WWIII Scenario

[Kuzmich]

Oh so you not an american, still you probably live in US, that is even worse, you have betrayed whatever country you are from, still you are as dumb as an american so basically you are an american, now go stand against a wall and keep quiet.
YOU ARE PWNED.

This is starting to get retarded, if you are as smart as you think then lets stop this kindergarden, alright? We are both adults here pointing finger shouldn't be our way.

 

[DB]

Originally posted by Otmorozok
Oh so you not an american, still you probably live in US, that is even worse, you have betrayed whatever country you are from, still you are as dumb as an american so basically you are an american, now go stand against a wall and keep quiet.
YOU ARE PWNED.

This is starting to get retarded, if you are as smart as you think then lets stop this kindergarden, alright?

Still wrong.

We might as well end this. I need to go to sleep.

 

[Pale_Horse]

Their is always ideas in the army, most get thrown out due to funding or just sheer lack of technology. Read my last post, and trust me when I say war as it has been in the past has changed. We as people US, UK, whatever, have not a clue who we are fighting because they all look like you or I. Terrorists sign up mostly because they feel something against religion, a countries way of life, or even just because they want to have a purpose in life. Their are thousands of terrorists all over the world in many different cultures, religions, and backgrounds of life. How do you fight them all. You can't, their will always be a loopwhole somewhere in the defenses. Their will never be a truely safe nation ever.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

I'm going to go through most of this thread, I hope half way down the AS isn't too much of a bump =(. I am sort of half way writing up a ww3 theory I will post it when I am up to the task of finishing that thing.

France, and England

Why do you say France and England?, they don't really have many nukes.

it the ice caps ever melted there would be a war and im positive China would be on its own side

Russian and Chinese ties are increasing, "Although the summit meeting between Russia and the United States this past week provided few if any answers about a continued peace between the two nations, relations between China and Russia are moving ahead at gripping speed." http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/8/200001

Well if you are asking a free for all, it would most likely America. We have the force to defend at home while still being able to attack outside.

There is very little chance it would be a free for all, yeah America is strong but other countries can hold there own and attack, mainly because they are smaller and have less ground to cover, but America is quite large so it would have a harder time than say, the UK.

Russia's military is in disarray.

right......... why do so many people believe this, just because they are weaker than they were during the cold war you assume that they are weak and their military is so unorganised.

The British might not have large numbers either, but their military has been producing extremely well-trained troops in recent years.

WTF!!! In recent years? Huh? Here is one incident in WW2 (SAS)
"Near Auxerre, with two men, Captain Derrick Harrison stormed into a village square crowded with SS men,
Interrupting the execution of 20 hostages. His Vickers machine gun jammed; his driver dead, he escaped leaving 60 enemy bodies in
the smouldering wreckage of their vehicles."

Another one
"The SAS operated in Europe as well; in one operation (codenamed Houndsmith), 144 men were parachuted with jeeps and supplies into an area close to Dijon, France. All told, the SAS inflicted 7,733 German casualties in Europe. 4,784 prisoners were captured and 700 vehicles were destroyed or captured. 164 railways were cut, seven trains were destroyed and thirty-three were derailed. The SAS was also used to "mop up" German war criminals. They hunted down head SS and Gestapo agents and brought them before the War Crimes Tribune."

There was an event that 104 British soldiers took on 4,000 Zulu warriors and forced them to retreat http://www.camelotintl.com/heritage/battles/rorkes.html

Even further back was the new model army.
The Brits has had one of the best or the best Armies throughout quite a large portion of history (not just recently).

If it were to save lives, like what America did to Japan, they would, I'm sure of it...Unless they're heartless bastards

Just to save American lives, Japanese civilians aren't considered as 'lives'.

Russia wouldnt really be a threat if we were fighting them (we as in the US) and im sure the US and their allies would win basically because we are the strongest nation in the world.

Doesn't matter, Russia is a threat to ANY country, no matter how strong.

And i dont really like that one source because its a biased news site.

Almost every website is biased that is not a viable argument.

Yes, let's all state our own weaknesses and faults! That way some random country can come in and exploit them and kick our ass.

It never gave specifics of the weakness’ of the fighters.

Also, the USA if it was in war with Russia, no help or anything, USA would win, hands down.

That maybe true but you don't really know why, you haven't given reasons like Otto.

I don't understand what you just said in the slightest...

Ever heard of friendly fire? America has quite a bad rep for that.

If English isn't complex, then why the hell are you struggling to even make sense?

You dolt, that is the most stupid argument I have seen you come out with. That is his 2nd or 3rd language, and it isn't bad, you try speaking Russian without any mistakes.

Too smart for me. I'm fluent in two languages as well and I don't suck at spelling, like you.

Decided to use spell checker for the sake of this argument huh? What is your second language huh? I don't see you using it to make it more convenient for other people to understand you.

PWNED GG NO RE

And he's dumb? I am really amazed that your couple of line spammish arguments about who is dumber has escaped a spelling error.

 

[vanilla_ice_cream]

First of all, it doesn't matter how advanced your army is or how superior it is, on second thought it does, but leadership plays a major part. If you have a moron commanding your armies, how do you plan to win? Against the Austrians, Napoleon was heavily outnumbered but his leadership and startegies were far superior so he ended up defeating them. If you don't believe me, let's take another example, World War 2. A lot of people think it was America's superior weaponary and military was the reason we won WW2. Uh no, you've been reading your high school/college history books for too long. Everybody knows how biased and pro-American they are. Why did the allies win WW2? Because Hitler was a moron who knew nothing about the military. He stopped taking advice from his generals after the invasion of France and started giving his own commands and then got pwned. He built a very powerful military he didn't know how to use. He was a political genius, but he had no experience in commanding a military. He fought in WW1 but fighting in a war and commanding an army are too different things. I could easily go into things Hitler could have done to win the war that aren't mentioned in your US history textbooks but that's not the point. Germany had the most powerful military in WW2. Period. The United States weaponary was inferior to Germany's. Because you know, our greaseguns stood-up to the German STG44. And our 30-cals rivaled the Mg-42. Hahhahahahahaha yeah right. So that brings up my earlier point, just because you have a more powerful military doesn't mean you will automatically win. And if you don't think history textbooks aren't biased, in one history book I read, it didn't even mention the Tet offensive in the "vietnam war" section. Many even call that the turning point in the vietnam war, in favor of the North Vietnamese obviously. And speaking of which, if we were to get into WW3, everyone would end up using nukes anyways, but if ground troops were used, startegies start becoming important. In Dick Cheney's speech criticizing Kerry, he says "Kerry wants to fight a more sensitive war...Eisenhower and Macarthur didn't fight a sensitive war..." Uh no, MacArthur fougth an effective war, something the United States isn't doing considering that we're still in Iraq. MacArthur pushed Japan back to its mainland, Macarthur pushed back the North Koreans by strategically landing at Inchon. Our generals in Vietnam got pwned and failed to push the North out of the South and we're not doing much better in Iraq right now too. Our generals in recent history don't compare to MacArthur. So in short, having a more advanced and powerful army isn't everything. If you have bad leadership, you will lose, and with George W. Bush as the president of the United States of America, well......

But as I said before, it doesn't matter because WW3 would involve Nukes. But if Ground Troops were used, and by looking at what's happening in Iraq, I think us Americans are going to find that we won't pwn everyone as badly as you may think.

 

[mega_monsta]

I think the vietnam war proves this fact full stop, take the diffrence between the m14 and the ak47 one jams when wet and or dusty, the other could be taken pretty much anywhere and it would still work, may be less advanced but what one would you prefer to take into the jungle, but none of thise really matters because someone will just say something like nukes pwn vietnam or some shit like that

 

[Kuzmich]

[glow=red]About WW2 and Hitler, US was winning battles in Europe because millions of Russians were dying on the eastern front. If not for Russia D-day wouldn't be possible. Hitler lost the war because he wasn't fighting one on one, he was fighting on two fronts, that alone was a great tactical disadvantage for him. He is not a very good example of a bad leadership, at least not the way you describe it. Its more a matter of morale then leadership, for example Russian soldiers didn't have good comanders, yet they pushed and pushed and pushed, sometimes without ammo, dying in hundreds but they still went on, against German machine guns, they ran at them, and they won, they took Berlin cause they knew that motherland is most important, not their own lives but motherland, thats what kept their morale up and thats why Russians won the WW2, saving everyone from the Germans. [/glow]

 

[Sogeking]

russia was winning battles because germany wasn able to knock out the western front. Either way you look at it, the allies needed eachother. If the germans had defeated UK like they should have, they would have brought hundreds of war planes down on Russia. Also note that the africa campaign would have likely been succesful for the allies if UK had pulled out of the war, which means that Germany would have ez access to oil and other materials needed for its warmachine.

But, like you say, if russia wasnt almost literally throwing rocks at the germans millions of times, the west front would have been finnished.

