ForumsWEPRThe World War III Theory

400 67224
roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
344 posts
610

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

  • 400 Replies
danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

USA is mostly described as "a sleeping giant". from time to time a mouse try to do something, and then USA awake.

As it seems, the next Vietnam will be on Israel territories. and i hope we wont end the same.

The major question here is: when will USA join in? will it join at all?

Iran again and again vow to clear Israel off the land. Now, Turkey start to claim things like that too, saying that 'Zionism is a moderns nazism" and stuff like that, boiling the population against Israel. As for now, it seems that the WW3 will start in the enlarged Middle east, wher the Western countries like Jorden, Saudi-arabia [and friends] and Israel will stand against the zealot side. Iran try to get in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, Eyget {Morsi Eygept i hope} is looking more to Iran then to USA, and north africa is in rubbles.

pickpocket
offline
pickpocket
5,988 posts
1,810

The major question here is: when will USA join in? will it join at all?

That brews another debate entirely. The US is always being criticized either for interfering or for not. We lose both ways. If we go in, we lose money and lives. If we don't, our allies suffer. As sick as it is, it all really comes down to the oil, which is pathetic.

And I don't really think that we are near a world war at all. Say that north korea's nuke some how magically does get to dc without being shot down or malfunctioning, that wouldn't cause a world war. It would cause the destruction of north korea. Or, say the Middle East bit starts up. That wouldn't really cause much of a world war either. Maybe it would drag the USA and a handful of European countries in but that's about it. So I don't really think there will be a ww3 at least for a few more years.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

The major question here is: when will USA join in? will it join at all?


Join WWIII? I don't doubt it whatsoever. All the suspected catalysts for such a war are extremely against the United States and its allies. With North Korea being the most threatening, they're practically an opposite, upside-down inside-out version of the US. Speaking of which, the US has been the tie-breaker in the previous two world wars and has always joined in at a later date. With WWIII... I believe the US will be one of the first countries to join in, and everyone knows that the countries to join in first are always the ones that receive the hardest beating, if that isn't obvious already.

If we go in, we lose money and lives.


Actually the first two world wars boosted our economy, though Europe's destruction after WWI somewhat caused the Stock Market Crash so I guess it's a contradictory system. WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression caused by the Dust Bowl and the Stock Market Crash, which is, again, a contradictory system.

Say that north korea's nuke some how magically does get to dc without being shot down or malfunctioning, that wouldn't cause a world war.


Actually it would, almost without question. The US still practices the ideal of massive retaliation against nuclear weapons, so if we were ever attacked by a nuclear weapon we'd completely annihilate the country that sent said weapon. China backs North Korea quite a bit, so we might even end up in a China vs. US type of war... which would be hell for both sides.

The US also practices the ideals of militarism and alliance with NATO and all that, so the countries associated with NATO would be dragged in with us. On China's side, I can imagine the Middle East being there simply because of the majority's hatred towards the US, though China and the Middle East are very different. Keep in mind that by saying Middle East, I'm generalizing the "bad guys" and not the US's allies like Israel. Remember those exceptions.

It would cause the destruction of north korea. Or, say the Middle East bit starts up.


Both, probably.

That wouldn't really cause much of a world war either.


Imperialism and militarism would drag about 5 more countries into the war just to help NK and the ME.

Maybe it would drag the USA and a handful of European countries in but that's about it.


Europe + America + Middle East + Asia = WWIII.
Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,081 posts
3,975

N.K.'s declaration of war


Against whom?

Not really by the sanctions, but by lack of enforcement on the part of the allies.


Surely you've heard the argument that if Germany was given a voice during the Treaty of Versailles, then the people would never have suffered so much as to allow Hitler to rise for power. There's also the theory that the sanctions simply weren't strong enough, Germany should have been split into pieces and the people forced to watch as the enemy marched through their streets. A sudden burst of enforcement on part of the allies wouldn't have prevented German frustration and hatred from building up and more to the point, a war has multiple causes, there's never just that one thing that happened and caused a war.

With North Korea being the most threatening, they're practically an opposite, upside-down inside-out version of the US.


North Korea is far from an actual threat to the United States, the US without a doubt has the strongest military force on the planet, which considering nearly a trillion dollars goes into it annually, not so surprising. Economically even with the recent recession, the United States still controls one of if not the most powerful economies in the world an economy that can very easily be turned into a dedicated war machine if need be, which in the case of a WWIII, there would be need.

that the countries to join in first are always the ones that receive the hardest beating


That is because typically countries who join in first are those that are in close geographic proximity to their enemies, the United States has almost always been an ocean or two away from the conflicts it takes part in. It was simply impossible to target the mainland, unlike in Europe where everyone is packed so close together that attacking each other is child's play.

