LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Kavar's Corner (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   Will There Be a WW III? (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=204263)

Tysyacha 06-13-2010 12:52 AM

Will There Be a WW III?
 
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 01:01 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 01:20 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 01:37 AM

Never underestimate/bet against man's penchant for miscalculation.

Q 06-13-2010 01:44 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 03:47 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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediAthos (Post 2731034)
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 07:13 AM

Probably, yes, It's human nature.

Tysyacha 06-13-2010 09:56 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 10:04 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 10:42 AM

Yeah and soon my vote is initial conflict between us (America) and China... or North Korea the possibilities are endless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediAthos (Post 2731083)
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 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalore The Shadow (Post 2731093)
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 12:08 PM

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 01:30 PM

Great, a discussion with teeth about my favorite study subject!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf (Post 2731042)
Never underestimate/bet against man's penchant for miscalculation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Q (Post 2731045)
^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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediAthos (Post 2731034)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tysyacha (Post 2731082)
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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalore The Shadow (Post 2731093)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7 (Post 2731100)
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 02:22 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 08:39 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 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tysyacha (Post 2731568)
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 11:31 PM

Touche. *humbly concedes point*

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

machievelli 06-15-2010 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tysyacha (Post 2731655)
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 03:38 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 04:14 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 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediMaster12 (Post 2731804)
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 09:09 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 09:16 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 09:21 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 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tysyacha (Post 2731901)
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 11:40 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 12:01 PM

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 03:49 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2732055)
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 -
Show spoiler


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.

Quote:

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 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChAiNz.2da (Post 2732050)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2732055)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astor (Post 2732133)
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 -
Show spoiler


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 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by machievelli (Post 2732157)
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 06:31 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 06:47 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 07:06 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 07:52 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 08:14 PM

Quote:

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 11:20 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 06-17-2010 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf (Post 2732168)
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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf (Post 2732168)
Also, who do you see as being the major adversaries (ie w/America and against)?

No clue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tysyacha (Post 2732189)
WINNER:

None Everyone loses.

Tysyacha 06-17-2010 12:47 AM

/agreed
/concedes

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

machievelli 06-18-2010 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tysyacha (Post 2732255)
/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 06-19-2010 12:32 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. 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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.