Poll: What could start a third world war?
- Thread starter scarecrow350
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes! It's seems almost bizarre that Great Britain had an alliance with Belgium but that friendship gave them a foot-hold on the continent for a war that was inevitable.orangeban said:
The arms race (which gave us the machine gun, the aeroplane, the dreadnought etc) in the early part of the century was really one of the reasons most of Europe was ready and seemingly eager to kill on such an industrial level.
The end of World War 1 also outlined what would happen in the Middle East for the last 100 years and perhaps the next 100.
Good talk. I love history.
Yay for history! Good talk indeed.HouseOfSyn said:
And I don't know the details of the Belgium alliance, but I think it was a treaty declaring that Belgium shall always be neutral and the signers of the treaty shall protect Belgium's neutrality. I think all of the big powers signed it, but no-one really took it seriously, especially not 100 years (I think it's that long) after it was signed.
In 1997, I gave a presentation to my social studies class about the threat of global terrorism and the danger in responding to it by invading harboring countries, toppling them, and leaving a power vacuum in which bin Laden's vision of an Islamic United States could come to fruition. The balance of power shifts, tensions mount, wah baam- WWIII.
Taking longer than I thought. Still coming.
Taking longer than I thought. Still coming.
WW1- Franz Ferdinand shot, everyone starts trying to scare the other shitless, neutral country is invaded to get to France.Th3Ch33s3Cak3 said:
WW2- Hitler demands tons of stuff, breaks some treaties, then a neutral country is invaded to get to France.
WW3- A world power bombs another? Someone has a booboo when playing with nukes? Russia invades everyone and declares that they were communist all along?
I don't see another World War happening again, really... although I can imagine a nuclear holocaust.
I believe that WWIII will most likely be started by a lack of resources. Oil comes to mind first, but water might end up being more important if the current trends in environmental and climate change continue. Land could be an issue if countries, particularly in the far east, continue to experience growing populations. For that matter, if current economic trends continue, wars might be fought over money, and debt of that money.
Countries don't just invade each other, there's always a reason, with the current geo-political climate that would most likely be a lack of resources.
Countries don't just invade each other, there's always a reason, with the current geo-political climate that would most likely be a lack of resources.
This, or Iran/North Korea doing something stupid like making long ranged nuclear missiles then waving them around like they're 10 years old experiencing alcohol for the first time (and it's just a shandy, in comparison to the big boys alcohol).Durgiun said:
Q: What could start a third world war?
A: Me.
Q: What could be done to prevent it?
A: James Bond.
Q: Would your country help start or finish it?
A: They would attempt to finish it, but such efforts would be futile. My Moon base is impenetrable.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
A: Me.
Q: What could be done to prevent it?
A: James Bond.
Q: Would your country help start or finish it?
A: They would attempt to finish it, but such efforts would be futile. My Moon base is impenetrable.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's only in the past hundred centuries, and that was because France was still more or less destroyed from WWI. Not to mention the prevailing mentality in France at that time. There's a saying in France about this situation that went "the man went to WWI with flowers on their bayonets, they went to WWII crying.". You could find the same attitude thal led to appeasement in the UK under Neville Chamberlain and they weren't the ones who had suffered the worst.Angry Juju said:
serious answer: complications due to climate change.
Non serious answer: Aliens
Guys. WWIII is not only possible, it's quite likely to start within the next five years.
Iran has been building a nuclear arsenal, which they will inevitably use against Isreal (OR Isreal will prevent this with a preemptive strike). Either way, the result is the same: a conflict that America will get involved in. All this is inevitable, the only difference it makes is whether other countries get involved and convert this into a full-blown World War.
Ironically, I was typing this comment while listening to the Ink Spots - I Don't Want to Set the World on Fire.
Iran has been building a nuclear arsenal, which they will inevitably use against Isreal (OR Isreal will prevent this with a preemptive strike). Either way, the result is the same: a conflict that America will get involved in. All this is inevitable, the only difference it makes is whether other countries get involved and convert this into a full-blown World War.
Ironically, I was typing this comment while listening to the Ink Spots - I Don't Want to Set the World on Fire.
I think WW3 will have little to do with Oil.
My bet is North Korea does something insanely stupid and the US and South Koreans invade and take over the Korean Peninsula.
China and Russia dislike this very much and China starts pressuring the US in the pacific and uses the US as a scapegoat for their slowing economic growth and terrible conditions.
China becomes more stressed as the European markets dry up because of a bad recession and constant influx of North Korean refugees.
There is another uprising in Taiwan and China blames the US for instigating it.
Israel bombs Iran and disrupts oils supplies to China.
After all these stressors China lashes out and has its first skirmish with the US in the pacific. Escalation doesn't take long as by this point the Chinese and the Americans hate each other.
China cyber bombs the US government via proxy and the US economically squeezes China to the breaking point.
You can do the rest but the Axis would consist of China, Russia, Iran , North Korean resistance, and possible others.
My bet is North Korea does something insanely stupid and the US and South Koreans invade and take over the Korean Peninsula.
China and Russia dislike this very much and China starts pressuring the US in the pacific and uses the US as a scapegoat for their slowing economic growth and terrible conditions.
China becomes more stressed as the European markets dry up because of a bad recession and constant influx of North Korean refugees.
There is another uprising in Taiwan and China blames the US for instigating it.
Israel bombs Iran and disrupts oils supplies to China.
After all these stressors China lashes out and has its first skirmish with the US in the pacific. Escalation doesn't take long as by this point the Chinese and the Americans hate each other.
China cyber bombs the US government via proxy and the US economically squeezes China to the breaking point.
You can do the rest but the Axis would consist of China, Russia, Iran , North Korean resistance, and possible others.
I think it would be incredibly hard.
There are more people working behind the scenes to prevent wars than there are people working behind the scenes to start them, despite what the media or some of those same fire-starters might want you to think.
There are more people working behind the scenes to prevent wars than there are people working behind the scenes to start them, despite what the media or some of those same fire-starters might want you to think.
I'm not even remotely connected to the UK so I don't see why I would care about their defeat in the past. I also started by saying I was going to make a joke. I know that France has have had an amazing track record through history, but their more recent history does warrant a few jokes from time to time. Lighten up. The facts about France and its history count more than the jokes.Noswad said: