PDA

View Full Version : Wwiii


Nasty Plasty
03-05-2006, 11:13 PM
Come on, we all know it is going to happen. What are your predictions for it? When will it happen? What causes it?

Personally, I think it will happen in the 22nd century. By then, there will be advanced weapons and machines. This will recreate a thirst for power tearing the world apart yet again. That my friends, is the start of WWIII.

Seawolf
03-06-2006, 01:21 AM
At this rate, it seems like it'll happen in less than 20 years. :susp:

::JD::
03-06-2006, 01:45 AM
Whoa I had a dream like this last night. Some guys bombed Area 51 and some important guys died too so then lots of countries got involved.

Alonso
03-06-2006, 08:45 PM
Whoa I had a dream like this last night. Some guys bombed Area 51 and some important guys died too so then lots of countries got involved.
Nice dream.
At this rate, it seems like it'll happen in less than 20 years. :susp:
Nah...I think in 2014 will be WWIII and WWIV will be in 2040-2045.

Alakazam
03-06-2006, 09:04 PM
I think this definately belongs in the OC.

WW3? It might happen eventually, but not anytime soon.

Alonso
03-21-2006, 10:37 PM
Some people say that WWIII was the cold war and WWIV is this War on Terror.

laKitsyM
03-21-2006, 10:45 PM
Some people say that WWIII was the cold war and WWIV is this War on Terror.
Some people say the Napoleonic Wars were WWI.

squirtle
03-21-2006, 11:03 PM
Some people say that WWIII was the cold war and WWIV is this War on Terror.
why would they be considered world wars?

Pidgeot79
03-21-2006, 11:12 PM
Some consider the AC/DC Wars WWIV.

Alonso
03-22-2006, 08:20 PM
why would they be considered world wars?
The Cold War could have been WWIII b/c it was a war between the major powers of the world at the time. A world war is a war between the major powers of the world.

Jack of Clovers
03-23-2006, 01:19 AM
The Napoleonic Wars wasn't WW1 because of the time difference. During that age, it was a time for conquest, where countries didn't always have definite borders and there was constant fighting for land. It's pretty much the same as Alexander the Great, Ghagis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, etc...

The Cold War is not WW3. It involved Russia and America in a stalemate of power, each with their fingers inches above the "bomb button". There was no fighting, and maybe an incident or two which was not made public at that time. It was more a time for anti-communism and pro-american.

The War on Terrorism can't be considered WW3 either because of the fact that it's basically an all American war. Kind of like Desert Storm was in the early 90's. Not to mention Terrorism isn't linked specifically to any country, it's an underground organization operating within a known country, whether or not they know about it. Of course to date, no country has claimed any support for terrorism, thus we can't call this a World War.

For a World War to happen, it would have to involve more countries at war, much higher stakes, and it would effect all countries globally, even those not directly involved. There is always speculation about an oncoming third WW. After WW1, it was "the war to end all wars." A nice slogan but the League of Nations was weak. After WW2, the United Nations formed a strong bond for global peace. Yet, from then until now, America has been involved in all the major wars (Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm...) while everyone else sends us aid and sticks to the background. Yet everywhere we try to help, other countries discourage us for sticking our nose where it doesn't belong, which we do.

It's funny that I think of this while writing, but America might be the one that causes WW3. But as long as we have a President that isn't gung-ho about war, we should be able to diplomat any situation to avoid a necessary war. It's just too bad we aren't neutral anymore. :ermm:

~Jack~

Pika57
03-23-2006, 01:25 AM
WWIII might start when Bush invades Iran in late 2006-Early 2007(After the election). Though other countries might not want to get involved...

It all depends. If Bush declares war on another country, our few allies will be gone. And if he declares war on China, we'll be in deep doo-doo.(though i doubt he's that stupid, though China does have a lot of oil).

I couldn't really predict where a WWIII would start.

Though if Bush invades another southeast-asian country, protests will start, claimin gthat he is biasing all terrorists as being from the middle east.

Vampire
03-24-2006, 10:17 PM
WWIII might start when Bush invades Iran in late 2006-Early 2007(After the election). Though other countries might not want to get involved...

It all depends. If Bush declares war on another country, our few allies will be gone. And if he declares war on China, we'll be in deep doo-doo.(though i doubt he's that stupid, though China does have a lot of oil).

I couldn't really predict where a WWIII would start.

Though if Bush invades another southeast-asian country, protests will start, claimin gthat he is biasing all terrorists as being from the middle east.
I think WWIII will begin in 2014 and end 2069.

Alonso
03-25-2006, 12:34 AM
There will be nothing left if it lasts that long. And the world leaders will just hide in the bunkers, we will be left ot die.

