if there is another war or a WW3, do you think it will be nuclear or a ground war?

Do you believe it will be nuclear weapons or full on ground troops like the previous wars?

13 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 year ago

    The whole point of having nukes is that they work before we actually have to use them. If one goes off, they all have to go off cause we'll all be trying to wipe each other out. Again, they are there to keep respect between world powers, nukes can wipe out human existence. I used to think that there would actually be a nuke war until I joind the military.

  • Mike W
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    Depends on the scale of the war, and who's involved. If it's a small regional skirmish, it would be a war with conventional weapons. If it were a large enough war, it might start off as a conventional war, but as it became clear that one side was losing, they might get desperate, and use nuclear weapons. From there it could escalate into global nuclear war.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    Enough crazies now have access in some fashion to a nuke or dirty bomb, that it will be used. Of course it will be like the chemicals in Syria, lots of finger pointing and denial, it wasn't us. The super powers will hesitate until it strikes to close to home, then one is going to wipe out whatever they think. Is the largest problem. Once that happens all hell could very easily be released, or everything could suddenly come to a stop. As the shock of what just happened creeps in.

  • Zack
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    I think there will be a lot of both. Ground troops will invade each other, and some nukes will definitely be used. In fact, WW3 might be started by a nuke.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 year ago

    if its a world war, then nukes will be used

    the only reason the Korean war did not go nuclear, is because China did not have nuclear weapons at the time

  • 1 year ago

    I think it's very tricky. A conventional war between great powers along the lines of a WW3 would inherently bring the risk of escalation to a nuclear war and the factors that would control whether it does or not would likely be personality based as much as geopolitical, so how can one make a prediction that isn't just 'storytelling'?

    I think China and Russia are both aggressive enough that if the US continues to show that it is spineless, they are going to keep trying to inch their way towards taking more territory. However, both of them are staring down the gun barrel of economic problems. So they may be self-limiting.

    It's not hard though to imagine a Putin miscalculating and decide he can invade Estonia (for example) like he did Ukraine without consequences. Or Xi deciding that the US isn't really all THAT dedicated to protecting Taiwan. Then that becomes a conventional war. One side starts taking more losses than expected, gets desperate, and goes nuclear.

    This is why it's important for the US to stay strong in conventional arms. Weakness invites aggression, and that aggression will beget counter-aggression which can escalate into thermonuclear war.

  • Murzy
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    unfortunately nuclear .

  • 1 year ago

    Trump said he had a plan to stop the Afghan war in 5 minutes.....but he didn't want to kill 10,000,000 people-

    So he said in his out loud voice---------that his "plan" was to use Nukes, and kill 10,000,000 people.

    That should scare *everyone* that these thoughts even cross his warped mind.

  • 1 year ago

    Since the 1950s the USA has had plans to use tactical nukes to counter the numerically superior forces of the USSR and Warsaw Pact. The Atomic Rifle, Atomic Cannon, later the Neutron Bomb, etc. Not much has changed and the USA still has tactical nukes. The best weapon the enemy could use against a US Navy carrier fleet is a long range missile with a tactical nuke on board. So I see no way that we would have another major war without someone throwing a few tactical nukes around. And keep in mind, if the USA was willing to use nukes even though WW II was all but over, a nation that is about to lose and go under would probably have no qualms about using nukes to try to avoid defeat. So maybe we would see it start as a ground war but the nukes would get used eventually. If we fire off 25-30 of them we might see a Nuclear Winter, which will make it all moot as billions would die and after that, there would not be much to fight over.

  • Some terrorist group might pop a nuke, but no one wants Mutually Assured Destruction

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.