World War 3

[Yc-EmpireGrounds]

If There will be a World War 3 It isn't gonna be

[bakem0n0]

At 2/17/06 01:11 PM, Yc-EmpireGrounds wrote: If There will be a World War 3 It isn't gonna be

Please, children, if you can't post anything intelligent, don't post anything at all.

[Trendwhore]

At 2/17/06 01:16 PM, bakem0n0 wrote: Please, children, if you can't post anything intelligent, don't post anything at all.

God i am so sick of the arrogant airheads that inhabit the politics forum.

Don't care much for peole that makes a topic like this one either...

[ZeroAsALimit]

I don't understand what you mean.

Do you mean that the warring countries would destroy the world with nuclear weapons ?

If that is what you mean, I must disagree. The principle of M.A.D. is sound. The only problems with nuclear weapons are the amount of money that is spent on arnaments and the possibility of computer errors.

[Trendwhore]

actually nuclear ICBMs are much cheaper than conventional weapons.

Anyways Einstein said something like(grossly misquoted):
we don't know what weapons 3rd World War will be fought with but i am certain that the 4th
will be fought with pointy sticks and rocks.

This always made me smile.

[N-Antichrist]

"fire our shit!"

"but i am le tired..."

[ZeroAsALimit]

At 2/17/06 01:39 PM, TrendWhore wrote: actually nuclear ICBMs are much cheaper than conventional weapons.

What I mean is my country has enough nuclear warheads. It's time to spend a bit of that money on health.

Anyways Einstein said something like(grossly misquoted):
we don't know what weapons 3rd World War will be fought with but i am certain that the 4th
will be fought with pointy sticks and rocks.

This always made me smile.

It's funny and it's true aswell, now that we can destroy the world, we use less destructive weapons.

[PhysicsMafia]

At 2/17/06 02:16 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote:

we don't know what weapons 3rd World War will be fought with but i am certain that the 4th
will be fought with pointy sticks and rocks.

This always made me smile.

It's funny and it's true aswell, now that we can destroy the world, we use less destructive weapons.

i think what it actually means is that a 3rd world war wld reduce us to stone age technology as all infrastructre, power stations and other modern weapons and power sources would be destroyed

[Trendwhore]

At 2/17/06 06:34 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: i think what it actually means is that a 3rd world war wld reduce us to stone age technology as all infrastructre, power stations and other modern weapons and power sources would be destroyed

Correct. Zero kinda misunderstood it. Perhaps due to my poor quote.

[Acid-Strummer]

At 2/17/06 02:16 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote:

What I mean is my country has enough nuclear warheads. It's time to spend a bit of that money on health.

Yeah... If you're from America you do have way too many ICBMs. If only the government of the 80's had agreed to disarm along with the U.S.S.R. The world would be a much safer place. And America has one of the shittiest healthcare systems in the world.

Acid Strummer

[Battlefront-Ryoko]

if you are going to post some thing dont post it in noob language.

[Bowski]

At 2/18/06 02:42 AM, Acid_Strummer wrote:

At 2/17/06 02:16 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote:

What I mean is my country has enough nuclear warheads. It's time to spend a bit of that money on health.

Yeah... If you're from America you do have way too many ICBMs. If only the government of the 80's had agreed to disarm along with the U.S.S.R.

Acid Strummer

I thought they did?

START-1
START-2

[PCpr0gramer]

At 2/17/06 01:33 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote: I don't understand what you mean.

Do you mean that the warring countries would destroy the world with nuclear weapons ?

If that is what you mean, I must disagree. The principle of M.A.D. is sound. The only problems with nuclear weapons are the amount of money that is spent on arnaments and the possibility of computer errors.

Uhh are you a psycho? the "only problems with nuclear weapons are the amount of money that is spent on arnaments and the possibility of computer errors." ???!?
What about the death? What about the insane rulers of countries that are pissed off at other countries?

[Imperator]

Yeah... If you're from America you do have way too many ICBMs. If only the government of the 80's had agreed to disarm along with the U.S.S.R. The world would be a much safer place. And America has one of the shittiest healthcare systems in the world.

America, FUCK YEAH!

Russia has more than we do. Like everyting Americana, we do things bigger, better, and faster, including disarming and removing nuclear weapons.....

Since you're clearly an ignoramous, I'll give you something I usually don't like to give, a wikipedia site!!!

http://en.wikipedia...with_nuclear_weapons

1. Russia, 7,200 active missiles, 16,000 total.
2. US, 5,735 active, 9,960.

Don't trust Wikipedia (neither do I)? Here's some more!

"As of January 2006, the U.S. stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads."
http://www.thebullet..p?art_ofn=jf06norris

"We estimate that the total current arsenal of intact warheads is around 16,000."
http://www.thebullet..p?art_ofn=ma05norris

Russia can't get their shit together and disarm faster, and speed is something Americans seem to excell at........

[bcdemon]

At 2/19/06 02:27 AM, Imperator wrote: Russia can't get their shit together and disarm faster, and speed is something Americans seem to excell at........

Here is some info from a source you approve of.

"The U.S. arsenal contains approximately 10,600 intact warheads. Of this number, nearly 8,000 are considered active or operational."

"Russia...its remaining stockpile of intact warheads may be around 18,600. Only around 8,600 of these are thought to be operational.

So Russia only has 600 more operational warheads than USA.

[soadsod]

well when the proverbial shit hits the fan and ww3 comes, we all know that it was bush who was behind it and M.A.D. will take effect and people will see that nobody was joking when the principles of M.A.D. were established

[TheBlueBullet]

At 2/17/06 01:16 PM, bakem0n0 wrote:

At 2/17/06 01:11 PM, Yc-EmpireGrounds wrote: If There will be a World War 3 It isn't gonna be

Please, children, if you can't post anything intelligent, don't post anything at all.

Oh I beg to differ. He is trying to make us figure out what he is saying. The wording "0D6" referes to something probably sometime of time date from the time machine he has built. See he has even sent us a picture from the future almost stating what World War III should look like in its civil era. He wrote in bold as to say that what he is saying is important. He is trying to emphasize the point that that won't happen. But clearly in the time laws you cannot tell when specific things are supposed to happen in a specific time. Otherwise it will disrupt the Universe. You can tell by the colors distinguished in the picture he sent us, is that the war will take place sometime in China. Of course! Thank you wise nOOb for filling us.

We know it won't happen*wink wink*

[Empanado]

At 2/19/06 02:27 AM, Imperator wrote:

(...)Speed is something Americans seem to excell at........

Yeah, your girlfriend said you excelled at speed all right.
Sorry, couldn't resist.

ANYWAYS. I don't really believe that a WW3 could develop in these times, at least not a conventional war. I believe that the World nations have got to a point where they can live in *relative* harmony with each other, minus the ocassional war somewhere in the third world or the ocassional "LOL U GUYS SUCK" comment from an influential world leader to another. The only scenarios that I could see as WW3-inducing would be a sudden, radical change in the government of Russia, EU, US or China. The other option would be terrorism-induced chaos (Like, for example, what those weirdos at the Aum Supreme Truth or whatever its name was were intending to do).

Other than that, we're all fine and dandy. If World Wars still followed the rules of WW1 and 2, World War Three would have ensued after this. Or this, or this, or immediately after this. There's also this and, in a lesser degree, this and this.
Don't forget this one, either.

In conclusion, something substantially more important than any of those should happen if you're expecting for WW3. And I don't really see any of those coming.