How likely is a WW3 scenario with Russia ?

[Tiberius]

How likely is a WW3 scenario with Russia ?

Hands down. How likely do you think it truly is that within the next 5 odd years we here in western Europe, go to war with Russia ? Means NATO would be activated.

The signs are there in my eyes, but something tells me that this will never happen because our governments would do everything to row back if it should come to it mainly because Russia simply does have more nuclear missiles than anyone else on the planet.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

2%. I HOPE that the generals will not follow the orders if things go that far.

[gza]

Outcome looks hazy, ask again later.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Altai님이 먼저 게시:

Russia simply does have more nuclear missiles than anyone else on the planet.

But, how many of them work? Russia is very bad maintaining it's military. And corruption is rampant. Many of the electronics, etc could have been sold on the black market.
Of course, they only need a couple to make a very bad day.

[Lambros]

Considering we are already at WW3 scenario with Russia in Ukraine, and most of the world being against them, extremely likely, especially with all the alleged rhetoric coming from the Russian side about using nukes.

But then no more pizza delivery, what happens if something breaks down the bunker might not be able to replace it, or the specialist if they break down, and bunkers can be very depressing, and certainly fresh food requires clean soil, clean water, replenishiable sources, waste management, reasons for living in essentially a prison cell, feral generations without education.

Essentially everything you dont want including that canned bunker air. Imagine not having seasons just walls, walls, walls. And if you dont like the people you are with, or you tire of them, or you really want to see something new but cant cause bunker is not a Tardis.

[Auckes]

Not likely. As it turned out, the "invincible western armaments" catch fire and go boom, from only the cheapest Russian missiles or artillery blasts. Even if the "collective west", keeps violating on purpose the Russian red lines and ignore any and all warnings for escalation, the junk they send over excessively, either is destroyed while an route, or gets the occasional, situational lucky use and the rest goes kaput. That and our, NATO allied countries' military reserves, are running low and have been thinned quite a bit.

Besides, west is already losing badly, in each and every front! Economy, geopolitical scene, (new) alliances formed. Its constant threats and barking, actually started having the completely opposite effect; making even sworn enemies join hands, especially in middle east and elsewhere.

Wars begin and end, at the "chessboard". West is almost out of the table, already. And if it tries something funny, is in for quite the nasty surprises. Lots of us westerners, support Russia and know all details about recent and not so recent events; choosing consciously to join truth and justice... Any idea what might happen, if you try to conscript us, ordering us to move against Russia? Your backs are naked. Besides, the new nuclear missiles are not interceptible and Russia is also going to share tech with other countries, fortifying their military. Which reminds me; numerous captured NATO weapons, have already been sent over to China and Iraq, for reverse engineering! Right after having been mythbusted, in the battlefield.

[Tiberius]

Out Of Bubblegum님이 먼저 게시:

Altai님이 먼저 게시:

Russia simply does have more nuclear missiles than anyone else on the planet.

But, how many of them work? Russia is very bad maintaining it's military. And corruption is rampant. Many of the electronics, etc could have been sold on the black market.
Of course, they only need a couple to make a very bad day.

To decrease the threat of a country due to the asusmption that its nukes don't work must be the most naive thing I have ever heard.

And even if only half of them work, we would still be bombed into oblivion.

There is absolutely not indicator or evidence that Russia's nukes are lacking. Countries like this usually maintain their nuclear force very well even though other parts of their military might be neglected.

Out Of Bubblegum님이 먼저 게시:

2%. I HOPE that the generals will not follow the orders if things go that far.

Another assumption to make yourself feel better. Generals are trained their entire life to listen to command and order.

Lambros님이 먼저 게시:

Considering we are already at WW3 scenario with Russia in Ukraine, and most of the world being against them, extremely likely, especially with all the alleged rhetoric coming from the Russian side about using nukes.

But then no more pizza delivery, what happens if something breaks down the bunker might not be able to replace it, or the specialist if they break down, and bunkers can be very depressing, and certainly fresh food requires clean soil, clean water, replenishiable sources, waste management, reasons for living in essentially a prison cell, feral generations without education.

Essentially everything you dont want including that canned bunker air. Imagine not having seasons just walls, walls, walls. And if you dont like the people you are with, or you tire of them, or you really want to see something new but cant cause bunker is not a Tardis. :cryptosick:

WW3 for me is if Russia and/or China and so on, engages in actual military confrontation with NATO. This is not WW3. If WW3 happens, we would not be talking on here.

ValentB님이 먼저 게시:

0%.
Whoever says otherwise is a ♥♥♥♥♥ coward that believes bluff and lies (looking at one Felon Musk, Cucker Turdlson & other alt-right hippies).

Also WW3 implies that EQUAL countries are fighting. russia is not equal even to Ukraine or Luxembourg, let alone USA or Britain.

I think nukes are a multiplier when it comes to equality.

In my eyes Russia is extremely dangerous BECAUSE its ground forces are trash, it might be more likely to evade to nukes, chem and bio weapons.

[Tiberius]

Auckes님이 먼저 게시:

Not likely. As it turned out, the "invincible western armaments" catch fire and go boom, from only the cheapest Russian missiles or artillery blasts. Even if the "collective west", keeps violating on purpose the Russian red lines and ignore any and all warnings for escalation, the junk they send over excessively, either is destroyed while an route, or gets the occasional lucky use and the rest goes kaput. That and our, NATO allied countries' military reserves, are running low and have been thinned quite a bit.

Besides, west is already losing badly, in each and every front! Economy, geopolitical scene, (new) alliances formed. Its constant threats and barking, actually started having the completely opposite effect; making even sworn enemies join hands, especially in middle east and elsewhere.

Wars begin and end, at the "chessboard". West is almost out of the table, already. And if it tries something funny, is in for quite the nasty surprises. Lots of us westerners, support Russia and know all details about recent and not so recent events; choosing consciously to join truth and justice... Any idea what might happen, if you try to conscript us, ordering us to move against Russia? Your backs are naked. Besides, the new nuclear missiles are not interceptible and Russia is also going to share tech with other countries, fortifying their military. Which reminds me; numerous captured NATO weapons, have already been sent over to China and Iraq, for reverse engineering! Right after having been mythbusted, in the battlefield.

I see your point, but you have to admit that Russia NOR Ukraine made any progress since a year. The frontlines have stalled and this speaks against Russia BECAUSE Russia has a much much bigger military, Ukraine has a much much smaller fighting force, yet is able to block off Russia from advancing completely. So you can not say that western weapons are trash.

Western weapons seem to be the only reason they are able to hold off a by number superior fighting force.

Furthermore is logistics that Russia seems to suck in. Considering the Russian military in Ukraine has their OWN country's borders right behind them while Ukraine has weapons and help delivered only from the far west, its pretty laughable how Russia still does not manage to make progress in a " material warfare ".

[Auckes]

ValentB님이 먼저 게시:

BS fake news. Western weaponry is proven to be much better than old russian and soviet junk.

Brittish and German beg to disagree. Post the tanks' graveyard footage (especially the Zhaporizie ones), they even consider updating and replacing their Leopards and Challengers bull.

Especially the Brittish guy was so shocked, that almost started crying.

[Tiberius]

ValentB님이 먼저 게시:

Auckes님이 먼저 게시:

Not likely. As it turned out, the "invincible western armaments" catch fire and go boom, from only the cheapest Russian missiles or artillery blasts. Even if the "collective west", keeps violating on purpose the Russian red lines and ignore any and all warnings for escalation, the junk they send over excessively, either is destroyed while an route, or gets the occasional lucky use and the rest goes kaput. That and our, NATO allied countries' military reserves, are running low and have been thinned quite a bit.

