The debate "Is ww3 closer like in a matter of a couple of years" was started by
April 13, 2016, 5:37 pm.
21 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
ProudAmerican888 posted 1 argument, bearjew1984 posted 1 argument, jamesbond007 posted 7 arguments, Alex posted 18 arguments, navin12 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
TZW posted 18 arguments to the disagreers part.
blanco, ProudAmerican888, Jason9374, bearjew1984, Thomas_Jefferson, jamesbond007, Daniel0416, Alex, navin12, phildash99, oscar90000, itsme and 9 visitors agree.
TZW, mxhsin, Pugsly, R_o_h_i_t, ramkoppar, RyanWakefield, lets_hear_your_argument, bigB, OIA and 4 visitors disagree.
read up on Herbert K. Pililaau.
your equipment is minimal, old machine guns, a rusty rocket launcher, and a brocken radio.
how would you adapt to this situation: you and 30 men need to take a hill, the enemy had 3 tanks and a few footsoldiers, there is no air support comming.
You better find a way to adapt.
you can't adapt without equipment. they try, and thankfully they don't need to go to war yet. hopefully our next president will fix this.
anyway I might join the Marines.
The reason why we are so good in combat is because of our ability to adapt. The military is far ahead of the US civilian populace in their ability to progress both job wise and acceptance wise.
As for thugs, it's not early 2000 anymore where the gangs members are getting in to learn combat times have changed where they can alter how they gain income. Now there still gang members or people affiliated with gangs in the military but that number has decreased.
when did you serve?
the problem we face now is things the military needs is not being made/is too old/or is brocken.
so if you called for air strikes, yet the planes were all unable to fly, that would be a problem, and you. would have to fave the enemy alone.
Backup? when did I say anything about backup? Call for what we needed? is that where you are confusing it? Call for Fire is a great example of requesting for something you want. The wind can be blowing to fast and risk MM rounds hitting in a different spot. Or for Air Strikes when the weather is umfavorable.
The US will not use them unless they must. It's against the Geneva Convention.
you've (or your commander) has never called for backup? have you been in combat? when did you serve?
why not we bring this mechanical type of war to next level ...how about biological war? as far as I'm concern the a bomb and h bomb are the most dangerous but science is expending so I'm sure there is some bio weapon out there
Funny you say that, I'm a soldier. When we didn't get what we wanted we drove on.
so you want to tell 30 men to take 5 tanks without air backup, with nothing but a truck without a windshield. our soldiers aren't superman.
exactly, just I don't want our military, our soldiers on suicide missions with no food equipment or air backup. one way to get though without a plane is to radio for air support. we don't need the airport's automatic voice mail saying "I'm sorry all of our planes are unable to fly"
I think you're failing to know how the military operates. If you are told to ruck 15 miles in full load you ruck it. you don't call in sick, you don't try to get around it, you just do it. If you call for fire and you don't get it, you then have 2 options. Either drive on or assault through. If you don't have a plane, you find a way to get the mission done without it.
having no windshield is great when driving into battle...
I'm talking about not able to fly planes. do of the 30% able to fly, many aren't in good condition? wow. since Obama has cut funding for new tires and such, what happens? 30 year old planes with a lifespan of 20 don't do great in war. when the plane with a flat tire gets so old it can't take off, our military becomes dead. and Obama doesn't want new planes to be built.
If it's fixed, it works. Vehicles become NMC all the time. For example, if a HMWWV has a broken windshield it's considered NMC it still works even when classed all NMC. A flat tire on a plane is considered NMC as well, even though the plane can take off with one wheel and it still flies it's considered NMC.
the Marines are taking an area by foot, the enemy has a few tanks. wouldn't a few attack helicopters or planes help?
what's the point of having a car/plane that doesn't work?
planes that fly.
and I'm saying don't use stats that use planes that don't fly
Globalfirepower.com construed their #s but if you have a car and 100% of your cars don't work. You still have a car it just doesn't work.
What kind of planes do they need? And why 100% of them?
my point was that if you say "we have 1,000 planes" and 30% of them are able to fly that means there are a lot less then 1,000 planes
you know what helps accomplish missions? planes
They get flown in by different branches and civilian contracters. We aren't making them walk from California to Afghanistan. They get and give assistance when needed we don't leave the Marines behind. Just like all branches they do what they must to accomplish the mission.
yep, the Marines should just walk everywhere. insanity.
Marines are an amphibious assault branch. They don't need planes. The best polites are in the Navy and the Most aircraft is in the Army. Why would marines need aircraft anyway?
They are door kickers if they need supplies the airforce will bring supplies to them. If the need a building bomb they will call the navy or an army drone. If they need air cover they call in the army. Each branch in the United States military works together in what's known as the joint operations process.
only 30% of the marine aircraft can be ready to fly. so those numbers don't matter that much.
for example the airforce interceptors.
