Forums → WEPR → The World War III Theory
| 393 | 163600 |
World War I and II are futile to the might-be incoming war, the third World War.
You might laugh this time, but it will happen. Due to the recent events of the 21st century, it will happen. Some of the events are: 9/11, Sabah crisis, and N.K.'s declaration of war. So be prepared. I think it would be a nuclear war. But cyber warfare is more likely than the former.
[quote]"Wars will subside, but war can't be prevented" ---------- Anonymous
- 393 Replies
Hey, not all countries have the so-called sophisticated intel.
I think it is safe to say that any country with such obsolete intel would be in no position to start the next World War if said hypothetical even did happen.
I think it is safe to say that any country with such obsolete intel would be in no position to start the next World War if said hypothetical even did happen
I agree with this, it is pretty impossible if one such country such as mine is strong enough to raise an armyto make war
I think it's an interesting topic to ponder over....don't be discouraged Roy. It's not a win-lose situation.
No one actually believed WWI would happen, or when it did happen, that it would be so massive and long, but it just did. And no one believed WWII would happen after the suffering from WWI.
So who knows? Maybe everything we're dismissing now will be looked back upon half a century later as blithely ignorant predictions.
No one actually believed WWI would happen, or when it did happen, that it would be so massive and long, but it just did.
To think, 7 years for one war
To think, 7 years for one war
Well, tbf, I was referring to the then popular idea that it would all be over by Christmas 1914....
I have not read the whole thing and probably leave this for those other intellectuals out there. Back in wwI we always looked at previous wars that had out dated technology and tatics that were made absolute by the technology. In order to know for WW 3 we can not look to far into the past. But at the present, with Russia invading Ukraine and at least 3 civil wars precedent. It is Have a good sleep. I won't leave her for you.easy to believe that it is soon. The most likely cause however is gonna be the same reason as WW 3. Territory, the Germans believed the land they were annexing along were necessary. And with the attitude of Russsia it is easy to believe it is gonna be from them. But more likely it will be from China with Taiwan being independent country and China along with other communistic countries thinking that it's a state of China just with a different system. Not acknowledging the seventh naval fleet of America this would be an opportunity a nut job could take to their advantage. Drawing countries into a dispute into what territory should be theirs leading into a non-nuclear Third World War.
Well, tbf, I was referring to the then popular idea that it would all be over by Christmas 1914....
Good god Nicho, if it had lasted that long it would have lasted like 160 years. That's what, 3-4 generations of people fighting?
Great Scott, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore pang.
In order to know for WW 3 we can not look to far into the past. But at the present, with Russia invading Ukraine and at least 3 civil wars precedent. It is Have a good sleep. I won't leave her for you.easy to believe that it is soon. The most likely cause however is gonna be the same reason as WW 3. Territory, the Germans believed the land they were annexing along were necessary. And with the attitude of Russsia it is easy to believe it is gonna be from them. But more likely it will be from China with Taiwan being independent country and China along with other communistic countries thinking that it's a state of China just with a different system. Not acknowledging the seventh naval fleet of America this would be an opportunity a nut job could take to their advantage. Drawing countries into a dispute into what territory should be theirs leading into a non-nuclear Third World War.
I don't think so....Russia might be belligerent and jingoistic, but behind all the military bluster and strong arming, they had the thinly justified reason of a Russian minority in such territories, coupled with the historically instilled mindset that such nations formed part of their spheres of influences (The old USSR, and before that, the Tsarist empires). The neighbouring nations have all been on their toes recently, such as the Stan nations. The Ukrainian issue put them in a tight spot since they're heavily linked economically and politically to Russia, yet they want to maintain their own independence. Russia can hardly come rushing into these regions, at the most, they can amputate and chop off the bits along the border that have Russian minorities if such minorities raise their voices for Russian ''rotection'' (Which is why Russia claimed only the Crimea, and not the entire Ukraine). Furthermore, the Russians already have a deep influence on such nations, such as the Baiknonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, or the 7,000 Russian troops in Tajikstan. They can just steadily draw such nations into their orbit or be satisfied with controlling such nations in all but name instead of outright annexing them (Which incidentally, is exactly what they are doing, what with their custom-unions building, and oil pipe lining). But I hardly think them mad enough to go marching into say Western or Central Europe to claim lands that were never theirs.
I....don't really understand your point on the Taiwan-China issue. I do not think the friction will lead to WWIII. I think the two governments are already getting much cosier in recent years. Though of course, China's charm offensive has been issues that do not pertain so comprehensively on Taiwan's independence, and it does maintain the option to invade. But the Chinese are shrewd enough to not do so. They're much more willing to lean on a system whereby they are the grand epicentre of their own region, controlling by indirect means an ''informal'' empire of lesser, inferior states on its own border than outright annexation. The modern Chinese mentality remains firm to its age old imperial mindset, that they will be the centre of importance, and lesser states can simply kowtow to them, without the need to actually control them. Anyway, I too don't know what exactly what you mean by other Communistic nations.
I think in recent years, the issue has been much less about territory, but much more about influence, dominance, control. I think generally, a country has no need to physically expand much anymore, less cases of irredentism.
Anyway, yeah, that's a long enough ramble, blah blahhhhhh....
Great Scott, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore pang.
World War I? Unless you changed the subject :v
Known as French and Indian War here in America, and I believe 7 years war just about everywhere else
I have no idea whether I missed any sarcasm or not, but just for the general information:
World War 1: 28 July 1914 â" 11 November 1918
French and Indian War: 1754â"1763
Meh, I never talked abt the Seven Years War.....unless I missed something somewhere?
I'm just giving you a hard time. French and Indian War is what SHOULD be known as WWI..which looking back I actually pointed out on page 4
Blearhhhhh haha the term First World War can be attributed and have been to a platitude of conflicts not just the Seven Years War!
You must be logged in to post a reply!