Assuming there is no nuclear annihilation, how would WWIII be fought?
Key field really...take out communications/gps/defenses/and nasty weapons...
Well...Look at the title.
Assuming there is no nuclear annihilation, how would WWIII be fought?
Well, who are we fighting?
That's an important question.
If we're assuming a full blown war with another "superpower", that's radically different than if it's a larger scale "war on terror".
i am a pacifist so let the people who want to fight kill each other off and the world will be a better place for it...
heres a plan:
army A, B, and C all get on 3 different islands.....
all armies nuke each other at the same time and good riddance.
then all the people who didnt join the army and oppose war stay happy at home without the warmongers.
i dont really care how they fight it as long as they keep civilians out of it...
i am a pacifist so let the people who want to fight kill each other off and the world will be a better place for it...
heres a plan:
army A, B, and C all get on 3 different islands.....
all armies nuke each other at the same time and good riddance.
then all the people who didnt join the army and oppose war stay happy at home without the warmongers.
Nice strawmen there...
Incidentally, what are you going to do about the nuclear fallout from that many nukes going off on the ocean? What do you think it would do to the ocean life?
At any rate, I largely agree with Maulorn about methods. Information is key in this day and age; hacking, satellite recon, sat kills, etc. would be a large part of a full scale conflict today.
Instead of true lines of battle, there will be more small-group skirmishes, I'd wager. Battlefield coordination is better, letting us spread our forces out more, yet keep the same affect.
Air superiority will potentially decide things one way or another.
Expect spec ops to be used liberally.
Nice strawmen there...
excuse me??? how is stating my opinion without using anyone else's words or quotes a strawman? I am not misrepresenting anyone, and there was no argument. methinks you do not know what that word means...
Incidentally, what are you going to do about the nuclear fallout from that many nukes going off on the ocean? What do you think it would do to the ocean life?
now thats a strawman. notice how you superficially resembled my view and falsely represented me?
you assumed I was being serious and literal and that I really think nuking is the answer. I was being sarcastic to make a point that I disagree with the notion of war, and my post was in HUMOR!
....so let the people who want to fight kill each other off and the world will be a better place for it...
....
then all the people who didnt join the army and oppose war stay happy at home without the warmongers.
These. Right here.
You're basically saying that the people who don't follow pacifism are warmongers and/or people who want to kill.
As opposed to those legitimately fighting to protect themselves, their family, their country, innocent human beings...
I don't want to devolve this into a discussion on specific wars, mind you. But the point remains that there's more options than: A)warmonger, and B)pacifist. There's C)person who works for peace, but realizes that sometimes force must be met with force. They don't want to fight, but they will nonetheless.
If you're saying something different, please explain.
As for the nuke comment: how was I supposed to know it was sarcastic, but everything else wasn't? It fit the tone of your post. I was simply trying to point out a flaw in the idea.
I don't think that it could be fought. The amount of massively expensive infrastructure damage that would certainly happen (see other comments about sattelites, etc) is probably too high a price to pay. And we've largely forgotten how to fight a war. Well, we have, but the rest of the world hasn't. Russia and China still know how. We've forgotten that war must be brought to the people. Which is why you can't haul off and fight 'em willy-nilly like we do today. War is an ugly, terrible business. The country that fails to understand this (USA) will also fail to win. If it is fought, we'll be on the losin' end.
I don't think there is a winning/losing end to war. We haven't forgotten how to fight...we have been in plenty of conflicts and have learned. We also still have a good hand in technology. GPS is used for more than just guiding missiles, we also use it to destroy incoming missiles with lasers either via orbit or plane.
Did any ever see that anti-crowd weapon they have where it generates a microwave that makes people feel like they have a intense sunburn and they just get out from it. There really is just a ton of stuff...some of it we know about...and some of it is well...
Anyhow in war...same ol story. Take out their communications and their ability to see you. Ground them and limit mobility. You continue to break them down and limit their effectiveness to put up a fight. It is not perfect as you will still have pockets of resistance in urban areas and tactics in those regards will probably stay the same. Opponents will blend in with civilians and wage gorilla warfare.
US has some amazing technology...and we do not stand alone. We have some wonderful countries backing us as well. Technology is increasing exponentially and by the time this "World War" comes to play (if it ever does)...there will only be better ways to kill people through automation, along with stuff like exo-suits, and probably more uses for electromagnetic radiation and sound...and well it is rather limitless.
Very carefully, because WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones if it's not.
That was my first thought when I saw the thread title.
High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse
A High-altitude Electromagnetic Pulse, or HEMP, is emanated from the detonation of a single nuclear warhead several kilometers into the atmosphere. In the absence of proper shielding, it can destroy electronics vital to telecommunications and computing by generating a current that will overload highly sensitive integrated circuits.
According to Aviation Week (June 18th, 2007 pg 49) the possibility that North Korea, Pakistan, and/or Iran possess nuclear weapons and missile technology makes the threat of an HEMP very real. "A single 10-50 kiloton weapon detonated 60 mi. or more in space would knock out all unprotected low Earth orbit satellites in months, possibly weeks." Military equipment and space assets, particularly equipment related to command and control or nuclear response, are heavily shielded to ensure that the military infrastructure would not be effected by a HEMP event. Still the economic effects of a loss of commercial low Earth orbit satellites would be sizable. The Federation of American Scientists Nuclear Weapon EMP Effects agree that a properly attenuated strike over the geographic center of the continental United States could theoretically affect the entire Lower 48 states. In fact, it could damage any material capable of carrying an electric current within the line of sight (in overall electromagnetic spectrum terms, not simply visible light) of the blast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare
Fourth generation warfare
Fourth generation warfare (4GW) is combat characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, soldier and civilian, peace and conflict, battlefield and safety. The military doctrine was first defined in 1989 by a team of American analysts, including William S. Lind, used to describe warfare's return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states' loss of their monopoly on combat forces, returning in a sense to the uncontrolled combat of pre-modern times. The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent ideological network. While this term is similar to terrorism and asymmetric warfare, it is much narrower. Classical examples, such as the slave uprising under Spartacus or the assassination of Julius Caesar by the Roman senate, predate the modern concept of warfare and are examples of the type of combat modern warfare sought to eliminate. As such, fourth generation warfare uses classical tactics—tactics deemed unacceptable by the preceding generations—to weaken the advantaged opponent's will to win.
Fourth Generation Warfare is defined as conflicts which involve the following elements:
Complex and long term
Terrorism
A non-national or transnational base
A direct attack on the enemy's culture
Highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through manipulation of the media
All available networks are used - political, economic, social and military
Occurs in low-intensity conflict, involving actors from all networks
Non-combatants become tactical dilemmas
.....
The Federation of American Scientists Nuclear Weapon EMP Effects agree that a properly attenuated strike over the geographic center of the continental United States could theoretically affect the entire Lower 48 states. In fact, it could damage any material capable of carrying an electric current within the line of sight (in overall electromagnetic spectrum terms, not simply visible light) of the blast.
I think it may be difficult to pull off though. There has been a lot of unsaid work on technology and a launch from one of those counties would take time to reach the geographic center of the continental US. In that time it would potentially be possible to destroy the nuclear weapon via satellite or by plane.
Well...Look at the title.
Assuming there is no nuclear annihilation, how would WWIII be fought?
Name the participants and which side they are on.
I imagine a wave of violence and riots/disturbances because somebody created the rumor of...for example a Magrebian girl was kidnapped by Chinese to extract a kidney, or Rumanian gipsy has "dishonor" a Turkish women. Perhaps because there was a urban battle for a game of soccer or acertain candidate/political party didn´t win the elections..
We, Spain, have the kale borroka (urban riots caused by Basque nationalist).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kale_borroka
I don´t want a new ethnic cleansing in Europe. I don´t want no-to-go zones where sharia rules.
I think the main weapon will be the propaganda, the psycological war. NATO has the best militar technology, but the public opinion don´t support our political leaders... the war will be presented like a new Vietnam.
Gotta keep our eyes on them.
Name the participants and which side they are on.
Don't get Luis_Carlos wound up again. That's all we need, another thread filled up with whatever new garbage he can type up.
Name the participants and which side they are on.
hmmm..
i think
Team America World Police VS. EVERYONE ELSE!
the US is the world police isnt it?
we (US) are like invasive cockroaches lately... sneaking into everyones business.
the "Official" terrorists with the motto "the ends justify the means"
"i dont care how many people are killed! I WANT MY RETIREMENT!"
US, UK, Aus, Canada...
it will be short (relatively) about 5-7 years but incredibly bloody.
most of the major world powers will be involved but a few may sit it out (im looking at you switzerland).
with global tensions running high everywhere (the collapse of nuclear disarmament talks in north korea, Ahmadinejad becomming more fanatical by the month, arguments between russia and the rest of europe (oil and the situation in georgia), religious extremism gaining more of a footfold in saudi arabia and much of the middle east, despots in afria flexing their military muscles) alliences of convienience will be formed. it wont be so much of an 'us and them' situation like WW2, for a free for all like the initial stages of WW1.
western military prowess will take an advantage early on, but as it becomes stretched too thinly in the global conflict, pressue will build. a few disasterous defeats here and there may break the will of the people back home, at which point things will start to go down hill.
global economies will collapse on a much greater scale then we are seeing now (while western and japanese stockmarkets take a big hit, india, china and much of the rest of asia are beginning to boom). with employment becomming harder to find more will turn to the armed forces as a means to support themselves and their families. the war will draw more people in, much as forest fire draws in all the surrounding air, until there is nothing left to burn.
the victors will be tasked with rebuilding the planet. the losers will fall into obscurity as territories are re-drawn and rescources are claimed as reparations.
there is a bright side, however (after all the killing, horror and suffering of course). with the population of the world lowered, labour prices will rise, kick starting new economies. neccesity breeds invention so we will be left with more efficient ways of generating power, greater recycling facilities and a greater understanding of how the world works.
even that miniscule 2% of CO2 emmisions that humanity causes (and is attributed to as the cause of global warming) will be reduced.
mankind will go on, as it usually does, and life will continue to progress as it always has.
the next major global conflict will involve china. you have a lot of weight to throw around with 1/5th of world population under your belt.
Number of people matters little when you can't get them to the battlefield...
Number of people matters little when you can't get them to the battlefield...
whats your point? china has more vehicles than the rest of asia put together. their military is highly mobile. they have large and efficient air forces and navies and have satellies for communication, just like everyone else. its easy to move people from one place to another.
whats your point? china has more vehicles than the rest of asia put together. their military is highly mobile. they have large and efficient air forces and navies and have satellies for communication, just like everyone else. its easy to move people from one place to another.
They can drive to local conflicts. They have squat in the form of heavy air lift. Their navy would be toast if up against the US or Russian navy. They are locked in to their region.
More seriously, I suspect World War III won't happen in any real sense. All of the major powers have nuclear weapons, which means that none of them will directly attack any of the others. That means that World War III, effectively, won't ever happen unless several nations build extremely good missile defense shields.
If it were to happen, it'd probably look rather a lot like the war in Europe in World War II.
As to lesser wars (e.i., those not involving nukes), let us remember that War is the surest path to lasting peace.
so we won't use them, we won't have a WW3, unless we can survive the sterilization of the biosphere.
That means when the first O'Neil cylinder is built, the whole game changes.
a nuke in space just fries electronics and propels ships. (how do you think we get the rock we carve our new homes out of into orbit.)
it will pretty much be the first power to actually spend the money on making the cylinder (we have had the technology since the 80's) vs. whoever they want to conquer.
terrorism will increase. probably end up a 3-sided war.
America-Europe VS. Islam VS. China
things will get interesting.
the world population will drop by a third.
Now I know this isn't the most interesting thing to say in a discussion like this, but the bottom line is: No one knows.
Some guesses will be more right than others of course, but at this point it's impossible to really say what it will be like - Technology changes so fast these days that we don't even know how World War III might be fought, let alone if it will be fought. By then Nukes may well be obsolete, and easily cast aside.
The world economy is changing and while we have a pretty damn good idea where it's going something there could change and make our guesses at any political land scape completely void.
No one has an answer to this question and anyone who tells you otherwise is fooling themselves (not that it's not fun to speculate, I don't mean to slam any of you, many of these theories are very entertaining to read) but they are just theories and it's a question without an answer none the less.
