WW3 a go-go with[s] topless Putin?[/s] Trump?
Come on guys
Reply
Up until now, Russia had been our best bet for kicking off World War (huh!) 3. Now, however, the once great opponent who met our watery capitalist eyes over the Iron Curtain with a steely communist gaze is a broken shell of its former mass-tractor producing self. Its armed forces are barely functioning, for all the supposedly good kit they have knocking about, and they can barely pay the manpower that they still have. Moreover, if diplomatic push with their effete capitalist running dog foes comes to potential military shove it's entirely unlikely that Mother Russia would actually man up and break out the armoured divisions or the MIRVs. The majority of their wealth derives from selling us fuel, and there's a gravy train they can't afford to derail, for all of Putin's Cold War Warrior rehetoric.

So. Currently, it seems that Pakistan may be our best bet at Round 3 of the All Comers Destroy the Earth Competition. The attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team is just the latest in a long running string of such attacks (and not only on sportsmen, either, of course). Pakistan is looking increasingly like a failed state with every passing month. They're swamped with TEH TERRORZTS, who may decide that attacking the Great Satan in Afghanistan with AK-47s is less fun than the idea of taking over the nuclear armed wreck of a state that they happen to be sat in.

Of course, if the nutters did try to take over the asylum, the military will likely try and step in to head off any jihadist coup at the pass. But I'm not so sure that, given the military's effectiveness in controlling the metric fuck-ton of jihadists sat inside Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, they'd actually be able to do it. Or, in light of the complicity of the military with what the jihadists have been up to, if the Generals would just find their men lining up by the side of the nutjobs.

And then we find the haterz sat by the big red buttons. Who's first? Their old foes India? The evil Israel? Crusader Europe? The possibilities are endless.*

I guess it's a little weird that I find myself excited by the prospect of WW3 (a few years ago Craster had that "bible code" book which said that the bible said, amongst many other things, that WW3 was going to be kicked off in 2012 by Lebanon setting off a nuke in Israel. Which we had great fun with), but in my defence I am *that* bored that a multi-party global scrap would lighten my day.


*endless possibilities may be limited by the range of the missiles. Terms and conditions apply
I put this in the cricket thread, but probably deserves its own, to be fair.
It is a bit shitty. In all fairness, no more shitty than Mumbai/Bali or other stuff happening on a daily basis, but now I can put names to shrapnel wounds.

It would be a great level on CoD though, 'Protect the Cricket Team'. Although I'd never get past that level as I'd be unable to resist stabbing Vettori/Warne/Pietersen etc.
Good post Mr Chris, but please stop giving them ideas!
Mr Chris wrote:
Who's first? Their old foes India?


It's worth noting that the lovely playground of Kashmir is currently split between Pakistan, India, and China. A 3-way kickoff between them would be a delightful start to world-ending proceedings.
Can Russia actually survive with oil at $40 a barrel? Last July they were probably making cash, but I doubt they can keep going for long at that price. Commodities were their only foreign currency earner - I don't think they have much other exports. So with a verging-on-bankrupt state and a bit of a loon in charge, I think some attempt to prop up the government by a past-glory-reclaiming military adventure might be possible. Charge through the caucuses, grab a few pipelines and use the control of them to bump up the gas / oil price by limiting supply.
Squirt wrote:
bump up the gas / oil price by limiting supply.

I had suspected that was what they were playing at with their "dispute" with the Ukraine recently.
Craster wrote:
Mr Chris wrote:
Who's first? Their old foes India?


It's worth noting that the lovely playground of Kashmir is currently split between Pakistan, India, and China. A 3-way kickoff between them would be a delightful start to world-ending proceedings.


I'm pretty sure China would slap them both down pretty quickly. But I'm only basing that on China being the default enemy for all recent FPS games.
China also has sixty gajillion soldiers under arms, and has better kit than either India or Pakistan.
And they eat dogs, so releasing the hounds a la CoD5 wouldn't work.
And they have monstrous thighs.
I'm pretty sure Chun Li isn't representative, Z.
myp wrote:
And they eat dogs, so releasing the hounds a la CoD5 wouldn't work.

I think you you're thinking of Koreans. You lacist.
I'm pretty sure the Chinese don't eat Koreans.
Hello!

NervyP popping in to say, "I'm pretty sure..." is my new fave potential running joke, and that I heartily approve of this thread. Also, more Defcon please.

I'd say Pakistan/India remains the flashpoint, especially since we could see massive riots kick off armed intervention, with a worrying escalation if it's on the border. I can't see nukes being deployed however, as there'd be no point for terrorist nutters if they get a state that's radioactive. I think they'd see better odds in a slow wave of their own 'regime changes', but of course this would mean conventional wars ago-go.
nervouspete wrote:
NervyP popping in to say, "I'm pretty sure..." is my new fave potential running joke, and that I heartily approve of this thread.


I've only just noticed that I did that twice in a row. I'm my own running joke :(
Craster wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm my own running joke :(


FeeX
Mnd you, Pakistan, as a nation, will tear itself apart before it starts on anyone else, so I don't think we need to worry about nuclea -- OH SHIT!
Which is kind of the problem. Detterant theory kind of works when both sides don't particulary want to suffer catastrophic destruction, but not so well when one side don't really care.
Kern wrote:
Which is kind of the problem. Detterant theory kind of works when both sides don't particulary want to suffer catastrophic destruction, but not so well when one side don't really care.

Hang on, are we saying now that the Pakistani government == terrorists?
myp wrote:
Hang on, are we saying now that the Pakistani government == terrorists?


Not my intention, sorry. But it's easy to imagine a situation in which control of the weaponary falls into such hands especially if you're Dick Cheney
myp wrote:
Kern wrote:
Which is kind of the problem. Detterant theory kind of works when both sides don't particulary want to suffer catastrophic destruction, but not so well when one side don't really care.

Hang on, are we saying now that the Pakistani government == terrorists?


I'm pretty sure he's talking about the situation where teh nutzors get the launchcodes, duder.
Yeah, because in all the years of trouble in Ireland, we were constantly worried about the IRA getting hold of our nukes.
I just assumed that they didn't like Cricket very much! I don't really either alas I have no RPG or any other weapons. I just play COD and pretend someone is trying to make me watch a match!
myp wrote:
Yeah, because in all the years of trouble in Ireland, we were constantly worried about the IRA getting hold of our nukes.

Slightly different situation here. Most of West Pakistan is in the hands of the baddies, for instance. And an indeterminate number of the armed forces will probably side with them.
Mr Chris wrote:
Slightly different situation here. Most of West Pakistan is in the hands of the baddies, for instance. And an indeterminate number of the armed forces will probably side with them.


:this:

Sadly, that's about the extent of my understanding of the situation so can't really defend my original post. But then I don't really know what we're doing in Afghanistan anymore either.
Craster wrote:
I'm pretty sure Chun Li isn't representative, Z.


*mind shatters*
I am annoyed and disappointed in equal measure that this didn't come to anything. Perhaps this displays some huge sociopathic character flaw that I was unaware of, but I don't care. I'm bored and I want to be entertained, and nothing less than full scale global war will do, thank you very much.

The continuing low-boil trouble in west Pakistan, and the haven this provides to the mixed bag of fantasists and inadequates playing their be-turbaned Boys Own games in east Afghanistan, remains mildly concerning, but one would have thought that if anything was going to get the jihadist nutjobs running around in the hills of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas to rise up and stage some sort of takeover in Pakistan, the recently applied water-based apocalyptic wrath of Allah would have provided the ideal opportunity, what with the already fractured state being at its weakest. But no, nothing happens, except that they threaten to kill western aid workers coming over to assist the poor benighted rural peasants who have been hit hardest by the government's preference for spending on arms rather than civil improvement. Well fucking done, guys. All that running through lines of tyres with AK-47s over your head really prepared you well.

Perhaps this proves that the threat posed by a destabilised Pakistan has been hugely overstated here in the West, and that the main destabilisation issue we have to worry about is their destabilisation of the sports betting industry. And the wonderful sidebar to that is entertainment provided by the delightfully be-monikered Ahsan Butt. Every cloud, eh?

Of course, the other argument for some sort of "action" with respect to Pakistan is that, supposedly, the majority of the unspecified but oh-my-word-so-worrying,-you'd-never-sleep-again-if-we-told-you-about-them-but-trust-us-they-were-horrific-and-real-and-zomg-I've-just-come-on-my-AndyMcNab-novel terrorist plots that have been foiled over the last few years have originated from or (weasel words ahoy) "had links to" Pakistan. So much so that there has been a move, both here and in the US government, from discussing "Afghanistan" to talking about the "AfPak" (*grinds teeth*) problem. But we don't appear to be doing anything about it, apart from occasionally getting some computer games addict in an office in an airbase in the US to fly a drone over the border and blow up some villagers. And given that our own dear Gordon Brown, and now Cameron, claim that Our Boys are dying over in the sandpit to keep our streets safer here, why aren't they expanding that out into Pakistan? Otherwise, given the "porous" border and the fact it's the same people pissing about on both sides of it, what's the point? Or maybe, just maybe, Pakistan, and the dickless idiots blowing themselves up over there in the name of god knows what, isn't that much of a threat to us. Given that we're doing nothing whatsoever about it, I can only assume that's the case, but if it is, why is this Pakistani threat being talked up? Is someone out there looking to start world war 3?

Oh my, maybe it's me.
War is great for business. Think of all the great things we got out of war... like WW2 games, and Hitler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R6xCWcf_VU
No youtube at work, will look later.

Was it Naomi Klien? Wolff? something like that, wrote a book recently about "conflict capitalism" and hawked it for all she was worth in the Guardian for months on end. It's just a recycling of the old "military/industrial complex" trope of the 60s. You may as well throw in the Zionists and the lizardmen and have done with it.

You're right though - some of the bestest things we have, we have war (huh!) to thank for. Also, of course, some of the worst things. Like Siegfreid Fucking Sassoon and his interminable poetry.
You won't think war is so cool when you're crawling away from mortars, and you put your hands in a pile of mush that used to be your buddy's face, man.
MetalAngel wrote:
You won't think war is so cool when you're crawling away from mortars, and you put your hands in a pile of mush that used to be your buddy's face, man.

If you think I plan on being anywhere except in the underground command bunker along with the rest of the capitalist elite, periodically laughing maniacally as the monitors show another multiple gibbing (of whose troops we do not much care. It's the body count that matters) you've got another thing coming.
MetalAngel wrote:
You won't think war is so cool when you're crawling away from mortars, and you put your hands in a pile of mush that used to be your buddy's face, man.


As long as there's a medic to paddle me and/or throw a medipack at my face, I'm not afraid of anything.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
the rest of the capitalist elite

Ha hahaha hahahahahaha, ahahahahaha, ahahahahahahhahhahahaahahahaha!

You're a lawyer.
DavPaz wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
the rest of the capitalist elite

Ha hahaha hahahahahaha, ahahahahaha, ahahahahahahhahhahahaahahahaha!

You're a lawyer.

Yeeeeesss? Your point being?

I know the difference between a serviette and a napkin, which is the main indicator of these things.

And anyway, someone has to write the contracts under which said command bunker will be built, and there will be a clause requiring accommodation for one Mr K. Issyfur.
Malaboob wrote:
As long as there's a medic to paddle me.

:hat:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
under which said command bunker will be built


So that's why your house fell down!
kalmar wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
under which said command bunker will be built


So that's why your house fell down!


Heh. A solicitor who acts for himself has a fool for a client, as they say.

I'm not sure which "they" I mean there, but, y'know, them.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
I am annoyed and disappointed in equal measure that this didn't come to anything. Perhaps this displays some huge sociopathic character flaw that I was unaware of, but I don't care. I'm bored and I want to be entertained, and nothing less than full scale global war will do, thank you very much.

