With the US already at war with Irak, Iran preparing missiles, North Korea already made missiles and looks like its making even more, Cuba threatning the US again. We've got missiles going around everywhere. It looks like a world war is right around the corner, if a not a similar cold war again. Lucky for the US, South Korea and Japan are on their side and so are a few other countries like England I think. What do you guys think about this?
WWIII is coming
- Thread starter rike17
- Start date
Karanislove
It's D Grav80 Of Luv
I think issues will be solved without any war. These countries would never like themselves to bring to an end. Things are much deeper what we see from outside. It is not like WW2 when countries were divided in the whole world.
Countries can think like if we collect together and destroy the big power first then it might be easy for us.
I believe in todays world, nearly every developed or developing country have missiles. So I dont find anything special in it.rike said:
Do you think that Iraq is capable of fighting at the moment. It will take years for Iraq to come out from current situation.rike said:
First of all I would say instead of missiles you should be using Uranium Enrichment here. For its answer I would say that debates are going on and we cant predict until it finishes.rike said:
Dont worry, US has a anti-missile technique as well.rike said:
Nobody knows, who is with whom because countries can change their favour from one country to another anytime.rike said:
Countries can think like if we collect together and destroy the big power first then it might be easy for us.
Big B
HWF Godfather
If Iran or NK try anything, you can bet that Tehran or Pyongyang is going to get an explosive package or set of packages. Arguably, WWIII is going on right now, and has been since the start of the Cold War.
The question really is more along the lines of if Iran or NK is ballsy enough to try anything, and belive me, I don't think we're going to sit back and let some nuke come our way. Even France will blow shit up (just ask Greeepeace) when provoked.
Japan has stated that if an NK missle hits them, they will take that as a declaration of war.
The US is NOT at war with Iraq. We are at war with terrorists. We took Iraq faster than we took the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. We are training the Iraqi soldiers to fight the terrorists.
Cuba's threatening the US? Why? We have long range missles, and while Bush isn't my top pick for President, I don't think he'll endlessly negotiate with Castro.
Missles aren't flying all over. There are a couple of crazies that keep waving the nuke stick around, but outside of RPG's, we're not seeing a lot of major missles flying around...at least that are reported (unless it's going to be used to bash Bush for the umpteenth time/say Iraq war sucks...etc.).
rike...get your facts down, or you're gonna drive yourself nuts. WWIII may very well happen, but I don't see it coming right now.
The question really is more along the lines of if Iran or NK is ballsy enough to try anything, and belive me, I don't think we're going to sit back and let some nuke come our way. Even France will blow shit up (just ask Greeepeace) when provoked.
Japan has stated that if an NK missle hits them, they will take that as a declaration of war.
The US is NOT at war with Iraq. We are at war with terrorists. We took Iraq faster than we took the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. We are training the Iraqi soldiers to fight the terrorists.
Cuba's threatening the US? Why? We have long range missles, and while Bush isn't my top pick for President, I don't think he'll endlessly negotiate with Castro.
Missles aren't flying all over. There are a couple of crazies that keep waving the nuke stick around, but outside of RPG's, we're not seeing a lot of major missles flying around...at least that are reported (unless it's going to be used to bash Bush for the umpteenth time/say Iraq war sucks...etc.).
rike...get your facts down, or you're gonna drive yourself nuts. WWIII may very well happen, but I don't see it coming right now.
zeus
out of date
Never read this post until now.
England wouldnt be much use on your side. We haven't even got an armed forces, we'll have to send the scots in or summit! Besides, bugger England, South Korea and Japan its China and Russia you want on your side.
To put it in perspective if it ever (which it wont) turns into all out worst case scenario war the UK currently have 12.3m men available to fight. The US has 73.5m and China has 375.5m.
At least the British Army will probably be able to camp out in India who would also back us up, they have 288.2m able bodied men who can fight.
rike, the world has been this f****d since forever.
The biggest threat is that Pakistani scientist who sells the "build it yourself" kits around the world. Libya had the last shipment going up the suez canal just before Mi6 and the CIA dusted off the deal with Tripoli. (that deal was a real interesting story)
place yuor bets now!
NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons
England wouldnt be much use on your side. We haven't even got an armed forces, we'll have to send the scots in or summit! Besides, bugger England, South Korea and Japan its China and Russia you want on your side.
To put it in perspective if it ever (which it wont) turns into all out worst case scenario war the UK currently have 12.3m men available to fight. The US has 73.5m and China has 375.5m.
At least the British Army will probably be able to camp out in India who would also back us up, they have 288.2m able bodied men who can fight.
rike, the world has been this f****d since forever.
The biggest threat is that Pakistani scientist who sells the "build it yourself" kits around the world. Libya had the last shipment going up the suez canal just before Mi6 and the CIA dusted off the deal with Tripoli. (that deal was a real interesting story)
place yuor bets now!
NationMaster - World Statistics, Country Comparisons
Karanislove
It's D Grav80 Of Luv
Everytime I think of Army, the first thing comes into my mind that, Is it worth to have millions of people in army or technical weapons? Because one can kill millions in one shot with a technical weapon.Zeus said:
Willz
MiCrO$oFt $uK$ :D
i seen on a website that this was said: "A new Korean War will finally lead to the Third World War," it said. "Let us see who will win and who will be defeated in the fire-to-fire standoff."
source: World Urges Caution as N. Korea Raises World War III Fears
If world war 3 did start, that would mean that north korea blasts the crap outa the us and other main countries etc..? its very confusing, it seems like the world stands no chance against North korea.
whats going to destroy the world first? global warming, astroid or nukes?
source: World Urges Caution as N. Korea Raises World War III Fears
If world war 3 did start, that would mean that north korea blasts the crap outa the us and other main countries etc..? its very confusing, it seems like the world stands no chance against North korea.
whats going to destroy the world first? global warming, astroid or nukes?
daisycutter
Geek
countires such as iran, N korea, pakistan all want access to nuclear weapons as they see it as bargaining chips against the US. once these countries have nukes , other countires are forced to take them more seriously. for example, i dont think bush and blair would of been so keen shooting from the hip bargeing into baghdad if saddam had a couple of nukes waiting to blow the coalition forces to kingdom come. (even though supposedly iraq did....)
it all boils down to the fact every man and his dog in 'devleoping countries' is sick of new age colonialism by the US and want their country and their interests taken seriously. they dont want a war, they just dont want to be bullyed.
anyway, it shouldnt be the missles in North Korea that worry you: the korean armed forces is well funded. u shud be worrying bout the russian generals who are skint and have sold their last dozen ICBMs at a knock down price to some guy whose slightly mad and wants to get his own back for england losing the world cup.
so cheer up mate.. have a pint. worry bout the crossword instead!
it all boils down to the fact every man and his dog in 'devleoping countries' is sick of new age colonialism by the US and want their country and their interests taken seriously. they dont want a war, they just dont want to be bullyed.
anyway, it shouldnt be the missles in North Korea that worry you: the korean armed forces is well funded. u shud be worrying bout the russian generals who are skint and have sold their last dozen ICBMs at a knock down price to some guy whose slightly mad and wants to get his own back for england losing the world cup.
so cheer up mate.. have a pint. worry bout the crossword instead!
Big B
HWF Godfather
Well, Saddam was not complying with UN resolutions, and had he been allowed to continue, we would've very likely had a problem on our hands eventually. Saddam didn't have nukes from what I understand, but that doesn't mean he didn't have other things up his sleeve. We've had a much more recent run in with Saddam, so I think the threat was still fresh in peoples minds whereas Kim Jong Ill isn't the same guy calling the shots as when we had the Korean War. Saddam Hussein was going to be a continued threat...and quite honestly, he should've been taken care of in the original Persian Gulf war. Kim Jong Ill is like a little kid with a .22 revolver and no extra bullets trying to take on a SWAT team.
NK is going to be down right stupid to try anything real. Even China's not to happy about their little missile show yesterday. If NK tries anything, I doubt it's going to be put up with for very long. We have the capability to make Pyongyang a pile of rubble, but we are trying to avoid that.
From what I hear, NK only has a few missiles that they could possibly put a nuke on, and their long range missile that would be a threat to the US came apart within the first minute of launch.
NK is going to be down right stupid to try anything real. Even China's not to happy about their little missile show yesterday. If NK tries anything, I doubt it's going to be put up with for very long. We have the capability to make Pyongyang a pile of rubble, but we are trying to avoid that.
From what I hear, NK only has a few missiles that they could possibly put a nuke on, and their long range missile that would be a threat to the US came apart within the first minute of launch.
daisycutter
Geek
thats north korean hardware for ya! i would imagine that their missle build quality is some what near that of their LG mobile phones: looks nice enough but falls apart the first time you take it out.
edit: i may be wrong, coz i have a sneaking feeling LG is south korean. doesnt matter either way, coz LG build quality is still rubbish!
edit: i may be wrong, coz i have a sneaking feeling LG is south korean. doesnt matter either way, coz LG build quality is still rubbish!
Karanislove
It's D Grav80 Of Luv
They are buying technology from Russia underhand but they've put themselves in a great threat by test firing missiles.daisycutter said:
zeus
out of date
Like daisycutter said, they want them so they will be taken a little more seriously by other countries.
The eastern countries with nuclear weapons dont really have many. Not compared to what was made in the cold war. They will go out in a few bangs and that would be that. Iran is practically bankrupt because of the money it has spent so places like N Korea who we wont trade with are stuffed when it comes to building an arsenal. I dont know what the score is with India and Pakistan though. Besides if they drop nukes it will be on each other! Nothing to worry about there!
Baring in mind it apparently will take 7-8 of the biggest to flatten London it really is about bargaining power. Very few countries will have the ability to launch enough to cause world mayhem. Probably just the likes of the usual few. America, Uk (whatever we have on our old subs or is it sub now? And thats at the end of its long life), France and persuming Russia are liers, them too. China apparently have 2000 nukes too! 2000 nukes, potentially 400m troops and enough T72's to do all the Challenger 2s in the world is enough to scare me. And N Korea too!
The eastern countries with nuclear weapons dont really have many. Not compared to what was made in the cold war. They will go out in a few bangs and that would be that. Iran is practically bankrupt because of the money it has spent so places like N Korea who we wont trade with are stuffed when it comes to building an arsenal. I dont know what the score is with India and Pakistan though. Besides if they drop nukes it will be on each other! Nothing to worry about there!
Baring in mind it apparently will take 7-8 of the biggest to flatten London it really is about bargaining power. Very few countries will have the ability to launch enough to cause world mayhem. Probably just the likes of the usual few. America, Uk (whatever we have on our old subs or is it sub now? And thats at the end of its long life), France and persuming Russia are liers, them too. China apparently have 2000 nukes too! 2000 nukes, potentially 400m troops and enough T72's to do all the Challenger 2s in the world is enough to scare me. And N Korea too!
Willz
MiCrO$oFt $uK$ :D
i think 1 could flatten london, london aint that big, only somthing like 25 square miles. 2000 Nukes, 400m troops, man i dont think anyone could win china in a war, but come on 2000 nukes, i doubt it, i bet the uk and america probs only have about 20 put together, maybe uk has none?
zeus
out of date
Its not about size, its density. Besides London is nearly twice that, its about 35-40 sq miles. Map of United Kingdom | Multimap.com Ive got a mate from Watford and he calls himself a Londoner so.... I got 7-8 bombs from an article in The Sunday Times a few years ago when blair had to re-write what would happen if nuclear war occured and government fell, Queen on a boat all that crap. They published the old plans (back dated a little of course!) when the new were written. Blair wrote it by hand n eveything. The idea if government get vapourized and no-one is in charge anymore is that our nuclear subs were to fire on BOTH military and population centres of the enemy then travel to either the US or Australia and put themselves under military command of either of the allies.
Ive dug it to see for sure....
It didnt state much from recent history but in the 60's and 70's it was expected the Soviet Union would drop 10 1 megaton bombs on London. So OK maybe they wern't the biggest but Hiroshima was a 12500 ton bomb and a megaton is a million ton. London has population of 7m and they estimated the Soviet Union could kill 12m Brits overall in an attack. Apparently we could return fire to the effect of 8m Soviet lives before we were crushed. We were no match whatsoever to the Soviet Union then, different league on a different planet in them days!. It also said (in todays terms) that a 1 megaton bomb dropped slap bang in the middle of London would create a crater 3/4 mile wide and 150ft deep! The "fireball" or blast zone would stretch 2.5 miles in diameter, thats 1.25 miles from the epicentre.
Glasgow, Birmingham and Liverpool were expected to get 4 1 megaton bombs and 2 1/2 megatone bombs. 17 other UK cities were expected to get 2 1 megaton bombs. Selby wasnt on the list of probable targets. So thats 51 nukes dropped on the UK in the first day of being attcked. What would they send to America, and France? Frances cities generally have a higher population density than the UK so would need more per city. America has shit loads of cities! Baring in mind France is solely powered by nuclear reactors it goes to show they love the idea and were probably as big a threat to the Soviet Union as we were.
Your talking hundreds of nukes in one attack!
As for the UK and the US having 20 nukes put together!!!!!
Our Trident subs hold 16 Trident 2 missiles. Each missile holds 12 warheads (for dropping on 12 targets in an area) Thats 192 nukes on one sub. We have 4 of these subs.(thats from the Royal Navy website Ballistic Subs (SSBN) : Submarine Service : Operations and Support : Royal Navy )
Wiki says Americas 14 trident subs (or as they name them; Ohio class) each hold 24 missiles, albeit Trident 1 or 2 variants, each hold 8 warheads (different warheads persumably). So thats 3456 nukes on (well Americas) our subs alone. Wiki also says these 2688 nukes onbaord their subs is around half the arsenal. Its not the best place for info like this but its a number to compare to 20 to though!!!
