How World War III would play out?

Sn1p3r187

Sn1p3r187

Carolinian Shaolin Monk
These articles were pretty informing on the potential future of warfare in World War III. Also I seem to have noticed a trend in World Wars, it seems like in both world wars and potential wars in the future there have been new weapons introduced into the war. The first world war saw the introduction of chemical weapons, but they were not used in the second world war, at least not on notable documents or the public. But WWII did see the use of nuclear weapons towards the end. But knowing how close we've come to a nuclear war we've came before and we know the extent of the damage it could cause we likely won't use nuclear weapons at all in WWIII. But an entirely new weapon will be introduced if it happens. My money maybe on large scale thermobaric explosives or mass scaled emps that shut down entire defense systems and grids without having to use a nuclear weapon.

But here are the articles if you're interested in reading them. So what do you think?

http://time.com/3934583/world-war-3/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/artyom-lukin/world-war-iii_b_5646641.html
 
Biological warfare.

Imagine. Micro-beings that spit acid, looking like a large green fog that self-replicates at an astounding rate, with the ability to be canceled at the flick of a switch.

Don't like that? More of a scare the populace kinda guy? Giant Tarantula Hawks.

Explosives will only get you so far, you'll be forced to clean up the mess. With biological weapons the only thing to clean up is the weapon itself, which can be contained and and then exterminated with little to no consequences.

The Fallout universe has what I think are the weapons of the future.
The weapons of the apocalypse.
 
Biological warfare certainly seems like a likely development for WW3 seeing as how we can basically engineer deadly viruses at a moment's notice today, maybe we could see one of those plagues that affect specific minorities like in MGSV and Zulu. Actually weren't the Japanese close to doing that during WW2? They were going to release a plague on America, the operation was called Cherry Blossoms, or something like that.
If WW3 happens during a more sci-fi-ish period of history then nano-tech and laser weaponry could be used I guess.
 
Yeah biowarfare sounds reasonable. That was close to what came along in WWII. But the problem with some bio weapons is the fact they can be uncontrollable and infect the people who made the weapon as well. Then the whole world meets some World War Z shit because China or the U.S decided to make bio weapons the biggest thing/catastrophe in the 21st century.
 
It would probably be an all out war with America and Russia. As much as the stereotypical Apocalypse/WW3 is beaten so much it is pretty realistic. American and Russia have both been very close to starting an all out war, the American fighters nearly firing on Russian fighters(I think that's how it went.) and a massive example is the Syrian Civil War. America is backing the rebels while Russia is backing the government, obviously creating problems.

How will WW3 be fought? Chemical weapons and nuclear arsenals probably won't be used in just a snap. Russia would probably engage America troops in (possibly Europe) or on their own respective soil. No idea, as both America and Russia have very powerful homeland defenses. Maybe towards the end of the war Russia will attempt nuclear devastation but it's kinda hard to imagine Russia stooping so low. It could happen though and it's kinda fun to theorize about it.
 
A WW3 would provoke a rapid development of drone technology and the use of rod of god (weapon satellites that shot a big metal rod).

I don´t see lazer technolgy being used on standard firearms, but there would be some significant improvement on basic ballistic weapons.
 
Yes. I do see drone warfare becoming a big thing in a third world war. But another thing I noted was that a third world war would actually be pretty short depending on who we're fighting and if there's a stalement. In the case of China- Yeah stalemate. Only a year at the least and 2 years at the most.
 
well biological warfare is not just about making death spore, it also about genetic perfection and yeah..deus exy stuff

though i find information warfare be more plausible, especially with today people dependency on technology. i wont say a thing like bitcoin or digital currency, it is about something about the very thing we currently use
 
eissa said:
well biological warfare is not just about making death spore, it also about genetic perfection and yeah..deus exy stuff

though i find information warfare be more plausible, especially with today people dependency on technology. i wont say a thing like bitcoin or digital currency, it is about something about the very thing we currently use
Click to expand...
And likely bio weapons would be the least perfected form of warfare. But I don't see how information warfare would be a WMD. Unless you spilled all the beans.
 