And you have to give the people that decoded the Uboat codes. If that wasnt decoded, the atlantic would be controlled by the germans.

Oh btw, if the US had backed off of japan, dont you think the japannese woudl have attacked the russians?

Amazing job tho, i dont know any dictatorship that would have done better in ww2.
(whoops, replace russians with soviets)

 

[Kuzmich]

[glow=red]Japs did attack russia, they sent one of their armies and it was defeated, also we liberated China from the Japanese, at the end of a war Russia was already a world super power Japs wouldn't stand a chance, and we didn't thow rocks, we did significant damage to their army (like wiping out 60% of their tanks and 80% of their army, thats not rock throwing).But i see your point if there would be no allies to help us then winning the war would cost many more lives to Russia, although is you opened western front a couple of years earlier then looses in that war would be much less for the Russians although much bigger for you (compared to what you did actually loose not to what Russia lost).[/glow]

 

[Sogeking]

Originally posted by Kuzmich
[glow=red]Japs did attack russia, they sent one of their armies and it was defeated, also we liberated China from the Japanese, at the end of a war Russia was already a world super power Japs wouldn't stand a chance, and we didn't thow rocks, we did significant damage to their army (like wiping out 60% of their tanks and 80% of their army, thats not rock throwing).[/glow]

yes, you 'liberated' china....you mean forced to communism and inevitably causing the great leap which killed millions of chinese? good job.

Japan wasnt really interested as much in russian IMO tho

Yes, you destroyed a lot of german tanks and army because its pretty hard to

1) fight in winter with improper materials

2) fight 2 fronts

3) not kill the germans with all the shit the other allied nations sent you.

why dont you just agree that without the help of the other allies russia wouldnt stand a chance?

 

[mega_monsta]

I really wish you guys would STFU about how u all think russia sucks balls it may not be as advanced but who cares, your acting like a bunch of children, my country can beat Russia, who gives a flying ****, if america starts a war with anyone, the americas will be pumped full of fear and will run around like , OMFG!!!!!11111 where all gonna die of being bombed, Terrorists are everywhere, now dont get me wrong is that terror in the hearts of the american people? but wait tv caused this.. anyway back to my point about russia, STFU all of you its doing my head in, ffs chill and think, why do i really care if my country is better than someone elses, really thats pathetic

P.S OMFG !!!!!!!!!11Wales pns england, britaaan Pwnage the world!!11111111111

 

[BlueCheeseKilla]

If we had another world war and bush was president we'd probably accidentaly blow ourselves up :-/

 

[mega_monsta]

Originally posted by BlueCheeseKilla
If we had another world war and bush was president we'd probably accidentaly blow ourselves up :-/

Dont need to he already let them attack 2 buildings

 

[Sogeking]

im not saying that US is beter than russia, im saying that russia isnt all powerful and its on the same level as the rest of the superpowers, maybe a bit lower depending o who you ask.

 

[mega_monsta]

oh and how was the tour of there wepons facilitys and millitery bases, oh **** i forgot, you probbably dont even know **** all about how powerfull they are

 

[vanilla_ice_cream]

Originally posted by Kuzmich
[glow=red]About WW2 and Hitler, US was winning battles in Europe because millions of Russians were dying on the eastern front. If not for Russia D-day wouldn't be possible. Hitler lost the war because he wasn't fighting one on one, he was fighting on two fronts, that alone was a great tactical disadvantage for him. He is not a very good example of a bad leadership, at least not the way you describe it. Its more a matter of morale then leadership, for example Russian soldiers didn't have good comanders, yet they pushed and pushed and pushed, sometimes without ammo, dying in hundreds but they still went on, against German machine guns, they ran at them, and they won, they took Berlin cause they knew that motherland is most important, not their own lives but motherland, thats what kept their morale up and thats why Russians won the WW2, saving everyone from the Germans. [/glow]

I could point out PLENTY of things that Hitler could have done to win the war. Uh no, Russia won because Hitler screwed up. Hitler was a horrible military commander. Period. Oh, and most people who lived in Russia at the time hated Stalin and there were evn reports of some Russian city dwellers giving flowers to German Soldiers who invaded Russia. Some of them were eager to help the Germans fight the Russains but they were sent to the Western front instead. A lot of the soldiers who defended the beach at D-Day didn't even speak German, but were soldiers from all of these other countries, including Russia. I'll give you one example out of the many where Hitler screws up.


