World War III

dust1n said:

Anyone who has the power to launch a nuke isn't going to give up their power to launch a nuke.

Click to expand...

Was this supposed to mean that if a group launches their nuke, then they'd be left without a nuke, therefore, they won't launch a nuke?

Most countries with nukes have well over one, and if an extremist group is able to get one nuke they are likely able to get more than that.

Given our specie's history, it seems a pretty safe bet that we'll have another world war, sooner or later. We never really learn. It's the tragedy of our species.

WWIII soon? idk. and how..... that can be so many ways to start and/or end us all, is endless. to nuke us. honestly, i dout it. then the ground that the nuke lands will be useless for the money grabers, it wouldn't profitable for them after the fact. Same goes to a pandamic idea of a ending. the virus or bactira would (sometimes) live a long time after every one in the area is long time dead. again, leaving a place useless for a time. My two cents.
P.S. I could go on for days of ways the world, or people could kill off each other causeing WWIII in which the "War" could last from minutes, to days, to months, or years, depending on how it was done.

Father Heathen said:

Heh, I'm looking at a list of active rebel roups on wikipedia, and most are categorized as "Islamist", "Marxist", "Nationalist", "Anarchist", etc. but one group stood out, categorized as "radical wine producers".

Comité Régional d'Action Viticole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

These guys must be real extreme

I reckon there'll be some smaller wars. Maybe against some countries in the middle east. But I'm not sure there will be anything global just yet

Father Heathen said:

Heh, I'm looking at a list of active rebel roups on wikipedia, and most are categorized as "Islamist", "Marxist", "Nationalist", "Anarchist", etc. but one group stood out, categorized as "radical wine producers".

Comité Régional d'Action Viticole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Strange..
This one stood out for me, even if it's just the nickname: Football War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revoltingest said:

Let's say Iran & Israel go to war.
Let's say Iran does better than expected.
I can see Israel nuking them.

Click to expand...

That scenario is more in the althistory/science fiction category. In 1973 Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan with support from other Arab nations and the Soviet Union. It was a surprise attack and the Arab states were on the offensive, things were looking grim for Israel but even at that stage of being attacked on literally all fronts, Israel did not use nukes. So why should Israel use nukes in a war with Iran who doesn't even share a border with Israel?

Falvlun said:

Was this supposed to mean that if a group launches their nuke, then they'd be left without a nuke, therefore, they won't launch a nuke?

Most countries with nukes have well over one, and if an extremist group is able to get one nuke they are likely able to get more than that.

Click to expand...

No, but I noticed the opaqueness in my statement just a minute ago. What I should have said:

Anyone who has power to launch a nuke isn't going to give up their power in order to launch said nuke.

Launch a nuke = End of an elite's comfortable life.

Sunstone said:

Given our specie's history, it seems a pretty safe bet that we'll have another world war, sooner or later. We never really learn. It's the tragedy of our species.

Click to expand...

How many world wars are in the history of humanity....


Count 'em, two...

Caladan said:

That scenario is more in the althistory/science fiction category. In 1973 Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan with support from other Arab nations and the Soviet Union. It was a surprise attack and the Arab states were on the offensive, things were looking grim for Israel but even at that stage of being attacked on literally all fronts, Israel did not use nukes. So why should Israel use nukes in a war with Iran who doesn't even share a border with Israel?

Click to expand...

Especially considering Iran would never make any real progress in attacking Israel anyway. And Iranian leaders, I'm willing to bet, are not dumb enough to launch a nuke when it would be pretty much equivalent to agreeing to be dead within an hour or so. I know some might think that Iranian leaders have some 'higher calling' of 'paradise' that overrides any logical thinking, but I'm much more apt to think that the leaders of said country or like the leaders of any other country, namely, that they like their position of power and their comfortable lives and practically none of them are willing to give that up.

My personal belief is that, given how interconnected the economies of the world are now, is that the chances of a WWIII type event occurring are pretty slim. Money can do a lot of bad things, but I think it could be enough to force the world leaders to work out their differences in more peaceful terms.

If World War III DOES happen though? Yeah...the world will pretty much be *******. No one will win that one.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

I think there will be war but i doubt it will be on a global scale,who can afford to win,the aftermath is way too expensive,the UK is still bearing the debt from WW2,anyways war isn't the worst thing that can happen,90% of China's population becomming Car owners means disaster to a Petrol head.

I think we are on the brink, with China and Japan making angry noises at each other, and Israel threatening to invade Iran, and the US expanding its remote controlled drone war all over the Islamic world while remaining embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq, never mind the domestic instability many countries are facing due to food price inflation.

It's always been the last resort of the political and economic elite to defend their position by uniting angry, dissatisfied citizenry against a common foe, preferably outside the borders (although minorities inside the borders will do). I'm frankly terrified of what is about to happen, with nearly every entrenched political power in the world experiencing existential threats from their own citizens in response to global warming, peak oil and the resulting food and fuel price shocks.

But I would still like to believe nukes will be avoided, mostly. The task of uniting one's angry citizens against a common foe doesn't have to entail destroying the entire planet and everything on it.

A third world war would be very difficult, primarily because the conditions that caused the first two WW's are now absent or void.

1) There are no more entangled alliances. There are clear sides, alliances and treaties. Lines are clearly drawn in the sand.

2) Much progress has been made in intergovernmental organizations like UN, Nato and ASEAN. They have more influence on their members and international politics than ever before in history.

3) Speed of information. Miscalculations based on lack of or misinformation is now far less likely. This also makes it easier for ambassadors and officials of countries to instantly get in touch with one another.

4) Economic interdependence. Every country on Earth needs to trade with other countries to survive. And war is just bad for business, in most cases.

5) # of democratic countries. There are more democratic countries now than ever before in history. and if Arab springs are any indication, the numbers will only grow. Historically and statistically speaking, democratic countries are far less likely to go to war against one another.