Where do you think WW3 will start?

[Sougo]

Isn't a large part of the world already at war?

America and Allies busy running troops and drones up and down some third world counties.

UN bombing Libya.

Several Arab countries facing massive uprisings.

The 2 Koreas enjoying some skirmishes and threats.

Sudan getting ready to divide itself and start a war between North and South.

Somalia, facing massive internal turmoil and sending more ppl fleeing to the seas for piracy.

Israel and Palestine - the never-ending war.

The inevitable strike of Israel/America on Iran still looming ahead.

Several other egs. Heck, even the Canadians had a riot.

It may not be a World War, but it is a World at war.

I don't mean to imply it directly towards you but I find this kind of thinking a little naive. To equate the small scale fighting around the world to almost suggest we're in a globe of violence and a world at war... problem is this sort of fighting has always been going on throughout history. While it's not perfect and the 90's were better, post cold war has probably been the most peaceful era in human civilization history, or at the very least it is per capita. It's pretty much been all guerrilla warfare, either advanced armies fighting under-equipped insurgents or militia's wiping out unwanted residents. Real wars where two trained professional armies go at it with both expecting to win just doesn't really happen anymore.

I agree that these cases don't fit in with our classic definition of 'war.' However the chances of seeing an actual encounter like that are pretty slim. Because of technology and media, most sides already have a reasonable estimate of the others power, and so noone really wants to commit forces into difficult battles.

Since the demonstration of the power of nuclear weapons, it is highly unlikely that any 2 superpowers are going to engage in an actual war, and the presence of the UN will probably see to that any 'stepping out of line' by weaker countries will stamp out the cause of disturbances (e.g. Libya these days).

As for WW3, I think its pretty safe to assume that thats not happening until at least one of the more significant minerals gets depleted. Although I don't think wars will be fought for oil, they might take place for water. Again fairly well into the future ... perhaps not in our lifetimes.

 

[Pierce Graham]

All that was done not to help others, but to defend the wallets of the rich in Wall Street. Let's be honest. Example,what's happening in Libya. The US and NATO aren't helping the Libyan people. They're making sure the oil supply is secured. They're not helping people in Syria. Or in Yemen. Or in any other Arab country. Why? Not enough oil for them to care. The US sets up dictatorships wherever they feel like, they completely ignore UN law and do whatever they please. They're not the glorious defenders of democracy and freedom they want the world to believe they are. They're people, just as evil and corruptible as anyone else.

 

[Rainforce]

While not knowing about the Treaty of Versailles and how it influenced the political structure in Europe to the point of war breaking out is acceptable, insisting on being an ignorant jackass after being enlightened is not.

It's the same as me making fun of the American war of Independence against the English, saying it was obviously The fault of Christopher Columbus and the Conquistadors for re-discovering the Americas in the first place.

Well, the concept of "being at fault" is kinda pointless the second you realize that you can justify everything with anything (due to linear causality). so yeah, from a certain point of perspective you could say it's all Columbus fault (it is even logically true, considering all factors), it just depends on where you draw the line.
(although I personally wouldnt put it that way)

 

[Lionsfan]

First two were Germany's fault.....I feel good putting my money on them for a third round.

Uhh, no. Germany did not start World War 1, they just got the shortest possible end of the stick in it. The whole of Europe started world war 1, and had the Treaty of Versailles not been so vicious and had the whole of Europe accepted that they had all been twats (not something countries generally do), Germany would not have started World War 2.

Well they didn't start it, but they certainly didn't help matters. Because after Austria-Hungary's Duke was assassinated in Serbia they (with Ally Germany's encouragement/support) offered an ultimatum towards the Serbs which basically would end in an invasion/total surrender. Because the Russian Empire was allied with the Serbs (and didn't want anybody else with influence in the Balkans) they told Austria-Hungary to fuck right off and mobilized their forces, Germany did the same with theirs. It was then that France decided to jump in on the Dick-Measuring and mobilized their forces too. Germany declared war on Russia on August 1st.

So in a way Germany is to blame for starting WWI, however thanks to countless Alliances which had been made they weren't the only ones, but they weren't victims either. And they did get the unfair blame in the Versailles Treaty which didn't help matters at all, which led to Germany being angry, which led to a stronger central government, which led to the rise of the Nazi Party, which led to etc. etc. we get the point. Bu

 

[Sean951]

All that was done not to help others, but to defend the wallets of the rich in Wall Street. Let's be honest. Example,what's happening in Libya. The US and NATO aren't helping the Libyan people. They're making sure the oil supply is secured. They're not helping people in Syria. Or in Yemen. Or in any other Arab country. Why? Not enough oil for them to care. The US sets up dictatorships wherever they feel like, they completely ignore UN law and do whatever they please. They're not the glorious defenders of democracy and freedom they want the world to believe they are. They're people, just as evil and corruptible as anyone else.

No, Libya just had the most extreme example, and with NATO committed, who else would join? China and Russia are against UN intervention in Libya, and with full veto, they could stop anything to do with Syria or Yemen. Not to mention Libya was in a full uprising, not just riots. I suppose Yemen could qualify as an uprising, but no where near the scale of Libya.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Not.

Why? The world's one big economic clusterfuck, sort of like the Aristocrats but with money and countries. Too many important economic links for countries to really want to fuck each other up. Why do you think the issues with Tibet haven't been solved yet? No important country wants to do something, as everyone is pretty much China's economic butt-buddy.

 

[Pierce Graham]

My point exactly. Russia and China Veto'd UN intervention in Libya, so the US goes and drags NATO into it. Why did they bother asking? Why not just start dropping bombs on them and get it over with.(Also, if the US thinks we're stupid enough to believe that only 9 civilians have been killed so far, I feel insulted. Over 4000 bombing runs=hundreds of dead innocents.) And don't tell me people aren't dying in Syria. Assad's tanks and troops are rolling through towns. But, no oil, so no help for the innocent people.

 

[Lord Kloo]

It'll probably be something to do with a resource shortage as countries will try to enforce supplies (probably oil but food shortages could occur) so the wars will likely start in the oil rich countries (or they already have). The countries with the biggest need will be the first to fire so the USA, China, India and the other giants..

Another point is that this war would start slowly with proxy fighting like in the Cold War in the Middle East and Africa, maybe Asia with the biggest countries backing their allies.. Later though as sides become more desperate for resources it will escalate and no matter what military power any country currently holds, no matter how powerful the big boys are you can expect people to not be happy with occupations and bigger countries taking their resources. Eventually the whole result (assuming no-one goes nuclear) is a destroyed world with social, economic and political crash globally resulting in the greatest age of darkness to be compared to the fall of Rome in Europe or the collapse and defeat of the Nazi regime in germany (1945)..

In essence no-one will be better off due to this war.. it will only take us back several steps..

 

[Sean951]

My point exactly. Russia and China Veto'd UN intervention in Libya, so the US goes and drags NATO into it. Why did they bother asking? Why not just start dropping bombs on them and get it over with.(Also, if the US thinks we're stupid enough to believe that only 9 civilians have been killed so far, I feel insulted. Over 4000 bombing runs=hundreds of dead innocents.) And don't tell me people aren't dying in Syria. Assad's tanks and troops are rolling through towns. But, no oil, so no help for the innocent people.

Current Events failure. Russia and China abstained from voting, and the UN put NATO in charge. The US agreed to spearhead the initial push, but is currently on refueling missions, AWAC support, and Predator Drones.

Once again, yes Syria is having a major crackdown, but there isn't a revolt like we saw in Libya, where they took over towns and set up a separate government asking for UN/US support. Even then, it wasn't until the Arab League took up a vote to ask for intervention that anything happened. Has any other country gone to these lengths? Nope.

 

[Laurie Barnes]

The Internet. Eventually all these hacking attacks will cross a line.

Damnit NINJA!

 

[Sean951]

It'll probably be something to do with a resource shortage as countries will try to enforce supplies (probably oil but food shortages could occur) so the wars will likely start in the oil rich countries (or they already have). The countries with the biggest need will be the first to fire so the USA, China, India and the other giants..

Another point is that this war would start slowly with proxy fighting like in the Cold War in the Middle East and Africa, maybe Asia with the biggest countries backing their allies.. Later though as sides become more desperate for resources it will escalate and no matter what military power any country currently holds, no matter how powerful the big boys are you can expect people to not be happy with occupations and bigger countries taking their resources. Eventually the whole result (assuming no-one goes nuclear) is a destroyed world with social, economic and political crash globally resulting in the greatest age of darkness to be compared to the fall of Rome in Europe or the collapse and defeat of the Nazi regime in germany (1945)..

In essence no-one will be better off due to this war.. it will only take us back several steps..

The U.S. is a net exporter of food and 40% of our oil comes from domestic supplies. IN the event of an emergency, we have enough oil stored for about 6 months, and we have yet to tap into some known oil fields off shore and in place such as ANWR. For the most part, all of American's needs are met by domestic supplies. Wants are another story, we get those from poor people.

 

[Pierce Graham]

I see, so because Syria hasn't murdered a pre-requisite number people, we do nothing? No. It wouldn't matter if Hitler himself ran a country, and he murdered millions of people, no oil= no help. (After all, the US did nothing about Hitler until HE declared war on them, and they probably would have done nothing had he not.) And I take note that the US waited a while before doing anything about Libya, likely in hopes that the rebels would lose and they could go back to buying Gaddafi's oil.
Luckily, the world has started to open it's eyes and cast off the century of American propaganda. And not a moment too soon.

 

[Sean951]

I see, so because Syria hasn't murdered a pre-requisite number people, we do nothing? No. It wouldn't matter if Hitler himself ran a country, and he murdered millions of people, no oil= no help. (After all, the US did nothing about Hitler until HE declared war on them, and they probably would have done nothing had he not.) And I take note that the US waited a while before doing anything about Libya, likely in hopes that the rebels would lose and they could go back to buying Gaddafi's oil.
Luckily, the world has started to open it's eyes and cast off the century of American propaganda. And not a moment too soon.

We had only been buying oil from Libya for a few years.

Also, Roosevelt had wanted to get into the war from the beginning, however America was in an isolationist period, and wanted nothing to do with Europe, let alone a costly war. Then Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, which led America to declare war on Japan and Germany. Hitler was furious about it since he wanted to keep the US out of it while he conquered Europe.

Also, I never said Syria hadn't killed enough people, I said they hadn't truly revolted in an armed rebellion, setting up a ruling panel that then asked for UN support, alongside the Arab League. The West has learned not to get involved in the Middle East unless they explicitly ask us to.

 

[CleverCover]

I'm waiting for India and Pakistan to just decide to screw it and both try to destroy each other at the same time. Either that or Israel vs Palestine.

It just takes one stray bullet or one moron with a thirst for fighting...and BOOOM!

 

[DesiPrinceX09]

It's a known fact that since the end of WW2 the US has done their best to alienate the entire world. They don't care about other people's cultures, ideals, or values, they just walk into any country, throw down their flags and impose their values. The world won't stand their cocky strutting for much longer.
Incidentally, I hope I don't receive a warning for this post. "Sounding like a terrorist." What, because I don't like the US I'm automatically a terrorist? Guess that make most people on Earth terrorists then. Having a different opinion makes you an evil terrorist... very American way of thinking.

Yeah, that's generally how it goes. If you say stuff like that in front of certain people here they will think that you "want the terrorists to win". I am not a huge fan of America either and I am Muslim so I am a terrorist and Al-Quaeda member by default just for disagreeing with an American (but still, there are great people here despite the large amount of idiots).

OT: This is all hypothetical thinking right? I really nope everyone here is not seriously thinking there will be a WW3 guarantee. I wish there were no more wars...Because war (and not religion) is the worst thing that mankind has created. But hey, God gave us free will and he promised not to interfere with choices we make with our free will, but unfortunately...this is the world we have created; full of violence, greed, lust, and hatred.

I guess I'll play along. If there is a WWIII, then nukes (or at least the threat of launching them) and oil will definitely be a key ingredient in the conflicts. Many nations that have nuclear power will be standing by with their finger on a button that launches nukes and whoever gets trigger happy will decide what direction the war will go.

 

[Pierce Graham]

The US never declared war on Nazi Germany. It was Germany that declared war on them. They didn't want to get involved, because there was no profit to be made in helping Europe. There was money to be made in selling war materials to the Allies, but that was all they were willing to do. Many historians agree that had Hitler not declared war on the US, the US would never have gone to war with them. And I believe that.
And it's not like the US hasn't gone to war with countries where they had absolutely no business (i.e Vietnam, Korea,etc, where they only went to prevent the spread of Communism, which means to defend the rich 1% of society. And they failed.)

 

[Sean951]

It's a known fact that since the end of WW2 the US has done their best to alienate the entire world. They don't care about other people's cultures, ideals, or values, they just walk into any country, throw down their flags and impose their values. The world won't stand their cocky strutting for much longer.
Incidentally, I hope I don't receive a warning for this post. "Sounding like a terrorist." What, because I don't like the US I'm automatically a terrorist? Guess that make most people on Earth terrorists then. Having a different opinion makes you an evil terrorist... very American way of thinking.

Yeah, that's generally how it goes. If you say stuff like that in front of certain people here they will think that you "want the terrorists to win". I am not a huge fan of America either and I am Muslim so I am a terrorist and Al-Quaeda member by default just for disagreeing with an American (but still, there are great people here despite the large amount of idiots).

OT: This is all hypothetical thinking right? I really nope everyone here is not seriously thinking there will be a WW3 guarantee. I wish there were no more wars...Because war (and not religion) is the worst thing that mankind has created. But hey, God gave us free will and he promised not to interfere with choices we make with our free will, but unfortunately...this is the world we have created; full of violence, greed, lust, and hatred.

I guess I'll play along. If there is a WWIII, then nukes (or at least the threat of launching them) and oil will definitely be a key ingredient in the conflicts. Many nations that have nuclear power will be standing by with their finger on a button that launches nukes and whoever gets trigger happy will decide what direction the war will go.

War and religion go hand in hand. If a war isn't fought over religion (crusades, US invasion of Afghanistan) then someone will often try and justify the war with it. Even Hitler used religion to promote the Aryan race and demonize the Jews as inferior. The world would be better off without either, but that's not likely to happen.

 

[Sean951]

The US never declared war on Nazi Germany. It was Germany that declared war on them. They didn't want to get involved, because there was no profit to be made in helping Europe. There was money to be made in selling war materials to the Allies, but that was all they were willing to do. Many historians agree that had Hitler not declared war on the US, the US would never have gone to war with them. And I believe that.
And it's not like the US hasn't gone to war with countries where they had absolutely no business (i.e Vietnam, Korea,etc, where they only went to prevent the spread of Communism, which means to defend the rich 1% of society. And they failed.)

The United States formally declared war on Germany on December 11, 1942. Same day as Germany declared war on the U.S. They were effectively at war since 1939, when the US navy began to fire upon German warships and aircraft. They also seized German merchant vessels before this time because, as I stated earlier, Roosevelt saw Hitler for the threat he was and wanted to go to war, but Congress wouldn't approve war. Getting the Lend-Lease Act was as far as they would go until the U.S. was attacked.

The U.S. also had every business being in the Korean peninsula, what with our ally under attack. The entire U.N. went into the Korean peninsula to stop the North and later, the Chinese. Vietnam... I will agree with. But, the only reason we lost that war was television. Strategically, the U.S. was beating the North Vietnamese into submission, but this was the first war to truly be televised, and the American people turned against the war (rightly so). I would also add Iraq II to the list of unneeded invasions.

Also, defeating the spread of Stalin/Mao's control was a far greater mission than stopping communism. Communism is harmless, but Stalin and Mao were quite ruthless and preventing it's spread to South Korea did them a very large favor, just look at North Korea right now.

 

[Vivaldi]

I'm guessing in a special place called "Nowhere".

Poor courage the cowardly dog!

Some trouble in the balkans.

Some *damned fool* trouble in the *Balkans, if I recall my World History well enough.

Gotta give props to Otto, damned best politician of the 19th century.