NationStates Jolt Archive

Who will start? Where will it be?When?


what do you think?


I thinks it will start in the middle east in the next 5 years. It will start when Iran gives nukes to one of isreal's enmies and isreal bombs iran and iran attacks US forces in Iraq, and The US will invade Iran and kim jung il will test fire missiles and one will fall on japan and japan's ally the US will bomb NK missile sites and NK starts shelling Sk and SK and the US invade.

I'll start it. It'll be everywhere. And what I think:
Wwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

...and there will be a draft in the US and massive internal fighting will break out.

Wait a second. Do you mean to tell me that you, as an American citizen, would refuse to serve if a global conflict broke out?

Well, I volunteered for the US military, and I can tell you we don't want a draft. We already learned the results of forcing weak, cowardly, spineless, draft-dodging, unmotivated, unpatriotic pansified dandies into the US military. They don't fight, and they get others killed. And I'd like to see the current nation that can match the US one-on-one if you take nukes out of the equation. China has plenty of troops, but we are decades ahead in technology. Russia is kaput, Europe is mostly militarily harmless whether they know it or not, and the few countries that could pose a significant threat would support the western powers. Also, the single toughest nation in the Middle East will be on our side, and Japan, SK, and US forces would absolutely crush NK. A new World War is unlikely, simply because such a conflict would inherently be one-sided. There isn't enough of an equal distribution of power to allow such a war to occur.



And by the way, in case of a world war, if you refused to serve in your nations armed forces, I fully believe you don't deserve to live there. If you aren't willing to fight FOR your country (I know there are plenty of people living in the US who would side against it) then you can get out. Or, I just really feel bad for you if you do something stupid enough for them to use the Army against you. I guarantee you we won't have any sympathy.

...and there will be a draft in the US and massive internal fighting will break out.
Aaaaaannndd CUT!! That's all she wrote, folks.

World War Three?


I don't think it will happen anytime soon. Wars can't be fought the way they used to be. Massed armor on armor conflicts are unreasonable, as modern airpower could take out an entire armored division in a matter of hours. Trench Warfare is a possibility, if two airpowers are locked in a stalemate since armor is slowly becoming ineffective through both airpower and anti-tank missles. So infantry on infantry engagements in trenches, like WWI or the Iran-Iraq War are a possibility, however thin.


Insurgencies and Guerrilla conflicts are the way of the future. Massed multinational wars are over, though China may become increasingly belligerent over the next few decades.....

Wait a second. Do you mean to tell me that you, as an American citizen, would refuse to serve if a global conflict broke out?

Well, I volunteered for the US military, and I can tell you we don't want a draft. We already learned the results of forcing weak, cowardly, spineless, draft-dodging, unmotivated, unpatriotic pansified dandies into the US military. They don't fight, and they get others killed. And I'd like to see the current nation that can match the US one-on-one if you take nukes out of the equation. China has plenty of troops, but we are decades ahead in technology. Russia is kaput, Europe is mostly militarily harmless whether they know it or not, and the few countries that could pose a significant threat would support the western powers. Also, the single toughest nation in the Middle East will be on our side, and Japan, SK, and US forces would absolutely crush NK. A new World War is unlikely, simply because such a conflict would inherently be one-sided. There isn't enough of an equal distribution of power to allow such a war to occur.



And by the way, in case of a world war, if you refused to serve in your nations armed forces, I fully believe you don't deserve to live there. If you aren't willing to fight FOR your country (I know there are plenty of people living in the US who would side against it) then you can get out. Or, I just really feel bad for you if you do something stupid enough for them to use the Army against you. I guarantee you we won't have any sympathy.
I think you underestimate the effectiveness of technologically inferior armies.

I think you underestimate the effectiveness of technologically inferior armies.
Really? Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world, and we chewed through it in two weeks. I think maybe I know a little more about US military capabilities than you.

Who will start? Where will it be?When?


what do you think?


I thinks it will start in the middle east in the next 5 years. It will start when Iran gives nukes to one of isreal's enmies and isreal bombs iran and iran attacks US forces in Iraq, and The US will invade Iran and kim jung il will test fire missiles and one will fall on japan and japan's ally the US will bomb NK missile sites and NK starts shelling Sk and SK and the US invade.
I agree, except for the iran bit Iran already is an enemy of Israel.
Stupid Israel!

Really? Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world, and we chewed through it in two weeks. I think maybe I know a little more about US military capabilities than you.
Oh, sure, bring size into it. That's one army. One nation. That isn't world war. And there's more to warfare than size.

Really? Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world, and we chewed through it in two weeks. I think maybe I know a little more about US military capabilities than you.
Well actually both times the Iraq's didn't 'actually fight'.
The first time chain of command was cut the second time they didn't even bother.

And by the way, in case of a world war, if you refused to serve in your nations armed forces, I fully believe you don't deserve to live there. If you aren't willing to fight FOR your country (I know there are plenty of people living in the US who would side against it) then you can get out. Or, I just really feel bad for you if you do something stupid enough for them to use the Army against you. I guarantee you we won't have any sympathy.


I strongly disagree with everything you have said, and I am very hardcore on joining the Marine Corps.

However, draft dodgers should be punished, since my grandfather was drafted to go to Vietnam, leave his wife and 5 year old son, and go to that hell hole. He was offered a spot in the Tennessee National Guard, but he refused.

"I decided that I would rather go and do my duty, and get it over with, than spend the rest of my life answering why I didn't go." ---Jimmy Baker, my Grandfather.

Well actually both times the Iraq's didn't 'actually fight'.
The first time chain of command was cut the second time they didn't even bother.



How could they? They had years of combat experiance, but they had no motivation anymore. All those years in the Trenches along Al-Basra kicked the patriotism out of them. 500,000 dead buddies in those trenches didn't help things either.

Oh, sure, bring size into it. That's one army. One nation. That isn't world war. And there's more to warfare than size.
Except for the Soviets!
Stupid bastards.:mad:
Wait a second. Do you mean to tell me that you, as an American citizen, would refuse to serve if a global conflict broke out?
Whom would you be refering to here anyways?

Well actually both times the Iraq's didn't 'actually fight'.
The first time chain of command was cut the second time they didn't even bother.
They didn't have reason to bother. Funny that the insurgents are fighting more than the regulars ever did.:rolleyes:

How could they? They had years of combat experiance, but they had no motivation anymore. All those years in the Trenches along Al-Basra kicked the patriotism out of them. 500,000 dead buddies in those trenches didn't help things either.
I don't really know what you are talking about...

Except for the Soviets!
Stupid bastards.:mad:

Whom would you be refering to here anyways?
And we see how well their human wave techniques worked in '41.:p

SNIP

well I just failed my RMC test and have jumped p and joined infantry air assualt and I feel it my job to tell you that

1) there are going to be moments were you are weak, cowardly, spineless and be a unmotivated, unpatriotic pansified dandie if you don't accept this you may as well not fill out the entry form

2) you don't join an armed service to "fight for your country" you do it for the adventure

3) America is not the superman nation of Earth you have massive commitments across the globe (so we Europeans don't have to bother spending too much on defence) an ignorant to outright hostile look at the outside world and you currently have a debt you will never be able to pay and thus America belongs to those who own your ass (one of them being China)

I hope you change your views soon as I know if you went into the British army preaching your ideas you won’t last 5 minuets and I’m sure the U.S is much the same also I hope you change your views before you make an ass of yourself by doing the stuff U.S troops are pulling in Iraq remember the shit you pull against civilians will hit you or an innocent soldier tenfold

Oh and maybe think about visiting somewhere outside America

They didn't have reason to bother. Funny that the insurgents are fighting more than the regulars ever did.:rolleyes:


Actually, alot of the insurgents are likely the regulars. I've long said that the surrender of the Iraqi Army was a tactic by the Iraqi Commanders to draw the US into a Guerrilla war, the only way they could beat us. In a conventional war, we are unbeatable. In a Guerrilla war, we will never win. Not a chance in hell. I am pissed about this, but its the truth, whether people want to face it or not. YOU CAN'T FIGHT A POPULATION!!! When the population doesn't will it, there can be no conquerer. And I assure you, the Iraqi Commanders studied Vietnam, and knew the American people wouldn'ts stomach the casulties. So, they "surrendered". They kept their men alive. The men formed sleeper cells, and as soon as the war was "over", launched a guerrilla campaign against us. If this is true, which is astronomically high in probability, it is one of the most genious tactics in Military History. And they will win too.

They didn't have reason to bother. Funny that the insurgents are fighting more than the regulars ever did.:rolleyes:
Not really, I've never heard of Saddam telling his troops to push on!
All that was heard was the propoganda!
Dead at the walls of Baghdad etc.

The Republican Guard had much to lose and yet did nothing.
I suspect no orders were prepared.
Not really funny perhaps it is all part of the plan, Hitler toyed with the idea of guerilla fighting in WWII the VC were succesful heck it is proving to be effective in Iraq now, not surprising when Iraq's armour was virtually wiped out in the 1st conflict.
Tight packed streets equal killing zones just ask the dead of Stalingrad.

I don't really know what you are talking about...


The Iran-Iraq War. It was a massed trench war, with a long series of trenches throughout the border between the two nations. Some of the heaviest fighting was along the front lines at Al-Basra, which is one of the larger cities of Iraq in the Southern part of the country. Almost 1,000,000 people died in that war.


Understand now?

Actually, alot of the insurgents are likely the regulars. I've long said that the surrender of the Iraqi Army was a tactic by the Iraqi Commanders to draw the US into a Guerrilla war, the only way they could beat us. In a conventional war, we are unbeatable. In a Guerrilla war, we will never win. Not a chance in hell. I am pissed about this, but its the truth, whether people want to face it or not. YOU CAN'T FIGHT A POPULATION!!! When the population doesn't will it, there can be no conquerer. And I assure you, the Iraqi Commanders studied Vietnam, and knew the American people wouldn'ts stomach the casulties. So, they "surrendered". They kept their men alive. The men formed sleeper cells, and as soon as the war was "over", launched a guerrilla campaign against us. If this is true, which is astronomically high in probability, it is one of the most genious tactics in Military History. And they will win too.
But then they aren't regulars anymore. They're better: insurgents with all the training and equipment of regulars. And I know that's what happened to some extent or another.

And we see how well their human wave techniques worked in '41.:p
Heh 3 men 1 gun, 1 clip of bullets miles of land plenty of time.
Germany not using the Condor. *Sigh*

Oh, sure, bring size into it. That's one army. One nation. That isn't world war. And there's more to warfare than size.
So, two weeks for that military. Think we won't have allies?

Of course we will. And our allies happen to be some of the toughest nations in the world.

*brain overloads from being serious for too long*
I think it's time I found a good thread to hijack. Enjoy the senseless bickering!

The Iran-Iraq War. It was a massed trench war, with a long series of trenches throughout the border between the two nations. Some of the heaviest fighting was along the front lines at Al-Basra, which is one of the larger cities of Iraq in the Southern part of the country. Almost 1,000,000 people died in that war.


Understand now?
Ah yep, i know of that but hopes were relativly high during the Kuwait movements so only after they got smashed in the first Gulf War could it be said they lost motivation not before.

Well actually both times the Iraq's didn't 'actually fight'.
The first time chain of command was cut the second time they didn't even bother.
The second time they just didn't have the equipment, really.

But the point remains. The US military has proven itself eminently capable of immobilizing the armed forces of other countries in recent years.

But then they aren't regulars anymore. They're better: insurgents with all the training and equipment of regulars. And I know that's what happened to some extent or another.


Very true. I meant it as more of them doing what the NVA did. As soon as they were destroyed at the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley, the North's Commanders realized that they couldn't win a stand up fight, just like they couldn't with the French. So they began operating as Guerrillas, instead of a Conventional Army. However, there were times where they did act conventionally, such as The Battle of Hue, Lang Vei, Quang Tri, or Khe Sanh.

Hell, at Lang Vei, they had friggin' tanks!!! Those really surprised the Special Forces A-Teams there, and those Montingard boys. Not alot of people survived it either.

So, two weeks for that military. Think we won't have allies?

Of course we will. And our allies happen to be some of the toughest nations in the world.
Depends on who you talk to about 'allies'.

World War Three will take place when the US attempts to 'liberate' Cuba, somewhere within the next fifty years. Cuba will fall relatively quickly, but will be supported by Venezuela. The US will jump on the chance and go after Venezuela as well, which is the cue for massive warfare in Central and South America. Rather than direct conflict, opposing nations will sponsor local armies against each other. Look for the conflict to engulf most 'Third World' countries.

The second time they just didn't have the equipment, really.

But the point remains. The US military has proven itself eminently capable of immobilizing the armed forces of other countries in recent years.


Sure, but we still can't fight guerrillas. Haven't seemed to incorporate that into our training yet.

So, two weeks for that military. Think we won't have allies?

Of course we will. And our allies happen to be some of the toughest nations in the world.
Oh, fine, one last thing: allegiances change.

I strongly disagree with everything you have said, and I am very hardcore on joining the Marine Corps.

However, draft dodgers should be punished, since my grandfather was drafted to go to Vietnam, leave his wife and 5 year old son, and go to that hell hole. He was offered a spot in the Tennessee National Guard, but he refused.

"I decided that I would rather go and do my duty, and get it over with, than spend the rest of my life answering why I didn't go." ---Jimmy Baker, my Grandfather.
I know a guy named Jimmy Baker, lives in Pawleys Island.

And once you join the Corps, you'll probably feel very different. Don't mistake intent and zeal for experience. It changes your perceptions sizeably. However, I'd like to know exactly what you were disagreeing with.

Whom would you be refering to here anyways?
Rhetorical question, can be changed to fit any nation if you like.

The second time they just didn't have the equipment, really.

But the point remains. The US military has proven itself eminently capable of immobilizing the armed forces of other countries in recent years.
Exactly they didn't have forces to use most/much of their equipment was left burning on the battlefield or taken and destroryed afterwards.
Somewhat so, it depends on the task and on who has control.

I know a guy named Jimmy Baker, lives in Pawleys Island.

And once you join the Corps, you'll probably feel very different. Don't mistake intent and zeal for experience. It changes your perceptions sizeably. However, I'd like to know exactly what you were disagreeing with.


My Grandfather lives in Florida :)


Anyway, I think I read your post wrong, so ignore my post. ;)

World War Three will take place when the US attempts to 'liberate' Cuba, somewhere within the next fifty years. Cuba will fall relatively quickly, but will be supported by Venezuela. The US will jump on the chance and go after Venezuela as well, which is the cue for massive warfare in Central and South America. Rather than direct conflict, opposing nations will sponsor local armies against each other. Look for the conflict to engulf most 'Third World' countries.
:D I think you may be right!

Rhetorical question, can be changed to fit any nation if you like.
Well the first two posters were Yanks and the third was a Canuck, the first gave that implication the second said he would and the 3rd ain't exactly gonna fight for America.

WW III wil start in 3...2...1...

well I just failed my RMC test and have jumped p and joined infantry air assualt and I feel it my job to tell you that

1) there are going to be moments were you are weak, cowardly, spineless and be a unmotivated, unpatriotic pansified dandie if you don't accept this you may as well not fill out the entry form

2) you don't join an armed service to "fight for your country" you do it for the adventure

3) America is not the superman nation of Earth you have massive commitments across the globe (so we Europeans don't have to bother spending too much on defence) an ignorant to outright hostile look at the outside world and you currently have a debt you will never be able to pay and thus America belongs to those who own your ass (one of them being China)

I hope you change your views soon as I know if you went into the British army preaching your ideas you won’t last 5 minuets and I’m sure the U.S is much the same also I hope you change your views before you make an ass of yourself by doing the stuff U.S troops are pulling in Iraq remember the shit you pull against civilians will hit you or an innocent soldier tenfold

Oh and maybe think about visiting somewhere outside America


I actually AM in the military, and have been for quite some time. Therefore, I am well aware of what I am talking about. Don't presume anything until you know facts.

Now, you will be scared. However, facing that fear and continuing on is part of being a soldier. Not running away. If you can't get THAT through your head, then YOU shouldn't join. I'm already in. Worry about yourself.

I didn't join for the adventure. I joined specifically to fight. But there are a plethora of reasons for people joining, and you are absolutely wrong to try and oversimplify it. I was referring to the necessary instatement of a draft to defend our country in case of a new World War. Clean out your ears.

Almost every nation on this planet owes the US money, just as we owe them money. That's part of the world economy. Apparently you didn't know that. And we most certainly are a "Superman" nation militarily.




Remember one thing. I have experience, I've been in for a while, and I know what I'm talking about. And th rest of that last paragraph makes the assumption that I would commit war crimes, so I'll ignore it as ridiculous, insulting, and plain ignorant. In short, you ought to know your subject.

:D I think you may be right!

*Shrug* I don't see any major direct conflict between two first world conflict happening any time soon. MAD, anyone?

I highly doubt there will ever be a World War Three, or at least not in the near future, assuming the Russian economy stays as is, and there are no Revolutions (Lots of discontent there. When i went, I saw the seeds of revolution). China perhaps if it becomes more belliegerent. But otherwise, can't think of a scenario.

Depends on who you talk to about 'allies'.
Ibn the event of a World War between Iran, its allies, North Korea, China (perhaps) and their allies, with the US, UK, and Israel on the other side, and global terrorism striking out across the world, who do you think would end up siding with us?

Sure, but we still can't fight guerrillas. Haven't seemed to incorporate that into our training yet.
Actually, room-to-room warfare is now taught in basic-training.



However, in the event of a global conflict, occupation would not be the goal. In other words, the US Army wouldn't have to babysit, and we are absolutely deadly at what we are meant to do: be a highly mobile, high-tech, offensive weapon. If we were allowed to operate as we are meant to, insurgents wouldn;t be a problem, because we wouldn;t be sitting ducks. Insurgents have failed miserably at attacking convoys except in the cases where IEDs were laid on the route, and if we routinely swept roads llike we need to, and avoided using the same routes, we could avoid IEDs.

Oh, fine, one last thing: allegiances change.
And its easy to assume the worst.

Exactly they didn't have forces to use most/much of their equipment was left burning on the battlefield or taken and destroryed afterwards.
Somewhat so, it depends on the task and on who has control.
But that is mainly a reflection on US tactics. Our mobile forces are specifically intended to behead and cut off enemy units from support lines and command HQs.

And they had plenty of troops. What they didn't have was ammunition, just so you know. And thats not unusual. You would be surprised how many developed nations are completely unprepared for a major conflict.

My Grandfather lives in Florida :)


Anyway, I think I read your post wrong, so ignore my post. ;)
KK

And enjoy "the SUCK", by the way. I did my AIT with Marines at Fort Sill, OK. They envied us.

Well the first two posters were Yanks and the third was a Canuck, the first gave that implication the second said he would and the 3rd ain't exactly gonna fight for America.
Right, but the third said that a draft in America would cause infighting. <My post was partly to state that such fighting A) would be unlikely, and B) wouldn't last long if it did occur, as the military would remain loyal. Assuming it was a global conflict, all military personnel would see the threat to the nation and would most definitely back it at thew time.

*Shrug* I don't see any major direct conflict between two first world conflict happening any time soon. MAD, anyone?
I staTED in my first post I thought the idea unlikely.

I have a feeling that if there was a serious World War III, it would end very quickly with the utter carpet bombing of the Middle East. I'm not advocating this, but that would just be the way it would be. Seems a bit like suicide by world police.

Ibn the event of a World War between Iran, its allies, North Korea, China (perhaps) and their allies, with the US, UK, and Israel on the other side, and global terrorism striking out across the world, who do you think would end up siding with us?
It would depend on the context or reasons for war, i imagine New Zealand would fight solely in the Asia Pacific Region unlike in the previous World Wars, which would suit me fine, Australia, Singapore for sure, Portugal, Spain, Indonesia would most likely be on the other side. Japan would be pro USA/UK.

Eventually there would have to be a US Draft i imagine the Puerto Ricans wouldn't like that and South America would help them...

Communist Africa would be pro China most of the rest of Africa would be divided onto either side.

Thats how i could see a World War.
But for it to be a World wide World War there would have to be some pretty deep motives.
That or it would be similiar to the 30 years war, where nations fought other nations in defacto alliances but weren't all with a common enemy.

I highly doubt there will ever be a World War Three, or at least not in the near future, assuming the Russian economy stays as is, and there are no Revolutions (Lots of discontent there. When i went, I saw the seeds of revolution). China perhaps if it becomes more belliegerent. But otherwise, can't think of a scenario.

If China gets their oil, they will be. The only thing they need is fuel to (dare I say it?) FUEL (:D ) themselves... then they may become worse than Russia ever was... Plus, if they get Japan and Taiwan, no more cheap junk for Americans. (good news for the illegals...:D )

Now, you will be scared. However, facing that fear and continuing on is part of being a soldier. Not running away. If you can't get THAT through your head, then YOU shouldn't join. I'm already in. Worry about yourself.

