WWIII

[Lights]

When do you think it will happen? Do you think it will even happen at all? Who will initiate it? How will it be initiated? Will the earth be destroyed during the process?

I've been thinking a lot lately about how bad the earth is looking right now. Political tensions are way up, everyone is suspicious and looking ever their shoulders. Wars are being fought all over the place, or at least there is the chance of outbreak all over the place.

So, what do you think? Ill say my thoughts when I get some time. Post yours


EDIT: Title didnt quite turn out as expected

 

[aphextwin]

will not happen for a long time, cuz UN supports world peace.......

 

[Lights]

Originally posted by newbie4lyfe
will not happen for a long time, cuz UN supports world peace.......

Rofl, that wont stop anything. The UN didnt even stop us from invading Iraq. How could they stop an all-out war? The United Nations is a joke...

 

[bamthedoc]

The number of wars have decreased a lot over the centuries. In the years BC, war was an hourly thing. From 1 AD to about 1000 AD, war was daily. From 1001 AD to about 1800 AD, war was fought on a yearly basis. Starting in the 1800s, it has been once or twice every decade. The major wars (taking only US history, sorry) are the War of 1812, US Civil War, WWI, WWII, and the American/Indian War.

Lately, there hasn't been any real indication of war -- besides the fact that the US was "looked down on" as not being "true to its word" or not being "willing to back up its word". Since Afganistan and Iraq, many nations in the "unstable" area of thought have become more open to negotiations with the US, UN, or eachother.

Doors to communication have opened up, and that may be a factor in determining when or if WWIII will take place. My personal opinion doesn't matter in the long run, as it's not fact or history.

If WWIII starts, I would think it would be an unstable, nuclear powered nation. The war that follows would be devestating and drive humanity underground. There would be a minimum of 50 years of "hiding away", and another 50 years to recover -- technologically and economically.

 

[Lights]

The Far East is very unstable. Relationships between the Koreas, China, Taiwan, and the others are far from good. The way things are looking, they arent looking good. My attention is over there.

As always, the relationship between the US and N. Korea is poor, with the added prospect of nukes in the North, it may get even worse. Who knows, in a few years, we may be in a similar situation to that of Iraq. They may refuse to have bomb checks, we invade. While we invade, they counter attack South Korea, thus bringing a third country into the equation.

While this is going on, China finally sees its chance to recover Taiwan back to the mainland. So there is 5. We may try to help Taiwan out and ask our allies for help. Likewise, China may get some of hers. Just like that, we are in a world war.

This is all, of course, hypothetical. But my thinking is that the next WW will either start in the Far East. That, or the Middle East will completely blow up and it will start there.

 

[bamthedoc]

You also have to consider the fact that China has a huge interest in N. Korea "disarming" its nukes. At this moment, there is still diplomatic relations between N. Korea and the US. Why? It might have something to do with Iraq. Last June, in the middle of Desert Storm II (Operation: Iraqi Freedom), N. Korea invited the US to sit down, but China insisted they also attend. China was invited, but only as an "interested" party, or intermidiary. I believe that once the N. Korean dicator dies, they Koreans (not N. or S., but wholey) will want to reunite and enter a more "stable" governmental form.

China may want Tiawan back, but they don't want to risk a fight with the US and everyone else. They have far fewer and far weaker allies than the US has. The US will be able to get the French, Germans, Russians, and Canadians involved with them in a military operation if China even sets one foot on Tiawan.

China's dictator is insane, not stupid (not as insane as other dictators, though ).

 

[Tempest Storm]

And don't forget about England.

I've been thinking a lot lately about how bad the earth is looking right now. Political tensions are way up, everyone is suspicious and looking ever their shoulders. Wars are being fought all over the place, or at least there is the chance of outbreak all over the place.

So? How is this different than any other time in history?

Persoanlly, I think WW3 is most likely to start with terrorists. I mean, who the **** would be stupid to launch a nuke at anyone. With the US being a big brother to the whole world now, they'ld have the have a suicide wish.

 

[Lights]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
I believe that once the N. Korean dicator dies, they Koreans (not N. or S., but wholey) will want to reunite and enter a more "stable" governmental form.

Very possible, but just as easily another dictator, more ambitious then the current, could come to power. I dont know if Korea will ever be able to reunite, there is just too much hate involved.

China may want Tiawan back, but they don't want to risk a fight with the US and everyone else. They have far fewer and far weaker allies than the US has. The US will be able to get the French, Germans, Russians, and Canadians involved with them in a military operation if China even sets one foot on Tiawan.

China's dictator is insane, not stupid (not as insane as other dictators, though ).

No, they wouldnt initiate the invasion, but if the whole N. Korea ordeal happened, they might have had the opportunity.

China has the largest standing army by a very large margin. Plus, if they combined with the nukes of N. Korea (and possibly their own) they could have a very strong force. Add in Japan joining forces with them (Though they probably wouldnt, but neither would the Germans fight with America unless in dire need) and you have a very strong force.

Also, if China and company was to quickly spread across Eastern Asia, they could build up with more resources and men. Its a long shot, but meh...

Originally posted by Spike~

So? How is this different than any other time in history?

Persoanlly, I think WW3 is most likely to start with terrorists. I mean, who the **** would be stupid to launch a nuke at anyone. With the US being a big brother to the whole world now, they'ld have the have a suicide wish.

It isnt really, but just like before, we always seem to have a major war every 30 years or so. It seems like that circle of fate is coming close. We had 1860's, 1910's, 1940's, 1970's and now the present. Call me crazy, but it seems like we are due

All it would take is one nuke. It wouldnt even have to be against America. In fact, even the rumor of a nuke may cause retaliation. But once one is launched, another will counter, and then 2, 3, etc.

 

[JeFfDiddy78]

i think there will be one more big war then a one world goverment will be started

 

[PsYcHoSiD77]

I think that too many people are patriotic about their country for there to be just one governing body. Everyone is very defensive of their country, and rightfully so. It is where you are from. It is your "crib". Haha

 

[bamthedoc]

Actually, were China to invade Taiwan, Japan would aid the US. Japan has much stronger relations with the US. They don't have an offensive force, either. Japan relies on the US for a good deal of their defense, but Japan's defensive force, still, is one of the best in the world. Germany would join the US if China were to invade Taiwan on the pure fact that they are stronger allies to the US than you seem to think.

PR may have taken a quick, and I do mean quick, dive with the Iraq invasion, but the capture of Saddam has brought a quick rise in diplomatic relations. NO ONE wants to see China invade another country, and many want to see China relinquish Tibet. China's invastion and conquering of Tibet really threw them out of allied relations. China, by itself, has the largest standing army. It, however, is not the strongest. You ask the dictator of China, himself, he would express fears of a 1v1 against the US -- let alone going it alone versus the US and allies.

 

[Lights]

Originally posted by bamthedoc

China, by itself, has the largest standing army. It, however, is not the strongest. You ask the dictator of China, himself, he would express fears of a 1v1 against the US -- let alone going it alone versus the US and allies.

Oh yes, I definanlty realize that. American (and others) technology and mechs are much superior to theirs. The point of my statement was that, were they to invade, it would be bloody trying to get them out. And no, I did not know we had any kind of alliance with Germany, other than that of a neutral state. I always thought we were even less than neutral...

Anywho, going in a bit of a different direction, what about the middle east? We all know its just plain ugly out there, but do you think it could escalate into something much more serious? For a time, it has seemed to calm down a bit, with Iraq basicaly out of commision. But it will fire back up, always has and always will. Only it gets more serious as time goes on, for stronger and more dangerous weapons are turning up.

 

[bamthedoc]

Iraq, I believe, will become a stabalizing force. That is, at least, once they have a government and stabalized themselves. The biggest threats in the Mid East have been hit, directly or indirectly, with the US involvement there. You'll be seeing more negotiations shown in the Syrian example.

I really don't think the Middle Eastern countries, even with the "Muslim ties", have a strong enough alliance to support each other in any actual conflict. You also have to take into consideration that Kuwait and Saudi Arabi are allied with the US, and Iraq has become, at least, an "oil" ally to us.

As per Germany: They are not a neutral country. They have a military alliance with the (alphabetically) Australia, Canada, Euro Union, and US. However, you could say the majority of their military is the Euro Union, anyway.

 

[Tempest Storm]

Lights's right. Tens of thousands died when China enter the Korean war, and even then, there was no real victory on any side.

As for the Mid East. They are little threat to us in an actual war. Hell, 3 of them couldn't even take out Isreal, and they tried twice! They only pose a serious threat o themselves, and no one else, at least until we find out one of them has nukes...

 

[Lights]

Originally posted by Spike~

As for the Mid East. They are little threat to us in an actual war. Hell, 3 of them couldn't even take out Isreal, and they tried twice! They only pose a serious threat o themselves, and no one else, at least until we find out one of them has nukes...

Yea, it just makes me so uneasy. To think of all the chaos going on over there, it will spread eventually, perhaps. I mean, it has already spread over to us, with the invasion of Iraq.


[offtopic]
You know, Israel has never lost a major war. (At least to my knowledge) They have lost battles, yes, but never a complete war. It's interesting because they are "Gods chosen people" and it was said that they would never lose a war while in his favor. Dunno, just find that interesting :O!
[/offtopic]

 

[bamthedoc]

I guess it is. They did, however, lose wars against Edyptians, Babylonians, and Romans, but, as you said, while they weren't in GOD's favor.

As for the Korean war: at that time period, American and Chinese technologies were closer (I hope you get what I mean...). The US has advanced quite a bit more than China has, but I'll never say it would be easy. The Korean was was also, essentially, the US versus N. Korea, and McArthur made a rather stupid mistake. His invasion a little "too" north caused China to "retaliate" (or so was their explanation).

China doesn't exactly want to "initiate" a war, and that includes initiating it through invasion of Taiwan. Is China a threat? I'd say yes if it weren't for several militarily sound tactics keeping them back. I definatly would not like to see a major military conflict as, with now-a-days technology, millions of people could, potentially, die with a flicker of even a single countries full power.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
The number of wars have decreased a lot over the centuries. In the years BC, war was an hourly thing. From 1 AD to about 1000 AD, war was daily. From 1001 AD to about 1800 AD, war was fought on a yearly basis. Starting in the 1800s, it has been once or twice every decade. The major wars (taking only US history, sorry) are the War of 1812, US Civil War, WWI, WWII, and the American/Indian War.

Lately, there hasn't been any real indication of war -- besides the fact that the US was "looked down on" as not being "true to its word" or not being "willing to back up its word". Since Afganistan and Iraq, many nations in the "unstable" area of thought have become more open to negotiations with the US, UN, or eachother.

Doors to communication have opened up, and that may be a factor in determining when or if WWIII will take place. My personal opinion doesn't matter in the long run, as it's not fact or history.

If WWIII starts, I would think it would be an unstable, nuclear powered nation. The war that follows would be devestating and drive humanity underground. There would be a minimum of 50 years of "hiding away", and another 50 years to recover -- technologically and economically.

I really doubt that war was EVER a daily thing let alone hourly, maybe battles but not wars. I dont think were gunna have a 'big/majour' war ANYTIME soon

 

[sprucegoose]

i think this is WW3 just no1 has like announced it

 

[Lights]

Originally posted by sprucegoose
i think this is WW3 just no1 has like announced it

What is?

 

[Beer $lut]

He means like all the fighting thats going around with all the other countries and we just invaded iraq and osama blew up the two towers, were still looking for him. Lots of other countries hate us for what we did, who knows maybe there seceretly organizing something, and then theres always Korea.