World War III: will there ever be one?

Ever is a long time. I think it's very unlikely in the foreseeable future, though.

If there is, it won't be called WWIII. It'd be too cliche at this point.

Henry Plainview wrote: Vompatti wrote: Not anytime soon. Wars are fought between nations and thanks to the European Union and global capitalism there are not many left.  What? That is not even remotely true.

Ture. I produce false opinions when I'm tied. 

It's just a matter of time (but I hope it will be a long time) .

Count on it.  In our lifetime.

yanch wrote: Probably yes. Unfortunately, as long as ideology is so divisive around the world and there is the insistence that one ideology is "better" than others, the potential for a massive war is possible.

I have trouble believing that you honestly believe all ideas are equal.

The idea of a global conflict happening nowadays seems rather dubious. It would need an open opposition between nations or alliances of nations able to find a reason to fight against each other.

In fact, I have some "scenarios" about it, but I'm not sure everyone would see my theories about the separation of European Union, a war between Russia and a European-Mediterranean union including Turkey, a Pan-Arabic democratical federation, an undercover economical war between China and India becoming an open conflict... as very serious.

Probably not, although if there were, it wont be the kind of conflict we feared throughout the cold war, and it will never be referred to by our leaders as a 'world war'

Such terms are slowly being erased from the 'news speak' dictionary, along with 'economic depression'

As H.G Wells wrote in his book "The New World Order" the only way to avoid another world war is to bring the world under a system of global governance, with one world bank, one language, one religion, one army. He wrote "many will oppose the new world order, and will die protesting it" If there was a shred of truth in Wells' vision of the future, the one world army (NATO?) will actually be in a constant state of war, with countries who don't want to sign up to global governance. Peace through the simple stamping out of all those who oppose you.

^ I didn't say I was one of those who do.  In terms of the actual destruction accomplished, certainly not.  But then it depends on what you include in the cold war, what happened in Cambodia for instance was communism vs. capitalism to a certain extent.  It had genocide.  What more can you want?  The pursuit and escalation of nukeular (nuclear to most of us) weapons hasn't benefited any one other than those who made money off of producing them.  The waste products from all of that will be a danger to humanity for a long time to come even if you dismantle all the weapons.



Perhaps you over-estimate the likelihood of the world ever really being made an orderly place?

On a lighter note:



Edited by Slartibartfast - September 17 2011 at 08:52

 

Slartibartfast wrote: Cambodia for instance was communism vs. capitalism to a certain extent.  It had genocide.  What more can you want?

Terrible things happening in Cambodia does not imply "world war".
  The pursuit and escalation of nukeular (nuclear to most of us) weapons hasn't benefited any one other than those

who made money off of producing them.  The waste products from all of that will be a danger to humanity for a long time to come even if you dismantle all the weapons.

Nuclear weapons are overrated.

Perhaps you over-estimate the likelihood of the world ever really being made an orderly place?

Where did I say that I thought that would ever happen?