Besides, west is already losing badly, in each and every front! Economy, geopolitical scene, (new) alliances formed. Its constant threats and barking, actually start having the completely opposite effect; making even sworn enemies join hands, especially in middle east and elsewhere.

Wars begin and end, at the "chessboard". West is almost out of the table, already. And if it tries something funny, is in for quite the nasty surprises. Lots of us westerners, support Russia and know all details about recent and not so recent events... Any idea what might happen, if you try to conscript us, ordering us to move against Russia? Your backs are naked. Besides, the new nuclear missiles are not interceptible and Russia is also going to share tech with other countries, fortifying their military. Which reminds me; numerous captured NATO weapons, have already been sent over to China and Iraq, for reverse engineering! Right after having been mythbusted, in the battlefield.

BS fake news. Western weaponry is proven to be much better than old russian and soviet junk.

I personally say that one can't say western equipment is much superior in every aspect, but certain types of equipment seem to make a major difference due to its superiority, just to name a few : Javelin and HIMARS as well as drones.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Altai님이 먼저 게시:

Out Of Bubblegum님이 먼저 게시:

2%. I HOPE that the generals will not follow the orders if things go that far.

Another assumption to make yourself feel better. Generals are trained their entire life to listen to command and order.

They also have families they know they would be murdering. And a country they are loyal to that they would be destroying. No one can say for certain.

Also, you said that you know they maintain the nukes well, You don't know. That is just an assumption.

[Tiberius]

Auckes님이 먼저 게시:

ValentB님이 먼저 게시:

BS fake news. Western weaponry is proven to be much better than old russian and soviet junk.

Brittish and German beg to disagree. Post the tanks' graveyard footage (especially the Zhaporizie ones), they even consider updating and replacing their Leopards and Challengers bull.

Especially the Brittish guy was so shocked, that almost started crying.

Can you logically and factually explain why do you think the Russian T-90 series is superior to Challenger and Leopard tanks ?

And why are you not taking into consideration that ALL Ukrainian tankers only had limited training on western tanks.

The west is always looking to improve their MBTs and has sent scrap to Ukraine, non of the tanks they sent were latest versions with latest upgrades.

[Tiberius]

Out Of Bubblegum님이 먼저 게시:

Altai님이 먼저 게시:

Another assumption to make yourself feel better. Generals are trained their entire life to listen to command and order.

They also have families they know they would be murdering. And a country they are loyal to that they would be destroying. No one can say for certain.

Also, you said that you know they maintain the nukes well, You don't know. That is just an assumption.

They have families, so had all the generals in previous large scale wars. lol.

"Also, you said that you know they maintain the nukes well, You don't know. That is just an assumption."

I never said I know anything, this is an assumption, same as you are assuming they do not maintain them well. But for simple safety reasons, one should not assume the best outcome.
You are not going into a bear cave assuming the bear is sleeping.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Altai님이 먼저 게시:

Out Of Bubblegum님이 먼저 게시:

They also have families they know they would be murdering. And a country they are loyal to that they would be destroying. No one can say for certain.

Also, you said that you know they maintain the nukes well, You don't know. That is just an assumption.

They have families, so had all the generals in previous large scale wars. lol.

Those were not nuclear wars. They believed their families and country were safe in all those wars. Huge difference. lol.

[Tiberius]

Out Of Bubblegum님이 먼저 게시:

Altai님이 먼저 게시:

They have families, so had all the generals in previous large scale wars. lol.

Those were not nuclear wars. They believed their families and country were safe in all those wars. Huge difference. lol.

No, but these wars were maximum destructive for their time.

WW2 bombing raids were extremely destructive and wiped entire cities.

To assume a general just refuses command and risks to get executed and replaced is extremely naive. SURE some will refuse, definitely, but there will still be plenty who go with it because its their " time to shine ".

[Out Of Bubblegum]

So, you did not really ask a question at all. You just started a thread to lecture us with your infallible wisdom. Disguised as a question to be discussed.
:(