Where do you think WW3 will start?
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well actually, Germany was helping their ally Austria (basicly the same as Germany but the allied powers don't want them coming together again) because Syrian assasins had killed their heir and they demanded compensation which was denied. WW2 was started because the Nazis came to power because of that damned treaty pushing the population too far financially. WW3 may happen after the world crosses the line with the Nazi sterotype pushing.Freakout456 said:
Korea maintained South Korea as an independent nation, which is now one of the more powerful economies in the world.Pierce Graham said:
Vietnam... well, I'll give you Vietnam.
Desert Storm achieved it's objective (freeing Kuwait) and then proceeded to destroy Iraq's ability to respond, ending without occupying the nation.
Last point... you seem to have run out of direct military interventions, so I will throw a couple I know happened, Grenada, Panama, and 1980s Afghanistan.
As for Gaddafi, I don't see him holding onto power, as pretty the entire world has turned on him, NATO is limiting his troop movements, and other Arab nations are helping out the rebels.
No, he went violent before the riots did. There were reports of strafing runs and bombings, which prompted the previously peaceful protests to become a full on revolt, which included units of the army joining the rebels and at least some members of the air force to seek asylum outside the country. His own government officials were leaving before the rebels had even seized a city. A similar event in America would have M1s being called up to quash a peaceful march on Washington, possibly with strafing runs buy helicopters/planes. If that were to happen, I would hope the UN would step in.karamazovnew said:
All of your thrown in interventions only prove my point of the US sticking their nose WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG. Acting as though the world is their playground.
And of course Gaddafi won't hold on to power. When the revolution started, NATO specialists said he wouldn't last a week. Then a month. Then two. Now three. And the rebels haven't really moved in three months. The man cannot be bargained or reasoned with. The only solution is a bullet to head, but since he hasn't killed a pre-requisite amount of people (though mainly because the US makes a lot of money off of him) he will stay right where he is.
And of course Gaddafi won't hold on to power. When the revolution started, NATO specialists said he wouldn't last a week. Then a month. Then two. Now three. And the rebels haven't really moved in three months. The man cannot be bargained or reasoned with. The only solution is a bullet to head, but since he hasn't killed a pre-requisite amount of people (though mainly because the US makes a lot of money off of him) he will stay right where he is.
Kim Jeong Il will die and his son will take over North Korea. In his new position of power, he'll be feeling froggy and ready to jump. He'll attack South Korea, trying to unite the peninsula. The United States won't be having none of that shit, and will funnel our military to defend them. China won't be comfortable with so much American firepower so close, and will join the North Koreans in their fight. From there it will escalate, becoming a cold war with weapons fire.
Captcha contained an umalaut. Challenge accepted.
Ü
Fuck yeah.
Captcha contained an umalaut. Challenge accepted.
Ü
Fuck yeah.
Well I think it's already started, but the sheeple don't realize it yet. We're in the starting phase of the next big Jihad and have been since at least the mid-90s when the Taliban took over, and more extremist variants of islam became the Saudi (and Jemenite) state religion.
As such the place it starts is anywhere that borders islam outside of Africa: south-eastern Europe, the Russian south, or the border with India or China.
The so-called Arab Spring is changing this though. It almost looks like the islamic world might get its Renaissance and free itself from the shackles of religion, and if that happens the threat of Jihad might finally end, after 14 centuries of bloodshed. We can only hope.
If you discount this as it is not a traditional war, then my guess is China. China faces a major population issue and internal instability, as the spoiled predominantly male one-child generation is now adult. Basically China will either collapse into civil war (hopefully leading to the end of the horrid communist regime), or will invade its neighbours in conquest. Either way will lead to the death of many young men, stabilizing the population, and fits historically into what China always did. This time around though there is the risk that other countries will be dragged in and that could lead to a new world war as alliances are formed and changed.
IMO there are no other credible threats. The USA prefers to fight dirty wars by backing internal factions that serve its purposes rather than attack first (see South America for current examples), South America is too divided and at the same time there is little actual conflict, Europe's military days are long gone, and Russia is only interested in regaining the ex-Soviet Union (only possible conflict is the Baltics, as they are now EU -- but Russia is not stupid). Africa... nobody cares. The continent has never been stable and realistically nobody gives a damn what happens there. Asia -- you have islam, China, and... ? I don't see any probabability of e.g. Thailand and Cambodia going to war and triggering a worldwide conflict. Possibly Russia might splinter further with the east breaking off from Moscow, but unless China intervenes there is no chance of this leading to a real war. Nobody there is stupid enough to use nukes.
tldr: either the borders of islam and civilization, or the borders of China and its prey^H^H^H^H neighbours.
As such the place it starts is anywhere that borders islam outside of Africa: south-eastern Europe, the Russian south, or the border with India or China.
The so-called Arab Spring is changing this though. It almost looks like the islamic world might get its Renaissance and free itself from the shackles of religion, and if that happens the threat of Jihad might finally end, after 14 centuries of bloodshed. We can only hope.
If you discount this as it is not a traditional war, then my guess is China. China faces a major population issue and internal instability, as the spoiled predominantly male one-child generation is now adult. Basically China will either collapse into civil war (hopefully leading to the end of the horrid communist regime), or will invade its neighbours in conquest. Either way will lead to the death of many young men, stabilizing the population, and fits historically into what China always did. This time around though there is the risk that other countries will be dragged in and that could lead to a new world war as alliances are formed and changed.
IMO there are no other credible threats. The USA prefers to fight dirty wars by backing internal factions that serve its purposes rather than attack first (see South America for current examples), South America is too divided and at the same time there is little actual conflict, Europe's military days are long gone, and Russia is only interested in regaining the ex-Soviet Union (only possible conflict is the Baltics, as they are now EU -- but Russia is not stupid). Africa... nobody cares. The continent has never been stable and realistically nobody gives a damn what happens there. Asia -- you have islam, China, and... ? I don't see any probabability of e.g. Thailand and Cambodia going to war and triggering a worldwide conflict. Possibly Russia might splinter further with the east breaking off from Moscow, but unless China intervenes there is no chance of this leading to a real war. Nobody there is stupid enough to use nukes.
tldr: either the borders of islam and civilization, or the borders of China and its prey^H^H^H^H neighbours.
China: "Hey U.S. We're calling in our debt. Give us all the monies you owe."
U.S.: "Er...well...uh...you see the thing about that is...no."
Honestly, who knows? Even the cause could be anything, from resources to economic stress to good old ideological differences.
I'm more interested in seeing how today's modern Western society will react, being as pampered and lazy as we are.
U.S.: "Er...well...uh...you see the thing about that is...no."
Honestly, who knows? Even the cause could be anything, from resources to economic stress to good old ideological differences.
I'm more interested in seeing how today's modern Western society will react, being as pampered and lazy as we are.
Perhaps in North Korea?
I do hope though that we'll never have to put up with WW3; it would seriously destroy the world if nuclear weapons began being fired round all over the place.
I do hope though that we'll never have to put up with WW3; it would seriously destroy the world if nuclear weapons began being fired round all over the place.
We didn't possess nuclear, long range missiles or ballistic weaponry during the first world war. Mutually assured destruction means total war if one major power country attacks another by nuclear strike. If we had, I guarantee you hostilities would have ended long before they did since we used nerve gas in the trenches before The League of Nation's banned chemical and biological weapons.rutger5000 said:
It is forgotten that we're now living in a multipolar international community, where old East-West alliances no longer have as much strength as they did in the days of the cold war. It's now mostly about "major military and economic block" nations forming unions based on resources, corporate and market ties. China, Brazil, Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Myanmar, and North Korea have a lose alliance with each other based solely on economic ties rather than a shared agenda (though all agree that the U.S, Europe and their developing world allies are a threat to their policies and goals).
I personally don't believe world war 3 will happen any time soon (the currently state of conflicts that overlap can already be considered a global war), but straining resources, peak oil, water, global financial collapse, and perhaps the rise of formerly "third world" nations who band together as all this happens will cause some serious problems for humanity as a whole. A lot of Escapists like to make fun of the U.S,but when the *hit hit's the fan for the United States economically, the rest of you are screwed unless you'd prefer to be Russia's whore to save your skin for another few decades. China is given too much credit, they're growth is out of control and they're already starting to resort to U.S strategies to secure resources and reign in inflation. I personally think China will implode economically in the next couple decades, while India may fair better if they play their cards right in regards to Pakistan, China, Russia and their status as a non-align country.
Iran is looking pretty ominous even though people like to downplay it's influence and rather insane clerical/autocratic leadership. These people are quite frankly insane and have talked about destroying Israel since the start.
Does anyone here really think Israel backing down on the Gaza blockade, and an eventually coming to some agreement with the Palestinian authority on a two state solution is going to stop Iran, Syira, Hamas or Hezbollah from continued attacks? Of course not, and thought I've never condoned Israeli operations in the past that were blatantly heavy-handed in their treatment of the Palestinian-Arab population, Iran and its allies have their own reasons for meddling in the region, and escalating the violence for their own purposes, much like how the U.S supported of Israel solely due to Syria, Egypt and Jordan being supplied by the Soviet Union.
P.S- I take it not many of you are familiar with world history or how international/government relations work? Because all I'm seeing "Everything is America's fault...derp derp....they did stuff in the cold war, Iraq, and now Afghanistan, and Libya.. derp,derp". It seems that everyone is forgetting the involvement of... oh I don't know... the USSR, and their allies as we engaged in that grand dicking contest known as "The Cold War" and their terrorists, armed factions, spies, human rights violations and proxy wars that resulted in dictatorships and pissed off/devastated people no different than the ones the U.S supported.
In the case of all this that's happening today... it takes more than 3-5 countries to tango =/ not just big, bad boogie man U.S.A out to get everyone.
Presumably today tonight or a current affair.Astoria said:If it seems I'm trolling that wasn't my intention. And that's not tolerance. If it was a school with mostly muslim children I'd understand but for just one child its ridiculous. As for the group thing there was a report about it on tv. Admittedly I didn't watch it but you could get the gist from the add.brendonnelly said:I can't tell if you are trolling or not! There is no secret national order dedicated to overthrowing the government. All it is is showing a little tolerence to people in a country, that since the 70s/80s has become increasingly multicultural.Astoria said:So I'm guessing you believe that America is a indian country and Europe is pagan. You say cultures adapt. Well Australia has adapted into a Cristian country and while this may change in the future that's how it is for now and I believe that imigrants need to respect that. At home they can worship however they please but in public they should accept how things are here. If I went to a muslim country and tried to change their ways they'd have me locked up. Yeah this is off track, but you started itPrince Regent said:
You brought up the interventions and said they achieved nothing. I simply showed they chieved the intended goals, often with the blessing of the people we were helping.Pierce Graham said:
I really don't get how America is making money of this, or how you think he hasn't "killed enough people." Perhaps you would prefer we assassinate him? Well, you see, we kinda made that illegal back in the 1970s, and as far as I know, the only person one could ever argue as an exception was Osama. You seem to be arguing that America should ignore the pleas of the world and sit back and do nothing, but then saying we aren't doing enough to end the conflict.
Check the timeline.Sean951 said:
16 February: peaceful protest, just a few arrests made
17 February: Gadhafi promises reforms and release of political prisoners. Violent clashes with police turn 7 people dead. Not quite a shock in a country such as Lybia.
18 February: tens of thousands take to the streets, 20 people killed 200 wounded by security forces (not military)
19 February: riots all over, especially in Benghazi, military involved for the first time, with tear gas and and death toll overall since 16 February rises to 64
20 February: protesters take over Benghazi.
No bombs, no planes were used in the beginning. In fact everybody expected worse, proof is that not enough military were in Bengazi to stop them from taking over. The defecting politicians came much later, after the UN started bombing them. To put things into perspective, the 1992 Los Angeles riots resulted in 53 people dead. Now as I said, I don't like the guy. Lybia is rich with oil yet the people are poor. They'd be better without him and changes should happen in that country. But the UN interfering like this has no excuse, the guy acted much more moderately than what's going on in Syria now.
The US intervenes with a facade of benevolence, but really only help if there's money or something else to gain. They are, after all, Capitalists.
And I'm not saying that the US should isolate themselves like before WW2, I'm saying they should stop waving their expensive military hardware around, stop supporting 3rd world dictators for profit and stop trying to depict themselves as the Second Coming of Christ.
Also, the world should realize that killing Gaddafi is the best way to go. We killed Osama (although the lack of a body, photos [real ones] and any evidence at all puts it in question) because he killed a pre-requisite amount of people, so we ignored the law and killed him. We should do the same to Gaddafi BEFORE he kills enough people.
And I'm not saying that the US should isolate themselves like before WW2, I'm saying they should stop waving their expensive military hardware around, stop supporting 3rd world dictators for profit and stop trying to depict themselves as the Second Coming of Christ.
Also, the world should realize that killing Gaddafi is the best way to go. We killed Osama (although the lack of a body, photos [real ones] and any evidence at all puts it in question) because he killed a pre-requisite amount of people, so we ignored the law and killed him. We should do the same to Gaddafi BEFORE he kills enough people.
You've given this a lot more thought then I have. And I agree with your logic. But I think you put too much faith in human intelect. "There are only two infinite things: The universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the first one." Einstein. Just because WW3 would bring great chances of major loss, and only a slim chance of minor gain doesn't mean that it won't start. That was the parallel I wanted to draw with WW1. There was so little to gain from the whole conflict, and the losses were guarenteed to be enourmous. Yet it still happened. I like to think humanity has learned from history, but I've always felt that the only lesson that can be learned from history is that humanity doesn't learn from it.Johanthemonster666 said:
I'm an optimist, as a choice I love and trust everybody I meet, but humanity as a whole is an ugly creature. One that will ineventually leads to it's own destruction.
it will be in the middle east initially, fueled by oil, with USA backing one country, dragging the EU along for the ride, with China and Russia and most of the Arab world in the red corner. India, and for the most part the EU will sit tight, with mostly just Britain, France and to some extent Germany getting in on the action.
and the world will go to shit.
and the world will go to shit.