Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

MmCm6 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:39 pm

dylsupreme1 wrote:

There is another quote relevant to this conversation.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. ~Albert Einstein

That was spoken with the assumption that increasing technological advances will yield weapons with more destructive capacities (which they have). But remember, countries would think twice when dealing with nuclear arsenals.

The only weapon I can think of that can inflict massive damage without inviting a quick retaliatory strike would be a biological weapon, since diseases are harder to identify as weaponized. And even that might not be such a good idea to deploy, with travelling citizens and all that.

OmegaXII · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:46 pm

MmCm6 wrote:

The only weapon I can think of that can inflict massive damage without inviting a quick retaliatory strike would be a biological weapon, since diseases are harder to identify as weaponized.

but isnt there a law or something against biological and chemical warfare? and the strongest nuclear weapon is the hydrogen bomb

MmCm6 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:49 pm

OmegaXII wrote:

but isnt there a law or something against biological and chemical warfare? and the strongest nuclear weapon is the hydrogen bomb

Yes, but there are also nuclear disarmament treaties as well; and it isn't a well-kept secret that most developed countries and some developing countries have arsenals right? And a developed nation, with the trust its gained (or a developing nation with the relative lack of attention paid to it and its sometimes rugged terrain) can easily conceal development of biological arsenals.

OmegaXII · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:55 pm

yes like high up in the himalayans there could be a secret base

dylsupreme1 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Haha all it takes is one guy (country) to ruin everything.

mfreak · **Posted:** Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:52 pm

Quote:

Mutually Assured Destruction. Even with a smaller payload, the risk is too great for them to consider bringing these out in a war. And when global war is unlikely, then the odds of seeing a mushroom cloud at any point is unlikely as well, unless on the off-chance a rogue state launches an effective missile just for the helluvit.

True. What I meant was as countries become technologically more advanced with equipment, the smaller bombs they will use. No one will use a mega ton bomb. They'd much rather prefer to use a kiloton bomb to destroy targets tactically. But you are right, this will never happen for fear of backlash and panic.

Quote:

Well, yes they would cause damage, but unless the propulsion systems are working properly, the damage will be on the country's land rather than the enemy's.

It will work. The general notion that Russian systems aren't good enough is solely public opinion created by propaganda machinery within the US during the cold war. It continues to this day. Both Russia and the US have advanced Aviation and military industries. And both are capable of producing world class equipment.

Quote:

Yes, but there are also nuclear disarmament treaties as well; and it isn't a well-kept secret that most developed countries and some developing countries have arsenals right? And a developed nation, with the trust its gained (or a developing nation with the relative lack of attention paid to it and its sometimes rugged terrain) can easily conceal development of biological arsenals.

Biological arsenals can be developed only by countries with an extensive Biological and Chemical research facilities. It cannot be built under a mountain. Therefore countries developing them have to be militarily strong and economically pretty strong.

francois1996 · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:07 am

forget about bombs ppl
u should knw that KATYACHA missiles will do alot of damage more then bombs.
KATYUCHA missiles r low ranged missiles BUT they could pass the anti-missile defense system
thats y many countrys use them!!

mfreak · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:50 am

That is just a multi barrel rocket launcher. It can be countered. Today every major power has both endo atmospheric and exo atmospheric anti missile defence systems. Its been proven that these missiles can be shot down. Plus these multi barrel rocket launchers are just like Artillery with 30-40 km range. They cant possibly do more damage than a nuke. You cant even compare them.

dylsupreme1 · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:21 am

I just realized China, Russia and alot of other countries have ICBM's that could hit us.

MmCm6 · **Posted:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:34 am

dylsupreme1 wrote:

I just realized China, Russia and alot of other countries have ICBM's that could hit us.

Meh, there's still the issue of MAD. And anyways, if you're a powerful country and you want a country to go down nowadays, you cut off trade with them and watch their economy gradually collapse.

mrfreak wrote:

Biological arsenals can be developed only by countries with an extensive Biological and Chemical research facilities. It cannot be built under a mountain. Therefore countries developing them have to be militarily strong and economically pretty strong.

Then that's when developed countries come into play. Anyways, you don't need much equipment as far as local infection is concerned. All you need is to isolate a pathogen and store it in a fragile container to break over a hard surface (airborne) or a water supply (waterborne).

World War 3