Israel declares war on Hamas

[Cylon357]

Or, here’s another thought. We happen to badly lose WW3. The winners determine, well heck Mexicans kinda owned the western and south western states prior, let’s give those back to them. The indigenous population (natives), how about the remainder of the western states up to the Mississippi River. Now, for the Africa Americans; well you get a few of the slave owning states. The rest of you that previously lived there - gtf out, you ain’t welcome.

Now, additionally, they have the $ and military backing by us, the winners and will subsequently build their own military. Oh, and btw, those 3 groups are perfectly free to build settlements and communities in “your” territories and you sure as shit better not object or interfere.

Yeah, kind of like that.

The idea of chopping up the US and handing it off to any other nation is a Bad Idea. Vietnam, Afghanistan and probably a host of other conflicts have illustrated that simply being "better armed and better trained" does NOT equal victory.

Every other nation on the planet, when they do their war games, has to take into account that there are more firearms in private hands in the United States than there are people. That is without foreign suppliers or any outside assistance.

And...

Nobody wins WW3. The notion of a winner in that scenario is a fallacy. This is what prevents it from happening.

This is not one of those philosophical debates, this is simple fact. No global super power will lose a third global conflict WITHOUT using every option available, including nuclear.

Ozzy said it best

[stocky121]

The idea of chopping up the US and handing it off to any other nation is a Bad Idea. Vietnam, Afghanistan and probably a host of other conflicts have illustrated that simply being "better armed and better trained" does NOT equal victory.

Every other nation on the planet, when they do their war games, has to take into account that there are more firearms in private hands in the United States than there are people. That is without foreign suppliers or any outside assistance.

And...

Nobody wins WW3. The notion of a winner in that scenario is a fallacy. This is what prevents it from happening.

This is not one of those philosophical debates, this is simple fact. No global super power will lose a third global conflict WITHOUT using every option available, including nuclear.

Ozzy said it best

The triple alliance and triple entante were supposed to be pacts to stop ww1 from happening.
The League of Nations was supposed to stop ww2 from happening. Are we not just destined to continually have war with each other?

Hypothetically speaking ww1 fighting ended with an armistice agreement it’s possible ww3 might end the same,if only conventional weapons are used.

[Cylon357]

The triple alliance and triple entante were supposed to be pacts to stop ww1 from happening.
The League of Nations was supposed to stop ww2 from happening. Are we not just destined to continually have war with each other?

Hypothetically speaking ww1 fighting ended with an armistice agreement it’s possible ww3 might end the same,if only conventional weapons are used.

The problem is that before Russia, China or the USA bend the knee in a true global conflict, they will absolutely deploy nuclear weapons. That will not be on a limited scale UNLESS something unforseen occurs.

Like, unless the US can get an undetected submarine close enough to Beijing to launch a few low altitude nuclear missiles OR maybe China develops hypersonic stealth nukes OR Russia sends China a "Trojan case of vodka", then there is no first strike advantage.

In other words, we end up with a large scale nuclear conflict.

And the living will envy the dead.

Bummer on a Tuesday morning, I know lol

War is hell. That doesn't mean that it can or should always be avoided. But the notion that any of the big 3 are going to go quietly, that's just not supported by history or logic.

[wango]

The idea of chopping up the US and handing it off to any other nation is a Bad Idea. Vietnam, Afghanistan and probably a host of other conflicts have illustrated that simply being "better armed and better trained" does NOT equal victory.

Every other nation on the planet, when they do their war games, has to take into account that there are more firearms in private hands in the United States than there are people. That is without foreign suppliers or any outside assistance.

And...

Nobody wins WW3. The notion of a winner in that scenario is a fallacy. This is what prevents it from happening.

This is not one of those philosophical debates, this is simple fact. No global super power will lose a third global conflict WITHOUT using every option available, including nuclear.

Ozzy said it best

You missed my point and misinterpreted my post.

[Cylon357]

You missed my point and misinterpreted my post.

That's what happens when I browse in the morning...

[wango]

That's what happens when I browse in the morning...

Lmao! Yup, gotta let the coffee kick in. Sorry if I was too short, mine wasn’t quite there yet.

[XnavyHMCS]

That's what happens when I browse in the morning...

.357, I miss the point all the time; don't feel bad, you are not alone.