WWIII is coming

so if there is world war 3, were practically, all dead?, but surely with russia on our side we will be ok, as they have apaprently 16,000 nukes? : - o : - o
 
Regardless, right now, should NK attack, Pyongyang will be blasted to kingdom come. We've also got satellites that can detect wether the missiles are a threat or not, and if they were, we'd blow them out of the sky before they'd be an issue. Iran's leadership can't be trusted to not use uranium for non-weapons useage. They vehemently hate western civilation in general---that'd be all of us---we the infidels, and I have no doubts they'd be firing at us or Israel...

But, anyway, NK just want's to be in the 'we've got nukes too' club. Let's certainly do this diplomatically to start with, but let NK understand that we do have the capabilities to raze the country with a push of a button...and that we won't hesitate to should they fail to comply. Japan is downright pissed about NK test lauch, and I don't think they'd hesistate to declare war should they be hit on purpose or accidentally.
 
Whats japans capabilities?, nukes and stuff etc.., is there any website anywere that tells the statistics of each country, i have software, but its way outdated.
 
Just cos you read it on the internet doesnt mean its true..... but
Japan Military Guide

I just put japanese military into google.

Ive not read anything but I think they are like Germany, they have certain limitations to how they can contruct thier armed forces. Much of thier strength is based upon treaty and alliance with other countries. I think its all to do with the founding of the UN.

wiki has some interesting and VERY surprising figuyres about our military. British Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Apparently we are the 2nd biggest spenders in the world! 2nd most capable! But ranked 27th for the number of troops we have. Which makes sense, we have reduced the forces for many years. Its horrible after being top of the line for 400 years and then turning into the biggest "has been" since Rome fell. It said in our local paper only today that recruitment in the north west is only 65% of what it should be and only 63 people joined the RAF last year!
 
omg, better force ppl to join like in WWII. It would be nice knowing you live in the 2nd most capable country on earth, to know that you cant really be harmed that much unless your allies turn on your :p
 
Having national service would solve the antisocial behavour problems which we are plagued with at the moment. Most kids nowadays need there heads stovin' in.

Shame most of our troops buy thier own boots cos the issue ones are crap. I remember seeing on the news guys in Iraq whos boots were melting! I also remember the first gulf war our troops coming back saying that some Iraqi conscripts didnt even have boots! Tides have turned a little!

Crap gun too. That was a waste of money. Then they wasted more trying to fix it. We should have bought the American rifle.
A mate of mine was in the army when they done away with the SLR and introduced the SA80. Apparently because there was initially a shortage some soldiers had to use the SLR, they use to fight to stand at the back of the line so they were given the SLR! They hated the SA80! He calls it a toy gun.

I think the second most capable bit has got to be down to statistical tuning! Ive nearly joined twice, once literally the day school ended; I went to the careers office on the way to the bus stop! And I looked at the RAF last year. I got the impression from serving guys that the whole forces are a shambles. I dont know how the navy stands though. The RAF is the worst, even the base down the road from me is closing. The place I live now was an old army barracks too, we have a small TA barracks left round here.
Plus you hear nothing but bad things on the news, not to mention the bullying, but thats nothing new its just considered more taboo now. How can you train killers by being nice to them!? Especially when most kids are faggots nowadays. Maybe thats why there are so many gangs of little shits knockin' about.
 
Read [link=http://www.threeworldwars.com/overview.htm]Table Comparing Statistics for World War 1, 2 and 3[/link]~!
 
How does one prepare adequately for for World War 3?

Here are a few suggestions:

Eliminate debt, including your mortgage;

Develop alternative income streams so that you're not dependent on an employer;

Get back to basics.

Read the whole story [link=http://www.threeworldwars.com/index.html]Here[/link]
 
There will never be a WW111...what we will have, as we already have, a series of chess matches going on on a regular basis...
not even NK or any present nation ruler is moronic enough to think they can win a full scale conflict in today's war room...
you will see more and more guerilla warfare...small conflicts...and quick invasions leading to guerilla warfare...

the ONLY way a WW111 would happen is if some suicidal nutjob or religious zealot ( same thing ) got a hold of a dozen nukes and decided to start Armageddon...

get your insurance policies here...

http://armageddon.thetazzone.com

considering Israel has several religious zealots who could take power at any time and several nukes at their disposal already...and their willingness to go to war over something as minor as the capture of two soldiers ...I'd be more worried about them than Iran or North Korea.

After all...they are waiting for the end of the world...and they love to fulfil their prophesies.

Eg ;)
 
Once in york, i was with my mates, it was about 10Pm, these americans walked by, my mate was drunk and started talking to them, and they came over lol, and this person called n8 who also like some sort of wierd skatboarding started talking to us about how armageddon is coming lol, about that the jews and all that are going to take over the world and stuff like that, he was from California, and some of them were from New York, Tbh i thought he was stupid, its very dangerous talking to strangers about stuff like that and handing out religious contact cards with email on, its a good job we were not violent chavs that sometimes sit by the river, coz he wouldent be walking away saying godbless if it were violent chavs, he would be in the river.
 
Hi Willz,

All political correctness aside...the fact is Isreal does not have any historical claim to the land...the only time they ever occupied and ruled that area prior to the modern creation of Isreal is during the reign of King David...and even then it was only about a hundred years after David died that everything started falling apart.

Their claim is based solely upon religious significance...not historical right.

Nor are jews a race...they are semities...so are Arabs and several other people's in the area...semite refers to:

SEMITES -
... SEMITES (originally Shemites): Term used in a general way to...Aram refers to the Arameans, a well-known division of the Semites . The descendants of Aram are said (Gen. x. 23)...the Arabs, Babylonians, Assyrians, Arameans, and Hebrews were regarded as Semites , or the descendants of Shem.—Critical View: In modern times
Click to expand...

JewishEncyclopedia.com - Search Results for: semites
JewishEncyclopedia.com - Search Results for: semites

The Zionist movement ( much like the back to African American movement for the Slaves which resulted in the creation of Liberia ) was responsible for the creation of Isreal on Palestinian soil..

In 1896 following the appearance of anti-Semitism in Europe, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism tried to find a political solution for the problem in his book, 'The Jewish State'. He advocated the creation of a Jewish state in Argentina or Palestine.

In 1897 the first Zionist Congress was held in Switzerland, which issued the Basle programme on the colonization of Palestine and the establishment of the World Zionist Organization (WZO).

In 1904 the Fourth Zionist Congress decided to establish a national home for Jews in Argentina.

In 1906 the Zionist congress decided the Jewish homeland should be Palestine.
Click to expand...

Timeline 1900 - 1979
Timeline 1900 - 1979

Which is why I stated before they should have stuck to their first choice...Argentina.

Even the Jewish Encyclopedia refers to the area as Palestine...and history bears out their claim...

Palestine extends, therefore, from 31° to 33° 20′ N. latitude. Its southwest point (at Raphia = Tell Rifaḥ, southwest of Gaza) is about 34° 15′ E. longitude, and its northwest point (mouth of the Liṭani) is at 35° 15′ E. longitude, while the course of the Jordan reaches 35° 35′ to the east. The west-Jordan country has, consequently, a length of about 150 English miles from north to south, and a breadth of about 23 miles at the north and 80 miles at the south. The area of this region, as measured by the surveyors of the English Palestine Exploration Fund, is about 6,040 square miles. The east-Jordan district is now being surveyed by the German Palästina-Verein, and although the work is not yet completed, its area may be estimated at 4,000 square miles. This entire region, as stated above, was not occupied exclusively by the Israelites, for the plain along the coast in the south belonged to the Philistines, and that in the north to the Phenicians, while in the east-Jordan country the Israelitic possessions never extended farther than the Arnon (Wadi al-Mujib) in the south, nor did the Israelites ever settle in the most northerly and easterly portions of the plain of Bashan. To-day the number of inhabitants does not exceed 650,000. Palestine, and especially the Israelitic state, covered, therefore, a very small area, approximating that of the state of Vermont.
Click to expand...

JewishEncyclopedia.com - PALESTINE:
JewishEncyclopedia.com - PALESTINE:

if you really want to know what's going on in the Middle East...you should study history...not watch CNN.

Eg ;)
 
The times are changing folks. Nowadays EVERYONES got nukes. We have nukes, they have nukes, the f*****g mailman has nukes nowadays. Noone is going to use a nuke, because it WILL result in everyone else going nuke happy and destroying the Milky f*****g Way.

As for NK having missiles capable of having nukes, they can't even get the f*****s off the ground efficiently, much less to their target. NK is going to fall. The North Korean people just need someone who will rise up and take charge against Kim jung il, and the rest will follow and overthrow the government.

As for who the US allies, do you really think that Chinas going to help us? They hate our well toned guts. The only reason they aren't as aggressive as they would like to be is because they are getting money off of us. China is probably going to be trouble though, and I'll bet that I will see the results in my life time, and quite possibly pay for it.

North Korea will become a problem soon too though, but how much should we expect from them? They are the size of Illinois (a state in the middle of the US, look at its size and compare it with NK), and it citizens are not motivated to do their best for the givernment. Why do you think most of those missiles they were testing a while back burned up?

For Iran, you know what they're doing. Those f*****s have wanted nukes ever since forever. We need to keep good relations with Isreal, because they are going to be the ones to keep Iran in line. Last time Iran attempted to build a Nuclear Power Plant, Isreal bombed it, because they knew d**n well what was going on. The thing is, if they have nukes, will they use them? Probably not.

I think what WW3 will end up being is largely a political war, more than a military one, similar to the Cold War, but no longer just Communism vs. Democracy. Any "hot" wars that happen will be lightning fast, as is a characteristic of modern warfare.

Now ends my little rant about this. ;)

Semper Fi
 
ok here it goes: WHAT RIGHT DOES THE USA HAVE TO ORDER AROUND OTHER COUNTRIES NOT TO HAVE "NUCULER" WMD WHEN THEY OWN ENOUGH TO DESTROY THE EARTH ? also the UN is just a group of countries who try to make peace by getting people to walk into countries with ........ GUNS!
 
Which war do you mean? The one in Iraq or the entire War on Terror? I don't like how Bush is running everything either, in fact, I'm downright pissed off at the border security, or lack of. However, it is not a vain, pointless effort for a few reasons:

1.)Some people hate America and western civilization as a whole.
2.)Some of these people violently disapprove of us, as seen by both the 1993 and 2001 WTC bombings...and that's just two attacks.
3.)Some can be negotiated with, but others cannot as the decimation of the west is when they'll stop.
4.)When you can't negotiate with a violent threat, then you're stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place: either strike or be struck down.
I'm not thrilled about having to enter into any armed conflict, but the fact is, there are some people, primarily of Middle Eastern origin, that want to kill us all because of our culture.

Would you rather just let these fellows trample over us?

On the flip-side, American influence is a bit heavy. Some intentional, but other parts has happened thanks to a global economy. The number 1 car in America is a Toyota, not a Ford or Chevy. I have a Chevy Cavalier, an "American" car, yet it's assembled in Mexico.

The UN is a great idea, but is utterly worthless. They made 14 resolutions that condemned Iraq, yet are unable to enforce any such law they make. How can you maintain peace if laws or ignored and then not enforced?
Look at the oil for food program? That didn't remove weapons from Iraq.

As far as WMD's, at the time, UN intelligence, along with other countries, had enough reason to believe that Saddam had WMD's. Had we known then what we know now, that there really weren't any, I really doubt we'd be in Iraq. The thing is, Saddam was not allowing inspectors into certain area's, contrary to stating these inspectors would have unlimited access. They didn't.

Now before you believe I'm kissing Bush's ass, let me show you where I'm displeased with his policy:

1.)US Mexico border: disaster
It has been documented by the government that terrorists from Al Qaeda and other such groups are coming over, getting a Hispanic name, and then sneaking across the border.
Secondly, we know that Mexico is actively assisting their citizens in illegally crossing the border.
Third, along with the US government, states like California, are giving benefits to these illegal aliens to the point where it's more attractive to come across illegally than spend the time and money to become a legal resident.
Fourthly, two border guards are in Federal prisons for doing their job protecting the border. In this case, Jonny Sutton, prosecutor for the US, appointed by Bush, has been hamstringing a fair trial for these two border guards, who have done nothing illegal that can be proven, not made up like has been done.

That's where I have a major bone to pick with the current administration. Regardless of weather or not you agree with the war, given that it's against terrorism, this is absolutely inane to allow such a weak border in these times.

Yes, I'm conservative. No, I don't love Bush. I think he's a nice guy and like some of his policies, but as of late, I'm beginning to wonder WTF he's thinking in regards to the war or terror as a whole. The long-term plans should've been thought out better. The occupation in Iraq is a disaster, and unfortunately, it the country's current state, it's worse to drop out now.
 
Addis said:
When in doubt, embrace the spirit of Ubuntu.
Click to expand...

Ok, i stopped reading at the second page, but this is how i figure. A lot of the countries in the world, or more so "developing countries" are gaining status and building an economy real quick. ie China and India, and even then, why would would anyone want to start a war. For almost anyone wars cost a lot of money, and people like money, it drives everything. So wrapping up all your money and completely ruining any chance of an growth really isn't in the interest of modern civilizations. The only country that would have anything to gain from a war would be russia, and even then, they are already in a really poor state.
 
Now I am sure as hell you have all seen or heard of loose change so I am not goona go there. Ok you still havn't answered my question What gives the right for Mr Bush to send over brave American soldiers who die for no point to order other countries around not to have WMD if anyone the US should have their WMD confiscated OK now I am not Anti American, I am Anti Bush Administration I don't consider him a very good guy.


BTW I am talking about the war on Iraq. 19 arabs with box cutters ??? = destroy twin towers that can't be right.
 
to be completely honest, most people have absolutely no idea why we are there now. Ask anyone, they'll more than likely give you a puzzled look, and say i don't know. I don't think Bush is a bad guy, i just think he is very very mislead and confused. He's very passionate about what he is doing and believe heavily in it. That said, i don't necessarily believe in what he is doing. Also be carefull man, thats sensitive stuff you are nonchalantly throwing around there, don't be rude or disrespectful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top