Ask any soldier with combat experience if at times they have just coward in fear I can assure you the numbers will be almost 100% I’d love to say that every time I would fight but I know I won’t even had a long talk with my recruiter about this your not a killing machine and no matter how hard and long you train you will always be flesh and blood get this bullshit out your head before you start calling deserters traitors and such it will do you some good

I didn't join for the adventure. I joined specifically to fight

Absolutely no way you would of got in had you put that under reasons to join and I suggest you leave and get help

Almost every nation on this planet owes the US money, just as we owe them money. That's part of the world economy. Apparently you didn't know that. And we most certainly are a "Superman" nation militarily.

I want some numbers on how much almost every nation on the planet owes you and no your not superman militarily either you’ve proved this by the U.S tactic of driving through a village every now and again as a way of patrol

Remember one thing. I have experience, I've been in for a while, and I know what I'm talking about.

Okay at this point I’m going to need proof because I refuse to believe even an American soldier would carry on thinking this what’s your regiment and do you have any photos you‘d like to share?(might be different for the U.S)

But that is mainly a reflection on US tactics. Our mobile forces are specifically intended to behead and cut off enemy units from support lines and command HQs.

And they had plenty of troops. What they didn't have was ammunition, just so you know. And thats not unusual. You would be surprised how many developed nations are completely unprepared for a major conflict.
Yep that is true and it makes sense.

Only 2 nations are really somewhat ready logistics wise for a total war, America and China the later has no real reach though.

I know New Zealand has no real stocks of ammunition, not that we have heavy weapons anyways...
le sigh

Right, but the third said that a draft in America would cause infighting. <My post was partly to state that such fighting A) would be unlikely, and B) wouldn't last long if it did occur, as the military would remain loyal. Assuming it was a global conflict, all military personnel would see the threat to the nation and would most definitely back it at thew time.
Yeah, Bush's popularity was up to and at about and above 80% when the Iraq War started and depending on the situation 'Patriotism' could be up that high again plus there could very easily be a new President by the time of a World War.

I find it to be a problem with multi ethnic nations though, especially with newish immigrants and their lack of conformity.

Kellogg-Braid pact might be considered certain parts of the world owing the USA money.

It would depend on the context or reasons for war, i imagine New Zealand would fight solely in the Asia Pacific Region unlike in the previous World Wars, which would suit me fine, Australia, Singapore for sure, Portugal, Spain, Indonesia would most likely be on the other side. Japan would be pro USA/UK.

Eventually there would have to be a US Draft i imagine the Puerto Ricans wouldn't like that and South America would help them...

Communist Africa would be pro China most of the rest of Africa would be divided onto either side.

Thats how i could see a World War.
But for it to be a World wide World War there would have to be some pretty deep motives.
That or it would be similiar to the 30 years war, where nations fought other nations in defacto alliances but weren't all with a common enemy.
Agreed, and I also doubt it would truly be a golbal conflict. In any case, I don't see it as a very likely event.

1. Ask any soldier with combat experience if at times they have just coward in fear I can assure you the numbers will be almost 100% I’d love to say that every time I would fight but I know I won’t even had a long talk with my recruiter about this your not a killing machine and no matter how hard and long you train you will always be flesh and blood get this bullshit out your head before you start calling deserters traitors and such it will do you some good

2. Absolutely no way you would of got in had you put that under reasons to join and I suggest you leave and get help

3. I want some numbers on how much almost every nation on the planet owes you and no your not superman militarily either you’ve proved this by the U.S tactic of driving through a village every now and again as a way of patrol

4. Okay at this point I’m going to need proof because I refuse to believe even an American soldier would carry on thinking this what’s your regiment and do you have any photos you‘d like to share?(might be different for the U.S)
1. Sure, any soldier... How about my entire unit? Based out of Andrews, South Carolina, (I am in the National Guard now), just returned from active duty in Iraq north of Baghdad, serving as Military Police, mainly convoy escorts, returned in September last year from a year and a half. Formerly I was attached to the 218th out of Newberry, SC. Thats US Army, by the way. I was light infantry then. Now I'm with the 1/178th FA Rear.

2. You do not know what you are talking about, and now you are displaying your ignorance by telling an experienced service member how he should think.

3. I'm not doing all that research, its not worth it.

4. Already gave you info, and if you don't believe me, then tough shit. Easy tactic for someone like yourself, when faced with an individual who has far more experience than yourself, to try and undermine their position. Suffice it to say, I know what Iraq is like, and you don't. I know what the military is like, and you don't. If you have never made it a lifestyle, then you have insufficient experience to preach to me.

Yeah, Bush's popularity was up to and at about and above 80% when the Iraq War started and depending on the situation 'Patriotism' could be up that high again plus there could very easily be a new President by the time of a World War.

I find it to be a problem with multi ethnic nations though, especially with newish immigrants and their lack of conformity.
I can agree with this. Something to remember, however, is that loyalty to your military is many times stronger than your loyalty to your country, even though this is not how it is supposed to be. Assuming the US military stays loyal to our gov't, you could probably count on service members to remain loyal, although I will say this is not guaranteed.

The US prevents a World War, since it is the only superstate...

Thus, only 2 things could cause WWIII:

Either

A) The fall of US

or

B) The rise of another big nation (China or Arabia, probably)

WWIII A would be guerilla (:mp5:) forces fighting each other. It would be very long and with a high death toll, sending us into a second Dark Age (:eek: )

WWIII B would be aerospatial. With the invention of the MOAB, bombing is more lethal than ever. Plus with laser tech replacing missiles as AA, mirror planes would be resistant to AA (cuz light reflects off of mirrors). The disaster with this: nuclear winters caused by korea nuking US and everyone firing their missiles at each other... there was a link to a hilarious cartoon about this... if anyone has the link, plz post it now.

(If WWIII does not occur before 2100, it may be a war extending beyond Earth, so the term 'World War' might no apply.)

By the way, here (http://www.scguard.com/arng/218infantry.htm) is a link to the 218th web page for the Guard, listing its subordinate units, and you will see mine under 1st Battalion, 178th Field Artillery.

ask any soldier with combat experience

Imagine my surprise when you posed this question to me, as if i didn't have it on my own....


Again, do your research.

World War III will actually begin when Osama Bin Laden and his accomplice through all of these longs years - a nasty fellow named Bobby - sneak into Mr. Bush's bedroom and put his hand into a cup of warm water while he's sleeping.

After that...watch out, civilization! The nukes'll be a-droppin'! :gundge:

But that is mainly a reflection on US tactics. Our mobile forces are specifically intended to behead and cut off enemy units from support lines and command HQs.

And they had plenty of troops. What they didn't have was ammunition, just so you know. And thats not unusual. You would be surprised how many developed nations are completely unprepared for a major conflict.



We use the Blitzkrieg Doctrine, which is very good in its place, however absolutely ineffective on a modern battlefield.


And I'm still strongly considering 101st Air Assault as well, but if I go Army, I want to be a Ranger officer.

I'm going to apply to West Point and Annapolis.

1. Sure, any soldier... How about my entire unit? Based out of Andrews, South Carolina, (I am in the National Guard now), just returned from active duty in Iraq north of Baghdad, serving as Military Police, mainly convoy escorts, returned in September last year from a year and a half. Formerly I was attached to the 218th out of Newberry, SC. Thats US Army, by the way. I was light infantry then. Now I'm with the 1/178th FA Rear.

Well go ahead ask them maybe you’ve never heard of shellshock

2. You do not know what you are talking about, and now you are displaying your ignorance by telling an experienced service member how he should think.

Go ahead tell your commanding officer you joined with the specific intention to kill I wonder how quickly you will end up on the couch with a psychologist

3. I'm not doing all that research, its not worth it.

Your arguments aren’t worth a thing unless you back up with sources

Like so: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/07/14/cnusa14.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2006/07/14/ixcity.html

If you have never made it a lifestyle, then you have insufficient experience to preach to me.

I may have failed training but I know what the military is like I failed to pass the training on one of them most elite forces “99.9% need not apply” actually does mean something

We use the Blitzkrieg Doctrine, which is very good in its place, however absolutely ineffective on a modern battlefield.


And I'm still strongly considering 101st Air Assault as well, but if I go Army, I want to be a Ranger officer.

I'm going to apply to West Point and Annapolis.

Yes, I am an enlisted man, so names, etc. will be lost to me. I can, however, describe them :)

Not West Point, please! Annapolis, sure. Just not WP. You'll never get respect as a combat officer (OK< generalization, but seriously, WP grads are considered paper-pushers)\

If you go Officer, you won't be able to decide what you do. They'll decide where they put you, so you could do everything from Airborne to Intel to training privates.

Well go ahead ask them maybe you’ve never heard of shellshock

Go ahead tell your commanding officer you joined with the specific intention to kill I wonder how quickly you will end up on the couch with a psychologist

Your arguments aren’t worth a thing unless you back up with sources

Like so: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/07/14/cnusa14.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2006/07/14/ixcity.html

I may have failed training but I know what the military is like I failed to pass the training on one of them most elite forces “99.9% need not apply” actually does mean something
1) Shellshock is not the same as ducking out when your country needs you. I was referring to people that refuse to fight, not ones that suffer after combat. Try reading comprehension 101.

2)I never said I joined to kill. I said I joined to fight. You, however, chose to blur that statement. Your problem, not mine.

3) At this point, you have effectively shown that you are uninterested in the facts, and continue to blather on.

4) To even get INTO the training for those "Elite" units, you have to already be in the military. Unless of course you went for Officer? In which case, mate, you still know nothing about combat. NCOs rule the battlefield. And I've never see "99.9% need not apply" before. Even SEALs training is better than that. Regardless, you can't get into military training at that level without already being in the military. Either you are exaggerating or outright lying.

By the way, I am MOS q'd in Light Infantry, Military Police, and Field Artillery, and I already did Airborne, and am waiting until I do my AT at McCrady Training Center to apply for Air Assault. So go ahead and tell me about "elite units." Seeing as how I've done just as much as you failed to do. Don't pretend to be something equating a service member if you're not.

1) Shellshock is not the same as ducking out when your country needs you. I was referring to people that refuse to fight, not ones that suffer after combat. Try reading comprehension 101.

2)I never said I joined to kill. I said I joined to fight. You, however, chose to blur that statement. Your problem, not mine.

3) At this point, you have effectively shown that you are uninterested in the facts, and continue to blather on.

4) To even get INTO the training for those "Elite" units, you have to already be in the military. Unless of course you went for Officer? In which case, mate, you still know nothing about combat. NCOs rule the battlefield. And I've never see "99.9% need not apply" before. Even SEALs training is better than that. Regardless, you can't get into military training at that level without already being in the military. Either you are exaggerating or outright lying.

