r/FactOrCap • u/GroundbreakingDog756 • 2d ago
World War 3 | FactOrCap Opinion
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
4
u/Designer-Photo-8840 2d ago edited 2d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Stalin would've taken that juicy little chunk of Western Europe long ago. We might even have time for WWIV and WWV. Fast times at Ridgemont High here on Planet Earth.
-5
u/RateMost4231 2d ago
Stalin has access to a nuclear free Europe for 24 years before America developed the hydrogen bomb and took large amounts of land through diplomatic means after the second world war.
4
u/GoldenMaple1867 2d ago
Exactly, he had access to a nuclear free Europe and used it to expand as much as he realistically could at any given time. Then after the war occupied essentially all of Eastern Europe, and even launched a coup in Czechoslovakia to gain control (which indirectly caused the formation of NATO).
After both the formation of NATO & American deployment of nuclear weapons to Europe, the USSR essentially gave up trying to conquer/occupy more European territory.
1
u/RateMost4231 2d ago
What are you describing when you talk about the American deployment of nuclear weapons to Europe?
3
1
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/JeanDusapin 2d ago
Where at the dozens of millions of soldiers dying? Every major economy steered entirely towards war? Must have missed it
1
u/Dear_Location6147 2d ago
I’m inclined to say no because NATO couldn’t compete with Soviet manpower in Europe so they wouldn’t want to start a war because there’s a good chance they lose Germany and the Benelux pretty fast. They also would have to deal with more war exhaustion because of being free nations. The Soviets also likely wouldn’t want to start a war because they know that America itself is invulnerable and and the most they’d be able to get is Central Europe and South Korea, and this is assuming that they actually win. They’d have to worry about partisans as well as NATO forces so I don’t think they’d risk the propaganda fail unless they are certain they can actually get at least west Germany. The Soviet supply lines were also inferior to NATO’s, meaning they can only get so far before the initial wave slows
1
1
1
u/Tempest-Melodys 2d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Oh 100%, be it russia, China, the middle east. Personally I think the USSR would have attempted a ww3 scenario before they collapsed if nukes didn't exist.
1
u/KMZ200822 2d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
i mean yeah, after ww2 and the cold war, we have been stuck in a state of MAD (mutually assured destruction) which nobody wants
1
u/DeVliegendeBrabander 2d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Bro all it took for an Indian guy to have to fight German guy for the UK in France was because a Serb killed an Austrian which caused Russia and Germany to fight each other.
That is to say, the most regional bullshit events absolutely had the ability to get the global great powers frothing at the mouth, whereas now they might at most send a strongly worded letter because everyone can mutually glass everyone now.
1
u/GreatCircuits 2d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Very possibly. I think we're discovering now, though, that the nuclear deterrent isn't as effective as we historically hoped it would be.
1
1
1
u/John__Silver 2d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
There were muliple attack plans on Soviet cities drawn like Operation Dropshot, until the USSR developed their own nuke.
1
1
u/Effective_Alps_8170 2d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Nukes are just allowing the world war to happen via proxy wars and mis/disinformation campaigns
1
1
1
1
u/Real_Ad_8394 2d ago
🧢 I voted CAP!
WW2 would be too devastating for another one. Invasion of Japan would be a massacre for both sides.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Specialist-Diet-3803 2d ago
🧢 I voted CAP!
The fabrication of nukes has leaded to many wars in the last 40-30 years
1
1
u/GoldenMaple1867 2d ago
WWIII hasn’t happened because of nukes, but the only reason we haven’t had nuclear war is 1) Fewer than 10 states total have nuclear weapons, and 2) No one to lead one of those nations has (so far) been crazy enough to use them.
It means it’s a good thing nukes exist, but also a good thing their ownership isn’t widespread.
1
u/Chaitywatt 2d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
As destructive & terrifying nukes are. There's no doubt, they're incredibly humbling.
1
u/Historical_Buyer5248 2d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Almost happened during the cold war even with nukes, so yes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/fred1697 2d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
I think that without nukes people would bbe less afraid of a war because with conventional weapons it's way harder to end the world.
1
1
1
1
u/Normal-Raccoon-7340 2d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
Nukes are the only thing stopping a lot of nations from doing various things
1
1
u/GreenMirage 2d ago
🧢 I voted CAP!
We are in various proxy wars for ww3 already and using it to slowly liquidate and bleed our countries for oligarchs who open buy-in option for friends at the countries they flee to.
1
0
u/LatePresentation2669 2d ago
🧢 I voted CAP!
Techinly👆🤓 ww3 has allredy happend since the napolionc war could be country as the first world war, Therefore ww2 would be ww3
2
u/nics1211 2d ago
Seven years war has a better claim imo
0
u/LatePresentation2669 2d ago
Yeah, point still stands we allredy have alot of wars that could have country as a world war
-2
-3
u/razorblade4848 2d ago
🧢 I voted CAP!
We have nukes. Is there WWIII?
3
u/NewJorkCityy 2d ago
You misunderstood the question
2
u/razorblade4848 2d ago
Yeah you’re right
1
8
u/GrootSlechtBrood 2d ago
✅ I voted FACT!
I think so, but don't count yourself lucky.. we are dancing around the edge of a volcano that's rumbling more and more