How long until WW3, Sup Forums?

Also, WW3 General

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/world/2016/may/18/west-russia-on-course-for-war-nato-ex-deputy-commander
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war).
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Never. If the last century taught us anything
(besides that jews are scum), it's that civilizations die with a slow whimper, not a bang.

Aw c'mon. One of these guys (or Kim) is going to be involved in some conflict sooner or later. And then we get the domino effect.

It will start in the baltic states

WW3 in May 2017

theguardian.com/world/2016/may/18/west-russia-on-course-for-war-nato-ex-deputy-commander

ww3 will start as soon as the Internet Brakes down and we run out of mountain dew.

Too long... Too long..

>Population Increases
>Resources start drying out
>Too many nationalists

Of course, World War 3 is a planned war on a political global spectrum, the main goal is to set up a one world government which is supposed to follow after the collapse of all countries and world war

There will never be another major war with actual first world countries. The most countries will ever do now days is fight against some ""terrorists"" or ""dictators"" in piss poor countries without actual armies. Why? nuclear weapons. What is the point of fighting against someone if as soon as they start to lose they can just press a button and end the entire world? Even if USA and Russia became huge enemies the most they would ever do is fight proxy wars and even that is iffy.

Daily reminder that the entire concept of attack aircraft will become obsolete against industrialized nations when portable, cost-effective lasers are perfected in a few years.

March 2019.

So a stalemate/currency war until the end of time? Doubtful.

never

why? starting another world war guarantees a loss for everyone involved so whats the point in even doing it?

I don't know. They might sign an agreement of never using nukes or something. Let's say there's war between the US and Russia and the US wins, Russia could either forfeit and stay at the mercy of the Americans or they could launch their nukes, then in turns america will launch theirs, killing everything and everyone. If Russia launches it's nukes, there's 0% chance for them to survive, but if they capitulate, maybe the ones in charge won't survive, but at least most of their people will.

I don't know, but i'm already 30 and i've been waiting since i was a kid.

HURRY

THE

FUCK

UP

WORLD!

never, nobody has a conceivable winning strategy against America besides M.A.D.

until we solve the nuke problem enjoy proxy wars

>no war because nukes
I disagree. I think that if two nuclear countries (like the US and Russia for example) felt compelled to go to war, they would just fight a conventional war. Neither would be dumb enough to use a nuke because it would almost guarantee armageddon. Imagine two cowboys dropping their guns and fighting with fists instead.

The only countries we have to worry about regarding nukes are the Iranians and the other Eastern troglodytes who don't give a shit.

>cmon world, fight me
>what are you a pussy? you don't have the balls to start a destructive nuclear war

when there are strategic goals which would make it sensible to enforce them by using the military.

duh.

You sound like a child

This.

Money can't be made in the face of complete destruction. Instead we are eroded slowly over generations.

The kalergi plan is real.

The nukes are set off automatically as soon as the Russian border is breached en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war).
Even if that system is disabled there is absolutely no reason that Vlad wouldn't launch them anyway rather than accept defeat.

If only the Allies and Axis had thought like you

neither party had the means to instantly end the world at that point

Good point

Why?
>no reason that Vlad wouldn't launch them anyway rather than accept defeat.
Well I pointed out a reason. Is it a good enough reason though? I don't know.

...

All three of them are literally involved in conflicts 24/7.

People don't give a shit about violence and war in central Asia, that's been the norm for thousands of years. Public attack in wealthy Western nations are a much larger concern.

Game theory says as soon as one side starts losing they will use nukes, if they don't use them at the very start. Why? Unrest at home and the military and political elites unwilling to declare a loss.

>lasers
top kek

Let's get to the only important part.

Sides:
U.S., Japan, South Korea, Australia, Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, Isreal

vs.

Canada, EU, China, Russia, Iran, Mexico, North Korea

I am rubber, you are glue

Signing an agreement to not use nukes and actually follow thru

We can't even ageee on a cease fire in a city

Well I didn't claim that they'd follow through only because they signed it, they'd follow through because using nukes would mean death for them and all of their families and their people. Only a madman that doesn't care about anyone other than himself would actually use nukes. Though I guess that's part of the question.

I meant the kind of conflict that would trigger a violent military response from another country.

no need for WW3, just wait it out.
US population is turning gay at a relatively fast pace. Soon enough the birth rates will drop exponentially, and all they'll be left with is a bunch of fags who won't go to war because the tanks don't go with their fingernail polish.
Only then will the world be able to live peacefully without having a country meddling with everyone's business and imposing sanctions on whomever it pleases.

Nah. It would be NATO vs the Communists and the Shiites

>They'll fight it out like Gentlemen
That sort of honour kind of went out the window when Goyistan nuked Japan. Twice.

The US could either fight the war to its end, or open the magic box and win. There'd be a price to pay, but they would win for now. So, they opened the box, and hey, they won! However, the price is that it's now an entirely legitimate tactic to (even "pre-emptively", a form of double-speak that really means to attack, used by the US to excuse a first strike with no prior aggression) nuke a target first, in order to avoid "worse" military consequences (sending in your troops to die in a conventional fight).

Why do you think both sides have extensive bunker networks? Not only are they going to start firing off rounds, but as soon as one of them even gets graced by a bullet, they'll be lighting up ACME-sized sticks of dynamite.

They are already involved in conflicts.

>no prior aggression
Didn't pearl harbor happen before they nuked Japan though?

We're already in a 3rd world war against some globalist kikes and their puppets

I actually think the no-nuke-honor-code became relevant once we fried Nippon. It proved, at least to compitent people, that nukes are too destructive and would end the world if used again.

ladies and gentleman, real cringe

...

>implying NATO will exist in a few years

Europe will not go 100 years without a war on its soil.

read Ghost Fleet

yugoslavian war, chechen war#1, chechen war#2, ukrainian war

not even 10 years without a war

Not sure about WW3, but depending on what happens with trump/obama, it's about to become a civil war

>not even 10 years without a war
Russias fate it seems...

An armed civil war? Doubtful. No one is going to secede. And no radical groups have enough support to pose any kind of threat.

Any civil war will be an ideological one, and one could argue it has already started.

Any progress with the development of anti nuke defenses?

as long as the globalist states of america exist

no, we had that even before 20th century.

because the atlantist forces have changed, we stayed the same

We don't really need a World War Nasrallah comes under fire. He'll faceroll all the infadels

yes.
people always want what we have.

so there no peace in future.
only our fate...

>C U C K---C U C K---C U C K

C U C K---C U C K---C U C K

yeah desu havent had a good war for a long time.


maybe thats why everyones turning into liberal bedwetting faggots? because we don't have any wars? think of it: back then as a man you had to prove yourself. most did this by combat. wars have been around since the beginning of mankind and since the beginning of mankind nobody has really been a pussy. but when nuclear weapons were invented, war slowly came to a halt, and so did conservatism.

I agree that initially neither side would use nukes. But do you really think that when one country has their back to the wall, and their finger right beside a button that immediately puts an end to the war, that they wouldn't press it? Also again let me remind you about the Russian dead hand system that automatically does this anyway en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war). The fact that Russia has measures like these (and I do not doubt other countries have similar measures) shows that there is no way that they are willing to simply shake hands and accept defeat in the case of war.

Soon, arabs.

Already going strong.

I dunno.

But I can feel it in my bones.

It gives me pleasure knowing her last days were filled with rape and regret.

>he doesn't want to shoot leftist
lol check out this fag

Pearl Harbour was known, and just something used to let the US enter the war. Regardless, the "prior aggression"-part referred to the American use of that doublespeak (pre-emptive strike), not the nukes.

The US will quite frequently talk of "pre-emptive" strikes as if it's a legitimate concept - this is simply a way of saying "attack" in a way where it doesn't sound like you're the aggressor. You may have hit Timmy in the face and broken his nose, bleeding all over the sandbox, without him doing anything other than being a snotty little kid - but it's OK, because he was going to be mean to you later anyway.. eh, probably. So that justifies you attacking first.

With the nukes, Goyistanis will often argue that it was to prevent further suffering, or something like that. Basically, blowing up entire cities is A-OK if you do it to prevent further suffering (statistically likely suffering, that is). With the same logic, then, one could easily argue in favour of skipping the needless fighting-part entirely, and just going straight for the nukes. Why send people to fight if you're just going to skip fighting by nuking, when you can just nuke straight away? Sounds fair to me, bombs away!

Its not true, it was fake news, she lives with me now, were both very happy and about to start a "white" family.

Can't wait! There is nothing that I would like more than to slay some slavs and danes.

calm down Sven

Let's fight together this time. We'll defeat the ruskis

2020.

Praise Kek.

>back then as a man you had to prove yourself
You'd have far less of this social status prestige-bullshit back in the day, when you could actually pull yourself up by the bootstraps and make something out of yourself, rather than endlessly drone about a cubicle hoping for a sliver of hope to return to your dreadfully boring existance as you shared your latest "achievements" on facegoy, goysnap or whatever the kids use these days (even written communication has been reduced to a set of smilies, as in pre-school).

We're soft now because we've had good times. Good times make people try less, because they don't have to be tough to make it. Really, I'd say wars kill off a lot of tough types - Chads that go muh dik, end up getting shot and only come back home in a nylon bag. The ones that survive may start a healthy movement of keeping strong and remembering the war, but more likely is that they start telling cautionary stories about it to their kids about how the war "back then" (i.e. it can't happen now because it's in the past) until they grow tired of it, and eventually it turns into great-grandpa talking about that time he stabbed one of the emperor's boys in the leg back in Okinawa, a cute family tale but nothing real to anyone alive.

War isn't real to anyone in the west right now, it's so far back that people think it can never happen. That's the problem, not that we lack "tough" men, but that nobody wants to be the guy that ruined the good times. Immigration and bullshit like that is a direct result of thinking we have it so good right now, that nothing could possibly bring it down. Even when the bullets start flying, they will deny it.

We don't need Baghdad Bob to tell us that everything is good, we do that ourselves already (most people, not everyone as evidenced by the existance of Sup Forums and current political movements).

North Korea suffers internal power struggle, Korean Unification happens, causes issues with China.

Russia annexing everything east of Kiev, forming a satellite state in the rest of the Ukraine. Kazakhstan also gets annexed, as well as south georgian states.

War between Russia and Turkey. Turkey turns into dictatorship under Erdogan, and NATO gets gimped because of populism. Turkey "provokes" Russia, Russian invasion. Free City of Tsargrad is formed in Istanbul, a satellite of Russia, with Greece joining the Russians to take the surrounding territory and hold joint ownership.

Israeli-Palestinian war, Palestine and Muslim neighbors get BTFO.

"Crusade" of sorts begins, more of a cultural movement. De-islamification, as well as more autocratic rule in most european nations.

Major civil unrest in the USA, as well as South American countries like Venezuela and Brazil, more so than what is habbening now. USA doesn't go full 1860 mode, just a mix between McCarthyism of the 50's and civil protests about war and class like the 60's. Maybe a bit more hectic, but no civil war here.

If things go hot:
USA+GB+EU as Allies
China as Trade Federation
Russia, India, etc as wildcards for both sides

Also South Africa becomes white ethno-state, with expansion into more of Africa in later years.

20 years at max for two of the things to happen,
10 years at minimum for one thing to happen.

Trump's victory was the backup plan to Hillary. They are using his presidency to divide and weaken the country.
>the clashes at Berkeley are just the beginning.
>expect more violence and riots
>leftist will keep increasing the violence until a trump supporter is killed
>a full scale civil war will erupt
>the chinese and russia will invade a weakened and divided U.S.
>the U.S. military will be spread too thin fighting foreign powers to quell the leftist (yes the military will fight along side of trump)

expect riots on St. Patrick's Day. Leftist think it is a white supremacist holiday. they will antagonize or attack anyone celebrating that day. alcohol will fuel more fights.

soros and the globalist are behind this. they have used trumps 3d chess strategy against him.

In order to win trump will have to be the dictator they claim him to be. It's the only Trump card left.

Once we reach 10% of any population we become unstopable.

I think it's fair to say that tens of millions of americans are in one way or another aware of the redpills and really only waiting for more confirmation that has no plausible deniability.

Your 10% already exists.

nationalism will achieve political power within 30 years when boomers start fallinf off and late gen y/ gen z becomes the voting majority.

redpilling can only shrink through extermination. Liberals can only wake up or stay asleep.

We aren't going to get smaller.

>North Korea suffers internal power struggle, Korean Unification happens, causes issues with China.

likely to happen in the next 15 years

>Russia annexing everything east of Kiev, forming a satellite state in the rest of the Ukraine. Kazakhstan also gets annexed, as well as south georgian states.

unlikely to happen in the the next 20 years

>War between Russia and Turkey. Turkey turns into dictatorship under Erdogan, and NATO gets gimped because of populism. Turkey "provokes" Russia, Russian invasion. Free City of Tsargrad is formed in Istanbul, a satellite of Russia, with Greece joining the Russians to take the surrounding territory and hold joint ownership.

Not going to happen

>Israeli-Palestinian war, Palestine and Muslim neighbors get BTFO.

Israel already controls most of the neighboring muslim countries. War with Iran is possible in the next 15 years

>"Crusade" of sorts begins, more of a cultural movement. De-islamification, as well as more autocratic rule in most european nations.

Not going to happen. Our countries will go silently in to the night. Populations are too cucked to rise up.

>Major civil unrest in the USA, as well as South American countries like Venezuela and Brazil, more so than what is habbening now. USA doesn't go full 1860 mode, just a mix between McCarthyism of the 50's and civil protests about war and class like the 60's. Maybe a bit more hectic, but no civil war here.

Very likely to happen in the next 15 years. Civil war also possible

>Civil war also possible
Honestly, I think we'd be more likely to win if it goes full civil war; the biggest problem would be if we could wrap it up before China or whoever else tries to use the situation to make a move elsewhere in the world while we're busy at home.

This. Patriotic americans would stomp the libtards, niggers and antifa but Russia and China would most likely try to take advantage of your weak moment. You'd just have to get it over with quickly like you said.