Category Archives: Ww3

It's clear why the Call of Duty franchise has remained popular for as long as it has, with the frequent releases of the IP exploring a huge range of settings and delivering different gameplay experiences to fans. Despite being considered by many as the best first-person shooter franchise, there's still room for it to innovate on some of its ideas.

One of the largest factors of any Call of Duty title is the conflict that the game chooses to focus on, with this being the decision that largely informs the narrative of an installment or the feel of its multiplayer modes. The CoD franchise has famously explored a huge range of different wars over the years, but one stands out as one of the most fascinating and tense. When considering the plethora of the franchise's modern settings, it may be time for World War 3 to come back into the fold.

RELATED: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Update Makes It Completely Unplayable for Some PC Gamers

Call of Duty veterans will be familiar with the franchise's roots, in which the IP exclusively focused on portraying the Second World War for some time. Fans would understandably grow tired of this after a while, and in response, the franchise began to explore more modern and futuristic settings, with one such setting being a third World War.

This iconic portrayal of World War 3 came within the first Modern Warfare trilogy, and was focused on heavily in Modern Warfare 3. Telling the tale of Task Force 141, the original Modern Warfare trilogy portrayed some of the most hard-hitting and memorable sequences across the entire franchise, and this was largely due to the stakes of its World War 3 setting. While this particular conflict was covered quite extensively in the original trilogy, it would be fascinating to see how such a devastating conflict could be portrayed on modern hardware. With this in mind, the current reboot of the Modern Warfare trilogy fosters the perfect environment for a return to World War 3, priding itself on its gripping detail while of course possessing some of the same narrative beats of the original trilogy.

The Call of Duty franchise recently found success in its Modern Warfare reboot, with Infinity Ward telling a different tale in the MW universe, involving many of the same beloved characters from the original trilogy. Modern Warfare 2's recent release forwarded this new narrative and set up the franchise for a potentially explosive finale in its more-than-likely follow-up installment.

While the new Modern Warfare series does well to portray previous franchise characters in fresh lights, it is hard not to notice that the stakes of its overarching narrative currently feel much smaller than the originals. With that being said, the third installment to the original MW trilogy was arguably the most high-octane, and there is no reason that the upcoming Modern Warfare 3 cannot also take this narrative direction. The original MW3 was the title that portrayed World War 3 in the most horrific and memorable detail, giving further credence to how the new trilogy's third installment is the perfect opportunity to re-explore the conflict. That version of WW3 was also sparked by the No Russian incident, the same terrorist attack that Makarov carries out within the post credits scene from the new Modern Warfare 2, so it would only make sense for World War 3 to occur again in the new timeline.

As more than a decade has passed since the franchise's last portrayal of WW3, it is clear to see the appeal of revisiting the conflict with the more detailed and dynamic capabilities of modern hardware. While also crucially upping the ante of what the next Modern Warfare installment's narrative will involve, the potential success that a revived World War 3 setting could bring for Call of Duty is backed by the franchise's very own track record.

MORE: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Can Kill Two Birds With One Stone By Adding this Operator

More here:

It's Time for Call of Duty to Return to One Fictional War - GameRant

Humanity stands on the brink of a new era of warfare.

Driven by rapid developments in artificial intelligence, weapons platforms that can identify, target and decide to kill human beings on their own without an officer directing an attack or a soldier pulling the trigger are fast transforming the future of conflict.

Officially, they are called lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), but critics call them killer robots. Many countries, including the United States, China, the United Kingdom, India, Iran, Israel, South Korea, Russia and Turkey, have invested heavily in developing such weapons in recent years.

A United Nations report suggests that Turkish-made Kargu-2 drones in fully-automatic mode marked the dawn of this new age when they attacked combatants in Libya in 2020 amid that countrys ongoing conflict.

Autonomous drones have also played a crucial role in the war in Ukraine, where both Moscow and Kyiv have deployed these uncrewed weapons to target enemy soldiers and infrastructure.

The emergence and deployment of such machines are driving intense debates among experts, activists and diplomats worldwide as they grapple with the possible benefits and potential risks of using robots, and consider whether and how to stop them.

Yet in an increasingly divided geopolitical landscape, can the international community arrive at any consensus on these machines? Do the ethical, legal and technological threats posed by such weapons make it essential to stop them before they take over the battlefield? Is a blanket ban feasible, or is a set of regulations a more realistic option? Al Jazeera posed these questions to leading experts in the field.

The short answer: An outright blanket ban on autonomous weapon systems does not look likely anytime soon. However, a growing chorus of voices especially from the Global South is calling for their regulation, and experts believe a global taboo of the kind that is in place against the use of chemical weapons is possible. Major military powers may be intrigued by the potential battlefield advantages such systems could give them, but there seems to be little appetite for them outside governments and generals.

In late March, Yasmin Afina, research associate at the London-based Chatham House, described to the House of Lords, the second chamber of the UK parliament, how the US National Security Agency (NSA) had once mistakenly identified an Al Jazeera journalist as an al-Qaeda courier. That labelling which also resulted in the journalist being put on a US watch list only came to light through documents leaked in 2013 by Edward Snowden, a former contractor with the NSA.

A surveillance system of the kind behind that incident is not in itself a weapon system, but it is lethality-enabling, Afina said in her deposition. If you were to engage the target, the journalist, that would absolutely be against international humanitarian law considerations.

The potential for LAWS to trigger a chain reaction of escalatory events worries Toby Walsh, an AI expert at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

We know what happens when we put complex computer systems against each other in an uncertain and competitive environment. Its called the stock market, wrote Walsh in written evidence submitted to the House of Lords.

The only way to stop dangerous feedback loops and undesirable outcomes is to use circuit breakers. On the stock market, we can simply unwind transactions when such a situation occurs. But we cannot unwind the start of WW3, he added.

That does not mean researchers should stop developing the technology behind automatic weapons systems, Walsh told Al Jazeera. That technology, he said, could bring benefits in other fields.

For example, the same algorithms used in car safety systems that avoid collisions with pedestrians will be the algorithms that go into your autonomous drone that identify combatants, track them and its just a sign change to kill them as opposed to avoid them, he said. It would be morally wrong to deny the world a chance to reduce road deaths, he argued.

Instead, the answer might lie in emulating the relatively successful regulation of chemical weapons, Walsh said.

When chemical weapons are used, they make front-page headlines and trigger a global outcry. The UNs Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits their development, production, stockpiling and use. That, combined with international taboos around chemical weapons, has also successfully stopped major arms companies from producing them.

We cant put Pandora back into a box, but those measures seem to have largely limited the misuse of chemical weapons in the battlefields around the world today, Walsh said.

To be sure, AI-driven autonomous weapons systems have their benefits from a military perspective.

They could carry out some battlefield tasks without the use of soldiers thus reducing the risk of casualties. Supporters argue that sophisticated technology embedded in these systems could eliminate or reduce human error in decision-making and eliminate biases. Greater accuracy in targeting could, at least in theory, reduce accidental human casualties.

Autonomous weapons systems can also be deployed for defensive capabilities, with lightning-fast detection algorithms able to detect and eliminate a potential threat with greater efficiency and accuracy than humans.

Yet to many experts and rights groups, the risks of these LAWs outweigh any potential advantages ranging from the possibility of technical malfunctions with no oversight to violations of international law and the ethical concerns over emotionless machines making decisions of life and death.

Central to all of those concerns is the question of accountability.

In 2019, the 126 counties party to the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) agreed upon 11 guiding principles recommended by a group of experts appointed by the UN to address concerns about autonomous weapons.

Among those principles was a decision that international humanitarian law would fully apply to the potential development of such weapons. But experts say it is unclear how that principle will be applied in the fog of war. If a robot commits a war crime, for instance, would it be the commanding officer in charge of the theatre of conflict who would be considered responsible? Or would the buck stop at higher-ups who decided to deploy the machine in the first place? Would the manufacturer of the weapon be liable?

All of this represents a major gap in policy conversation on the subject, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) researchers Vincent Boulanin and Marta Bo wrote in an article in March.

There is not even an official or internationally agreed definition for autonomous weapons systems, Boulanin told Al Jazeera, though most countries agree that the critical element is that the system will be able to identify, select and engage the target without human intervention.

According to Boulanin, the director of the Governance of Artificial Intelligence Programme at SIPRI, weapons systems already operational today fit this description. One such example is the US-made MIM-104 Patriot surface-to-air missile system currently used by many countries, including Saudi Arabia and Israel.

We are talking about a capability, a function that can be used across very different types of weapons systems, that can come in all shapes and forms and can be used in very different types of missions, said Boulanin.

So if you were to ban something, he explained, you would have to narrow down exactly the type of weapon or scenario that you find particularly problematic.

Rather than a blanket ban, a two-tier set of regulations would be a more realistic outcome, he said, with some weapons systems prohibited and others allowed if they meet a strict set of requirements.

The million dollar question now is, basically, what are the elements that would fit into these two buckets? Boulanin said.

It is a question that different states have yet to agree on.

There is an even more fundamental division among nations over how to approach the question of autonomous weapons: Should the world seek a legally binding set of rules or merely a political declaration of intent?

A political declaration can take many forms but would likely include a public statement where major powers would state their common position on the subject and promise to adhere to the principle points laid out in the document. This could look like the joint statement issued by China, Russia, the UK, the US and France on preventing nuclear war and avoiding arms races signed in January 2022, in which they affirmed, among other things, that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought.

Boulanin said it is a question that nations have radically different views on. Russia has been very open about its objections to legally binding instruments; the UK and US are also critical, viewing it as premature and seeking a political declaration as a first step, he said.

Some others, like China and India, have been more ambiguous.

China has supported a ban on the use of fully autonomous weapons but not on their development a position in keeping with the view that some of the worlds most dangerous military tools, including nuclear weapons, can serve as defensive deterrents.

Chinas domestic arms industry has duly pressed ahead with the development of such technology, including the Blowfish A2 drones, which can fly in swarms and independently engage a target. The classified 912 Project also aims to develop underwater robots over the next few years.

India, meanwhile, has expressed concerns about a new race for such machines widening the technology gulf between nations, and about the proliferation of killer robots including to non-state actors but has simultaneously doubled down on developing its own autonomous weapons systems.

Exactly how much resources militaries are committing to developing LAWS is difficult to gauge, but a 2021 Amnesty International report states that several major military powers were investing heavily in the development of autonomous systems. The UK, it said, was developing an uncrewed autonomous drone that could identify a target within a programmed area, while Russia has built a robot tank which can be fitted with a machine gun or grenade launcher.

Autonomous functions can also be added to existing or developing technologies, such as the US-made Switchblade 600 loitering missile.

The real pushback against such weapons systems is coming from large parts of the Global South especially Latin America, Africa and the Middle East that are seeking legally binding regulations.

Leading the campaign in recent times is a country that has shown that peace can be ensured without an army.

In February, Costa Ricas government, along with the local nongovernmental organisation FUNPADEM organised a regional conference attended by representatives from almost every country in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The conferences Beln Communiqu (PDF), which more than 30 states adopted, highlighted the dangers of autonomous weapons systems and called for the international community to respond to them by developing and strengthening the international legal framework.

This is our national position based on our cultural view of peace, Bradon Mata Aguilar, a project technician at FUNPADEM, told Al Jazeera.

Costa Ricas army was abolished in 1948, and it remains one of the most stable countries in the region. Aguilar explains that this fact creates a huge difference between how other states and Costa Rica look at implementing these legally binding instruments.

Costa Rica, he said, is seeking a complete prohibition of fully autonomous weapons and regulations implemented to control the use and development of semi-autonomous weapons.

Groups like the Stop Killer Robots (PDF) campaign, a coalition of nongovernmental organisations that seek to preemptively ban LAWS, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) also had a strong presence at the conference in Costa Rica.

Then, on March 25, at the Ibero-American Summit in the Dominican Republic, 22 heads of state of Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries issued a joint statement (PDF), calling for the negotiation of a legally binding international instrument, with prohibitions and regulations regarding autonomy in weapons systems.

That sentiment was echoed two days later when the Central American Integration System groupings member states, including Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, adopted a similar statement calling for urgent negotiations.

Multiple nations in Africa and the Middle East Algeria, Namibia, Ghana, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Palestine among them have called for a complete ban on fully autonomous weapons systems over the past decade. Others like South Africa have called for regulations but have stopped short of seeking a full ban.

All of this momentum shows that the appetite for legislation is there, said Walsh. Weve seen three dozen or more countries at the floor of the United Nations call for regulation. Weve seen the European Parliament vote for it. Weve seen the African Union vote for it.

But a key ingredient for the success of any talks is missing, according to some experts: trust.

Amid rising geopolitical tensions, many nations are worried about whether they can believe in what rivals state officially, analysts say.

That absence of trust plays out at two levels. Since international conventions like the CCW depend on consensus, it only takes one country to be disruptive to stop talks progressing, said Walsh.

But even if a new international law or set of regulations were to come into place, would they be effectively implemented? That is an open question because many nations are not playing by the rules-based order anymore, said Walsh.