Then theres the air force too. Im not saying we have over 3.5 thousand nukes for sure but why have the capability (ie all those subs) if you aren't going to warrant them useful.Suppose its better than putting all your eggs in one basket though if we have got less. At $30 a missile its not hard to fill em though with whatever America spends on the military. I reckon they probably last a while.
It puts N Koreas and Irans gripes into perspective, we wont let them even create fuel grade uranium which is far far less pure than wepaons grade. I dont remember the exact difference but your talking like 5% of the way there if you have fuel grade.
In fact wow, wiki does have some content. It reckons wepons grade is 85% 235U isotopes and fuel grade is 3-5% 235U isotopes.So my guess was good! You are 3.5-5.9% of the way there. It the difference of years of research. Or like I said earlier you can buy a build itself kit which you replicate over and over from a Pakistani scientist. He includes shipping n everything.
Have you not watched the news lately, our Ballistic subs are at the end of service and everyone is kicking Blair for wanting to renew them with no questions asked. They want a vote in parliment!!! Blair should give em all the V!!
Makes chinas 2000 look a little small really! But China never have spent loads on technology because they've got silly numbers of available troops. Maybe thats why they have old soviet guns and tanks etc.
Just noticed at the end the article was an extract from a book, The Secret State by Peter Hennessy.
Ive dug it to see for sure....
It didnt state much from recent history but in the 60's and 70's it was expected the Soviet Union would drop 10 1 megaton bombs on London. So OK maybe they wern't the biggest but Hiroshima was a 12500 ton bomb and a megaton is a million ton. London has population of 7m and they estimated the Soviet Union could kill 12m Brits overall in an attack. Apparently we could return fire to the effect of 8m Soviet lives before we were crushed. We were no match whatsoever to the Soviet Union then, different league on a different planet in them days!. It also said (in todays terms) that a 1 megaton bomb dropped slap bang in the middle of London would create a crater 3/4 mile wide and 150ft deep! The "fireball" or blast zone would stretch 2.5 miles in diameter, thats 1.25 miles from the epicentre.
Glasgow, Birmingham and Liverpool were expected to get 4 1 megaton bombs and 2 1/2 megatone bombs. 17 other UK cities were expected to get 2 1 megaton bombs. Selby wasnt on the list of probable targets. So thats 51 nukes dropped on the UK in the first day of being attcked. What would they send to America, and France? Frances cities generally have a higher population density than the UK so would need more per city. America has shit loads of cities! Baring in mind France is solely powered by nuclear reactors it goes to show they love the idea and were probably as big a threat to the Soviet Union as we were.
Your talking hundreds of nukes in one attack!
As for the UK and the US having 20 nukes put together!!!!!
Our Trident subs hold 16 Trident 2 missiles. Each missile holds 12 warheads (for dropping on 12 targets in an area) Thats 192 nukes on one sub. We have 4 of these subs.(thats from the Royal Navy website Ballistic Subs (SSBN) : Submarine Service : Operations and Support : Royal Navy )
Wiki says Americas 14 trident subs (or as they name them; Ohio class) each hold 24 missiles, albeit Trident 1 or 2 variants, each hold 8 warheads (different warheads persumably). So thats 3456 nukes on (well Americas) our subs alone. Wiki also says these 2688 nukes onbaord their subs is around half the arsenal. Its not the best place for info like this but its a number to compare to 20 to though!!!
Then theres the air force too. Im not saying we have over 3.5 thousand nukes for sure but why have the capability (ie all those subs) if you aren't going to warrant them useful.Suppose its better than putting all your eggs in one basket though if we have got less. At $30 a missile its not hard to fill em though with whatever America spends on the military. I reckon they probably last a while.
It puts N Koreas and Irans gripes into perspective, we wont let them even create fuel grade uranium which is far far less pure than wepaons grade. I dont remember the exact difference but your talking like 5% of the way there if you have fuel grade.
In fact wow, wiki does have some content. It reckons wepons grade is 85% 235U isotopes and fuel grade is 3-5% 235U isotopes.So my guess was good! You are 3.5-5.9% of the way there. It the difference of years of research. Or like I said earlier you can buy a build itself kit which you replicate over and over from a Pakistani scientist. He includes shipping n everything.
Have you not watched the news lately, our Ballistic subs are at the end of service and everyone is kicking Blair for wanting to renew them with no questions asked. They want a vote in parliment!!! Blair should give em all the V!!
Makes chinas 2000 look a little small really! But China never have spent loads on technology because they've got silly numbers of available troops. Maybe thats why they have old soviet guns and tanks etc.
Just noticed at the end the article was an extract from a book, The Secret State by Peter Hennessy.
zeus
out of date
well bloody hell. wiki again; A 2002 declaration list. It says in 1985 nuclear weapons peaked at 65,000 worldwide. This is what is declared.
List of countries with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The US has declared having at least 5000 nukes.
Look whos number 2!
Seems we like to say we have binned many of ours off. I dont believe for a minute we have less than 200.
That China figure (Nuclear Weapons - China Nuclear Forces) seems to be out. Maybe I read it wrong and it meant they have produced but not kept 2000 nukes since the 50's.
List of countries with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The US has declared having at least 5000 nukes.
Look whos number 2!
Seems we like to say we have binned many of ours off. I dont believe for a minute we have less than 200.
That China figure (Nuclear Weapons - China Nuclear Forces) seems to be out. Maybe I read it wrong and it meant they have produced but not kept 2000 nukes since the 50's.
Karanislove
It's D Grav80 Of Luv
If WW3 happens then nothing will be left out after that. Those who even survives will also die after sometime because of environmental disasters. Global warming will go up to very high piont. There will be no fresh air. Sun rays will be covered by gasses layer. Problem for the sources of eating and drinking. Earth's surface will lose the fertility, so you wont be able to grow things on it and the list will go on.................... So its better to not to have a ww3.
Willz
MiCrO$oFt $uK$ :D
zeus said:
so it appears that north korea is no match for the USA and uk put together, from what all that stuff you wrote, it seems like no coutry in the world is any match at all for the UK or USA or both put together. Whats the part about that subs would go to either america or australia and take charge of the millitary, i dont think the uk would be allowed to take charge of the us :s.
If i were tony blair, i would drop nukes on north korea NOW to get this crap over with.
zeus
out of date
Why would our sub commanders go and take over the US military in the event our government falls?
Our subs have a job then when they are done they go to the US or Australia and take orders from them! because who else can they take orders from? Australia is Australia and the US have always been our closest allies. Well, over the last 100 years anyway! :)
Besides, its not about whos got more bombs.
Russia apparently (according to wiki) has more nukes than the US. Up to 16,000! I thought they disarmed starting in 1990 (or whenever it was the cold war ended) with a few so called admin discrepancies. Lost nukes which everybody started saying Al-Quada had after 9/11. They probably kept half n sold half! Pakistan isnt the most advanced science state after all!
The only reason all these bombs are around is because of the cold war. Thats why Russia and the US has loads more than the 3 country on the "Nuclear Club" list, France I think was 3rd with 350 declared. N Korea is never meant to be a match, nor is Iran or was Iraq. Israel put an end to Iraqs research ages ago though. Its the fact that us so called resposible states want to avoid another cold war where at anytime all hell could break loose. Once you can make nukes you could throw em off the production line at a huge rate.
Again, like daisycutter said, its about bargaining power. Look at all the hype and commotion around the world just because Iran is between 5-15 years from creating weapons grade uranium and N Korea has started to make missiles. Most of the Iran thing is down to lack of trust. They promised not to do what they are doing.
Our subs have a job then when they are done they go to the US or Australia and take orders from them! because who else can they take orders from? Australia is Australia and the US have always been our closest allies. Well, over the last 100 years anyway! :)
Besides, its not about whos got more bombs.
Russia apparently (according to wiki) has more nukes than the US. Up to 16,000! I thought they disarmed starting in 1990 (or whenever it was the cold war ended) with a few so called admin discrepancies. Lost nukes which everybody started saying Al-Quada had after 9/11. They probably kept half n sold half! Pakistan isnt the most advanced science state after all!
The only reason all these bombs are around is because of the cold war. Thats why Russia and the US has loads more than the 3 country on the "Nuclear Club" list, France I think was 3rd with 350 declared. N Korea is never meant to be a match, nor is Iran or was Iraq. Israel put an end to Iraqs research ages ago though. Its the fact that us so called resposible states want to avoid another cold war where at anytime all hell could break loose. Once you can make nukes you could throw em off the production line at a huge rate.
Again, like daisycutter said, its about bargaining power. Look at all the hype and commotion around the world just because Iran is between 5-15 years from creating weapons grade uranium and N Korea has started to make missiles. Most of the Iran thing is down to lack of trust. They promised not to do what they are doing.