Bets on world war 3

Defense related and not covered in the other categories? Then it goes here.
rapidfire25
.
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:32 am

Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:34 am

well any ways I feel there should be a posting area where we can place "bets" ( no actual money) for when ww3 will officially start you can give vague answers like the next thousand years although you will get more praise if your answer is decidedly closer to the actual date. :D You are also free to theorize the cause for bonus points.

My guess next 5 years, because some one does something stupid in the scs by accident .

Encyclopath
Regular contributor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:26 am

Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:21 am

Well, I'd bet that in retrospect, it will be said that it already had started by now (compare Donbass/crimea to czechoslovakia in ww2, and syria to the spanish civil war). The Poland analogy is yet to be made, but within the next 5-7 years.

User avatar
jayfeather31
Power poster 3
Power poster 3
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:25 pm
Location: Douglas, WY / Converse County
Contact:

Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:09 am

I'm going to guess a Russian Invasion in the Baltics, prompted by Hilary Clinton sending military aid and troops to Ukraine, starting on August 6, 2017. A secondary bet in my opinion would involve India and Pakistan, to which I would guess would occur sometime on January 26, 2017; the day India created the Constitution of India, in which Pakistan launches troops directly into Kashmir when India falsely accuses Pakistan of a major terrorist attack in Mumbai, and sends a small division to advance beyond the line of control.

Those are my guesses, and while they're probably going to be false, that's my position.
The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.
~Albert Einstein
Great, let's round up all the useless cats and hope a tree falls on them.
~Jayfeather

User avatar
Drumboy44
DWS Staff
DWS Staff
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:29 pm
Contact:

Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:17 am

Will somehow involve Germany.
" man fears time, but time fears the pyramids "

matty1053
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 1933
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:03 am

Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:19 am

The good ol' classic WW3 scenario? Nukes flying? I have a little doubt.


I'd say a 45% chance. We will have to see post election.

Encyclopath
Regular contributor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:26 am

Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:41 am

matty1053 wrote:The good ol' classic WW3 scenario? Nukes flying? I have a little doubt.


I'd say a 45% chance. We will have to see post election.
Would it have to involve nukes? It's conceivable that a major full scale war could occur, and MAD would continue to deter escalation, provided no nuclear power is itself being invaded.

User avatar
Harbinger
.
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2016 5:17 pm

Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:01 am

Would it have to involve nukes? It's conceivable that a major full scale war could occur, and MAD would continue to deter escalation, provided no nuclear power is itself being invaded.
It would never stay conventional for long. The US would forward deploy its carriers in an effort to power project, and several would likely be sunk by Russian subs with loss of most, if not all, hands. America's efforts would become unhinged rapidly if that occurred, and the US would be forced to escalate to use of nuclear weapons in order to try to scare the Russians into peace, since the US would no longer be able to win the war by conventional means. Hell, even if the carriers were untouchable, you would still have to reinforce Europe with ground forces, and doing it one Abrams tank at a time by aircraft is impossible. There would be a mass haul of armored assets by ship at some point, and if a single sub got past the ASW screen and sank a divisions worth of armor on those Ro/Ro's, the effect would be devastating to the NATO effort. They'd have no choice but to resort to nukes.

My bet is on the US picking a fight with Russia or China or both, and potentially very soon. These guys seem compelled to start the war ASAP, and seem disappointed that Russia has not started it yet as response to some of the ridiculous stunts we've been pulling. My bet is also on the carrier battle groups being more vulnerable than it's popularly believed, stealth aircraft being less effective than thought, and Russian weapons being more effective than thought. Losses would become extreme on our side quite rapidly in event of full-scale war, something we are not prepared for, and would cause panic in whatever is left of the pentagon after being hit with a dozen stealth cruise missiles. Nuclear exchange would ensue rapidly. Days probably, a week or two at most.
Pro Patria Vigilans

Obreid
Regular contributor
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:51 am

Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:07 am

I agree in terms of US trying to provoke. Either or gets poked frequently. One thing not mentioned recently is the economic realities effecting all players. Starting a war to compensate for a economic weakness is not unheard of that or using the war to stimulate the declining economy. Not saying it's a smart thing to do but it has happend.
If not money how about a years supply of dehydrated food for two. Not sure how it would be delivered after it all goes south.

hrng
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:15 pm
Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia

Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:54 am

Oswald wrote:Bets involving WW3 are completely meaningless. Win or Lose- how does one collect?
You collect internet points that can be cashed in to your local trader for bottle caps in the event of an apocalypse.

joe1971
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:42 pm
Location: Central Montana

Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:37 am

Drumboy44 wrote:Will somehow involve Germany.
I see what you did there 8-) :lol:

Post Reply