China backs North Korea quite a bit, so we might even end up in a China vs. US type of war... which would be hell for both sides.


No, we would not. China does not value an alliance with North Korea so greatly that they would risk combating the United States. Not only for the military reasons mentioned previously buy consider the fact that an absolutely staggering amount of US imports and foreign investment comes from Chinese businesses. A war between the two nations would hurt both, but China would feel the pain more acutely simply because a war of such scale would most likely drag in other western nations which would probably result in a greater drop in China's GDP.

"bad guys"


And they would be? Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two of the strongest states Middle East both have strong ties with the United States. Quite literally the only nation in the middle east that wishes to and would even consider engaging the Middle East would be Iran.

The US still practices the ideal of massive retaliation against nuclear weapons


Whomever told you that, lied. Massive retaliation was abandoned under Kennedy, else the world would've ended in a nuclear apocalypse long ago. More to the point, the United States, along with the United Nations practices the idea of collective security, if one member is attacked, all members retaliate or at least agree not to interfere, the Gulf War was a great example of collective security in action.

Overall, my point is simply this, states think rationally, they make decisions based on how it effects them. If the costs outweigh the benefits, there has to be a very good reason for a state to choose that path. For most states in the world, a full out war with any other major power would not be beneficial, and as a result would not happen.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,412 posts
2,730

Against whom?

Technically, the Korean War was/is ongoing, as there was no treaty. They lifted the armistice.

North Korea is far from an actual threat to the United States

Perhaps not to the mainland, but they could attack island territories and bases.

China does not value an alliance with North Korea so greatly that they would risk combating the United States.

They might give NK military supplies under the guise of "humanitarian aid", possibly tactical training/assistance, but openly sending troops into battle isn't likely.

Quite literally the only nation in the middle east that wishes to and would even consider engaging the Middle East would be Iran.

I suppose Pakistan could attack India.
Of Iran's allies, Iraq and Syria have enough domestic problems to keep them busy. Venezuela will be under new management next month, so we'll see how that goes. Palestine is already doing all it can. Lebanon is a toss-up, as they're militarily supported by both sides, but the dislike of Israel will likely sway them.

Massive retaliation was abandoned under Kennedy, else the world would've ended in a nuclear apocalypse long ago.

The retaliation would be great/massive, but conventional.

states think rationally

Most, not all.
Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,081 posts
3,975

Technically, the Korean War was/is ongoing, as there was no treaty. They lifted the armistice.


That's not a declaration of war, that could barely even be considered a resumption of hostilities considering how much of a mockery that armistice was.

they could attack island territories and bases


That doesn't mean they're a threat, I used the term threat in the sense of international relations, a material measure of power, NK simply doesn't not have enough relative power to the United States. Even their nuclear weapons are most likely in the earliest stages compared to what the United States, not to mention the nuclear defense capabilities that the US maintains.

I suppose Pakistan could attack India.


Neither of these nations are considered part of the Middle East, traditional or expanded definitions. Additionally neither nation has an attachment of not to North Korea however both countries have relatively strong diplomatic ties with the United States, although the alliance with Pakistan has suffered in the past few years.

militarily supported by both sides


Which two sides? You're referring to this in the context of a world war after all.

Most, not all.


No. ALL. That is the fundamental rule behind all aspects of IR theory, it may not be rationalized and logical to you, but to that nation, their decisions are grounded in logic, in what is best for them.
pickpocket
offline
pickpocket
5,988 posts
1,810

Europe + America + Middle East + Asia = WWIII.

No ****.
I'm saying if one went off, then not everyone would be involved. Unless they both go off at the same time, which I doubt would happen.

All in all it's impossible to predict until its at our door.
Actually the first two world wars boosted our economy, though Europe's destruction after WWI somewhat caused the Stock Market Crash so I guess it's a contradictory system. WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression caused by the Dust Bowl and the Stock Market Crash, which is, again, a contradictory system.

Now it's different though. We're spending lots of money on unnecessary stuff and cutting the army and such. If its just a small war, not a ww I mean, then it will hurt us more than help us. Besides, we fight a lot with drones and things now a days, which is spending money.
danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

First of all, Emperor, there is no Palestine {Yet}.

