I have many relatives who lived in a poor occupied country during WWII. The most sought after items were Kerosene, Matches, Salt, Tobacco, animal protein (eggs, meat, etc) and cooking oil. But life went on, kids attended school when it was available, and people were quick to adapt to new realities. Of course, in that generation, many things were made by hand and every household had essential skill sets (farming, weaving, soap making, etc).
The bottom line is most people just tried to maintain a low profile and survive. Having friends in other towns and villages was essential for getting information, especially when men with guns came looking for you and your family. Information is key to survival, period. Surprises are rarely a good thing during times of war.

I agree. With the Internet and other means, how we get information has changed.

Jeanette Isabelle

Many of you have referred to historical events and for a good reason. We can get an idea of what may happen from knowing what has happened.

Recent research has lead to the Armenian Genocide. I believe what we learn from the Armenian Genocide very much applies here. There were warnings of what was to come. Some heeded those warnings and fled to America. Approximately one and a half million did not heed those warnings and died.

Jeanette Isabelle

As a comparison, what were the limiting factors that prevented hostile activity in WW1 and WW2 from spreading? How does modern combat differ? What would prevent hostile activity from reaching certain areas now?

I believe the major differences to be mobility, precision, and production capabilities. We can move more farther and with much greater effect. There is no logistics barrier anywhere anymore. The quantity and quality of materials and equipment is far superior, and the means with which to both find and target an enemy effectively is nearly indefensible today.

Maybe at a first glance, but I'm not so sure. WWII was fought by millions of trained troops equipped with what was state-of-the-art technology at the time. From 1941 to 1944, on the Eastern Front alone the fighting involved some 3 million Germans vs. 6 million Soviet troops at any given time. Major bombing campaigns involved many hundreds, even a thousand aircraft per single raid. Etc. etc. In terms of sheer manpower (and all the logistics to make it work in the field) no war fought by any Western power in the last 30 years comes anywhere close.

Compared to WWI and WWII, modern standing armies in most NATO countries are basically organized and trained to do the work of an expeditionary corps, no more and no less. At this point, no NATO member (the US included) has the numbers, equipment and logistical capabilities to fight a full-scale conventional war, which would clearly require the mobilization of all available national resources.

The last conflict resembling anything like an equal match between two reasonably well trained and modern Western armies was probably the Falklands campaign, which was highly specific on several levels. Iraq in 1991 was not even sided by any means, and in 2003 it was basically a joke. That said, despite the incredible technological gap the Western involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was ultimately unsuccessful (to put it mildly). So much for the wonders of technology. The lesson is pretty clear, high-tech toys alone don't win wars and never will.

And how about the public perception of war and human costs? Fast forward to the number of casualties. In WWI, the Brits lost almost 60.000 men (KIA, MIA and WIA) in a single day at the Somme. The public barely flinched, it was just another day at the front. According to modern statistics, a French infantryman in WWI had at least a 50% chance of getting killed or severely wounded in combat. But the French army kept on going anyway, the first large-scale mutinies only took place in 1917 and failed to produce any real effect.

These days, the US had a little over 58.000 KIA in Vietnam over a period of 14 years. This number of casualties caused an extreme public outrage and triggered a widespread counterculture movement. In Iraq in Afghanistan, the US has lost about 6.000 KIA since 2001 - even this is considered an atrocious figure by most and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are widely seen as extremely costly political and military blunders. Do we even have the stomach to fight costly, bloody wars any more?

I do hope we never find out. Even though the odds are not looking great with Turkey downing a Russian Su-24 just a few hours ago. But anyway, it's not a pleasant subject to discuss and I doubt WWIII is something that one could prepare for in any rational manner.

Excellent point, Ben.
-Blast

I don't think there was a limiting factor. However, united, the Allied Forces stopped Germany and Japan. If the Allied Forces did not stop Germany, we may be speaking German now.


We have nuclear weapons and some have the means to take down missiles.


Israel has a smart, strong defense.


I don't think mobility has changed much since WW II. Though the zombies will have the means of obtaining nuclear weapons, if they haven't already, most of their weapons are either primitive or improvised.


With missiles, we can. We also now have drones.


With the zombies there are but they have their own means of delivering bombs.


Yes and no. Zombies are one of the enemies we face, after all. I believe the zombies are the ones who pose the greatest threat to the United States.

Jeanette Isabelle

Unless nuclear weapons are involved.


For the sake of discussion, I said two Billion would die in WW III. Some have expressed that is a relatively low number. I think you explained very clearly as to why the numbers would not be any higher. After two billion people drop like flies, those who are still alive will want peace no matter the price tag.


I believe the only rational move is to stock up, keep your ears open and bug out when you receive credible information to do so.

Jeanette Isabelle

If those 2 billion die from nuclear strikes, there might not be much the surviving players can do to prevent the death toll from climbing. They may stop throwing nukes but the damage will have been done.

The damage will be done but I believe there will be such an outcry for peace that WW III will be a short war.

Jeanette Isabelle