RABD corporation lobbies Pentagon to start WW3 to stimulate the economy

[Ex-RoNiN]

Not necesarily. Some people made HUGE amounts of money during WW2.

In a WW3 scenario, neither these people nor much else will be left standing. Can your lizard friends not tell you about the effects of a nuclear exchange between two super powers?

Even a limited regional exchange (50 tactical nukes each side) can have vast effects on the entire northern hemisphere and dent the weather/climate/food suppliers for a long time. Humanity won't die out but our way of life will change (and lots will die through malnutrition, radiation poisoning, etc.)

A global exchange will kill everyone and everything. The ultimate profit then becomes absolutely meaningless.

 

[semi-pro waster]

A war between two super powers would not be good for the economy......anyone can see that.

That is why I said it depends how it is fought, if a greater proportion of the World's surface is reduced to irradiated goodness then it is largely academic whether a profit has been made at any point but if (as is possible) the two superpowers draw back from the ultimate horror/responsibiity of firing nukes and the war is fought along more conventional lines then it could still be good for the economy.

 

[Jono8]

That is why I said it depends how it is fought, if a greater proportion of the World's surface is reduced to irradiated goodness then it is largely academic whether a profit has been made at any point but if (as is possible) the two superpowers draw back from the ultimate horror/responsibiity of firing nukes and the war is fought along more conventional lines then it could still be good for the economy.

HAHA. you really believe that a nuke wouldnt be fired? how naive.

 

[@if ®afiq]

I may be misreading but it looks rather as if you are suggesting that NATO might have been prompted into the Balkans to keep the US defence budget as such a level?

John Hamre suggested to the House Judiciary Commitee:

"DoD budget cuts from [Fiscal Year] 1996 to FY 2002 could range from $110 Billion to $520 Billion."

I am trying to search for a more authorative source but so far have been unable to (Google) - I do remember Uncle Noam mentioning it and he has rarely, if ever, been wrong with his facts.

 

[semi-pro waster]

HAHA. you really believe that a nuke wouldnt be fired? how naive.

Well that's a convincing and coherent argument. Consider me converted to your way of thinking.

I said it was possible that a nuke wouldn't be fired because the sides both know the consequences. If you'd like to demonstrate that it is not a possibility in any way, shape or form that a nuke would not be fired then I'm prepared to listen. Remember though, this isn't just about likelihoods, this is about possible and impossible.

//edit @if ®afiq thanks, that looks like interesting reading.

 

[Jono8]

Well that's a convincing and coherent argument. Consider me converted to your way of thinking.

I said it was possible that a nuke wouldn't be fired because the sides both know the consequences. If you'd like to demonstrate that it is not a possibility in any way, shape or form that a nuke would not be fired then I'm prepared to listen. Remember though, this isn't just about likelihoods, this is about possible and impossible.

//edit @if ®afiq thanks, that looks like interesting reading.

So what happnes when one side is about too lose......

 

[nicktay2605]

So the Chinese news (obviously reliable) report a story uncovered by the French media (oh how the French adore the USA) which claims that the USA is going to declare war on a 'major foreign power'?! That is one of the single most ridiculous, most paranoid articles ever; stop being such a conspiracist Magick, not everything is a conspiracy!

For a start, its plainly obvious that war stimulates growth and advancement for the victorious country, particularly advancements in technology, medicine etc, but the USA is not about to start a war with another major nation that could quite easily escalate into a global thermo-nuclear war. Just imagine what would happen: America attacks China, China fights back, after months of stalemate and fighting, America uses nuke, cue thermo-nuclear war. I would be amazed if we see a WW3 for a long long time to come, probably not in our lifetimes or our kids, simply because of the nuclear deterrent. All the major powers know that a world war would end in the almost total annihilation of humanity, nobody would benefit.

 

[semi-pro waster]

So what happnes when one side is about too lose......

I'm going to assume you've read 1984 already and know of the notion of perpetual war, if you have read it then you're doubtless aware that in such a situation it isn't really in anyones interests to 'win' the war. You're referring to likelihoods though rather than possible and impossible, whether I think a nuke will or will not be fired is largely irrelevant to the theoretical possibility.

If I'm naive it is because I'd like to believe people will not go to war for purely economic reasons although I know they have before and almost certainly will again.

 

[Ex-RoNiN]

I'm going to assume you've read 1984 already and know of the notion of perpetual war, if you have read it then you're doubtless aware that in such a situation it isn't really in anyones interests to 'win' the war. You're referring to likelihoods though rather than possible and impossible, whether I think a nuke will or will not be fired is largely irrelevant to the theoretical possibility.

If I'm naive it is because I'd like to believe people will not go to war for purely economic reasons although I know they have before and almost certainly will again.

For a perpetual war scenario, it would be utterly retarded to 'choose' a fellow nuclear power - invisible and hiding "terrorists" are a much more logical foe for such a scenario.

At best, you might get some regional skirmish thrown in occasionally (i.e. Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq) but attacking a fellow nuclear power can have only 1 outcome - death of humanity and most other life on the planet.

 

[Jono8]

I'm going to assume you've read 1984 already and know of the notion of perpetual war, if you have read it then you're doubtless aware that in such a situation it isn't really in anyones interests to 'win' the war. You're referring to likelihoods though rather than possible and impossible, whether I think a nuke will or will not be fired is largely irrelevant to the theoretical possibility.

If I'm naive it is because I'd like to believe people will not go to war for purely economic reasons although I know they have before and almost certainly will again.

All i'm saying is that WW3 will not do anyones economy any good.