Talk:World War 3
General Joseph Dunford at the US Senate
- WW3 IS OKAY IF IT’S LIBERAL - The Alex Jones Channel
Uses answer to sen. Wikcer question (note in the follow-up that question was misunderstood, the answer clarified, somewhat). See also RT clip, US top brass grilled by Senator Graham on Syria, Kurds and ISIS, all taken from U.S. Senate hearing, National Security Challenges and Ongoing Military Operations Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 --Resup (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Standoff between USSR/Russia and the West started after WW2, and did not lead to a global war despite having local conflicts; their leadership was not, and is not suicidal. -However, technology allows for it.
For IS, final war is an essential part of ideology; its propaganda magazine carries the name of the place in Syria where this final war is supposed to happen. In Iran, some different but apocalyptic version too.
- Christian Bible followers also look forward to end times described in the Book of Revelations (Apocalypse) where a final war occurs before true believers are transported to heaven.
- Jewish Rabbinical tradition requires the return of The Mashiach Messiah to allow construction of the third Temple.
- The Torah prophesies the Mashiach who will be King in the End of Days. This seems to be the basis for the Christian Apocalypse, the Islamic final war, and the Rabbinical Third Temple stories.
- True, but significant differences too. Elsewhere (1) there were reforms and it was agreed that religious words allow interpretation and are not to be taken literally as transcribed millennia ago (2) afterlife is (by far) not the main focus, this life is; and similar for apocalypse (3) milder or non-existent requirements to convert/conquer others (4) there is civilian government and courts setting laws and polices and not following religious prescriptions; those civilian norms are dominating, by far, religious ones; etc. --Resup (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The ongoing proxy conflict between Russia and the West may merge these two trends above together. This is why it is important for Russia and the West to come to common grounds, as there is no ideological difference, 'just' geopolotics, egos, and greed. (Massive disinformation and stupidity, too). --Resup (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Extension of the conflict - Thierry Meyssan, October 10, 2016
- Do not believe presented version. Somebody had set out a clash between Russia and France, who are usually more close than Russia and USA. Putin plans to visit France later in October for some church opening event; his meeting or being scolded by Hollande causing diplomatic troubles and may further isolate Moscow. Could be that France have strong views on Syria too, it is a former colony. But going first to Moscow, than confronting Moscow is strange. Israel is there only as leftists need it to be a boogey man, what on heck French-Russian clash at UN has to do with Israel? Putin has better chemistry with Netanyahu than with any Western boss, Hollande including. Strange anyway. Ukraine jumped on this at once (according to some reports) and now does not want a Normandy meeting in Berlin on the day, after asking for a meeting all along after Crimea incident.
PC Roberts, By Cooperating With Washington On Syria Russia Walked Into A Trap, 24 Oct., 2016 and He Who Hesitates Is Lost—And Russia Hesitated , 24 Sept. 2016. Sometimes, he seems to be in business of making ridiculous claims for their 'shock value'. Based on what he writes, he is clueless about why Russia is in Syria. Whatever he might have read on Saker blog, Russia is not in business of winning a war in Syria. It did not have that objective from the start, and had other reasons, establishing military cooperation with USA one of major considerations in those (rubbing a nose at them another). Russia is not a dictatorship or ideology-driven; and at the start there was nobody in the establishment interested in actual winning (and paying the price of what it takes); it was done for a variety of other reasons. Since the involvement started --planned as quite short one-but it did not work--the objectives evolved; it became transparent and plain what sort of partner USA is, at that time and place, in particular. Cooperation was not fully discarded still, yet the stance considerably toughened. As for the future, it is not set. This is more like geopolitical game than a traditional war (or Hollywood war movie). All that talk of a nuclear war, OK for raising awareness and increasing readership, but the reality is that chances of that, by either Russia or USA, are negligibly low, while there is a large variety of other more realistic threats (of economic and moral bankruptcy, terrorism, and unending regional conflicts sort) --Resup (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Outcome of a regional conflict
* For Russia.
Nevermind the mode, what's the outcome? At present Russian elites are pro -Western (or hedonistic). In case of a serious clash, patriotic opposition will become the patriotic government, while pro-Western opposition will accept it or leave. As a result, an inconvenient partner of the West which Russia still remains to be today will be replaced by a determined and strong-willed opponent. There may be a serious upheaval, loss, and hardship, but Russia becoming pro-Western as a result is not on the cards at all. This is basically creating a strong and determined enemy, in place of a weak friend --Resup (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Another, similar version, a fastened generation change. Current leadership was raised in the USSR, experienced pro-Western influence in its ending days, including humanitarian western values, and materialistic wilder-than-west that followed. New generation of leaders in their formative years experienced sad results of the collapse, and do not have pro-Western or humanitarian romanticism. They are more cut-throat and less reflective than milder Soviet-raised generation, too. Those of them who are pro western are either far removed from political front rows/marginalized if in politics, or have left and have no real political traction. So the same outcome in this version, too. --Resup (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
* For USA.
Unclear, at the moment appears tactical (elections, Mosul), and media driven. Creating bad pre-war-like image of Russia may be actually not preparing public opinion for a small war but rather playing to one of the election campaigns at expense of the other. In reality this is not going to resolve any issue and will make them even more difficult and protracted. Economic collapse of an opponent Russia? That will not occur under war-like pressure, it will mobilize instead; and it is disputable whether economic collapse of a big country is desirable in present state of economy. --Resup (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I YouTube channel called World W. 3 News has been promoting the idea from March 2016 that World War 3 will start on October 8, 2016. What is so special about this date? As of today the timing looks about right: the constantly increasing rate of escalation steps indicates that the event horizon is in October 2016. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. - "Event horizon" in a crisis means that no plans need to be made beyond a certain date. Long term threats can be ignored if some short term threat is likely to make preparing for them irrelevant. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not in my October 8 schedule. Seems to be (evacuating) Saker-type crowd here (if not altogether another IP collection store). I'd have no clue. --Resup (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Linking to record that somebody bothered to count 1260 days from around 12 April, 2014 which is around days of Strelkov arrival to Slavyansk; no reason to be true, and in the realm of free human will, not a 'textology'. --Resup (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
French UNSC resolution vetoed
- See also discussion above of Extension of the conflict - Thierry Meyssan, October 10, 2016 --Resup (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Our respected friend and colleague, the French foreign minister came to Moscow and presented the French resolution. To which our foreign minister said: “We will not vote against it if you take our amendments and considerations on this issue into account. We are deeply involved in this crisis, in these problems; we know the details.” To which his French counterpart said: “Yes, of course, nor do we want to be slapped with this kind of veto.” Our representative to the UN in New York was told the same. Lavrov laid out the Russian position and there is nothing excessive in it.
I can tell you frankly what this was all about. The French resolution blamed the situation entirely on the Syrian authorities and said nothing about the opposition – in this case I am not talking about terrorists – the opposition that should also bear some responsibility, and some tasks should also be put before it. That is my first point.
Second, we stated that we were willing to endorse the initiative of the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy Mr de Mistura regarding the militants’ withdrawal from Aleppo. The French side took a positive view of that. We expected further joint constructive work both with France and with other Security Council members.
So what happened next? The French foreign minister left Moscow for Washington and the following day he and Mr Kerry accused Russia of every sin imaginable; no one talked to us and discussed nothing with us, and they threw this resolution at the Security Council, clearly expecting our veto. Why?
Not for the resolution to be adopted – they submitted it knowing our position and without even discussing our proposals with us – but for it to be vetoed. Why? To escalate the situation and unleash anti-Russian hysteria in the controlled media, in fact deceiving their people and their citizens. I am referring now not only to France but also to many European countries and the United States. To all appearances, this is especially valuable in the context of an election campaign.
I do not know whether or not this meets the interests of European countries, but serving the foreign policy interests and maybe even domestic policy interests of its allies, in this case the United States – is that the role that should be played by serious politics and serious countries that claim an independent foreign policy and the status of great powers? I am not sure about that.
Extreme space weather?
- Obama wants a plan in place for "extreme space weather" - Newsweek, October 14, 2016
- Executive order warns massive solar flares can significantly disrupt critical infrastructure on Earth.
Is Obama preparing for limited nuclear war?
In analyzing Russian action to Western provocations I have noticed that the Russian response is always de-escalatory. Russia will respond to any and every Western provocation but in a measured way. Something must be done in retaliation, but in a way that does not escalate the global crisis further.
I am afraid that Pentagon's strategic planners have now formed a game theoretical model of Putin: For every American nuke Russia will respond with half a nuke. Such a strategy fails to provide the same deterrence as MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction.
An unconfirmed rumor claims: "Forces at home in the US have been ordered to prepare for one-for-one intercontinental ballistic missile exchange(s) with Russia once the fighting breaks out in Syria!"
On Thursday October 13th President Obama gave an Executive Order to prepare the nation for "space weather events.
Why now? The solar cycle is nearing its nadir and the next storms are not expected for 9 years.
On Friday, October 14th the National Security Council meet to plan attacks against Syria. Is the timing just a coincidence?
If a nuclear exchange is limited to single blasts, then the most devastating effects to modern society may come from nuclear electromagnetic pulses. Nuclear weapons can also be used as pure EMP weapons if detonated high in the atmosphere.
Preparing and protecting against sun storms or "geomagnetic disturbances" and will also protect against nuclear electromagnetic pulses. Is the executive order actually preparation for EMP weapons or even a limited nuclear war?
- Talking about measured responses, did you catch what Putin said about Biden's direct threat of a super mean, super covert cyberattack? "Now at least they admit these things ... this is outside of normal diplomatic relations ... it ain't even funny anymore". It ain't even funny anymore! Pure mockery, from the podium at the BRICS meeting in India. Remember when I told you on the eve of the awaited attack on Syria over the Ghouta thing that it won't happen (I tried to find it but failed)? Chill Petri, 99% of "Western" propaganda is at this point just fear-mongering to keep the own population in check - welcome to the multipolar world (this text is worth to be translated into English (and Russian)). --CE (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- From technical perspective, there is non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse bomb, which can devastate circuits, and is more likely to be used if things get out of the way than nuclear. Using nuclear is essentially suicidal while this is not. Whether it was about this threat, or genuinely weather, hard to be sure; they do plenty of strange things, not always for very practical reasons. Big flares are of random nature and still can happen even in low (average) activity. (And in case of nuclear war, having circuits and Ipads might be not the very top priority) --Resup (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
"Air war between Russia and the US in Syria"
Comment to Here's how an air war between Russia and the US in Syria would go down - Alex Lockie, Business Insider, June 23, 2017
- Russia did not say it will 'target' coalition planes. What was said (robo) translates to:
- In the areas (west of Euphrates, Syria) where Russian aviation performs combat missions in the sky of Syria, any air objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the international coalition, discovered west of the Euphrates River, will be received for tracking by Russian ground and air defense air defense as air targets (so tracked, not 'targeted', with no obligation to shoot down, or, in fact, not too).
- It is obvious to all that Russian air group in Syria is greatly outgunned by the coalition, which has numerous ground bases all around the region as well as several air carriers group available. It was said many times in Russian sources (a dozen or so times by Strelkov alone). In a hypothetical air combat limited to just Syria , the Russian air group will not last long. However, this is immaterial and the whole talk is empty 'nonscience' fiction. There is no reason for such conflict, if started, to be conducted just in Syria, and no guarantee it will be limited to non-nuclear weapons. Any weakness in conventional weapons in fact creates danger of non-conventional response. Nobody would want to risk giving it a try and see what will transpire, because it will not be limited to a few servicemen, but will eliminate the elites, with the fullest possible write-down and zero in profits. So, those elites will emit some propaganda gas pretending this is about to happen, hoping to steer things in a desirable direction, but will not allow it to actually happen. In fact, encounters between the militaries occur daily for nearly 70 years, and certain etiquette is established and followed; whether outgunned or not, nobody is actually shooting, behaving pretty courteously instead --for a good reason
In fact, the announcement appears to have little/limited effect. On 23 June, coalition had 1 strike on Palmyra, I think clearly 'west of Euphrates'; and on Abu Kamal, Ash Shaddadi, both right on Euphrates river. (Although safety protocol is announced to be suspended, probably actual communication line stays available for use of militaries, anyway) --Resup (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)