[AntiTrace]

(09-13-2012 05:19 PM)muc Wrote:  

I don't want to shoot anybody I don't know. But if I absolutely had to go I'd want to be a pilot of some sort.

Im willing to bet that belief would go out the window extremely fast when that person was shooting back at you.

and on the pilot bit...

[megatron]

If tanks started rolling down American street, yeah, maybe. But I suspect I'll escape the country. The grand majority of harm done to US soldiers or things like 9/11 are direct results of our evil foreign policy.

We have army bases in 70% of the world's countries.

How would we react if China started to build one here? That's right, we'd start to fuck shit up. But for some reason, most Americans can't comprehend why so many Arabs and Muslims (not to mention many other populations) hate us. "It's because of our freedom!"

Yeah, right. Freedom. To paraphrase David Cross: "if they hated us for our freedom, then shouldn't Amsterdam have been nuked by now?"

And having 25% of the world's prison population while only being 5% of the world's population makes it clear that we're not nearly as free as our government likes to tell us we are.

[choichoi]

well guys I ship for army basic in 3 more days. Shit's getting more surreal by the second. See you guys on the other side!

[painter]

Good luck and thanks for serving!

[Blackhawk]

If you want to really know where the next wars are going to be, buy the latest edition of A Quick & Dirty Guide to War: Briefings on Present & Potential Wars by James Dunnigan. He's proven pretty accurate in the past, and gives a whole lot of background as to why the conflicts are predicted to happen in each chapter. He also has a whole website of wonky military articles of lesser utility.

A major reason why countries go to war is overpopulation. And all the models are saying pretty much it's a given that the next World War will be between the two most fucking over populated countries in the world, India and China. It is highly, highly likely that the elites in both countries, when threatened by the underclass trying to rise up in either one of them, start a nuclear war between the two that wipes out mostly of their massive lower classes (while leaving the elites untouched). It'll be similar to the way Khomeini used the Iran-Iraq war to rid Iran of retarded and otherwise unwanted children by sending them in body waves of certain death to clear mine fields.

The next world war will involve over 50% of the world's population. But it will be largely between only two countries, and probably over so quickly every else will wonder what the hell happened. Japan may get caught in the crossfire, as possibly other neighbors. But Europe and the Americas won't be able too do much except watch from a distance, shoot down any stray missiles launched their way, and it'll be over before anyone outside the region even realizes it started.

There is the slight possibility it will turn out to be a conventional war, but not in the western sense. Both sides can easily mobilize armies so large that there isn't enough refinery capacity in the entire world to fuel trucks to drive that many people. It would start with modern mechanized warfare, but within a few weeks both sides will be reduced to Napoleonic-level foot marching and huge supply problems even getting ammo and food moved to the battle front. Some believe it could even degrade back to swords and pikes as the only weapons still able to function.

In the more likely nuclear scenario, the real trouble will be dealing with the radioactive fallout that will be in the atmosphere for an unknown amount of time afterwards --no one has set that many nukes off at once in a limited area before. Some models also include the possibility that both sides use "cleaner" neutron bombs, and other WMD instead of old fashioned atomic bombs. It's still not pretty. Most likely both sides use their remaining air-forces (and fuel) not to engage either other, but to spray chemical aerosol poisons across large swaths of the each other, crop dusting each others (non-elite) civilians into further oblivion.

So while it's unlikely that anyone on this forum will be serving in the next world war (or there will even be time to draft, train and fly them over before it's finished), we'll all be breathing the fallout and poisons left behind for years, possibly decades, afterwards.

[Anon-A-Moose]

Blackhawk, it's well known the US will be involved in ANY potential conflict--because selling guns is what we do best.

[Jaydublin]

Blackhawk, it seems crazy that the US wouldn't be involved. I actually think that whole scenario seems a little nutty but I'll have to check out the author and see how accurate he really has been...... or if he just claims accuracy, Lindsey Williams style.

[choichoi]

(11-17-2012 07:35 PM)painter Wrote:  

Good luck and thanks for serving!

thanks man!

[British Dude]

no time for war, when I've got game to learn! hehehe

On a serious note though, I don't think WW3 would go nuclear unless the Iranians & North Koreans start some shit, I would never sign up for a ground offensive.

[choichoi]

Enjoying holiday leave from basic. Basically just indulging in all the civilian freedoms I took for granted prior shipping out. I feel alot more confident in myself and I have picked up a noticeable amount of muscle from all the PT and smoking sessions since I was already a skinny mofo. I also feel more alpha than I was before I left but I haven't gamed many chicks since I've been back because of laziness.
Making some decent enlisted coin because of my BA degree (not so Worthless after all heh). Anyways I gotta go back in a couple more days to finish up 6 more wks of BCT and then onto AIT.

I'm surprised by how many guys there are who are a few years younger than me but are already getting married and having or have kids - to each his own. Glad it aint me. Feel like I've been dodging a bullet all these years to be honest and I plan on continuing to do so up into my 30s. Imagine some fucking sow back home collecting my/tax payer-funded salary and benefits to sit on her ass all day prob banging other dudes while I'm possibly hundreds or thousands of miles away. Say she decides to cut the knot and take the kids and lock my ass in to funding her single mother lifestyle all on the govt dime. Fuck dat shit

Well I'll be back on here in a month or so. Later

[EasyMoney]

There was a good line in the new movie Jack Reacher about this:

I'm paraphrasing here....

"There are only 4 types of people who join the military. 1) Family business - they feel compelled to continue the tradition. 2) Patriots - they wanna fight for the flag. 3) People who've got no other options, and lastly, people who want a legal means of being a killer."

My dad was in Vietnam and he said exactly the same thing to me many times. He was drafted and his message to me was that I should very clearly know which option of those 4 I fit into, and if I don't fit into any I shouldn't be the military - draft or no draft.

I took the red pill on politics long before sex and women, so fuck getting drafted to fight to make the world easier to extract resource out of for our ruling elite.

I think the way to avoid it, if you can make it, is to go law enforcement in that scenario.

[Lemmo]

If there were an American civil war with one side clearly being reactionary, I would fight for that side. Otherwise, no way.

[Aliblahba]

Enlisting in WW3= Beta
Starting WW3= Alpha

[finton_the_toole]

Perhaps it has already started. Syria is a proxy war with US/Saudi on one side and Iran/Russia on the other. The question is what happens when it spills over into iraq, Turkey and Iran.

[Ovid]

I'd only fight if it were clear that one side was a) clearly wronged, b) standing for something worth fighting for, i.e. a repeal of liberalism and feminism, and c) stood a reasonable chance of success. There hasn't been an unambiguously just war fought by the US in a very long time.

[PompeyChris]

(09-12-2012 02:46 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(09-12-2012 02:42 PM)Deif Wrote:  

Fighting on the behalf of any government is probably one of the dumbest things you can do.

I would not fight on behalf of the US government, but if we were being attacked, and there was a serious chance of us being invaded, I would enlist. Otherwise, no, I would not.

I actually think about this sometimes. I could see Kim Jong Ill's son trying to prove himself and invade S. Korea, and then us coming to back S. Korea up. Then China steps in for N. Korea, and we have a huge ordeal on our hands.

I also wonder who would fight with us if there was a war with China? Would our allies sit back if they felt there was a real chance of us losing? I mean, we didn't exactly jump right in to help anyone out during WWI or WWII. We sat back for quite a while.

As a brit i am 99% sure we'd be in within a matter of weeks. Our government values the relationship with the US a lot (not so much now that Blair isn't in charge).

There is also NATO. If America went to war, then countires such as UK, France, Canada, Germany would instantly be involved.

I've been thinking about whether i'd enlist or not if North Korea goes crazy. I was planning on joining the Paras a few years back and plan on joining the TA within the next 10 years.

[kosko]

(01-01-2013 08:08 AM)PompeyChris Wrote:  

(09-12-2012 02:46 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(09-12-2012 02:42 PM)Deif Wrote:  

Fighting on the behalf of any government is probably one of the dumbest things you can do.

I would not fight on behalf of the US government, but if we were being attacked, and there was a serious chance of us being invaded, I would enlist. Otherwise, no, I would not.