Sn1p3r187 said:
Yes. I do see drone warfare becoming a big thing in a third world war. But another thing I noted was that a third world war would actually be pretty short depending on who we're fighting and if there's a stalement. In the case of China- Yeah stalemate. Only a year at the least and 2 years at the most.
Click to expand...

Where did you get those numbers?
 
Not sure how it would go down but we Finns would probably end up backing the loser, again.

I hope US and Russia duke it out in, like Alaska and Russian far-east. Plenty of space there. Use conventional weapons and troops. China could team up with Russia to ensure a long war.
 
mrchaos said:
No, you wrote that a war with china would go for 1 to 2 years before ending in a stalemate. How much a third world war would last is kinda impossible.
Click to expand...
I went the by the articles on that one. You're right we can't predict a stalement but I like think it could. China and the U.S in about 10 or 15 years or so would be on par military strength wise.
 
Sn1p3r187 said:
China and the U.S in about 10 or 15 years or so would be on par military strength wise.
Click to expand...

In military strength, I believe China would have advantage in numbers since it is the most populated country in the world, but the usa would have an advantage in tecnology. Not sure about industry, they both have it but they´re not used for war industry.
 
Unless US foreign policy makes some massive mistakes, the only realistic opponent in a WWIII scenario would be China. And fact is that the US can get its troops to China, and can play around in China's back yard (with no objections from China's neighbors), while the Chinese can hardly do the same.

Also, one should take into account the fact that China doesn't really have any allies. Russia is only working with them because they were pushed into it, they feel threatened by them and would probably feel much safer working with the west. An alliance between Russia and America is not out of the question, especially if relations with the EU decline. Western European countries might distance themselves from America in order to pamper their soon-to-be huge muslim minorities, especially in case of a Trump victory.

And then there's India, which will probably take every opportunity it gets to take a jab at a weakened China.

I just don't see how the PRC could win it. It would take a very long time to build an adequate navy and air force, and even if they had that, they would still lack the bases close enough to America to actually attack it. Even if we're talking bio-weapons and nukes, China is far more susceptible.
 
The thing about world wars is they don't start out as world wars (using a statistical sample of 2). So far they have begun as more regional conflicts (WW1: Austro-Hungary declared war on Serbia, WW2: Germany invaded Poland).

I think there is a fair possibility that China could try to take Taiwan. The PRC knows that there would be a response by the U.S. The question is would the response be fast enough to prevent them from getting hold of the island. The U.S. would be much more hesitant to turn Taiwan into a bunch of craters compared to blowing Chinese ships out of the ocean. The PRC also knows there would be sanctions. But if they held onto Taiwan and waited them out, they would probably get lifted after 20 to 50 years - see Cuba, Iran relations with the U.S. No one in the U.S. State Department is seriously expecting China to get out of Tibet. Why would Taiwan be any different if given enough time to cool off?

In regards to China thwarting the U.S. response long enough to get the island. I have heard news reports of the Chinese army investing heavily in speed boats and surface-to-air missiles. The idea being if you could just have enough of these cheap options to quickly grab the island and spam enough defenses. Even U.S. cruise missiles would have a difficult time getting through if China had 100,000 cheap drones ($10) with a bit of C-4 strapped on them ready to launch and intercept all over the island.
 
I maybe mistaken but one of the contingency plans if Taiwan were to be invaded would be to launch missiles at the 3 rivers dam. That could be quite the deterrent. Also all things considered what is the real fighting ability of a largely untested Chinese army, a border skirmish with India back in the 70's and being repulsed by the Vietnamese. Fighting a war is different then saber rattling and aggressive posturing, massive parades and oppressing ethnic minorities. I think China would rather defeat its enemies through cyberwarfare and economic power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top