Forums → WEPR → The World War III Theory
| 393 | 163546 |
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
The importance of esprit de corps is evident.
No doubt. But you've merely told me what fragging is, not how widespread it was or how if affected the overall war effort, if at all.
would you join the army when you know that you wont have control over yourself in a war situation?
It might be a productive application for clones or prisoners who wouldn't have an option to refuse, but then there's ethical walls.
You know nothing about my personal situation
note the question mark.
well done.
No one knows how it will ultimately be used.
the way you posted it it looked like you did.
so i toke your view.
I trust the capabilities of a room full of highly educated professional than the babblings of an anti-americal dutch nationalist.
stop crying will ya. dont be a baby.
and i'm not a dutch nationalist. maybe you want to check what a nationalist is befor saying someone is. xD
btw you shouldn't be so blind when reading my posts. it seems it's a bigger problem for you then for me.
what you have to say about the ethical stuff? you know, the actual point in my post.
It might be a productive application for clones or prisoners who wouldn't have an option to refuse, but then there's ethical walls.
well clones are just as human as the original. so it wouldn't change the ethical problems.
prisoners only if they are sentenced to death. wich is in my eye's already unethical.
Party devil is right. He is s Hollandish nationslist XD
Anyway, when a war go far enough there are no "ethical" problme.
You dont ask "will bombing this target hurt some innocente peoples?". You ask "how i stop the enemy from hurting my peoples". Because with all the respect and the bad feelings, i belive that every man will prefer his nation brother over an enemy. And of you dont agree, its mean you didnt tasted War and danger.
Mind control isn't even a legitimate issue at this point, the only reason they're able to do it, is because they've mapped specific never clusters and the impulses they channel to the various physical motions of the rat. And lets note that at this point they only have control of basic motor skills, legitimate mind control of humans is a long way coming.
Its not tacticsl troughe... you need to prison the man for a long time to do so.
Religion and ideaoligy is faster and cheaper.
as Albert Einstein said:
âI know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.â
â Albert Einstein
who knows, maybe north korea starts the third world war. i mean, all that atom bomb testing and provocating...
Party devil is right. He is s Hollandish nationslist
oke if you guys don't check what nationalism is then i'll tell you.
Nationalism is a belief system, creed or political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation.
i have no strong identification whit my nation. i can identify myself more whit countries in the s.e.-asia area.
it is really stupid from you guys to call me a dutch nationalist only because i hate the usa. there is zero reason to make this link.
and what is your problem guys? can't you stop crying because there is this one person who doesn't like your country? i'm sorry but that is really pathetic.
when a war go far enough there are no "ethical" problme.
now if you went controlling the mind of your enemy i would agree.
then the war doesn't have to go "far enough". it's a good strategy from the word GO!
it does ring ethical problems when you start controlling your own people.
as it seems to be, when we check the link about the rats.
so unless we can control them wireless without implanting anything to their body. it seems impossible to control the mind of the enemy.
And of you dont agree, its mean you didnt tasted War and danger.
you go to congo during the civil war whit loads of racists out there to kill white people. and then come back to me and say you had no taste of war and danger.
let me ask you, did you ever need to shoot people or els they would lynch you?
dont tell me i dont know what war and danger is. ive seen more and worse then you ever will (if you dont join the army)
Party devil is right. He is s Hollandish nationslist
btw holland are just 2 (of the 12) provinces in the west of the country.
the country itself is called "the netherlands"
In hebrew you are called Holland... but we like to mesd countries names.
We call helenia (Greece) "Yavan" and Spain "Sfarad". Kill me if i know why.
Anywho...
As both world wars shown us, another big question is -
Who will strike first?
beside the biblical scholars, hebrew kinda died out in the middle ages.
languages change over time. and we have to keep up whit these changes.
but you may call it holland if you like. your not the only 1.
but "hollandish" really looks and sounds wierd. like "usaires" or "unitedstatesians".
I call the peoplrs of USA USAians...
And the problme of hebrew with names is that they took names from the bible and forced them on countries with somewhst close names, like France-Tsarfat.
but why use the hebrew names? they are old and outdated.
in that sense we could also use the latin names.
Why do y'all keep mentioning Germany? Just because it was involved in the last WW?
Because. They started WWI and WWII, so them not starting WWIII is odd.
Not exactly true. In WWI, Germany joined the war to support Austria-Hungary after a serbian nationalist killed their duke. The war in general was basically a petty argument between all the countries. Germany lost, and the Entente created a treaty that basically punished Germany instead of creating actual peace. WWII was basically Germany's revenge against them, but Britain and France and Russia and all of them could have easily prevented it by one of two ways:
They could have actually enforced the treaty they make, preventing Germany from massing a huge army and navy. This would have at least prevented the war.
They could have actually created a treaty that was for peace as oppossed to punishment. Then they'd feel little need of being vengeful, and accepting the blame for as it is would have been more mature as well.
They could have actually created a treaty that was for peace as opposed to punishment.
The Concert of Europe is a prime example of this and although it had it's failings, this treaty maintained peace in Europe until the first World War.
Also, no world war can be attributed to any single state, WWII for example could not have happened had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor. In fact that one simple detail, could have won the Germans the war, considering how close they were to gaining access to nuclear weapons. World wars are always the result of a change in the balance of the international power, that's why the UN is in existence, it keeps the shifts in power from spiraling out of control and causing another massive war.
You must be logged in to post a reply!