Vampire
03-25-2006, 12:41 AM
There will be nothing left if it lasts that long. And the world leaders will just hide in the bunkers, we will be left ot die.
Haha, I just realised its like about 50 years lol.

Jack of Clovers
03-25-2006, 06:46 AM
WWIII might start when Bush invades Iran in late 2006-Early 2007(After the election). Though other countries might not want to get involved...

It all depends. If Bush declares war on another country, our few allies will be gone. And if he declares war on China, we'll be in deep doo-doo.(though i doubt he's that stupid, though China does have a lot of oil).

I couldn't really predict where a WWIII would start.

Though if Bush invades another southeast-asian country, protests will start, claimin gthat he is biasing all terrorists as being from the middle east.
Anyone declaring war on China would be in a world of hurt. They are a rising power, passing England and France as the top nations. China is the most populated country, with India second. With a large standing army and a rapidly growing defense/military, it would be suicide to fight them. Plus, there is no reason to attack China, especially with growing relations in trade and other areas.

The only real areas of recent trouble that might come in the future is with Iran and North Korea. Though, I don't know enough about them yet for a good discussion.

~Jack~

Pika57
03-25-2006, 12:47 PM
Anyone declaring war on China would be in a world of hurt. They are a rising power, passing England and France as the top nations. China is the most populated country, with India second. With a large standing army and a rapidly growing defense/military, it would be suicide to fight them. Plus, there is no reason to attack China, especially with growing relations in trade and other areas.

The only real areas of recent trouble that might come in the future is with Iran and North Korea. Though, I don't know enough about them yet for a good discussion.

~Jack~

It won't be North Korea. They don't have any Natural Rescources.

Alonso
03-29-2006, 09:27 PM
Anyone declaring war on China would be in a world of hurt. They are a rising power, passing England and France as the top nations. China is the most populated country, with India second. With a large standing army and a rapidly growing defense/military, it would be suicide to fight them. Plus, there is no reason to attack China, especially with growing relations in trade and other areas.

The only real areas of recent trouble that might come in the future is with Iran and North Korea. Though, I don't know enough about them yet for a good discussion.

~Jack~
The Chinese's rising power situation will fall in time. Their population is REALLY high and even if they try to control it, it is still growing. If a form of energy that is convinient isn't found soon enough, they won't be able to supply everybody's demand. And that, my friends, is when they will be officially screwed.

Crystal Walrein
03-30-2006, 09:48 PM
Any day now, when the United States starts putting down all of this persecution against Islamic women which would be going above and beyond the hindrance of development of nuclear weapons there.

boltAge
04-11-2006, 02:16 PM
I have a feeling some of you are actually looking forward to WWIII. Do you people even know how terrible a war can be? I have extensively read up on WWII and you people probably don't know how tragic war is. War means EVERYBODY gets hurt. It could be the Japs raping 10000 women after stomping into Hong Kong or some screwed up German doctor injecting dyes into the eyes of captured Jews to try and form a perfect race(I ain't kidding with both of these). I've grown to disgust people who look forward to war unnecessarily.

The Chinese's rising power situation will fall in time. Their population is REALLY high and even if they try to control it, it is still growing. If a form of energy that is convinient isn't found soon enough, they won't be able to supply everybody's demand. And that, my friends, is when they will be officially screwed.
You know they just imported like, tons of oil from Iran? They have the financial capability to buy what they don't have and make the rest themselves. And no, dude, their campaigns for lower birth rate has been pretty successful, if I'm not wrong.

Though if Bush invades another southeast-asian country, protests will start, claimin gthat he is biasing all terrorists as being from the middle east.
The f*ck? When has he invaded any SEA countries? You can't even call the war on Iraq an invasion, their Iraqi government was screwed up to begin with, they're just liberating the people there. Oh and Iraq's in the middle east, for your information.

The Cold War definitely wasn't anything near a war, the word 'War' was only to signify the amount of tension between Soviet Russia and the United States during that time. Besides, there were few direct conflicts during this 'war'. This 'war' was more of a nuclear arms race.

Anyway, it's 2006. I'm pretty sure there won't be another WW anytime soon, the current only superpower militarily is the United States and I trust they won't try to take over the world.

Seven
04-11-2006, 02:43 PM
I have a feeling some of you are actually looking forward to WWIII. Do you people even know how terrible a war can be? I have extensively read up on WWII and you people probably don't know how tragic war is. War means EVERYBODY gets hurt. It could be the Japs raping 10000 women after stomping into Hong Kong or some screwed up German doctor injecting dyes into the eyes of captured Jews to try and form a perfect race(I ain't kidding with both of these). I've grown to disgust people who look forward to war unnecessarily.


