When could World War III start? The threat of a third world war

Only such a form of influence on the aggressor will thwart his possible military invasion

The concept of a preventive strike against the troops of the aggressor in the face of the inevitability of war, with proper material, political and diplomatic support, will be the most important factor in strategic non-nuclear deterrence.

The threat of war against Russia is growing

A few years ago, the possibility of direct external aggression against Russia was very low. However, in recent years, the risk of such occurrence has increased significantly. This is determined by several key factors.

“The third world war with the use of nuclear weapons is just around the corner” - statements in this spirit can be increasingly heard from radio speakers and read on the pages of political publications. Such assumptions are connected, first of all, with the war in Syria, the tense political situation in which can become a pretext for a clash of interests of other states and lead to a new world war.

Since March 2011, unrest has not subsided in Syria, which has escalated into a fierce religious war and, according to some sources, has already claimed the lives of about 93 thousand people. If until recently the war in Syria could seem like an internal conflict, now these events can draw the world's largest powers into a bloody struggle. There is now increasing speculation that the war in Syria could be the start of World War III, possibly with the use of nuclear weapons.

At the moment, the United States is most interested in fueling the conflict in Syria. They have had their eye on Syria for a long time, and the Aug. 21 chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus gave it a "legitimate" reason to intervene in Syria. Without presenting any official evidence, the US struck its first blow, blaming the legitimate Syrian government for the gas attack and expressing its firm intention to support the Syrian opposition in overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. Approximately the same pattern developed a few years ago, the US invasion of Iraq. It seems that the situation is repeating itself. The United States is determined to strike at Syria, and it is not alone in its decision to "stand up for the Syrian people and free them from the oppression of authoritarian rule." They were joined by Turkey, Great Britain, France and some other countries. Russia's actions, on the contrary, consisted of a call to prevent World War III, based on the unsubstantiated speculation of the American government, for which the war in Syria could be economically beneficial. Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed the idea that US attempts to interfere in Syria's internal politics are doomed to failure. Russia intends to prevent the United States from striking the country. China also expressed its objection to fueling the conflict and agreed to support Russia's actions.

The Pentagon does not take the decision of the Russian government seriously, believing that Russia's actions will be limited to expressing its protest and will end there. They certainly have a reason to think so, if we recall the similar situations with Iraq and Yugoslavia. But, for some reason, it seems that right now the Russian government will not give up its positions, and if the United States strikes at Syria, then Russia will enter the war, which, in turn, will lead to the Third World War. In any case, now, in the midst of the events around the war in Syria, Russia's actions in the international arena look more than worthy.

Many are wondering if the United States will dare to strike at Syria and what will happen if the Third World War begins? What scenario will it follow? And, finally, is there a percentage of the possibility of using nuclear weapons in a new world war? Contrary to assumptions about the existing threat of nuclear weapons, experts believe that their presence, on the contrary, can become some kind of insurance against unleashing a global war.

However, in September 2013, the outstanding achievements of Russian engineers and scientists who have been working on the latest air defense systems for the past 20 years became insurance against the start of US-NATO military operations against Syria. As a result, a test attack by Syria with two ballistic missiles from a NATO base in Spain was reflected in an interesting way. One missile was destroyed in the air in the usual way, and the control of the other missile was intercepted and it was taken away from the trajectory under water. Thus, new technologies for repelling a missile strike were demonstrated. It became clear to the US-NATO military that they would not be able to successfully achieve their goal in the war with Syria, despite the fact that a rather modest Russian fleet covers Syria. Thus, the reason for the US not attacking Syria is only that they are faced with force majeure circumstances.

Further diplomatic moves around chemical weapons were intended to frame the situation for public opinion. Also, in order to divert public opinion, by common agreement, Israel's well-known statement was made about testing ballistic missiles.

The famous symbolic doomsday clock, which shows the level of nuclear, technological and environmental threats, was invented in 1947 by the staff of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists magazine of the University of Chicago. Now until midnight, that is, until the destruction of mankind, there are two and a half minutes left. At the time of their creation, they showed seven minutes to midnight, and the hands moved closest to this mark (two minutes) in 1953, when the United States and the Soviet Union conducted tests of thermonuclear weapons for nine months. Now nine countries have nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, China, France, Great Britain, India, Pakistan and Israel (although it does not officially recognize this) and the DPRK. The threat from the last of these states is a serious problem for the international community, which raises the question posed in the title.

fragment war

In addition, there is a problem with countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In this context, an important step was the six-power agreement concluded two years ago with Tehran on the Iranian nuclear program, although the Israeli prime minister called it a historical mistake, and recently President Trump has complained about the document.

