WW3, could the world use the reset this would provide?

[RetiredSlave]

Im gonna try and keep this concise. I will say it would be terrible but I think the western world especially needs some way to realize what real troubles are. Im not too interested in reading about potential aftermaths, shifts of power etc though those thoughts are welcome too. Most interested in reading opinion on the social effect it would have.

The opposing sides would be well defined and have borders. Also it would be huge requiring conscription across the board. Im against war generally but Im also quite disturbed about the trajectory of western culture at the moment and think some positives could arise during the event itself.

 

[Abezal]

I understand what you are saying.

I figure a reset will happen when a terrorist attack kills a few hundredth thousand. A nuke would be a clear choice but hard to manage logistically.

A large airliner flying into a stadium with 80 90 thousand people (camp nou Wembley or cowboys), that might be enough.

 

[NelmarksGhost]

A week before 9/11 I told my girlfriend and her mother that what the country needed was a Pearl Harbor type event that would galvanize the country, allow us to put aside our differences, and get the country working together again at full steam. It didn't help really the US is more divided now.

I don't think WW3 would change the status quo much. There would just be fewer people, and wealth inequality would worsen. The elites would become more defensive and entrenched. The glove might come off the iron fist.

 

[RetiredSlave]

A week before 9/11 I told my girlfriend and her mother that what the country needed was a Pearl Harbor type event that would galvanize the country, allow us to put aside our differences, and get the country working together again at full steam. It didn't help really the US is more divided now.

I don't think WW3 would change the status quo much. There would just be fewer people, and wealth inequality would worsen. The elites would become more defensive and entrenched. The glove might come off the iron fist.

The enemy in that case was a bunch of amateur pilots initially and eventually a borderless organization that claimed fealty to no nation though they were certainly supported by some. I fully agree with what you say but Alqaeda is anything but well defined. Here a cell, there a cell, everywhere a cell cell. The perfect enemy for a war in perpetuity.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

By all accounts, a potential third world war would involve nuclear weapons.

The world was changed by just two atomic bombs going off. It's 100% unknown how the world would change after multiple nuclear weapons being used in both sides of a world war.

And let's not forget the potential consequences of an EMP.

Some people may fantasize about the positive possibilities of how the world would change afterward, but far more grave consequences are far more likely. I really really hope we never find out.

As for the question "What if terrorists detonate a nuclear warhead in NYC, killing millions?' The answer is, you don't want to know. Ever.

 

[superpunch]

Jokes on you, that would lead to totalitarian leftwing or rightwing societies. I'm pretty sure that's not what you were thinking of.

 

[RetiredSlave]

As for the question "What if terrorists detonate a nuclear warhead in NYC, killing millions?' The answer is, you don't want to know. Ever.

No I dont. Nonetheless in that case what do you think the outcome is? Youve suggested the phantom enemy again which makes Americas response a big question. Who and how do they retaliate against in that case. The premise of my original inquiry was something along the lines of China or Russia invading via Alaska. Something like that, a well defined aggressor with borders.

 

[RetiredSlave]

Jokes on you, that would lead to totalitarian leftwing or rightwing societies. I'm pretty sure that's not what you were thinking of.

Damn I didnt and youre probably right.

 

[7437]

No I dont. Nonetheless in that case what do you think the outcome is? Youve suggested the phantom enemy again which makes Americas response a big question. Who and how do they retaliate against in that case. The premise of my original inquiry was something along the lines of China or Russia invading via Alaska. Something like that, a well defined aggressor with borders.

We would nuke them, and then be nuked in return.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

No I dont. Nonetheless in that case what do you think the outcome is? Youve suggested the phantom enemy again which makes Americas response a big question. Who and how do they retaliate against in that case. The premise of my original inquiry was something along the lines of China or Russia invading via Alaska. Something like that, a well defined aggressor with borders.

It'd result in the world war against every Muslim Extremist government across the globe. Iran would be the #1 target. With their ties across terrorist organizations across the world, they'd be made an example of. No consideration of civilian targets, it'd be a old-school pre-geneva-convention carpet bombing of whatever experimental weapons we have to put their aligarchy into the ground and make an example of it.

That'd be step 1.

 

[carlos cadona]

I would likely be killed in such a war so I'd never live to see such a reset. I think western involvment in the ongoing middle eastern conflict with boots on the ground might do the trick though.

 

[RetiredSlave]

It'd result in the world war against every Muslim Extremist government across the globe. Iran would be the #1 target. With their ties across terrorist organizations across the world, they'd be made an example of. No consideration of civilian targets, it'd be a old-school pre-geneva-convention carpet bombing of whatever experimental weapons we have to put their aligarchy into the ground and make an example of it.

That'd be step 1.

Hm harsh but I can easily see it. Essentially the US just saying fuck that and going beast mode...

 

[Thames]

That is a hands off approach rarely seen in politics these days. You should not be wasting time on Sherdog with such a winning message.

RetiredSlave 2016 - "Let's have a war with everyone!"

 

[RetiredSlave]

That is a hands off approach rarely seen in politics these days. You should not be wasting time on Sherdog with such a winning message.

RetiredSlave 2016 - "Let's have a war with everyone!"

Lol, you twist words as well as any politician Ive ever listened to. I propose an alliance cause I certainly dont want to be your enemy. I will not...not be your friend.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Some ones been playing fallout

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Hm harsh but I can easily see it. Essentially the US just saying fuck that and going beast mode...

Pretty much. Just think about how royally pissed off we got about 9/11.

2,700 people dead.

And imagine our reaction if one of our metropolises were wiped off the map.

Los Angeles
Dallas
New York City
Atlanta
Miami

Or perhaps the worst target, Washington DC, while the President, Vice-President, All of Congress, and All of the Senate were in town.

That last one would bring the worst chaos upon the nation, or perhaps NYT would because it's the economic capital of the world with Wallstreet, and it's the base of many world banks.

Either target, would set America back a very long ways. But when it's back on it's feet, it's going to take revenge in a very very big and bad way that will not be justified.

Think about that. It won't be justified.

That's why each and every one of you dreaming about WW3, need to realize it would be a fucking nightmare.

 

[RetiredSlave]

Some ones been playing fallout

Arroyo yo yo bro.

 

[RetiredSlave]

Pretty much. Just think about how royally pissed off we got about 9/11.

2,700 people dead.

And imagine our reaction if one of our metropolises were wiped off the map.

Los Angeles
Dallas
New York City
Atlanta
Miami

Or perhaps the worst target, Washington DC, while the President, Vice-President, All of Congress, and All of the Senate were in town.

That last one would bring the worst chaos upon the nation, or perhaps NYT would because it's the economic capital of the world with Wallstreet, and it's the base of many world banks.

Either target, would set America back a very long ways. But when it's back on it's feet, it's going to take revenge in a very very big and bad way that will not be justified.

Think about that. It won't be justified.

That's why each and every one of you dreaming about WW3, need to realize it would be a fucking nightmare.

Please dont misunderstand, I dont want any of whats going on atm, least of all WW3. Im just interested in theoreticals and so far this threads insights have satisfied in that regard, so thank you.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

No I dont. Nonetheless in that case what do you think the outcome is? Youve suggested the phantom enemy again which makes Americas response a big question. Who and how do they retaliate against in that case. The premise of my original inquiry was something along the lines of China or Russia invading via Alaska. Something like that, a well defined aggressor with borders.

Just realized I didn't answer the later portion of your post.

The attack would never come from a definite country with borders. They'd be ripe for a counter attack in which there would be very little left.

What's far more likely, is *poof* a nuclear bomb goes off in one of the giant cities I mentioned, millions dead, with no evidence remaining of who or how.

Most likely, it'll be blamed on Islamic extremism, and the war cry would be to wipe everyone possibly linked to the attack off of the face of the planet. Entire elite classes of countries suspected of having any involvement, taken out.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Please dont misunderstand, I dont want any of whats going on atm, least of all WW3. Im just interested in theoreticals and so far this threads insights have satisfied in that regard, so thank you.

I understand. That last paragraph was more in response to Abezal's post, which sounded somewhat optomistic.