Posts from World War III: what are your predictions? Auto-translated

How likely do you think it is that World War III will begin in the next 10 years?
FYI:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA_%28%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%29
It's quite impressive...

I can only hope that there won't be a war anytime soon... Or rather, that there won't be one at all... Currently, the situation in the world is relatively stable, but all these issues with the deployment of American missile defense systems in Europe... According to some analysts, this could be the beginning of a new Cold War in the next few years if the situation isn't resolved. Also, there are elections in America this fall, if I'm not mistaken, and a new president might pursue a different policy, especially considering that the US is a presidential republic. I'd estimate the probability at 0-20%.

The "carriers" section in the provided link is impressive:

[edit] Carriers (as of 2008)
31 Los Angeles-class submarines, up to 12 cruise missiles each;
4 Ohio-class submarines, 154 cruise missiles each;[16]
3 Seawolf-class submarines, up to 50 cruise missiles each;
3 Virginia-class submarines, up to 12 cruise missiles each;
British Astute-class attack submarine (2007, the first of four in this class), displacement 7200/7800 tons, service life ~30 years, 6 torpedo tubes, 38 cruise missiles;
52 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in service, and another 10 are being built at shipyards in Norfolk and San Diego, armed with 92 cruise missiles each[17][18];
27 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers, in the standard version – 26 cruise missiles each;
starting in 2009, new DD-series destroyers are being launched with 156 missiles each[17]

and

A distinctive feature of cruise missiles is their high effectiveness as a "preemptive strike" weapon: 1 cruise missile = 1 ICBM (several nuclear warheads), with a cost ratio of 1 to 14, and low effectiveness as a retaliatory weapon: 10 cruise missiles = 1 laser-guided bomb.

Well, never mind – it's hard to believe this, of course...

P.S.: Regarding stability – this is a very debatable statement, IMHO...

IMHO, it's unlikely... and why would the USA attack us? Land, resources? Hmm... it's much easier to destroy and undermine a country from within, given its current state... ;)

Added 2 minutes later
P.S.: I initially read the topic title as "World War III: your suggestions":D

War is unnecessary. I don't want suffering and death, I don't want hatred and evil. Think about it: if World War III starts, our generation will go to war. Our boys will go. Our girls will go. Those we know and love. We will go. And there is no guarantee that anyone will return alive. And what about those who remain behind? How will they feel, trembling as they wait for news from the front? Remember how many people died in all the wars. Now, even more will die, because modern weapons are designed for brutal mass killings. We don't need to fight. In my opinion, we need to seek compromises and avoid war, which brings only suffering to everyone. Knowing that my words won't change anything, I estimate the probability of World War III starting in 2023 at 20-50%... because humanity is already on the brink. But I don't believe in war, I don't believe in its possibility. I only believe in good... and I hope that good will come true... I can't, I don't want to believe in bad... Call it a survival instinct...

Yeah... no one wants war) There are already so many problems in the world... diseases, environmental issues, and much more... why do we need another war? =).. All people are brothers and should live in peace! )))

If war is inevitable, I hope the consequences will be like in Fallout, and we'll survive... at least there will be a story to tell ;D

P.S. Nazg: O... everything is clear about you)))

Yeah... My signature turned out to be very relevant :) We don't need Fallout or those ridiculous, satirical predictions of Baba Vanga coming true :) It's better to leave things as they are today. By the way, there's an opinion that the huge nuclear potential of Russia and the USA is (or was?) a deterrent against a third world war...

War is inevitable; there's no doubt about it. And most likely, the United States will start it. And most likely, it will be against its main geopolitical enemy – Russia. As long as we exist, the United States cannot be the leading power and hegemon of the planet. So, war will happen – and it won't initially unfold in our favor. We need scientists, scientists! And a powerful counterintelligence service! That's when we'll be able to win.

Tomahawk missiles are certainly impressive. But you can't win with just bombings. You can bomb as much as you want, but infantry always wins.

P.S.: Nazg, get to work, or rather, AWAKEN our main weapon! And I'll start creating the OCHR (presumably an acronym).

0-20%
Putin, Medvedev, and Bush's team (it's hard to say about Bush himself) are not idiots. The amount of nuclear weapons that we and the United States possess is enough to cause a nuclear catastrophe on Earth. In fact, nuclear weapons largely serve as a deterrent factor against World War III.

For some reason, I was told that it would happen in 2014-2015, and that it would involve China. I don't want to believe it, but one of my acquaintances said that his geography teacher predicted it. And his geography teacher is always right! I didn't argue to avoid getting punched, but I don't believe that there will be a war.

If we believe that infantry is the key during wartime, then... China has an army of 200 million people. That's more than the entire population of our country. We shouldn't forget that China is a rapidly developing state. But on the other hand, China is focused on an unspoken alliance with Russia to counter NATO and the USA. So, a war with China is unlikely – they would harm themselves more than anything else. As they say, we'll see...

As I mentioned in one of the threads, the third world war will most likely be bloodless, meaning that one of the sides in the war will be China, and the rest will be in opposition to it. This will most likely manifest simply in the resettlement of Chinese people to the territories of other states. This is what America is currently fruitlessly fighting against, and we are already embroiled in this struggle and are unlikely to win it. China is a nation that does not assimilate into any society but imposes its own rules and laws. Moreover, dissenters or those who interfere with them are eliminated without hesitation. Great Mao said that if we lose a million people a day in the war, we will not be defeated for at least two years. So, guys, my humble opinion is that we have warmed a very poisonous snake on our chest; if we remember history, many will understand what I mean by Khan'ingol and so on.

It is not necessary to blame only one state for the possible beginning of the war – the war was called a WORLD war because half the world participated in it, and at least half of this half is directly responsible for the war, and absolutely all participants are indirectly responsible.

Siver, you seem to have mixed up the numbers. The People's Liberation Army of China has approximately 2.5 million soldiers.

If I'm not mistaken (which is quite possible), 200 million represents recruits specifically for a full-scale war. White Wolf, I doubt that China will simply dictate terms to the whole world, because then America and Russia will use their red buttons. Most likely, they will try to counter the unipolarity led by the USA with a trio in the form of China-Russia-India (whose combined population is one-third of the world's population) and thus create a new side, similar to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact.