Wwiii

[doik27]

I know it will never happen, but if there was a WWIII, what would happen on the space station? A battle in space shanking each other with scissors? Or maybe a treaty that will make peace on the station? Whats your guys thoughts?

[NovaSilisko]

There are guns in the two soyuz descent modules, to use for hunting and defense in the event of landing in a wilderness area... they can shoot bullets, small shotgun shells, or flares.

More realistically though, I imagine there'd be more of an attitude of "look at those idiots down there, ruining everything"

[KvickFlygarn87]

It'll happen, just give it a couple years. In that case though, the ISS would either be toast or the astronauts would go "Hehe, suckers."

[deadshot462]

Considering both US and Russia invested heavily in the ISS and they both have astronauts, I don't see the station being in danger in the near future. Worst case scenario is that Russia refuses to send US astronauts to space through the Soyuz, but that could mean Russia having to take up more cost from the ISS operations so it's also unlikely.

It's my hope that these current tensions open the US government's eyes into investing more/faster into the US commercial crew vehicle program.

[NASAFanboy]

The United States is as close to World War 3 as Leonardo DiCaprio is to getting an Oscar.

Yes, there are international tensions and Oscar nominations, but at the end of the day, the world is still at peace and Leonardo still doesn't have his Oscar.

Just a quick analogy.

[going-to-the-MOON]

Isn't the weaponization of space banned? So nothing should happen.

[TechnicalK3rbal]

At first, I thought he made a mistake in naming a thread about the "Wii"

[jmiki8]

I don't think if an astronaut-fight is likely. Even if space programs serve military purposes too (many astronauts came from the military, let alone Yuri Gagarin, who was a fighter pilot), the spacemen from different nations see each other as "co-workers", rather than rivals. Also, fighting on the ISS would be really dangerous, as they could damage the station itself and its life support systems as well.

Maybe if the USA or Russia (or othern nuclear-capable state with space program) launched nukes on the other superpower, resulting in either's destruction, they may fight in their anger as revenge.

Edited March 18, 2014 by jmiki8

[Rjhere]

I consider US's assualt on mid-eastern countries a smaller world war as almost every country in the western war was "forced" into it. Though it doesn't really count as a world war.

Probably, if the next world war is to happen, probably North Korea is likely to be the cause of it. Of course there are other threats.

Overall there are just too many things to fight. Terrorists are paracites, leaders with a lust for more. There will always be someone to wreck it for all others. People who want to watch the world burn. This makes me really sad, as probably Einsteins saying that WWIII will be fought with weapons of mass destruction, but the fourth will be fought with rocks and sticks.

[rpayne88]

Isn't the weaponization of space banned? So nothing should happen.

Only for NUCLEAR weapons.

@Rjhere: Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your viewpoint,) North Korea can't even feed its own population (causing mass famine.) Its kind of hard to start a war if your population is hunting/ farming for sustenance,

Edited March 19, 2014 by rpayne88

[pxi]

I've watched three 2-hour programs on the ISS in the last week or so - 2 from channel 4's coverage, and the national geographic coverage.

I really cannot imagine any of the astronauts that featured in the broadcast getting stabby if ww3 breaks out.

On the other hand, you would probably be extremely concerned about your resupply plan, or lack therof.

[Rjhere]

Only for NUCLEAR weapons.

@Rjhere: Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your viewpoint,) North Korea can't even feed its own population (causing mass famine.) Its kind of hard to start a war if your population is hunting/ farming for sustenance,

That didn't stop Russia.

[doik27]

Im almost thinking it wont happen now. Crimea is annexed and as long as Russia doesnt go around taking other countries noting will happen.

[lajoswinkler]

Isn't the weaponization of space banned? So nothing should happen.

A lot of bad things is banned by international law, yet they happen.

I do think the crew would just say: "Sigh, look at these morons down there".

There is no way they would all of the sudden start acting like douchebag politicians and soldiers on the planet.

What would happen with the ISS program, that is something it's quite difficult to predict. I guess they would finish their experiments and then return home.

The whole crappy situation with Ukraine might stir some problems with ISS soon. Let's hope everything will be ok.

[KerbMav]

Reminds me of Space 2010, when they had to leave the Leonov and board the Odyssey (under orders) because of political tensions rising back home.

I imagine a similar order might be issued to remain in seperate modules, as astronauts are often also military personnel - question remains if this order would even be followed, or if it were possible to do so. I dont think they have two kitchens/bathrooms up there?

Regarding tension among the crew - depends really. As long as everyone can still distinguish between the actions of a nations politicians and an individual from said nation ...

My suggestion for them would be to sit out as long as possible and when provisions run low board the capsule and pick the least involved/irradiated country to land.

Actually they might even have a very prominent position to talk reason into the peoples' heads to stop their leaders from such nonsense - no support from your people, no obedient soldiers, no war - but that would require the people in general to be at least as intelligent as the average KSP player.

Edited March 19, 2014 by KerbMav
English language and stuff

[Camacha]

Isn't the weaponization of space banned? So nothing should happen.

I do not think those treaties will stop anyone from doing what they want. When it comes to war people and countries tend to do whatever they deem necessary. It is only after the fact that they sometimes have a look to see whether there were any crimes commited (most often by the losing side). I am sad to say that the Geneva convention probably has barely any effect in the field and it even sort of makes sense, as its strange to have rules about how to kill each other 'the decent way'. I am not saying this is a good thing, but it is reality.

Personally, I am quite convinced there is already a number of satellites up there with a offensive military payload. China even tested its capabilities without trying to hide it.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Camacha

[lajoswinkler]

I do not think those treaties will stop anyone from doing what they want. When it comes to war people and countries tend to do whatever they deem necessary. It is only after the fact that they sometimes have a look to see whether there were any crimes commited (most often by the losing side). I am sad to say that the Geneva convention probably has barely any effect in the field and it even sort of makes sense, as its strange to have rules about how to kill each other 'the decent way'. I am not saying this is a good thing, but it is reality.

Personally, I am quite convinced there is already a number of satellites up there with a offensive military payload. China even tested its capabilities without trying to hide it.

Actually, Geneva convention is not only moral, but highly useful. If people would respect it, it would help bringing down the violence. Instead they do disgusting things, and that causes the urge to revenge, and then the whole thing increases in magnitude and resets itself until everyone is either killed or a third party stops everything.

The purpose of war today is not to kill people. It is to deter the enemy, send him away, secure the area and gain power over it. Fire exchange does not happen just because, except when some moron makes a mistake. Indeed, war can be done on a wrong way. Sadly, most of them are done just like that.

The convention is actually respected for the most part, especially when there are foreign spectators involved. It's mostly the psychos' fault (and there are a lot of psychos among soldiers of all ranks, the job attracts them like s*it attract flies) that terrible things happen. They simply want to do crime and they use the situation as an excuse.

That's why we have courts. Serious war criminals (there are degrees of it) should be sentenced to life imprisonment, yet somehow even the worst of them sometimes get 20 years. It's beyond my understanding. Animals as them belong in a cage.

[Zuni]

The United States is as close to World War 3 as Leonardo DiCaprio is to getting an Oscar.

Yes, there are international tensions and Oscar nominations, but at the end of the day, the world is still at peace and Leonardo still doesn't have his Oscar.

Just a quick analogy.

Okay. Everybody do the best you can to make sure that Leonardo does NOT get an oscar!

[Camacha]

Actually, Geneva convention is not only moral, but highly useful. If people would respect it, it would help bringing down the violence. Instead they do disgusting things, and that causes the urge to revenge, and then the whole thing increases in magnitude and resets itself until everyone is either killed or a third party stops everything.

It is not useful at all, for reasons you explain quite well: should have, would have. The moment people go to war, the rulebook is the first to go out the window. People do what they feel they need to do to survive, anything and everything. They will claw at any chance of a small gain. After the war they will sort out who was bad for what reason, but by that time, it already happened. History is written after the fact, by the victor, which means the crimes were perpetrated by the losing party.

War is an unimaginably horrible and messy thing to happen, exactly because all reason is suspended and rules do not apply.

To be honest, I think that having rules for armed conflict (ie. shooting someone's brain out), making the act decent is you follow them is ridiculous, but that is a bit of a different discussion.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Camacha

[lajoswinkler]

It is not useful at all, for reasons you explain quite well: should have, would have. The moment people go to war, the rulebook is the first to go out the window. People do what they feel they need to do to survive, anything and everything. They will claw at any chance of a small gain. After the war they will sort out who was bad for what reason, but by that time, it already happened. History is written after the fact, by the victor, which means the crimes were perpetrated by the losing party.

War is an unimaginably horrible and messy thing to happen, exactly because all reason is suspended and rules do not apply.

To be honest, I think that having rules for armed conflict (ie. shooting someone's brain out), making the act decent is you follow them is ridiculous, but that is a bit of a different discussion.

It depends what kind of war. If we're talking about ancient times, when morality was poorly developed and people used to run at each other with spears, prisons did not exist and courts were not heard of, then yes.

For the past hundred years or so, the modern times, we have evolved beyond that. It's much more complex now. I presume you've heard of attrocities of WW2, Rwanda, countries in Balkans, etc. War is messy, but some things are crimes. War crimes exist. They are a fact. Rules do apply and "everything is allowed" is not a true statement.

Notice I'm primarily talking about things like treatment of PoWs, civillians, cultural heritage.

If we talk about rules of armed conflict, not everything is allowed, either. For example if a soldier surrenders in the middle of a fight, drops down his weapons, and you kill him/her, you're a war criminal. Bright as day.

"Crimes are perpetrated by the losing party" - that's something not legally accepted these days. It were the times before WW2. Today we have courts (Hague) where everyone can be invited. It's just that sometimes that's difficult to achieve, but rules exist, and if a country does not respect them, it is sanctioned.

[MartGonzo]

I know it will never happen, but if there was a WWIII, what would happen on the space station? A battle in space shanking each other with scissors? Or maybe a treaty that will make peace on the station? Whats your guys thoughts?

I wouldn't bet on it, in fact I'd put money on it beginning this year.

[KerbMav]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/nasa-must-immediately-cease-all-contact-with-russia/

[dansmithers]

@Rjhere: Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your viewpoint,) North Korea can't even feed its own population (causing mass famine.) Its kind of hard to start a war if your population is hunting/ farming for sustenance,

Its kind of hard to start a war if your population is hunting/ farming for sustenance,

your population is hunting/ farming for sustenance,

farming for sustenance,

But hat's what LITERALLY EVERY COUNTRY EVER does

[razark]

But hat's what LITERALLY EVERY COUNTRY EVER does

Can you please point out the extensive crop fields of the Vatican City?

[Pockrtplanesairways]

My bet is WWIII will start in Syria. And Russia isn't violating Ukraine's borders, and Crimea VOTED to become one with the Russian Federation.