Will There Be a WW III?

[Tysyacha]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Q]

^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]

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]

Probably, yes, It's human nature.

[Tysyacha]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Touche. *humbly concedes point*

 

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

[machievelli]

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]

If the world makes it past 2012 or 2016 yea nuclear fallout think of the fallout game but real life

[JediMaster12]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.