Do you think there will ever be another war like WWII?

[Judgment90]

With the way some countries' relations are with others (such as N.Korea and the U.S.), it is just a matter of time before someone fucks up and starts another war.


The only debate I see is WHEN it's gonna happen.

 

[The Funslinger]

Nuclear weapons, as mentioned, change things too much.

Since WW2, we've had some 70 odd years in which major powers were afraid to directly attack each other, because it would have turned nuclear. This is historically rather unusual.

I think the only way it would work is if the nuclear threat from the other side kept one side from launching their nukes, and so the whole thing plays out with conventional warfare, as the atomic weapons are kept in stalemate with each other.

 

[Slayer_2]

I think nuclear weapons made all out war between two super powers impossible. Neither would do it since the other would be tempted to bomb them, starting nuclear war, destroying most of the world. Why did WW2 end? Because only the Allies had working nukes at that time, and they brought an abrupt end to the Japanese side of the war. Now that all major players have nukes, everyone is too scared to engage in standard warfare since it has the possibility to lead to nuclear war.

We also have other WMD's, drones that can strike a quarter-sized target accurately from thousands of miles away, much more advanced air and land vehicles, plus other technology that makes standard trench and infantry warfare unlikely.

In short: the third world war will be the last world war. "I know not what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones" -Albert Einstein.

 

[Lionsfan]

I don't think a WW3 would happen. Yeah history repeats itself but WW2 was seriously fucked up and soooooo many people died. Why would the world want to make that mistake again?

You do realize that was the same mentality people had coming out of WW1, or "The Great War" as they called it. They never wanted a war of that magnitude to happen again...and then they had one anyway.

I don't think a WW3 would happen. Yeah history repeats itself but WW2 was seriously fucked up and soooooo many people died. Why would the world want to make that mistake again?

That's what they said about WW1.

Meh, I know we have the power of hindsight, but when you look back at WWI, it's rather shocking how little was changed. The Treaty of Versailles wasn't anything more than, "Let's stop shooting each other, and it's all Germany's fault", and that basically set everything up for a sequel. Especially the fact that Germany was neither really defeated nor dearmed.

I think the biggest factor in the "We'll never see a war of that size again" has to be the Cold War. That the world made it through 40-50 years of a showdown, but with no large-scale war, makes it unlikely we'll see a World War anytime soon.

You also have to think about incentives. With WWII, it was pretty clear why Germany was attacking everybody, but now what's the incentive? Among the biggest powers, the US, Russia, and China, there's no incentive to attack any of the others.

 

[Ledan]

Yup.
Nukes could be countered with some sort of nuclear defense device (sorta like star wars program). We will eventually colonize other planets, and we will definitively have war there.
It will happen, but hopefully not soon.

 

[The Funslinger]

Nuclear weapons, as mentioned, change things too much.

Since WW2, we've had some 70 odd years in which major powers were afraid to directly attack each other, because it would have turned nuclear. This is historically rather unusual.

I think the only way it would work is if the nuclear threat from the other side kept one side from launching their nukes, and so the whole thing plays out with conventional warfare, as the atomic weapons are kept in stalemate with each other.

This whole "mutually assured destruction" only works when everyone is acting rationally. Imagine if Hitler had complete work on nuclear weapons. With allied forces closing in on Germany from all sides don't you think he would have launched? Even if other states had nuclear capability and would strike back? We will never know, thank god.

True enough, I was just projecting a situation where it would be possible to have an all out ground war. Not that I think it's a sure thing, do ya kennit?

 

[Frission]

Einstein said this.

World War 3 will be fought with nuclear bombs. World War 4 will be fought with sticks.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

To be honest, I think any future global conflicts will be fought as a series of smaller 'proxy' wars, a la the Cold War.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

If you believe in the multiverse theory or in the statistical possibilities of other like-life existing in parallel with us(which chances support then there is almost certainly a war almost exactly like WW2 going on at this exact moment.

If you mean another war in such a manner on Earth, then you also have to factor in the possibility of a societal collapse by war or disease(so on and so forth) resulting in a partial reset of technology. Which could easily result in another such scenario(See A Canticle for Leibowitz[Book] or Fallout: New Vegas[VG] for reference.)

If you mean on our current technological track, still following its continued progress without any such reset. Then the answer is a distinctive maybe. Political winds being what they are, we might even see one in the next 50 years. Theoretically though its never been tested in the field for obvious reasons, carriers are supposed to be impervious to any missiles that they have detected by essentially firing a wall of lead into the air with phalanx CIWS or phalanx like systems. You can see this in theory in the movie The Sum of All Fears(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ewFe_JoNNr4#t=79s) though in their representation it does not work. There are electronically fired systems being developed with firing rates thousands of times faster than Phalanx CIWS. There is a push to develope infantry armor like in Starship Troopers capable of surviving nuclear attacks as long as they aren't in the direct blast. The point though is that defensive technology can overcome a lot.

 

[A Satanic Panda]

I don't see a Third World War ever being fought. And I even don't see a large scale resource war being fought either. If technology continues to accelerate, a cheap abundance of energy and fully editable and economic synthetic foods are a within our life times. With an abundance of electricity at a low cost, we could desalinize all the water we want. Or extract all the tar-sands we want.

Now I do think there will be a War of the Worlds... at some point in human history, hundreds or thousands of years from now, between ourselves or an alien race.

 

[gyroscopeboy]

WWIII will be versus Zombie Hitler

 

[Monsterfurby]

"Where a great deal of nations around the third world spectrum go to war over...something... while the first world and large nations/groups are just sitting back and watching."

Fresh water most likely. Botswana and Namibia, Cambodia and Thailand, as well as Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay are all extremely tense because of heavy water pollution or over use that's draining the most important resource of all. In the next 50 years the big wars will probably be over water not oil.

I'm with the Realist school of international relations on this one: Only between non-nuclear powers (of which there still are enough for it to be technically possible, but such a war would spare Europe and North America).

You know, that would actually be a REALLY interesting setting for a game/book/movie

Where a great deal of nations around the third world spectrum go to war over...something... while the first world and large nations/groups are just sitting back and watching.

Considering the fact that wars of that scale apparently boost technology by several decades, propellings their victors (and sometimes losers, in the long run) to the top of the food chain, that would make for a really interesting scenario indeed. Didn't even think about it like that... Intriguing.

 

[Nickolai77]

No, unless some sort of technology renders nuclear missiles obsolete. That was the premise behind the game Tom Clancy's End War, were space technology meant that nuclear ICBM's could be shot down with good reliability- hence allowing major, unrestricted warfare between superpowers once more.

So essentially i don't see total warfare happening again like it did in WW2 unless you can somehow make nuclear missiles obsolete.

 

[Swyftstar]

I don't think another country would ever get the head start Germany was allowed in WWII. One of the reasons the "cowardly" French let Germany take over was that they were still decimated from WWI. Also, as we've seen recently, any country (except the US it seems) that invades another country promptly gets a cease and desist notice, backed by varying levels of force, from the rest of the world.

 

[Patrick Buck]

Nah, nukes changed things to much. Why fight on the ground when you can glass the opposition?
"I know not with what weapon WWIII will be fought with, but whatever it is, WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Some guy whose name I forget.

 

[Albino Boo]

Its possible, but Nuclear Weapons will complicate things. I do not think they will stop war completely as countries with WMDs have been attacked and defeated without using their weapons even when they had the chance.

Hey? Which countries do you mean?

In the Gulf War Iraq had substantial Chemical Weapon stockpiles and had the ability to attack Coalition troops with them. He didn't do this due to what substantially boiled down to MAD, except only for him as the US would still be there to end his ass. I'll admit I cannot recall a direct conflict with Nuclear Powers who had ICBMs, but the Gulf War provides an example of countries holding back their full power for reasons of keeping the conflict from escalating.

Iraq only had tactical systems of poor reliability versus modern strategic systems. Iraq was armed with an slightly updated version of the V2 most of which failed of on re entry as its best weapon. Crossing the wmd threshold would have been stupid because Iraq had no way to destroy British, French and US strategic systems. There is a significant difference between a scud armed with 1/2 a ton of VX and a SS-18 armed with up to 9 500kt warheads. Iraqi use of wmd would have had only one outcome, the complete destruction of Iraqs armed forces in the space of few hours.

 

[Maxtro]

I don't think it's impossible.

All it takes is for a Muslim country to attack Israel and the US is guaranteed to jump in. If that happens, it will be the crusades all over again, but with guns.

Another issue can be a Pakistan vs India conflict. The US would most likely be on India's side while China could end up supporting Pakistan.

In the worst case scenario it would end up being a US vs China war.

A US x China war can also happen if North Korea does something stupid and gets the ire of the US. China would most likely support N. Korea.

 

[Adon Cabre]

I don't think it's impossible.

All it takes is for a Muslim country to attack Israel and the US is guaranteed to jump in. If that happens, it will be the crusades all over again, but with guns.

Another issue can be a Pakistan vs India conflict. The US would most likely be on India's side while China could end up supporting Pakistan.

In the worst case scenario it would end up being a US vs China war.

A US x China war can also happen if North Korea does something stupid and gets the ire of the US. China would most likely support N. Korea.

China's economy is so entwined with ours, they wouldn't dare risk parting ways without a major recession of their own. N. Korea will be silent for years now that their little dictator is gone.

 

[Adon Cabre]

Oh my god, troll alert. I don't have to look at posts to know you've probably been trolled senseless.

Anyway, prepare for the definitive answer: It simply wouldn't happen anymore.

The ranges involved in modern conventional warfare render it impossible. The effectiveness of modern weapons render it impossible. The invention of the internet, GPS tacking and satellites render it impossible. The geopolitical climate renders it impossible. The lack of interested parties render it impossible.

Frankly, all things considered, the closest we have ever been to WWIII has been Bush's Iraq War. It was a full scale war that featured modern forms of warfare - guerrilla terrorism and easy communication - and we saw just what happened - it never ended. Still going now.

The true nature of today's conflicts is no longer martial, it's economic and ideological. I mean, again look at Iraq - the meat of the conflict was entirely ideological. I mean sure, so was WWII, but there are many multiples more people in the world today and when you can mobilize a civilian population without even standing in front of them in person then you're gonna be able to stir up an assload of trouble.

Bush's war is actually the 3rd Gulf War. The Iraq War has been over for years, and the new nation is just tearing itself apart because Arabic Muslims will never grasp democracy.

 

[Adon Cabre]

Bush's war is actually the 3rd Gulf War. The Iraq War has been over for years, and the new nation is just tearing itself apart because Arabic Muslims will never grasp democracy.

Not sure what you mean by that... Bush's war was a war in itself, so it being classified as a third 'gulf war' isn't really relevant. That's why I called it' Bush's Iraq War, because I think that's the most straightforward designation.

I think it's a bit immature to suggest that this war is either over or no longer the same war that the US and it's allies started. Just leaving a country doesn't make it so that the fighting that was spawned by the states and it's fellow combatants is somehow magically over.

The Iraq war and the Afganistan wars were both part of what I would be comfortable describing as the descendant to the Second World War in that it was a multinational conflict, they were both extremely damaging to civilian populations and they both played host to a range of new technologies and strategies developed more or less specifically for that conflict. And I very much think it's still going, it's frankly kind of disgusting that anyone would think 'The Iraq War is over', particularly if that person is an ideological backer of the US and it's allies, because that amounts to ignorance on a truly miserable level.

We're an occupational presence in Iraq in the same way our 50,000 troops in Germany still linger years after WWII and the Cold War.

You're comparing Iraq to a World War? Really Mr. Statmaster?

Coalition totals for casualties in Iraq come out to about 5,000 (and that's rounding up generously). In five weeks in Okinawa, the US lost 55,000 Marines in World War Two. We lost 13,000 in Iwujima.

The total body count including civilians in Iraq is nearly 120,000.

World War Two claimed 60,000,000 lives. World War One, 20,000,000. And you're bringing up multicultural diversity?

You have no idea what kind of chaos a world war descends from. We all try to rationalize why we make it, because it's insane -- War is legalized murder, after all; but most wars have ridiculous origins coming out of fear or pride, not misunderstandings. People launch an assault because they believe they can win.

The Iraq War is over. We've overthrown the regime and have established a less corrupted, more nationally stable government that won't be attacking Israel, or it's neighbors like their previous dictator. Not only that, as a result of our invasion years ago, Gadaffi gave up his own WMD's, thereby setting into motion the Famous Arab Spring.

Insurgents are not soldiers. They are terrorists. Terrorism is a form of combat, it isn't a group of people. And these insurgents have been fighting any and everyone who do not submit to their beliefs for hundreds of years. They are religious extremists.