I don't think a world war could happen again, nukes and other pieces of modern warfare hardware are too big a deterrent to standard ground troops. Thankfully, those days are over, replaced by the threat of asymmetrical warfare, in which a much weaker force fights with "dirty" tactics.
Poll: What could start a third world war?
- Thread starter scarecrow350
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, rather surprisingly, France was on the backfoot for most of the war... pretty much until the third phase from 1420-ish onwards. IMO the Burgundians were idiots...Noswad said:
The first three, not really 'wars' per se, and the result of the War of Spanish Succession is somewhat debatable with regard to 'winners'. From a purely French perspective, it was a draw, though the background of the Battle of Almansa never fails to amuse.TheIronRuler said:
While talking about France... the Wars of the First Five Coalitions & American Revolutionary War (a massive reason America won was because the French kept Britain occupied far from New England) are the standout 'decisive' war victories.
Yeah, messed that up, meant to say invaded, not conquered. Thanks for correcting.HouseOfSyn said:
Though if we're getting detailed, France got involved because they had an alliance with Russia, who got involved on behalf of Serbia, and Britain, who had no alliance with France, got involved when Germany marched through Belgium, who we did have an alliance with.
Though it's generally regarded that we would of happily igorned the Belgian alliance if we hadn't wanted a chance to attack Germany, since Germany and Britain were major rivals on the world stage.
Yes! It's seems almost bizarre that Great Britain had an alliance with Belgium but that friendship gave them a foot-hold on the continent for a war that was inevitable.orangeban said:
The arms race (which gave us the machine gun, the aeroplane, the dreadnought etc) in the early part of the century was really one of the reasons most of Europe was ready and seemingly eager to kill on such an industrial level.
The end of World War 1 also outlined what would happen in the Middle East for the last 100 years and perhaps the next 100.
Good talk. I love history.
Yay for history! Good talk indeed.HouseOfSyn said:
And I don't know the details of the Belgium alliance, but I think it was a treaty declaring that Belgium shall always be neutral and the signers of the treaty shall protect Belgium's neutrality. I think all of the big powers signed it, but no-one really took it seriously, especially not 100 years (I think it's that long) after it was signed.
In 1997, I gave a presentation to my social studies class about the threat of global terrorism and the danger in responding to it by invading harboring countries, toppling them, and leaving a power vacuum in which bin Laden's vision of an Islamic United States could come to fruition. The balance of power shifts, tensions mount, wah baam- WWIII.
Taking longer than I thought. Still coming.
Taking longer than I thought. Still coming.
WW1- Franz Ferdinand shot, everyone starts trying to scare the other shitless, neutral country is invaded to get to France.Th3Ch33s3Cak3 said:
WW2- Hitler demands tons of stuff, breaks some treaties, then a neutral country is invaded to get to France.
WW3- A world power bombs another? Someone has a booboo when playing with nukes? Russia invades everyone and declares that they were communist all along?
I don't see another World War happening again, really... although I can imagine a nuclear holocaust.
I believe that WWIII will most likely be started by a lack of resources. Oil comes to mind first, but water might end up being more important if the current trends in environmental and climate change continue. Land could be an issue if countries, particularly in the far east, continue to experience growing populations. For that matter, if current economic trends continue, wars might be fought over money, and debt of that money.
Countries don't just invade each other, there's always a reason, with the current geo-political climate that would most likely be a lack of resources.
Countries don't just invade each other, there's always a reason, with the current geo-political climate that would most likely be a lack of resources.
This, or Iran/North Korea doing something stupid like making long ranged nuclear missiles then waving them around like they're 10 years old experiencing alcohol for the first time (and it's just a shandy, in comparison to the big boys alcohol).Durgiun said: