World War III

It seems like global thermonuclear war is always right around the corner. Since the 50’s, it's become something similar to how evangelicals talk about the rapture. Any day now!

Regardless of normies making half baked predictions about geopolitics, the threat of WWIII is very real. There was always a serious danger throughout the height of the Cold War that the ComBloc & NATO would turn Europe to glass. The only thing that calmed things down was the rapid unraveling of the Communist world throughout the 80’s, leaving the US as the only notable power on the world stage. This was the height of the American empire, where we spent a couple decades deciding whether or not minor nations were allowed to exist or not. Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Iraq (again), & finishing off with Libya.

We can argue about whether or not people like Saddam Hussein or Gadaffi were /ourguys/ (they weren't, but were cool), but it's definitely an awesome period. Unfortunately, it came to an abrupt end around 2015. We can see the decline start when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. Other than typical diplomatic condemnations & UN complainants, nothing could be done as we were tied up in the bloodiest time of the GWOT. This event, above all, showed that Russia felt bold enough to attempt a poorly justified invasion of border country.

The proxy metapolitics during the Euromaiden era in Ukraine was fairly typical of the influence war that happens when two powers try to take soft control of a country without open warfare, exact same thing is currently happening in the Philippines between the US & China. The outbreak of the Donbas War in 2014 changed this, specifically the halfway disguised GRU agents with white armbands that took Crimea. There was a lot more nuance this time, with Russia using units with plausible deniability & raising local units in the Donbas instead of outright invasion. Regardless, it was the first time they took a hard stance against decidedly Western ambitions.

The biggest confrontation was in Syria in 2015, the beginning of Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war. Syria was a powder keg, being victim to the typical political climate of a country too close to Iraq & the Arab Spring. Obama continued the infamous regime change policy that was used against Gaddafi, which sparked open conflict between the “Free Syrian Army” & the Assad government. In the wake of this war, the dismantling of Al-Qaeda as an international organization, & the pullout of US troops from Iraq, the Islamic State became the 3rd faction of the war & was also the most successful until the entire world crashed down on them in 2016.

As ISIS rapidly became the world’s public enemy #1, the US was put into the odd position of trying to both fight them & replace Assad. This led to rather funny episodes where CIA backed FSA groups would start fighting with US military backed Kurdish groups. I’ve been told by colleagues who were there that this period of time was an absolute nightmare. The regime change mission came to an end as ISIS became too powerful to half ass, Trump became president, & most importantly Russia joined on the Syria government's side.

This is the timeframe that I have experience with, and it was also a nightmare.

Despite both the US & Russia claiming that they were there to fight ISIS, it was fairly obvious that both countries had the secondary objective of influencing Syria. The CIA abandoned their FSA allies, which by now was overwhelmingly controlled by groups like Al-Nusra (formerly part of Al-Qaeda), so US interests were pushed via the Kurds. Both sides came to a stalemate, but Russia maintained their bases in Latakia & the Syrians as allies.

America & Russia only ever had one major confrontation, when Wagner PMC attempted to attack Kurdish held oil fields that were unfortunately housing an ODA team which proceeded to annihilate the entire element with virtually every aircraft in the US arsenal. It's still unclear whether or not Russia knew that the ODA was there, but they gave the US CENTCOM commander the go ahead to engage by assuring him that they had no troops in the area. There was a lot of minor confrontations, like convoys being stopped, but neither side was willing to open fire. Regardless, Syria was the first time that the West lost in the ‘second cold war.’

Any notions of “Pax Americana” ended in 2022 when Russia made its full scale invasion of Ukraine. The most important thing to note is that Russia is backed up by its allies in China, Iran, etc. There is once again a hard border between the West & its allies vs the BRICS sphere.

Something else important to note is that the war in Ukraine has caused a fairly significant rift in NATO, there’s a clear difference between how EU countries are dealing with the war & the US. For as much as people like to complain about the government sending stuff to Ukraine, the European countries have sent way more money, supplies, and more active support like training AFU forces in their countries. NATO’s sacrificial lambs, otherwise known as the Baltic states, are obviously very eager to see Russia be defanged but this attitude is just as strong out to the UK. The rift between the US & the EU could easily end up with the EU (meaning 90% of NATO) being its own faction in the world stage.

The point of the shitty history lesson is to showcase how much the US hegemony has degraded in the last decade. In a multipolar world, war is always on the table.

To clear something up, there is no morality in war. I had this conversation with someone on here the other day, but there's no real difference between the NATO-BRICS conflict of today & the conflict between the Peloponnesian & Delian Leagues 2400 years ago. It's just a power struggle, anything else is just propaganda. The only “right side” of a WWIII scenario is whatever side the West is on. Any claim of “muh trad russia” can be sufficiently dismissed by the reality of Russian society & their use of non-White migrants as weapons against Ukraine & Poland. I don't think anyone cares to side with Chinese on anything.

As a military member, watching the aftermath of the war in Ukraine is pretty funny. We’ve shifted focus from GWOT to near peer since about 2018, but it's fun watching the Marine Corps’ preconceived notions of what 21st century warfare looks like fall apart. Most of the tools we’ve used for decades are now almost entirely negated (any sort of air support, regardless of who has air superiority) while we struggle to adopt things like FPV drones. Rigid defenses are now little more than premade graveyards. Maneuver just outright fails sometimes & SIGINT becomes impossible because the EM spectrum is too clogged to find anything specific.

A noteworthy situation is the sheer amount of munitions being thrown around & vehicles being destroyed. No one can actually keep up with the tanks getting destroyed, not Leopards, Abrams, T-72s, nothing. Their lifespans are shorter than their production times. This isn't very surprising when you look at how long a tank would last in WWII, but those vehicles could be pushed out at a rate of dozens or hundreds a day. Modern AFVs would take at least a month, even in a total war/full scale war economy scenario. Both sides of the war are propped up by their allies sending both newly produced & preexisting stockpiles of weapons & ammo.

This works fine when it's just two countries at war, but happens when the frontline goes from Crimea to Norway? And the entire Pacific coastline in Asia? And basically all of Africa & the Middle East, plus some of Latin America?

I think a full on WWIII scenario would last maybe 6 months before tanks become a rare occurrence, as well as other advanced technologies. We simply aren't able to produce anything more advanced than a rifle faster than it would be destroyed, even if we were winning.

This holds true for training as well. The units with very long training pipelines that go beyond two years, Special Operations Forces, don't have to worry too much because they have a certain way of staying alive against the odds. But for regular forces like the Infantry or armor units will have to face a scenario where the training pipeline may be significantly longer than the likely lifespan of the average fighter. USMC Infantry training is currently about 6 months, including boot camp. Will that remain so when the projected lifespan of an Infantryman on the front is a couple weeks? Obviously the 18 month training cycle that units to prior to deployment won't stay, so the actual quality of newer forces will drop significantly across the board.

I won’t touch on the topic of drone warfare, if I do later it will be it's own post because I’m an FPV operator irl. Just be aware that if you're one of the “drones are dishonorable” chuds that complaining about drones will not stop them from killing you, sorry. One important thing about drones is that they're cheap & easily 3D printed, so they can be utilized far more than systems like the Javelin or Hellfire. Systems like those absolutely fall into the “used way faster than can be produced” category, arguably more than anything else except aircraft.

Which leads to the question of the air war. I doubt I need to tell you that an F-35 is a lot more resource intensive & has a longer production time than a Spitfire. Same with the pilot operating it. What aggravates this situation is that air combat is significantly less survivable nowadays. WWII era aircraft could easily take a few hits & remain airworthy, at least enough to limp home & get repaired. B-17s would regularly take thousands of rounds, lose multiple engines, and make it home to be sent back up a week later. This isn't true anymore. Even the more survivable aircraft like the Su-25 are easily sent over the Styx by a single Stinger missile, not to mention larger missile systems.

You might read anecdotes about an A-10 taking a beating but staying in the air, or an F-15 flying home with one wing, but these events are rare. For the most part, any aircraft will be totally destroyed by a single hit. Which is cool, fighter pilots got their cool guy days from the 80’s to the 2010’s. Its high time they join the rest of us & have the chance of dying horrifically at any time by not fault of their own. Assholes.

