Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Ah, WW3. Such a lovely subject.

It really does amaze me that when the subject of a third world war is brought up, everybody's vision of it includes the much-vaunted and feared mushroom clouds.
In reality, however, WW3 will likely be devoid of large-scale nuclear assault.
Let's take a look at the facts of war. War is not about destroying the enemy. War is not about killing thousands of soldiers just to win. Yes, that IS an integral part of war, but it's not the core point of warfare. War is about psychologically breaking your enemy, literally wrecking their minds. War is about robbing the opposition of the will to fight back. War is meant to make your enemy submit totally to your power by any means neccessary.

CASE POINT: World War 2, the Pacific Theater. Even though the US was knocking on Japan's doorstep, the Emporer refused to entertain the idea of surrender. American tacticians were facing an ugly proposition- trying to invade the home islands on foot would likely cost over a million lives. Extended bombing campaigns of Tokyo just weren't cutting it. So, in an act of desperation, the Manhattan Project produced a massive Hail Mary of war-breakers: the atomic bomb. Notice, though, that we didn't drop it on Tokyo. The goal was not to vaporize the Japanese leadership, it was to shock and scare them into submission. Which it did, but only after we dropped two of them.

Point is, war isn't about pointless destruction, it's about breaking the enemy's morale. Making it so that they simply cannot carry on any longer. Psychology is one of the deepest parts of warfare, and the most vital. How else were the Viet Cong able to beat out American GIs in the thick? By using tactics that mentally broke the other side's troop, causing a total lack of morale. We didn't leave Vietnam because we couldn't fight- it was because we no longer wanted to fight.

Nuclear warfare is completely counterproductive, however. Any battle tactic is subject to cost/benefit analysis and the Dire Need principle. Let's look at the Cost/Benefit first. First off, lobbing nukes won't break an enemy's spirit. If anything, it might very well strengthen their resolve. Even if you destroy an opposing nation's entire populace, what have you accomplished? You just slaughtered several million people. Good luck sleeping at night. Who's going to surrender now? The ashes of the former governing body? Dead people are in no mood to attend peace talks. Besides that, nukes are damned expensive to launch. Supposing you win a war using nukes. Well, you're going to be expected to clean up the irradiated crater you just made. Nobody's going to want to play Monopoly with you anymore. And you've just deposited several million tons of nuclear fallout and ash into the atmosphere. That'll play really well with the tree huggers. Them, and the multiple millions of cancer cases caused by said fallout. Verdict: Too Damn Expensive.

Second, what kind of scenario would neccessitate nuclear war? What, are standard bombing runs on the general populace not cutting it? Did you run out of tanks and troops? If so, something tells me you're not going to accomplish much other than pissing even more people off by nuking places.
Look, back in WW2, the Russkies developed a very ugly war tactic- fragmutts. Quite literally, the Russians were training dogs to run underneath Nazi tanks. With bombs strapped to them. Why go to such drastic measures? Because Hitler was only a few very small kilometers away from taking St. Petersburgh. Clearly, the time for the unconventional plans had come. And, once the Germans started heading back to Germany, the tactic was abandoned. Because the situation was no longer dire enough to merit such extreme measures. Point is, nukes are just too extreme to be used when there are still other options. Thankfully, most world leaders know this.

No, WW3 will most likely just be a regular infantry war right up until the bitter end. Only then would nukes become a serious threat as somebody out there deeply considered a literal Scorched Earth Policy.

Therin lies the problem with North Korea- information on their nuclear option is unconfirmed. Meaning that while they might not possess the ability to launch ICBMs, it's also possible that they do. While the rest of the world does frown upon atomic intimidation, Communists have a habit of saying "Fuck THAT noise" in regards to common sense and decency.

Let's look at the facts. Kim Jong is unquestioningly bugfuck loopy. No other country in the world harbors such a major grudge against sensible countries. Russia came to its senses almost 20 years ago, and while there is some mistrust, they certainly aren't still aren't eyeing Alaska anymore. Japan has all but shelved the WW2 bombs and moved on to selling electronics. Shit, even Viet-fuckin'-Nam isn't as openly hostile and nasty as they once were.

But the Koreans? The war ended damn near 50 years ago, and they still hate the free world. Every year it's the same old song & dance with threatening to cross the 27th and make a grab for Seoul. Every goddamn year. The only people I can think of that raise this kind of bullshit on a regular basis are the Islamists. At least they don't have nukes.

But in all honesty, North Korea really doesn't pose that much of a threat. They're backwards, inefficient, and they lack the resources needed to properly build a nuclear warhead, much less the launch systems. While they might have one or two nukes ready to roll, they certainly don't have the capacity to wage any kind of extended campaign against the free world.

No, if anything, the only thing the South Koreans are afraid of regarding the North, it's a German-style reunification.