There will most likely be a new arms race as everyone scuttles to catch up with the country that has devised the next weapon of mass destruction. In the midst of this race there will be spying, espionage, and covert ("black") ops. New organizations, both peacful and terroristic, will be conceived.
Close to the end, the fighting will most likely devolve into another "cold war" as nations rail against one another politically. Armed forces will be held in reserve and weapons will be stockpiled in the event that diplomacy fails. Protests and civilian uprisings will become more and more frequent until most countries will be placed in a state of martial law.
Now, here's where things don't play-out like every other World War: the civilian unrest will grow more and more out of control as powerful, charasmatic leaders come forward with new ideals. Due to the fact that American Citizens are afforded the freedom of owning fire-arms, powerful militias and militant bodies will rise and begin the slow, daunting process of deposing the government they perceive as flawed and corrupt.
Nations that once aided the United States will withdraw to protect their own intersts as agressive nations rally to to strike decisive blows against the weakening U.S. Slowly, the U.S will become a battlefiled where another Civil War is waged. However, there will be no eventual treaties of peace or ending of hostilities. As the peoples of the North American Continent do battle against one another, they will be slowly but surely attacked and neutralized by forces from other nations.
"WW III" will most likely end with the gradual destruction of one or more nations. And those nations will end because their governments, military, and civilian populace are not unified.
All great nations are built upon the bones of men and women warriors. It isn't pretty. It isn't fair. It isn't "P.C". But it's the way things are, and it's the way things always shall be until every individual upon this earth sees eye-to-eye. And that will never happen. Get used to it. Your grandfathers and their fathers before them lived through harsher times than all of us. They got through it. So will we. We'll just have to work a little harder due to the fact that our "golden age" has turned a good deal of the human race into lazy whiners that want instant results.
Take care, friends.
It will be waged just as every other war has been up to date. There will be loss, death, triumph, and compromise. However, most noteably, there will be change. New weapons will be devised. The "war machine" will generate positive and negative effects on the economy. Jobs will be produced and discarded.
There will most likely be a new arms race as everyone scuttles to catch up with the country that has devised the next weapon of mass destruction. In the midst of this race there will be spying, espionage, and covert ("black") ops. New organizations, both peacful and terroristic, will be conceived.
Close to the end, the fighting will most likely devolve into another "cold war" as nations rail against one another politically. Armed forces will be held in reserve and weapons will be stockpiled in the event that diplomacy fails. Protests and civilian uprisings will become more and more frequent until most countries will be placed in a state of martial law.
Now, here's where things don't play-out like every other World War: the civilian unrest will grow more and more out of control as powerful, charasmatic leaders come forward with new ideals. Due to the fact that American Citizens are afforded the freedom of owning fire-arms, powerful militias and militant bodies will rise and begin the slow, daunting process of deposing the government they perceive as flawed and corrupt.
Nations that once aided the United States will withdraw to protect their own intersts as agressive nations rally to to strike decisive blows against the weakening U.S. Slowly, the U.S will become a battlefiled where another Civil War is waged. However, there will be no eventual treaties of peace or ending of hostilities. As the peoples of the North American Continent do battle against one another, they will be slowly but surely attacked and neutralized by forces from other nations.
"WW III" will most likely end with the gradual destruction of one or more nations. And those nations will end because their governments, military, and civilian populace are not unified.
All great nations are built upon the bones of men and women warriors. It isn't pretty. It isn't fair. It isn't "P.C". But it's the way things are, and it's the way things always shall be until every individual upon this earth sees eye-to-eye. And that will never happen. Get used to it. Your grandfathers and their fathers before them lived through harsher times than all of us. They got through it. So will we. We'll just have to work a little harder due to the fact that our "golden age" has turned a good deal of the human race into lazy whiners that want instant results.
Take care, friends.
wow graddlin....
your a pretty smart guy, and i believe you have some excelent foresight on the near future of things, and how things will unravel.
i agree with much of that and have very similar expectations and predictions.
We have what... 50 or more major wars going on right now, and almost all of them have troops from major superpowers involved (and this is simply the amount we know, there is most likely much more involvement on a secret level).
I'd say the only superpower vs. superpower war we will see, will be a war fought by proxy. Somewhat similar to Vietnam but on a grander scale. You'll see flare ups in conflict regions throughout the world from Europe, Middle East, South America, Asia and Africa. Each of the superpowers will be sending men and supplies and more importantly money to support their preferred regimes and BAM! You have US soldiers shooting down Chinese planes and vice-versa.
Well...Look at the title.
Assuming there is no nuclear annihilation, how would WWIII be fought?
Very quickly.
The next World War is not going to be a year-long affair (otherwise it will just be called a 'peace-keeping mission') but a short bloody affair that will leave over half the globe devestated. Whether it's from nuclear weapons, bio-plagues, robots-of-war, or some other fantastical device, the next World War will leave the meek to inherit as the strong and healthy run away.
Very quickly.
The next world war, if it stays conventional, will last slightly longer than if it goes nuke. A conventional war will be marked by lightning strike decapitations as the superpowers try to take each other's puppets out. It'll be lots of take and hold actions done very quickly and then a long period of reconsolidation. Small governments will rise and fall almost as fast as they can be propped up.
It will not be a war fought out in the open by any stretch of the imagination. Proxies and politics will be the tactics of the day and it's probably be a long day. The actual shooting won't last long at all, but you can bet the covert war will take years.
Without a huge technology gap, (and I'm not sure there is one to be honest, Japan is in the box seat to make bulk cash should a big war break out. It shouldn't be too hard to militarise all their gadjets and sell to the highest bidder) the tech will pretty much cancel each other out at first, until a lot of nations start redirecting funds to R&D, so that leaves us with a very up close and personal war, fought in the shadows between highly trained specops forces. Infantry will become more highly trained, becoming half specops themselves, and the bulk of the tech will be carried into battle by the infantryman. Should the Arab nations be involved in the conflict, oil will become a serious issue, since they would be fools to sell it to the guys who need it for the tanks about to blow up their city.
As the war goes on, someone will make some breakthrough somewhere and the world will change again, and kids will have new PC games that they have no idea that it's a real vehicle they're controlling...
Interesting times...
bit of a joke: the Korean star craft players will be put in charge of the American robot army operated by Japanese chip sets and all using the British tongue.
1) "Peacekeeping" Operations -> The current "War on Terror" operations are arguably a small-scale World War (BTW - there have been many World Wars even prior to the "First World War". See the Seven Years War), and we can more or less expect much of the same forever. Sometimes the "peacekeepers" will suceed, often the political will to keep the peacekeepers in place will evaporate long before anything meaningful is accomplished (See: Any African Peacekeeping operation).
Expect few battles but lots of skirmishes involving small numbers of troops. Tanks, artillery, and airpower play only a minor part of the overall campaign - which is a pretty severe disadvantage for the Western powers since most of their money is spent on such high-budget items while their enemies focus purely on the infantry and guerilla elements.
This isn't to say the guerilla/terrorist forces are unbeatable though. Most such organizations generally don't have a stable income (unless they've got a patron like Iran who's flush with oil money) to keep their forces supplied and one or two defeats can really, really hurt them. However, it simply doesn't seem that way because they have the initiative to strike whenever they want, whereas peacekeeping forces have rules of engagement and can't simply blow up several city blocks to make a statement.
Expect China and Russia to become increasingly involved in these kinds of operations in the near future as well, particularly in Central Asia. And expect the Chinese and Russians to be a bit more effective at it (albeit more brutal at it). The Russian and Chinese governments are more willing to burn manpower than their Western counterparts.
2) "World War" Scenario 1: China vs Russia -> Although it's not terribly likely, a confrontation between China and Russia is most likely to produce a "real" World War. The two countries have resurgent economies, growing militaries, and have long land borders. Plus, they're both trying to grab the considerable wealth of Central Asia. A likely war scenario is having rival Chinese and Russian "peacekeeping" forces enter a Central Asian country (say Kazakhstan), and they end up shooting at one another.
Expect medium to large scale deployment of tanks, mech infantry, artillery, and air power in the initial blows, with China having the advantage of numbers and the Russians having a slight edge in quantity. Losses on both sides will be heavy and combat will be brutal (See: The Arab-Israeli Wars)
Superior technology will not immediately confer victory in this situation (even if we assume the US intervenes and sends a Division to support either belligerent). This isn't going to be a war against an army of unwilling conscripts using second rate equipment (which is what the Iraqis had in the first Gulf War). It's a war between two large, fiercely nationalistic armies with pretty damn good equipment.
Expect frantic sessions in the UN trying to stop the fighting, but as the casualties mount expect the diplomacy to fail.
Other countries may also start lining up to support one side or the other, although I suspect the EU will try to remain neutral, the US will insist on diplomacy, with India being the only one that might enter the conflict directly (India shares a big land border with China. If China is winning decisively, India may intervene. Which can lead to a bigger mess)
After about a few months of heavy fighting, expect both sides to be critically short of arms and ammunition with no real prospect of quick replacement (See also the Arab-Israelie Wars, and how the US stocks of munitions were critically depleted after Gulf War 1 and 2). This is because the arms and munitions industry of the 21st Century, to be frank, sucks compared to the wartime arms and munition industries wielded by the Second World War powers. During World War 2, tanks and airplanes could be produced by the hundreds or even thousands per month. In the modern world, you'd be lucky to get 100 new T-72s in a year.
At that point, diplomacy gets another chance. Or, one side decides to start using tactical nukes. In which case the world is royally screwed.
I can come up with more doomsday scenarios, but that's it for now.
It will be waged just as every other war has been up to date. There will be loss, death, triumph, and compromise. However, most noteably, there will be change. New weapons will be devised. The "war machine" will generate positive and negative effects on the economy. Jobs will be produced and discarded.
The problem with this assessment is that the arms industry of the early 21st Century is completely different from the arms industry of the World War 2 generation.
World War 2 war machines, for all their power, were simple. They can be produced in an assembly line at the rate of several hundred a month.
This simplicity has been discarded in the 21st Century, and in its place we have an arms industry dedicated to building expensive, custom-built gear that can be produced only in tiny quantities. Moreover, R&D has become more time-consuming due to the sophistication of these new weapons, making it very unlikely new weapons will be developed before the war is over.
To demonstrate: It now generally takes a decade to develop a new fighter plane. During the World War 2 period, it took only about one or two years. During the First World War, R&D timelines for fighters were measured in weeks. The cost of these new-fangled technologies have made it impractical for them to "turn the tide".
There will most likely be a new arms race as everyone scuttles to catch up with the country that has devised the next weapon of mass destruction. In the midst of this race there will be spying, espionage, and covert ("black") ops. New organizations, both peacful and terroristic, will be conceived.
The world doesn't operate on the plot of Metal Gear Solid.
The world super powers haven't developed anything more sophisticated than a nuke for WMD purposes for a reason: A nuke already pretty much kills everyone you'd ever need to kill. You don't need to develop anything more destructive. That's why the trend is for more accurate conventional munitions.
Now, some rogue states are going for chemical or biological weapons, but that's only because it's harder to acquire uranium. Chemical weapon components, by contrast, can be passed off as fertilizer components and other mundane items. And properly employed, chems can be just as deadly.
All great nations are built upon the bones of men and women warriors. It isn't pretty. It isn't fair. It isn't "P.C". But it's the way things are, and it's the way things always shall be until every individual upon this earth sees eye-to-eye. And that will never happen. Get used to it. Your grandfathers and their fathers before them lived through harsher times than all of us. They got through it. So will we. We'll just have to work a little harder due to the fact that our "golden age" has turned a good deal of the human race into lazy whiners that want instant results.
True, but the US does have the advantage of not sharing a land border with any aggressive power, in addition to having a stronger Navy than everyone else combined. Also, a Second Civil War is very unlikely. The first one, quite frankly, is already shockingly civilized. When other countries have Civil Wars, the result is usually a mix of "almost" genocide followed by decades of bitter division that people try to forget. In America, you have Civil War re-enactments on a regular basis where the Yankees and Dixies shake hands at the end of the re-enactment.
Yours is truly a strange country.
Second World War: We saw the US unite and really make a mark on the world (they were beginning to do so, but still somewhat xenophobiac).
Vietnam War: It took longer to unite, but in the end the vast majority of the country united in being against this war.
It is only when a war is going badly and there is no way out that society begins to crumble, ie: death is on your doorstep panic.
