Current Events > So will Russia setting off a nuclear meltdown be enough to trigger WW3?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean, nobody is really on Russia's side that matters at this point so I doubt it, but if they pull NATO in that's gonna make it a much bigger conflict regardless.

WWIII will start over fighting over the previously occupied area known as Russia.

why do people keep saying world war 3 as if they understand what it means? who other than russia do you think we'll be fighting?

Kimbos_Egg posted...

why do people keep saying world war 3 as if they understand what it means? who other than russia do you think we'll be fighting?

China isn't going to side with Russia. No "world" anything.

Only allies while useful.

Ergo, Russia would get wiped.

Kimbos_Egg posted...

why do people keep saying world war 3 as if they understand what it means? who other than russia do you think we'll be fighting?

ngl clickbait mostly, but also because typing out a question pondering how much bigger the conflict will get after that was bigger than 80 characters.

Kimbos_Egg posted...

why do people keep saying world war 3 as if they understand what it means? who other than russia do you think we'll be fighting?

A nuclear exchange would be WWIII. You think Russia is just gonna ignore all of Nato? World War doesn't literally mean the whole world is involved, its just several major world powers.

Probably not. It really depends if the US sticks to its guns on that being a red line in the sand. Then if Russia decides NATO's forcible de-Russification of Ukraine is enough to warrant a nuclear first strike.

Though a nuclear war between US and Russia should be devastating enough to call WW3, but if you're asking if that would get enough people involved to call it WW3, probably no.
Though again, a full exchange would be enough to ruin even the areas not hit. So what the war is called wouldn't matter a whole ton.
Unless the science on a nuclear winter is wrong.

Forest_Temple posted...

A nuclear exchange would be WWIII. You think Russia is just gonna ignore all of Nato? World War doesn't literally mean the whole world is involved, its just several major world powers.

Usually several on both sides though, his point is more that Russia will be all but alone

RuneterranSnap posted...

Usually several on both sides though, his point is more that Russia will be all but alone

Not necessarily. China might see an opportunity to step in if both countries became severely weakened. Which they would after being bombarded with nukes.

China could still team up with Russia.

If they were going to the first thing they would do is convince everyone else they arent going to.

Iran.. North Korea.. any countries that see opportunity might just be greedy enough to take what they want.

..isnt that what the USA has been doing for the past 100 years?

I think historians will look back on our current time as actually part of WW III.

Kimbos_Egg posted...

why do people keep saying world war 3 as if they understand what it means? who other than russia do you think we'll be fighting?

China has its eyes on Taiwan which will draw in the US

RuneterranSnap posted...

Usually several on both sides though, his point is more that Russia will be all but alone

Sides aside. If nukes start flying there's a real chance all of the preemptive contingencies come into play to knock out as much first strike and retaliatory capabilities we can.

Me and my friends are gonna have our own Red Dawn movie when the Russians come for us.

shironinja posted...

China could still team up with Russia.

I don't see why it would. While having Russia as an "ally" is useful for the poopoo bear, just in form of consolidating power against the US/NATO

Actual going to war with them against the rest of the world is not actually beneficial.

Playing devil's advocate, if I was poopoo bear I'd feed Putin to the fishes and cut my losses.

EthanSilver posted...

I don't see why it would. While having Russia as an "ally" is useful for the poopoo bear, just in form of consolidating power.

I can think of lots of reasons.. probably the biggest one that comes to mind is so that Russia thinks they are Chinas ally and can shoot their shot.

Then China double-crosses and annexes large sections of Russian territory.

shironinja posted...

I can think of lots of reasons.. probably the biggest one that comes to mind is so that Russia thinks they are Chinas ally and can shoot their shot.

Then China double-crosses and annexes large sections of Russian territory.

But if they double cross, how is that a Pro Russian thing? Like against the US/NATO...

Sir, you have confused me.

Destroying the power plant likely triggers articles 4 and 5

EthanSilver posted...

But if they double cross, how is that a Pro Russian all thing against the US/NATO...

Sir, you have confused me.

Think of China as a third side, not part of one of the existing sides.

Trumble posted...

Think of China as a third side, not part of one of the existing sides.

Yes. It's what I said. China is not going to ally with Russia in terms of going on a full blown war against the US/NATO. World war.

Poopoo bear will throw em to the fishes. He's not useful anymore... yes, even if its not ideal, what China would want. Sometimes cutting your loses prevents greater losses.

EthanSilver posted...

But if they double cross, how is that a Pro Russian thing? Like against the US/NATO...

Sir, you have confused me.

thats the intention of politics ad infinitum.

destabilize other countries and take all the economic benefit for your own. China could patch things up with NATO later or .. if Russias shot does enough damage then team up with other countries and decide their time is now.

China generally prefers to play the long game but they are interested in expanding in the face of climate change.

stuff like this, as an example, is certainly sanctioned by the CCP and meant to destabilize USA / Canada with crippling addiction and homelessness.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-files-first-ever-charges-against-chinese-fentanyl-manufacturers-2023-06-23/

and these:

https://nypost.com/2022/09/30/china-has-opened-police-stations-in-us-and-canada-to-monitor-chinese-citizens-report/

they are playing 3D chess.

shironinja posted...

destabilize other countries and take all the economic benefit for your own. C

Yeah, okay... but how does that address what going on a full "world war" would entail?

"Destabilizing," is a long game game, not "TO WAR!"

shironinja posted...

China generally prefers to play the long game but they are interested in expanding in the face of climate change.

Sure, what PooPoo bear would want is obvious. But one does not start a war on "wants" alone.

Especially when you don't have the win in the bag. It easily end up being ending China. Don't see what PooPoo bear would take that gamble.

shironinja posted...

and these:

https://nypost.com/2022/09/30/china-has-opened-police-stations-in-us-and-canada-to-monitor-chinese-citizens-report/

they are playing 3D chess.

It's called global politics. Not "3D" chess. A thing before PooPoo bear. Just fyi.

Shit, mind you, but can't be too hard on PooPoo bear when the US has done the same.

Yes. USA has been very good at managing global politics but the last few presidents have muddied the waters.

I feel that the USA must continue maintain very solid relationships with India, Japan, and South Korea to manage China by the numbers:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment

But certainly Russia, China, and others are leveraging their own global politics to erode those relationships.

EthanSilver posted...

It's called global politics. Not "3D" chess. A thing before PooPoo bear. Just fyi.

Shit, mind you, but can't be too hard on PooPoo bear when the US has done the same.

US straight up didnit to its own citizens

shironinja posted...

India, Japan, and South Korea

lol... don't these places hate China?

RuneterranSnap posted...

US straight up didnit to its own citizens

God didnit

Like for South Korea, China/North Korea... Aren't they required a two year of service in the military, because of North Korea.

India, border disputes with China.

And Japan, will yeah... history is deep there.

EthanSilver posted...

lol... don't these places hate China?

There are no absolutes and they absolutely love importing Chinese products.

As long as USA has good relations with those countries and can keep them, as you say hating China, it manages the threat.

If Russia launched nukes today then they would only do so if China nukes Japan and India too.

South Korea can be a ground war by unleashing North Korea and supporting their attacks with Chinese bombers and air carrier.

shironinja posted...

China could still team up with Russia.

Winnie the Pooh isnt that stupid.

I think historians will look back on our current time as actually part of WW III.

More like the collapse of a paper tiger.

I couldn't find the article in which I initially read it, but don't most Asians, outside of the Chinese/NK of course, prefer the US as the super power?

And not by a little?

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-asians-view-america-and-china/

Welp, just realized said article pointed to some of your worries.

Complacency is never good.

China is building up and not without any reason:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/05/china/china-world-biggest-navy-intl-hnk-ml-dst/index.html

We live in interesting times and should enjoy every day.

I think too many have a huge misconception what a world War would like. It's not going to be like the movies or CoD.

NatsuSama posted...

I think too many have a huge misconception what a world War would like. It's not going to be like the movies or CoD.

What would it be like?

shironinja posted...

I can think of lots of reasons.. probably the biggest one that comes to mind is so that Russia thinks they are Chinas ally and can shoot their shot.

Then China double-crosses and annexes large sections of Russian territory.

If Russia actually drops a strategic nuke, China will burn bridges with them. They're not going to put the territory they conquered at risk by siding with a failed state. If they do go to Russia's aid, NATO will absolutely use it as an excuse to liberate Tibet, Hong Kong, and Taiwan from any kind of Chinese oversight.

RuneterranSnap posted...

I mean, nobody is really on Russia's side that matters at this point so I doubt it, but if they pull NATO in that's gonna make it a much bigger conflict regardless.

Lol. No. There is more to politics than weaponry.
How do you not know this?

No but Russia will be carpet nuked.

Honestly Russia is more likely to go into civil war since they cant even trust their own people/Putins is loosing grip of his power

Homeless_Waifu posted...

Honestly Russia is more likely to go into civil war since they cant even trust their own people/Putins is loosing grip of his power

Russia is already at civil war. The rebel faction is calling themselves Freedom of Russia Legion. Backed by Ukraine of course.

Ain't ever gonna be a WWIII. World governments can't leech off their people if they all dead.

There is a remote possibility that Putin might gamble by asking himself the question, "Would any nation really be willing to punch the self-destruct button just for the sake of avenging Ukraine, if I decided to use a battlefield nuke or two?"

I'd also suggest that a lot of governments have probably made the calculation that those who stay out of a global war are more likely to emerge the winners than those who throw themselves head first into it. OK, survivors rather than winners.

Forest_Temple posted...

A nuclear exchange would be WWIII. You think Russia is just gonna ignore all of Nato? World War doesn't literally mean the whole world is involved, its just several major world powers.

No, it pretty much means the whole world is involved. Take a look at a map of the countries involved in the two world wars. Youll immediately notice the very obvious trend of most of the planet being covered in belligerents.

My guess is a world war is more likely to start over Taiwan than Russia/Ukraine, but Im just basing off what I suspect America is more interested in (microchips)

buddhamonster posted...

Take a look at a map of the countries involved in the two world wars. Youll immediately notice the very obvious trend of most of the planet being covered in belligerents.

In the case of the First World War at least, that was largely a geopolitical function of the main belligerents being imperial powers. They had overseas territories to protect, overseas manpower they could mobilize, overseas assets they were tempted to seize from rivals. It's what gave the war a global reach. By comparison with today, there were far fewer independent states with the power to proclaim themselves neutral.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The slightly worrying thing is that fear of instability and revolution was one of the drivers behind Russian calculations in 1914 that going to war would have a net positive outcome -- supposedly, it would cement patriotic unity and repair Russia's reputation after its humiliating defeat in the war against Japan...

Snakethief posted...

What? Did I miss something

There have been hints of rumors of Russia triggering a meltdown at one of the Ukraine plants they control, and they've recently started evacuating one.