WWlll
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2017, 06:25 AM
WWlll
What will it look like?

Is there really a point in putting all that money into outdated methods of war?

What should we invest in to prevent cyber war? Chemical warfare? Poisoning of food supplies? Or?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 06:52 AM
RE: WWlll
Invest in to? Probably nothing, because any world war would end humanity for good. Cyber security can't hurt in any case, but everything else is just sitting back and watching the show unfold until the mushroom clouds and fallout put an end to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 07:29 AM
RE: WWlll
Reason I am thinking about this is that trump wants to invest all the money he takes from the poor into war ships and nuclear weapons.

I really don't think that is going to be helpful should the shit really hit the fan...

If nukes fly - we have more than enough to destroy everyone.

But I just don't think that would be the way it would go down - I think our defense budget needs to focus on very different things in this day and age.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 07:30 AM
RE: WWlll
(26-03-2017 06:52 AM)abaris Wrote:  Invest in to? Probably nothing, because any world war would end humanity for good. Cyber security can't hurt in any case, but everything else is just sitting back and watching the show unfold until the mushroom clouds and fallout put an end to it.

Traditional war (if there ever was such a thing) is a thing of the past. Iraq is an example of one of the last ground large scale ground warfare battles we will see in our lifetime. Assuming Russia doesn't do anything stupid then we are fighting extremist that are willing to commit suicide in the name of their god and there is very little that we can do to stop those types of actions from happening. An attack like we saw on 911 will most likely never happen again as the scale of that action was extremely large an intricate. We will most likely see smaller scale incidents such as the Paris, London, Boston, etc... bombings.

Taking Russia, North Korea, and maybe even China out of the equation we are basically in a war of fundamentalism. And any time fundamentalism is involved then it will be very hard to stop. Since I work on the only fully staffed Hazardous Materials unit in our state we work with the FBI quite often. The reality of a large scale event happening on our soil is relatively remote. The ingredients to make any type of nuclear device is out of the hands but of a very few countries that already possess the ability to create nuclear devices. People often hear of "dirty bombs" but in reality those are just bombs that may have radioactive material inside but do not contain material to create a nuclear explosion. The blast radius would be relatively small and the material ejected would not be sufficient enough for fallout.

The three types of radiation are:

Alpha: They are high energy but due to their large mass are stopped by a few inches of air or a piece of paper.

Beta: Fast moving electrons that are able to penetrate further, through several feet of air, or several millimeters of plastic or very light metals

Gamma: The worst form of radiation. Gamma radiation are photons (just like light) and depending on their energy can pass through several inches to feet of concrete, or lead.

This is where time, distance, and shielding take place.

So in reality if we are talking about WWIII, it will not be the conventional war such as WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, or Iraq for that matter. It will be much more isolated unless Russia, North Korea, or China decide to get involved.

I get to decide what my life looks like, not the other way around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RearViewMirror's post
26-03-2017, 07:38 AM
RE: WWlll
(26-03-2017 07:29 AM)Dom Wrote:  Reason I am thinking about this is that trump wants to invest all the money he takes from the poor into war ships and nuclear weapons.

I really don't think that is going to be helpful should the shit really hit the fan...

If nukes fly - we have more than enough to destroy everyone.

But I just don't think that would be the way it would go down - I think our defense budget needs to focus on very different things in this day and age.

I agree with this. I do support a strong military presence but only to an extent. Our military is a "deterrent" to attack. Even though in my opinion we actually did attack a country that didn't attack us with Iraq with no escape plan. The military is not intended to be an occupying force. If military force is needed then the job is to go in and eliminate the threat and leave. If a country poses enough of a threat to the US or one of our allies then we take care of that threat.

That said... Our military is strong and the defence budget needs to be there. But to what extent we need to spend on the military and the issues that actually need to be repaired in our home country need to be balanced in a way that both can be taken care of simultaneously.

I get to decide what my life looks like, not the other way around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RearViewMirror's post
26-03-2017, 07:50 AM
RE: WWlll
(26-03-2017 06:25 AM)Dom Wrote:  What will it look like?

Is there really a point in putting all that money into outdated methods of war?

What should we invest in to prevent cyber war? Chemical warfare? Poisoning of food supplies? Or?

A very good idea of what it would be like is a BBC docudrama from the 1980's called Threads it is considered to be the best and most accurate film on the subject, certainly way better than the American equivalent " the day after" I think its available
free on youtube.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 07:53 AM
RE: WWlll
(26-03-2017 07:29 AM)Dom Wrote:  Reason I am thinking about this is that trump wants to invest all the money he takes from the poor into war ships and nuclear weapons.

Like everything else he does it's window dressing and showmanship. Well, it's not as if the US wouldn't burn money for it's military. Probably a sufficient amount to abolish poverty once and for all in the States. But apart from Eisenhower in his farewell speech, noone even adressed that.

WWIII would be the same as it has been since I was a child in the Cold war. Lots of nukes flying and the survivors envying the dead.

Cyber security is the one and only thing making sense, since it can save our asses in everything that isn't a full blown war. Such as our power plants, hospitals, air traffic and several other issues.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2017, 07:54 AM
RE: WWlll
(26-03-2017 07:38 AM)RearViewMirror Wrote:  
(26-03-2017 07:29 AM)Dom Wrote:  Reason I am thinking about this is that trump wants to invest all the money he takes from the poor into war ships and nuclear weapons.

I really don't think that is going to be helpful should the shit really hit the fan...

If nukes fly - we have more than enough to destroy everyone.

But I just don't think that would be the way it would go down - I think our defense budget needs to focus on very different things in this day and age.

I agree with this. I do support a strong military presence but only to an extent. Our military is a "deterrent" to attack. Even though in my opinion we actually did attack a country that didn't attack us with Iraq with no escape plan. The military is not intended to be an occupying force. If military force is needed then the job is to go in and eliminate the threat and leave. If a country poses enough of a threat to the US or one of our allies then we take care of that threat.

That said... Our military is strong and the defence budget needs to be there. But to what extent we need to spend on the military and the issues that actually need to be repaired in our home country need to be balanced in a way that both can be taken care of simultaneously.

I agree completely with this.

I think what happens is that politicians get a lot of milage from beating the war drums. Local politicians who have either armed force bases or industrial production industry in their precincts love it when the gov says, “we need more of everything!”

Very few stop to really analyze what this means. Yes the war industrial complex employs many but is that a reason to feed the machine? At what point do we say enough is enough, now we just maintain a modern army capable of defense instead of full out offense? For decades the plan was to be able to fight all out conventional wars on two fronts. I think this stemmed from what we did in WWII.

At the moment about 50% of all discretionary spending in the Congressional budget is for the military.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
26-03-2017, 07:55 AM
RE: WWlll
Conventional ground fighting is still quite relevant, but in numerous, isolated pockets rather than a small number of tangible front lines.

What we need is to trim the numbers of moderately trained ground pounders and increase the number of highly trained operators capable of rapid deployments to hot spots.

I believe military leverage and the willingness to use it is a necessity. I also believe we could cut costs and increase our strength with more efficient resource management.

Erik Prince, love him or hate him, wrote a book called "Civilian Warriors" that, though focused on private military contractors, hits the nail on the head in its last couple chapters in regards to the extreme level of waste inherent in military spending.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
26-03-2017, 08:02 AM
RE: WWlll
What are the things that fundamentally weaken the US at this point ?
It's not a lack of military resources. We already spend more than the next 7 countries, combined. Ramped up military spending is a fool's simplistic answer to a complex set of problems.

Economic power concentrated in the hands of a very few, at the top.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/opinio....html?_r=0

A culture that does not value education.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/201...ety-doesnt

Opioid and other drug abuse. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/201...ety-doesnt

"Making America great again" is never going to be accomplished by sloganeering fools.

The world may now be too connected to have another massive boarder to boarder land war (?) ... whatever the next violent conflict will be, it won't be the one the generals expect. "Generals are always fighting the last war".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: