• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you think there will be a WWIII in this day and age?

Zeze

Zeze

Lifer
Doesn't quite belong in P&N, it's more of a musing.

Who's intimately familiar with the current world political landscape? I just don't see WW3 happening.

My reasons:

1. Everyone is driven by $$, it is the day of global economy. US & China make tons of money from each other, India & Russia, etc. Getting into war is shooting themselves in the foot.

2. The cold war tension and "us vs them", "communism vs democracy" mentality are pretty much gone. No one is really fighting.

3. For those that fight (middle east, etc), others won't jump into the fight that will explode into a world-wide war. People are 'smarter' now.

Do you guys agree?
 
It could happen, especially with China becoming more bold. There may not be a lot of overt hostility, but as China begins asserting it's muscle in order to protect its' own interest, the established order will become increasingly nervous about its' own interest. That can lead to a WWIII. This is even more likely to happen if the current Economic climate persists.
 
NATO has a very lopsided military advantage. Until things are more balanced, no potential enemy is going to try anything.
 
I think the nuclear countries will get together to civilize the third world by force, dividing up the spoils among the big players.
 
They would never call it WW3 anyway. I think enough of the world's countries are involved in what's goin on in the middle east to signify being called WW3, but names like that don't sit well these days.
And what does Nukes have to do with a World War exactly? Media? what too many movies?
 
I can't see it happening. With the firepower all the major military powers have available a WW3 would more or less end the world as we know it.

It isn't impossible that a WW could be waged again without the use of weapons of mass destruction, but i can only see the loosing side using them if they have them available.

Rich people make a lot of money on war, but they also like to spend that money. Money isn't worth much if there is nowhere to spend it.
 
There's been a war most of the world has been involved in for the last 10 years...pretty sure that's enough to constitute WWIII even if there are no nukes involved.

As for a "new" war...I think Korea will try to show some balls soon.
 
ImpulsE69 said:
There's been a war most of the world has been involved in for the last 10 years...pretty sure that's enough to constitute WWIII even if there are no nukes involved.

As for a "new" war...I think Korea will try to show some balls soon.
Click to expand...



There's only so much balls you can have when you have no rice.
 
Last edited:
ImpulsE69 said:
There's been a war most of the world has been involved in for the last 10 years...pretty sure that's enough to constitute WWIII even if there are no nukes involved.

As for a "new" war...I think Korea will try to show some balls soon.
Click to expand...

Mark my words, North Korea isn't gonna do shiet. Nothing is gonna come out of them.

They'll slowly but surely change over time. Even Jong-Un and the generals expressed interest in doing more trades and shit. I don't even think there will be an uprising from its citizens.
 
if it does happen, it'll happen because of something stupid that escalates and a bunch of other nations join in on it and, ultimately, it'll all be for oil in the middle east.
 
Its going to start between Japan and China.. look at them messing around over those islands//waters that are full of natural resources.
 
I doubt it. Our world has changed considerably in the past 70 years, with the advent of the Internet, 24/7 cable news, and the possibility of instantaneous diplomacy. The chances of a mistake or misunderstanding starting a war are pretty tiny these days. I also don't think most people have the stomach for typical empire building wars like old time Germany. Most developed nations have reached a comfortable point where most citizens want for very little.

The only thing I could see starting a world war is a new Caliphate uniting all Muslim nations and somehow starting an all out war against Europe or a natural resource crunch. I don't think either of those will happen in our lifetime.
 
just depends on how you define "world war". By a strict sense of the word, yes but it will be a very unbalanced war with many countries united against a smaller target.

I don't think we will see in the foreseeable future a war where just about the entire world is involved with both sides being well matched militarily.
 
No, after WWII the world transitioned to a 24/7 type deal where you have smaller conflicts all the time. As a matter of fact the US has been at war in some fashion since then anyhow. Projection of power and all that.
 
It can happen. And here's how:

Let's say the USA decides they're tired of taking shit from the middle east, that the Arabs decide to cut off the oil, that some other county like China wants to seize the resources, whatever. And we charge in to take control of the oil or to break up the Arab stranglehold or to block China and England comes with us because they're our allies and they need it as much as we do.

What happens next? Are Russia and China going to just sit back and hope for the best? And you know damn well France would want a slice of the pie. Nobody can stand up to the USA alone, but 10 or 20 countries aligned to stop the US? How about 30+ countries headed by Russia, China, France?

It might not happen over politics or religion or expansion plans or some Hitler-ish megalomaniac who wants to rule the world, but it's pretty easy to see 1000 different scenarios where things explode over resources.
 
I agree economics are currently a huge deterrent (i.e. comfortable nations like France and Germany will likely not fight again any time soon). However I do see a lot of powder kegs sitting around (Iran v Israel, chaos in the Middle East, China v Japan), that could start exploding at the same time and cause huge, unpredictable outcomes.
 
what is the definition of a World War?

how is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan not considered a World War with several different countries fighting in it?
Or does it have to be several countries against several other countries?
 
pontifex said:
what is the definition of a World War?

how is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan not considered a World War with several different countries fighting in it?
Or does it have to be several countries against several other countries?
Click to expand...

The accepted definition is most of the principle countries of the world engaged in widespread areas. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were far too small and far too local. It would need involve several more countries with a theater of operations spanning continents to reach "World War" status. Same reason Korea and Vietnam didn't count. All the biggest countries were involved, but the area was too contained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top