So it's 12:44 AM in Texas, and I'm still waiting for WW3 because of the Turkey shit. When does it start?
Or are we going to go
>itl havpen eventauly anon xD
Like we did when September rolled around and passed?
>>56682262
world wars take years to develop. When historians look back they will cite the US invasion of Iraq creating a power vaccum that resulted in ISIS, the Syrian Civil War, and the Russian Annexation of Crimea as all being the leadup to WW3, with the Turks shooting down the Russian Jet as the "shot heard round the world" But it could be another year before it escalates to actual war.
>>56682548
Oh so we are going to do the
>itl hapen eventualy xDDDDDDD
Right.
What else should I expect from /pol/?
>>56682882
Putin is going to fight Cold War style. Don't be surprised if you wake up sometime next week and the headlines are about how Erdogan suffered an unexpected heart attack.
>ww3
>2015
See we have these things called nukes which basically deter any real threat of conventianal warfare so can we drop the whole ww3 hurr DUR.
>>56683368
Confirmed retarded.
That's what we are waiting on, dipshit. Fuck off back to Reddit you pretentious smartass.
One of you guys needs to go to DC and suicide bomb the whitehouse. Just jump over the fence and get as close as you can, kickstart this shit.
>>56682882
Look up how long WW2 took to develop. No single one incident started it. Yes, the German invasion of Poland officially started it but that was precipitated by years of Germany annexing neighbors and Hitler's rise to power
>>56683412
No one but a suicidal dictator or a supervillain would use a nuke. Mutually assured destruction, what sane leader would risk that? Nukes are used as a deterrent and against naval ships/carriers but as far as anyone using one on a civilian population... Shit even Iran wouldn't actually use one on Israel, they just want them to say fuck you Israel now you can't threaten to attack us or else! Even Pakistan hasn't used theirs. North Korea, they're actually fucking insane, as are terrorists.
There's even mutually assured destruction in a land invasion of any NATO or Warsaw pact nation, so that's unlikely but not entirely to be ruled out. What we're really at risk of is an escalated proxy war.
>>56683687
I think there will be direct conflict between Russia and the US but the ground rules will be set that neither Russia, nor the US will actually be touched. It won't be the same as a proxy war in that it won't just be US troops vs Russian BACKED local soldiers or Russian troops vs US BACKED local soldiers but Russian soldiers vs US soldiers. It will all be in the Middle East, and Ukraine, and Baltics, and possibly Japan and South Korea.
It's possible to have a non nuclear WW3.
>>56682262
Hey I'm in Texas too. I'm worried that Dallas will be a target.
>>56682262
>Actually thinks that WW3 world start overnight over a fucking jet.
>>56684504
>I'm worried that Dallas will be a target.
of all the states, Russia likes Texas the most. It's a little ironic, but I can understand it since we're known for liking guns and christianity.
I truly believe 6/16 will be the start
It's the true mark of the beast
The anti Christ will be born in that month into a world that is in turmoil
And we will destroy each other for years until he takes the throne of the NWO
Then Jesus will come
Yea just like that bro
Calling it
>>56684267
>It's possible to have a non nuclear WW3.
It was possible with WW2 as well, I doubt WW3 will be without nukes.
>>56682262
do not worry, my paranoid burgertard
the most probable thing Russia will do is "an eye for an eye"
>https://www.rt.com/news/323329-russia-suspend-military-turkey/
>deploy anti-fly zone near turkish boarder
>see anything turkish coming up in the air
>shot it down right awy
>claim that plane was about to shot down new russian plane
>EVERYONE will be ok with it
>no "Happening" for ya m8
>>56687144
WW2 nukes were used primarily for 3 reasons:
1. To end the war quickly without invasion of mainland Japan
2. To halt the advance into Japan by Soviet troops and prevent division of Japan with the Soviets
3. To demonstrate to the Soviet Union that we had this new ultimate weapon, it was effective and devastating in war, and that we would have the resolve to use them in war, to prevent World War 3 with the Soviets happening directly after World War 2.
At the time, we knew we had nukes, and nobody else had them, so we were free to use them without retalliation.
Once the Soviets got their own nuclear weapons, that no longer became something we could do. We wanted to use them in Korea, but now the Soviets had them too so we couldn't risk it.
>>56687906
Makes sense, I still think any WW3 scenario will witness nukes.
>>56688041
Honestly I don't think they'll ever intentionally be used. if they are used, it will be a mistake, like, tensions will be so high, that the alerts will be to a hair trigger level, and then a malfunction in early warning radar could make someone order a launch when they didn't really want to, just because they thought the other side already launched. We've had close calls like that multiple times (Cuban Missile Crisis, Able Archer, the Norwegian weather rocket incident, among others)
Nobody's going to make the decision "hey, let's both end each other's existence as a country, why the heck not?"
It'll be a situation where we think they fired, so we fire back, but in reality, we just fired first, and now they're firing back.