By the way, I am MOS q'd in Light Infantry, Military Police, and Field Artillery, and I already did Airborne, and am waiting until I do my AT at McCrady Training Center to apply for Air Assault. So go ahead and tell me about "elite units." Seeing as how I've done just as much as you failed to do. Don't pretend to be something equating a service member if you're not.

**Barges into chat. Uses Ferrokinesis to seperate the two**

Break it up, ladies! :D


Seriously, you two are really off topic. If you want to debate, do it elsewhere. **The metal falls. Fades into the shadows...**

o
4) To even get INTO the training for those "Elite" units, you have to already be in the military. Unless of course you went for Officer? In which case, mate, you still know nothing about combat. NCOs rule the battlefield. And I've never see "99.9% need not apply" before. Even SEALs training is better than that. Regardless, you can't get into military training at that level without already being in the military. Either you are exaggerating or outright lying.


http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.4012

your thinking of the SBS and SAS

no the royal marines commando's training is far better than the SEALs to do with the fact that the U.K has a small professional army and that these are the troops that yomped miles on impossible terrain and then going on strait into combat

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.4012

your thinking of the SBS and SAS

no the royal marines commando's training is far better than the SEALs to do with the fact that the U.K has a small professional army and that these are the troops that yomped miles on impossible terrain and then going on strait into combat

**Thunder. A voice looms.**

deep voice: I thought I made it clear that you two should stop arguing... UNLESS YOU LIKE NIGHTMARE WORLDS!!!!! :p

jk, but you two should really stop.

**Barges into chat. Uses Ferrokinesis to seperate the two**

Break it up, ladies! :D


Seriously, you two are really off topic. If you want to debate, do it elsewhere. **The metal falls. Fades into the shadows...**

bah back to topic

I think WWIII won't happen there may be tensions already building up much like before WWI but today there is too much at stake not so much to do with globalisation since the world was far more connected before WWI more to do with the fact that the powers that be are falling (and have been doing so for a long time) and the rising powers are not out to fight any of the current powers

So should WWIII take place it will be against those darn colonists on Mars

bah back to topic

I think WWIII won't happen there may be tensions already building up much like before WWI but today there is too much at stake not so much to do with globalisation since the world was far more connected before WWI more to do with the fact that the powers that be are falling (and have been doing so for a long time) and the rising powers are not out to fight any of the current powers

So should WWIII take place it will be against those darn colonists on Mars

Then it would not be a World War :p

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.4012

your thinking of the SBS and SAS

no the royal marines commando's training is far better than the SEALs to do with the fact that the U.K has a small professional army and that these are the troops that yomped miles on impossible terrain and then going on strait into combat
ROFL!!!!!!

Wow, you are completely insane. You failed to qualify to join the military, and it was only a 2 1/2 day course? That means you are just lame. And there is no 99.9% garbage there. You can join as long as you are 16!!!!!!!!!

Basically, son, you are full of it. You have absolutely no grasp of your own military, and you have SEVERELY exaggerated your own attempts to pass RMC, which sounds EXACTLY like reception and basic training for the US Army. Get a grip on reality.


EDIT: By the way, as far as marching miles on tough terrain and then going into combat, every infantry battalion in the Army can do that, and has. That's nothing more than everyday footwork.

ROFL!!!!!!

Wow, you are completely insane. You failed to qualify to join the military, and it was only a 2 1/2 day course? That means you are just lame. And there is no 99.9% garbage there. You can join as long as you are 16!!!!!!!!!

Basically, son, you are full of it. You have absolutely no grasp of your own military, and you have SEVERELY exaggerated your own attempts to pass RMC, which sounds EXACTLY like reception and basic training for the US Army. Get a grip on reality.

Get back on topic please... you guys are delving into a different topic...

YOU need to get a grip on the idea of "stay on topic or I'll report you."

If you wanna cry about the military, do it somewhere where I can't see it.
No one else is posting, and you are being extremely annoying. We aren't spamming, and we aren't flaming, and I don't appreciate your elitist attitude. Our discussion stemmed precisely from an argument about US capabilities in a World War III environment, and therefore is on topic. So mind your own business.


EDIT: Also, that last post is trolling, and flaming, so I suppose I should do the mature thing and report you, of course.

No one else is posting, and you are being extremely annoying. We aren't spamming, and we aren't flaming, and I don't appreciate your elitist attitude. Our discussion stemmed precisely from an argument about US capabilities in a World War III environment, and therefore is on topic. So mind your own business.


EDIT: Also, that last post is trolling, and flaming, so I suppose I should do the mature thing and report you, of course.

Sorry about the anger in the last post... It is just that this post is about whether WWIII can happen (and what will cause it), not really so much about the military of the US. (It is (sorta), but you guys are off track.)

To show how wrong I was, I changed the post into a non-anger version...

Well, I volunteered for the US military, and I can tell you we don't want a draft. We already learned the results of forcing weak, cowardly, spineless, draft-dodging, unmotivated, unpatriotic pansified dandies into the US military. They don't fight, and they get others killed. And I'd like to see the current nation that can match the US one-on-one if you take nukes out of the equation. China has plenty of troops, but we are decades ahead in technology. Russia is kaput, Europe is mostly militarily harmless whether they know it or not, and the few countries that could pose a significant threat would support the western powers. Also, the single toughest nation in the Middle East will be on our side, and Japan, SK, and US forces would absolutely crush NK. A new World War is unlikely, simply because such a conflict would inherently be one-sided. There isn't enough of an equal distribution of power to allow such a war to occur.

