World war III

Blacksword wrote: crimhead wrote: It might start when Israel goes after Iran. 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.

 

crimson87 wrote: 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???

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...

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. 

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.

Edited by npjnpj - April 29 2009 at 02:05

TGM: Orb wrote: 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.

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?

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.

StyLaZyn wrote: crimson87 wrote: 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??? Too many people? What we need is a good pandemic.

The group that is pulling the planets strings is working on that.

What I am hoping for is that, if it comes, there is no further damage to the environment.

Blacksword wrote: crimhead wrote: It might start when Israel goes after Iran. 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.

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.


Edited by birdwithteeth11 - April 28 2009 at 13:20