#1
This is inspired by the Georgia/Russia thread, but not really related.

While there have been wars fought recently with super powers (USA, Russia just to name 2), all these wars have been fought against smaller countries which really had no way of defending themselves and are considered 1st world countries, but dont have the infrastructure or full development that the world super powers have. In today's world, what do you think would happen if two or more super powers ended up in a war? Where would it be fought? Would there be full scale wars in cities in NA? Battles on the country sides in Europe? Do you think nukes would begin to fly?

Discuss.
1996 Fender American Telecaster
Schecter Omen 6
VOX AC-15
Alvarez PF2005
1985 PROCO RAT II
BOSS DS-1, DD3, SD-1, TU-3, NS-2
Danelectro Overdrive
Jimi Hendrix Wah
EHX LPB-1
MXR Supercomp
#3
There's too much at stake for anybody to use nukes, in my opinion.
All your base are belong to us.
All your base are belong to us.
All your base are belong to us.
All your base are belong to us.
#4
Quote by Xp3ns1v3
There's too much at stake for anybody to use nukes, in my opinion.


Yeah you'd certainly hope so
Up The Boro!
#5
Nukes take all the fun out of it.

WWI was where it was at. Trench warfare, in the mud, disease ridden water.

the whistle blows and you jump up into gunfire and barbwire.

Dodge the landmines and your prize is jumping into a pit of men you have never seen before and who do not speak your language, but have been throwing grenades at you all day. Your job now is to stab the **** out of these men.

I think THAT should still happen if two superpowers wanted to go to war. That is conventional for you, and should make them think twice.


Of course, ive always been a fan of swords and axes, but that is for another thread...
#6
All I know is I would join my country's armed forces if they were under attack.
#7
War isn't fun period. You'd hope that the leaders would be smart enough not to use nuclear weapons, no one knows tho. I believe that if one of the superpowers began to get pushed back, nuclear weapons would likely be used. Beginning with tactical nuclear weapons likely. The other side would probably not be too happy about that, then we'd see strategic nuclear weapons flying. The end is nuclear holocaust.

Guitars:
-Jackson DXMG (SH-2N, SH-6)
-Schecter Hellraiser C1 (18v)
-Ibanez XPT707FX (Blackouts)
-Ibanez BTB 400 Bass

Main Amp: Mesa DR Roadster

#8
Quote by Riot Act
Nukes take all the fun out of it.

WWI was where it was at. Trench warfare, in the mud, disease ridden water.

the whistle blows and you jump up into gunfire and barbwire.

Dodge the landmines and your prize is jumping into a pit of men you have never seen before and who do not speak your language, but have been throwing grenades at you all day. Your job now is to stab the **** out of these men.

I think THAT should still happen if two superpowers wanted to go to war. That is conventional for you, and should make them think twice.


Of course, ive always been a fan of swords and axes, but that is for another thread...



YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
YOU WILL LOVE EACH OTHER
//////////////////////////////////////HEALTH
#9
Whichever country used nuclear weapons first would draw the wrath of the rest of the world very quickly.
#10
Quote by El Tostito
Whichever country used nuclear weapons first would draw the wrath of the rest of the world very quickly.


What rest of world?
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me: no, nor woman neither... nor women neither.
#11
The first country would probably not launch nuclear weapons against everyone, just the person they were at war with. So, while the target country may not exist anymore, depending on the size of the nuclear strike, the countries of the world that remained would most assuredly turn against the first strike nation.
#12
it's hard to say. The most recent example we can use is WWII, but in that war it wasn't just a few countries, Germany just started working their way across Europe. It'd be an interesting thing to see how a country would go about invading another country without mobilizing their troops through other countries. Sure, the US did it in Normandy, but nowadays there are too many means of defense against invasion. It'd probably be fought all with navies and air forces until one country was unable to continue defending itself and bombing another country. THEN the invasion would begin, that is if no nuclear weapons were used and the country wasn't radioactive.

then there's that whole EMP bomb thing to worry about, where a nuclear device (or even a large bomb) can be detonated above a country in a way that screws up all the power supplies. Imagine being in the military and suddenly not having any power. how would you continue with the war? would your generals still be pushing you on, telling you that the other country also has no power, and that the war's still on even terms, while you're standing there thinking it's the end of the world? imagine being a citizen. no television broadcast to tell you what's going on, just sitting at home while everyone in your city or town starts looting and vandalizing (don't think it wouldn't happen, it's happened in better circumstances).

I'd probably rather be in the military, because at least i'd know what was going on, and if nukes went off i'd hopefully be in a bunker, or at least off somewhere on duty where they weren't bombing. then again, i'd probably wanna be looting and getting myself a bunch of stuff, or robbing an empty bank.
#13
Unless we lost all the radio towers, we could still use radios to get our information.
1996 Fender American Telecaster
Schecter Omen 6
VOX AC-15
Alvarez PF2005
1985 PROCO RAT II
BOSS DS-1, DD3, SD-1, TU-3, NS-2
Danelectro Overdrive
Jimi Hendrix Wah
EHX LPB-1
MXR Supercomp
#14
M.A.D. is why the US and the USSR never fought. mutually assured destruction. a conventional war with the US and china or russia would never happen cause it wouldnt be "conventional". why risk more than you have to when you can use the big guns, but so can they. better to be alive and survive than try to be the first to pull the trigger and hope no one fires back M.A.D.

when the next war comes, big war, not skirmish's that have been going on over the past 20 years, its gonna wipe out 1/4 of a continent, maybe more
#15
Quote by Devopast
Unless we lost all the radio towers, we could still use radios to get our information.


EMP's fry electronics, the radio waves could in theory travel, but nothing that transmits them would work. watches would break, batteries done. nothing
#16
One country would nuke the other, and it would lead to the third world war. We'd all be dead sooner or later, either from nuclear radiation, lung cancer form teh dustz, or the initial blasts.
If Russia nuked us, all our friends would rape Russia. Then all of Russia's friends would rape all our friends. Lots of rape ensues.
#17
I think what would happen, Would be small pre-emptive strikes, or Special Force strikes against the "Enemy" countries major infrastructure.


I don't think there will be any more massive Infantry battles anymore (Unless we lose techonolgy to EMP's, etc)..


Or use Air Forces/Navy.
#18
First off, the US is the only superpower in the world, at least at the moment. Russia has a powerful military and a massive arsenal of nukes, but they lack the ability to rapidly deploy conventional forces around the world. The same goes for China (minus the huge amount of nukes).

Any war between the 3 most powerful nations in the world (arguably the US, Russia, and China) would most likely become a world war. The US would fight alongside NATO, and Russia and China would fight alongside their respective allies. Oil prices would skyrocket, demand would go through the roof, and countries would begin to try to take over valuable oil fields to fuel their war cause. The majority of the wars would most likely be fought in the European/Asian/African continents due to the US ability (as well as some NATO countries) to project force quickly and efficiently around the world via carrier strike groups, while Russia and China lack those, at least for the most part. And with what Glen'sHeroicAct said, EMP bombs could be used, which would cripple many military fists, most notably the US. There is alot more to this, but there's just way too many topics to cover on.

As for nukes, one country would eventually launch one as their demise gets near, eventually causing either the US or Russia to unleash their nuclear arsenal, both of which can effectively wipe out industrialized civilization in its entirety.
Last edited by HauntedxGeetar at Aug 11, 2008,
#19
I'm just hoping M.A.D. does its job and keeps all the super powers from firing their lazers, because I enjoy living in a world without nuclear apocalypse, the lack of lukemia is a real day brightener.

Must Not Sleep.


Must Warn Others.

Gear:
Gibson Special Faded SG
Orange Tiny Terror (Combo)
MXR Carbon Copy Delay
Dunlop Crybaby Wah

3DS friend code: 3995-7035-3562
#20
the U.S. alone could single handedly blow this Earth of ours up if we were to use our most powerful weapons. the thing about America is that our government doesn't care about debt so unlike other European countries that would pull out of a war because they can't pay for it, America would just keep on rolling as far until the brink of total destruction of either our economy or our land/resources, whichever goes first.

that being said......don't fuck with us
Quote by Scutchington
I like this guy, he's UG's Greek, and he just told your ass in two paragraphs. And I once spent 5 minutes watching his avatar.


A Brain Malfunction

We'll Never Admit As Defeat
#21
Quote by Xp3ns1v3
There's too much at stake for anybody to use nukes, in my opinion.



this is the consideration that many US officials took in the Cold War and encouraged the policy of brinksmanship

which certainly was not a good thing,

the fact is even in the Col War the US and USSR never fought directly, and Super Powers avoid direct fighting as much as much as possible, simply because no one wins- stalemate occurs the money,deaths and sacrifices only encourage revolution in a time when most people are apathetic towards war


i mean if the people in the US kick up such a fuss about a few boys dying a week in Iraq imagine what would happen if you had casualties on the scale of an all out war!?!?

so o these wars will not happen, and nukes would not be used (or used once and then agreed to stop)

either way this would simply create too many revolutions and Coups

and the Bourgeoisie are quite content being in power and making all the decisions, and i don't think they want to put that position in trouble any time soon!