The continuing low-boil trouble in west Pakistan, and the haven this provides to the mixed bag of fantasists and inadequates playing their be-turbaned Boys Own games in east Afghanistan, remains mildly concerning, but one would have thought that if anything was going to get the jihadist nutjobs running around in the hills of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas to rise up and stage some sort of takeover in Pakistan, the recently applied water-based apocalyptic wrath of Allah would have provided the ideal opportunity, what with the already fractured state being at its weakest. But no, nothing happens, except that they threaten to kill western aid workers coming over to assist the poor benighted rural peasants who have been hit hardest by the government's preference for spending on arms rather than civil improvement. Well fucking done, guys. All that running through lines of tyres with AK-47s over your head really prepared you well.

Perhaps this proves that the threat posed by a destabilised Pakistan has been hugely overstated here in the West, and that the main destabilisation issue we have to worry about is their destabilisation of the sports betting industry. And the wonderful sidebar to that is entertainment provided by the delightfully be-monikered Ahsan Butt. Every cloud, eh?

Of course, the other argument for some sort of "action" with respect to Pakistan is that, supposedly, the majority of the unspecified but oh-my-word-so-worrying,-you'd-never-sleep-again-if-we-told-you-about-them-but-trust-us-they-were-horrific-and-real-and-zomg-I've-just-come-on-my-AndyMcNab-novel terrorist plots that have been foiled over the last few years have originated from or (weasel words ahoy) "had links to" Pakistan. So much so that there has been a move, both here and in the US government, from discussing "Afghanistan" to talking about the "AfPak" (*grinds teeth*) problem. But we don't appear to be doing anything about it, apart from occasionally getting some computer games addict in an office in an airbase in the US to fly a drone over the border and blow up some villagers. And given that our own dear Gordon Brown, and now Cameron, claim that Our Boys are dying over in the sandpit to keep our streets safer here, why aren't they expanding that out into Pakistan? Otherwise, given the "porous" border and the fact it's the same people pissing about on both sides of it, what's the point? Or maybe, just maybe, Pakistan, and the dickless idiots blowing themselves up over there in the name of god knows what, isn't that much of a threat to us. Given that we're doing nothing whatsoever about it, I can only assume that's the case, but if it is, why is this Pakistani threat being talked up? Is someone out there looking to start world war 3?

Oh my, maybe it's me.

A year and a half after the previous post, this has to go down as one of the best bumps ever! *salutes*
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
myp wrote:
And they eat dogs, so releasing the hounds a la CoD5 wouldn't work.

I think you you're thinking of Koreans. You lacist.


he's ronery.
Man, just how ronery *is* that guy?

I'm always amazed at South Korea's restraint with these things, but it does seem to have lead to the North thinking "well, we got away with sinking one of their ships, and shelling them... What can we try next? Tee hee"
I wonder if it's the new North Korean leadership's attempting to show that they still matter. I doubt it will go much further, for even a country with as rotten and nutty rulers as NK must know that any attempt to cross the demilitarized zone would be extremely suicidal for the country and their regime.


If I'm wrong, I'll see you in the glowing wastelands :)
From another place:

Yuto wrote:
Photo Update!

Tourists take pictures:
Image

Another angle:
Image

Fire spreading:
Image

South Koreans shooting back:
Image

Artillery fire and F16's scrambling:
Image

Looks like its getting serious!

Real updates:
Quote:
Fires on S Korean island burning out of control, say witnesses.


Quote:
S Korea military says one soldier has been killed and three seriously hurt in the shelling.


Quote:
South Korea not considering taking border incident to United Nations.



:?
I'd guess that one of the reasons is that South Korea are very highly US influenced. Whereas the US are no fans of the north, given the volatility between Iran and Israel, they don't want to encourage retaliation in Korea for fear of giving the israelis a blank cheque to respond if provoked.
Awesome!!

North Korea wrote:
...continue to make merciless military attacks with no hesitation if the South Korean enemy dares to invade our sea territory by 0.001mm....It is our military's traditional response to quell provocative actions with a merciless thunderbolt.
MetalAngel wrote:
You won't think war is so cool when you're crawling away from mortars, and you put your hands in a pile of mush that used to be your buddy's face, man.


Page 1 of 4 [ 200 posts ]