Welcome to World War III (!$$+ just got real) *EDIT: 4 dead, more injured

Nothing but more "look, you can't do anything to us" games to embarrass the West and increase their own bargaining power/leverage by the North Koreans. Other than the obvious "condemnations" everyone will issue, and whatever minor "retaliations" might be done to save face, the really interesting side of this story is China's role/response to this, behind closed doors. As for that, it's really pure speculation, but I think Beijing is enjoying this while being ready to shorten NK's leash if these provocative games (see: sinking of Cheonan, revelations of new nuclear capabilities) get out of hand. It will be interesting to see what changes, if anything, when Kim Jong Il and the other older members of the regime are no longer in power.

Also, this is far from the start of WW3 like those who don't understand the situation may think. No need to overreact. Arguing over who will win if such a war were to break out is pointless because:

1. It won't happen (anytime soon). No one, not even the North Koreans, want war.
2. Everyone will lose.
 
Nothing but more "look, you can't do anything to us" games to embarrass the West and increase their own bargaining power/leverage by the North Koreans. Other than the obvious "condemnations" everyone will issue, and whatever minor "retaliations" might be done to save face, the really interesting side of this story is China's role/response to this, behind closed doors. As for that, it's really pure speculation, but I think Beijing is enjoying this while being ready to shorten NK's leash if these provocative games (see: sinking of Cheonan, revelations of new nuclear capabilities) get out of hand. It will be interesting to see what changes, if anything, when Kim Jong Il and the other older members of the regime are no longer in power.

Also, this is far from the start of WW3 like those who don't understand the situation may think. No need to overreact. Arguing over who will win if such a war were to break out is pointless because:

1. It won't happen (anytime soon). No one, not even the North Koreans, want war.
2. Everyone will lose.
 
If every single person in China took a piss in the pacific ocean we'd all probably drown.

  
 
If every single person in China took a piss in the pacific ocean we'd all probably drown.

  
 
Originally Posted by tkthafm

Nothing but more "look, you can't do anything to us" games to embarrass the West and increase their own bargaining power/leverage by the North Koreans. Other than the obvious "condemnations" everyone will issue, and whatever minor "retaliations" might be done to save face, the really interesting side of this story is China's role/response to this, behind closed doors. As for that, it's really pure speculation, but I think Beijing is enjoying this while being ready to shorten NK's leash if these provocative games (see: sinking of Cheonan, revelations of new nuclear capabilities) get out of hand. It will be interesting to see what changes, if anything, when Kim Jong Il and the other older members of the regime are no longer in power.

Also, this is far from the start of WW3 like those who don't understand the situation may think. No need to overreact. Arguing over who will win if such a war were to break out is pointless because:

1. It won't happen (anytime soon). No one, not even the North Koreans, want war.
2. Everyone will lose.
Click to expand...

it quite obvious there won't be a world war but the fun is the hypothetical situations
you said there's no winner?? well that all depends on if you take part in the battle or if you're munitions dealer or the banker bankrolling the war ,if you are a supplier
    
 
Originally Posted by tkthafm

Nothing but more "look, you can't do anything to us" games to embarrass the West and increase their own bargaining power/leverage by the North Koreans. Other than the obvious "condemnations" everyone will issue, and whatever minor "retaliations" might be done to save face, the really interesting side of this story is China's role/response to this, behind closed doors. As for that, it's really pure speculation, but I think Beijing is enjoying this while being ready to shorten NK's leash if these provocative games (see: sinking of Cheonan, revelations of new nuclear capabilities) get out of hand. It will be interesting to see what changes, if anything, when Kim Jong Il and the other older members of the regime are no longer in power.

Also, this is far from the start of WW3 like those who don't understand the situation may think. No need to overreact. Arguing over who will win if such a war were to break out is pointless because:

1. It won't happen (anytime soon). No one, not even the North Koreans, want war.
2. Everyone will lose.
Click to expand...

it quite obvious there won't be a world war but the fun is the hypothetical situations
you said there's no winner?? well that all depends on if you take part in the battle or if you're munitions dealer or the banker bankrolling the war ,if you are a supplier
    
 
Originally Posted by third

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Nothing but more "look, you can't do anything to us" games to embarrass the West and increase their own bargaining power/leverage by the North Koreans. Other than the obvious "condemnations" everyone will issue, and whatever minor "retaliations" might be done to save face, the really interesting side of this story is China's role/response to this, behind closed doors. As for that, it's really pure speculation, but I think Beijing is enjoying this while being ready to shorten NK's leash if these provocative games (see: sinking of Cheonan, revelations of new nuclear capabilities) get out of hand. It will be interesting to see what changes, if anything, when Kim Jong Il and the other older members of the regime are no longer in power.

Also, this is far from the start of WW3 like those who don't understand the situation may think. No need to overreact. Arguing over who will win if such a war were to break out is pointless because:

1. It won't happen (anytime soon). No one, not even the North Koreans, want war.
2. Everyone will lose.
Click to expand...

it quite obvious there won't be a world war but the fun is the hypothetical situations
you said there's no winner?? well that all depends on if you take part in the battle or if you're munitions dealer or the banker bankrolling the war ,if you are a supplier
    
Click to expand...
Chinese and NK arms dealers are state owned, so moot point for that. As for the US, we've already know how fragile our finances are with regards to China (massive trade deficit, they own most of our debt). We've just seen how dependent banks were on government for their survival, and I'm sure you know who provides the contracts to the munitions companies. Even if we "won", a financially ruined government and allies (see: EU's financial problems) means the munitions dealers and banks have little to no chance at survival, and this is assuming we even allow them to remain private entities (and thus able to turn a profit), which is highly unlikely given a total war scenario. The more likely outcome is that "money" in and of itself would become worthless.

The social, political, economic, and environmental impact a war of this magnitude would have are unimaginable. Instead of talking about who would be "counting stacks" surrounded by rubble and mushroom clouds, we should really be talking about how many decades the world as a whole would be set back.
 
Originally Posted by third

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Nothing but more "look, you can't do anything to us" games to embarrass the West and increase their own bargaining power/leverage by the North Koreans. Other than the obvious "condemnations" everyone will issue, and whatever minor "retaliations" might be done to save face, the really interesting side of this story is China's role/response to this, behind closed doors. As for that, it's really pure speculation, but I think Beijing is enjoying this while being ready to shorten NK's leash if these provocative games (see: sinking of Cheonan, revelations of new nuclear capabilities) get out of hand. It will be interesting to see what changes, if anything, when Kim Jong Il and the other older members of the regime are no longer in power.

Also, this is far from the start of WW3 like those who don't understand the situation may think. No need to overreact. Arguing over who will win if such a war were to break out is pointless because:

1. It won't happen (anytime soon). No one, not even the North Koreans, want war.
2. Everyone will lose.
Click to expand...

it quite obvious there won't be a world war but the fun is the hypothetical situations
you said there's no winner?? well that all depends on if you take part in the battle or if you're munitions dealer or the banker bankrolling the war ,if you are a supplier
    
Click to expand...
Chinese and NK arms dealers are state owned, so moot point for that. As for the US, we've already know how fragile our finances are with regards to China (massive trade deficit, they own most of our debt). We've just seen how dependent banks were on government for their survival, and I'm sure you know who provides the contracts to the munitions companies. Even if we "won", a financially ruined government and allies (see: EU's financial problems) means the munitions dealers and banks have little to no chance at survival, and this is assuming we even allow them to remain private entities (and thus able to turn a profit), which is highly unlikely given a total war scenario. The more likely outcome is that "money" in and of itself would become worthless.

The social, political, economic, and environmental impact a war of this magnitude would have are unimaginable. Instead of talking about who would be "counting stacks" surrounded by rubble and mushroom clouds, we should really be talking about how many decades the world as a whole would be set back.
 
Some people in here get it.



I must be ruthless to want something to go down just to burst your bubble on how damn good America is. We're really not that great.
 
Some people in here get it.



I must be ruthless to want something to go down just to burst your bubble on how damn good America is. We're really not that great.
 
you are assuming that every where everyone would be fighting so it would be like an all inclusive war but past world wars have shown that someone countries don't partake or they surrender in order to save themselves (france)
Look at the united states involvemnt in the world war 1 and 2 , most of the fighting did not happen in the us rather it happened in euro-asia
canada ,australia ,south america,south east africa did not even feel the world wars if you are speaking of infrastructure

Also you're assuming that weapons and machinery are the only things that are required in war ....there are other things like food clothin grations etc, you need fuel and eneergy to keep those planes flying you think the saudis and nigerians will give it to you for free?

