International Is it possible to have WW3 without the use of nuclear weapons/bombs?

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

I mean the aftermath of using Nuclear bombs or weapons not only it totally destroys cities with millions of people. But it's what happens after the bomb has exploded. That can cause a nuclear winter if enough nukes are used.

Which therefore potentially can kill billions of people. So it's pretty much hell on earth.

So I thought is it possible if there is a WW3 that they stick to small strategic fighting and fighting house to house guerilla warfare styles. Instead blowing up a whole city?

Here's a very good video about what happens in a nuclear war.

 

[squeezewax]

WWIII has already started.

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

WWIII has already started.

So you think Nukes will be used?

 

[SammyPops]

Pakistan has stated they would use nukes in a war against India.
Russia said it would use tactical nukes.
Israel ....


So yeah WW3 would get nuclear depending on who was in it.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Doubt it. People at the top are a lot more reasonable than people think.
What we'll get is endless proxy conflicts in shitholes of the world where people will die by the millions because a few leaders from a handful of countries have to have dick measuring contests and violence is the only measure of the world.

 

[Goatenstein]

I think North Korea would use them right away even if the start of the war doesn't involve them at all, the US would retaliate, after that China and Russia would have to decide whether to start a full on nuclear holocaust or just let NK burn.

 

[Lucas1980]

I think North Korea would use them right away even if the start of the war doesn't involve them at all, the US would retaliate, after that China and Russia would have to decide whether to start a full on nuclear holocaust or just let NK burn.

Yeah Kim Jung Poon will go nuclear right out the gate for sure

 

[Cole train]

Only if someone can make money off it

 

[The_Renaissance]

I think North Korea would use them right away even if the start of the war doesn't involve them at all, the US would retaliate, after that China and Russia would have to decide whether to start a full on nuclear holocaust or just let NK burn.

it would be the latter, and it wouldn't even be a discussion.

 

[Lord_Impaler]

Some psychopath at Raytheon would make that judgement by looking at the profit margins.

 

[milliniar]

If you have sensible people in control of the nukes, it is plausible to not be used, there are examples in history of this.
That being said wildcards like North Korea make it likely.

 

[Kassitus]

For decades most military R&D has gone into missile defense systems. You can't just nuke stuff anymore. Also WW3 won't happen because there are no more global empires. The closest we will get are regional wars where majors powers each pick a side to prop up.

 

[The XL]

The point of nukes is to prevent from being conquered. If a side is losing a fight on their homeland, nukes will be used.

 

[USA!USA!]

There can be a world war 3. But it won't be fought in countries that have nukes.

They could still fight each other - but not in their own turf.

A nuke would not be used in this case. There would be no need to nuke if the war is in another land. Whoever launches one knows that they are destroying the world. Neither side would want that.

 

[jx820]

It depends who's in power and who is under them.

It's not a given. No one wants to be the party responsible for a global nuclear conflict, and no one wants to live in the world that would leave behind. So everyone is pretty highly motivated not to go first.

On the other hand, just one leader who lacks the understanding of why we don't use them could be catastrophic and if that leader's yes men are less sycophantic and more ideological loyalists... we're in a lot of trouble.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I mean, the US invented flexible yield precision guided warheads, which are now being produced elsewhere. So, yeah it will be a real and legitimate issue. People need to think beyond the Megaton and more into the fractional kilotons that have limited radioactive fall out.

The nuclear arms race has become way less about size and damage to precision and reducing destruction and destructive aftermath; but that just makes them more likely to be used

 

[fedoriswar37]

Yes until they use Nukes. It will always be the end result of major conflict going forward. It's unfortunate but I couldn't imagine anybody getting backed into a corner and not doing it.

If Putins options are lose a war and have it be known forever or completely annihilate civilization on the way out what do you think his little egos going to do?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I think k so but with the caveat that nuclear armed nations aren't completely defeated and maintain their territorial integrity. Once a nation or autocrat feels they are doomed then the odds they'll use nuclear weapons will increase.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Yes until they use Nukes. It will always be the end result of major conflict going forward. It's unfortunate but I couldn't imagine anybody getting backed into a corner and not doing it.

If Putins options are lose a war and have it be known forever or completely annihilate civilization on the way out what do you think his little egos going to do?

What if you just destroy his army and ability to wage war but allow him to be the big fish in his little pond?

 

[Siver!]

I think a small 'tactical' nuclear warhead will be used, but I doubt anyone goes full Hiroshima on a major city.