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

[freakroor]

If WW3 is fought with nukes then WW3 won't last very long.

What's most profitable for the military-industrial complex is a long, drawn-out conflict, not cities being wiped off the map instantaneously

 

[Mike]

Depends. My fear is one side gets superior missile defense tech and says fuck it and launches immediately figuring they'll take less damage.

 

[Siver!]

If WW3 is fought with nukes then WW3 won't last very long.

What's most profitable for the military-industrial complex is a long, drawn-out conflict, not cities being wiped off the map instantaneously

Nukes were used at the end of a looooooong WW2 that damaged economies massively.

They're not going to used at the start of a WW3, obviously, but I might begin to worry if it was a prolonged 5+ year war of attrition.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

the way i see it nukes are a deterrent to war.

 

[Thrawn33]

Depends. My fear is one side gets superior missile defense tech and says fuck it and launches immediately figuring they'll take less damage.

That's a hell of a gamble to take on something that's never been real world tested.

 

[Mike]

That's a hell of a gamble to take on something that's never been real world tested.

It's a high stakes game. I imagine this is the kind of thing they'd run thousands of simulations on and think yeah it'll probably work. I always find it interesting that so many people say there will never be a world leader or government "crazy" enough to do it. That doesn't match my understanding of human nature at all.

 

[HARRISON_3]

Whoever wins…

We lose

 

[moreorless87]

Depends. My fear is one side gets superior missile defense tech and says fuck it and launches immediately figuring they'll take less damage.

In that respect I think the US and Russia maybe the most likely to launch a mass strike, the former especially is arguably the only one who might believe they can eliminate an enemies ability to strike back.

For that to happen I suspect you would need to see it threatened significantly, something like say China getting a strong miltiary foothold in Mexico although I suspect you would get a conventional invasion long before that happened.

 

[Mike]

In that respect I think the US and Russia maybe the most likely to launch a mass strike, the former especially is arguably the only one who might believe they can eliminate an enemies ability to strike back.

For that to happen I suspect you would need to see it threatened significantly, something like say China getting a strong miltiary foothold in Mexico although I suspect you would get a conventional invasion long before that happened.

If it does happen it's going to be us with the preemptive strike 100%. We have the wealth and tech to try to rush production on something like that. The Russians don't. And I don't think our government is above it at all if the stakes were high enough. This is actually something I've been thinking about for years tbh.

 

[moreorless87]

As mentioned though I suspect something which is called "WW3" might end up more as a series of proxy conflicts, something more akin to the Severn Years War some of which you could argue might already have started.

Wars in Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Georgia, etc maybe the Chinese trying to take Taiwan or move into South East Asia, maybe the US into Venezuela?

 

[Dalarna3]

Nukes would probably be used right away

 

[LeonardoBjj]

- I hope so. Using nuclear weapons, let says Putin starts using, her is a bilionaire, and living in a bunker is out of equation, theres no point in living isolated if the vast marjority of the mankind dies anyway. Who is gon na provide him and his family his luxuous lifestyle?

The same qwith Kim. I doubt he would sacrifice his life os playing Playstation and eating like a obese pig.

 

[DanSavage]

 

[icemun]

WWIII has already started.

wut?

 

[Hog-train]

IMO mutually destroyed destruction deterrence works.