PDA

View Full Version : Will There Be a WW III?


Tysyacha
06-12-2010, 11:52 PM
I chose the third option. I'm not ruling it out completely, because the world is in quite a state today--especially with the policy of "pre-emptive war" having been enforced...

JediAthos
06-13-2010, 12:01 AM
There's enough instability in the world today that like you Tysy I wouldn't discount it entirely. I certainly hope not, but between Kim Jong Il, that psycho in Iran, and Hugo Chavez there's enough crazy out there that ya just never know.

Fredi
06-13-2010, 12:20 AM
It is possible, we haven't learn to live in peace and as long as the desire for power exist there shall always be conflicts.

Totenkopf
06-13-2010, 12:37 AM
Never underestimate/bet against man's penchant for miscalculation.

Q
06-13-2010, 12:44 AM
^Or just plain stupidity.

I'm not sure, but, in my opinion, a modern-day, multinational conflict on the scale of WWII wouldn't last too long before one of the nations on the losing side started threatening to use nukes. The war would probably end rather quickly after that; either in negotiation or annihilation.

urluckyday
06-13-2010, 02:47 AM
Always a possibility...

As long as there are people stupid enough not to learn from their own or their predecessor's mistakes...wars will be prevalent. It's an unfortunate fact...but it's the way things are. I would consider a "world war" as any conflict that involves 2 or more world powers...nukes or not.

IF there is a world war at some point...I doubt we see it within the next 50 years. After that...who knows.

I really find that most of this fear that is mustered up between nations like Iran, N. Korea, etc. comes from the news and media corporations.

I feel like everyone fears that a war between China and the U.S. is in the future for both countries, but I don't understand it...

There's enough instability in the world today that like you Tysy I wouldn't discount it entirely. I certainly hope not, but between Kim Jong Il, that psycho in Iran, and Hugo Chavez there's enough crazy out there that ya just never know.

Agreed with the first 2...but Hugo Chavez? He's just got a big mouth and likes the attention. I wish "Jason Bourne" would go in there and take him out...not so much for political gain...just so I wouldn't have to hear about his asinine rants all of the time. Maybe within the next couple decades and he's out of his marginal amount of oil to use as leverage...he'll learn to shut up.

Pho3nix
06-13-2010, 06:13 AM
Probably, yes, It's human nature.

Tysyacha
06-13-2010, 08:56 AM
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there will be a World War III.

1. Who will be fighting against whom? (The "War on Terror" doesn't count...)
2. When will this war take place, approximately? The 2000's or the 2100's?
3. What will be the major issues involved in WWIII? Why do we go to war?
4. What will be the final outcome?

I have to think a little harder about my speculations, so I'll be back later. ;)

JediAthos
06-13-2010, 09:04 AM
Could end up being over oil a la Fallout as the world's oil resources begin to dwindle. I'm not sure what kind of timetable the so-called experts have on that, but I could see it being a cause.

I could also see a major act of aggression by a hostile nation as the cause as well. An example of that being N. Korea making an overt attack on the south in which case the U.S. would be obligated to respond due to agreements we have with S. Korea.

I had have to do so some serious brainstorming to layout the various scenarios but those are some possible examples. Final outcomes and what not are a bit harder to determine...maybe I'll have to come back to this a bit later :)

Mandalore The Shadow
06-13-2010, 09:42 AM
Yeah and soon my vote is initial conflict between us (America) and China... or North Korea the possibilities are endless.

I could also see a major act of aggression by a hostile nation as the cause as well. An example of that being N. Korea making an overt attack on they south in which case the U.S. would be obligated to respond due to agreements we have with S. Korea.

Yay NATO

jonathan7
06-13-2010, 11:06 AM
Yeah and soon my vote is initial conflict between us (America) and China... or North Korea the possibilities are endless.

I doubt it, America and China are far too financially dependant on one another it would take something truly catastrophic to cause war between the two. I would very much doubt that China would come militarily to North Korea's aid if they did something stupid enough to cause America to 'go to war' with North Korea; although call my a cynic, but I think China and America like having North and South Korea, as its the most highly militarised border in the world, meaning both countries can sell weapons to the regime's they support.

Something many people seem to have forgotten, is the most valuable resource is fresh water, which in certain parts of the world is harder and harder to obtain, I think future wars could break out over who controls certain water sources.

Ping
06-13-2010, 11:08 AM
I don't think there could be a war today that would be big enough to cause World War 3, but I won't count it out. I think worse case scenario, there's a war between China, Russia, U.S.A., Iran, and North Korea. Best case scenario, the Korean War simply flares up again, in the scenario that war is imminent.

machievelli
06-13-2010, 12:30 PM
Great, a discussion with teeth about my favorite study subject!
Never underestimate/bet against man's penchant for miscalculation.

^Or just plain stupidity.

I'm not sure, but, in my opinion, a modern-day, multinational conflict on the scale of WWII wouldn't last too long before one of the nations on the losing side started threatening to use nukes. The war would probably end rather quickly after that; either in negotiation or annihilation.

If history is any example, I wouldn't agree we would have gone through the 65 years since the last World War and now without something a lot nastier turning up. The main reason we didn't, oddly enough, was everyone's worry that it could go nuclear so easily. Between WWII and Korea, the US Air Force's idea was to simply nuke them into the stone age, a bit much to fight one little country in 1950.

There's enough instability in the world today that like you Tysy I wouldn't discount it entirely. I certainly hope not, but between Kim Jong Il, that psycho in Iran, and Hugo Chavez there's enough crazy out there that ya just never know.

The biggest danger of a Nuclear war, rather than a World War is instability at the top. There is an old miltary axiom that when the final 'we may go to war, be ready to defend yourself' order goes out is that you have just placed the peace in the hands of the least stable officers you have in command on both sides.

With nukes this is heightened. Every WWIII scenario that goes nuclear starts with two nuclear powers duking it out. On one side, you have a fear of losing, on the other you have the 'use it or lose it' mentality. A missile still in it's silo when the war ends is not considered conservation, it's something that 'might' have swung the tide to your side.

But countries with nuclear weapons that also have unstable leaders makes it that much worse. It's one thing to have two relatively stable leaders at war, it's another when one of them has a limted grasp on reality. The leader of Iran sounds like a Fundamentalist Christian who believes that 'God' will let him strike, but stop the enemy from striking back. Kim is a wannabe movie director who, like any director believes he can shout cut, and reshoot the scene to his liking. Sort of like the General in charge of the Gaza city El Arish when the Jew flanked him in 1967. He went to the Jewish General, told him he had cheated, and had to go back and start all over.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there will be a World War III.

1. Who will be fighting against whom? (The "War on Terror" doesn't count...)
2. When will this war take place, approximately? The 2000's or the 2100's?
3. What will be the major issues involved in WWIII? Why do we go to war?
4. What will be the final outcome?

I have to think a little harder about my speculations, so I'll be back later. ;)

If a new war comes out, I do not think it will be a World War because the world is not as badly polarized unless you take the third world versus the first.

The flash points are far too many to mention. In 1990, a man Named James Dunnigan wrote a book using the US as the template for why we would go to war again. One of them, the one most considered unlikely was 'A Persian Gulf State attacking another'. Or as we remember now, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
Yeah and soon my vote is initial conflict between us (America) and China... or North Korea the possibilities are endless.

Yay NATO

Actually, if it's in the Pacific, it would be SEATO. But remember that both world wars were caused by treaty alliances that forced others to join in. Russia the Brits and France all had alliances, but France also had one Serbia, for example. Both France and England had alliances with Poland.

I doubt it, America and China are far too financially dependant on one another it would take something truly catastrophic to cause war between the two. I would very much doubt that China would come militarily to North Korea's aid if they did something stupid enough to cause America to 'go to war' with North Korea; although call my a cynic, but I think China and America like having North and South Korea, as its the most highly militarised border in the world, meaning both countries can sell weapons to the regime's they support.

Something many people seem to have forgotten, is the most valuable resource is fresh water, which in certain parts of the world is harder and harder to obtain, I think future wars could break out over who controls certain water sources.

Part of the Oslo Accords signed by the Israelis and the Palestinians addressed this immediately. Also, as Tom Clancy pointed out, some wars are started between trading partners. the Franco Prussian War had France and Germany doing the most trading. Japan's largest supplier of 90% of their war materials was the US. The old jokes about them hitting us with scrap iron we sold them.

So who are the most likely? I do not see a world war, as I said, there is not enough polarization among the more technologically advanced nations. Europe is sick of full scale wars, the Russians economy would collapse if they tried to prosecute a full scale one, and china's or ours would not support one lasting more than a few months. Picture both sides spending a billion dollars a day each on just supplying the troops would drain the coffers like a collander.

I can foresee a lot of small wars, and hopefully they will not go nuclear. Only a major war between fully capable nations would lead to serious nuclear war; NATO versus Russia, SEATO versus China, China versus Russia, that kind of thing. Countries like Iran Korea and Israel in the mix does not make it better, because it would go full all out nuclear between them, a minor thing on a global scale, though catastrophic on the theater level.

If the UN had some real teeth instead of being an oversized debating society, we could avoid it by disarming everyone. In fact President Truman called on the Un to do ust that in 1947, when the US had fewer nukes that Iran North Korea and Israel combined.

The biggest problem is now there are far fewer nukes than there were in say 1986. That brings up a more worrisome problem.

You see, we balanced on the knife blade through the last three decades of the 20th century because neither side could guarantee having anything to come home to when the missiles flew. That was called mutually assured destruction. But that is no longer the case. If every nuclear arsenal were fired right this second, only about a third to half of the warheads laying around in 1989 would be fired, and the planet would survive, but the world wide economy would not.

To quote Ian Malcom from Jurassic park when someone spouted the 'save the planet' line, we don't need to worry about the planet, we need to worry that we would change it enough that we as a race would die.

Mt St Helens released almost 40% as much energy as all the weapons needed to cause nuclear winter, Tamboa and Krakatoa each released more energy than every nuke ever envisioned.

So World War, no. Small sometimes nasty evern nuclear wars? I could bet on one of those with nukes in the next geeration.

purifier
06-13-2010, 01:22 PM
Anything is possible, but nothing can be writtten in stone until after the fact. Or for that matter, whether anybody is left alive to write it in stone.

Tysyacha
06-14-2010, 07:39 PM
Here's a theory:

What if China actually gets sick of lending us money that it knows we can't repay? AND, what if China wants it repaid, in land and/or blood if necessary?

urluckyday
06-14-2010, 10:29 PM
Here's a theory:

What if China actually gets sick of lending us money that it knows we can't repay? AND, what if China wants it repaid, in land and/or blood if necessary?

lol. so they spend billions/trillions to fight the most technologically advanced military in the world...just so they can collect on some slowly-repaid loans?

Highly doubtful.

Tysyacha
06-14-2010, 10:31 PM
Touche. *humbly concedes point*

Whom do you think poses the most danger to us today (I mean, what country)?

machievelli
06-14-2010, 11:13 PM
Touche. *humbly concedes point*

Whom do you think poses the most danger to us today (I mean, what country)?


Our biggest worry right now isn't a specific nation, it is someone that will goad others into attacking, or goad us into a preemptive strike that is unnecessary.

A perfect example is the book The Sum of all Fears by Tom Clancy. A terrorist organization sets off a nuke, which everone assumes must have been something the Russians slipped in. The advisor to the President assumes it is an attack on the President himself, meaning it is literally war. The US goes to Defcon 2, and the Russians respond.

As it is, 99% of the military might of the world (Not counting troops) is held by the First World, and over 75% is American. The American nation will collapse as did the Romans, unwilling to defend itself, depending on allies who stay only until they get a better deal.

Xarwarz
06-15-2010, 02:38 PM
If the world makes it past 2012 or 2016 yea nuclear fallout think of the fallout game but real life

JediMaster12
06-15-2010, 03:14 PM
I took a Jedi stance on this but I am not a fool enough to not see that war is a distinct possibility between nations. I like to think that we have done good so far in regards to not engaging in a war on a scale as WWI and WWII. However mach makes a good point using Clancey's novel to make a point about how we could be goaded into a fight that is unneccessary. That is a reality should something happen.

machievelli
06-15-2010, 06:52 PM
However mach makes a good point using Clancey's novel to make a point about how we could be goaded into a fight that is unneccessary. That is a reality should something happen.

The thing to remember about the book is that the only thing that saved us was having someone inside the loop but unwilling to play the game. He went on to write the Bear and Dragon where Russia and China go to a war that only failed in being nuclear because the one missile fired is shot down over Washington.

As for that, the Standard, the Navy's anti missile missile has this capability, as does the Patriot. As I said before, the biggest problem is that with the now limited number of Nukes, a limited nuclear war becomes a distinct possibility.

e-varmint
06-15-2010, 08:09 PM
The war's going to start between a primarily Muslim Europe and a primarily Catholic America. When? Don't know. I'm not that familiar with the current growth projections of the respective religions. Who's going to start it? Don't know that either. It will definately start at sea, though.

Tysyacha
06-15-2010, 08:16 PM
I would bet more on a primarily Muslim Asia/Mideast. Europe, to me, seems either mostly Christian (Catholic/Lutheran) or secular. I also think that, should WW III break out, some countries in Europe would be on the side of the United States, such as Great Britain.

Darth Avlectus
06-15-2010, 08:21 PM
If and when a war does happen in our current situation (presumably if nothing much has changed from the status quo), it'll be because one of our allies or at least someone of power feels they've been alienated or are being unfairly exploited/taken advantage of. Or some ambitious faction is trying to usurp control over people.

And yes, look throughout history, you'll find that the overwhelming majority of all wars inevitably came down to/have been about a fight over resources, with a close second reason being about power. This is almost always what war has been about.

What's different now is that everything is at a standstill with tension in the air. Since everything is now stacked up, there are no sudden surprise upsets that can really happen. It'll be a gradual whittling away at the status quo until something gives way.

A third major reason, so distant yet so close is survival. Prosperity. Which implies a post-disaster situation.

I do think that in light of all that is going on, something else is going to happen. Natural disasters. Could be something waiting at an astronomical or cosmic level to strike us on Earth, or maybe it's something long overdue by hundreds of years from Earth itself like the "ring of fire". What is that? Talk to a geologist, it might scare the hell out of you. Or any number of other things that are classified as natural disaster. A post disaster struggle for survival and prosperity would be a plausible distinct possibility given these circumstances. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a bombardment from nature, it can be much subtler like drought and famine.

As-is from an economical point of view: Fixed land (arguably shrinking to some), and a growing population equals inevitable starvation. Famine happened long before technology got to be anywhere near as advanced as it is today. Imagine how much more nasty it'll be now.

I'm no green party activist, but even for a conservative leaning guy I have grown up largely around nature and lived in it. There is an appreciation there that I have of it. Call me a conservationist in this aspect. I can tell you now that another factor being damaged tainted uninhabitable land (for whatever reason) is something to indeed consider. I'm just telling things like I see them. There is also no completely safe area on earth from some form of natural disaster.

So if it is not any nation(s) causing ruckus, it'll be nature lashing out, then the subsequent vacuums of power amid devastation, and the vies for that power on top of everything else going on.

Totenkopf
06-15-2010, 09:52 PM
I would bet more on a primarily Muslim Asia/Mideast. Europe, to me, seems either mostly Christian (Catholic/Lutheran) or secular. I also think that, should WW III break out, some countries in Europe would be on the side of the United States, such as Great Britain.

Depending on when such a conflict were to take place, I'd be less sure of that. Demographically, Britain will likely become islamicized w/in a few generations. Europe itself at least as quickly or faster. Even fools like Ghadafi have pointed this out. Isalm will take Europe via birthrate unless things change. Why destroy what you're likely to inherit. It's not entirely impossible for trading partners to become enemies. Japan and the US in the early-mid 20th century. Thus I don't write off the possiblity of a Sino-US conflict down the road.

ChAiNz.2da
06-16-2010, 10:40 AM
Considering during the y2k scare, people were building bunkers and stashing weapons, all for a clock malfunction.. then yeah, I'm thinking between mankind's lost marbles and scruples.. a war isn't discountable. :xp:

Trouble is, the weapons are far nastier now, than during WWII. :(
Wouldn't surprise me if it went nuclear or biological, despite the "rules" of war (laughable) barring them. Rules only work when everyone plays by them.

All I know is.. if it happens, I'm buying a German shepherd and naming him "Dogmeat" ;)

mimartin
06-16-2010, 11:01 AM
As we count the years and the generation that fought WWII pass on, then my concern for another world war go up. As long as we were reminded of the human toll WWII cost us I was not overly concern about it happening again. However, being desensitized by images of war in different media makes old photos and newsreels of the human cost of WWII and WWI less of a deterrent. So sooner or later someone will think they can actually win a war and it will happen again.

Personally I believe it will happen sooner rather than later, diplomatic and signs of respect are already viewed as being weak by a portion of the population and media in the United States.

Astor
06-16-2010, 02:49 PM
While i'm certain there will inevitably be a Third World War, I hope i'm dead and buried before it ever happens.

As we count the years and the generation that fought WWII pass on, then my concern for another world war go up. As long as we were reminded of the human toll WWII cost us I was not overly concern about it happening again. However, being desensitized by images of war in different media makes old photos and newsreels of the human cost of WWII and WWI less of a deterrent. So sooner or later someone will think they can actually win a war and it will happen again.

I agree with pretty much all of this, but i'd add that education isn't up to much now - it largely seems to ignore the human cost of the war, and focuses more on how it started or ended, which is all well and good, but it shouldn't ignore what those who fought those conflicts went through and saw.

Although I do think that there are many potent images from the Second World War, which still have the power to move -
http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=272&pictureid=6725

There are no guns, no bodies, just distraught Parisians in tears as an occupying force stages a triumphal march through their home.

I doubt that any third world war would be fought in quite the same manner, but i've always thought that picture served to remind me that the mistakes of the past should not be made again.

Personally I believe it will happen sooner rather than later, diplomatic and signs of respect are already viewed as being weak by a portion of the population and media in the United States.

Obama bowed to the Japs! Fire up the Memphis Belle!

machievelli
06-16-2010, 05:03 PM
Considering during the y2k scare, people were building bunkers and stashing weapons, all for a clock malfunction.. then yeah, I'm thinking between mankind's lost marbles and scruples.. a war isn't discountable. :xp:

Trouble is, the weapons are far nastier now, than during WWII. :(
Wouldn't surprise me if it went nuclear or biological, despite the "rules" of war (laughable) barring them. Rules only work when everyone plays by them.

All I know is.. if it happens, I'm buying a German shepherd and naming him "Dogmeat" ;)

Good points. The people complain about actions by Nations who never bothered to accept or as in the case of Japan before WWII, 'set aside' the rules that were supposed to limit the carnage.

As we count the years and the generation that fought WWII pass on, then my concern for another world war go up. As long as we were reminded of the human toll WWII cost us I was not overly concern about it happening again. However, being desensitized by images of war in different media makes old photos and newsreels of the human cost of WWII and WWI less of a deterrent. So sooner or later someone will think they can actually win a war and it will happen again.

Personally I believe it will happen sooner rather than later, diplomatic and signs of respect are already viewed as being weak by a portion of the population and media in the United States.

When it comes to this, the biggest enemy the US has in any future war, ever since Vietnam for that matter, is our own homegrown peacniks. The people who extoll the struggle of our enemies, while dragging every bit of dity secrets our nation might want to keep. Who protest Israeli retaliation for attacks and at the same time ignore the attacks that kill not soldiers but civilians whose only crime is living in that nation. Think of all the 'Americans murdered X number of civilians' but ignores the enemy doing the same. In fact in the web site that lists all the collateral damage done during the gulf war every death, whether killed by American arms or the terrorists is blamedon us!

My favorite comment on this was some idiot that stated the Non proliferation treaty was created so the 'oppressed' couldn't get the same weapons to fight back.

While i'm certain there will inevitably be a Third World War, I hope i'm dead and buried before it ever happens.



I agree with pretty much all of this, but i'd add that education isn't up to much now - it largely seems to ignore the human cost of the war, and focuses more on how it started or ended, which is all well and good, but it shouldn't ignore what those who fought those conflicts went through and saw.

Although I do think that there are many potent images from the Second World War, which still have the power to move -
http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=272&pictureid=6725

There are no guns, no bodies, just distraught Parisians in tears as an occupying force stages a triumphal march through their home.

I doubt that any third world war would be fought in quite the same manner, but i've always thought that picture served to remind me that the mistakes of the past should not be made again.



Obama bowed to the Japs! Fire up the Memphis Belle!

Worse yet we have the president and his family apologizing because a terrorist organization (WHich has not set their avowed goals regardless) that also happens to be the government of their state are whining that the US wil not give them billions in aid to 'defend themselves'.

mimartin
06-16-2010, 05:22 PM
When it comes to this, the biggest enemy the US has in any future war, ever since Vietnam for that matter, is our own homegrown peacniks.

Yea, if them darn peacenik ever get the bomb we all will be in real trouble. :rolleyes:

Totenkopf
06-16-2010, 05:31 PM
The enemy w/in can often be more effective than the enemy outside the gates. I'd say the self-proclaimed "peacenik" is usually a deluded fool that tries to force America to fight w/one or both arms behind its back. Hard to maintain any war effort when these people try to erode public support and portray America as the bad guy. You can argue till your blue in the face about the legality/righteousness of a war, but when the gauntlet is thrown, you fight to win. FTR, no one here is or appears to be saying that people should declare war willy-nilly (ie frivolously and/or frequently).

mimartin
06-16-2010, 05:47 PM
My sarcasm had more to do with my original post having NOTHING to do with peaceniks (whatever that is). So, I apologize for my part in moving the thread off topic. I will go stand in the corner for an hour.

Please get back on topic which is World War.

Totenkopf
06-16-2010, 06:06 PM
In the spirit of mimartin's reminder (and while he stands in the corner for the next 45 mins or so :p ), WHAT do people think will be the likely cause(s) of a 3rd WW? Dwindling resources? A rapidly escalated smaller conflict? Religion? And where do you think it's most likely to start? Also, who do you see as being the major adversaries (ie w/America and against)?

Ping
06-16-2010, 06:52 PM
I believe either less resources or religion would be the main cause. I'm not ruling out the escalation of a small conflict, but nations seem to be more all talk nowadays, so I have my doubts there's going to be an escalation of a minor war.

I think resources could be a cause since fossil fuels are running out, and nobody seems to care about finding alternate fuel to sustain us. Religion could also be a cause, since, let's be honest here, religion is just out of control now with terrorists and hate groups, and I hate to say it, but it's probably going to have some really bad long term effects.

Tysyacha
06-16-2010, 07:14 PM
In the spirit of mimartin's reminder (and while he stands in the corner for the next 45 mins or so), WHAT do people think will be the likely cause(s) of a 3rd WW? Dwindling resources? A rapidly escalated smaller conflict? Religion? And where do you think it's most likely to start? Also, who do you see as being the major adversaries (ie w/America and against)?

Tysyacha's Speculations:

CAUSE OF WWIII: Dwindling resources (OIL, water, food, strategic points)
MOST LIKELY TO START IN: The Middle East and Asia (IRAN, Iraq, N. Korea)
ON AMERICA'S SIDE: Great Britain, France, Germany, and (oddly) Russia
AGAINST AMERICA: Iran, Iraq, Syria, N. Korea, other Asian Muslim countries
WINNER: US (I hope)

True_Avery
06-16-2010, 10:20 PM
The entire middle east doesn't have the resources, fighting power, moral, organization... or anything to fight any "world wars". Sure, they have their capital cities but in the end the majority of their population is tribes whom have been at war with each other since the beginning of civilization. There would have to be a revolution of historic proportions to get the middle east organized to any reasonable threat. They have "terrorists", but a minority group of guerrilla fighters an army does not make.

Its like expecting Africa to just suddenly rise up as one and fight the world. With what? They have oil and resources, but what to they produce? Most of the middle east and Africa survive off of weapons we sold them in the cold war, and what they managed to steal after said war. Iran's terrifying air force? Old f-15s that went out of style when we invented planes that can destroy their entire "airforce" over the curvature of the earth. If it came down to it, most first world countries could destroy most of the middle east without ever stepping foot on the country itself.

Whatever war is coming next the middle east may cause a spark but its hardly a "world war" threat. The Middle East is definitely on the edge of a bunch of civil and country to country wars thanks to our meddling in that area over the past 70 years, but I'm pretty sure they are more preoccupied with who is a jew and who isn't than trying to fight the whole world.

As far as N. Korea goes... in my opinion, laughable at best. They don't have the population for it, nor the resources, moral, or, well, the money. N. Korea, despite its best efforts to show otherwise, is poor as dirt with a substandard "military". Their "military" is like a bodybuilder's body; its nice and thick, but in the end he can't move much, would be a pretty poor fighter, and also has a small d***. They can flex all they want, but a kick to the head and they'll fall like a tree.

Especially with China having a greater chance of allying with the United States, and Japan being more than willing to destory Korea... the only danger N. Korea poses is a possible invasion of S. Korea, which would end up being exactly how it was in the cold war; a proxy war that, while bloody, is still confined to two relatively small countries.

Problem with the WW3 scenario right now is that most first world countries are pretty damn comfortable with each other, and most third world countries are more preoccupied with killing their neighbors than fighting the first world countries. Chances are another World War would be sparked by a previously first world country, or a first world country that got powerful enough.

If you really, really pressed me I'd squeeze out a future China superpower when they get through their current industrial revolution being heavily involved in some way, but going by history I'd rule out any theories on direct war with the United States. We share the advantage that Britain has; we're essentially giant islands. You'd need a near invincible navy to get across the ocean to us, as well as an insane amount of ships to carry enough troops and equipment. Not gonna happen.

Chances are it'll be a land war in Asia like it has been forever. Europe will fight itself, the Middle east will fight itself, and east Asia will fight itself with overlap while America sits back and watches unless Canada tries to go to war with us.

But, you want my opinion on sides? Simple: The Internet. Those connected with each other will ally, and countries that heavily censor and nearly shut down from the rest of the world will do the opposite. Propaganda is harder when you can easily talk to the rest of the world, and I'd put money on countries that block out of country internet being on their own side from the web.

mimartin
06-16-2010, 11:45 PM
WHAT do people think will be the likely cause(s) of a 3rd WW? Power and Iím not talking about natural resources. Iím speaking of power over fellow man. Either someone wants power or someone feels that their power is being taken from them. That combined with the utter stupidity that there are actually winners in a World War make for a dangerous situation.

It could be fought in the name of natural resources or religion, but the real motive will be someone wanting to force their agenda on another.
Also, who do you see as being the major adversaries (ie w/America and against)?No clue.

WINNER: None Everyone loses.

Tysyacha
06-16-2010, 11:47 PM
/agreed
/concedes

I guess by "winner", I meant "who will come out ahead"...

machievelli
06-18-2010, 02:42 PM
/agreed
/concedes

I guess by "winner", I meant "who will come out ahead"...

I was considering short of war but still devestating. The only complete records of all financial transactions are world wide are held in three places, the London Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, and the Nikki-Dow. All recornds of every bank account are kept nearby; all of it electronically stored.

Remember the old television show Dark Angel? If you could destroy those records, it would take a decade to set things right. An attack on a smaller scale (Debt of Honor by Clancy) Had the US economy attacked right before a war with Japan. The way they saved the economy, and struck a corresponding blow to the Japanese economy was to start the exchange up again a week later as if nothing had happened, everything frozen to exactly what it had been at the start of the disaster.

JediAthos
06-18-2010, 11:32 PM
I'd like to believe that there are backups to backups for that kind of critical information but I suppose I could be wrong. It actually reminds me of the scenario from Live Free or Die Hard where a massive cyber attack is launched against the United States with the goal of getting said financial information and propelling the country back into the stone age. The movie was over the top but the prospect of the scenario is scary.

Darth333
06-19-2010, 12:26 AM
Tysyacha's Speculations:

CAUSE OF WWIII: Dwindling resources (OIL, water, food, strategic points)
MOST LIKELY TO START IN: The Middle East and Asia (IRAN, Iraq, N. Korea)
ON AMERICA'S SIDE: Great Britain, France, Germany, and (oddly) Russia
AGAINST AMERICA: Iran, Iraq, Syria, N. Korea, other Asian Muslim countries
WINNER: US (I hope)

Err... I am not answering the initial thread's question for personal reasons but look at your above statement: "Dwindling resources (OIL, water, food, strategic points)"...

Do you realize that these resources target different regions of the world and different primary interests? I can hardly see many of the countries listed sharing the same interest in each of the above mentioned areas (and America = more than one country, often with different POVs and interests ).

mimartin
06-19-2010, 12:42 AM
I'd like to believe that there are backups to backups for that kind of critical information but I suppose I could be wrong. There usually are. I know at least most companies in the insurance industry have a back up to their back up's back up. I guess it just depends on the industry and how conservative they are. Most finance institutions are very conservative, at least with their own money.

machievelli
06-19-2010, 01:40 PM
There usually are. I know at least most companies in the insurance industry have a back up to their back up's back up. I guess it just depends on the industry and how conservative they are. Most finance institutions are very conservative, at least with own money.

If you have read Debt of Honor, You'll remember that one part of that attack was to destroy the records of every transaction made that day. What people don't realize (And Clancy used with such skill I envy him) is that Banks are one of the big investors in the Stock and commodities exchange. With no record of who did what, people could lie about it for gain. "Oh I sold that stock here, when it was at this amount, not here, when it was ten points cheaper'. And if any real length of time passes (Clancy's characters fixed it by having the market wait only a week before retailating) others will make claims to having made buys of now seriously depressed stocks, knowing the government will get the market back on it's feet.

Worse yet, picture someone telling the bank "I already paid the note, why are you deamnding I pay again? Oh, your records are gone? Well here are mine (With the ink still wet) and they say I'm paid off.'

mimartin
06-19-2010, 07:42 PM
This very much explains why we are regulated to keep a hard copy of each transaction for 72 hours.

Don’t know much about banks but with a series 6 license I had to keep a log book for each transaction, scan the hard copy into the computer, keep a paper copy in my file for the client and give the customer a receipt. Fiction is a beautiful thing, but in the end it is still fiction. Also anyone making a major transaction without getting a receipt and the proper paper work is a fool and “a fool and his money are soon parted.”

Arcesious
06-21-2010, 06:59 PM
Even if there was a world war 3 and it went nuclear, I doubt many nuclear missiles would be fired in such a situation. Maybe half a dozen to a dozen nukes fired, tops, before everyone decides they've had enough. And that isn't going to destroy the entire world. Maybe a couple major cities pulverized, but the world would easily rebuild from the damage within a few decades.

With all the experience and history the world has with wars, I bet that such a war would only last a few days before everyone nearly unanimously decided that a third world war was the stupidest thing anyone had ever done.

Tysyacha
06-21-2010, 07:05 PM
^^^^^^^^^

Let's hope so. Otherwise, there won't be anyone left to start a WWIV. :P (bad joke)

Roller123
06-27-2010, 11:39 PM
The most likely WW3 conflict? Assuming the world goes broke(else no war possible sorry), then its

China(+US support) vs Russia(+EU support)

-China(workers demand more money, resource rich Siberia is a great way to get money)
-USA(forced to help China to maintain its own stability)

vs

-Russia(possession of ressources)
-Europe(couldnt reach Siberia anyway, but has currently access via Russia).

Result: China gets glassed(never fight a war in Asia). But so will be many major cities. Not the first time this scenario is happening. But it always ends the same.

Darth Avlectus
06-28-2010, 02:48 AM
^^^Interesting. Upon what do you base these, if I may?

Roller123
06-28-2010, 04:09 AM
Clashes between Russia and China are not unheard of. See Sino-Soviet border conflict. Recently Russia ceded some territory to China as well. Lots of chinese are working&living in that general area, which is far closer to Beijing than to Moscow. Not to speak about difference in population amount.. Siberia 40m and sinking, China 1400m and raising.

The US needs a source of cheap products, G2 was suggested by the US, not China. China soon will have a typical dilemma, as it gets richer, so would like the workers, but as cheap labor is what makes China richer, its either one or another. Or landgrab. Now i dont think Chinese have the spirit to do that alone, but in alliance with USA they could. That too is not unheard of.

Europe.. its a total mess, already actually. One thing is sure, w/o US money all those "small independent democracies" aka puppet states immediately go broke and back under Russian influence. That or they go into a state of anarchy like its happening with Kyrgyzstan right now. Either way Russia will not face a 2 front war.

As for the Arab thread i think its overrated because they are not integrated into world's economy. USA invaded Iraq, Afghanistan. Israel invaded Libya or something. Nothing happened. Noone really cares, or does anything other then talk. At a slight sight of danger they are glassed and life goes on.

again this assumes that the world goes broke first, war second heh.


God, Chome's spellcheck is awful and i havent slept the night..

VeniVidiVicous
06-28-2010, 03:19 PM
The war's going to start between a primarily Muslim Europe and a primarily Catholic America.

Demographically, Britain will likely become islamicized w/in a few generations. Europe itself at least as quickly or faster.

It surprises me how often this comes up, from my experience the facts don't support the theory of "Islamifacation" for lack of a better term.

I live in Europe btw.

Darth Avlectus
06-28-2010, 04:08 PM
Clashes between Russia and China are not unheard of. See Sino-Soviet border conflict. Recently Russia ceded some territory to China as well. Lots of chinese are working&living in that general area, which is far closer to Beijing than to Moscow. Not to speak about difference in population amount.. Siberia 40m and sinking, China 1400m and raising. Hm. Thanks, I will.

The US needs a source of cheap products, G2 was suggested by the US, not China. China soon will have a typical dilemma, as it gets richer, so would like the workers, but as cheap labor is what makes China richer, its either one or another. Or landgrab. Now i dont think Chinese have the spirit to do that alone, but in alliance with USA they could. That too is not unheard of.
I think I'm liking this--one who has a grasp of the practical economics and realities. Yeah, that's what has happened in America by large part.

Now that landgrab is what interests me. Yeah I can see a feud with Russia happening, however I'm not sure that U.S.A. would necessarily support China's doing that. Well, maybe it would if Russia did some things to anger the U.S. but I can't really say I see that happening, tbh. Russia's leaders might not like what the USA stands for, but they're not really interested in a conflict.

It's more advantageous (if only marginally so) for China and Russia to not fight. If China got a wild hair...maybe. Best I can tell, it (China) wants to become the next top economic power in the world and to beat nations that way instead of toe-to-toe war with their northern neighbor.

Perhaps Russia might be taking swipes at others, but really, what makes you think they are any more inclined to take up arms and go to war?

China always looked up to the U.S.A. until recently. Now they want to be the ones with power, and they are also looking to Europe for values and for trade. (Not my words, something said on PBS or somesuch.)
Basically: China is hurting too, I think. And if, as you seem to imply (please do tell me if I am mistaken what you mean), Europe is staggering and getting wishy-washy in its stances, what is to stop China from doing the same as Russia in getting or buying European support?

So far as Europe...why would you think they'd support Russia instead? Britain breaking off with the U.S. is not something I can see happening. *shrugs* So...
Europe.. its a total mess, already actually. One thing is sure, w/o US money all those "small independent democracies" aka puppet states immediately go broke and back under Russian influence. That or they go into a state of anarchy like its happening with Kyrgyzstan right now. Either way Russia will not face a 2 front war.

I'm not sure I understand...Yeah it's broke, but the U.S. would keep trying to support it--to its detriment in fact.

"Puppet states"? I wonder what they think about that assessment just because they are small and beholden. By that analogy they would be no less "puppet" under Russia's power. Is that what you call them for expediency sake because they aren't world powers? Just curious.

Anyhoo, that scenario it would have to come down to who'd make the sweetest sounding bribes/payoffs...a competition and feud which I imagine would tear Europe apart.

I don't know, but something tells me that Europe is just not that weak. They'd see what is going on, and ultimately side with whoever had the best ideals. Sure money talks, but so do liberties. Economies wax and wain. *shrug* We'll see.

Could be wrong, but I don't think Europe is so mad at the USA that it's ready to sever its ties...I see where you're going with this, but it frankly isn't that simple. Too many unknowns to be able to tell accurately.

As for the Arab thread i think its overrated because they are not integrated into world's economy.
I beg to differ: Oil, and soon possibly dirt cheap manufacturing.

Plus we haven't even gotten into USA's relationships with everyone and trying to be everybody's friend. I.E. India and Pakistan.

USA invaded Iraq, Afghanistan. Israel invaded Libya or something. Nothing happened. Noone really cares, or does anything other then talk. At a slight sight of danger they are glassed and life goes on.

again this assumes that the world goes broke first, war second heh.


God, Chome's spellcheck is awful and i havent slept the night..

*shrug* Uhh, I guess so.

Totenkopf
06-28-2010, 11:18 PM
It surprises me how often this comes up, from my experience the facts don't support the theory of "Islamifacation" for lack of a better term.

I live in Europe btw.

I suspect the effects aren't as obvious now b/c there are at present more "indigenous" europeans than islamic immigrants/natives. However, as birthrates for traditional europeans continue in decline, their decendants will ultimately become outnumbered by those of the islamic background who have a much higher birthrate. Unless you're contending that most of those people are going to embrace western ideals the longer they are in europe, it seems more mathematically likely that Europe will ultimatly become islamicized, barring some unforseen circumstances.

However, from your pov (and where in Europe are you, btw), how does this possible scenario seem unlikely?

VeniVidiVicous
06-28-2010, 11:49 PM
I suspect the effects aren't as obvious now b/c there are at present more "indigenous" europeans than people islamic immigrants/natives. However, as birthrates for traditional europeans continue in decline, their decendants will ultimately become outnumbered by those of the islamic background who have a much higher birthrate. Unless you're contending that most of those people are going to embrace western ideals the longer they are in europe, it seems more mathematically likely that Europe will ultimatly become islamicized, barring some unforseen circumstances.

However, from your pov (and where in Europe are you, btw), how does this possible scenario seem unlikely?

Out of curiosity did you hear about this from that Muslim Demographic video on YT? I know it's quite popular but it has been debunked.

I'm from Ireland btw.

Totenkopf
06-28-2010, 11:57 PM
Not from that, but I was aware there was something out there on YT (you almost would have to ask what isn't on YT by now ;) ). Still do you have links for both the vid you mention and the arguments that debunk such a theory?

VeniVidiVicous
06-29-2010, 12:18 AM
Not from that, but I was aware there was something out there on YT (you almost would have to ask what isn't on YT by now ;) ). Still do you have links for both the vid you mention and the arguments that debunk such a theory?

The video that got media attention and over 12 million views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

A humorous rebuttal from a British Youtuber: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=847jCeQoXU8

Also this from the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8189231.stm

Totenkopf
06-29-2010, 12:31 AM
Ok, thanks. Vids ~24 minutes in length, so will check later.

VeniVidiVicous
06-29-2010, 12:35 AM
Ok, thanks. Vids ~24 minutes in length, so will check later.

No problem. :)

On topic though: If I was to geuss as to what could cause WW3 in our lifetime I would go with the US invading Iran triggering action from other nations. Not saying that would happen if the 2 went to war but it's possible.

Roller123
07-02-2010, 07:10 PM
x
I didnt say Europe is weak. It has everything it needs thus it is fairy passive. Understandable. All the points in your post though are based on a well nurtured myth of USA being the good guys, protecting the world from the so called evil. Needless to say reality is nowhere near that. Its a country like any other, only interested in profit and new markets. Killing others for the greater good, its own. (Which is ok really, im not making any kind of accusation). Thus, quote: "Well, maybe it would if Russia did some things to anger the U.S. but I can't really say I see that happening, tbh." is dreamland, if they see a gain, they will strike. Observing recent history, Georgia was using US navigation system (recon planes ect) to target things in South Ossetia, both civilian and later russian military. Same can happen in a China/US-Russia/EU conflict, especially if things go nuclear. Same applies to Europe "not wanting" to ally itself with Russia. They will if there is a gain, and there is. (and in our scenario even more so, because China getting Siberia, will certainly not want to share, it would make the landgrab pointless in the first place)

Again, assuming world being in a bad shape, else this thread is pointless. As seen in the above example with Georgia, even today, it doesnt take military might to start a war, only a delusional leader. 2 terms of McCain and USA is there.

Totenkopf
07-02-2010, 07:34 PM
@Roller123---Two terms of Obama and they won't need a war to defeat us. :dev8:

Tommycat
07-02-2010, 07:57 PM
Again, assuming world being in a bad shape, else this thread is pointless. As seen in the above example with Georgia, even today, it doesnt take military might to start a war, only a delusional leader. 2 terms of McCain and USA is there.

Sorry, but I met McCain. You really think he's more delusional than Bush? I certainly don't. He's not even near as delusional as Obama.

Though I could see if we were talking about Palin, but McCain is pretty well straight.

But I could see where you're coming from. If the US were to start a major offensive, say, against Mexico, I could see the UN stepping in and condemning the actions. Sanctions against the US by the UN could spur a reaction from the US.

Darth Avlectus
07-06-2010, 12:55 AM
I didnt say Europe is weak. It has everything it needs thus it is fairy passive. Understandable.

That's not the impression you gave. :rolleyes:
Europe.. its a total mess, already actually. One thing is sure, w/o US money all those "small independent democracies" aka puppet states immediately go broke and back under Russian influence.
Hm. That to me implies you mean to say they can't stand on their own. :raise:

All the points in your post though are based on a well nurtured myth of USA being the good guys, protecting the world from the so called evil. Needless to say reality is nowhere near that. Its a country like any other, only interested in profit and new markets. Killing others for the greater good, its own. (Which is ok really, im not making any kind of accusation).
Not received as any kind of accusation. ;) However, I had hoped you'd elaborate on your position, you know points of view economically, politically, etc. instead of resorting to patronizing; You don't know any more what I'm thinking than I do what you're thinking.

The assumption you're making is that I
1) am a subscriber to the "USA can do no wrong, opposition to it is all bad" belief
2) am naive to the reality that countries ultimately are out for their own

I am neither. So your condescension is misdirected.

1) Anyone who subscribes to such a belief is short sighted and narrow minded.

Now I can see why you'd draw that conclusion, perhaps I did not clarify some things:
-There are many in europe who among other things, desire the same rights Americans have. There's something to be said for this and this does not mean USA is never wrong.
-China's relationship with the USA of recent has caused it to embrace free market and capitalism after such a long time of communism. There is something to be said for this and it does not mean that USA is never wrong.
-Exchange students from asian and european continents that come to America seem more curious than wary and leave with a bit of respect, and perhaps envy. There is something to be said for this and it does not mean that USA is never wrong.
-Russia and USA once used to be friendlier as nations. The people of each country love the people of the other country, their reservations towards each others' governments notwithstanding. There is something to be said for this and it does not mean that USA is never wrong.

2) this reality is what I referring to and even one better:
it would have to come down to who'd make the sweetest sounding bribes/payoffs
If there is a gain, a country will go for it and often times offers for such gains come from more than one side in a conflict. The nations deciding this are like alligators: They will go for whichever payoff looks bigger and better in short and long runs.

Maybe I'm underestimating Russia's ire, which I'll grant you. Still, you have not convinced me of such.

Thus, quote: "Well, maybe it would if Russia did some things to anger the U.S. but I can't really say I see that happening, tbh." is dreamland, if they see a gain, they will strike.
Yes however that makes assumptions that have yet to be proven. The Georgia incident surely doesn't bode well for US and Russia relations. Still, I'd think Russia would try to buy itself time and perhaps rapport to get othrs to convince China to back off instead of "striking" militarily or otherwise.

Observing recent history, Georgia was using US navigation system (recon planes ect) to target things in South Ossetia, both civilian and later russian military. Same can happen in a China/US-Russia/EU conflict, especially if things go nuclear. Same applies to Europe "not wanting" to ally itself with Russia. They will if there is a gain, and there is. (and in our scenario even more so, because China getting Siberia, will certainly not want to share, it would make the landgrab pointless in the first place)

Granted you have a good point or two, if vague.

Still, do you really think China is just going to sit idle like an idiot while Russia tries to rally as many european nations to its aid as it can? If China is looking to become more of a world power, it would reach out to European nations in need as well. Also, if USA doesn't necessarily support China's action, so China will probably have to think very hard about this situation. Europe is also interested in the abatement of conflict and those strongly with USA would assist.

I grant you Europe largely might have nations that would want to join Russia given certain circumstances. But not all of them, as you made it sound.

Again, assuming world being in a bad shape, else this thread is pointless. Well this is a thread for conjecture. I was curious because your position was a new one and wanted you to elaborate more on it. But whatever.

As seen in the above example with Georgia, even today, it doesnt take military might to start a war, Agreed.
only a delusional leader. 2 terms of McCain and USA is there.
*facepalm* You are certainly welcome to your opinions. I'll point to Tommycat's reply to this and add: McCain has undeniably fought in a war, whereas Bush can only really claim to have served in the military. McCain is much more well versed in war than Bush.

Darth_Calo
07-13-2010, 11:54 AM
Short answer: no with a 'but'
long answer yes with an 'and'

Short: "no, but there will be more wars, but not necessarily a World War"
Long: "Yes. the nature of humanity, derived from their history of warring: (American Revolutionary War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_War), War of 1812 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812), The War of conguest waged by the great leader of the Mongols, Genghis Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan), World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I), World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War), Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War), Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War), and that's just naming ones the US had prominent involvement in) dictates that there WILL likely be a World War III. Perhaps not in our lifetimes, but it will happen eventually.

dswtor
08-18-2010, 07:30 PM
most likely with china imo.

Liverandbacon
08-18-2010, 09:46 PM
most likely with china imo.

Who against China? This is a bit vague. I'll assume you're talking about the United States, in which case, I disagree. China has become too tied up with the US financially for it to be in their interest to wage a direct, military, war against the US. The leaders of the Chinese government may be oppressive, but they're quite sensible.