ForumsWEPRThe World War III Theory

400 66799
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
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

*5-6 generations

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

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 ''protection'' (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....
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

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
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,609 posts
20,745

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

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

Meh, I never talked abt the Seven Years War.....unless I missed something somewhere?

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

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

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

Blearhhhhh haha the term First World War can be attributed and have been to a platitude of conflicts not just the Seven Years War!

Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,635

How come the 7 year war can be assumed a World war anyway? It is only between 2 huge nations (England and France) and had limited effect on the known world at the time ( did not affect the whole world ). What's more, it only started in the north america regions, so it didn't deserve the world war title, as it's name implies a war that literally change the whole world as we know it or take place in places around the world

Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255





According to Google's most relevant results, these were bad wars. 7 Years War isn't easy to find here.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

How come the 7 year war can be assumed a World war anyway? It is only between 2 huge nations (England and France) and had limited effect on the known world at the time ( did not affect the whole world ). What's more, it only started in the north america regions, so it didn't deserve the world war title, as it's name implies a war that literally change the whole world as we know it or take place in places around the world


Mhmm....the Seven Years War at one point or another involved much more than just the English or French. Most of the European Great Powers were dragged in as well, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Russia, Sweden etc.

I think there are merits to both sides of the argument. It can be considered a global conflict since the war was fought across various fronts (Europe, America, India, The Caribbean, bits of Africa), but admittedly, many of these colonial wars were between the UK, Spain and France. At the same time, they also dragged in many of the leading nations of the time (albeit only European) in a web of alliances and proto-blocs.

On the other hand, the war was fought with far less coordination than the two actual World Wars. The various allies seemed to be less united in their goals and objectives. It seems abit like two wars meshed into one, Prussia vying for control of Silesia and fending off France, Austria and Russia in Europe (With help of course from the British King's Hanoverian), whilst the French and British duked it out in their colonies. That's my opinion.

Could we say it was a European centered conflict with global battlefields? Let's also remember that not all the major nations took part, such as Qing China. Arguably in the later two ''true'' world wars, the globe was in a state of European dominance, so to speak of France or Britain then would to speak of half the world.

Furthermore, I would say that an important criterion of a World War is the concept of "Total War'', where the entire nation, its people and its resources are channeled and mobilized into a brutal, grinding conflict. Non-combatants would be equally important as combatants. I think this was hardly the case of earlier wars, which would hence make me hesitate to call any war other than WWI and WWII as world wars.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

It seems abit like two wars meshed into one,


That sort of applies to the second world war before Hitler declared war on the US. Before that it was the allies vs the axis, the soviet union vs the axis, and the US vs Japan.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

That sort of applies to the second world war before Hitler declared war on the US. Before that it was the allies vs the axis, the soviet union vs the axis, and the US vs Japan.


Mhmmm....I agree with your point to a certain extent. Whilst I would agree that the Sino-Japanese theatre of WWII seems like a separate war on its own (given that it started years earlier), I would say that the major cause and linking factor was Hitler's strive for dominance, which would engulf the whole of Europe into war, and eventually the USA. I would say that the German declaration of war on the US can also be linked to the USA's underlying and obvious support for the Allies, such as through Lend Lease, although the immediate spark was its Japanese ally attacking Pearl Harbour.

On the other hand, I think the Seven Years War was the result of rather sudden merging two quite separate wars - that of France and Great Britain (And Spain to a certain extent) competing over colonies and trade at at time that both powers were trying to grab much of the world for themselves, and that of Prussia and Austria with their continuing squabbles over Silesia. It just so happened that the increasingly cool Austrian-British relations after the breakup of their previous alliance combined with the need to protect the Hanoverian lands from France pushed Prussia and Britain to each other and erupted into such a global conflict.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

It could also be argued that the original "World War" was the war of spanish succession, the eighty years war, the thirty years war, or the war of austrian succession. (More commonly known in Britain as the war of Jenkin's ear)

colinsaul
offline
colinsaul
5 posts
0

Oh no, not again.
It's OK for US hawks to go on about arming the eastern European states. It's not their continent they want to fight on.

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,395

Will there be plasma rifles and combat droids in the next world war? I hope so. The whole machine gun thing is getting old.

Showing 346-360 of 400