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
There needs to be a convincing reason why a conflict will pull in multiple nations and erupt into a World War, rather than just a two way conflict with multiple non-direct nations.
It is in interest of some world leaders to start WWIII.
America and Russia wants WWIII.
And why is that?
Russia is stronger and stronger and they want SSSR back(but with no comunisam).They want Poland, Belarus, Latvia, Letonia, Estonia, Ukrain, Georgija, Azerbejan back.
America is geting weeker as most of her allies. American nation is more and more splitting up. But if there was a war the difrences would be over runed + America would getter better economy like in first 2 wars (others must pay her).
China is maybe the strongest so they want to take some more land and they want to crush as many democraties as they can.
Britain is out of the league and they want back in.
Maybe even:
Brazil because it is huge and wants to show them selfs as the new world power.
Germany not because they want it because they have to show them selfs as allie of the west this time.
France (same reasons like America)
Some new African states
Some countries on Middle East
It's too simplistic to think in such terms whereby we measure the hardpower of various nations and attempt to think solely in military terms. The world has progressed in its sheer complexity since the days when rulers could invade on mere whims.
With the recent drop in the rouble's value, coupled with the messy situation in Ukraine, I hardly think Russia has the appetite to actually start on such a bold path. Russia might appear like a roaring lion to the rest of the world, but they have a soft domestic underbelly. They have kept up a steady stream of quiet support for insurgencies and separatists, but to actually attack countries such as Poland that are part of the EU?
China is extremely concerned about its own development. Her economy is entering a critical stage whereby labour intensive industries simply cannot cope with the growth needed to sustain her. Their government is trying to herald in a new image as a peaceful and diplomatic player with increasing prestige on the world stage. She is plagued by an ever growing publicity campaign of her corruption. And China has always had the worldview that she is or will be the centre of the world - She is not interested in being the glorious and active power on the throne. She is willing to bask in the limelight, as she has done as the Middle Kingdom amidst "barbarians" on her borders for thousands of years.
We must also remember that though world organizations are often scorned at, the uncomfortable and inconvenient fact is that the world is clichedly growing more interconnected. For example, the EU is so precarious precisely because all the member states feel so keenly the effects of her neighbours. If Greece leaves the Eurozone, larger nations might too, leading to a domino effect. It is also a reason why pro-European leaders are so eager to keep a united front; this would translate to mutual defensive pacts as well. It is also why I feel that conflicts are unlikely to erupt so abruptly and with such devastating effect.
I think, that a major war between multiple nations is unlikely in the near future, much less a World War. Our interdependence upon each other is too highly developed for anything on that scale to happen. We no longer think in obtuse, bilateral terms when it comes to diplomacy.
The world has progressed in its sheer complexity since the days when rulers could invade on mere whims.
Unfortunly it hasn't. Most people are still fighting for stupid reasons. For power and money. We , as a society, haven't progressed nothing. There are people who are murdered becaouse of 5$ ! You probably think that there is just small number of people who will kill for 5$, but there is more people like this than others. People have progressed,that is true. But as a individual.
I think to clarify what I meant about progression, it would be good to explain that I meant it in terms of international relations and politics. We no longer operate on simple bilateral terms, rather, each country's actions now have to be calculated more carefully as it would lead to a far larger array of side effects.
For example, rulers and governments did not think much of invasions, petty squabbles, or calling up their armed forces in the past. Yet today, we are bound by layer upon layer of treaties, conventions, and diplomacy. We have to take into account that nations these days are highly interdependent on each other for trade, movement of labour, cooperation. Nations do not simply invade each other for resources anymore.
Do you get all your political ideas from bad propaganda or can you actually form thoughts of your own? That nonsense was just rhetoric used by people who were against invading Iraq and has absolutely no bearing in reality. When you say something like that you come off as having the same credibility as 9/11 conspiracy theorists who point to some rust and aluminum ten miles away as proof that the government used super thermite to blow up the twin towers.
Haha, alright, let me explain it better for myself.
It is undeniable that America meddles heavily in ME nations for the sake of maintaining a clear path to oil, that much we know for sure. It's very friendly to Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia, Iran in the 70s, etc, because their such large exporters of crude.
However, nations no longer invade so blatantly because they want to grab resources, nor do they invade with such impunity or frequency. You clearly will no longer see petty border raids, invasions to grab land so brazenly, or wars purely for the sake of expansion. You will get the odd war like that (Russian-Georgian war of 2008), but you won't see the likes of the Crusades, or Napoleonic wars anymore. Our politics have become far too complex and intertwined for that to happen anymore.
It's very easy to claim that large nations will rush headlong into provoking a world war for the sake of expanding their power and prestige. But once we analyse and think through the surface, superficial ideas, the thought becomes a little more difficult to accept. Take for example, Russia. Will Russia, the dear old image of cold brutal power and tyranny, simply start a world war, when she is down in the economic doldrums? When so much of her economy depends upon export to the countries people think she will invade? (Oil to the West). When the threat of nuclear warfare looms? What would she even gain from a world war? Clearly no.
In China's case, what would she gain from starting such a massive conflagration? Much of her economy depends upon foreign investment. Start a war, and that goes up in smoke. Her priority now is to maintain her economic growth, not to invade say Mongolia, just to increase her land mass. It's too simplistic an idea or conjecture to adopt in contemporary times.
America invades Middle east for oil.
That nonsense was just rhetoric used by people who were against invading Iraq and has absolutely no bearing in reality.
And why is than invading? Again being world saver? Isn't that a stupid war? Because of this wars there are so many terorists. How many civilians have died on other side?
I agree that Russia will not provoke a WWIII, but to address the above quote, what do you make of Crimea?
I think the recent rouble crash will sober people up. But it seems the Crimeans are happy enough despite the transportation problems, the blackouts, hot water shortages and food supply problems.
I'm a little more interested in what happens in Ukraine though!
And why is than invading? Again being world saver? Isn't that a stupid war? Because of this wars there are so many terorists. How many civilians have died on other side?
Because Saddam Hussein tried to make himself look like a big dog in the hopes of scaring the U.N. He refused to allow nuclear inspectors to enter Iraq, he did everything in his power to make it appear that he was building nuclear weapons, he falsified documents to make the U.N. believe he had weapons that he legally wasn't supposed to have, and he was testing the chemical and biological weapons banned by the Geneva Convention on his own people. Every major intelligence organization on the planet was telling their countries' leaders that Saddam had weapons he wasn't allowed to have and legally the U.N. should have invaded long before the U.S. did. But, just like with the League of Nations, Europe decided to sit back and hope the problem resolves itself rather than taking action to minimize the loss of life. Yeah, there was no exit strategy and that was just plain stupid on Bush's part. That doesn't change the fact that more lives were likely saved by invading Iraq than by leaving things as they were. If nothing else, the U.S. put Saddam Hussein in power and as a result it was our responsibility to remove him.
And there were tons of terrorists long before the Iraq war. Most of these terrorists are recruited with promises of a better afterlife if they die in the name of Allah, they're not interested in taking revenge for the Iraq war. In fact, most of the Iraqi citizens appreciated the U.S. military presence. Saddam was a tyrant that didn't think twice about torturing his own people to death to scare away dissidents. They knew that their lives were better after we arrived, and they knew that most of the civilian deaths in that war were caused by terrorists leaving IEDs everywhere not the U.S. soldiers.
