• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

And so the countdown begins.....

GaryH said:
Who was it who said the end of the world was 2012? The Mayans?
Click to expand...

The Mayans never predicted the 'end of the world' in 2012.

As far as we know, the Mayans didn't say anything about 2012 -- they certainly didn't make any predictions about it. As far as they were concerned, it was a date sufficiently far in the future that they didn't bother making their calendar extend any farther than that.
Click to expand...

All the 2012 apocalypse stuff is literally just people panicking over nothing, and making assumptions over nothing, media hype and whatnot. People are influenced far too easily. We all know that nothing will happen...
 
I'm not too worried about our safety as none of these players have nuclear weapons and Russia wont engage with America as it would be the beginning of the end of any power Russia still has to enter into a conflict with a super-power that has the allies America has.

But this could easily cause a middle-eastern war on the scale not far off WWII. If it did lead to a WW it would be months after the 21st of December so the fictitious prophecy would be way out.

We live on a knifes edge all the time, if only from big rocks in space. the 21st of December isn't going to make a jot of difference to that.
 
I have to agree with D4n here, the 21st of December only signifies the end of a period of time on the Mayan Calendar, not the end of the world.

It's like our very own calendars that we have each year, on the 31st of December the world doesn't end, we just get out a new calendar and start again :p

This whole 'end of the world' rubbish is just media induced paranoia.
 
It's a very silly and sensationalist subject. The Mayans like most cultures around the world depended on the cyclical nature of the sun and the moon to create the calendars etc with their civilisation also crumbling during the time 2012 was being forged on the calendar. We've had so many stories that the world would end at a certain point such as Camping's Rapture, the Large Hadron Collider activation and that Y2K computer bug that it's difficult to even believe these things are possible.
 
Also the Mayan calendar was devised on the basis of the number of fingers and toes we have. MOTWYW ;)
 
As far as I know (not that I'm an expert or anything), the Mayan calander works in cycles. Just as our modern perception of time is devided in to seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years ... then multiples of years such as decades or centuries.
The Mayan calander's longest cycle comes to an end on the winter solstice this year... and will simply start again at zero, like a clock resetting from 23:59 to 00:00. Nothing to see here, move along.



Having said that, it's been widely accepted for a good few decades that the trigger that kicks off world war three will come from the middle east...
 
I disagree on this occasion that the Russians wouldn't respond..... They would and they have already made it clear to NATO not to interfere. They have too much to lose if they lose Syria. Believe me if the west intervenes in Syria, Russia will respond back.
 
GaryH said:
I disagree on this occasion that the Russians wouldn't respond..... They would and they have already made it clear to NATO not to interfere. They have too much to lose if they lose Syria. Believe me if the west intervenes in Syria, Russia will respond back.
Click to expand...

They will respond but they won't be launching nuclear weapons.
 
No wonder towers left sw7 till late on. The worlds meant to have ended loads of times. But to be on the safe side does anyone fancy a beer on the 20th
 
Apocalypse party at mine on the 21st. That way if the world ends we go out with a bang, and if it doesn't, we can have a party to celebrate still being alive!
 
Dave said:
GaryH said:
I disagree on this occasion that the Russians wouldn't respond..... They would and they have already made it clear to NATO not to interfere. They have too much to lose if they lose Syria. Believe me if the west intervenes in Syria, Russia will respond back.
Click to expand...

They will respond but they won't be launching nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Actually they might, and they have publicly stated that an attack on Syria/Iran may end up with Nuclear weapons being used. Given that Syria and Iran at the moment dont possess these weapons, that means Russia is threatening to use them.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-g8-russia-idUSBRE84G18M20120517

The danger is that the West is pushing Russia into a very dangerous corner. Russia has NATO on its doorstep, a missile defence shield which invalidates the very basis on which the cold war ended (MAD) and seen its allies being taken over by Western nations. Syria is where Russia has its only Naval base in the Med. It cant afford to lose it and it wont tolerate interference with its only ally in the region.

Plus, this recent announcement by Clinton is also worrying.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a5b15b14-3fcf-11e2-9f71-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2EaedfIGj

They are openly saying they will confront Russia and prevent it from growing in the region. While we may have invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and taken action in Libya, Russia has had enough now and things have changed.

The US has currently 17 war ships in the region, and Russia has the Black Fleet. There are NATO troops on the border on Turkey/Syria, believe me, they are getting ready to invade under the pretext of chemical weapons being used. The Patriot missile batteries in Turkey are there to enforce a no-fly zone which will be set up. The Russian missiles will be used to take out these interceptors when the West interveins.

Believe me, we are in very dangerous times right now and it amazes me that the news isn't making more story out of this given that everyone is sleep walking into yet another global conflict.
 
My only issue with the scenario (and the reason the media are not yet interesting) is we get these posturing scenarios every few years. Until it takes a further 2 steps up in severity I'm not to worried and neither will the media. The West are clearly hoping the internal politics will force a regime change before it becomes a bigger issue.
 
They wouldn't just nuke the west in a first strike though. There would be a "conventional" conflict first.
During the cold war, the USSR feared a nuclear strike from NATO even more than we did from them. And they know damn well that using nukes would be as good as killing everyone on earth. They wouldn't risk starting a war that no one could win.

If any nuclear country is likely to "push the button", it's Israel.
 
A modern re-make of Threads anyone? :)

In all seriousness we are definitely walking a fine line between civil war and world war but unlike WWII several of the players have nukes. We shouldn't worry too much YET but if things do deteriorate we should brace ourselves for war (conventional missiles then nukes)

There really is that many mistakes in my posts?! Damn this Tapatalk milarky :)
 
Never mind the threats of WW3, if anything is going to bring about the end of the world, it's this;

20121129_psy_gangnamstyle.jpg


:eek:
 
D4n said:
All the 2012 apocalypse stuff is literally just people panicking over nothing, and making assumptions over nothing, media hype and whatnot. People are influenced far too easily. We all know that nothing will happen...
Click to expand...

Oh the egg on your face when the world does end. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top