During D-Day, Hitler also contributed to the success of the allied invasion. Erin Rommel and another general whose name I don't remember were given the task of defending France. But both had two differing strategies. Rommel wanted to concentrate the defenses on the beach front to prevent the allies from getting a foothold on the beach. The other general wanted to mass Panzer divisons and troops behind the beach until they figured out exactly where the Enemy landed and would proceed to push the enemy back as soon as they figured out where they were. Now since there were disagreements, they took the argument to Hitler and had him decide. And guess what Hitler does. He says some randomn BS and doesn't pick either one of the strategies. So by the time D-Day came, the Germans had no clear-cut plan for defending against the allies. Historians have argued the merits of both startegies but the fact is that Hitler didn't pick either of the startegies and didn't provide an alternate startegy of his own. And another example where Hitler screwed up aagin during the D-Day invasion. There were 2 elite Panzer Divisions stationed in Paris while D-Day was happening. A lot of people said that they would have done nothing because of the Allied Airforce, but there was a fog that morning and the Airforce would have been ineffective in stopping the Panzer divisions. While D-Day was happening, one of the top German Generals ordered the 2 elite Panzer Divisons from Paris to the town of Caen, which happened to be the center of all communications for the defense. Taking out Caen would mean that the Germans would have had no effective forms of communication so any form of organized defense would collapse. Lol but then again Hitler makes another mistake, because he was so paranoid of all of his generals after the assasination attempt, the SS did not allow the divisons to be moved, which was a major blow to the German Defense. By the time Hitler woke up, he had a childhood habit of sleeping until noon, it was already too late and the beach had been succesfully invaded. Perhaps if he had waken up on time or not idiotically leave the military in the hands of the SS, the outcome of D-Day could have been different. Not to mention all the soldiers defending the beach were incompetent and Hitler sent all of his newly trained troops to die useless in the Eatern Front. The list goes on and on, Hitler screwed up and helped the allies win the war. I could also point out many things Hitler could have done to succesfully defeat Russia.

"fighting a war on two fronts" is the only thing most people know about when saying Hitler screwed up. fighting int he winter would not have been a problem if Hitler had even attaked the right targets during the war, but thank god he didn't. And the reason why Germany lost in Africa was because Hitler took troops away from Africa and put them in the Eastern front, he didn't even strategically use them. I've seen only ONE history book mention that. All history books, when talking about WW2 are pro-allies and all history books are also pro-American when talking about wars, especially Vietnam. If you want more proof that History books are biased, think about this, look at how American books talk up the American Revolution and let's compare how the British talk about the American Revolution. I think it would be quite different.

And Geroge Bush would screw America over if he was in charge of WW3. He would probably accidently nuke America. The reason why people still vote for Bush is because of poor-campaigning by Kerry and the fact that the media in general is pro-Bush. And Americans these days believe everything the media tells them.

 

[Sogeking]

Originally posted by vanilla_ice_cream

If you want more proof that History books are biased, think about this, look at how American books talk up the American Revolution and let's compare how the British talk about the American Revolution. I think it would be quite different.

i agree the (school)history books are quite biased. Maybe overeggagerate. The british probably saw what the US did durring the revolution as more of a terrorist action(hit and run tactics, tea in the harbor, etc.) But dont you think that the brits were a little too tax happy? they could have just lowered the taxes on teh colonies and im sure they would get more support vs napoleon and france.

 

[Kuzmich]

Originally posted by vanilla_ice_cream
I could point out PLENTY of things that Hitler could have done to win the war. Uh no, Russia won because Hitler screwed up. Hitler was a horrible military commander. Period. Oh, and most people who lived in Russia at the time hated Stalin and there were evn reports of some Russian city dwellers giving flowers to German Soldiers who invaded Russia. Some of them were eager to help the Germans fight the Russains but they were sent to the Western front instead. A lot of the soldiers who defended the beach at D-Day didn't even speak German, but were soldiers from all of these other countries, including Russia. I'll give you one example out of the many where Hitler screws up.