The problem with this assessment is that the arms industry of the early 21st Century is completely different from the arms industry of the World War 2 generation.
World War 2 war machines, for all their power, were simple. They can be produced in an assembly line at the rate of several hundred a month.
This simplicity has been discarded in the 21st Century, and in its place we have an arms industry dedicated to building expensive, custom-built gear that can be produced only in tiny quantities. Moreover, R&D has become more time-consuming due to the sophistication of these new weapons, making it very unlikely new weapons will be developed before the war is over.
To demonstrate: It now generally takes a decade to develop a new fighter plane. During the World War 2 period, it took only about one or two years. During the First World War, R&D timelines for fighters were measured in weeks. The cost of these new-fangled technologies have made it impractical for them to "turn the tide".
The world doesn't operate on the plot of Metal Gear Solid.
The world super powers haven't developed anything more sophisticated than a nuke for WMD purposes for a reason: A nuke already pretty much kills everyone you'd ever need to kill. You don't need to develop anything more destructive. That's why the trend is for more accurate conventional munitions.
Now, some rogue states are going for chemical or biological weapons, but that's only because it's harder to acquire uranium. Chemical weapon components, by contrast, can be passed off as fertilizer components and other mundane items. And properly employed, chems can be just as deadly.
True, but the US does have the advantage of not sharing a land border with any aggressive power, in addition to having a stronger Navy than everyone else combined. Also, a Second Civil War is very unlikely. The first one, quite frankly, is already shockingly civilized. When other countries have Civil Wars, the result is usually a mix of "almost" genocide followed by decades of bitter division that people try to forget. In America, you have Civil War re-enactments on a regular basis where the Yankees and Dixies shake hands at the end of the re-enactment.
Yours is truly a strange country.
I believe you have taken my statements as litteral, friend.
My choice of words are those that best fit the point I wish to get across. Metal Gear Solid? Sorry. I don't play video games. Rot yer brain. I also don't play word games, or one-up games. I do however listen and watch.
Now, I'm no oracle. I can't see the future. I wouldn't dare claim any great gift of forsight. However, the American populace (yes, they are quite strange) seem to think they are owed something more than whet they already have. With that in mind, you must also remember the fact that a great deal of the American populace, when compared to other nations, possesses ballistic weaponry.
Do not doubt mankind's ability to wage war and devise new ways to kill his fellow man. Then again, as you have pointed out, one should not be too quick to "destroy the world" in thought-up ways.
Oh, and before I sign off for now: yes. you are correct. The 21st century has given rise to an arms industry geared toward heavily customized, highly expensive weaponry. That, however, does not mean that we humans, the great makers of war, will not fall back on tried and true methods and weapons of combat when our new and improved devices prove too costly to produce in mass.
True, but the US does have the advantage of not sharing a land border with any aggressive power, in addition to having a stronger Navy than everyone else combined.
It also happens to have a great deal of anger and mistrust aimed at it from multiple sides. Deserved or not, the U.S has many enemies that would like to see it fall.
Also, a Second Civil War is very unlikely. The first one, quite frankly, is already shockingly civilized. When other countries have Civil Wars, the result is usually a mix of "almost" genocide followed by decades of bitter division that people try to forget. In America, you have Civil War re-enactments on a regular basis where the Yankees and Dixies shake hands at the end of the re-enactment.
Civilized by who's standards?
Take care, friend.
I believe you have taken my statements as litteral, friend.
My choice of words are those that best fit the point I wish to get across. Metal Gear Solid? Sorry. I don't play video games. Rot yer brain. I also don't play word games, or one-up games. I do however listen and watch.
But what you have described is a Metal Gear Solid plot. World ruled by an arms race to kill people with bigger and better WMDs? Check. Sinister organizations fighting a shadow war to procure such tech? Check. The only thing missing is the titular humongous mecha.
And this pretty much never happens in real life.
Now, I'm no oracle. I can't see the future. I wouldn't dare claim any great gift of forsight. However, the American populace (yes, they are quite strange) seem to think they are owed something more than whet they already have. With that in mind, you must also remember the fact that a great deal of the American populace, when compared to other nations, possesses ballistic weaponry.
The feeling of entitlement is not restricted to America alone however. It's not an exclusively American thing.
Do not doubt mankind's ability to wage war and devise new ways to kill his fellow man. Then again, as you have pointed out, one should not be too quick to "destroy the world" in thought-up ways.
Oh, and before I sign off for now: yes. you are correct. The 21st century has given rise to an arms industry geared toward heavily customized, highly expensive weaponry. That, however, does not mean that we humans, the great makers of war, will not fall back on tried and true methods and weapons of combat when our new and improved devices prove too costly to produce in mass.
I'm more tempted to say that people have long figured out how to kill each other long, long ago. It's as simple as arming a kid with an AK-47.
There won't be an end to brush conflicts. But not because people have figured out new ways to kill each other. It's because it's too easy to start killing each other.
It also happens to have a great deal of anger and mistrust aimed at it from multiple sides. Deserved or not, the U.S has many enemies that would like to see it fall.
Short of suitcase nukes or all-out nuclear war, there really isn't any realistic way for anyone to attack the American mainland. And anyone stupid enough to go that far won't have a country anymore very soon. All it takes is one Trident submarine.
Civilized by who's standards?
Take care, friend.
Civilized compared to every other Civil War in history?
But you are right about the conquest of America, all that holds her together now is a delicate balance between patriotism of a few, and the bread and games of the major players. Even nuclear threats will end up only with mass migrations, and not a few prospectors.
Well...Look at the title.
Assuming there is no nuclear annihilation, how would WWIII be fought?
Would be? Buddy, we're in it right now.
*looks at the news*
*cough*
These days, w/ so much scrutiny and world opinion, everyone is expected to follow alot of protocol. But not always. Typically, though, the ball gets kicked off economically like Howler said and intelligent 1st world nations often try and keep it that way. You can topple countries w/out firing a shot sometimes.
Typically, it's speculated between Jayne's Monthly, The Dept. of Defense, and a few other military think tanks to go roughly like:
Firstly, we gotta' know who's engaged and if it's conventional warfare. There's other variables to consider, but the main concern is probably a Russian/American theatre of war. The Chinese are quite content presently to rake it a fortune in cash. Furthermore, they went to great lengths to secure world opinion and spruce up for the Olympics and all the recalls going on. They wouldn't even touch Taiwan much less Japan...they'd lose billions in trade from the nations that would write them off for such action.
Anyway, moving on...
Usually starts w/ withdrawl of country x's citizenry & diplomats (and discrete insertion of more "political/military advisors" [spies] to get a measure of their troop/satellite positions, infrastructure/communication hot spots, & other pivotal intel. No overt genstures of belligerence, just gathering of information.
Then the sanctions and lots of them. Favors are called in from friends, pressure from allied countries to join are more likely than asking them to commit troops w/out loss of favor in world standing. Often, this is enough to make a hostile nation back down (smaller ones), but WW III tends to imply large powers that can weather large(r) storms, paticularly the Russians whom bore the brunt of the casualties in WW II.
Next, discrete cyber attacks and other "plausible deniabilities" that can't necessarilly be assessed as "acts of war". Russia did this in Latvia not ago, crippling them quickly. We should take care too (Pentagon is hacked routinely and was deemed horribly out-of-date post 9-11). In short, more little jabs from proxies, etc.
At this point, military advisors (Special Forces namely) are usually ferreted into or near hostile nation 'x' and begin organizing/arming any insurgency or sympathizers to our cause as efforts to traffic and aid them were already done long ago. It just escalates now. This was proved masterfully in Viet Nam given out recuitment of the indigenous peoples there (they hated the VC) and the Kurds in Northern Iraq during the Gulf War.
This only results in small skirmishing here and there when hostilities erupt due to their small size vs. a superior military, but probing raids and disrupting of commerce and daily life can cause much more damage than destroying an entire armor column sometimes. Just delaying things is costing alot of $.
This is the starter plot for Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising (fictitious WW III between NATO Pact & Warsaw Pact) when insurgents blow up a series of refineries the Soviet Union depends on which leaves them w/ few reserves and a "we attack and take more" mindset or "face collapse in a few months once it runs out." So, they invade.
Now, once war was declared, key natural & strategic resources are usually targeted after the 1st strike weapons initially. Satellites are shot down quickly and expensively, all net traffic w/ country 'x' is attempted to be contained (but rarely is), major communications blocked. Take away the ability to wage war basically. Then harbors, major bridges, power stations, rail ways, anything that can facilitate troop mobility and incoming/outgoing commerce.
This is largely an air superiority scenario first to which we have it in spades. Once air superiority is harnessed (if it can be), it is much much easier to control the battlefield given 24/7 look down radar (AWACs) and round the clock strategic bombing (fighter/bombers are always flying and wait for order rather than get order, launch, then attack).
The real ground war is anybodies guess. Mainland US would be relatively safe (assuming conventional) though Russians bombers flying over the polar North would assuredly target the Alaskan Pipeline and their Black Sea fleet would be a problem once it got to the Atlantic or Mediterranenan and began picking off transport ships. But we'd do likewise too. Our Navy is the sh-t to be sure, but naval combat is way more unforgiving.
"Shock and awe" is the new profile to our attack in the beginning as showcased during the onset of our current "problem". And it was over in 2 weeks (the entire theatre). We're great at offense; the whole invasion went swimmingly...it's the occupation that's the problem. Soldiers are not policemen.
To say how WW III would come out is incredibly difficult. W/ so much tech and so many intervals, we're (I'm) just really guessing. Only the preludes to war can really be graphed out and predicted. Once the actual "war" starts, it becomes "anything can happen day".
Therein lies the endgame for WW III. Fiercest partisan fighting you've ever seen until it just turns bio/chem/nuclear or a stalmate. I pitty the country that defeats us and tries to occupy US soil. It's so big, there are so many people w/ so many guns and resources, it just couldn't happen w/out resorting to drastic measures.
Therein lies the endgame for WW III. Fiercest partisan fighting you've ever seen until it just turns bio/chem/nuclear or a stalmate.
WWIII will be a clash over idealogies rather than territories. The entire war will most likely be fought under the cover of darkness, with agents instead of soldiers. Sure, there will be lots of carnage, but it'll be more a matter of bodies found in alleyways rather than battlefields. Espionage will be the order of the day.
1. There will be a third World War, and it is not happening as of yet and it has not happened yet either. (Which means that the Cold War wasn't counted as a World War here.)
2. It will involve fighting.
Now I don't know for sure, but it may darn well be that it will not actually involve "fighting" in a certain sense of the word. "Fighting" means that there will be at least two sides actively combating against one another with losses on both sides. If there are no sides, or if the whole thing is just a slaughter (WHAM, BAM, nukes fall, everyone dies), then, well, there goes your fighting your big war.
EDIT: I just realized that "fighting a war" technically could also mean "fighting against a war", but don't tell the hardcore pacifists that.
EDIT: I just realized that "fighting a war" technically could also mean "fighting against a war", but don't tell the hardcore pacifists that.
Only if you were killing people. I guess you could say that the Minutemen were fighting against a war - but they were also fighting for a revolution.
In either case, you couldn't call them pacifists.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/95965-0/
Russians have psychotronic weapon to zombie people
Major-general of the reserve of the Russian Federal Custodial Service Boris Ratnikov tells that Russia and other countries work on making special devices that turn humans into zombies.
It was already twenty years ago that mass media first mentioned the strange word combination ‘psychotronic weapon’. All information about such weapons arrived from military men transferred to the reserve and from researchers that were not officially recognized by the Russian Academy of Sciences. They usually told about some generators that could make people muddleheaded even when they were distanced at hundreds of kilometers.
Such devices were said to be able to control people’s behavior, seriously impair psyche and even drive people to death. As soon as information of the kind was published some people immediately claimed themselves as victims of impact of such psychotronic weapons. They stormed editorial offices of newspapers and magazines that reported about the psychotronic weapons and complained that some strange voices dictated orders to them. Journalists in their turn recommended such people visiting psychiatrists.
By the year of 2000 the amount of publications about psychotronic weapons reduced to nothing and the impact of psychotronic weapons was no longer mentioned. These days, the issue of psychotronic weapons seems to be reviving.
Boris Ratnikov says that Russia has been working on the psychotronic impact upon humans since the 1920s. Until the mid-1980s secret centers for investigation of psychic impact upon humans were working in large cities of the country under the KGB’s patronage. Thousands of brilliant researchers were working on the problem in the twenty secret centers. After the break-up of the USSR the centers were closed and the researchers either left abroad or currently work in various parts of Russia.
Now that new technologies and the Internet are widely spreading people must realize that the menace of psychic impact upon humans is really immense. At the same time, the official science still insists that psychotronic is mere charlatanry. Boris Ratnikov is sure however that in less than ten years psychotronic weapons will grow more dangerous than nuclear and atomic weapons.
It is known that several researchers are still investigating the problem in Russia. Academician Viktor Kandyba and his son continue the researches in St.Petersburg, academician Vlail Kaznacheyev works on the problem in Novosibirsk. And it is highly likely that the magic of human brain is still the issue of great interest for Academician Natalya Bekhtereva whose father was working on the problem in the past century.
-----
Psychotronic weapon to wash your brain?
http://istina.rin.ru/eng/ufo/text/360.html
---
It said there is a special technology, the HAARP, wich you can use to control the weather.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program#HAARP_controversy
*Note: this is just pure speculation. I have no evidence to prove that this statement holds any weight.
WWIII will be a clash over idealogies rather than territories. The entire war will most likely be fought under the cover of darkness, with agents instead of soldiers.
Not debating the advent of modern antagonism, cuz' "war" here doesn't apply. W/ brushfire skirmishes, backalley deals, surgical "removals", communications disruptions, those, really, are the currency of espionage, really high end budgets, and very discrete/low # shows of force.
That is not war. Components thereof to be sure, electronic warfare being a good example, but open war in the traditional sense, much like we have seen in Georgia, "Talibanistan" (Paki/Afghan border), etc., but on a much larger scale. Like a global one, hence world war.
Sure, there will be lots of carnage, but it'll be more a matter of bodies found in alleyways rather than battlefields. Espionage will be the order of the day.
Most assuredly, but no one wants to kickstart a global conflict (world war). It's bad for business and it would seem economic power is the new 1st-tier measure of clout, but not necessarilly world opinion. Ironically, of course, those that have the great big economies, often have staggeringly high defense budgets and large populations to fill those slots. Which one supports which now? Chicken or the egg? Strange times.
Jackpot_James: If another world war were to happen I would think it would be similar to that of the first one. Maybe the instigators would be different, but the fact that a lot of countries would be dragged into a war because they signed a treaty remains the same. *
Funny you should mention that considering what I heard on NPR yesterday from Moscow about "privledged interests"...that's a fancy way of saying all former satellite countries, or really, anything that shares (shared) a border prior. Like our Monroe Doctrine back in the day, essentially saying, "Hands off, this is in our back yard, not your's."
The problem is those backyard neighbors don't wanna' get folded up into Russia's dream of new empire. Hence, so many seeing how well Communism worked and immediately jumping to NATO as a security blanket. This was a major slap in the face to their previous "protectors". And like you said, all of these NATO forces in the coalition might be indebted to helping out another little guy like Georgia by default. Now, though, I don't think Russia is in much of a position to just sabre rattle and talk sh-t. They don't have the gall yet to push for a conflict of interests in Europe w/ pledged NATO allies.
But it's clear, they have very bold designs. Consider their response to Obama's victory; wanna' move short range missles to the Czech & Polish borders in response to our proposed SDI (missle defense). Note, defense, not offense. Not exactly a "welcome to the neighborhood" greeting for Obama. I pity him. He's got his work cut out for him just w/ these guys, let alone a flailing economy.
If the Chinese are involved, I also expect to see them attempt to do as much of the above as they have the capacity to, combined with large-scale conventional military deployment, and conscription of their populace. India might very well do the same, and if the two are on opposite sides they will be forced by simpe geography to use a whole lot of the manpower against one another in the most bloody ground conflict ever witnessed. If one or the other begins the ground war first, the other will have to follow suit and that scenario will play out.
I simultaneously expect to see those powers without the same level of tech to go all out conventionally, and worse, to use larger-scale nukes in limited regions with limited strike range against one another, which will not yield a global retaliation, but rather will be more or less left alone while the big powers duke it out as outlined above.
I don't see this as terribly likely, however, without the
really hitting the fan in a big way. It will mostly be long-range strikes and precision ops conducted more or less secretly, under the cover of various targeted military/police action directed at proxies. Think of the devastation of drones, special ops, railguns, uber-accurate missiles in cover of darkness, and so on, while the world is distracted with another Iraq or similar debacle.Currently nations known to have nuclear weapons include:
US,
Russia,
Britain,
France,
Israel,
India,
Pakisthan,
China
Then there are nations sharing US armaments: Italy, Turkey, Canada, Belgium. And then there are former Soviet countries which apparently transfered all their weapons to Russia.
And then there are a lot of nations seeking, or perhaps already hiding the technology (including ex-Soviets) and an unknown amount on the private black-market.
It will not just be about back alleys and espionage - maybe in the West - but in the Third World it will be the carnage that we have seen (and most of it we never saw) in the Cold War and post-Cold War (the "War on Terror" is just a post-Cold War clean up and pre-Cold War II land grab).
Many soldiers will come to fear the legal system because doing their job could possibly land them in jail if polls show that the action they participated in was unpopular. Oh, and I can also see (especially with the new US uniforms having velcro now) companies sponsoring different platoons. It will be similar to how NASCAR team uniforms are; you might see a group of Army Rangers with the Nike patch or a team of mortars covered in dirty talking about how their teeth feel great because of the gum they're chewing. I imagine it will be similar to a televised sport in some twisted way; at the same time; as I said, the legal system will have just as much power as a bullet.
Yes it'll be proxy wars all the way. But unlike the last Cold War, the proxies will have nuclear weapons and conflict spilling into other areas will be much harder to contain.
Currently nations known to have nuclear weapons include:
US,
Russia,
Britain,
France,
Israel,
India,
Pakisthan,
China
Then there are nations sharing US armaments: Italy, Turkey, Canada, Belgium. And then there are former Soviet countries which apparently transfered all their weapons to Russia.
And then there are a lot of nations seeking, or perhaps already hiding the technology (including ex-Soviets) and an unknown amount on the private black-market.
It will not just be about back alleys and espionage - maybe in the West - but in the Third World it will be the carnage that we have seen (and most of it we never saw) in the Cold War and post-Cold War (the "War on Terror" is just a post-Cold War clean up and pre-Cold War II land grab).
then metal gear solid hit the shelves.
I think that the next big war will involve a lot of political mudslinging like what we see on commercials during election years and legal trials. The different world leaders will make hold press conferences similar to coaches of football or basketball teams.
Many soldiers will come to fear the legal system because doing their job could possibly land them in jail if polls show that the action they participated in was unpopular. Oh, and I can also see (especially with the new US uniforms having velcro now) companies sponsoring different platoons. It will be similar to how NASCAR team uniforms are; you might see a group of Army Rangers with the Nike patch or a team of mortars covered in dirty talking about how their teeth feel great because of the gum they're chewing. I imagine it will be similar to a televised sport in some twisted way; at the same time; as I said, the legal system will have just as much power as a bullet.
Somebody either has, or needs to read Army @ Love, a rather awesome comic book by Rick Veitch.
Somebody either has, or needs to read Army @ Love, a rather awesome comic book by Rick Veitch.
Mostly I based that off of my experiences of being in the military in recent years, but I'll check out the comic.
note: I also meant to say "covered in dirt" instead of saying "covered in dirty" in my previous post.
NATO troops are on the ground in hot combat theaters (to differing degrees). Countries as distant as Canada, France, and Japan have deployed naval units to the Somalian Coast to contain piracy. The Netherlands have ships in South America for drug interdictions. US troops conduct training operations for indigenous militaries in every corner of the world: Pakistan, the Phillipines, Columbia, Germany, South Korea, Japan, Georgia . . . the list goes on and on.
A particular county's decision to deploy or remain aloof is determined by the calculus of self interest in that specific case, but as a whole the "developed world" has been challenged by dictatorial nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and amoral profiteering opportunists with no common cause but the desire to see the tide of modernization recede.
If all you are looking for is the shape of international conflict in the 21st century, look no further than this. People make a mistake in thinking that these "low-intensity" conflicts are simpler than large scale "traditional" wars and easier to conduct, but that is not true. An individual with a camcorder and an internet connection can score more victories in such a conflict than a flight of stealth bombers with satellite guided munitions, or a battalion of infantry operating under constrained rules of engagement.
Local knowledge and human intelligence are the key in this sort of operation. The US model of 12 month deployment cycles of traditionally trained big Army infantry units is unfit for this war, whereas the British model of foreign dwelling area specialists and indigenous client armies is more applicable.
More than anything else, this sort of war is conducted on the battlefield of ideas and ideologies rather than physical terrain. We see the ramifications of this as we barge into countries and rearrange their political systems to root out Al Qaeda, only to have it reform before the invasion even begins in some other country. Drug trafficking is such a lucrative business in some parts of the world that the countries leaders make more money accepting bribes from kingpins than they ever could cooperating with foreign authorities to build up a legitimate economy. Ousting a tyrant in a third world country might seem laudable, but 10 years later someone worse is in his place and things are no better than they were before.
Unlike in the Cold War, there is no key piece of real estate to deploy our assets that will ensure strategic parity or advantage. There isn't even any central body to negotiate detente with. Military victories are transient and ephemeral, whereas propaganda triumphs are vital and decisive.
Whether people recognize it or not, the world is at war. Whereas it an inferno raged across the world in 1942, today the globe smolders. There are forces at work that keep it burning at a slow rate, but it burns nonetheless. Part of this is humanity's nature to foment conflict and sorrow. But an equal part is globalization's cheerleaders coming to grips with real problems in their world view and confronting violent regressionist forces that are understandably angry but irrationally opposed to the shape of the modern world.
It is still possible that World order could change so drastically in the coming years that we are faced with a truly global hot conflict that pits developed countries once more against each other in a fight for survival. As the old truism goes, things can always get worse. But if I were a betting man I would put my money on WWIII being very similar to what we've seen so far in the past twenty years, a struggle between the rich nations that have profited from world affairs and non-state (or rogue state) actors that have an axe to grind.
WWIII, assuming the "No nukes" rule (I'm sure I've been in that bar!!), will be fought by destabilising some economies, whilst benefiting others, all to gradually build a monopoly (that will be deemed a necessity to counter dire situations) combined with hampering a countries ability to provide food/water/electricity/oil.....all leading not to a war of obliteration, but a stealthy war of imperialism leading to, if it 'works', a global Empire.
*looks at the news*
*cough*
Everyone listen, Howler speeks truth.
I think that the next big war will involve a lot of political mudslinging like what we see on commercials during election years and legal trials. The different world leaders will make hold press conferences similar to coaches of football or basketball teams.
Many soldiers will come to fear the legal system because doing their job could possibly land them in jail if polls show that the action they participated in was unpopular.
How about we send the political leaders who sent them to jail instead (or better yet, the front line).
Oh, and I can also see (especially with the new US uniforms having velcro now) companies sponsoring different platoons. It will be similar to how NASCAR team uniforms are; you might see a group of Army Rangers with the Nike patch or a team of mortars covered in dirty talking about how their teeth feel great because of the gum they're chewing. I imagine it will be similar to a televised sport in some twisted way; at the same time; as I said, the legal system will have just as much power as a bullet.
That reminds me of that picture of a soldier smoking outside Fallujah. There was a big hoo-har over his smoking as I remember.
How about we send the political leaders who sent them to jail instead (or better yet, the front line).
That reminds me of that picture of a soldier smoking outside Fallujah. There was a big hoo-har over his smoking as I remember.
Yeah, needless to say, I wasn't happy with the fact that one of the local politicians here in Pennsylvania (who happens to be a Vietnam-vet) claimed that many of the returning Iraqi War Vets were murderers. I digress though; I don't want to derail the thread. However, as I said in a previous post, a lot of my reasoning for making the comments that I made was due to my experiences over the past few years.
As for the smoking thing... yeah, it's a little funny when you think about how hypocritical fighting wars has become. I remember toward the end of my boot camp they were first starting to try to remove the ability of DS's to swear or yell at you. I remember one of the instructors making the comment of "They expect me to teach you how to f-ing kill people, but I'm suppose to show you how to be polite while doing it."
I remember toward the end of my boot camp they were first starting to try to remove the ability of DS's to swear or yell at you. I remember one of the instructors making the comment of "They expect me to teach you how to f-ing kill people, but I'm suppose to show you how to be polite while doing it."
After I went through I found out that they were issuing "stress cards" to marine boots. These cards are a break from the DS chewing on your hide because you're too stressed out.
The master chief that was our lead DI told me one day that I'd be a good leader when it sank in that I really don't mean much in the big picture. If it comes down to me dying to save the ship, I was expendable, just like every other man that would be under me someday. Every soldier, every sailor, every airman, every marine, they are all dead when they put on the uniform, some just manage to come back to life when they retire.
Smoking? Kiss my ass.
After I went through I found out that they were issuing "stress cards" to marine boots. These cards are a break from the DS chewing on your hide because you're too stressed out.
The master chief that was our lead DI told me one day that I'd be a good leader when it sank in that I really don't mean much in the big picture. If it comes down to me dying to save the ship, I was expendable, just like every other man that would be under me someday. Every soldier, every sailor, every airman, every marine, they are all dead when they put on the uniform, some just manage to come back to life when they retire.
Smoking? Kiss my ass.
Personally, I'm thankful for the fact that my Drill Sergeants (Army) were hard on me. There was one in particular who I thought was a while I was at Ft. Benning, but I can honestly say that a lot of the things I learned to handle and learning to do things while being stressed out were a large part of why I made it through some of the situations I was put in during some of my deployments. It seems like an eternity ago that I first enlisted, but I'd honestly thank the guy if I were to ever run into him again; his influence probably helped me to stay alive in some situations.
Back on topic: I think at some point a "war" similar to the ideals behind the movie Fight Club could happen. A group of people finally get fed up with a corrupt system of democracy which is ruled by private financial corporations and wage an urban guerilla war.
Back on topic: I think at some point a "war" similar to the ideals behind the movie Fight Club could happen. A group of people finally get fed up with a corrupt system of democracy which is ruled by private financial corporations and wage an urban guerilla war.
So you consider it likely that the next world war might not necessarily be between nations, but rather an upswell of resistance to the governments? Sort of a revolution on several fronts, taking down multiple governments from within? It's an interesting thought.
Considering the nature of people to distrust authority figures in general, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that a world revolution against the current governments is possible. But would people rebelling against whatever they have in their own back yard all over the world all at once be considered a world war?
So you consider it likely that the next world war might not necessarily be between nations, but rather an upswell of resistance to the governments? Sort of a revolution on several fronts, taking down multiple governments from within? It's an interesting thought.
Considering the nature of people to distrust authority figures in general, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that a world revolution against the current governments is possible. But would people rebelling against whatever they have in their own back yard all over the world all at once be considered a world war?
Not to detract from the thread, but there have already been quite a few semi-violent reactions over the 'Bailout' where I live. The media doesn't report it, and all we keep hearing on tv is that 'it needs to be done' and that 'people are happy with the progress we're trying to make,' but what's being reported hasn't been accurate as far as I can tell.
I know that sometimes people as a whole can be somewhat dumb to what's going on in the grand scheme of things, but I think that in the current state of affairs people are starting to realize that the decisions being made for them by the powers that be aren't reflecting their needs and/or wants. I think there's only so far that the masses will be pushed until they start to push back. This has been seen throughout history.
To clarify before any offense is taken: I don't think that individual people are generally "dumb" as I put it; what I meant was that sometimes groups of people as a whole and as a society can be somewhat blind.
...there have already been quite a few semi-violent reactions over the 'Bailout' where I live. The media doesn't report it, and all we keep hearing on tv is that 'it needs to be done' and that 'people are happy with the progress we're trying to make,' but what's being reported hasn't been accurate as far as I can tell.
Ah, now you've touched upon something. Figured sooner or later. Nj.
Media involvement and the potential for conflict (armed or otherwise), or in this case, WW 3, per the thread. Everything you, me, everyone is hearing/seeing media-wise is coming through an editor(s) & those w/ controlling interests & others still indebted to even more ppl in positions of power. That is, there's alot of fingers in alot of pies and they all want you to take a great big bite from "their's".
To put it bluntly in the media sense, these 3rd parties have bias, influence, interests they wish to support or detract from and are masters of expression, innuendo, character assassination, creating "media darlings", etc., let alone chopping things to Hell on the cutting room floor, refusing to cover story 'x', or discretely brokering power for 'y'. As a result, their "news coverage" isn't as impartial as the mandates claim. And this is in the "land of the free" too.
They don't cover hardly any of the rioting or terrorist actions in Western China, and there's more going on there than most realize. But, govt. control of the media = blackout often enough (see Google & China for example).
So, even here w/ Freedom of Speech/Press/etc., it is not pure, unadulterated info (media) , which is the great foil to the Information Age. Quite simply, there's more of "it" and it's exchange at superfast pace thanks to the net, cells, radio, TV, etc. However, in a nutshell, "quality control" as it were, has been, um, compromised. A complex demographic w/ a fairly simple formula.
Like any population, you increase its numbers, you're going to see the increase in its problems too. This is why, for one draconian reason, there's always a period of sweet growth after massive warfare (loss of life) cuz' the herd was thinned considerably (see WW2 and 560k+ American casualties), thusly, lowering of a good many social problems.
Not saying the simplest answer is usually the correct one, but when you kill off alot of ppl, you're killing off potential unemployment, illiteracy, crime, etc. For news: now, w/ a million bloggers, CNN, Fox, the Daily Show, zines everywhere, it is becoming increasingly difficult to know who's credible and not indebted to Senator 'x', Haliburton, Walmart, Dubai, Beijing...
I know that sometimes people as a whole can be somewhat dumb to what's going on in the grand scheme of things, but I think that in the current state of affairs people are starting to realize that the decisions being made for them by the powers that be aren't reflecting their needs and/or wants. I think there's only so far that the masses will be pushed until they start to push back. This has been seen throughout history.
Some dumb, others simply naive and/or ignorant. You could have a PhD and still not be in-the-know and it's not necessarilly your fault if certain info is kept from you for good or ill. Still, many Americans are simply apathetic or lazy in that the ways and means exist, free and readilly accessible too, for them to get the info/media they want w/ things like FOIA (Freedom of Info Act), the net, the rest of the planet, etc. They just don't bother, prefering the simpler, more easy to digest media giants that spoon feed us daily.
Those that do see what you've touched on, misrepresentation of the constituency, are typically disregarded as they are not in the majority (see the lazy and/or ignorant mentioned prior) or discretely handled by conflicting media outlets or govt. 3rd parties; demonized, discredited, etc.
Still, T. Jefferson said in no uncertain terms, "It is the civic duty of the citizenry to overthrow democracy 'x' when it no longer serves the citizenry."
And God, the prospects of WW3 on this thread are crazy, how would another Civil War be handled in this country these days? I could see that, a 21st century American civil war kickstarting WW3 much easier than just more and more deployments into 3rd sandboxes and continuing unilatteral gunboat diplomacy.
To clarify before any offense is taken: I don't think that individual people are generally "dumb" as I put it; what I meant was that sometimes groups of people as a whole and as a society can be somewhat blind.
You don't have to explain/tidy up. Your position is clear & to the point w/out offense, so, no worries. You're just trying to clarify "ignorance". Just means you didn't know, not that you are stupid. ex) I am ignorant of most 4th ed rules having little exposure. Dumb would be me running w/ said 4th ed and butchering it, misinterpreting it, or abusing it. It's just, in this light, country wide, there's alot of ppl in both demographics and they lock horns a Hel of alot these days rather than enlighten. Easier to fight and that initiative seems to be encouraged by those w/ the means to enlighten.
Definitely worth a read. Just started it but it's freaky stuff.
Yes I think it's really interesting that you can't spend millions and send thousands of guys to go kill other people just to satisfy your ego and noone complains, and then blame the guys you ordered to go there when things go wrong.
In many ways Genghis Khan was at least less hypocritical:
“The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.”
If he were around today he'd have said: "The greatest pleasure is to prevent violence from your enemies, bring freedom and democracy, wipe away their tears and bring joy to their wives and daughters"
Then he'd have bought some nice 21st Century armaments and done exactly the same things he did all those years back (just with less swearing).
I will address the latter factor first because it is easiest. First and foremost there is a major problem with the factor itself because it is a subjective one. What exactly constitutes a "weapon of mass destruction?" Is a conventional weapon capable of leveling an entire city a "weapon of mass destruction?" Would not a catapult (rail gun or what have you) based on the moon constitute a weapon of mass destruction? Another problem is a matter of scale and proportional response. Does a "splinter group" using Ricin mean the "gloves have come off" and its time to use whatever means necessary to end armed conflict? (Completely disregarding the question of whether armed conflict could ever reasonably be said to come to a close after global use of WMDs).
The most important factor related to WMD use is the time factor. If WWIII were to be fought 25+ years from now, then it is a reasonable assumption that directed energy weapons will readily available for military use (at least according to the predictions of former military members and former high energy weapons researchers who are in a position to publish anything). Advancements in computation and targeting would combine with directed energy weapons well, causing a virtually complete upheaval in the way in which wars are fought on a large scale. Missiles would prove extremely vulnerable to anti-ballistic weapon systems (the current generation anti-missile systems like phalanx are already proving themselves aboard ship, and laser based systems are already in trial use aboard C130s). This would tend to make stealth technology (and therefore information gathering technology) of foremost importance. If being successfully attacked is necessarily equal to destruction and defenses are nearly perfect while operating, then the key to winning a conflict is making sure you know when/where your opponent will/is attacking AND making sure your opponents do not know where/when you will attack.
On a tangential note about WMDs: No, full use of nuclear weapons will NOT sterilize the biosphere of earth. Assuming that all the weapons used were dirty and ground bursts (which is highly unlikely for first world nations, but more likely for 3rd world nations, but is still a ridiculous proposition) it would merely destabilize the biosphere of earth; Even if for some reason humans died out (pure fantasy, since at least enough humans would find shelter long enough to wait out fallout surge, ground activation, and short term weather shifts), single celled organisms are in it for the long hall. We (as of yet) are currently unable to muster anywhere near enough to damage to eliminate single celled species of life on earth.
The actors will provide a fairly good insight into how the war would be conducted as well: If actors like India, China, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are involved then a different kind of war will be conducted than if the US, Australia, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Canada, and Spain were involved. If the war is conducted without limit (i.e. geneva conventions and all other relevant treaties, bans, and wartime conventions are ignored), then the former group is likely to front a conventional warfare while banking largely on covert, third-party, and scorched-earth campaigns. If the latter is involved in a no-limit engagement, then whole-scale eradication of large swaths of territory could very well be involved, but the "fallout" (both literal and economic) would be extremely minimized. The latter group will have access to modern and next-generation ideas on high-energy weapons and would be able to engage in space-based warfare (highly illegal and spectacularly lethal, but would be very effective in "pacifying" enemy nations/territories/regions.
The precipitating event will set the "tone" for the whole war. If political assassination (ala WWI) sets the stage, then you can expect invasion, counter invasion, threats of greater involvement: forestalled by MAD, threats of willingness to survive MAD: followed by the creation of large-scale missile defense networks (workable or not, is irrelevant at this point) and fallout bunkers/shelters. But if economic sabotage (like say someone blowing up a major oil pipeline or seizing up a major shipping artery) were the precipitating event, then look for a wholly different set of initial steps to be taken. This one sets into "new territory" but if analysts are to be believed, then deals for exclusive energy access (oil rights) will become very important. Nations which are hungry for energy will "ally" with varying parties, setting up clear dilineation of powers, but with a muddied battlefield. Information warfare and political/economic sabotage would be initial steps; followed by guerrilla warfare, black-ops, air-skirmish, and counter insurgency efforts. Eventually this could give way to total warfare and no-limit engagements.
The underlying cause is interrelated to the precipitating event: economic sabotage would tend to occur during geo-political situations during which economic down-turn or intense competition for dwindling energy resources. Assassination (or some other political event) is something that would tend to occur during hegemonic down-turn (that is to say that the leading super power, or only one, is losing its economic, political, and military supremacy, and this leads to fighting over the new would-be leader of the geo-political scene).
The problem with this sort of speculation is that changes in the geo-political environment due to new technological developments (like oil producing microbes), and new governments, and changes in major corporate players (like the dwindling influence of the big 3 car manufacturers in the US) can all change how a given actor (read entity capable on engaging in military action for purposes of this post) will respond to situations and possible precipitating events.
The finality of this post is perhaps best done with a finality of assurance. If WWIII were to occur 25+ years in the future and it transcends total war into no-limit engagement, then WWIV could very well be fought with sticks and stones. Low-yield/high energy EMP, Satellite destruction, Deep-earth penetraters, directed energy weapons, space-based weaponry, anti-ballistic weapons systems, functional invisibility, gene-tailored bio-chemical warfare, and remote weapon activation ability could create a war-time atmosphere of a kind of lethality heretofor previously unimaginable to civilian minds. If someone wants to try to understand just how spectacularly lethal this could be: do the math on how "lethal" something the size of a car tossed from the moon to earth would be...
Depressingly yours,
MTF
Well...Look at the title.
Assuming there is no nuclear annihilation, how would WWIII be fought?
There will be no official war. Terrorist extremists ranging from Christian (yes, there are christian terrorists just as there are islamic ones people) to even atheistic groups (purging the so called word of god.. one believer at a time) launching attacks. Rome, Washington DC, Bejing, London, New York, Moscow, Paris, and Berlin all come under attack. No one source can be pointed as responsible because no one source is responisble.
Yep, that about covers it. But then, for the last 8 years that's most of what I've seen in the news and predictions so that's all I can base my ideas from. I'm sure someone from the 40's-80's would have said 'The Soviets did it, that simple'.
To clarify before any offense is taken: I don't think that individual people are generally "dumb" as I put it; what I meant was that sometimes groups of people as a whole and as a society can be somewhat blind.
I think it was explained by the man (Tommy lee jones [watch under siege and prove me wrong]) in men in black Johnny.
Something along the lines of:
"No, a person is smart, people are stupid, selvish, evil little creatures"
I think it was explained by the man (Tommy lee jones [watch under siege and prove me wrong]) in men in black Johnny.
Something along the lines of:
"No, a person is smart, people are stupid, selvish, evil little creatures"
That's actually one of the things I was thinking of when I made that remark.
this probably makes me sound like a jerk, but...
One of the other things I had in mind was the logistics of a few people holding hundreds of people hostage by wielding box cutters.
One of the other things I had in mind was the logistics of a few people holding hundreds of people hostage by wielding box cutters.
http://www.acus.org/files/publication_pdfs/3/Global-Trends-2025.pdf
Take a look at this one to get a picture about how the american intelligence looks at the coming years. It could be a good base for comments.
http://www.acus.org/files/publicatio...rends-2025.pdf
Not to be a jerk or anything, but Werral already posted a link to this... Still a good (in a depressing, somewhat scary sort of way) read, though.
I don't know if anyone here's read the US Intelligence Agency's Global Trends 2025.
I don't think there is a winning/losing end to war. We haven't forgotten how to fight...we have been in plenty of conflicts and have learned. We also still have a good hand in technology. GPS is used for more than just guiding missiles, we also use it to destroy incoming missiles with lasers either via orbit or plane.
The fact that so many people in America think that war is won with technology and/or soldiers proves the point that Americans have in fact forgotten how to fight a war.
In any case, a real WW at this point would all but destroy the economies of every nation involved. Nations don't exist in a vacuum anymore, and our economy relies fairly heavily on the well being of a number of potential "enemies" (and vice versa). I think everyone but the U.S. realizes that now, and it won't be too long before we figure that out.
The fact that so many people in America think that war is won with technology and/or soldiers proves the point that Americans have in fact forgotten how to fight a war.
In any case, a real WW at this point would all but destroy the economies of every nation involved. Nations don't exist in a vacuum anymore, and our economy relies fairly heavily on the well being of a number of potential "enemies" (and vice versa). I think everyone but the U.S. realizes that now, and it won't be too long before we figure that out.
Generalizing much?
Something along the lines of:
"No, a person is smart, people are stupid, selvish, evil little creatures"
The actual quote is "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals…"
Things needed to win a war:
Break a foe economicly (strike at the infrastructure)
Break a foe morally (show them shock images, kill major leaders)
Break a foe's communications (attack satellites, tv stations, etc)
Break a foe's military
Not exactly in that order, but once you get through the first three beating them on the battlefield will be easy.
Things needed to win a war:
Break a foe economicly (strike at the infrastructure)
Many of our foes were already economically broken before force of arms came into play or were independent in the past. Econ not contingent on global world trade. Darfor is poor as Hell, and yet, they're filling graves very fast.
Break a foe morally (show them shock images, kill major leaders)
Often martyring a great leader gives your enemy more resolve to fight back. But yes, there is something to be said for terror tactics (Vlad Teppes, Japan WWII, Native American scalping, several in Viet Nam, etc).
Break a foe's communications (attack satellites, tv stations, etc)
A big step in strategic superiority, but not the end-all-be-all. Reducing a 1st world army to WW I tech doesn't defeat them necessarilly. Makes for horrendously bloody trench warfare, but adaptation is what keeps us alive.
Break a foe's military
Not exactly in that order, but once you get through the first three beating them on the battlefield will be easy.
If you have "broken their military", I think it stands to reason there's no battlefield to begin w/ IMO, just partisan fighting here and there from the citizenry.
Really, all you need is:
-An aggressive ideology or aspirations for territory/resources
-A motivated populace for good or ill; cowed into submission or righteous indignation as an impetus. Greed alone won't push the vanguard.
-Weaponry and logistics to make efficient use of #1 and #2.
-Defined boundaries, gains & loses (everything else is skirmishing)
-A clear "end game", not simply "defeat of enemy 'x' over there."
Really, all you need is:
-An aggressive ideology or aspirations for territory/resources
-A motivated populace for good or ill; cowed into submission or righteous indignation as an impetus. Greed alone won't push the vanguard.
-Weaponry and logistics to make efficient use of #1 and #2.
-Defined boundaries, gains & loses (everything else is skirmishing)
-A clear "end game", not simply "defeat of enemy 'x' over there."
WWW3 will likely be fought in several parts, separated by readily available resources:
-The first part will be almost exclusively fought in the air, with little but escalating collateral damage.
-The second part will be mixed air and ground war, collateral damage will be severe but some locations will be untouched.
-However as wartime oil supplies are depleted, it will move to a mostly infantry battle, this third stage will be marked by famine, even in those areas usually without such.
-The fourth, and likely last stage will be marked by world wide famine and a great many internal revolts, air power will unseen and very few vehicles will be active.
-The fifth part, if reached, will be the unlocking of nuclear arsenals as a ploy of last result, and will most likely be ended by an Eliot reference.
Not to be a jerk or anything, but Werral already posted a link to this... Still a good (in a depressing, somewhat scary sort of way) read, though.
You're right. I didn't catch Werral's link before. It just happened that I was reading the document the day before I saw this thread.
IMF takes all.
Shadowrun is just around the corner people.
Don't laugh, that's where the power is these days. Look what's happening right now and say I'm wrong. Should one nation be booming in the middle of this, there's a brilliant opportunity to buy up another country's corporate stocks and it is not inconceivable that some nations will be all but "owned" by other larger nations.
Shadowrun is just around the corner people.
Omg, don't get me started. Big fan since '89 w/ FASA @ the helm...
And yes, you are so right. It concerns me when I'm bored and poking around my older edition game books, especially future/cyberpunk genres and you get to the overall theme section(s), shape of things to come, etc. A Hell of alot of the projected future from a game is becoming increasingly accurate in terms of the "now". Just from a socio-political standpoint, that gives me pause for alarm, but, tells me they had some pretty intelligent writers over there. They never did skimp on the details having already fleshed out the matrix (intenet) pre '89 for one, but quite alot of the tech we're using now projected at 1st ed's start point, 2050 AD IIRC. Anyway, scary accurate...
Emphasis being placed on corporate growth/power; they are basically more efficient versions of small nations now w/ less waste, tighter strictures, and better management (leadership). Just, not as moral. Profit, not civic freedoms. But, they take care of their own (employees, not citizens) better than alot of nations take care of their own citizenry.
So, the big 8 rise to power, killer budgets, and "deniable assests" (shadowrunners) surface as a result. Makes you wonder how much discrete espionage now, say, Walmart might fund to get an advantage on Meijer or Pfizer vs. Johnson & Johnson. And just consider later when we're middle aged, the population is much much larger w/ more consumers spending more money on them...bigger budgets, bigger aspirations, bigger "plausible deniability".
When they're granted extraterritoriality (which I doubt from here), that's pretty much it. The Siawase Decision and grooming them for paramilitary protections. Sony's 2nd Armor. McDonald's 1st mechanized infantry. Starbuck's special forces. Wtf?
And it's sad, cuz' they do it better w/ less waste. Private enterprises free from red tape, govt. bloat, and general federal waste. Of course, they're also free of moral accountability too. Alway a catch. Can you imagine them pushing for Desert Wars?
For those of you not in-the-know, it's basically megacorps sponsoring different merc & their own private forces in some 3rd world Hell hole where they fight it out w/ 24/7 media coverage w/ extensive sponsorship. No, seriously, "1st platoon brought to you by Pepsi" and all that.
Basically, they use the live war as a sort of proving grounds for their new tech/weapons with other interested clients tuning in to see how Ares' new assault rifle works in the field vs. the R&D reports on paper, etc. I mean, that's data you can take to the bank. "The testing" is much cheaper and more effective this way, just measured in (meta)human lives is all...
Big ratings for the TV ppl in a morally decayed world, but it's a controlled corporate war, not military fighting between sovereign nations. Crazy, but I could see it. After the Eurowars, most of the mid 21st century combat was all black ops type crap w/ a few land grabs that errupted into decent sized battles, but nothing big. And yes, corporate influence is huge when fronting for the UCAS (think cannibalized USA), particularly when Ares mounts the invasion into Chicago to clear out the insect spirits after the tac-nuke. Big PR move.
Would it be cheaper to scale back the military and let private companies do it? Removed from D.C. like that, it's scary, but when you look at the bottom line and see price tages like $10 billion/month general operations in Iraq, you start to think about budgets in a recession...like the one we're in now.
And truth be told, from where I sit, Haliburton & Blackwater look strikingly simliar to Saeder-Krupp (heavy industry) and Ares (mil-tech, aerospace). More contractors over "there" now than military personel if you can believe it and they're making cash at record speeds, much of it untaxable...
i don't think corperations are actually as efficient as you keep saying. the older and larger they get corperations too get weighed down by beurcracy just like governments. If you don't believe me look at such mega-corps as GM or Mitsubishi.
neither do they look after there own very much. they only look after their own when its in their best interest to do so!! which is often when they are doing well, and not often when they aren't.
the only real advantage a corperation has is its not accountable to the voting public, or the same set of morals as a government... which is why they are so scary.
i don't remember the exact figure, but i read somewhere that exxon mobile and royal dutch shell make enough money to compete with the economy of some of the g20 countries!!!
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=92543
1 ton ghost..... good post!
Thank you. Occaisionally I get off the fence or my ivory tower. Sometimes the air is pretty thin in the moral highground and it's a long fall ;) .
i don't think corperations are actually as efficient as you keep saying.
I wasn't speaking for all of them in blanket statements, but I understand/respect your position. The theoretical ones are from a non-existant game universe that mirrors our own is all. Some are better than others. Our big 3 car manufacturers are a very good example of your point (huge waste, massive retirement packages/pensions, bloat, etc) whereas Toyota statistically pays about 1/2 that in wages and retirement packages, and yet they make more relevant products, continue "business as usual".
I may have an '03 Taurus now, but my old '92 Camry was a damn good car. If it were an '03, there would've been no question as to which I'd take.
...the older and larger they get corperations too get weighed down by beurcracy just like governments. If you don't believe me look at such mega-corps as GM or Mitsubishi.
I think that's true of all things mostly. Bigger the entity, the more people it takes to make it go. People, being fallible and often self-serving, foster waste and inefficiency. Like big govt., big corporations have larger incidents of shrinkage, embezlement, tax fraud, etc. This is why I like mom n' pop stores. Family outfits, or smaller ones, are more reputable typically, better customer service, and less likely to screw the consumer.
neither do they look after there own very much.
I don't know, GM is struggling to keep its promises of some pretty damn cushy pension plans. I don't know what they were thinking when they signed alot of those deals back in the 80's w/ those unions. Didn't plan ahead for the surest universal constant: people get older as time goes by and eventually retire. What a brain buster, you know?
they only look after their own when its in their best interest to do so!! which is often when they are doing well, and not often when they aren't.
Well, to be fair, that's the easiest way to make a profit, which is a business' endgame pure and simple. If you spend money on non-corporate 3rd parties, you're not spending it on your actual corporate parties. Some do, but it's generally a PR move to entire more customers/clients.
the only real advantage a corperation has is its not accountable to the voting public,
It's shareholders though and possible govt. intervention for illegal ops...but, you can buy a senator w/ a nice yacht, hookers, and an 8-ball...
or the same set of morals as a government... which is why they are so scary.
Some do try and improve "the human experience", but precious few. There is more money (profit) to be made exploiting said experience, hence tons of cash to be made in pills that will make old foggies hard, but not cure their cancer. Which is messed up IMO; a longer living client is one that is paying into the system/buying your product longer, you know?
i don't remember the exact figure, but i read somewhere that exxon mobile and royal dutch shell make enough money to compete with the economy of some of the g20 countries!!!
No, you're 100% correct, so, nj on that end.
NPR, like they do every year around this time (new year's) makes the report for "Market Watch". Exxon last year, and the year before that, made more money than any US public-trade company EVER. And they still haven't paid off/settled the Valdez spill from, what was that, '88 or '89?
SUVs, Humvees, jet fuel...well, it goes w/out saying. We all know the drill ;) . We got 1/2 a continent to ourselves and "here we are".
Oh, wait, that reminds me...
It's not just for spectres & vamps any more kids!
Well, to be fair, that's the easiest way to make a profit, which is a business' endgame pure and simple. If you spend money on non-corporate 3rd parties, you're not spending it on your actual corporate parties. Some do, but it's generally a PR move to entire more customers/clients.
It's also what corporations are LEGALLY OBLIGED to do. If they make any decision moral or otherwise, that is less profitable, they are breaking the law. If they put residents feelings, environmental factors, health concerns, national security or human well-being over profit they are BREAKING THE LAW.
It's shareholders though and possible govt. intervention for illegal ops...but, you can buy a senator w/ a nice yacht, hookers, and an 8-ball...
Shareholders are often portfolio holders who often know little about the actual practice of the business they hold shares in.
Some do try and improve "the human experience", but precious few. There is more money (profit) to be made exploiting said experience, hence tons of cash to be made in pills that will make old foggies hard, but not cure their cancer. Which is messed up IMO; a longer living client is one that is paying into the system/buying your product longer, you know?
Again, unless improving the human experience improves profits they are legally obliged not to.
i read somewhere that private military in Iraq actually outnumbered US military personnel by quite a large number (can't remember where I read it now). Private military is nevertheless becoming an increasingly important part of the global picture.
Prior to an attack a hostile government might BUY OUT part of its enemy's private military strength immediately prior to attacking. Or a company might be supplying troops to both sides (as in the Middle-Ages where Swiss mercenaries fought on both sides in various wars). The same weapons, tanks, bombers, even troops and pilots might end up serving both sides over the course of the war.
It's going to be all about corporations, buy outs, mergers, lay offs, and bail outs.
haha
-Einstein
^ I'm with the nutjob physicist.
Wow, sounds like he had ADD actualy...
As to the corporate armies developing worldwide, isn't it just a further extension of things as they were? Security guards have always been police forces under hire of the companies that employ them, were armed militaries under employment that much of a stretch?
Our role is clear; to build and maintain those robots.
Watch India and Pakistan right now. That incident in Mumbai may well be the catalyst that starts the dominoes falling. If those two nuclear nations start a shooting war, all the speculation might just turn to observation.
I think you having something going on there, but I thought the catalyst would start between Pakistan and Israel.
I think you having something going on there, but I thought the catalyst would start between Pakistan and Israel.
Iran and Israel actualy. Apparently Israel announced that they are preparing to mobilize and strike at the natzi-wannabe's (Iran= Land of the Arians). Can't blame them realy. Although, now that Obama is in office they'll have crap for support from us.
Iran and Israel actualy. Apparently Israel announced that they are preparing to mobilize and strike at the natzi-wannabe's (Iran= Land of the Arians).
In what way are they "Nazi wannabes"? It was the Shah in the 1930's who was most philo-Germany (though Iran remained neutral throughout WWII), the USSR and Britain occupied the country inthe War in order to cut off any potential access to India (which is also why Britain had never allowed Iran to build a railway).
Iran has never threatened to attack Israel by the way, though the current idiot of a President did say: Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
OR "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Which got mistranslated as "Israel should be wiped form the map". Almost all media has now backtracked on the "wiped off the map story" which was a total fallacy.
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
Or this comment in the Jerusalem Post (selected for thier hot potato discussion forum)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1195546696995&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Of course if Britain and the US had left Iran's democratically elected goevernment in place in the first place then they wouldn't have ended up with these nuts in power.
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/1953/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20050822.shtml
[QUOTE=turalisj
Can't blame them realy. Although, now that Obama is in office they'll have crap for support from us.
From Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz
All US presidents, Republican and Democrats have been pretty much unwavering in support for Israel.
Though of course with new Russian bases in Syria and Libya they'll be more than one superpower messing around in the Middle East.
Iran and Israel actualy. Apparently Israel announced that they are preparing to mobilize and strike at the natzi-wannabe's (Iran= Land of the Arians). Can't blame them realy. Although, now that Obama is in office they'll have crap for support from us.
Judging by the typos, I'm going to assume that you mean ****. However, the question arises then of which you're referring. Do you mean the dark-skinned people that have been living in India since they crossed from the Hindu Kush mountains sometime in the early 8th century BC or the mythological superhuman race that the Nazi party believed they were descendants of? The dark-skinned people of India have nothing in common with the other, physiologically or idealogically.
I would love to point out that Israel is an ally regardless of the identity of the president and severing those ties isn't something that can done easily, but the ban on politics prevents me. I would also like to mention that Israel is not our only ally in the region, but they do seem to be the one that more conflict centers around. Chances are Israel won't be the start of World War III simply because we'd be forced to decide which ally we would have to turn on.
Look to the conflict between India and Pakistan, that's where the first shots will come from. The two countries have a history of low-intensity warfare since they became independant. The borders have significant troop presence on both sides and with tensions rising, someone will probably get spooked and shots will be exchanged. How far the conflict goes from there is anyone's guess, but having two nuclear nations exchanging fire isn't a healthy situation.
Iran has never threatened to attack Israel by the way, though the current idiot of a President did say: Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
OR "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Which got mistranslated as "Israel should be wiped form the map". Almost all media has now backtracked on the "wiped off the map story" which was a total fallacy.
He could've meant that occupation of Jerusalem should not be Israeli. If you've ever been there, you'd know that not all of the population is one religion or ethnicity. The holiest city of two of the three biggest religions of the region is Jerusalem, it should be an international city, seperate from the nation of Israel, Palestine or Jordan. Since none can seem to play nice in their holy city, it should be free of all nations. As things stand, it's difficult if not impossible for devout Muslims to make a pilgrimage to the city of peace, the third holiest city of their religion.
Sadly, until the leadership that has never known peace between them is replaced on both sides, the conflict will continue. The children raised during the Intifada on both sides are beginning to assume the governance of their respective countries and blood has been shed very heavily on both sides. As long as the blood shed calls for the shedding of more blood, the City of Peace will not be.
War in the nation of Israel has been relatively non-stop since it was founded in 1948. Extremists on both sides will plot and plan new and more horrific ways to kill and demoralize each other until they destroy themselves, their enemies and any hope of a lasting peace. Until the people and leaders on both sides come to the realization that all people have a right to live in peace, there will be no peace. Until the call to prayer replaces the call to war on all sides, there will be no peace.
I apologize if this has been too political or religious, but in that region, religion is political. Hopefully someday someone will begin to see that the middle east is home to the Druze, the Palestinian, the Philistian, the Caananite, the Phoenecian, the Samarrian, the Amorite, the Jebusite, the the Hittite, the Syriac, the Baha'i, the Muslim, the Christian, the Hebrew and many more that I can't recall right offhand. When people begin to see that their own people are linked to the other people throughout the region and throughout history, perhaps they won't be so quick to call for their blood.
Look to the conflict between India and Pakistan, that's where the first shots will come from.
"It's funny cuz' it's true!" - Homer Simpson
Well, you get the point. Mumbai is gonna' get alot more attention real fast, at like, a bullet's pace I'm afraid. Pakistan is just making way too many shows of force and big talk for my comfort level. Didn't they just assassinate that woman (can't recall her name) politician recently? Aren't a ton of terrorists coming out of there in constant circulation?
Couple that w/ nuclear capabilities and alot of affinity w/ countries that want nukes and don't like us, that scares the Hell out of me. And it's not like they really like us that much anyway. Some do there, our industries love to outsource there and we send a lot of foreign aid as well (remeber big ass quake recently?), but no, no, we're still imperialists and bla bla bla....
The two countries have a history of low-intensity warfare since they became independant. The borders have significant troop presence on both sides and with tensions rising, someone will probably get spooked and shots will be exchanged.
"Kashmir." That's all I gotta' say.
How far the conflict goes from there is anyone's guess, but having two nuclear nations exchanging fire isn't a healthy situation.
Smart bet is on the Indians, but it shouldn't have to come to that. If the Pakistanies could just get control of their damn govt., then they could increase the infrastructure, attract more jobs (we outsource their too), and improve their lot in life overall. Turning a blind eye to terrorists, even harboring some (and they do) isn't helping world opinion and keeping their people down for an ideology that never solved anything w/ bloodshed.
That and I'll be pi$$ed if things get heated. I like my chicken vindaloo too much.
nowiwantmydmg: In Space or a very tall mountain. By robots.
Our role is clear; to build and maintain those robots.
Heh. Nice.
"Well, you're from public schools so I'm gonna' assume you're proficient in most small arms."
This kind of sums up the underground voice nicely in broad strokes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4LbZT_qpQ
And the Israeli/Palestinian mention too (bear in mind this is circa '93).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61yn5N5VksA
I think you having something going on there, but I thought the catalyst would start between Pakistan and Israel.
India and Pakistan don't really need any extra push. One is a satelite country created to house the people who felt oppressed in the other, and they both are having major issues procuring resources. They're slowly simmering towards war as it is, let's just hope it's not one involving fission reactions.
WW3 will be fought with missile strikes from satellites, unmanned vehicles, and the mid-east turned into the world's largest parking lot.
That seems unlikely thanks to the Space Preservation Treaty and Act that outlawed all satellite based weapons platforms.
But technically, they never extended it to the moon.
I was rather hoping that WWIII would be fought with Puns and Lymrics.
Yes! The Irish shall rule the world and The US will rue its national failure to grasp irony.
WW3 will be fought with missile strikes from satellites, unmanned vehicles, and the mid-east turned into the world's largest parking lot.
It's hard to drill for oil in a radioactive wasteland.
It's hard to drill for oil in a radioactive wasteland.
With all the electronics integrated into everything in the modern world, I seriously doubt we'd be needing that much oil after someone goes and does something that bloody stupid.
Despite all the bravado, no one really knows what will happen when the first modern nuclear weapon is used. The EMP may fry electronics within a couple miles or world wide. I'm not sure if anyone knows whether there will be anything left of this ol' hunk of rock after a one megaton detonation.
For all our posturing, it's surprising that the developed nations haven't realized that maintaining weapons capable of destroying whole cities in the blink of an eye is the truest measure of our barbaric natures. How can any thinking, rational human being justify possessing weapons that kill on such a devastating scale? I understand the need for a vigilant defense, but how does the complete incineration of an enemy, and possibly friends as well, guarantee the safety of any nation?
(maybe I should have put [sarcasm] tags around that previous post)
Ayup......
With all the electronics integrated into everything in the modern world, I seriously doubt we'd be needing that much oil after someone goes and does something that bloody stupid.
Depends on the saturation. Still though, if you 1st strike, nuclear, that is, that's it, you're done. The world writes you off even if you "are the winner". So, I would speculate any oil trade going to you won't be so forthcoming later, electronics or no. They (non-waring nations) shut you down economically. And we'll be needing oil for quite some time too...
RELATED: This would be a very good time to wage war against the US; we are drawn thin on 2 fronts, recuitment is low, our economy is in shambles (socialising too and pending another big ass "handout"), our administration is in transition, world opinion is poor, and heading into Winter.
Tech wise, not all of us are up to 21st cen mil-spec hardware. AK-47's, for example, are bargain basement (cheap and cheaply built too), prolific, and reliable...and old. Most Warsaw Pact gear is. The old Cold War maxim was quantity (them) vs. quality (us). Not alot of electronics in your standard infantry beyond nightvision (assuming they even have them). Our guys get fat bank from the D.O.D., but that's just "our guys". It's a big planet...
Despite all the bravado, no one really knows what will happen when the first modern nuclear weapon is used.
Uh, not so sure about that. When you invest billions of dollars in a standoff stockpile, you tend to make damn sure you know what it's gonna' do, hence all the testing, scientific research, etc. etc. And civilian lore, we know a ton about theoretical fallout, blast radius, launch time, nuclear winter, etc. That's just us. The guys that make them and the guys that buy them know a Hell of alot more and they aren't exactly the sharing type.
The EMP may fry electronics within a couple miles or world wide. I'm not sure if anyone knows whether there will be anything left of this ol' hunk of rock after a one megaton detonation.
You cannot blow up the planet. Lay waste to its entire surface, yes, but all the nukes on earth could not actually blow it up so to speak. EMPs are relatively isolated, but open air detonations wouldn't matter anyway. There's very little left to communicate w/ anyway, save fortified bunkers which most likely have hardened circuitry. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it, you know?
For all our posturing, it's surprising that the developed nations haven't realized that maintaining weapons capable of destroying whole cities in the blink of an eye is the truest measure of our barbaric natures.
They just want what any thinking animal wants; "insurance" that its resources (food, territory, mate, whatever) won't be infringed upon/taken away. Fear and self-preservation...like beer and wings. Except they kinda' have a bitter aftertaste ;) .
I forgot who said it, but I love this quote,
"War is the ultimate in human expression." Doesn't get much bigger than that really...save nuclear.
As for "barbarism", well, we don't smash our deformed infants on the rocks anymore, we heal the sick and insane, we feed starving ppl, etc. It's just Newtonian really; every civilized/altruistic advance is met w/ an equally macabre, deviant, or sinister set back it seems. Despite a lot of horrible sh-t I've seen/had done to me in my lifetime, I'm still hopeful though.
How can any thinking, rational human being justify possessing weapons that kill on such a devastating scale? I understand the need for a vigilant defense, but how does the complete incineration of an enemy, and possibly friends as well, guarantee the safety of any nation?
Not sure. I'm not a military/political analyst. I guess it's the MAD quotient. We're afraid of less reputable antagonists, especially stateless ones, using them. According to the FBI/NSA, it is the #1 threat they are concerned of; nuclear weapon smuggled into US and exploded, and they said last week or so, a WMD (probably not nuclear though) attack is more than likely here w/ in the next 5 years. Doomsdayers are already speculating the 2012 cliche...
Now, it's a "we have them, leave us alone" policy (Israel). Or, "we have them, it gives us more political clout now" backbone (N. Korea). Levels the playing field; you don't have to spend a fortune to have a vast army if you can acquire a few ICBMs and maintain them. Cheaper, possibly, in the long run. And divisions, wings, and batteries of armor, aircraft, artillery, whatever are useless w/out the personel to operate them (cuz' they vaporized). Like a castle siege too, don't have to nuke the army, jut the nation's breadbasket and wait (or waterways or whatever).
Then, we just started under different pretense; Teddy died, everyone was suffering from war weariness, Germany was on the ropes, we just wanted it over toot suit and the end was in sight, but Tojo wasn't having any of it. The estimate was grim, so off went the Indianapolis. Ironic that so few of those guys would survive the delivery too (a ton were eaten by sharks after the sinking) Poetic?
With all the electronics integrated into everything in the modern world, I seriously doubt we'd be needing that much oil after someone goes and does something that bloody stupid.
Despite all the bravado, no one really knows what will happen when the first modern nuclear weapon is used. The EMP may fry electronics within a couple miles or world wide. I'm not sure if anyone knows whether there will be anything left of this ol' hunk of rock after a one megaton detonation.
For all our posturing, it's surprising that the developed nations haven't realized that maintaining weapons capable of destroying whole cities in the blink of an eye is the truest measure of our barbaric natures. How can any thinking, rational human being justify possessing weapons that kill on such a devastating scale? I understand the need for a vigilant defense, but how does the complete incineration of an enemy, and possibly friends as well, guarantee the safety of any nation?
Someone needs to do some research...
(read the above post)
Edit: @1ton- As to the guy who said the quote, I think it was either Eisenhower or JFK. I'm pretty sure they had that quote in Endwar too.
*goes off to launch a kinetic strike on the Kremlin*
>.>
With all the electronics integrated into everything in the modern world, I seriously doubt we'd be needing that much oil after someone goes and does something that bloody stupid.
Despite all the bravado, no one really knows what will happen when the first modern nuclear weapon is used. The EMP may fry electronics within a couple miles or world wide. I'm not sure if anyone knows whether there will be anything left of this ol' hunk of rock after a one megaton detonation.
For all our posturing, it's surprising that the developed nations haven't realized that maintaining weapons capable of destroying whole cities in the blink of an eye is the truest measure of our barbaric natures. How can any thinking, rational human being justify possessing weapons that kill on such a devastating scale? I understand the need for a vigilant defense, but how does the complete incineration of an enemy, and possibly friends as well, guarantee the safety of any nation?
Two things. One, modern nuclear weapons have been test detonated under controlled conditions and a single detonation, while it wouldn't be conducive to the long term health of close observers, would not threaten world electronics or technology.
Two, I can think of at least one good reason to obtain nuclear weapons, which is as a sort of insurance policy. As long as you know (or even suspect) that others have such weapons, you are vulnerable to a preemptive strike from that country. The only way you could hope to discourage such a strike is by possessing nuclear arms to strike back with. Even if you fully intend never to use your nuclear capabilities, having them is the strongest defense possible and will help to assure, in this imperfect world of ours, that nukes are never used in anger. Paradoxically, the act of owning nuclear weapons made it less likely that they will ever be used.
Also, Simpsons references ftw.
As to the guy who said the quote, I think it was either Eisenhower or JFK. I'm pretty sure they had that quote in Endwar too.
*goes off to launch a kinetic strike on the Kremlin*
>.>
If that is the case, thanks. I've been trying in vain to find the speaker though, I suspected it was Dwight given his whole "military industrial complex" schtick. He got kind of a raw deal if there ever was one.
RELATED: I nabbed this shirt at Gencon '06 I love: Skull w/ 3 boney fingers in the green triangle; "reduce, reuse, reanimate...Necromany, helping reduce your need on the funeral industrial complex." Kitchy, I know, but I gotta' be me...;)
What's Endwar like? Considering my options for Xmas. Thoughts/ideas?
Had Rogue Spear & Ghost Recon back in the day (PC only). I dig Clancy games (novels too) alot, shooters particularly. Only thing in my own, eh, stockpile o' game like it currently (PS3), is CoD: Modern Warfare (the nuclear strike [campaign mode] in the "conveniently unamed" Middle Eastern country is frightfully realistic).
SteelMirror: Also, Simpsons references ftw.
Did you see the one (Treehouse of Horrors, [magical monkey hand one?]) where Kodos & Kang invade earth (again) and we're defenseless? Flanders wishes they'd leave via the hand-> Moe gets a board w/ a nail in it, chases aliens, they flee and monologue later, "One day the humans will make a board with a nail so big it will destroy the entire planet!'
The whole game is about WW3 going off.
Did you see the one (Treehouse of Horrors, [magical monkey hand one?]) where Kodos & Kang invade earth (again) and we're defenseless? Flanders wishes they'd leave via the hand-> Moe gets a board w/ a nail in it, chases aliens, they flee and monologue later, "One day the humans will make a board with a nail so big it will destroy the entire planet!'
Yes! Good times. I also liked the Treehouse of Horrors where they (Kang and Kodos) abduct Clinton and Dole during the election and impersonate them. When Homer reveals their identities a man in the audience decides to vote for a third party.
"Go ahead! Throw your vote away!" /evil laughter
It just makes me laugh . . .
Two things. One, modern nuclear weapons have been test detonated under controlled conditions and a single detonation, while it wouldn't be conducive to the long term health of close observers, would not threaten world electronics or technology.
First, those tests were all underground tests. No one has any empirical data and therefore no data to formulate any predictions of what an air-burst detonation will do. Since the military will use them over the target rather than under the target, all the test data from the past is completely useless.
As to your second point, that's called coercion. When you force the world to behave the way you want because you have a bigger bomb or because you can destroy them outright, you are called a tyrant.
Nuclear weapons are like suicide bombs. In American opinion, the world will tread carefully because they know we will use them. Nuclear weapons don't target just the military, they destroy the civilian city next door to the military post. Until the US, former Soviet states and China disarm, any peace negotiations will be at the barrel of a gun.
As to your second point, that's called coercion. When you force the world to behave the way you want because you have a bigger bomb or because you can destroy them outright, you are called a tyrant.
Respectfully, it is not coercion to defend yourself, especially when you defend yourself not with force but with the threat of force. Or if it is coercion it is coercion of the mildest kind, of the kind that makes human civilization possible in the first place. You can never be sure your neighbor isn't out to get you, but at least if he crosses you you can get him back. From such humble and rather distasteful foundations is our civilization nonetheless founded. As long as there is no penalty for acting immorally or aggressively there is also little incentive to cooperate.
Basically, we have to ask what the world would look like if we did not have any nukes. The answer is that Russia still would, China and France and India and Pakistan and Israel still would. The difference is that our nuclear umbrella would not protect Eastern and much of Western Europe, and Korea and Japan. Our regional competitors in those areas would have much greater freedom of action, as well as the ultimate trump in the form of unanswered nuclear supremacy. Russia would be much freer to dominate events on the ground in the former Soviet Republics, not to mention the middle east. And we would be vulnerable to all those powers that did have nuclear weapons, and would not be as free to promote our interests in the world at large. In short, things would be much worse and we would be to blame for it. If we chose to let the rest of the world (and our own interests) languish in this way, how would we not be to blame for it? So the choice isn't a clear one between good and bad, it's between bad and much worse.
And as a previous poster mentioned, we have a lot of experience both with the practical aspects of our arsenal and with the theory of their yield and construction. Enough to yield realistic estimates of what their activity would be in wartime. If you aren't convinced so be it, but the nuclear physicists and wargamers of our world are and I'm content to believe their word.
Until the US, former Soviet states and China disarm, any peace negotiations will be at the barrel of a gun.
Which is how peace negotiations are always conducted. The difference here is whether both sides have the guns, or whether we give ours up so that in the future we are at the mercy of those with the weapons.
Which is how peace negotiations are always conducted. The difference here is whether both sides have the guns, or whether we give ours up so that in the future we are at the mercy of those with the weapons.
And just about now you should understand why every third-world nation is in such a rush to develop their own arsenals. It's a matter of point of view. You force peace at the barrel of a nuclear gun and everyone on the playground scrambles to get their own. Until all parties can agree to destroy their nuclear arsenals, no one on earth is safe from not only the radical, rogue states, but our own as well.
And just about now you should understand why every third-world nation is in such a rush to develop their own arsenals. It's a matter of point of view. You force peace at the barrel of a nuclear gun and everyone on the playground scrambles to get their own. Until all parties can agree to destroy their nuclear arsenals, no one on earth is safe from not only the radical, rogue states, but our own as well.
Agreed, and I've already understood the impulse of other nations to develop their own nuclear capacity. In a sense, this may be inevitable because the technology becomes ever cheaper and more attainable as world information becomes more widely disseminated.
I would argue rather than a comprehensive ban (which would rely on all states going along willingly, which I see as extremely unlikely) for a regime of controlled uranium and plutonium refinement, overseen by an international body, but free from political fiat by any other agency or power. In other words, all fissile material would be produced and marketed through a central international regulatory agency, while anybody who wanted to obtain such materials would have to get it in full view of the international community, and the progress of that material could be tracked from production to delivery to end use. Additionally, any country that violated this arrangement by producing their own material or misusing material obtained through legitimate means would put their future access to fissile material at risk.
I still haven't seen anything to convince me that total nuclear disarmament is anything but pure fantasy (albeit seductive fantasy).