Secondley, We {or atleast I} didnt said it will be in the next 5 years or so. I belive that Syria will sooner or later wil fall to the ends of the zealots which are supported by Iran and there ideaolegy, And then Syria will become a new sattelite of Iran. So these Eygept. rhw muslim brotherhood donsnt realy like USA and friends, so they will more likely will go with the seconde "Super power" they can get - Iran.
China is for now quite out of the picture, as non of the major conflicts for now have anything to do {atleast not directly} with china. North korea help Iran with there nuke and etc, so maybe this is there only "gate" for the "evil alliance". south america, like bolivia and other dont like USA that much and even if they dont sshow it yet, its quite look like they hate Israel and USA enough to start making troubles if something will come up.

As it seems now, these will be the teams:
{2 teams, active and passive members}

Team West:
active: USA, Israel, Saudi arabia, jorden, NATO {aka western europe}
pasive: Japan, South korea, India {In some senracios, they will be active}, Canada, Australia and pals, south africa.

Team Evil West haters:
Active- Iran, the 'Anti west' arab countries,
Pasive- Russia, China {as both sell/give the 'active' wepones and training}, N. Korea, Maybe- Pakistan, The north africa countries {even if they are now in rubbles}, south america {Alot of the terrorist groups get money and guns from these locations, Iilegal or not}.

Please help me orginize the list. Im not sure some of the names and places, so dont get mad on it.

Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

The big problem with predicting another world war is that the two ones in the past both resulted after a series of very unusual and incredibly unique circumstances. Today, the US is nearly a forth of the world's GDP. It is such a large cornerstone of the world that no rational state would crack it.

Free trade is a major factor in today's world, one which was virtually none existent 70 years ago. Too many states are interdependent upon each other on an economic field so that a conflagration as WWI or WWII is incredibly unlikely to happen again. NAFTA, China, and the Euro Zone are so dependent upon each other that to remove one from the equation entirely is to jeopardize them all.

As Kyozou said, states behave rationally, and in their own interests. To go against the strongest military power on the earth is to have a very short existence on this earth. Even more so that no other nation has the ability to project their power outside their immediate region. China has no operational (in military terms) air craft carrier; Russia's ICBM's are severly hindered by the US missile shield in Europe and on the West Coast, not to mention its questionable how many of their warheads are actually armed.

Finally, the US' has a nuclear arsenal which never left the Cold War. A triad of bomber-launched cruise missiles, MIRV ICBMs, and submarine-launched MIRV ICBMs and cruise missiles mean that retaliation of an aggressing nation is unavoidable. There are too many locations to destroy to eliminate such a threat.

I can't see a world war happening until multiple nations are on more of an equal footing with the US, militarily.

roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
344 posts
610

You Know Maverick4, a terrorist might start WWIII

Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,081 posts
3,975

You Know Maverick4, a terrorist might start WWIII


I wouldn't say that's impossible but it is highly improbable, because states rarely, if ever, admit to sponsoring terrorism. If you mean it could happen because the US or another state pursues a terrorist into the sovereign territory of another state, that's highly unlikely, simply because the so far as I know, the "global war on terror" calls on open borders when pursuing terrorists, granted the typical hypocrisy that comes with politics plays a role, but for the most part no nation wants to be under suspicion of harboring terrorists, so the policy seems to be working out.
danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
660

USA did lost in vietnam...
I belive that tthe next big war (if not a woeld war) will be on the land of another country as well, or even a series of territories.

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

China backs North Korea quite a bit


Funny part about this is...the very few people to have escaped North Korea run to China..and China helps them and harbors them

---

Just throwing it out there..but to some we have already had WWIII..which was WWII. WWI was WWII...and the French and Indian War was WWI
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

USA did lost in vietnam...


In what aspect? Militarily, it was a run away success; the NVA was reduced to an insurgency similar to that in Afghanistan today, and was largely unable to conduct open operations for much of the war. The trouble was that the conflict wasn't supported by the people, due to the poor descisions made by politicians working over the better trained and better experienced generals.

And *technically* Vietnam wasn't a war; the US never made a formal declaration against North Vietnam.
Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,081 posts
3,975

I wouldn't go that far Mav. They succeeded in crippling various aspects of the NVA, however the actual goals of the conflict were almost unanimously considered to be failed. In fact much of the war during and after Johnson's presidency was a justification of effort, the sheer resources put into the conflict had to have some result before the withdrew completely and even that didn't happen properly.

Showing 16-30 of 400