Neither side of the Ukraine war has even begun to replace the relatively low number of aircraft lost throughout the war thus far. Obviously, actually good aircraft like the F-16 take months to produce. But even the shoddily built MiGs & Sukhois of the Russians aren't getting replaced. If the war ended today, they might replace half of them before 2030. We can make fun of Russia over this, and I will, but the same fate will befall NATO in a peer conflict.

I don't necessarily think this means that we're gonna start mass production of a P-38 clone made by Cessna. But things will look very different from past conflicts, air is rarely used in Ukraine right now. The most common weapon the Russians are using is the GPS guided FAB bombs because they can be dropped from a standoff range, beyond Ukie air defenses. These are almost only hitting civilian targets in places like Kharkov rather than any tactical ones, aside from the occasional air strike on hardened locations like Bakhmut or Andriivka during their respective battles. Air must be used sparingly, because an S-400 will always win against an F-22 & a Patriot will always win against an Su-57.

The space domain will also be a nightmare. In Ukraine, there's a battle going on over things like Starlink. In a WWIII scenario, they're just gonna blow up the satellites themselves. This is already common technology both on aircraft & ground based missiles. GPS, satellite recon, etc. will simply not exist. Space Force came into being for a reason. Comms will be relegated to the same radiowaves used since WWI, which are being jammed with better efficiency than ever before.

The most notable advancement in modern warfare is both cyber warfare & demographic warfare. The cyber war has been going on for years, we're all well aware of the mass of Russian bot accounts & how websites like Google are now blocked in Russia. This sort of conflict probably won't last long in a real war, they'll simply blacklist any pro-enemy nation website (including relatively unrelated ones like search engines & social media sites based out of the enemy countries) & arrest their local lackeys for treason. Cyber warfare only really applies before open warfare starts, or when influencing outside countries over who to support.

Demographic warfare is a new one though. Russia began this (officially) this year by facilitating migrants to hit the Polish border through Belarus. Unfortunately, this is rather one sided because it only works against Western governments that care about migrants. Anyone else will have no problem shooting them when they try to jump the razor wire. If this becomes a permanent fixture of Russian metawarfare, it could have the unintended consequence of supporting anti-migrant sentiment in Europe as they come to be viewed as bioweapons.

On the topic of bioweapons, I will pull my background in CBRN up to sperg about that. The bio threat is virtually always aimed at civilians, mainly agriculture. It's not unheard of to poison enemy forces, but that was back when we got food & water from the lands we conquered. Now, with our own water filtration systems & prepackaged foodstuffs the threat is minimal. Most likely course is spreading disease on the home front to kill off crops & damage food supplies. This method isn't as unbelievable as you might expect, it's basically impossible to prove that it was deliberate rather than a random poorly timed famine. As for the human population, both Operation Dark Winter & the early COVID days have taught us a lot on how to deal with widespread disease. The bio threat isn't huge.

Radiological threats also really aren't that big a deal, this was mainly a threat from Al-Qaeda & Daesh. Radiological threats are numerous but the only one that really matters is dirty bombs. Despite popular belief, dirty bombs aren't nukes. They're regular explosives with radioactive materials & the explosives only exist to spread the radioactive materials. These are called “Radiation Dispersion Devices” in the biz. Daesh tried it a couple times in Syria, but usually fucked up the proportions. Either too much explosives (destroying the radioactive material) or not enough (not spreading the radioactive material effectively). This really isn't something that actual states utilize, it's more of a terrorist threat.

Chemical is debatable. Modern chemical warfare has come a long way since the trench lines of the Somme. Chemicals like VX, sarin or Novichok are actual hell juices. Vapor, colorless, odorless, etc. These are all generally neurotoxins, meaning they attack the nervous system. Most lethal & also most painful way to day. These chemicals will kill you, almost immediately. It's pretty impossible to actually survive a surprise gas attack. Once it hits you, the 10 second time frame to put on a mask isn't going to do much because you’ll be seizing before you get it on. It will kill you faster than the CBRN dude can detect it, assuming the detector is already running. You also probably won't tell when it gets deployed. It just looks like a bomb or artillery shell that didn't explode, which isn't uncommon. Generally, they mix them with explosive shells to make it hard to notice. If you aren't already in your protective gear, you're dead. Anyone who has worked with CS canisters before can attest to this, you never get it on in time when one breath will kill you. Fortunately, the tactical value of gas attacks is very limited - especially compared to the massive consequences & escalation you could face. The only real use is a surprise attack on a fortified trench line (these are rarely a thing nowadays), or maybe area denial if you have a gas that doesn't dissipate quickly. Shame, nerve agents are actually pretty cool.

Which leaves us with the crown jewel of human technology, and the only good thing to ever come out of the field of physics - nukes! Most people understand the concept of mutually assured destruction, but it's not as simple as that. In reality, MAD was always a myth. Even if the US & Russia sent off every ICBM they had at each other, it wouldn't be apocalyptic or even take out the bulk of either country's population. It certainly won't end the war. Firstly, nukes have three targets. Production centers, military installations, & other nuclear weapons sites.

Production centers is a less abrasive euphemism that people in suits use instead of the word cities. Above anything else, from a military standpoint, cities are logistic assets. They produce stuff, drive the economy, usually have some government stuff, and are centerpieces of the web of railroads & highways. Nuking cities is effectively the same as the old strategic bombing campaigns against the same targets for the same reasons. Another often overlooked target is naval fleets, expect at least 1-3 to target any naval strike groups. They actually have a pretty good chance of surviving, ships take nukes pretty well & are good radiation shields. But several close to ground zero will be vaporized.

Nukes are unlikely, because you are essentially sacrificing all of your assets for the destruction of the enemy’s. The only time it makes sense to start a nuclear exchange is if you're losing & need to sort of level the playing fields again. And when I say losing I don't mean like Ukraine grabbing a chunk of Kursk. I mean like Germany 1944, an existential threat where your government will be replaced, imprisoned & executed. A point where the choice is to die or take the biggest gamble in history to maybe not die. Unlikely, but certainly not impossible.

The concept of limited nuclear exchange is arguably even more unlikely than total nuclear war. This could pan out if more rogue states like North Korea, Israel, Iran or Pakistan send nukes at their nearby enemies. All of these countries have a sort of existential threat & stand to lose everything if they lose in their respective theaters. Samson Option comes to mind. These sorts of exchanges could have limited scope because I don't think the US would want to destroy the northern hemisphere over something North Korea did, nor would Russia make that choice over what Pakistan may do.

This wouldn't end the war by any means, regardless of what games like Fallout would have you believe. There's a reason military vehicles are designed to operate in a nuclear environment & bases are built to withstand nuclear detonations. The war goes on, just now with higher stakes, less equipment, & lower populations.

As a side note, don't judge nuclear war off of the raw numbers of warheads. Firstly, these numbers are inaccurate as many warheads are completely unserviceable as they’re simply too old. Secondly, only ICBMs really matter. Specifically ones already prepared to launch. As I said earlier, nuclear weapons facilities are a primary target for ICBMs. Once they get the first missile out, they aren't getting another shot. Aircraft can launch a few missiles, but these are easier to stop, especially once everyone realizes what's happening. Fighters will scramble with no plan on returning to try to take out any nuclear capable aircraft possible & take pot shots at ICBMs. Submarines aren't as stealthy as they used to be, so I doubt they'll get many missiles out. They'll likely be hunted down & destroyed as a precondition to launching the missiles at all because of their proximity & danger. Worst case, you can have aircraft orbit the sub's location & shoot down missiles as they launch before they gain speed.

Earlier I mentioned how the military is having a hard timing realizing their tactics don't work based on observations in Ukraine. A big example is the role a SOF units in a near peer conflict. For some reason, many officers (especially in the Marines) got this weird idea that SOF was only relevant during the War on Terror due to its asymmetry. This is obviously retarded as literally every SOF unit except MARSOC was created during the Cold War for the express purpose of fighting the USSR. Fighting other irregular forces wasn't in their mission sets until 2001.

The original SOF units, US Army Special Forces (Green Berets), were created as a stay behind force. The idea was that they lay low & let the front lines pass by them, then operate as saboteurs & lead guerrilla fighters behind enemy lines. This eventually evolved into inserting behind enemy lines, but otherwise remained the same to this day. This process has been vindicated by a group called ATESh, which has been conducting a guerrilla campaign in Russia throughout the war. Assassinations, blowing up fuel lines, gathering intel, even just setting fire to civilian grocery stores to make life for the average Zigger harder than is already expected in a Slavic country.

Sometimes they’ll film it & take credit, mostly not. Those videos you see of Russian oil refineries or factories randomly catching fire at night are usually these guys, and they also provide targeting & BDAs for the deep strikes by long range drone swarms & HIMARS type weapons. I’d wager they are also partially linked to Islamic terrorists in the Caucasus, enemy of my enemy is my friend type deal. These units exist to slowly breakdown the enemies will to fight by making life hell for civilians & destroying economically important targets. Obviously, these aren't homegrown. The nucleus of these groups is agents of the SBU, CIA, MI6, etc. They provide the training, networking, & materials necessary. In lieu of the ability to strategically bomb the Russian territory directly, this tactic has worked wonders.

The SEAL Teams have also been vindicated. I’ll leave this video here to show you what Ukie SOF has been doing in the Black Sea area. Similar stuff is being done across the Dnipro River which forms the southern frontline, and is big enough to warrant amphibious operations. Great channel btw.

The only SOF unit whose job has been stripped away in the modern battlespace is the 75th Ranger Regiment. Not taking an airfield by way of airborne assault, arguably not a chance in the 80’s & definitely not now. Fortunately, the Rangers have shifted to being the muscle of SOCOM. They exist to give other units a large number of very well trained & equipped guns since SOF units are always tiny. I doubt this role will go away. It’ll be interesting to see how the highest level of the military, JSOC, integrates. They were mostly a counterterrorist group when founded, and integrated into the military after the 80’s age of terrorism ended. Considering their skillsets & past utilization, it's also likely that they could fit just about anywhere they're needed.

Another role is that of force multipliers, the SBU has occasionally deployed SOF units amongst the Infantry during particularly important battles to bolster combat effectiveness & morale. Kursk is a good example. Russians have also done this, as well as Americans in places like Ramadi in 2006.

Vietnam is commonly called the “first war on TV,” and shitlibs claim this is why the anti-war movement happened. People being exposed to real videos of the war. I doubt this, pictures & paintings of war have always existed & have always portrayed its brutality. There was never a point in time where people actually thought war was like a MW2 TDM game, the only difference was that war was narrated by shitlib journalists instead of actual vets. This sentiment didn't happen in the Gulf War or GWOT, both filmed & broadcasted on CNN in real time. It certainly hasn't happened now that first person GoPro videos are all over Telegram & Youtube.

You should start getting used to seeing people dying horrifically. A lot of people are uploading helmet cam & drone vids, so we're entering an era where you have a chance of watching a close friend or family member getting domed & the perpetrator laughing about it. This was a rare occurrence prior to Ukraine, the most notable example being the 2017 Niger Ambush where the world got to see a first person perspective of a Green Beret making his last stand & being executed.

A secondary effect of this development is that things are pretty easily confirmed. Every time a city is captured, there's a period where one side claims victory while the others claim it hasn't fallen yet. The live photos showing attackers in the city dispels this argument pretty fast.

All in all, WWIII will be a good time. Whoever wins will rule over a pile of ashes, and it won't make people like their government any more than they do now. The world order will be shattered regardless of who wins (the EU, the EU will win regardless of how close relations may or may not be with the US), so at the very least we get to roll the dice again to see if we get something better this time. Population will go down heavily, especially in countries that are heavily reliant on the West like Africa & the rest of the 3rd world. This includes China, whose economy will basically cease to exist without the US & EU markets. Hopefully we get another Great Leap, but finish them off this time.

The future is bright.

Hail Victory.