During D-Day, Hitler also contributed to the success of the allied invasion. Erin Rommel and another general whose name I don't remember were given the task of defending France. But both had two differing strategies. Rommel wanted to concentrate the defenses on the beach front to prevent the allies from getting a foothold on the beach. The other general wanted to mass Panzer divisons and troops behind the beach until they figured out exactly where the Enemy landed and would proceed to push the enemy back as soon as they figured out where they were. Now since there were disagreements, they took the argument to Hitler and had him decide. And guess what Hitler does. He says some randomn BS and doesn't pick either one of the strategies. So by the time D-Day came, the Germans had no clear-cut plan for defending against the allies. Historians have argued the merits of both startegies but the fact is that Hitler didn't pick either of the startegies and didn't provide an alternate startegy of his own. And another example where Hitler screwed up aagin during the D-Day invasion. There were 2 elite Panzer Divisions stationed in Paris while D-Day was happening. A lot of people said that they would have done nothing because of the Allied Airforce, but there was a fog that morning and the Airforce would have been ineffective in stopping the Panzer divisions. While D-Day was happening, one of the top German Generals ordered the 2 elite Panzer Divisons from Paris to the town of Caen, which happened to be the center of all communications for the defense. Taking out Caen would mean that the Germans would have had no effective forms of communication so any form of organized defense would collapse. Lol but then again Hitler makes another mistake, because he was so paranoid of all of his generals after the assasination attempt, the SS did not allow the divisons to be moved, which was a major blow to the German Defense. By the time Hitler woke up, he had a childhood habit of sleeping until noon, it was already too late and the beach had been succesfully invaded. Perhaps if he had waken up on time or not idiotically leave the military in the hands of the SS, the outcome of D-Day could have been different. Not to mention all the soldiers defending the beach were incompetent and Hitler sent all of his newly trained troops to die useless in the Eatern Front. The list goes on and on, Hitler screwed up and helped the allies win the war. I could also point out many things Hitler could have done to succesfully defeat Russia.

"fighting a war on two fronts" is the only thing most people know about when saying Hitler screwed up. fighting int he winter would not have been a problem if Hitler had even attaked the right targets during the war, but thank god he didn't. And the reason why Germany lost in Africa was because Hitler took troops away from Africa and put them in the Eastern front, he didn't even strategically use them. I've seen only ONE history book mention that. All history books, when talking about WW2 are pro-allies and all history books are also pro-American when talking about wars, especially Vietnam. If you want more proof that History books are biased, think about this, look at how American books talk up the American Revolution and let's compare how the British talk about the American Revolution. I think it would be quite different.

And Geroge Bush would screw America over if he was in charge of WW3. He would probably accidently nuke America. The reason why people still vote for Bush is because of poor-campaigning by Kerry and the fact that the media in general is pro-Bush. And Americans these days believe everything the media tells them.

[glow=red]You are wrong there is no period. Russians loved Stalin (not saying that i don't hate him) he made enough propaganda to make people believe that he was a God. People who were sent by him in gulags were writing letters to Stalin thinking that there have been a mistake that some ovre high ranking official sent them to prison, they loved Stalin until the end. Also Germans could never have beaten us. 20 million Russians died in WW2, but how many remained to live? Atleast 200 million all are as much of soldiers as those who died were. We would eventually overrun them, even German soldiers agreed that Russians never give up. Hitler did make some crusial mistakes, like breaking non agreesion pact with USSR, if he waited and first concentrated all his forces on Britain and Africa then he would take both, and USSR wouldn't move a finger cause those countries were our ideological enemies. About history books being biased you are totaly correct, i remember then i lived in US and learned World History it said in the book, "500000 German troops died from cold and Moscow was saved" that is rediculus if 500000 people could just die from cold then it would be impossible for annyone to live there, that just pissed me off.[/glow]

 

[Sogeking]

Originally posted by Kuzmich
[glow=red]. About history books being biased you are totaly correct, i remember then i lived in US and learned World History it said in the book, "500000 German troops died from cold and Moscow was saved" that is rediculus if 500000 people could just die from cold then it would be impossible for annyone to live there, that just pissed me off.[/glow]

you must be misinformed or something, i dont think there were even 500k germans fighting the eastern front, its possible, but not all of them were deep in russia. The russian winter was deadly for the germans because they were pretty much wearing cloth clothes and cloth blankets(if you were lucky). So, next winter, go and live outside with half a blanket, only cloth clothing, and mostly cold food. tell me how the winter is like.

Ok, just agree that the east and west fronts were both important fronts.

 

[Kuzmich]

[glow=red]You kidding me? There were more then 3 million German soldiers on the eastern front, 80% of all the troops germany had.Once again i realize that american educational system is dramatically flawed. How many germans didn you think were on the eastern front?500k troops were near Moscow but were driven back by Russian counter attacks, red army killed 3 million german soldiers in WW2, and not all of the German army on the eastern front was wiped out millions more were captured, so German army on the eastern front was atleast 5 million probably more.[/glow]