Like Cheney? The Vice President of the United States? :p

Like Cheney? The Vice President of the United States? :p
You are going to laugh, but YES!!!!!!!!!

And there are many more politicians using the service as a prop, that definitely shouldn't be :p

ROFL!!!!!!

Wow, you are completely insane. You failed to qualify to join the military, and it was only a 2 1/2 day course? That means you are just lame. And there is no 99.9% garbage there. You can join as long as you are 16!!!!!!!!!

Basically, son, you are full of it. You have absolutely no grasp of your own military, and you have SEVERELY exaggerated your own attempts to pass RMC, which sounds EXACTLY like reception and basic training for the US Army. Get a grip on reality.


EDIT: By the way, as far as marching miles on tough terrain and then going into combat, every infantry battalion in the Army can do that, and has. That's nothing more than everyday footwork.


The British SAS and SBS are no more elite than the United States Army Special Forces. 1st SFOD is based off of the SAS anyway! I had a buddy in the SBS and supposedly served in the SAS. He told me Selection was tough, but no more difficult than US Special Forces training or 1st SFOD selection.


(1st SFOD is the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachement, or better known as Delta Force)

I can agree with this. Something to remember, however, is that loyalty to your military is many times stronger than your loyalty to your country, even though this is not how it is supposed to be. Assuming the US military stays loyal to our gov't, you could probably count on service members to remain loyal, although I will say this is not guaranteed.
True, but a very large number of Americans maybe 20% were Irish or German and they weren't interested in World War One same thing with World War Two but add Italians.

I know here from Newspaper surveys 80% of people wouldn't fight for their country mind you 50% of those surveyed would be female and it wouldn't really be expected.
Most of that probably has something to do with Generation Y (Me) though.
sigh

Who will start? Where will it be?When?


what do you think?


I thinks it will start in the middle east in the next 5 years. It will start when Iran gives nukes to one of isreal's enmies and isreal bombs iran and iran attacks US forces in Iraq, and The US will invade Iran and kim jung il will test fire missiles and one will fall on japan and japan's ally the US will bomb NK missile sites and NK starts shelling Sk and SK and the US invade.World War 3 is rather unlikely, since you'd need most countries of the world to fight eachother, and they're a bit busy trading with eachother.

World War 3 is rather unlikely, since you'd need most countries of the world to fight eachother, and they're a bit busy trading with eachother.

And you are missing the 'rift'...

There have to be at least 2 powerful sides... now we have 1 powerful side and about 80 million guerillas...

Here is what I think....

Ok Israel is attacked by Iran and Syria.....Then the U.S will be upset and attack along with its allies. Then Iran launches its terrorist cells in the U.S to attack. After Massive ATTACKS the U.S will be on lockdown. Those libbys will be forced to shut their traps and America will finally be United. Iran itself along with syria will be destroyed but the gurilla fighters will still attack. The U.S will did what it did to Germany and clense Iran and Syria and Iraq from Radical Islam. North Korea will start a war with S korea and Japan..The U.S will Only use what it has in Japan and South Korea to attack North Korea. In the end North Korea is gone and S Korea takes over. Latter China will attack the U.S with russia? mybe and their is a whole new war. With China not getting U.S stocks its economy will collapse. The U.S has a better chance to heal as long as it goes back to the 50's and do things themselves and get oil ONLY from the U.S and turn corn into fuel.. Major U.S cities will be devasted but the Middle East will still be trown into Anarchy...Russia will be isolated because its population goes down every year. X-Soviets will rise to power but will be pointless, South Korea,Japan or China will have control of North Korea. Tawian will be gone by then only if the U.S doesnt shield it.. In south america hugo chavez would have attacked the U.S causing and invasion. He would soon be overthrown and a real president will take place... If Cuba were to get involved then demorcay would have prevailed and a capatilzt cuba will be born. With Castro and Raul gone the cubans will be friends with the U.S. I hope then the U.S transforms into a Revolution and the Sick America today will be gone and a 50's style will emerge and the U.S wouldnt be hated. With Israel have destroyed Hezbolla it will still remain but have Killed MASSIVE amounts of people by trying to hit hezbolla targets in crowed populated area's where they were hiding. The UN would have done nothing to help this and only triend to make it worse for the U.S and Israel because it panders to the Radical Islamic Facist... Many nations will rebuild itself and try to make the best out of things....The worst case scenario would have been Israel had been nuked but that would meant the end of the world....

Oh, sure, bring size into it. That's one army. One nation. That isn't world war. And there's more to warfare than size.

Most certainly. When Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War, he listed the numerical size of oppossing armies as the least most important factor in deciding the outcomes of battles.

Most certainly. When Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War, he listed the numerical size of oppossing armies as the least most important factor in deciding the outcomes of battles.

Exactly. Its more the skill of the commanders and the determination of the armies involved.

Exactly. Its more the skill of the commanders and the determination of the armies involved.
But one shouldn't engage in land combat against a well defended position without at least a three to one numerical supperiority.-_-

But one shouldn't engage in land combat against a well defended position without at least a three to one numerical supperiority.-_-

Actually, if it were me? I'd shell the enemy fort into submission with artillery and aerial bombardment, arrange a few tomahawk cruise missles to find their way there, then take the fortress by storming it was an armored charge. That is how you win that battle.