Will There Be a WW III?

[Darth Avlectus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

 

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]

Ok, thanks. Vids ~24 minutes in length, so will check later.

[VeniVidiVicous]

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]

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]

@Roller123---Two terms of Obama and they won't need a war to defeat us.

[Tommycat]

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]

I didnt say Europe is weak. It has everything it needs thus it is fairy passive. Understandable.

 

That's not the impression you gave.

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.

 

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]

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, War of 1812, The War of conguest waged by the great leader of the Mongols, Genghis Khan, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, 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]

most likely with china imo.

[Liverandbacon]

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.