You know they just imported like, tons of oil from Iran? They have the financial capability to buy what they don't have and make the rest themselves. And no, dude, their campaigns for lower birth rate has been pretty successful, if I'm not wrong.


The f*ck? When has he invaded any SEA countries? You can't even call the war on Iraq an invasion, their Iraqi government was screwed up to begin with, they're just liberating the people there. Oh and Iraq's in the middle east, for your information.

The Cold War definitely wasn't anything near a war, the word 'War' was only to signify the amount of tension between Soviet Russia and the United States during that time. Besides, there were few direct conflicts during this 'war'. This 'war' was more of a nuclear arms race.

Anyway, it's 2006. I'm pretty sure there won't be another WW anytime soon, the current only superpower militarily is the United States and I trust they won't try to take over the world.

Vietnam was a SEA country.

Any prediction for when WW3 will take place is pure speculation, and therefor there's nothing to discuss.

Alonso
04-12-2006, 12:30 AM
And no, dude, their campaigns for lower birth rate has been pretty successful, if I'm not wrong.
Yeah, but their population is huge!
You can't even call the war on Iraq an invasion, their Iraqi government was screwed up to begin with, they're just liberating the people there. Oh and Iraq's in the middle east, for your information.
And whose fault that their government was screwed up!
And the war in Iraq is the "War on Terror". And there are no Iraqi terrorists that attacked the US. Just insurgents...and they have only killed our troops because they are over there.

boltAge
04-12-2006, 01:57 PM
Vietnam was a SEA country.

Any prediction for when WW3 will take place is pure speculation, and therefor there's nothing to discuss.
You don't call the Vietnam War an invasion.

You know, we don't know when will they land on Mars so we shouldn't discuss about it. Right...:rolleyes:

Yeah, but their population is huge!
So? They have the economy and land to support it. China is MASSIVE if you haven't realised. It's a pretty big mark on the world map.

And whose fault that their government was screwed up!
And the war in Iraq is the "War on Terror". And there are no Iraqi terrorists that attacked the US. Just insurgents...and they have only killed our troops because they are over there.
The only problem with the US is that they didn't wait for UN approval for the war on Iraq, they would have gotten it anyway but was just too impatient. I'm not sure what's your definition on "War on Terror" because I have a problem with not calling a man who killed 5000 of his own people a terror.

Seven
04-12-2006, 09:39 PM
You don't call the Vietnam War an invasion.

You know, we don't know when will they land on Mars so we shouldn't discuss about it. Right...:rolleyes:


Uhm, I call any form of war where foreign soldiers fight an invasion. Matter of semantics though.
And uhm, the possibility of going to Mars is something completely different, because it doesn't involve as much dynamics as a world war. Wars are pretty much unpredictable, world wars even more so, whereas landing on Mars isn't We could also debate when and how your president Ramanathan will die, but it wouldn't make ANY sense, cus we simply do not, and cannot know.


The only problem with the US is that they didn't wait for UN approval for the war on Iraq, they would have gotten it anyway but was just too impatient. I'm not sure what's your definition on "War on Terror" because I have a problem with not calling a man who killed 5000 of his own people a terror.

Uhm, how can you claim "they would have gotten it anyway". You don't know, since they never got either answer.
You make it sounds like it's no big deal that they didn't wait for the permission, but it IS. It takes away credibilty from the U.N., if the U.S. don't have to wait for permission, why would others? THe whole idea of the U.N. is to stop these things from happening, to try and resolve things peacefully, and if proven to be impossible, go to war together, with a mandate from as much countries as

True, what Saddam did during his reign wasn't something to be proud of. But why is it the U.S. their business? It isn't. And if it is, they should have attacked, a WHOLE lot of other countries whose dictators wreaked havoc in the past, and in the present.
And let's not forget who put Saddam there in the first place =X.

Tamer Marco
04-12-2006, 09:52 PM
America and Iraq are getting a little reckless with this war. In my opinion as soon as a country outside of the Middle East, America, or Britain gets involved with troops, it'll be time for world war 3.

Crystal Walrein
04-13-2006, 04:36 PM
Then if France's masses start protesting the deployment of troops in the Middle East, that's the official start or WW3. Haven't we had enough French protests?

Thrall
04-14-2006, 12:46 AM
Invasion Is when a hole bunch of military floods the hole country. The cold war wasn't even a war It was America and Russia spying on eachother.And for the people that believe war can be stopped well your wrong.Time repeats itself and it's not like all the countries are gonna agree to have a treaty. And if ever we have a agreement people are gonna rebel . Makes life kinda suck :oops: .

DragoniteMistress
04-14-2006, 12:55 AM
I seriously think Bush will start WWIII being the ba**ard that he is. I can't wait till the elections for a new president:dazed:

My friend has got some brains becoming an anarchist.

Rizaado
04-14-2006, 01:42 AM
There is no way america will start a world war.
SSome of you are forgeting the Pres isn't the king so he can't just start a war because he says so, everyone else would take him down, that's why we have a rebublic, so no one can get enough power to try and conquer the world, anyway, I highly doubt Bush would even try to take over the world.

Finglonger
04-14-2006, 08:15 AM
I seriously think Bush will start WWIII being the ba**ard that he is. I can't wait till the elections for a new president:dazed:

My friend has got some brains becoming an anarchist.

anarchism is just about the lamest thing to stand for ever...though the anarachists cookbook is fun to read...

oh yeah and on topic

"I don't know how the third world war will be fought," Albert Einstein once remarked, "but I do know that the fourth one will be fought with sticks and stones."

Kenny_C.002
04-14-2006, 11:21 AM
"I don't know how the third world war will be fought," Albert Einstein once remarked, "but I do know that the fourth one will be fought with sticks and stones."

That would be assuming there would be survivors. I don't think there would be any...

plasmaball3000
04-16-2006, 01:26 PM
I don't thing WWIII will happen anytime soon. It's more likely a rogue state like North Korea will start massive trouble, or someone will steal the poorly guarded Russian nuclear stockpiles and send a few off.

Jack of Clovers
04-16-2006, 08:54 PM
"I don't know how the third world war will be fought," Albert Einstein once remarked, "but I do know that the fourth one will be fought with sticks and stones."
I've forgotten how much I love that quote.

Ironic though, because he helped with the A-bomb projects.

~Jack~

plasmaball3000
04-16-2006, 09:05 PM
So many destructive weapons were originally created by pacifists (or at least people that turned into pacifists after they realized what they'd done). It's interesting to think that Alfred Nobel, whose name is on the Nobel Peace Prize, invented TNT, which at its time was pretty destructive.

!CeMAn
04-16-2006, 11:03 PM
That Einstein quote is brilliant.

Didn't the first WW start because some country wouldn't take responsibility for an assassination? Then everybody's friends got involved? Don't presume that because of the current year another WW is so far off, or impossible. Humans are volatile. But yeah, WW3 is totally gonna happen in 2007 :susp:.

RAiK, i wish more people thought of war the way you did.

Seven
04-16-2006, 11:14 PM
WW1 had a lot of underlying causes, but the direct cause was the assasination of the Austrian/Hungarian crown prince, by a slavic seperatist group (the black hand, I think). And due to already formed alliances between several countries the conflict escalated completely.

That's what I remember anyway.

!CeMAn
04-16-2006, 11:18 PM
Is that exact scenario so difficult to imagine using today's players and groups? Sounds hauntingly familiar.

RouteMaster
04-24-2006, 03:38 PM
So many destructive weapons were originally created by pacifists (or at least people that turned into pacifists after they realized what they'd done). It's interesting to think that Alfred Nobel, whose name is on the Nobel Peace Prize, invented TNT, which at its time was pretty destructive.

He thought it would help to end world conflict, I don't think he thought it through....

WW3? Well it will probably be over oil won't it? I think so. Iran, Iraq, the Middle East will push prices up, frustrating the world's superpowers the US and China, while Europe and the UN look on like disapproving old women, completely powerless. It will be a nuclear war or at least missiles and bombings, I don't think there will be immediate hand to hand warfare, to begin with.

Seven
04-24-2006, 03:42 PM
(...) frustrating the world's superpowers the US and China, while Europe and the UN look on like disapproving old women, completely powerless.

Lol, yeah, violence is the solution to everything, at least that's MANLY and rough, unlike diplomacy. DOWN WITH DIPLOMACY!

:rolleyes:

Crummie
04-25-2006, 03:49 AM
This topic is silly. You will never need to know when World War Three hits. Because we will die. And by we, I mean, the human race.

So many countries now have nuclear weapons, you'd think they were giving them away at the dollar store. I can name five off the top of my head. America, Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq (ha ha, just kidding, George Bush), and India. And there are more out there. And those first three, America, Russia and China, each have [had] enough to destroy the Earth.

When World War Three rolls around, it won't be written about in history books, because there won't be anybody alive to write them.

RouteMaster
04-25-2006, 03:44 PM
Oh no, maybe you'll go Crummie, but I'll stay around. Just to spite them...

InvertrevnI
04-25-2006, 04:48 PM
Look, there is almost nobody stupid enough to drop 50 a-bombs at once. There will be lots of troops, but likely few bombs. There most likely won't be a WWIII, and we have fallout shelters left over anyway.

boltAge
04-25-2006, 05:56 PM
You don't need 50 to wipe out mankind.

Crummie
04-26-2006, 03:00 AM
You don't need 50 to wipe out mankind.

Fifty? With just one you could devistate a country's economy. If your country got hit with a nuclear warhead, are you going to want to go to work, or just carry out simple everyday tasks? Probably not... I, myself, would probably lock and board up my house. If just 5% of a nation's people didn't contiune with the economic norm (buying and selling,) and they go and hide in their basement, you could pretty much kiss the economy goodbye.

Red.Falcon
05-02-2006, 09:06 PM
Something tells me, it will involve us (the US), terrorism, Osama, and some lethal weapon that we've never heard of. Let's pray it doesn't happen here, though.

RouteMaster
05-02-2006, 09:16 PM
Something tells me, it will involve us (the US), terrorism, Osama, and some lethal weapon that we've never heard of. Let's pray it doesn't happen here, though.

I agree, but let's pray it never happens.

InvertrevnI
05-02-2006, 10:05 PM
WWIII is about as likely as the ghost of Hitler, not going to happen. Japan survived 2 a-bombs, why can't we? Japan has a decent economy, and is headquarters for most major game publishers.

!CeMAn
05-04-2006, 10:20 PM
Fifty? With just one you could devistate a country's economy. If your country got hit with a nuclear warhead, are you going to want to go to work, or just carry out simple everyday tasks? Probably not... I, myself, would probably lock and board up my house. If just 5% of a nation's people didn't contiune with the economic norm (buying and selling,) and they go and hide in their basement, you could pretty much kiss the economy goodbye.

I highly doubt it's quite that devestating. A single nuclear detonation wouldn't even level a city the size of L.A. And, America doesn't depend on any one city for it's economic growth.
How many nuclear bombs have been set off and tested in the past 40 years? On US soil? I don't see you puking up any organs or bleeding from your eyeballs or growing extra nipples. I doubt people in Detroit would be afraid to go outside if New York City got nailed.

boltAge
05-05-2006, 04:12 PM
You people seem to be pretty uneducated for an intelligent debate.

Firstly, we're here to debate. Please stop crapping here with your irrelevant opinions and inaccurate information.

You people seem to know crap about nuclear weapons. Heard of M.A.D? Mutually Assured Destruction? That's when two countries restraint from pressing the red button in their nuke silo because they know on the point marked "X" on their map, there also lie a nuke silo with someone also ready to press their red button. The point is that most nations that do have nukes of their own have enough to destroy your country completely. And you really don't want to fire your own because of that.

Iceman, you're quite clearly very underinformed. You simply do not know the damage of a nuclear bomb. May you please research more on it? Just a brief summary of damage that really cannot be summarised, 1% of the people survived the initial bombing of Hiroshima, and that 1% died from radiation poisoning and necrosis. The land? Unuseable for crops, unuseable for buildings, untouchable... The effect? Terrible fear and unparalleled fright. What if THAT landed at your doorstep?

Looking at the big picture, those nukes were fired in 1945. We're now in 2006. Guess how much nuclear techonology has advanced? I don't know, the US government didn't tell me, but I think it'd be pretty wise to assume that bombs today would be much more lethal.

No, no, I don't think I've quite described it well enough. Let's say...Iran. Iran gets nukes, which they claim they do have. They fire it at one of your cities. It kills around 200000 people, but that's no big deal to you because it's only to you. And no, it won't just be that city's economy that'll break down. The world's economy would break down. I'm really no historian, but just think how much Katrina and 911 blew away the economy and multiply that by about a hundred times. Seriously, I think you were old enough to see the damage to the economy the falling of the WSC caused, and that's just two buildings, FYI. The world has only just began to recover from its damage. Surely you don't doubt a nuke's damage now?

Indeed, nuclear bombs have not been tested for about 30-40 years. But I want to point out here that most nuclear tests are conducted in very safe locations, what do you think, they drop nukes in the middle of their cities? Your statement was quite foolish, to be honest.

And you want to see deranged people with extra nipples and bleeding eyeballs? Perhaps visit Japan. I think there may be people still surviving from the war and was affected by the radiation. 50 years ago, your country did that to them. Think about it yourself.

It's quite obvious that you people know sh*t about life's importance. I'm not being a b*tchy old man(not that I'm close to one), but one simply has to read a history book to know what pain and suffering was.

Seven
05-05-2006, 08:36 PM
Raik, stop acting as if Japan suffered more than anyone in the war. You seem to forget that Japan in fact was allied with Nazi-Germany, and thus was one of the agressors in the World War. Do not put Japan in the role of victim, for its politics were fascist, extremely violent towards other Asian countries, and absolutely wrong.

Perhaps using the A-bombs in WW2 to get Japan to surrender was wrong, I don't know. I cannot be the judge of that: it was a different time, and it's always easy to say what should have been done (or not) in retrospect.

It's quite obvious that you people know sh*t about life's importance. I'm not being a b*tchy old man(not that I'm close to one), but one simply has to read a history book to know what pain and suffering was.

O.
M.
L.
And you do know about life's importance, and what pain and suffering is? Is it from your...what? Twelve years of life experience (I don't know how old you are, so bare with me). Or is it because you read a history book :rolleyes:. Let me tell you, the people who suffered most were those that lived in Eastern Europe, and of course the Jews/Gypsies/Homosexuals/"Untermenschen" in general.

Iceman lives in Canada, so technically his country did nothing but liberate Europe. That aside though, you make it sound like he should feel responsible for what happened such a long time ago, by saying " 50 years ago, your country did that to them. Think about it yourself.". I hope you can see how stupid that is onw that you read your own words back. I disagree with a lot of things MY goverment did in the past as well (slavery/ colonial past, trying to stop Indonesia from being independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politionele_acties). What could I have done to stop it? Nothing. End of story.

Iran doesn't claim to have nukes, it claims to have enriched uranium, something that is still several steps away from a nuke.

To finish it off, I do agree with you Raik that nukes are terrible weapons that should never be used again in combat.

boltAge
05-06-2006, 06:46 PM
My bad, about the Iceman part, thought he was American. I agree my point was irrelevant anyway, that's another my bad.

Anyway, I was only highlighting the capability of a nuke. I really don't see how I've played them down to becoming a victim.

You're quite generalising there. Homosexuality wasn't as immoral as you'd think it was, maybe in some areas, but in ancient Japan, homosexuality was actually allowed. Well, that's the country which also allowed pedophilia. Jews? Yeah, they were mistreated, but they are in the history books, are they not? I don't know much about the other two people you listed, but come on, I'm not debating with you about what type of people suffered the most. These people talk like a nuke landing somewhere on their country would only cause a economic dent and the few hundreds of thousands of people who would die would just be a statistic. Stalin ever said, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." Guess he was right.

Well, having enriched uranium is really having nukes already, that's why the world's so flamed up about Iran knowing how to enrich uranium.

Seven
05-06-2006, 06:56 PM
My bad, about the Iceman part, thought he was American. I agree my point was irrelevant anyway, that's another my bad.

Anyway, I was only highlighting the capability of a nuke. I really don't see how I've played them down to becoming a victim.

You're quite generalising there. Homosexuality wasn't as immoral as you'd think it was, maybe in some areas, but in ancient Japan, homosexuality was actually allowed. Well, that's the country which also allowed pedophilia. Jews? Yeah, they were mistreated, but they are in the history books, are they not? I don't know much about the other two people you listed, but come on, I'm not debating with you about what type of people suffered the most. These people talk like a nuke landing somewhere on their country would only cause a economic dent and the few hundreds of thousands of people who would die would just be a statistic. Stalin ever said, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." Guess he was right.

Well, having enriched uranium is really having nukes already, that's why the world's so flamed up about Iran knowing how to enrich uranium.

I meant that homosexuals/jews/gypsies/untermenschen were killed in the Holocaust by Nazi-Germany, with whom Japan was allied, as an example people who suffered more than Japan. But since you have now said that you don't play the Japanese down as a victim, it's irrelevant.

The Stalin quote: it's very true. At a certain point numbers just don't make an impact anymore.

!CeMAn
05-10-2006, 11:49 PM
You people seem to be pretty uneducated for an intelligent debate.

Just thought it was funny. Had to Quote.

You people seem to know crap about nuclear weapons. Heard of M.A.D? Mutually Assured Destruction? That's when two countries restraint from pressing the red button in their nuke silo because they know on the point marked "X" on their map, there also lie a nuke silo with someone also ready to press their red button. The point is that most nations that do have nukes of their own have enough to destroy your country completely. And you really don't want to fire your own because of that.

And who was that one directed at? Given that it followed my post i'm taking offense because i'll have you know i was taught that several years ago when I was in high school. You know, when you were still struggling with your first pubic hair. Don't dare make assumptions about what i know and don't know because, trust me, if i don't know something, i'll either say so or keep it shut.

Iceman, you're quite clearly very underinformed. You simply do not know the damage of a nuclear bomb. May you please research more on it? Just a brief summary of damage that really cannot be summarised, 1% of the people survived the initial bombing of Hiroshima, and that 1% died from radiation poisoning and necrosis. The land? Unuseable for crops, unuseable for buildings, untouchable... The effect? Terrible fear and unparalleled fright. What if THAT landed at your doorstep?

And, you're clearly missing my point. You're talking about the initial blast radius, are you not? The kid i was replying to claimed people across the country would be afraid to go outside if a single bomb dropped on USA. All i was pointing out was that it wouldn't be as staggering as all that. Radiation can only go so far. How's the REST of Japan these days, Professor?

Damn, i was trying to settle his young nerves. I'd say the last thing these kids need is somebody ramming into their skull the danger of nuclear strike and how much they and all their loved ones are going to suffer and die bleeding.

Looking at the big picture, those nukes were fired in 1945. We're now in 2006. Guess how much nuclear techonology has advanced? I don't know, the US government didn't tell me, but I think it'd be pretty wise to assume that bombs today would be much more lethal.

I'll concede that.

The world's economy would break down. I'm really no historian, but just think how much Katrina and 911 blew away the economy and multiply that by about a hundred times. Seriously, I think you were old enough to see the damage to the economy the falling of the WSC caused, and that's just two buildings, FYI.

FYi, the WTC was targeted soley for it's economic impact. These "just 2 buildings" happened to be the hub of the world's economy with the USA. That would explain the name...

Mulitplied by 100? Unless strikes are made on 100 different major cities, i think YOU might be a little underinformed. The world's cities are a unit, thriving off eachother and perhaps depending on eachother but they are, in fact, fully capable of operating without several of it's parts. When you hear about the damage Katrina or 911 caused, all you're hearing is 'x' amount of dollars lost because today's world is nothing but decimal points; fractions of pennies and seconds. I might just be thrify, but 2 billion dollars instead of 10 billion doesn't seem all that much to complain about. So a bunch of already filthy rich politicians and beaurocrats don't get that private jet or indoor water park, big deal. Why don't you do some more research and find out why the planet kept spinning in the wake of both tragedies?

Indeed, nuclear bombs have not been tested for about 30-40 years. But I want to point out here that most nuclear tests are conducted in very safe locations, what do you think, they drop nukes in the middle of their cities? Your statement was quite foolish, to be honest.

That statement was quite rash, to be honest. See third response regarding blast radius and radiation.

I'm not being a b*tchy old man(not that I'm close to one), but one simply has to read a history book to know what pain and suffering was.

BUT, one simply has to try living in the real world, at all, to know what it really is about. Let me know when you've done that without the history book.

boltAge
05-12-2006, 07:11 PM
Firstly, dump the sarcasm. I haven't been particularly directing my offensive statements at you so beat it you umbrella clown.

And who was that one directed at? Given that it followed my post i'm taking offense because i'll have you know i was taught that several years ago when I was in high school. You know, when you were still struggling with your first pubic hair. Don't dare make assumptions about what i know and don't know because, trust me, if i don't know something, i'll either say so or keep it shut.
That was a vague statement at the general stupidity in this thread. Pointing everybody out would take too long.

And, you're clearly missing my point. You're talking about the initial blast radius, are you not? The kid i was replying to claimed people across the country would be afraid to go outside if a single bomb dropped on USA. All i was pointing out was that it wouldn't be as staggering as all that. Radiation can only go so far. How's the REST of Japan these days, Professor?

You have also missed my point. I couldn't care less about the discussion about people hiding in their basements, but your statement gave the seeming impression that you don't think very highly of the damage of those bombs.

You do realise that it's been...61 years since the bomb? Even Hiroshima and Nagasaki has recovered most of itself already.

Damn, i was trying to settle his young nerves. I'd say the last thing these kids need is somebody ramming into their skull the danger of nuclear strike and how much they and all their loved ones are going to suffer and die bleeding.

Now come on, the point is that these people need to know the consequences. From what I see in this thread, most people see war as only spreadsheets of statistics. That is quite worrying, wouldn't you agree?


FYi, the WTC was targeted soley for it's economic impact. These "just 2 buildings" happened to be the hub of the world's economy with the USA. That would explain the name...
You're not part of Al Qaeda, are you? Bin Laden's official explanation was something along the lines of kicking the US's ass for doing something offensive to Muslims or something, not to beat the US's economy. Of course we know that's a gayass excuse for him to instigate everybody as stupid as him into a war, but the point's there.

Mulitplied by 100? Unless strikes are made on 100 different major cities, i think YOU might be a little underinformed. The world's cities are a unit, thriving off eachother and perhaps depending on eachother but they are, in fact, fully capable of operating without several of it's parts. When you hear about the damage Katrina or 911 caused, all you're hearing is 'x' amount of dollars lost because today's world is nothing but decimal points; fractions of pennies and seconds. I might just be thrify, but 2 billion dollars instead of 10 billion doesn't seem all that much to complain about. So a bunch of already filthy rich politicians and beaurocrats don't get that private jet or indoor water park, big deal. Why don't you do some more research and find out why the planet kept spinning in the wake of both tragedies?

You seem to take exaggeration quite seriously. Anyway, I'd like to point out that unless you happen to be a follower of Fidel Castro or the likes of him, Bush does not go bankrupt because his cities was hit by catastrophes or something. The 8 billion dollar loss affect the folks who live day by day, just wanting to live happily. That is a threat to their jobs, their lives. But apparently your definition of economy is the income of politicians, so I'll leave that to you and hope dictionary.com has an extra visitor today.


That statement was quite rash, to be honest. See third response regarding blast radius and radiation.

You said radiation could only go so far. Which supports my point, doesn't it?


BUT, one simply has to try living in the real world, at all, to know what it really is about. Let me know when you've done that without the history book.
I really don't see the point in arguing about this, since my initial statement was against those treating war as spreadsheets of statistics. I don't know how Katrina or 911 can remotely compare to WWII, watching the news isn't going to help you understand the extent of suffering.

!CeMAn
05-12-2006, 10:39 PM
Raik, make no mistake, i despise war the same way you seem to. I know fully, that a nuclear strike is nothing to shrug off. I also know that it takes more than one or even 2 to cripple the United States. If i make light of any aspect of it, it is only meant to allieviate tension on the subject. There's plenty wrong with that, but hey, there's plenty wrong with war and the modern world, so whatever.

Now come on, the point is that these people need to know the consequences. From what I see in this thread, most people see war as only spreadsheets of statistics. That is quite worrying, wouldn't you agree?

You've got to realise that some do know the consequences and some are scared. All you hear in the news is how dangerous something is, how a Bird Flu pandemic will annihilate everybody, how there is constant threat of terrorism. I thought, for once, the information they receive could be positive; that there is hope in the wake of most any "disaster". But, i agree with your statement about statistics... Try to educate the ones who really need it, not these kids.

You're not part of Al Qaeda, are you? Bin Laden's official explanation was something along the lines of kicking the US's ass for doing something offensive to Muslims or something, not to beat the US's economy. Of course we know that's a gayass excuse for him to instigate everybody as stupid as him into a war, but the point's there.

Well, maybe i'm wrong, stranger things have happened, but i understood that Al Qaeda knew the hardest, most devestating hit to make on The States would be to attack their economy. They despise the American way, and how much they depend on their money, rather than god. The WtC falling was a perfect demonstration of their "power"; that they can take away the American dream, and cripple the strongest world power whenever they choose.

You seem to take exaggeration quite seriously. Anyway, I'd like to point out that unless you happen to be a follower of Fidel Castro or the likes of him, Bush does not go bankrupt because his cities was hit by catastrophes or something. The 8 billion dollar loss affect the folks who live day by day, just wanting to live happily. That is a threat to their jobs, their lives. But apparently your definition of economy is the income of politicians, so I'll leave that to you and hope dictionary.com has an extra visitor today.

Hey, you're right. The WtC disaster did harm the ones who would be going there every day, or depending on it, itself, for their income. Katrina did destroy many many people's homes, jobs and livelihoods. Individuals did suffer, i recognise that and feel remorse for those unfortunate. When the speak of damage to the economy is thrown around, the matter at hand is generally the WHOLE economy, not the poor individuals directly affected.(as terrible as that is). In that respect, it is the losers who sit at desks collecting obscene paychecks who suffer, not the rest of America. Again, that is not disrespect nor insensitivity towards those directly affected; That is the world. Hate it at will.

I really don't see the point in arguing about this, since my initial statement was against those treating war as spreadsheets of statistics. I don't know how Katrina or 911 can remotely compare to WWII, watching the news isn't going to help you understand the extent of suffering.

So the "argument" ends here. You and i agree, believe it or not, we just have different methods of expressing it. The ones treating war as statistics and spreadsheets are just kids! Leave them alone, they'll learn better eventually. Either comfortably, as i'm assuming you and i have, or the hard way, like G-Dubbyah.

PeACe.

bigdog
06-19-2006, 06:51 PM
Nostradamus predicted WW3 to be 2006-2012. I believe this will happen because as my uncle said that alot of religious conflict is in this war. I found out that the republicans want the US to make Christianity its main religion. This will cause alot of problems because their are alot of beliefs which eventually will cause chaos and rebellion.

Red.Falcon
06-19-2006, 07:00 PM
Nostradamus predicted WW3 to be 2006-2012. I believe this will happen because as my uncle said that alot of religious conflict is in this war. I found out that the republicans want the US to make Christianity its main religion. This will cause alot of problems because their are alot of beliefs which eventually will cause chaos and rebellion.
Please don't revive topics over a month old.