I actually think about this sometimes. I could see Kim Jong Ill's son trying to prove himself and invade S. Korea, and then us coming to back S. Korea up. Then China steps in for N. Korea, and we have a huge ordeal on our hands.

I also wonder who would fight with us if there was a war with China? Would our allies sit back if they felt there was a real chance of us losing? I mean, we didn't exactly jump right in to help anyone out during WWI or WWII. We sat back for quite a while.

As a brit i am 99% sure we'd be in within a matter of weeks. Our government values the relationship with the US a lot (not so much now that Blair isn't in charge).

There is also NATO. If America went to war, then countires such as UK, France, Canada, Germany would instantly be involved.

I've been thinking about whether i'd enlist or not if North Korea goes crazy. I was planning on joining the Paras a few years back and plan on joining the TA within the next 10 years.

I think NATO might crack in whiten 10 years.

[PompeyChris]

(01-01-2013 10:52 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(01-01-2013 08:08 AM)PompeyChris Wrote:  

(09-12-2012 02:46 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(09-12-2012 02:42 PM)Deif Wrote:  

Fighting on the behalf of any government is probably one of the dumbest things you can do.

I would not fight on behalf of the US government, but if we were being attacked, and there was a serious chance of us being invaded, I would enlist. Otherwise, no, I would not.

I actually think about this sometimes. I could see Kim Jong Ill's son trying to prove himself and invade S. Korea, and then us coming to back S. Korea up. Then China steps in for N. Korea, and we have a huge ordeal on our hands.

I also wonder who would fight with us if there was a war with China? Would our allies sit back if they felt there was a real chance of us losing? I mean, we didn't exactly jump right in to help anyone out during WWI or WWII. We sat back for quite a while.

As a brit i am 99% sure we'd be in within a matter of weeks. Our government values the relationship with the US a lot (not so much now that Blair isn't in charge).

There is also NATO. If America went to war, then countires such as UK, France, Canada, Germany would instantly be involved.

I've been thinking about whether i'd enlist or not if North Korea goes crazy. I was planning on joining the Paras a few years back and plan on joining the TA within the next 10 years.

I think NATO might crack in whiten 10 years.

That's a possibility although I think it is unlikely.

With the exception of the US it is hugely beneficial to the other members. It provides collective security from both external and internal conflicts.

For example, if Germany chose to go to war with a country like Romania for un-just reasons then the other members of NATO would step in - stops the bullying.

And then if Iran chose to attack Turkey they would have to deal with the combined force of NATO. A deterrent.

[svend]

Under no circumstances would I risk so much as a fingernail for my country.

[kosko]

(01-01-2013 10:59 AM)PompeyChris Wrote:  

(01-01-2013 10:52 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(01-01-2013 08:08 AM)PompeyChris Wrote:  

(09-12-2012 02:46 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(09-12-2012 02:42 PM)Deif Wrote:  

Fighting on the behalf of any government is probably one of the dumbest things you can do.

I would not fight on behalf of the US government, but if we were being attacked, and there was a serious chance of us being invaded, I would enlist. Otherwise, no, I would not.

I actually think about this sometimes. I could see Kim Jong Ill's son trying to prove himself and invade S. Korea, and then us coming to back S. Korea up. Then China steps in for N. Korea, and we have a huge ordeal on our hands.

I also wonder who would fight with us if there was a war with China? Would our allies sit back if they felt there was a real chance of us losing? I mean, we didn't exactly jump right in to help anyone out during WWI or WWII. We sat back for quite a while.

As a brit i am 99% sure we'd be in within a matter of weeks. Our government values the relationship with the US a lot (not so much now that Blair isn't in charge).

There is also NATO. If America went to war, then countires such as UK, France, Canada, Germany would instantly be involved.

I've been thinking about whether i'd enlist or not if North Korea goes crazy. I was planning on joining the Paras a few years back and plan on joining the TA within the next 10 years.

I think NATO might crack in whiten 10 years.

That's a possibility although I think it is unlikely.

With the exception of the US it is hugely beneficial to the other members. It provides collective security from both external and internal conflicts.

For example, if Germany chose to go to war with a country like Romania for un-just reasons then the other members of NATO would step in - stops the bullying.

And then if Iran chose to attack Turkey they would have to deal with the combined force of NATO. A deterrent.

And that is my point. The USA is bankrolling and controlling NATO the rest of the countries just put in exorbitant fees into its operations offering minimal support. The logistical and tactical support systems can be arranged on treaty's on a case by case basis. The small client states in NATO will see that its a double edged sword because as NATO/USA is chasing new campaigns they are all in sensitive areas which undermine those nations Security. Turkey is the greatest example of that. Iran is not going to attack Turkey or anybody else, it never has in it's history. But a Iran/Turkey (NATO) conflict would simply be the end of Turkey.

If blowback situations start popping off in client fringe NATO areas then this essentially becomes a burden for the USA. The the opposite view is that these small states even with the assurance of NATO protection still have to deal with hostilities leading up to a intervention (if one even comes) and then after all alone. Plus whiten NATO itself countries such as France or Germany whom have their own military ideals which differ from the larger NATO ideals.

Russia itself has a bunch of treaty's and pacts with its old USSR client states and beyond. The homogeneous Defense block is out-dated and does not work anymore you have to approach things diversely with many partners and players. To me Economic partnerships mean more then Military alliances. Economic ones hold more weight and have more benefits (usually) for both sides in the partnership. For instance even though Mexico has no military treaty with the USA/NATO the USA actively tries to promote (or diss-courage depending on how you view it) safety and stability in the drug-lord parts of Mexico because it has a direct effect economically to them. This is why the Shanghai Corporation Organization has a ton of teeth because these nations put economic interests first before defense. Then because of that approach defense just comes as a cost to protect your economic interests, and thus creates a "military alliance" by default. Its a more realistic way to go about things. NATO is for the stone age, and just looks like a bunch of old white guys in suits whom meet every few years to play golf.

Many scholars say if you want world peace then get everybody trading with each other (not Free trade, but via Fair trade). Nobody would want to fuck their economic partnerships up and bombs would not drop.

[Tomo]

(09-12-2012 11:40 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

I'd sooner flee the country than voluntarily serve myself up as cannon fodder for the bankers, corporations and corrupt politicians that have run this country into the ground.

This.

[Aliblahba]

(01-01-2013 12:40 PM)svend Wrote:  

Under no circumstances would I risk so much as a fingernail for my country.

I hate breaking a nail too. It picks my cashmere sweater and meggings.

(01-01-2013 03:49 PM)Tomo Wrote:  

(09-12-2012 11:40 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

I'd sooner flee the country than voluntarily serve myself up as cannon fodder for the bankers, corporations and corrupt politicians that have run this country into the ground.

This.

Aren't all govt's corrupt? Besides, what happens if you flee and then get conscripted into their service? All is fair in love and war. I'd hate to become a soldier in the N. Korean Army when the U.S. Marines hit the shore.

[Tomo]

(01-01-2013 03:58 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(01-01-2013 03:49 PM)Tomo Wrote:  

(09-12-2012 11:40 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

I'd sooner flee the country than voluntarily serve myself up as cannon fodder for the bankers, corporations and corrupt politicians that have run this country into the ground.

This.

Aren't all govt's corrupt? Besides, what happens if you flee and then get conscripted into their service? All is fair in love and war. I'd hate to become a soldier in the N. Korean Army when the U.S. Marines hit the shore.

I know what you mean, I was just agreeing that in general terms I wouldn't want to die just so some corporation gets wealthy from arms sales and I also wouldn't want to die on behalf of international finance. There's a great book called Confessions of an Economic Hitman, you've probably heard of it. It makes you question why many wars/invasions happen.

[Rex]

(09-12-2012 02:26 PM)Rah Wrote:  

In any case, would you voluntarily enlist in your country's military if WW3 did happen right now?

Fuck no. Too much pussy left behind to plunder. We all know what military wives and gfs are like

[Giovonny]

No.

But, I would encourage all other men to enlist.

I would stay home with the women.

Hopefully, most of the men will kill each other and I will to re-populate the world by myself and with the help of a few friends!