World War 3 thread! - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14905291


Being born in the late 80's and growing up in the 90's I have never really experienced the threat of an imminent nuclear exchange between two world superpowers. Indeed the 90's appeared to be a time of relative peace and hope. Major conflicts seemed to be a thing of the past, we were safe in the warm glowing protection of our atomic weaponry. Nuclear proliferation had made all out war to risky a venture for even the most powerful armies to undertake. We were finally learning from the mistakes of past generations. Of course the collapse of the USSR had a lot to do with it.

Unfortunately however we seem to be slipping back into an age of global conflict. Proxy wars are now being fought on several fronts drawing in players from all sides. They are becoming more lethal and intense than have been seen for a time. Dangerous rhetoric and aggressive stances are the norm once again. Both sides are slowly marching their way towards the point of no return.

The chances of an all out global war resulting in devastating nuclear exchange while unlikely is still a remote possibility, as it always has been I suppose. We do however seem to be closer now than we have been in several decades. Not necessarily closer to nuclear war but closer to a scenario that could open the silo doors to that inevitability.

One would hope cooler heads will prevail, that when face to face with the awesome world ending finality at their fingertips even the most combat craved military leaders would take a step back from the edge of total nuclear annihilation. One would hope.

Maybe WW3 has already begun. It might just be an ever increasing series of proxy wars. Tit for tat boming runs and missile strikes fought at arms length with just enough of a buffer to keep the world's super powers from ever directly striking at each other. And if so is that any comfort for the pawns caught up in today's shifting battlefields.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14905297
The US ran low on ‘appeasement money’. Then Trump decided appeasement money was why we were low on money. He said no more paying for peace. We will now see a lot of blustering until they either accept the new US view or Trump is forced to go back to paying for peace.
Only a really dumb accident will escalate it to all out war, but there might be a very short increase in isolated conflicts and standoff’s.

Edit: before you jump on it, remember military strength also means peace in the American language.
User avatar
By Albert
#14905309
This is a cup half full situation, look at the bright side of nuclear holocaust. It will get rid of a lot of people, migration crisis will be resolved, ............. :hmm:

We might finally rebuild society without assholes in it. Hm, hm .... hmmm. Come on people. It will be like black death that will usher society into new renaissance.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14905311
Albert wrote:This is a cup half full situation, look at the bright side of nuclear holocaust. It will get rid of a lot of people, migration crisis will be resolved, ............. :hmm:

We might finally rebuild society without assholes in it. Hm, hm .... hmmm. Come on people. It will be like black death that will usher society into new renaissance.


You know how to make truth hurt. :) The problem is I don’t think we have learned enough to not do the same again. As soon as I figure out who the survivors should be, I will give the go ahead.
User avatar
By Albert
#14905316
I cant make the truth hurt. It is written in the bible that god cleanses the earth of sinners once in a while. That means the bomb will probably drop on my head.
By noir
#14905318
Albert wrote:I cant make the truth hurt. It is written in the bible that god cleanses the earth of sinners once in a while. That means the bomb will probably drop on my head.



:lol:
#14905541
noir wrote:WW3 begun with the jihadi onslaught on Europe.

Jihadi onslaught on Europe? America and it's crony allies in Europe have wrought devastation across the Middle East. They're funding terrorists, they've toppled legitimate regimes. They financed the creation of Al-Qaeda!

I don't want Muslims flooding into my country. Contrary to popular liberal beliefs culture clash and segregation is a reality that occurs naturally even in unnatural situations. But maybe they wouldn't flock here if we stopped bombing them out of their homes, destabilising their secular governments and allowing situations for religious fundamentalism to flourish.

Jihadi onslaught? Driving a van into a crowd of shoppers is horrendous but it's not an onslaught, mobilising naval fleets and carrying out daily bombing runs and drone strikes is an onslaught, shock and awe is an onslaught. Shock and awe, what a fucking term. I wonder how awesome inspired the people of Baghdad were when the US warmachine was bombing the shite out of their city. Searching for the same chemical weapons the US had enabled them to develop so they could be used on Iranian citizens!

I live in Europe, there's no onslaught going on here, the only foreign troops threating my sovereignty is the US soldiers using Shannon as a stop over on their way to terrorise some natives.

Onslaught? Take a trip to Aleppo or Aden if you want to know what an onslaught is.
#14908113
I was born in the mid-1940s and grew up in the 50s & 60s in the heart of the Cold War with Nuclear Annihilation always a threat.
I was lucky to live in Kansas where we never once had a "duck and cover" drill in school. We had fire drills and tornado drills, but no nuclear war drills.

I decided at some point that I had absolutely zero effect on *IF* it would happen.
And so, I had 2 choices.
. . 1] Just ignore it and get on with living as if it would never happen.
. . 2] Let the threat change my actions for the worse. To live in terror. Or to assume it would happen and so what I did would not matter.

Since it has not happened yet and I am now over 70, I think I made the right choice.

So, I suggest that the people who read this should do the same. That is, ignore the threat of annihilation. Don't even think about it.
#14908158
Steve_American wrote:I was born in the mid-1940s and grew up in the 50s & 60s in the heart of the Cold War with Nuclear Annihilation always a threat.


I grew up in the 50s and 60s right next to the iron curtain. The threat of nuclear annihilation was very present in people's mind back then. I remember peace demonstrations bringing a million demonstrators onto the street to protest against Nato rearmament.

The threat is still there, but people have forgotten about it. They got used to it. That's the great danger, which makes that the threat is greater today than it was during the cold war. People become careless and consider war to be an adequate means for settling disputes between nations.

In addition, the equilibrium of the balance of power of the cold war has given way to a state of instability, in which it becomes harder to predict the outcome of actions decided by governments. The Syrian theater of war confronts almost a dozen different countries plus innumerable proxy militias which cannot be controlled. So many different warring factions, each pushing its own agenda at all costs, represent an uncontrollable risk.

The fact that it hasn't happened in the last 70 years doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. On the contrary, since it will happen sooner or later, the risk for the future is greater.

Unlike some in my generation who decided to take up arms in the far-left terrorist armed struggle, I have always rejected war and violence. I have nothing to regret. They were wrong, I was right.

Sticking your head in the sand for the warmongers to plan their wars without opposition certainly is no option.

Americans don't know what war is. They bring war to the entire planet, but they haven't experienced war on their own territory for a very long time. Europeans have a different experience.
By Atlantis
#14908160
Albert wrote:This is a cup half full situation, look at the bright side of nuclear holocaust. It will get rid of a lot of people, migration crisis will be resolved, ............. :hmm:


You mean white migration? Right?

I have no doubt that you will nuke Europe first. There is no point in nuking Africa.

And the Yanks want us to pay for the privilege of being nuked, ... :knife:
User avatar
By One Degree
#14908179
Thomasmariel wrote:There should be no prospect of nuclear war, because of the internet, but experience has taught me that it can actually be because of the internet that violence is more likely


The internet perpetuates self righteousness. Conflict is caused by ‘good’ people.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14908183
Atlantis wrote:You mean like Hitler, Stalin and Churchill? :knife:

Why do you have to perpetuate such inane BS?


You don’t believe these three men were doing what they were convinced was right? How do you come to such a conclusion except from your own self righteousness?
By Atlantis
#14908187
One Degree wrote:You don’t believe these three men were doing what they were convinced was right?


What does that even mean? They did what served their aims. That doesn't mean they are "good" man.

I ask you again, were Hitler, Stalin and Churchill "good" man?

Answer! And stop attacking people simply because they oppose war. That is a creepy thing to do.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]