Poll: What could start a third world war?

[bauke67]

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.

But how will they go to war without oil? Or, if they have some new fuel, why go to war?
How could there be any superpower withouth oil?
Or if both sides still have a little bit left, then there won't be any within a few days, if it's any decent kind of worldwar so still no point in going to war. That'd be wasting fuel.

 

[applesandoranges]

edit

 

[wintercoat]

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.

But how will they go to war without oil? Or, if they have some new fuel, why go to war?
How could there be any superpower withouth oil?
Or if both sides still have a little bit left, then there won't be any within a few days, if it's any decent kind of worldwar so still no point in going to war. That'd be wasting fuel.

You're forgetting one very crucial factor: Governments are stupid. Case in point: war exists in the first place, even though it's not a cost effective method of dominance.

 

[Biodeamon]

4 letters:

S
O
P
A

nobody screws around with the internet

 

[Aur0ra145]

How about social differences between people which transcend today's ideas of borders, countries and treaties.

 

[A.A.K]

Well, I reckon it'll be all 3. May not be instantly, but it'll happen.

Then again, it could be even more than those 3.

I reckon though that America, Africa or the Middle East would be the battle ground.

China can rally too many soldiers too quickly, and the terrain is too much of a hell, and the rest of Asia I reckon will take the side of China (at least initially) to prevent invasion.
So Asia is out.

The Europe has already been contested over.
Russia is - fucking Russia.

The Middle-East is already a common warzone.
If Africa's terrorist problem is dealt with, the middle will be a perfect battle ground.
I don't want to go into why, this will go on forever then... haha

and the world already hates America, if a World War were going to happen, I reckon the majority will attack America at one point or another.

 

[bauke67]

You're forgetting one very crucial factor: Governments are stupid. Case in point: war exists in the first place, even though it's not a cost effective method of dominance.

True, but when it comes to starting a world war, you'd think they'd be a little more cautious.
Also, I'm not exacctly sure how expensive a war is, so I'don't how cost effective it is.

 

[Vegosiux]

North Korea will try to launch another nuke but this it it will get off the ground! And fall in their own territory. That would be something I will love to see.

Cue the headlines: "Heh. Had the silly thing in reverse!"

As for what could cause WW3? An economic reason. But it can wait, really. Maybe a few decades, or centuries.

 

[Imthatguy]

I have to give it to the Serbs for an awesome resistance name, "The Black Hand".

Obligatory 'Kane Lives'

 

[wintercoat]

You're forgetting one very crucial factor: Governments are stupid. Case in point: war exists in the first place, even though it's not a cost effective method of dominance.

True, but when it comes to starting a world war, you'd think they'd be a little more cautious.
Also, I'm not exacctly sure how expensive a war is, so I'don't how cost effective it is.

Wars cost trillions. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a rather small-scale war, and it cost trillions. The gains made form the war are nowhere near the cost, in lives lost, money spent, or resources used. A world war nowadays would cost an unbelievably ludicrous amount. In lives. In resources. In money. In world-wide stability. Even barring the use of nuclear arms, at the end of it all, the winner will be left with scraps no longer worth fighting for.

 

[Torrasque]

Like the last two World Wars, something retarded will start the next World War.
Either some big political figure is killed by someone and the targeted country has complications finding the assailant (because he is defended by his country, or fades into nothingness) or some government faction gets over zealous in some way that makes people freak out and start killing.

 

[Vegosiux]

Like the last two World Wars, something retarded will start the next World War.
Either some big political figure is killed by someone and the targeted country has complications finding the assailant (because he is defended by his country, or fades into nothingness) or some government faction gets over zealous in some way that makes people freak out and start killing.

Well, the killing of Archduke Ferdinand wasn't exactly the reason for WW1, it was just the trigger, a convenient excuse Austria-Hungary and Germany needed.

Countries do not go to war over leaders being killed, really...but thing is, leaders usually do not get killed if the relations between the countries aren't hostile for other reasons in the first place. And it's those other reasons the countries go to war over.

 

[FamoFunk]

Oil or North Korea.

They're major pains in the asses and problems in this world.

 

[dslatch]

The next germany i wonder who that will be.

 

[bauke67]

Wars cost trillions. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a rather small-scale war, and it cost trillions. The gains made form the war are nowhere near the cost, in lives lost, money spent, or resources used. A world war nowadays would cost an unbelievably ludicrous amount. In lives. In resources. In money. In world-wide stability. Even barring the use of nuclear arms, at the end of it all, the winner will be left with scraps no longer worth fighting for.

And that's why any sensible government wouldn't do it.

 

[wintercoat]

Wars cost trillions. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a rather small-scale war, and it cost trillions. The gains made form the war are nowhere near the cost, in lives lost, money spent, or resources used. A world war nowadays would cost an unbelievably ludicrous amount. In lives. In resources. In money. In world-wide stability. Even barring the use of nuclear arms, at the end of it all, the winner will be left with scraps no longer worth fighting for.

And that's why any sensible government wouldn't do it.

If you can name one power country that could be reasonably described as sensible when it comes to resource acquisition, I'll concede the point.

 

[Torrasque]

Like the last two World Wars, something retarded will start the next World War.
Either some big political figure is killed by someone and the targeted country has complications finding the assailant (because he is defended by his country, or fades into nothingness) or some government faction gets over zealous in some way that makes people freak out and start killing.

Well, the killing of Archduke Ferdinand wasn't exactly the reason for WW1, it was just the trigger, a convenient excuse Austria-Hungary and Germany needed.

Countries do not go to war over leaders being killed, really...but thing is, leaders usually do not get killed if the relations between the countries aren't hostile for other reasons in the first place. And it's those other reasons the countries go to war over.

Oh I know Franz wasn't the reason WW1 started, his death was just a great catalyst for the war. Kind of like how the death of a big political figure would be the catalyst for WW3. It doesn't have to be the leader of the country, it could be the Vice President, the ambassador to that country, the leader of a territory, or the leader of the opposition party. Basically, anyone important enough and popular enough for people to freak out when they are killed in some random country or by some random country.

Lets say that a group of officials goes over to Iran to check out their nuclear reactors because they think they are unsafe. In that group, you have the vice president of a country, a few key members of the ruling party of another country, some big name scientists (lets pretend Neil deGrasse Tyson has to go for some reason) and the president of another country. While at the reactor checking shit out, there is a meltdown and everyone dies. Very quickly after the meltdown, a terrorist group says "yeah, we did that shit. WHATS UP" and escapes into the shadows of lets say... the UK. All of the countries affected by the meltdown (directly and indirectly) are going to be "WTF UK, GO GET THOSE GUYS", but for whatever reason, the UK can't find them, or think its nbd. That would make relations between the UK and the affected countries, really shitty. If there was economic strain or political strain or some kind of big time strain (like the Greece problem for instance), then that meltdown might be a big enough catalyst to start WW3.

 

[bauke67]

If you can name one power country that could be reasonably described as sensible when it comes to resource acquisition, I'll concede the point.

I'm not sure wether we count as a "power country", but Dutch politicians wouldn't dare do anything radical or something the EU might disaprove of.(exceptions are there though)