Forums → WEPR → The World War III Theory
| 393 | 163560 |
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Will there be plasma rifles and combat droids in the next world war? I hope so. The whole machine gun thing is getting old.
I truly hope you're being ironic (It's hard to tell with you) but:
plasma rifleswould probably be forbidden under article 23 of 1907 hague convention: it is especially forbidden...To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.
combat droidswould be cost prohibitive.
would probably be forbidden under article 23 of 1907 hague convention: it is especially forbidden...To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.
Unless, someone will scrap this.
The next World War will be one of cyber warfare, when everything is run through a linked device and whole economies could be crushed in a few keystrokes.
:P
Hectichermit, that's very true and very scary. Nuclear war is so bad it might never start. Cyber warfar is so easy to pull off that it might happen very often in the near future. And make no mistake, its results may be devastating.
Cyberwarfare is more likely to be perpetrated by terrorists than nations, as those nations equipped to wage it rely on each other too much.
Nuclear war is so bad it might never start.
If by bad you mean completely idiotic and unreasonable for any nation to even consider, then yeah
-----
Now, question, what exactly do we mean by "cyber warfare"? Most loose definitions given here imply that it involves the attacking of a nation via their cyber-network, but if we accept that then we (the USA) have already had cyber warfare, and in fact that cyber warfare has been initiated by members of our own nation (i.e. FBI site being attacked, news media sites being attacked, etc. etc.)
[quote]Nuclear war is so bad it might never start.
If by bad you mean completely idiotic and unreasonable for any nation to even consider, then yeah[/quote]
For nations maybe. For religions not at all "unreasonable".
You must be logged in to post a reply!