I will omit here the topic of dozens of civil, local and regional wars that are virtually continuous. Sometimes, as in the case of the Syrian conflict that began in 2011, it is impossible to unambiguously determine their nature.

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who himself decided to start nuclear disarmament in the late 1980s, believes that the modern world is preparing for war. “There is no other such burning problem as the militarization of politics and a new arms race. Our main task is to stop this process and reverse it. (...) Many states cannot provide their citizens with minimal social support, but arms spending continues to grow, ”he recently wrote in the American edition of Time. The politician also emphasized that the forces of the United States (and more broadly - NATO) and Russia are getting closer to each other, namely, these two powers possess 90% of the world's nuclear arsenal.

According to the latest data from the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), in 2016 the volume of world arms spending was $1,686 billion. Of these, the United States accounted for 611 billion, China - 215, Russia - 69.2 and Saudi Arabia - 63.7 billion. The volume of world arms exports and imports is about 100 billion dollars! For comparison: around the world, less than 30 billion is spent on helping refugees.

Gorbachev is not alone in his opinion. Pope Francis spoke of the start of a fragmented third world war, and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates emphasized this year at the Munich Security Conference that we should prepare for a terrorist-made or nature-made virus that could kill 30 million in one year. Human.

balance of fear

Fortunately, these threats have not yet become inevitable. Numerous treaties on the limitation of weapons of mass destruction, including strategic ones, their reduction (like SALT and START) and control mechanisms continue to work and be observed. We understand that neither the Russians will attack NATO members, nor the Alliance itself will attack the Russians. The two main nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, keep aircraft and submarines equipped with nuclear weapons on full alert around the clock in order to be able to respond to an enemy strike at any time. Both sides are well aware that there will be no winners in such a clash: mutual destruction awaits them. It is this "balance of fear" that makes it possible to protect the parties from the temptation to start a third world war. So far this has worked.

Professor Michał Kleiber believes that "the possibility of a nuclear war is too great not to be feared." This probability, unfortunately, is not equal to zero, so it should be taken into account. But the current situation cannot be compared, for example, with the Caribbean crisis of 1962, when the USSR deployed nuclear weapons in Cuba. In this regard, I remain an optimist, although, of course, we should not forget about the threats that may arise in connection with some incidents or errors in the transport of nuclear warheads and the functioning of computer systems.

Context

1983: on the brink of a nuclear apocalypse

World War III is about to start

The era of disarmament is over

Recently, Professor Bronisław Łagowski wrote in Przegląd magazine that because of Trump in the United States, “the military party has declared itself with unprecedented pressure and openness even for the times of the Cold War.” However, the steadfastness of the US President and China's caution play a positive role in this context. At the same time, South Korean President Moon Jae-in urged the United States not to unilaterally attack Pyongyang's nuclear facilities.

If you want peace, there will be peace

It is curious that in the past there were more books about war than about peace. The classics in this area were, in particular, the greatest Eastern thinker Sun Tzu, the Chinese philosopher and general, the author of the most ancient textbook of military art, Thucydides with his work “On the Peloponnesian War” and Herodotus, who described the Greco-Persian wars in nine books. We still use the phrase of the writer and historian Vegetius, who lived in the 4th century, “if you want peace, prepare for war,” but it seems that the time has come to argue with it. If we are striving for peace, we should prepare for it and do it in various areas, including education and culture.

In turn, the Dutchman Hugo Grotius, who is considered the founder of international law, wrote the book "On the Law of War and Peace", and the Prussian theorist and general Carl von Clausewitz, author of the fundamental work "On War", formulated two theses, which from today's point of view seem at least controversial: "War is the continuation of politics by other means" and "Peace is the interval between two wars." If the first statement can still be called true to some extent, then the second must, through our efforts, finally lose its relevance.

The Nobel Peace Prize plays a big role in spreading the anti-war culture. For the first time in 1901, it was received by the Frenchman Frédéric Passy, ​​one of the organizers of the International League for Peace and Freedom, and the Swiss Henri Dunant, the initiator of the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the creation of the Geneva Convention. In the next century, prominent public figures such as Fridtjof Nansen, Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa received this award; non-governmental and international organizations such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF and the United Nations; politicians who fought for human rights like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Lech Walesa and Andrei Sakharov, and just politicians: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Mikhail Gorbachev, Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin. In the latter category is the most recent award, received in 2016 by Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, who ended his country's 50-year-old civil war. Sometimes the choice of the winner has been controversial, as in 2009, when "for exceptional diplomatic efforts in the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons" the award was presented to Barack Obama, who managed to stay in the presidency for only a few months.

In order to establish peace at the local, regional and global level, one will have to deal with solving global problems, fighting hunger, poverty, and violating the rights of minorities (primarily national and religious). This requires the interaction of both global (USA, Russia, India, China) and regional powers (Japan, Turkey, South Africa), as well as international institutions and organizations: the UN, the European and African Unions. In addition, it is critical to maintain dialogue in a variety of areas, and not slide into confrontation, or, to use the term Samuel Huntington (Samuel Huntington), "clash of civilizations." In the face of all the threats that exist in the 21st century, it is time to put forward the thesis about the importance of the peaceful imperative. As Martin Luther King famously said, "There is no way to peace, peace is the way."

The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.

Michel Nostradamus predicted the most significant events in the history of mankind. For example, with high accuracy, he determined the dates of many revolutions in different countries, as well as two world wars. Many articles have been written on this subject, and at your leisure you can familiarize yourself with such information in more detail. Of greater interest are incidents in the near future, which, using the found key, can be decrypted with a high probability index.

In his centuries, Nostradamus wrote in a very accessible way that the next large-scale war would take place on the territory of ancient Babylon. At present, the state of Iraq is located in this place, and the Iraqi crisis, which has almost subsided, is a confirmation of this.

Despite the fact that the crisis in Iraq has almost passed, it will definitely remind of itself in the near future. According to the predictions of Michel de Notre Dame, this crisis will serve as the beginning of a global world conflict. However, it should be noted that the researchers of the poems of Nostradamus, Nadezhda and Dmitry, did not see specific dates for this event in their table. They found the following indication, which clearly states that most of the predictor's quatrains are devoted to the period from 1998 to 2002.

Proceeding from this, it becomes obvious that the germ of the upcoming world war will take its beginning precisely in this time period. That is, it is not at all necessary that the Iraqi crisis will lead to an immediate outbreak of war. According to Nostradamus, even if the conflict can be prevented, sooner or later it will still break out after some time.

All descriptions of upcoming events in the East are very reminiscent of modern reality. Michel Nostradamus devoted about fifteen quatrains to this issue, pointing out that a war would be unleashed by a certain "adulterer" who wants to cover up his sins with the help of military operations.

The territory of upcoming events is also indicated very precisely - Mesopotamia, namely modern Iraq. In one of his quatrains, the predictor described the arrival of a dangerous and dishonorable person who would begin to tyrannize Mesopotamia in every possible way, "He will exchange everyone for a woman - an adulteress." Agree, everything written by Nostradamus is very reminiscent of the political scandal that occurred with the President of America, Bill Clinton.

In the United States, this case was called "Zippergate", derived from the word for "puff", thus making clear the meaning of the embarrassment that occurred. Nostradamus very accurately described these events, pointing out that a terrible dishonor would be prepared for the Prince (president) on behalf of a woman, and a dubious nickname that would stick to his whole future life would be from his pants. The Prophet was surprised how cruel and treacherous this ruler would be, who would bring so much evil to his country.

When will World War III start?
Washington can't wait to start a war with Russia. This is part of their NAV (New American Century plan) to conquer the world. China will follow Russia. The war has already begun and it is economy class. Terrorism is an effective weapon of this war and the Anglo-Saxons use it.

Experts say that in conditions of a total balance of nuclear deterrence forces, sorting out relations between large states with the help of armed forces is possible, but not desirable. First, it is dangerous with a blow of retribution of such force that there will be no winners. Secondly, it is very expensive. Taking into account the fact that wars are started not by Napoleons, Hitlers and Obamas, but by the owners of world capital exclusively in their own interests, these guys know how to count money. Hence the significant optimization of the cost of intervention in the 21st century. So what is this war? Why does humanity not see the mass movement of troops, major battles like the one that was near Prokhorovka?

Speaking at the traditional Saturday sermon on September 13, 2014, Pope Francis stated that the Third World War had already begun, and “greed, intolerance and thirst for power”, which are often “justified by ideology”, are to blame for this.

She is fundamentally different. Our age-old enemies, the Anglo-Saxons, came to the conclusion that TERRORISM as an instrument of the foreign policy of the hegemon of violence, the United States of America, could be an effective weapon of the Third World War, bypassing the nuclear deterrence forces.

How were wars fought before? The aggressor country entered the territory of another state, occupied it, established its own rules and the corresponding regime of power. Commandant's offices, points of work with the population, etc. were created. At the same time, the occupiers assumed responsibility for maintaining order in the occupied territory, providing the population with at least elementary products, making sure that epidemics did not occur - that is, they provided medical care, etc. All this was associated with considerable so-called associated or overhead costs.

World War III is an economy class war. None of the aggressors bears any responsibility for the fate of the enslaved citizens of the occupied countries. No overhead. And the aggressor himself is outside the zone of responsibility for his actions.

After the decision was made to use terror as the main component of the occupation of foreign territories, specialists from three British private military companies dispersed around the world. A little later, representatives of the Israeli special services joined them. And literally within six months, small, medium and large terrorist organizations began to appear like mushrooms after the rain. They were created according to the classic schemes of the Anglo-Saxon special services.

After World War II, Americans used the legend of promoting democracy as the main motive for intervening in the affairs of other states. However, this legend has exhausted itself, since it could no longer cover the information of the radical defeat of the states - the owners of resources, the destruction of their statehood and the consolidation of their resources in the hands of the owners of money.

And then September 11, 2001 struck! Responsibility was taken ahead of time by the Al-Qaeda PMC, created by specialists. Without exception, all the media (including ours) screamed about the appearance of the most terrible threat to peace - international terrorism. An image of a monstrous monster was formed in the minds of people, which destroys everything around it, cuts people's heads for no reason and for what ... We were convinced that they kill for the sake of killing. But that doesn't happen. Terror always has its goal and its addressee, and it always has a master. In this case, these are the Anglo-Saxons and the owners of money.

After September 11, the Anglo-Saxons had only to point out the "hotbeds" of this international evil. By a completely coincidental coincidence, vile terrorists began to group exclusively in oil and gas-bearing countries.

Just think about it: to destroy the statehood of Iraq and hang its leader without trial or investigation, it was enough to wave a test tube with donkey urine and accuse the country of mythical chemical weapons! And after the defeat of the state, it is cynical to say: there was a mistake.

By the same principle, Libya was destroyed, and its leader was torn apart alive to the cries of approval: wow! - the current candidate for the presidency of the United States, unhealthy Mrs. Clinton.

And all this, I note, under the plausible pretext of fighting global terrorism. At the same time, everyone repeats these two words, without thinking that terrorism is a weapon, a means of waging a third world war. And we need to talk about those in whose hands this weapon is and who uses it for what purposes. Shouting about the threat of world terrorism is the same as shouting about the threat of a knife lying on the table. A knife is dangerous only in the hands of a criminal or a maniac, and after a crime, it is not the knife that is judged, but the one in whose hands it was.

Recently, it is very fashionable to use the terms network-centric, hybrid and other war. But few people think about the meaning of these terms.

Network-centric - means that there are networks and there is a center. All these ISIS (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation), Jabhat al-Nusra (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation) and other terrorist formations and units scattered around the world are networks. Where is the control center? So do the Anglo-Saxons!

Can you imagine how profitable it is to have such a network?

German Chancellor Merkel, at the beginning of the sanctions war against Russia, insisted that it was impossible to completely break ties with Putin. Obama warned her three times to shut up. Didn't help. Then the chemical plant in Bremen flew into the air, after which Mrs. Merkel radically changed her position and became very much like a call girl.

French President Hollande decided to support Putin in Syria in the fight against ISIS (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation). And even dared to snap at Washington. Immediately after that, terrible terrorist attacks took place in France with human casualties! And if explosions sounded not only in Paris, but also in five or six other cities, France would collapse to its knees. But this country is a member of NATO, has a nuclear triad... Alas, terrorism has completely nullified the entire military defense component of this country.

Who immediately took responsibility? So ISIS! And what is the demand with ISIS (an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation)? And where is it located: it is in Syria, and in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, and in Libya - wherever the Americans defend the interests of world finance!

The algorithm is simple: it doesn't matter who blows up countries: the CIA, MI6 or PMC specialists under the guise of terrorists. It is important who takes responsibility for the masters and customers of terror!

A hybrid of ways and methods of influencing the enemy greatly complicates the response defensive actions of the attacked. How were Iraq and Libya destroyed? Air strikes. Mutiny. Chaos. The collapse of the country.

But Ukraine was occupied without the use of military force. Exclusively by the method of rebellion. Maidan (mutiny) was organized. Actual slogans have been formulated (relatively speaking, an unprecedented freebie awaits you ahead). The constitutional government has been overthrown. An occupational, more precisely, a colonial regime has been established. The occupier does not bear any responsibility to the people living in the controlled territories. Moreover, the entire burden of expenses for maintaining the occupation regime is placed on the shoulders of the people. After all, what are taxes in Ukraine? These are deductions from citizens for the maintenance of the administration of the concentration camp. And his own convoy as well.

I note that Ukraine is the only country that the Anglo-Saxons brought to their knees, guided not by the desire to take control of energy resources, which are not available there in sufficient quantities. They need this territory for completely different purposes.

Based on the results of a comprehensive analysis of the situation around and inside Russia, the planners came to the conclusion that neither the Iraqi, nor the Libyan, nor the Ukrainian scenario of the direct occupation of our country is possible. We will respond to a military challenge in such a way that it will not seem to anyone. And the hope for the Maidan immediately after the elections to the Duma collapsed under the yoke of the squeamish attitude of the absolute majority of Russians towards the fifth column, infected with the ultra-liberal infection.

What remains in the arsenal of our enemies? Only terror.

In Ukraine, at the military training ground Yavorov, in the Lvov region, the Americans created a training center for saboteurs from among the local population. The center is secret, where even Poroshenko is ordered to enter. In Kyiv, on the basis of the KGB school, a school of sabotage and terrorist activities was created. It is noteworthy that students are trained to work not only in Russia, but also in Europe. And what about Europe? Everything is simple. The Anglo-Saxons are terrorizing Europe with terrorist violence, stimulating the rejection of such institutions of state independence as the national army and special services, and other state security structures. It is proposed to transfer all these important obligations to some supranational, united superstructures. That is, the Anglo-Saxons. If this happens, the European Union will become a unique colony, in which the role of the convoy will be played precisely by the All-Union Army and the All-Union Special Service.

But back to Ukraine. Why are the Ukrainian people pumped up with Russophobia and boundless hatred for everything Russian? So he is being prepared for a protracted terrorist war with Russia. That is why the pro-American regime of the Groysman-Valtsman lowers the living standards of Ukrainians below the plinth. Poverty is the best environment for recruiting terrorists. For pennies!

Relatively speaking, a NATO multipurpose front-line bomber costs $20-30 million. Given the effectiveness of our air defense, in war conditions, this winged vehicle performs a one-way flight. Bach - 30 million no. And there will be hundreds of such downed bombers. Now imagine how many saboteurs and terrorists can be recruited in impoverished Ukraine with money from only one saved aircraft? Thousands. And try to identify them in Russia or Europe.

Today, Russian journalists are asking the question: how many of the 4 million Ukrainian guest workers will go to carry out a terrorist act? So any of the 4 million. And there is no need for any special Nazi training. Imagine painter Olesya from Zhmerinka painting a wall in a Moscow new building. The bell rings, and she hears the voice of her five-year-old daughter, who, sobbing, screams into the phone: “Mommy, some uncles took me away from my grandmother and now they want to cut off my fingers with scissors.” Then a stern male voice says: “So, you go to the Kyiv railway station, pick up your bag in the 20th storage room and go down to the subway.”

And this Olesya will do it without hesitation, on maternal instinct alone.

I'm not giving this example to instill fear. Against. It is very important to understand the seriousness of the current situation and not rely solely on Putin and Shoigu. Terrorism can only be countered by a consolidated society. When everyone is on guard. In my opinion, the issue of creating a territorial police force on the ground, which would work with visiting people and be the center of mobilization of the population in case of a threat, has become very relevant.

But only internal measures will not solve the problem. And here the experience of Israel is very relevant for us. He is multifaceted. But its main value is in the principled position of the leaders of the power bloc and the country as a whole in relation to the anti-Israeli forces of evil. As soon as there is intelligence that a potential threat to Israel is emerging in a neighboring country or region, tough measures are quickly taken. Up to the use of strike air groups. No one waits for the terrorist infection to crawl across the state border, but is destroyed on the distant approaches, in the enemy's lair.

Whether we like it or not, we will also have to take preventive measures. Work proactively. Otherwise, the country will be overwhelmed by the horror of a terrorist war. In this case, we are talking not only about the destruction of centers of terrorism on the territory of Ukraine.

In one of his interviews, Vladimir Putin openly said that if someone expects to unleash a world war and once again sit out behind a big puddle, this will no longer work. And the words of the Russian president were followed by actions. Fundamentally new means of delivery (carriers) of retaliation weapons were modernized and put into service. The boomerang of reckoning will return very quickly and is guaranteed to be aimed. What is the quintessence of what Putin said? So, if we take into account not the abstract term “international terrorism”, but the one who uses terror as an instrument of foreign policy, who uses it as a weapon of the third world war, then the nuclear potential can quite reliably and effectively contain the use of terror in in relation to their country.

• Tags: ,