If World War Three broke out, would you sign up?

[Gonzalez]

Like the US itself wouldnt nuke Russia if it launched an attack on its soil. There were many the times where we came a hair away from thermonucmear warfare. I recommend to you the documentary "The fog of war. Twelve lessons from Rober McNamara", the man was secretary of deffense during a big chunck of the cold war, he knows a thing or two. If it were for men like Curtis LeMay the US would had attacked Russia first with nuclear bombers, and there were several who shared his oppinion.

 

[Sub-Human]

What can you really expect from a leader like Putin? His brain capacity didn't allow him to turn Russia into a global economic power, so the best he can do now is threaten little nations like Denmark with the Soviet nuclear arsenal. And if that isn't proof he's an absolute psycho...

 

[Crni Vuk]

I don't know why you always hammer down on Russia and Putin so much as like they are some kind of Evil Nazi like empire with concentration camps looking at every oportunity to throw their nukes on Europe/US, I mean yeah, they are right now fucking Ukraine, we get it, they are "bad". But the reason why the relationship between Europe and Russia and the US and Russia are so bad right now is not ONLY the fault of Russia/Putin, there are usually two sides in relationships, even political ones.

10-15 years ago Russia has tried to get relatively close with Europe but many of our politicans ignored the signals. And now when Russia decided to ignore Europe, saying screw them all we are doing our own shit now, we start to throw the moral club at them. I mean it's not like what we say isn't right, they do a lot of wrong things, but I just feel that neither Europen nor the US politicans are in the position to belittle Russia. It's like telling someone that he should really not grope on women in public while you're beating your wife at home.

The hidrogen bomb is far more destructive than the WWII one, and precision is preferred to firepower, so the advancements are seen in the carriers, the ICBM. A single Topol M can certainly destroy several cities actoss several states. Taht good enough? Also, both Russia and China have already publicly stated that any attempt to invade their sovereign territory would be a nuclear response. Clear. As. Day. And that if they see that the nuclear balance turns against them far enough they will launch nuclear attacks preemptively before that happens. Tjey stated this. Publicly. And they were clear about those things. Recently Russia almost launches a nuclear weapon against NATO ships in the black sea, dod you know that? People like to delude themselves that the Sword of Damocles of nuclear war is gone to feel the ilusion of safety, but it's far from gone my friend.

All it takes is NATO crossing the russian border, like the stryker ifv's that paraded just 300 kilometers away from the russian border today and the russians promised nuclear death.

I thought China had this policy that they would never use nuclear weapons against states that don't own nuclear weapons? Of course ... all we can do is take their word on it, I mean if there are enemy troops overruning China who knows what they would do, no matter if the nation has nuclear weapons now or not, but still.

 

[zegh8578]

I thought China had this policy that they would never use nuclear weapons against states that don't own nuclear weapons? Of course ... all we can do is take their word on it, I mean if there are enemy troops overruning China who knows what they would do, no matter if the nation has nuclear weapons now or not, but still.

China has stated that they will nuke Taiwan if they ever think of renaming themselves (okay, a bit more complicated than that, but Taiwan - aka Republic of China is "not allowed" to identify itself as separate from China. They are still "at war" in that sense, and mainland China still holds ambitions to reunite with off-shore China, forcing them to stay "on hold" untill the situation is resolved. In the meantime, they hang out and do trade.)
It was in the wikileaks, but I can't seem to find it now, but I don't think this needs to be proven too hard. Now, a statement is one thing, and acting upon it is another. Then again, Russia just stated that they will nuke Denmark... if, of course. If Denmark threatens Russia, or something...

 

[Crni Vuk]

would the world even notice if Denmark was gone though?

 

[zegh8578]

Well, Denmark is a major butter exporter to Scandinavia. Denmark matters!
Besides, they would blast away Roskilde. All the dreadlock stonerkids would notice right away that there will be no festival that summer (or, the best festival EVER!)

 

[Gonzalez]

You mean no more of these?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[Deleted member 53669]

What can you really expect from a leader like Putin? His brain capacity didn't allow him to turn Russia into a global economic power, so the best he can do now is threaten little nations like Denmark with the Soviet nuclear arsenal. And if that isn't proof he's an absolute psycho...

You mean, he doesn't want Russia to be part of the EU, and doesn't want to loose his billions of USD from his current setup?

Putin is playing a balancing act appeasing as many people at once, and making all the right moves to have a "Historian" look at him like a great leader. However, remember that some historians also see Genghis Khan as "An Enlightened Progressive".

 

[Sub-Human]

Putin is playing a balancing act appeasing as many people at once, and making all the right moves to have a "Historian" look at him like a great leader.

If all the right moves include ruining the economy of Russia and relations with other countries that took years to build, then I guess you could say that he's a 'great leader'. Only great leaders invite openly fascist parties that deny the Holocaust and praise Hitler into St. Petersburg, a city that lost over 700 thousand of its people due to the Nazi blockade. Only great leaders are left alone with Kim Jong on the 70th anniversary since the end of World War Two.

 

[MutantScalper]

Sure as hell I'll join up, willingly or not. I've spent two years in so-called compulsory military service in former Czechoslovakia, which means I'm considered a reserve military force right now. According to Slovak legislative protected by our law, all the reserve forces are called up to arms in case of war, so there's really no choice for me.

Fun fact: I'm a mobile radar station leader, with my own crew consisting of three men, trained in morse code and stuff. I've been told that estimated survivability of our radar station counts ~15 minutes from start of any armed conflict, because we are one the targets attacked with high priority in fight. So I'm pretty much fucked up when all hell will break loose.

Same here, I went through mandatory military training over here as a medic. I think in case of a war they would call the young reservists (20 - 35 year olds I think) to service, when they would be depleted they would call the older ones, I would be in that second group. So I might not see battle even in case of a war, which suits me just fine. People have these very romantic notions about war, that it's an adventure etc. but it mostly just sucks.

 

[Akratus]

I think most people now no longer romanticize war. It's been the hip new thing in pop culture that concerns realistic war, in movies, books, tv etc to say that soldiers had the shit end of the stick in the worst situations imaginable. "The horrors of war" has become a trope, even.

 

[Hassknecht]

I think most people now no longer romanticize war. It's been the hip new thing in pop culture that concerns realistic war, in movies, books, tv etc to say that soldiers had the shit end of the stick in the worst situations imaginable. "The horrors of war" has become a trope, even.

Indeed. However, I think there is a significant portion of the somewhat younger populace that is peace-loving and pacifist and all that, unless it's for the right cause. So in that regard I think there's still some romantisation going on. War is considered dirty and evil, but it's also something that has to be done if it's for defense or saving innocents or something noble like that.
So, pretty much business as usual.

 

[MutantScalper]

I think most people now no longer romanticize war. It's been the hip new thing in pop culture that concerns realistic war, in movies, books, tv etc to say that soldiers had the shit end of the stick in the worst situations imaginable. "The horrors of war" has become a trope, even.

Well there have always been these rowdy young men that armies and militaries are comprised of, without them it's difficult to wage wars. They can be forced into service but that way you might not get the most efficient military. Napoleon said something like "a man will fight long and hard for a worthless medal". I think rewarding has a big part in motivating the soldiers to fight. So they always find ways to get people to fight, and even to kill. The US military has conducted studies in how to get rid of the urge not to kill in combat. In WW 2 many US soldiers who could have shot German soldiers actually didn't shoot them because they were unable to kill another human.

When I was in military we had a lot of officers, career soldiers, who I think were very interested in the idea of a war. Not a destructive big war but just a little war so they could say to the society "There! See, we are valuable, and big heroes too!"

 

[JohnnyEgo]

You are completely right that the US Military spends a lot of time and effort to condition people to kill. The fact that it is against the better nature in most of us probably speaks to something positive about humanity as a whole. Similarly, I am certain many people amongst both the officer and enlisted classes wanted the opportunity to prove themselves on the field of battle. Given most of us, including the officers, were between the ages of 17 and 28, there was plenty of youthful ignorance to go around.

However, in my day-to-day experience, nobody ever thought of earning medals or tokens of valor. Most of us simply did our duty or followed our orders. The rare moments of greatness and heroism usually came of our desire to help our peers, and less thought was put into those moments than action. I can say of my own experience that the brave and/or stupid things I did rarely involved conscious thought, and were most likely predicated on the unconscious belief in my own invulnerability that nearly all teenagers had.

I won't bother to argue for or against anyone else's beliefs in this thread, and I think the opinions expressed by everyone so far are more than sufficient to cover the gamut of the moral and ethical philosophies on war. I do think that many of the anti-war crowd would be surprised to find out just how much of their philosophy is shared by many of those who serve. After all, an army is most often composed of a nation's people, who in turn reflect the society from which they are drawn.

 

[Crni Vuk]

What can you really expect from a leader like Putin? His brain capacity didn't allow him to turn Russia into a global economic power, so the best he can do now is threaten little nations like Denmark with the Soviet nuclear arsenal. And if that isn't proof he's an absolute psycho...

You mean, he doesn't want Russia to be part of the EU, and doesn't want to loose his billions of USD from his current setup?

Putin is playing a balancing act appeasing as many people at once, and making all the right moves to have a "Historian" look at him like a great leader. However, remember that some historians also see Genghis Khan as "An Enlightened Progressive".

I think, Putin want's Europe to be a part of Russia.

We could call it Putopia.