My guess is the Palestine/Zionism conflict. Especially considering how America got itself involved.
Poll: What could start a third world war?
- Thread starter scarecrow350
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To quote:
The next truly global war, if it happens because it's not a dead cert, will be about economics. Technically that is what all the other world wars have been about, underneath. Eventually China's economy will begin to level out as the rest of the world either runs out of money or starts making their own stuff again. This will leave it in a perilous situation of having to either bring its own economy under a bit more regulation, in order to prevent mass disorder, or invade some shit, as totalitarian states always do in times of crisis.President Bill Clinton said:
fukin aye...SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
ot: wheres the option for some muslim nation pisses of Israel?
And the idea of American consumerism stopping is utterly laughable. China is in the position it's in because they were able to exploit the consumer needs and wants of the Americans (and all 'developed' countries). Yes China would economically collapse IF American consumerism stop but that is a massive, and utterly unlikely IF.wintercoat said:
If it were about oil, it'd just be everyone against whatever country still has some left.
If that's a world war, then lots of countries going to afghanistan is a world war.
And if less developed countries were to revolt somehow(I don't see what they'd do), they wouldn't be very succesful, one could hardly call it a war.
So one country invading another would make most sense.
If, per example, Japan went crazy and invaded the US then all the other western countries would fight Japan. Still not a very long, I imagne, but more of a fight then the other scenarios.
Maybe if for some reason the UN split into two groups that that would cause a real world war.
If that's a world war, then lots of countries going to afghanistan is a world war.
And if less developed countries were to revolt somehow(I don't see what they'd do), they wouldn't be very succesful, one could hardly call it a war.
So one country invading another would make most sense.
If, per example, Japan went crazy and invaded the US then all the other western countries would fight Japan. Still not a very long, I imagne, but more of a fight then the other scenarios.
Maybe if for some reason the UN split into two groups that that would cause a real world war.
Perhaps, it's probably the wrong word to use. Greece are putting up one hell of a fight against Germany's desire to own all of Europe which I hope Italy and Spain do too. The Euro is a joke currency and was never going to work especially with Angela Merkal being such a tyrant. :/rayen020 said:
Apologies for double post.
Actually, by the time oil becomes scarce enough to go to war over, the wells in the Middle East would have long been dried up and stored away, along with all of the other large wells. It'll be superpowers vs superpowers, fighting over each other's reserves, rather than everyone fighting over scraps of land.bauke67 said:
yeah, i actually did know that. However i list it that way because i figure even though it's only been a ceasefire for the past fifty years, popular history will remember it as two seperate wars.Nouw said:Don't you mean resumerayen020 said:
None of the above.
What hugely reduced the possibility of a World War is what is the big boogy man of many activists: GLOBALISATION
In other words, don't shit in your own back yard, and with everyone trading and depending on each other we all are in the same back yard. Neither America nor any European country isn't going to declare war on China... not while that will risk losing all their cheap but high quality t-shorts, iPods and Xbox video game consoles.
And china isn't going to attack it's customers when it is betting so rich off them buying their goods!
The path to war begins with sanctions or when there is otherwise no trade. Then they don't fear the disruption that comes from interruption in co-operation.
Countries are divided by geography and culture but trade brings people together in co-operation.
1: A shortage of oil is going to affect us all equally, this will make oil more valuable this will be more relevant to oil producing countries. This is not to secure their own oil supply, this is to GET RICH off selling the more valuable oil.
But you won't be able to sell this oil if every country in the world knows you stole the land it lies beneath, they will impose sanctions or use military force to return it to its rightful owners. Either way the oil WILL end up on the open market and sold for it's price. The question is who gets the money. Iraq had a lack of oil and invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, but that started a war to remove them from the land they took. When America invaded Iraq it was not for oil, it had comparatively little and the new democratic Iraq controls that oil so I'll hear none of that conspiracy theory.
(America went into Iraq for many bad reasons but oil wasn't one of them. It was primarily they were spoiling for a fight with Saddam and how they unscrupulously believed the lies of Saddam's enemies who lied about his weapons of mass destruction. They admit to this, they say they lied about Saddam's WMDs and are proud they did as they believed he was an evil man who must be removed from power, and america could only do that fearing WMDs)
In WWII, you could say Japan's involvement was caused by oil, America placed sanctions on Japan refusing to sell oil to them so Japan invaded Philippines and wider islands of Malay peninsula and Pacific to secure their oil. But that was because they were denied the oil that they could afford.
2: one country invading another is not going to lead to a cascade in conflict like in the First World War, as for one EVERY military planner and politicians now realises the futility of starting a huge war over a small border conflict and they have other methods of persuasion, like sanctions.
3. less developed countries are far too divided between themselves and even within themselves to rise up against richer countries, even if they could the rich countries would unite in part or in whole against any country that does. For example poor countries like Afghanistan starting a religious war of training armies of terrorists to carry out attacks like 9/11. Now they are struggling to survive only ever able to fight a low intensity but persistent guerilla war.
What hugely reduced the possibility of a World War is what is the big boogy man of many activists: GLOBALISATION
In other words, don't shit in your own back yard, and with everyone trading and depending on each other we all are in the same back yard. Neither America nor any European country isn't going to declare war on China... not while that will risk losing all their cheap but high quality t-shorts, iPods and Xbox video game consoles.
And china isn't going to attack it's customers when it is betting so rich off them buying their goods!
The path to war begins with sanctions or when there is otherwise no trade. Then they don't fear the disruption that comes from interruption in co-operation.
Countries are divided by geography and culture but trade brings people together in co-operation.
1: A shortage of oil is going to affect us all equally, this will make oil more valuable this will be more relevant to oil producing countries. This is not to secure their own oil supply, this is to GET RICH off selling the more valuable oil.
But you won't be able to sell this oil if every country in the world knows you stole the land it lies beneath, they will impose sanctions or use military force to return it to its rightful owners. Either way the oil WILL end up on the open market and sold for it's price. The question is who gets the money. Iraq had a lack of oil and invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, but that started a war to remove them from the land they took. When America invaded Iraq it was not for oil, it had comparatively little and the new democratic Iraq controls that oil so I'll hear none of that conspiracy theory.
(America went into Iraq for many bad reasons but oil wasn't one of them. It was primarily they were spoiling for a fight with Saddam and how they unscrupulously believed the lies of Saddam's enemies who lied about his weapons of mass destruction. They admit to this, they say they lied about Saddam's WMDs and are proud they did as they believed he was an evil man who must be removed from power, and america could only do that fearing WMDs)
In WWII, you could say Japan's involvement was caused by oil, America placed sanctions on Japan refusing to sell oil to them so Japan invaded Philippines and wider islands of Malay peninsula and Pacific to secure their oil. But that was because they were denied the oil that they could afford.
2: one country invading another is not going to lead to a cascade in conflict like in the First World War, as for one EVERY military planner and politicians now realises the futility of starting a huge war over a small border conflict and they have other methods of persuasion, like sanctions.
3. less developed countries are far too divided between themselves and even within themselves to rise up against richer countries, even if they could the rich countries would unite in part or in whole against any country that does. For example poor countries like Afghanistan starting a religious war of training armies of terrorists to carry out attacks like 9/11. Now they are struggling to survive only ever able to fight a low intensity but persistent guerilla war.
Lack of oil. But what interests me more, is what it will be fought with. Nukes? Infantry?
Well. Whatever it is, the next war will be fought with sticks and stones... :/
Well. Whatever it is, the next war will be fought with sticks and stones... :/
At this point, the possibility of a world war is virtually zero. This is the case because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons since the end of WWII. At the start of WWI and WWII, the aggressors couldn't clearly estimate the costs of war or the spoils of winning. In the age of nuclear weapons, it's a lot easier to estimate what you'll lose by initiating conflict (your capitol city, most populated cities, and strategically important cities). No one wants to lose their major cities. So...I vote 'None of the Above.'
Either Pakistan/India (almost happened in 2001/2002), North Korea/South Korea (but at this point, even China is tired of North Korea's shit), or China/Taiwan (the US REALLY likes Taiwan, and China REALLY hates that Taiwan still exists). The only situation where the US would face Russia is the last, and it is a pretty slim chance. Russia doesn't want war with the US, the 50 years of the Cold War proved that.
That is true sadly. Hopefully schools get it right >_<.rayen020 said:yeah, i actually did know that. However i list it that way because i figure even though it's only been a ceasefire for the past fifty years, popular history will remember it as two seperate wars.Nouw said:Don't you mean resumerayen020 said: