be the most likely. Turkey, which has been relatively stable post WW2 is starting to collapse. Erdrogan has already had a coup attempt, not to mention the pressure that ISIS is putting on his borders, and a nationalist killing the ambassador to Russia means they potentally lost their best hope in keeping ISIS focused on syria/iraq ect and not trying to invade Turkey.

>South China Sea
The vast majority of Chinese manufacturing is for the mega-businesses of the United States. Fighting the US=Economic suicide, we would drop massive sanctions and force companies to move production either domestically or to another country in the event of war.

>Eastern Europe
Maybe with Obama in office that was a possibility, but I have a feeling Trump will allow Putin to keep Crimea, let Russia do what they want in Syria, and ease economic sanctions in exchange for Russian oil and gas, as well as scientific partnership. Trump my a be a loose cannon, but he is not dumb enough to start a war with Russia.

You can't have one in the current political setting.

If everyone starts going on to a total war economy, America wins, pure and simple. There is no reasonable coalition that can oppose America + her allies. You can resist American occupation with some degree of success, but nobody has the ability to defeat them in open conflict, nor the resources to compete in a long war, assuming American will to fight holds out.

To get a real World War, you need a more multi-polar system of military power than we currently have, but with that, will almost certainly come a new web of alliances and interests, making it enormously difficult to predict.

I would only say that economic interdependence doesn't preclude full blown hostilities.

Britain & Germany were each others biggest trading partners in 1914 for example. States are very sensitive to any kind of threat to national interests, which could wuite easily override economic considerations.

the war in Georgia was a case of aggressive military adventurism? on Russia's part? hmm... no... it wasn't even NATO's fault; it was no ones fault but that of the Georgians that they decided to murder peacekeepers in their country there completely legally, effectively spreading their buttholes open for the worst possible 1v1 and giving away disputed territories for no reason. one of the stupidest decisions of the entire 21st century

just like how it was neither the promise of EU membership nor russian-backed corruption in Ukraine that forced west Ukropians to go full apeshit and topple a president elected by east Ukropians fair and square and end up with everyone worse off than before

Armenia/Azerbaijian, Morocco/Algeria, Pakistan/India and Best.Korea/S.Korea. may as well throw these in. more than likely than over some barely notable trolling on Estonian borders.

In 50 years the ingrained racial and national hatreds of the South China Sea will boil over into an international naval conflict that will draw in the diminished United States and once and for all settle the battle for global hegemony with China.

Do you shitters really not understand there's about to be a trade war with China?

Get this. Most of the industry in China is American owned businesses/corporations who ship their goods to the American market.

Trump, in his plan to bring jerbs to America, drops a tax on businesses- not based on their location, but based on whether they participate in the U.S. market.

Those American companies in Mexico and China aren't paying shit for corporate taxes, they aren't paying shit for labor costs. But they sure as hell send all of their products (or most of them) to the U.S. The new tax will encourage those businesses to move back to the U.S. from China (and other places). But China is important because most of the shit Americans buy is made in China- everything in Wal-Mart is made in China. Take that with the fact that China's economic boom is solely because they're able to push their cheap goods into our market with no to low barriers.

China will collapse if American businesses stop producing in China.

Suddenly, U.S. economic regulations are a threat to China's existence. So what can China do about it? Start a war. Economists are already talking about.

>Most of the industry in China is American owned businesses/corporations
care to source this outrageous claim?

Here's one. Didn't fine tooth comb it. But at a glance looks about right.

jiesworld.com/international_corporations_in_china.htm

This was just a list of international corporations who manufacture in China, it doesn't say anything about what % of total manufacturing they make up.

I'm not disputing that there are a ton of American companies who moved factories to China because of cheap labor who make a considerable portion of Chinese manufacturing, but 'Most of the industry in China is American owned' is a ridiculous claim.

They also said the same thing about strategic bombers after WWI, most believed that they would reduce all cities to rubble and humans would revert to a medieval society. One example is the second world war depicted in HG Wells' Things to Come, which starts this way and then runs into the 1970s with bioweapons.

youtube.com/watch?v=atwfWEKz00U

The point isn't that the weapons weren't strong enough. Many people believed they were, and that's all that deterrence should take. But when the crisis did eventually emerge, the norms didn't hold and the weapons were used. If the norms around nuclear weapons are eroded in the near future, which they could be by many 'smart nuke' and other projects now in development, nuclear deterrence will vanish just like all the forms of deterrence before it.

>not will every strike be an airburst

Why not? Aren't they more effective?

Discussions about politics and current events should be posted on /pol/. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences.