Poll: What could start a third world war?

[dslatch]

The next germany i wonder who that will be.

 

[bauke67]

Wars cost trillions. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a rather small-scale war, and it cost trillions. The gains made form the war are nowhere near the cost, in lives lost, money spent, or resources used. A world war nowadays would cost an unbelievably ludicrous amount. In lives. In resources. In money. In world-wide stability. Even barring the use of nuclear arms, at the end of it all, the winner will be left with scraps no longer worth fighting for.

And that's why any sensible government wouldn't do it.

 

[wintercoat]

Wars cost trillions. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a rather small-scale war, and it cost trillions. The gains made form the war are nowhere near the cost, in lives lost, money spent, or resources used. A world war nowadays would cost an unbelievably ludicrous amount. In lives. In resources. In money. In world-wide stability. Even barring the use of nuclear arms, at the end of it all, the winner will be left with scraps no longer worth fighting for.

And that's why any sensible government wouldn't do it.

If you can name one power country that could be reasonably described as sensible when it comes to resource acquisition, I'll concede the point.

 

[Torrasque]

Like the last two World Wars, something retarded will start the next World War.
Either some big political figure is killed by someone and the targeted country has complications finding the assailant (because he is defended by his country, or fades into nothingness) or some government faction gets over zealous in some way that makes people freak out and start killing.

Well, the killing of Archduke Ferdinand wasn't exactly the reason for WW1, it was just the trigger, a convenient excuse Austria-Hungary and Germany needed.

Countries do not go to war over leaders being killed, really...but thing is, leaders usually do not get killed if the relations between the countries aren't hostile for other reasons in the first place. And it's those other reasons the countries go to war over.

Oh I know Franz wasn't the reason WW1 started, his death was just a great catalyst for the war. Kind of like how the death of a big political figure would be the catalyst for WW3. It doesn't have to be the leader of the country, it could be the Vice President, the ambassador to that country, the leader of a territory, or the leader of the opposition party. Basically, anyone important enough and popular enough for people to freak out when they are killed in some random country or by some random country.

Lets say that a group of officials goes over to Iran to check out their nuclear reactors because they think they are unsafe. In that group, you have the vice president of a country, a few key members of the ruling party of another country, some big name scientists (lets pretend Neil deGrasse Tyson has to go for some reason) and the president of another country. While at the reactor checking shit out, there is a meltdown and everyone dies. Very quickly after the meltdown, a terrorist group says "yeah, we did that shit. WHATS UP" and escapes into the shadows of lets say... the UK. All of the countries affected by the meltdown (directly and indirectly) are going to be "WTF UK, GO GET THOSE GUYS", but for whatever reason, the UK can't find them, or think its nbd. That would make relations between the UK and the affected countries, really shitty. If there was economic strain or political strain or some kind of big time strain (like the Greece problem for instance), then that meltdown might be a big enough catalyst to start WW3.

 

[bauke67]

If you can name one power country that could be reasonably described as sensible when it comes to resource acquisition, I'll concede the point.

I'm not sure wether we count as a "power country", but Dutch politicians wouldn't dare do anything radical or something the EU might disaprove of.(exceptions are there though)

 

[Strazdas]

Lack of oil will lead one country to invade another which will cause other countries to revolt.
Wait, no, that already happened in the past 5 years.

P.S. capcha: burning oil.....

 

[the_dude_abides]

I'd say a proxy war over resources is a more feasible possibility than a full blown conflict between superpowers.

Tug of wars between established and emerging powers for vast untapped resources in africa and the arctic could turn nasty quickly given there isn't enough to please everyone.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

Israel and Iran go at it. In the ensuing chaos, the Middle East is torn apart even more than it already is and Turkey goes full bore against the Kurds. Pakistan and India use the moment to decide "once and for all" who gets the Kashmir. With India pulled towards the northwest, China makes a move to "adjust" the border with India, setting southeast Asia on fire. North Korea sees everyone else distracted and blasts into South Korea to finish granddad's unification war. In an effort to "contain" the situation in the Koreas, Russia militarizes the Kuril islands and all hell breaks loose with Japan. As NATO and SEATO are pulled every which way, Argentina takes the opportunity to seize the Falklands.

Have I missed any major players yet?

 

[Selon]

either Jerusalem, if Jewish terrorists bomb the rock temple and Iran and other arab nations retaliate,
Somthing to do with either Vietnam or North Korea
Or something I don't know of jet
probably the last one but you never know

 

[ReadyAmyFire]

Doubt any of those. Wouldn't a lack of oil mean a lack of fuel? Modern powers don't keep many man o' wars about.

Maybe Israel pulls another Operation Opera on Iran, after which nothing. Can't see many middle eastern nations willing to go toe-to-toe with Israel conventionally.

 

[Powereaver]

Anyone standing up to the United States to be honest... i think United States would just go off their nutter if that happened.. and call on all their allies to stop this "enemy" and yea this could turn into a world war.