I think you're taking the approach that the death of westernized countries is the death of the world  

Once those bombs drop, man power will count for nothing

The thing is you seem to think you are the only ones with bombs but are you are not which is why i said if it's battle of bombs then who ever strikes first wins
 
you are assuming that every where everyone would be fighting so it would be like an all inclusive war but past world wars have shown that someone countries don't partake or they surrender in order to save themselves (france)
Look at the united states involvemnt in the world war 1 and 2 , most of the fighting did not happen in the us rather it happened in euro-asia
canada ,australia ,south america,south east africa did not even feel the world wars if you are speaking of infrastructure

Also you're assuming that weapons and machinery are the only things that are required in war ....there are other things like food clothin grations etc, you need fuel and eneergy to keep those planes flying you think the saudis and nigerians will give it to you for free?

I think you're taking the approach that the death of westernized countries is the death of the world  

Once those bombs drop, man power will count for nothing

The thing is you seem to think you are the only ones with bombs but are you are not which is why i said if it's battle of bombs then who ever strikes first wins
 
this is just a test.... nothing will come from this slight escalation... THE DOLLAR DEVALUATION WILL BE THE CAUSE OF WW3
 
this is just a test.... nothing will come from this slight escalation... THE DOLLAR DEVALUATION WILL BE THE CAUSE OF WW3
 
Not at all, but when a large portion of the world is a nuclear wasteland, calculating petty things like profits off of food/clothing/gas (assuming large providers of these still exist) is pointless. Once again, these providers would also be nationalized in a total war, and whatever "money" they have would likely become worth nothing.

The death of the "westernized world" obviously won't "end the world", but it sure as hell will set it back a very long time. With past conflicts like you raised, there wasn't the ability to obliterate thousands of cities with a few button presses. That's why both sides don't really want to fight. There's no real surrender option with this type of conflict. It's a fight to the death, and surrendering after the nukes have landed means the damage is already done. Remaining neutral still means you lose (but heh, you might survive) because of how interconnected the world is nowadays. It's impossible to compare the damage outcome of this war to anything we've ever seen before. It would make WW2 look like the Invasion of Grenada. Sure, as you stated, some isolated/uninvolved regions of the globe may be physically untouched, but does that mean they are "winners" ? I don't think so. Humanity as a whole takes an L.

I think we can both agree that this discussion might be "more interesting" for some, but it is at the end of the day, pointless. As for me, I'm much more interested in discussing the current real-world situation than playing a game of hypotheticals/imaginary scenarios - which was the point of my first post.
 
Not at all, but when a large portion of the world is a nuclear wasteland, calculating petty things like profits off of food/clothing/gas (assuming large providers of these still exist) is pointless. Once again, these providers would also be nationalized in a total war, and whatever "money" they have would likely become worth nothing.

The death of the "westernized world" obviously won't "end the world", but it sure as hell will set it back a very long time. With past conflicts like you raised, there wasn't the ability to obliterate thousands of cities with a few button presses. That's why both sides don't really want to fight. There's no real surrender option with this type of conflict. It's a fight to the death, and surrendering after the nukes have landed means the damage is already done. Remaining neutral still means you lose (but heh, you might survive) because of how interconnected the world is nowadays. It's impossible to compare the damage outcome of this war to anything we've ever seen before. It would make WW2 look like the Invasion of Grenada. Sure, as you stated, some isolated/uninvolved regions of the globe may be physically untouched, but does that mean they are "winners" ? I don't think so. Humanity as a whole takes an L.

I think we can both agree that this discussion might be "more interesting" for some, but it is at the end of the day, pointless. As for me, I'm much more interested in discussing the current real-world situation than playing a game of hypotheticals/imaginary scenarios - which was the point of my first post.
 
Originally Posted by BangDak

Some people in here get it.



I must be ruthless to want something to go down just to burst your bubble on how damn good America is. We're really not that great.
Click to expand...
i get what your saying, but that attitude is the reason why america is the state its in now.
 
Originally Posted by BangDak

Some people in here get it.



I must be ruthless to want something to go down just to burst your bubble on how damn good America is. We're really not that great.
Click to expand...
i get what your saying, but that attitude is the reason why america is the state its in now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom