Well, it's almost time to prepare for another world war. I want some debate about whether it will, or will not happen, and if it will, when. I personally think, with the war were in, and Obama, most likely going to pull our troops, we are totally vulnerable to many countries that want to attack America. I know some may not agree, but I think with all the chaos that's breaking around the world, were in for some type of fight... so what I am asking is, what do you think?. Please no getting offended, with any arguments that aren't what you agree with. And if any racist comments get out here, I'll ask for this thread to be locked or removed.
True, and it will be a big problem for undeveloped countries as they will have no water to drink, and they will die. Since the bigger countries will keep it to themselves, in time of a worldwide crisis. That's what I think anyways.
The poorer countries who are going to be hit worst with the crise are not going to be able to start a World war...Hell, if they could, then they wouldn't be poor.
i doubt *knock on wood* that WW3 will happen soon, in 1965, during the peak of the cold war, WW3 was way more likely to happen then now. \\ pakistan should be our main consern. we shouldn't fear the current pakistanian government, we should fear that pakistan is overthrown by islamist extremists, who may not be so light handed with an entire nucular arsenal.
I would hope that MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) would be enough to stop a war as major of WWIII but when you like around and see who has their finger on the big red button maybe we should be concerned.
Coincidentally I saw that two French and British nuclear submarines crashed into each other in the North Atlantic recently. Fucking hell; just how that is my question. I mean fair enough they might have had sonar turned off if they were in stealth mode (if subs have that) but what were they doing.
"My great-grandfather was on board one of the first submarines. Instead of a periscope it had a kaleidascope. 'Oh no we're surrounded'"
Possible outcome: World destroyed after both sides sending a nuclear missle to the other one, causing the rest of the nuclear weapons stored to be detonated also.
but what about the special realtionship <sob> Obama wouldn't hurt us and we promise we don't want Iraq. (fingers crossed behind back).
Anyway since wars are named posthumously (100 years war was originally called operation speedy resolution- gotta love fammily guy) I fear there would be no one left to call number III a World War.
Well, World War III will most likely be against China (of course in my opinion. If Nuclear Missiles are launched the world will pretty much be destroyed on both sides. So, there will be no victor when there isn't much of a world to stand on.
Well they China, India, Russia and America do have strong firepower but they relations are not anywhere near the possible declaration of war. WWIII is not near and if it is a nuclear war, then that will complicate things a lot. Mutually assured destruction, like Pixie214 said will prevent the use of warheads. If that is the case then the US has a good chance but WWIII is unlikely since nothing that will point us towards war is present.
The war on terror would hardly be considered a WWIII... it was not a war against another nation as much as it was 2 regimes... Look back at WWI and WWII, entire nations allied sending everything at their disposal. Warfare today is much more strategic and calculated than sending wave upon wave of citizens. My opinion is that we are far from any large scale global conflicts in a similar fashion to previous world wars.
Also, nuclear weapons... Kirby, i have no clue where you got your statistics, but anyone can throw numbers together to try to make a point, and most of the US nuclear arms are quite old and probably non-functional (remember, many were destroyed, and no new warheads have been made in quite some time). Also, not as many countries have nuclear weapons. The vast majority of nations out there do not have any interest in them, and any nation willing to fire one would immediately be a target for all other nations (try putting yourself in their shoes and tell me you would use one).
The war on terror would hardly be considered a WWIII
I seem to remember George Bush calling the war on terror WWIII. I though it was an odd turn of phrase when I heard and I still can't understand why he would do it.
I think that the thing that a lot of people are missing is that to have a world war, you need all of the WORLD'S POWERS, not just most of the countries. That's why WW2 wasn't actually a world war until the US joined it in 1941.
