World war III
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=57486
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 04:26
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: World war III
Posted By: crimson87
Subject: World war III
Date Posted: April 27 2009 at 20:56
|
Do you think a new world war will start in the following years?? Me and my classmates in college were having a discussion about this issue with our macroeconomics professor and he said that a war is "needed" because mankind is suffering from stagnation and after the wars there are several technological innovations , his main concern was the global food supply and land productivity. I agree that mankind will face a global scale war in less than 20 years. What's your opinion about it???
|
Replies:
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: April 27 2009 at 21:04
|
I Don't think WWIII will happen in the next twenty years but I'm sure we'll be involved in wars during that time. Though how big a war I don't know.I've watched many interesting documentary's about how war is profiteering and how we can benefit from them. But depending on current and future elections I'm sure it wont be as bad as predticted. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: April 27 2009 at 21:17
The same thing was said prior to World War I. Every idealist was jolly and chipper about a rejuvenating war that would enliven national spirits and undo the staid bourgeois placidity. Then the killing started. As for the innovations, they tend to come about accidentally (microwave from radar, anyone?) or because they're linked to killing machines. Is this really "needed"? |
crimson87 wrote:Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 27 2009 at 21:45
| I'm amazed your teacher would say such a thing. |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 27 2009 at 21:47
Both WW1 and its completely predictable offspring WW2 were clashes between empires and resolved ultimately nothing . Europe's borders today are eerily similar to 1918 and yet millions died for nothing ! With the "Cold" war, the superpowers simply couldn't pull the trigger as it would have been apocalyptic. So what's left? Regional conflicts that have been the norm since 1945 (where more millions have died) but nothing can become global. In my opinion having studied this for 40 years or so, the Pakistan vs India scenario has always been perilous and always will be. If there is another major confrontation that will involve nukes, it will be there. There is no other nuclear country anywhere as dangerous, unpredictable and volatile as Pakistan (and to a lesser degree India).  ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: April 27 2009 at 23:37
|
Interesting. My friends and I were discussing a week or so ago if the conditions and benefits were right for a revolution in light of the recent economic crisis. I have clearly mixed feelings about. I was somewhat playing Devil's Advocate by saying a Global Economic Depression would perhaps be a good thing for us (when I said "us" I meant Americans in general.) I have thoughts that are somewhat inspired by Marx, in that it seems to me that we're being separated too much from much feeling of worth in our lives by our current society, and that perhaps a depression would shock us back into caring for things that matter. The reason I specified that it be global is that if it were only in the USA, the "western ethos" of credit, debt, no-boundaries capitalism, and malaise would still be intact in other countries, plus the added detriment of the USA being set back while other countries advance technologically, which would have negative consequences in the long run for my country, perhaps. In retrospect, it wouldn't really matter because it seems an economic crisis for the US = an economic crisis for the whole world. Clearly, I'm pretty insane. But I should ask: is the position society is in now good or bad? And if bad, how do we fix that? I think we have warped values brought on by literally living through machines. But is that just a growing pain that will eventually be overcome by technological advance, or is it like a cancer that won't get better, but must be killed? I don't know. Part of it wants me to be one way, and another part the other way. I am so restless. I almost want something crazy to happen just to break the monotony. And for world war 3? Good luck trying to conscript me! Fight a war for rich old men sitting on the sidelines? Don't make me laugh. Dying is repugnant, but being forced to kill is even more repugnant. Interestingly, I'm toying with the impulse that killing of my own volition is less repugnant (say, in a revolution...killing those in power, for example). Somehow, I care less. I'm so post-modern. I guess this is what happens when all moral philosophy is unfulfilling and religion is hilariously soul-crushing. What was I talking about again? ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: limeyrob
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 04:21
| As mankind is so deadset on destroying the planet I don't another war would matter one way or the other. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 04:25
If we have another it will likely be as a consequence of that. War over food or water most likely. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 11:14
| I think a global conflict is inevitable. Probably over resources, but under the disguise of fighting against terror. |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 12:06
| Whatever. I'm only going to participate as a helpless civilian. |
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 12:28
| It might start when Israel goes after Iran. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 12:47
I think that's the most likely scenario. If it reaches crisis point with Irans nuclear program, Israel wont wait for a green light from Washington either. |
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 12:57
I am hoping if that happens China will sit back and not go after us. They need us as much as we need them. Russia on the other hand has little to lose in all of this. |
Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 13:17
I agree. Remember what they did back in the early 80s when Iraq decided to build a nuclear plant. If World War III ever does happen in my lifetime, I really don't see how it could evolve/devolve (depending on what you think is more appropriate) into a total war like the first two world wars. Because if that happened, it would mean the countries involved would be responsible for a nuclear winter and destroying all life on Earth. With nukes as a major player, I just don't see how a global war between nation-states could ever occur again. As for a war between my country and Russia, I'll be surprised if one doesn't happen within the next 10-15 years since Putin is a bit....off his rocker. ------------- 
|
Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 13:20
Basically this. But there is that whole situation over Taiwan...  -------------
|
Posted By: limeyrob
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 13:22
| What I am hoping for is that, if it comes, there is no further damage to the environment. |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 13:24
Too many people? What we need is a good pandemic.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 13:32
The group that is pulling the planets strings is working on that. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 13:35
Georgia is a big flash point too. Russia is very jittery over Georgias NATO aspirations, and what they see as NATO's ever creeping eastward. Americas plans to station its missile defence shield in Czech republic, is also a concern, as is Russias potential stranglehold on Europes gas supplies. Global flashpoints, as I see it: Isreal/Iran - High risk Pakistan/USA (NATO) - Moderate risk Pakistan/India - Moderate risk China/Taiwan/USA (NATO) - Moderate Risk North Korea/USA (NATO) - Moderate risk Russia/USA (NATO) - Moderate/High risk (the stakes are so high, but it's possible. Depends who's in the Whitehouse and who's in the Kremlin) |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 14:22
|
Couldn't you argue that the "War on Terror" can be seen as a WW3 of sorts? Okay, on one side you don't really have any alliance of countries as much as a bunch of guerilla groups who might not even be affliated technically, but I clearly remember reading such an argument. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 14:33
|
Doubt it. Most likely thing along those lines, I think, is that terrorists get hold of nuclear weapons and a (probably US or Israeli, since they'd be targeted) response at maybe-not-quite-the-right-people could provoke China into intervening. Still, I think it'd be relatively contained. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 14:49
Depends on what the Chinese's stake in it. Are there any terrorist groups right now affliated with China who would have a motivation to threaten with a nuclear strike? ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 15:59
Putin may be off his rocker but so was Andropov, Brezhnev and Ole Uncle Joe ! And nothing happened! Outside of an accident , as portrayed in Failsafe or War Games is likelier than a yelling argument going ballistic. Again India and Pakistan both hold serious grudges and they are NOT stable . ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: Leningrad
Date Posted: April 28 2009 at 18:25
yes, both the invasion of finland and the occupation of eastern europe were aggressions of no sort
|
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 29 2009 at 00:08
Talking World War . Number 3 , precisely nuclear.  ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: April 29 2009 at 02:04
|
As armament and war are centered on profit, and that particular avenue of income dried up after the fall of the Eastern Block, something has to replace them.
The build up of the Muslim nations as a credible target is a process that everyone can watch on a daily basis.
I think it's almost inevitable, but it won't take the blatant course of one of our previous 'biggies', this will be a more disguised effort. War On Terror is a perfect vehicle for this.
Halliburton, anyone?
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 29 2009 at 07:25
|
North Korea will need dealing with at some point. They are now threatening to carry out more missile tests, if the UN doesn't apologise for condeming its last one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8024235.stm - Now, now children, play nicely... |
Posted By: Canprog
Date Posted: April 30 2009 at 21:47
| I think the melting of the arctic sea ice will be the next big war. This is a big one because not only does it see many countries involved, primarily: Canada, Denmark, Norway. It also showcasses two world super powers: Russia and U.S. No one knows the extent of wealth below the ice. i.e. Gold, diamonds, other minerals but more importantly Oil. As a world shortage looms countries like the U.S. need to ease their dependance on countries such as Saudi Arabia. It will be interesting to watch this one unfold. |
Posted By: weetabix
Date Posted: May 01 2009 at 02:27
|
The best way to win WW3 is not start it, Dwight D. Eisenhauer. I bet if the Yankee Doodles vote in Jeb Bush, then there is money to made in a small, but violent conflict. At first I thought this was a post about the Pre-punk band Third World War. "I'd rather cut cane for Castro".
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: May 04 2009 at 01:38
While what he says is true...to say it is NEEDED. That's a pretty hard line opinion. While a lot of good, (ESPECIALLY in the technology sector) came out of WWI and II they were not worth it. I read a response earlier saying a lot of people are idealistic, and even happy about, WWI until it happened.... War is not the same anymore since WWI. It was never a good thing, but war was always limited...Especially in the post Napolean days. War was a foreign thing...a small scale war fought over seas over colonies. However, that all changed with WWI. While good may come out of it, I would NEVER say a war is needed...especially World War 3. To quote Einstein, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." We now have the technology to wipe out the planet... |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: May 04 2009 at 11:59
I wouldn't have thought it would have been the terrorist groups which received, directly, the brunt of the response - instead, some nation which was loosely associated with them. I'd have assumed that China would rather be unhappy with perceived US imperialism or maybe threatening Chinese interests in said nation. |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: May 04 2009 at 13:39
I'd say it's more likely to start if Israel, the US, and the rest of the world don't do something about Iran soon. "Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," ~ Iranian "president" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The official policy of Iran being to bring about the end of days is what concerns me. -------------  Time always wins. |
Posted By: why-do-i-bother
Date Posted: May 06 2009 at 17:33
|
There is a common thought, that the war after the next world war will be fought using bows and arrows.
That'll teach me not to read all the posts before i open my big keyboard hand......see 3 above.
|