WW3

File: 1392912572390.jpg (205KB, 749x1450px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 749x1450px

>>33986766
Hope your bunker is stocked up with chems and ammo /k/omrade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp2Hwi9qM48

File: titties.jpg (831KB, 2814x1876px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 2814x1876px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHjZQb-kGek
The mad max situation seems more likely if youre not in an important country really.

>>33986766
Mutual assured destruction will likely stick around for a while. Fully autonomous AI weapons seem to be on the upswing so I would expect lots of that. Maybe some space drones in the mix as tech advances. De-stabilizing enemy infrastructure probably higher on the priority list than outright destruction of civis. More powerful nations will probably use weaker nations and groups for proxy wars as their boots on the ground. Don't worry about it.

>>33986766
>What does /k/ think WW3 will be like?
Short. Over in months at the most.

>When will it start?
Impossible to say.

>Should we expect only a few limited nuclear exchanges aimed at military targets or are we headed for nuclear weapons used against large population centers?
2 possibilities.
1) A series of short exchanges aimed at economic targets. These exchanges might go on for weeks. Each side hitting a type of economic target and accepting the inevitable retaliation. Neither side wants to escalate to a general exchange. Both avoid launching more than a handful of weapons at a time or targeting the others nuclear weapons to avoid convincing the other that an all out attack is in progress.

2) First strike against nuclear weapons and command and control on one side, followed by a small counter attack on economic targets.

>How is it going to be like?
Terrible.

>>33987150
>over in a few months
They said this about the last 2 man

>>33987071
>muh MAD

I hate summer day/k/are

>>33986766
when Donald Drumpf is finally caught as a Russian spy

>>33987230
Currently, no one can pay for replacements at the pace that a modern war would consume them.
Modern Tanks and smart weapons take longer to manufacture today than they did in the previous world wars. While you could increase output, this could take a long time, and given the pace of conventional wars, it is likely that the war would be over by that time.

Modern wars will be 'come as you are' wars. You fight with the army you have.

>>33986766
WW1 started over "assassination" for which decades in advance countries were prepping for.
WW2 finish what it was started.
Nam started over false report and consensus of people wanting to go to war.
Most likely NK just looking at US direction will trigger the second Korean war and with that WW3.

>>33987513
>Most likely NK just looking at US direction will trigger the second Korean war and with that WW3.
lolno

>>33987495
>Modern wars will be 'come as you are' wars. You fight with the army you have.
Again, this was predicted for both WWI & II. In both cases industrial capacity rose to met demand.

>>33987520
>lolno
Oh yeah?
Now that China turned their back to NK they got no one on their side,trust me all it takes is one rocket test to end up on the wrong side of the ocean.

>>33987524
>Again, this was predicted for both WWI & II.
No it wasn't.

> In both cases industrial capacity rose to met demand.
If you do not understand the difference between weapons now and weapons in the first half of the 20th century, I don't know if I can help you.

The weapons are entirely different. It's been 72 years since the end of WW2.
Only 20 years had passed between the end of the first and the start of the second.

The entire industry around the manufacture of weapons and logistics is completely different, and the US had a completely different industrial base.

I'm sorry, anon. There will never be another years long conventional war. It's just too expensive.

>>33987532
Why would that start WWIII?

>>33987603
Muh ballistic range
Muh preemptive strike
Muh communism

>>33986766
>What does /k/ think WW3 will be like?
Swift and brutal.
>When will it start?
No idea.
>Should we expect only a few limited nuclear exchanges aimed at military targets or are we headed for nuclear weapons used against large population centers?
Most likely limited tactical use at first and if hostilities continue, total use of nuclear capability. First at military targets and if situation is grim, total use against civilian targets as well.

>>33987611
Can't forget muh dickwaving

>>33987611
You think that a US attack on the DPRK is WW3?

>>33987613
>Swift and brutal.
We keep thinking this for the past 30 conflicts/invasions and yet here we are.
Oh right we are calling them proxy wars with military advisories my bad.

>>33987619
Dont be absurd they will only act as prevention towards bigger conflict escalation.
Then NK will retaliate and who knows what happens next.

>>33987628
The conventional phases of these conflicts are very swift and very brutal. You are conflating two different types of warfare either because you lack the knowledge to comprehend the difference or intentionally.

>>33987642
ok if you say so

>>33987647
Dunning-Kruger: The Post

>>33987659
*tips

>>33987640
NK is not a legitimate threat
And no one is willing to fight USA on their behalf

>>33986766
>What does /k/ think WW3 will be like?
It will be constant upheaval at the local level. Think a world wide civil war.
>When will it start?
As soon as corporations start running the government directly rather than through proxies. Think what it would be like if Facebook was a required govt utility we all had to use.
>Should we expect only a few limited nuclear exchanges aimed at military targets or are we headed for nuclear weapons used against large population centers?
Nuclear war is a thing of the past. I'm not saying they won't be used but they won't be used on a massive scale. The corporations wouldn't risk the loss to infrastructure.
>How is it going to be like?
Like I said above, it is going to be like a world wide civil war and factions will split along political lines as each side becomes more extreme.
>How many years do you think we have?
10-20

>>33987669
Dude I am not saying that NK is actually smart and they will strike back no matter the cost.
I think they are aware that they cant really compete with US at an level in full scale war.

>>33987682
How is it a World War then?
It's just a normal heavily one sided war

I live in Moscow so i'll be safe.
RIP burgerstan tho

>>33987697
We dont know how other countries will react basically.

>>33987710
You think that other countries are willing to risk their economies for the DPRK?

>>33987727
I hope the deal that Trump strikes with China is that if shit does go down and China helps the US take out NK then it becomes Chinese territory and not SK. China could absorb them easier than SK could.

2030ish
>United Muslim Nations of Western Europe attempt an invasion of Poland who calls for help from Russia and the US
>Russia responds immediately with Zerg rush on the German Califate
>US holds off as long as they can before hitting New Pakistan (France) and looking like saviors tearing through the alread weakend UMN forces.
>While celebrating victory terrorist cells set off small nukes in major US cities leading to the death of millions and changing society to a place devoid of trust and compassion for the next 200 years

>>33987755
So you think that Trump should stab ROK in the back and give their claimed territory to China?

>>33987788
Why not? Hes already stabbing fellow americans in the back by not pursuing the wall to be built

>>33987778
Most realistic desu

>>33987824
What do those two things have to do with each other?

>>33986766
There was an old flowchart used by the Pentagon iirc to break down nuclear war options.

Basically:

Blue team triggers Red Team.

Red team goes nuclear. If red team has an interest in peace, they go for limited tactical use, just as a "back off" move.

blue team either retaliates (no, YOU back off) or begins peace negotiation.

Red team (if blue retaliates) escalates use in tactical situations. Blue escalates in turn. Tactical nukes become the new norm, but conventional war continues. If there is a break, peace options get pursued.

Red team (or Blue) gets triggered again. Perhaps a nuke goes astray, perhaps it hits a civilian target, etc. Escalation and retaliatory strikes occur. Immediate peace brokering needs to occur, or escalation continues.

Priority: logistical and military resources. These break the enemies ability to fight. Think strategic fuel reserves and major harbors.

Secondary: economic (if nuclear). This impedes their long-term recovery and ability to buy emergency supplies/leverage loans.

World War 3 will most likely be with China. China currently cant match the US nuke-for-nuke, and thus has to carefully weigh its options. As it stands, the US could be the decisive victor if things went nuclear, even if we suffered for it.

Cont below

>>33987888
>>33987642

Cont

This anon is right. If we just do endless proxies, or if we go against a conventional-only enemy, things may take extra time. After all, we dont go nuclear against the Taliban, and we CAN manufacture Bradleys/MRAPs faster than we lose them, just as we could with most equipment in Vietnam. However, conventional war has been consistently a brutal, sudden orchestra of violence.

Desert Storm was a famously one-sided slaughter. The second invasion wasnt so brutal... because Saddams army remembered the last ass-beating.

Vietnam dragged on due to political disinterest in invading North Vietnam outright, yet the NVA offensives followed a pattern of Organize, Operate, Recover after slamming into the US/SoV force.

Wars drag on nowadays only when the stronger power restrains its own capability, neither have sufficient weapons to strike each other strategically (Iraq vs. Iran), are trying to prevent an escalation, or deliberately obscures itself to make the enemy pause. In an outright World War, we will likely see a crescendo of violence, abuse of technological prowess, and unmittigated aggression the likes of which we have never seen.

>>33987888
There is no single flowchart for nuclear conflicts. There are varying options for compellence or deterrence, along with countless options to escalate or de-escalate and countless variations of those.

Even without nuclear weapons precision guided and computer controlled munitions would make things brutal.

It could be a WW1 style scenario with lots of defensive posturing and brutal kill zone areas of complete destruction.

Another factor to consider is maybe we could have a complete drone on drone war?

Maybe not total war either but an escalated proxy war confined to a specific area and not directly going all out at the other country.

>>33987925
Hi do you mind answering me a question. In what scenarios do you see the city of Tokyo being nuked in a possible WW3? Also >>33987197 .
I'm a huge fan of yours id be extra happy if you helped me with this. Or anyone else on that regard.

>>33988271
>In what scenarios do you see the city of Tokyo being nuked in a possible WW3?
It is possible that it might be targeted in a Chinese attack, for a number of reasons, but that is unlikely.

>>33988271
>In what scenarios
To expound a little.

The most likely scenario (but over all unlikely) would be as a Chinese counter attack after a US first strike.
As any nuclear attack would exist in the context of an ongoing crisis, China might see Japan as an important ally to the US and subject its cities to attack in retaliation.

>>33988271
>>33987197
>If the bad guys side was losing and they felt like they were really about to just lose regardless of their efforts, losing territory, their units and infrastructure being destroyed, regimes about to collapse etc, do you think they could just say fuck it and nuke the world? By nuking the world I mean major population centers: NY, LA, London, Paris, Tokyo etc, since they would be losing anyway. Would they do that?

The more realistic scenario is the losing side targeting the economic assets of the winning side in an attempt to halt their war effort. In this sense, its not an act of spite, but a risky military move of desperate people.

>>33987788
No but I think not even Worst Korea wants to deal with the economic disaster of reunification. I think best case scenario is that China absorbs Best Korea into it's economy (to which it is already tightly bound) and given territory or protectorate status like Hong Kong.
Eventually after 20-25 years they might be able to be independent from China and then in another 10--20 years of stable independence they might be able to reunify with Worst Korea.

>>33987236
You that adding "muh" in-front of a legitimate point doesn't negate or contradict it, right? MAD is still a very real component to modern diplomacy and choosing conditions for engaging foreign powers.
>calls someone else summer
oh the irony