Boulanin agrees with those concerns.

States can agree [thats] one thing, but compliance is another thing, Boulanin said.

I think some states are worried that if they were to agree on an ambitious regulatory framework, they would potentially shoot themselves in the foot, he added. If their adversaries did not play by the rules and developed LAWS, this would put them at a strategic disadvantage, he explained.

That risk, however, does not mean we shouldnt keep trying to agree on new norms for responsible behaviour, Boulanin said.

Already, one traditional worry that any international law would be unable to keep pace with the rapid rate at which technology is advancing has been addressed, he said, with the UNs approach now focusing on regulations that are technology-agnostic.

Still, there are even more basic issues at stake in this debate, including over the morality of machines taking peoples lives without any human being involved in the decision-making process.

The Martens Clause, which has formed a part of the laws of armed conflict since its first appearance in the preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention (II), is often used in discussions over the ethics of autonomous weapons systems. It declares that in the absence of specific treaty law on a topic, people are still protected by custom, the principles of humanity, and the dictates of public conscience.

In 2019, UN Secretary-General Antnio Guterres said machines with the power and discretion to take lives without human involvement were politically unacceptable and morally repugnant.

And many military personnel Walsh has spoken with for his research seem squeamish about fully autonomous weapons too.

He said that he has found almost universally that the lower down the ranks you go, the closer to the battlefield you get, there is more pushback against the idea that you could be fighting against robots.

Beyond laws, regulations and geopolitics, there is a more fundamental problem with the idea of machines lacking human empathy making such critical decisions, said Walsh.

Its disrespectful to human dignity.

See the article here:

Are killer robots the future of war? - Al Jazeera English

Ukraine planned a massive strike on the Russian capital earlier this year, and it was only called off after a warning from the US government.

A leaked Pentagon report reveals that Ukraines head of military intelligence (HUR) ordered agents to prepare for mass strikes using everything the HUR had to mark the first anniversary of the outbreak of war on February 24.

But once news of the planned attacks reached Washington, the CIA warned President Zelenskyy that a strike on Russia's capital could trigger a direct conflict between America and Russia.

READ MORE: Paranoid Putin goes to church with huge security team over assassination fears

On February 22, just two days before the attacks were due to take place, US officials were told that the HUR had agreed, at Washingtons request, to postpone strikes on the Russian capital.

By then, news of the planned attacks had already reached the Kremlin. In the weeks leading up to the anniversary, air defences were installed on numerous key buildings in and around Moscow.

The US appears to have learned about the plan by tapping the phones of Ukrainian officials

The Pentagon has supplied arms to Ukraine under strict condition that US military hardware is not used to strike at targets within Russia. Concerns have been raised within the Biden administration that the use of US weapons on Russian soil could trigger a global conflict.

The leaked Pentagon reports about the war in Ukraine were dismissed by a source in Kyiv.

The Ukrainian government adviser told the Daily Telegraph regarding the leaked memos: They fulfil only one catastrophic function: they shape public opinion in Western capitals as if Ukraine was an unreasonable, infantile, and impulsive country that is dangerous for adults to trust with serious weapons.

Ukraine sees things differently, he explained. We approach the war with ironclad mathematical logic.

"We need long-range missiles to destroy Russian logistics in the occupied territories and various types of aircraft to protect the sky and destroy Russian fortifications."

These are the main components of successful counteroffensive operations and minimisation of losses," the Ukrainian government insider added.

"Maybe its time to stop playing with excuses and back-alley realpolitik while the war is still ongoing and people are dying?

Ukraine has long refused to publish official casualty figures, but US figures suggest the true cost of Ukraine war, could be as many as 120,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed and wounded against around 200,000 on the Russian side.

READ NEXT:

Excerpt from:

Ukraine planned attack on Moscow that could have triggered WW3, leaked memos say - Daily Star

Russian warship conducting joint military drills with China and South Africa

China has moved new war tech closer to Taiwan in another strong sign of their intention to invade the island, according to a leaked document. Other reports from the recently leaked trove of top secret files show Beijing successfully tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile which has a "high probability" of penetrating US air defences.

The document, first reported by The Washington Post, is part of a larger scandal which has marred the US intelligence community after 21-year-old Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira allegedly posted classified reports to the gaming chat server Discord.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency report includes satellite imagery which shows two WZ-8 rocket-propelled reconnaissance drones parked 350 miles inland from Shanghai, well within range of the seas surrounding Taiwan and US ally South Korea.

The cutting-edge drones could be used to carry out real-time mapping of a combat situation and guide Chinese missiles aimed at US and Taiwanese warships defending the island.

Other leaked documents paint a bleak picture of Taiwan's defence, according to the paper. The reports claim Taiwanese officials believe the island's air defences couldn't "accurately detect [incoming] missile launches" and that it would take at least a week to move its fighter jets to hardened shelters.

READ MORE: US journalist Evan Gershkovich set to remain behind bars in Russia

If Beijing were to launch a pre-emptive strike, it could effectively wipe out large parts of Taiwan's fighter capabilities giving China early air superiority in an all-out war.

The stealthy WZ-8 drones could be used to help guide such a pre-emptive strike crippling Taiwan's defences.

According to the leaked documents, the drones would be released over the East China Sea by H6-M Badger bombers before climbing to a height of 100,000 feet and travelling three times the speed of sound.

Although the report doesn't state how the drone is propelled it notes its "engine features are primarily associated with rocket fuel".

The drone is believed to be for surveillance and guidance but it could be modified to carry out strikes and US air-to-air missiles may struggle to hit the stealthy, fast-moving target.

China has also successfully tested a new hypersonic missile the DF-27, according to a top-secret report compiled by the Joint Chiefs of Staff intelligence directorate on February 28.

The new missile is described as a hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic missile and is part of the Dongfeng series, all of which are capable of delivering nuclear warheads.

The leaked report states there is a "high probability" the missiles could penetrate US ballistic missile defences. As a hypersonic glide vehicle, it is capable of changing trajectory mid-flight meaning it could be extremely difficult to shoot down.

The files claim "the DF-27 is designed to enhance [China's] ability to hold targets at risk beyond the Second Island Chain and possesses a high probability of penetrating US" defences.

The leaks come amid soaring tensions between Washington and Beijing over Taiwan. Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen recently visited Washington to meet with Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy.

The high-profile visit enraged Beijing which retaliated with three days of war games surrounding the island. During the exercises, Chinese forces simulated striking "foreign military targets".

The thinly veiled threat appeared to be a reference to US and allied warships which could be protecting Taiwan in the event of an attempted invasion.

Follow our social media accounts here on facebook.com/ExpressUSNews and @expressusnews

Link:

WW3 fears as China readies hypersonic missiles and drones for Taiwan invasion - Express

Former US president hints Washington might have been behind the alleged attack on the gas pipelines

The alleged sabotage of Russian Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea could lead to World War III, former US President Donald Trump has warned.

Trump took to his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, posting a clip from February in which his successor, President Joe Biden, told journalists that if Russia invades [Ukraine] there will be no longer Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it. When asked about how exactly Washington was planning to achieve that, considering that the pipeline was under the control of Germany, Biden replied: I promise you, we will be able to do it.

Wow, what a statement. World War III anyone? Trump wrote, in a short comment under the video.

The post was an apparent jab at Biden, hinting that the US couldve been linked to the leaks that were discovered earlier this week on the Nord Stream pipelines that connect Russia to Europe pipeline No2 specifically to Germany under the Baltic Sea.

The Daily Mail addressed Trumps spokesman Taylor Budowich for clarification, but he said only that the former US presidents statements speak for themselves.

Trump dedicated several posts to what he called sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. In one of the messages, he advised the US leadership to be cool, calm, and dry about the whole situation. The leaks were a big event that should not entail a big solution, at least not yet, he wrote.

The 76-year-old linked the incident to the conflict in Ukraine and claimed that a military confrontation between Moscow and Kiev would definitely not have happened if I were President.

Washington should work towards a negotiated peace between Russia and Ukraine, Trump insisted. Both sides need and want it. The entire World is at stake. I will head up group??? he suggested.

Trump, who imposed sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 project while in office, reminded followers in another post that it was him whod brought the pipelines to the Worlds attention as President when I explained how crippling reliance on it could be for Germany and other parts of Europe.

Everybody laughed at the time, but they are not laughing anymore! he pointed out.

Denmark discovered leaks from the pipelines on Monday after the operator reported a loss of pressure in both Nord Stream lines 1 and 2. Danish and Swedish authorities later said there was a series of undersea explosions near the island of Bornholm. This led to Russia, the US, EU and Sweden suggesting the leaks may have been the result of a deliberate act.

The pipelines laying along the bottom of the Baltic Sea have been at the heart of the energy standoff between Moscow and Brussels since the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine in late February.

Continue reading here:

Nord Stream sabotage could lead to WW3 Trump

Donald Trump has called for the immediate negotiation of a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine to avoid a third world war as he points to the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The former president, speaking to a rally in the US state of Nevada on Saturday, said there would be nothing left of our planet all because stupid people didn't have a clue about nuclear weapons and the impact of escalation.

The former Republican president, who left the White House in January 2021, previously said in March 2022 that if he were still in the Oval Office, he would threaten Moscow with nuclear submarines.

Current US President, Joe Biden, said on Thursday that the world was contending with nuclear "armageddon" for the first time in 60 years.

He told Democratic donors in New York: "For the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have a direct threat to the use of nuclear weapons, if in fact things continue down the path they'd been going."

He then added that the world has "not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis."

The White House was then quick to say President Bidens comments were not off the back of any new intelligence on the possibility of nuclear war.

But the Russian leader is "not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons, because his military is, you might say, is significantly underperforming", the US leader added.

He then questioned what Putins "off ramp" or "way out" of a nuclear confrontation could be.

Earlier in the week, Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky told the BBC that he doubted the Kremlin was ready to launch any form of nuclear attack, but that those inside Russias borders were being prepared for this to happen.

READ MORE:Russian military logistics error could have caused Crimea bridge blast

This includes the newly-annexed Ukrainian regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, which Moscow has now claimed as Russian territory.

Putin said during a ceremony to supposedly induct the territories into Russia: "Kyiv authorities have to respect the will of these people.

"We will protect our land using all our forces and means at our disposal, and will do everything to ensure peoples security.

"This is the great liberating mission of our people."

He then reiterated that allusions to Russias nuclear arsenal - the biggest in the world - were "not a bluff".

He then warned that "those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the weathervane can turn and point towards them".

But Putins posturing on nuclear weapons has flip-flopped throughout the stumbling invasion of Ukraine, admitting on August 1 there could "be no winners in nuclear war" and that such a conflict should "never be unleashed".

The Russian leader said in a written statement: "We proceed from the fact that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be unleashed, and we stand for equal and indivisible security for all members of the world community."

But Putin had previously set Moscows nuclear arsenal on high alert, saying Russia was "one of the most powerful nuclear states" with the "advantage in several cutting-edge weapons".

Putin continued: "In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country."

Read more:

Ukraine war: Donald Trump issues dire WW3 warning in call for ...

RUSSIA could use Belarus to launch nuclear strikes as the world enters what could be the early days of World War 3, a Putin foe has warned.

Kyiv would be destroyed in minutes if Belarus followed Mad Vlad's orders to nuke it with Moscow's missiles, warned Dr Yuri Felshtinsky.

5

5

5

Dr Felshtinsky, author of Blowing Up Ukraine, told The Sun Online: "We are in 1939, 1940 now and February 24 will be written in history books as the beginning of [World War 3]

"This was our September 1, 1939.

"The question is, how will this war continue and how much will we pay for it?"

The Russian-born academic, who now lives in the US, said Putin is too scared to take on Nato head-to-head in a confrontation.

So he would instead force Minsk into launching a nuclear strike as a proxy - testing the resolve of the West.

Russia is feared to turn the war nuclear, but has been warned by Nato it would face a colossal response from the West.

"Knowing Putin and knowing how he looks for unconventional ways to deal with it, he probably would try to move nuclear weapons to Belarus," Dr Felshtinsky told The Sun Online.

"No one is talking about Belarus and the reason why I think no one is talking about Belarus is, because there is of course an order not to talk about it, but also because Putin has plans to use nuclear weapons to strike from there."

So far, Belarus leader Alexander Lukashenko - known as Europe's last dictator - has stopped short of joining Moscow in Ukraine.

But it has allowed Russia to launch drones, fighter jets and troops from within its territory - including being one of the staging areas for the initial assault on Kyiv at the start of the war.

And that could soon change after the Putin's close pal announced Minsk and Moscow would deploy a "joint military group" - and Ukraine claims Russia plans to move up to 20,000 troops into the Belarus.

And in a blow to the West in August, Lukashenko said his country's warplanes had been modified to carry nuclear weapons from Russia - and earlier this year Russia vowed to send him Iskander nuclear-capable missiles.

Lukashenko has also sparked panic among Western leaders when he baselessly accused Nato of mulling over a nuclear attack on Minsk - a comment many see a pretext for Belarus joining the war in Ukraine.

Ukrainian intelligence has reported that Putin is attempting to pressure Lukashenko to join the war in Ukraine.

And earlier this year, Belarus announced it was lifting a ban on nuclear weapons - further stoking fears.

Both the Russian and Belarus governments allow themselves to frighten and blackmail the entire Europe and Ukraine first of all with nuclear strike

Dr Felshtinsky told The Sun Online: "Russia has no conventional army and the only way to lift the nuclear threat, the West or NATO or both, must concentrate on Belarus because I don't believe Putin will use nuclear weapons from Russian territory.

"This would be absolutely suicidal for him.

"I would concentrate on Belarus and try to take Belarus out of Putin's control."

It comes as Putin and his bumbling entourage were left red faced when his prized Crimean exploded into a fireball on Saturday.

The bridge, which connects Crimea to mainland Russia and is a vital supply route for Putin's troops in southern Ukraine, partially collapsed after an explosion rocked a section of the bridge in an attack believed to have been carried out by Ukraine's secret service.

In response, Putin unleashed a flurry of rockets across Ukraine, hitting critical civilian infrastructure in a bid to "wipe Ukraine off the map", according to President Zelensky.

Putin called Kyiv a "nuclear terrorists" and warned it would hit with more devastating attacks.

He said: "If attempts to carry out terrorist attacks on our territory continue, Russia's responses will be harsh and, in terms of their scale, will correspond to the level of threats posed by the Russian Federation.

"Nobody should have any doubts about this," he said.

Dr Felshtinsky said Putin is looking for a "quick win" in Ukraine to prove to ordinary Russians that the army was in control and winning on the battlefield following a string of embarrassing losses.

"Putin is trying to claim some victory and does it mainly for Russians and to support this idea that you cannot try to take back Russian territories. It's a kind of a childish game but that's where he is at this point.

"So, he will try to annex more territory and occupy more territory. It's questionable whether he would be able to do this because after seven months of war, he has no conventional army or forces available to fight in Ukraine."

Dr Felshtinksy said the only way to stop Putin was to deliver Russia a "decisive defeat".

"When I say decisively, I mean the level of capitulation which Germany faced in 1945 or which Japan faced in 1945."

He said Ukraine has "all rights to strike preventively against Belarus and Russia" while the war is going on, especially when "both the Russian and Belarus governments allow themselves to frighten and blackmail the entire Europe and Ukraine first of all with nuclear strike".

He said: "This war for Putin is against EU, Nato, Europe and the USA. In order to stop it within Ukrainian borders, we need to help Ukraine as much as we can with weapons and money.

"We need to give the Ukrainian army free hands to conduct this was the way which leads to the victory over Putin."

5

5

Original post:

Russia could launch NUCLEAR strikes using Belarus for cover from West as world now in first days of WW3,... - The US Sun

Are you getting an error code 40302 in World War 3?

Heres the second part of the error message, CHANGENAME.USER NOT AUTHORIZED.

Followed by, THE TOKEN IS INVALID.

WW3 turned into a free-to-play game in September 2022.

As a result, it attracted a ton of new players which contributed to server issues.

The game is available on the official website and on Steam.

In this guide, youll learn why youre getting the error code 40302 in World War 3 and how to fix it.

Youre getting the error code 40302 in World War 3 because the server is currently full.

If the server is full, youll be restricted from joining it until its less crowded.

Many users are reporting the error on social media and forums.

By trying to remove half-filled servers, youve unintentionally limited the number of servers available for players, now theres a queue of thousands of players trying to get into your game. You should revert it to how it was.

Hello WW3, your game is really cool but Ive some problems (40302 ) (151 something went wrong). Can you help me ?.

6 hours to download the game, 3 hours waiting for the server to start up because due to technical issues. Another 3 hours of playing this game over and over again. Then there is an authorization problem that made me quit the game and wait in line.

How to fix error code 40302 in World War 3, you need to spam-click the Try Againbutton until you can access the server.

Otherwise, you need to wait until the server is less crowded before joining it.

If the game is under maintenance, you need to wait for the in-game maintenance to complete.

You can check if the game is under maintenance by following @ww3thegame on Twitter.

The games official blog stated that you might experience certain gameplay and technical issues.

This is due to the overwhelming number of players due to the free-to-play release of the game.

The increase in the player count has overloaded the games servers.

If youre still having trouble, you can contact MY.GAMES support here: https://support.my.games/ww3.

Alternatively, you can contact them on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/MYGAMES/.

How to Fix Client Authentication Failure in World War 3

How to Fix World War 3 Error 151

How to Fix World War 3 Fetching Data Error

Go here to see the original:

How to Fix Error Code 40302 in World War 3 - Followchain

Since Vladimir Putin's annexation of four Ukrainian regions to Russia, military experts have warned an attack with NATO equipment on one of the regions could be interpreted as an offensive on Russia's territorial sovereignty. The West's continuous supply of NATO weapons to Ukraine could then plunge the military alliance into a direct conflict with the Russian Federation. US Senator Marco Rubio said his main concern is that Russian troops could target a distribution point in a NATO country like Poland, raising the prospect of a Third World War.

Senator Marco Rubio said: "I think that is quite possible that he could end up striking some of these distribution places where these supplies are coming through, including inside Poland.

"A lot of talk about nuclear, but I think the thing I worry most about is a Russian attack inside NATO territory for example aiming at the airport in Poland or some other distribution point."

CNN's Dana Bash asked: "Would NATO have to respond?"

"Well, I think it would depend on the nature of the strike and how the other allies within NATO would respond," Senator Rubio said.

"There certainly would be an attack on one.

"And therefore, certainly NATO would have to respond to it.

"How will it respond? I think a lot of it will depend on the nature of the attack and the scale and scope of it."

READ MORE:Putin's nuclear threats parried as US defence plans discussed

See the original post:

'NATO would have to respond': WW3 fears ramp up over worries of 'Russian attack' on Poland - Express

A NUCLEAR bunker in Britain is up for grabs for just 28,000 as Putin pushes the world to the brink of WW3.

The former ROC Nuclear Monitoring Post in Quadring Eaudyke, near Peterborough, is one of 1,500 spread across the UK.

6

6

6

6

The bunker was bought by Phillip Frostick, 56, in 1993 after it was spotted by his friends dad in a newspaper.

He and a pal bought it with big plans to do it up - but gave up on the idea when they realised the full extent of the cost and effort it would take.

While it lay abandoned for the last thirty years, it was broken into, trashed and burned - with valuables lost including an award won for the best kept bunker.

But Phillip believes that it could take just a few weekends of hard work to bring it back to fighting shape.

He said: "At the time it was really bought as a bit of a folly, but we never knew what it might become.

We thought we could do great things with it - and over the years I cant lie and say that Ive never dropped it into conversation.

At the back of my mind its not getting better - hopefully there will be a club or a history buff that has got a bit more enthusiasm and energy than I have to bring it back to what it would be like."

Many of the monitoring posts were built to a standard design consisting of a 14ft access shaft with a toilet and a monitoring room.

Officers stationed at the posts would forecast which areas would be in danger from nuclear fall out in the case of an attack.

They were built underground with many still intact nearly 70 years on from when they were first commissioned in 1955.

With a guide price of 21,000 to 28,000, potential buyers can view the bunker on Unique Property Bulletin.

Russ McLean, who set up Unique Property Bulletin in 1987, says a surge of Brits are considering bunkers as tensions between Russia and the West over Ukraine continue.

Many fear the crisis inUkrainecould develop into a wider armed conflict or evolve into World War 3.

Mr McLean, who served in the police and the Royal Navy, claims to have fielded more than 3,000 calls, emails and texts from Brits terrified by what Putin might do.

He said: It bothered me. I was almost in tears and losing my bearings at times.

"It is not a small number - there is a huge national distress of people that are worried.

Now in Britain people are either building it or when these things come up - your click rate goes through the roof.

No telephone was provided, but the posts had a Warning receiver to know when to sound the hand operated siren, and the master post in each area had a radio for a backup to the landline intercom device.

The 63-year-old continued: There are seven bunkers we have sold in the past 10 years.

When Putin invaded, our clucks started going up significantly and noticeably in the two weeks that they invaded.

They have never really come back down.

My phone goes at least twice a day where you have a conversation with someone about nuclear bunkers.

I get at least two a day - it averages at three and you can add another thousand on for good measure.

Thats phone calls - thats not emails, thats not texts, so you can double that figure.

6

6

Go here to see the original:

Nuclear bunker in Britain on sale for just 28,000 as Putin pushes the world to the brink of WW3... - The Sun