1)USA- 5000 planes
2)China- 3500 planes
4)India - 1500 planes
so some website came up with an arbitrary number ranking militaries. why would I take their opinion at face value? if I have a thousand really good swords their not going to do well against 10 guys with guns. rankings are usually bullshit.
why? other soures match with it. like wikipedia.
No do not visit Globalfirepower.com it's not credible.
please visit globalfirepower.com once. you will come to know that
number 1 is US followed by Russia , China, India , UK . sorry buff canada aint on list.
1st. China and Russia don't really like each other.
2nd. China's power depends on trade with the west. if they went to war with us their economy would collapse. they have a vested interest in avoiding war.
3rd. India is not a super power. they are a regional power. the US is a super power, maybe China. no one else qualifies as a super power.
as long as the US and China don't go to war, then there can't be a world war because NATO would absolutely stomp anyone else.
india is 4th superpower BTW so an indian alliance will have a potential impact.
But China and Russia want to be global powers and they hate US, so they will team up
Pakistan will stay with China and India will remain in a neutral state until and unless provoked
However by aiding the west in warfare the that gives the US to remain on their doorsteps. China would prefer to push the US out of that region.
We're talking about a World War here not just NATO vs. Russia. You're neglecting the middle east in all of this. NATO has control on Pakistan Isreal turkey and Saudi Arabia firmly. (I would attest Egypt would stay neutral initially in the war until Isreal began to expand.) Then suddenly Northern Africa becomes a new launching ground for the East. Iran would be upset and if Iran is upset that means nK is upset [Since they exchange TBM information] Suddenly you have nK in the mix and who is nK's biggest supporter? China.
Since China is in the mix and Northern Africa is a staging ground for opposition forces suddenly the fight becomes more even. Pakistan is allies with the US and India hates Pakistan. Which will allow another enormous ground military force fighting on the other side. India won't want to provocate China during a time of war so will side with them to expand. With that now China can only be invaded by the see since surrounding them would be supporters.
China is a very complicated country. it would strongly depend on circumstances of the war. China isn't all that fond of Russia. and they depend heavily on trade with the west. they don't want a fight with NATO. unless America does something terrible to start a war China woukd probably not help Russia.
China would side with Russia, since china's political interest is more beneficial to help Russia then NATO. How China is developing their coast line it will be more difficult to invade by sea.
so do you think denmark, romania and finland has significant military?
that alliance is a joke alex. it has Russia and 3rd rate countries. Russia's allies wouldn't last 2 seconds in a war against NATO. look at the list of NATO countries. do you think Kyrgyzstan is a significant military power? don't kid yourself. in a war vs NATO and Russia they are pretty much on their own. and they don't have any chance of being able to win.
Actually there has been a few where Russia can beat NATO buff. It all starts in nK. However, I don't think there will be a WW3.
and this too
buff, please try to understand that altough soviet union does not exist now, russia and its allies are still powerful. if you are thinking about NATO then better forget about it. RUSSIA has its own NATO called as CSTO(collective security treaty organisation).
please visit. http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-versus-csto-the-clash-between-competing-military-alliances/28612&ei=PyAIYrV4&lc=en-IN&s=1&m=677&host=www.google.co.in&ts=1460606618&sig=APY536w4hA8o0kqmal5-m2obyd2tfT5fxA
and how does that matter in the slightest? if they use them on us they will all die. whether you have enough weapons to kill all of humanity 10x or 100x makes absolutely no difference. they cannot win a conventional war or a nuclear one. there is no scenario where Russia comes out ahead if they attack NATO. they aren't stupid.
Russia was that country with over 2x the amount of multiple launch rockets. remember that debate I won historybuff?
Let me guess you're resources are based on Globalfirepower.com
They were able to shut coms and electronics down without an EMP and we still don't know how.
Russia? are you kidding? they have a smaller population, crappier military. and virtually no allies. they could launch a nuclear attack. and then they would be obliterated by the retaliation. there is no way they could attack and survive. they may be egotistical imperialists, but they aren't suicidal. there is no one that can take on NATO and live.
Ever hear about the Russian invasion of Georgia buff?
hey buff, Russia has the ability to kill millions of US citizens in a push of a button.
just as the war on terror has lasted for 14 years, WW3 shall and is being implemented in the same manner. WW3 is about advantages, or progression, it's not even about violence, I see it as a war on our minds, our humanistic rights, our freedom of choice, and health. this is a war of control, not power.
of course not. what a rediculous idea. the majority of the world is allied to the US. every other country combined couldn't beat America and it's allies. WW 3 won't happen any time soon.
Yes. Only the prepared will survive.