By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Tagged games:

Helloplite said:
HollyGamer said:

The problem is everyone is not ready for war, but war is always ready for you. The question is how you deal with war, how you react , how is your preparation. 

That doesn't answer my question one bit.

I am teaching Security and Strategic Studies at a reputable university in Europe. How prepared are you?

I am more prepare then ever, and your answer is not reflecting your knowledge  at all. There is so many smart general out there but no war won by just strategy and tactic alone. 



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
HollyGamer said:

Well my original answer is for other person not you, and not intentional to bring faith as main topic, Is not for your concerns , because you always try to derail topic to other thing. 

Regardless of who you are targeting your reply at... Is ultimately irrelevant.
This is a forum where a ton of users can see and reply to your posts at any time, regardless if you like it or not... You would need to take it in private if you don't wish for other people to engage with your posts.

So what do you want ? 



Helloplite said:

To OP: No, a nuclear war is not likely at all. It didn't happen throughout the Cold War, so what makes it so likely that it will now? Do you think Putin and Russia are prepared for a nuclear war? Do you think USA is? Do you think anyone actually contemplates such a prospect? 

Facts: Nuclear weapons exist solely for the reason of averting a nuclear war. This concept is called deterrence, and in various forms the theory has held up correctly, through both the two nuclear ages.

Facts: Tannenwald has put forward the academic theory that nuclear weapons have now become a taboo. If you find this unlikely, maybe you can listen to Paul, who argues that nuclear weapons have now become status symbols, and are not obtained to be used in a war.

Facts: Deterrence works particularly well when you have two large powers like USA and Russia. The vast numbers of nuclear weapons means that any attack faces a retaliatory attack that would mean the end of both countries. This 'second strike' capability, which is ensured by both Russia and USA, means that it is in no one's interests to initiate a nuclear war.

Facts: Nuclear weapons minimize the risk of all out war between major superpowers. They are the reason we went from two world wars and numerous wars involving great powers before 1945, to no wars between major powers since. Instead we have witnessed the rise of proxy wars (during the Cold War), and the increase in civil wars (including Syria). There is no interest for a war between Russia and USA. The only ones who are going to suffer are going to be places like Syria, Libya, and other places where these great powers 'intervene'. A nuclear war is as likely as a fly catching fire and causing a wildfire.

Sorry i miss this post

Agree Nuclear war is not going to happen. What about World war 3?  It doesn't have to be  Nuclear war , what i mean WW3 is an all out war using all the necessary force except Nuclear. 

PS : Next time try to use quote button so i know that you want my reply 

Last edited by HollyGamer - on 13 April 2018

Russia is in no position to wage war with the US.

They will not jeaperdize the arrest of Crimea and their own nation for Syria.

In the same vein, the US will not mount a ground operation, just some bombs.


It's the usual arm wrestling war game with third parties. If one bombs the other for real, then both countries will see severe damage. I'm pretty sure the US has the best and bigger bombs, so i really doubt Russia will do anything but their usual scheming.



Pretty sure Trump stepped back on his initial response as they don't have concrete evidence that Assad was behind the chem attacks. But it's Trump, he'll do whatever. I don't see who wins in WWIII to be honest, everybody is going to be dead. I hate so sound selfish but I just wish the US would focus more on home grown terrorism and quit getting involved in other outside military affairs. We do nothing but mess everything up and cause self inflicted damage. We can't run to every country that continues to mistreat their own, when our own are being shot up month after month, with no actual resolve.

But yeah, I hope they're both wise enough to gauge what a WW3 would entail and there's a chance they won't get to say another word of importance for sometime.



Around the Network

Which will happen first? Final Fantasy 7 Remake releasing or World War 3?



Nem said:

Russia is in no position to wage war with the US.

They will not jeaperdize the arrest of Crimea and their own nation for Syria.

In the same vein, the US will not mount a ground operation, just some bombs.


It's the usual arm wrestling war game with third parties. If one bombs the other for real, then both countries will see severe damage. I'm pretty sure the US has the best and bigger bombs, so i really doubt Russia will do anything but their usual scheming.

I don't know if the US has bigger bombs today, we might, but the largest bomb detonated was Russia's Tsar Bomba. But fret not, Trump thinks we have invisible Fighter Jets. We'll be golden.



jason1637 said:
Which will happen first? Final Fantasy 7 Remake releasing or World War 3?

Even if both happen later in far future  , Half Life three is still not coming. 



HollyGamer said:
Helloplite said:

That doesn't answer my question one bit.

I am teaching Security and Strategic Studies at a reputable university in Europe. How prepared are you?

I am more prepare then ever, and your answer is not reflecting your knowledge  at all. There is so many smart general out there but no war won by just strategy and tactic alone. 

You asked me if I am prepared for war. I told you that I am in fact educating the next generation of army officers, strategists and IR theoreticians. I do not claim to be smart nor to be well-versed in war tactics. Tactics imply a war has actually started. I do understand strategy however, which is not limited to war itself. From a strategic point of view, no country right now has any interest in a 'world war', let alone a 'nuclear war'.

Cold wars are far easier in terms of toll, and can also prove to be far more profitable. 2018 is far removed from the context of early to mid 20th century. Cyberwarfare is far more likely, and it is already happening. The good news is that you won't have to actually fight anywhere as a soldier. Land-based war will soon be obsolete, anyway, aside from intrastate conflict and interventions. Worry more about the spread of private security firms bringing us into new forms of war

Last edited by Helloplite - on 13 April 2018

Pemalite said: I think people over-estimate Russia's capabilities.

Their technology by western standards is relatively outmoded all things considered.

Excuse me ? USA still uses Minuteman from 70's, also hardly anyone can  overestime 18K nuclear bombs.