after reading WW3...who would win i thought that i would ask what would spark the flames of war. WW1 started by a political matter of Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated for example... i think that it will start over something like oil or possibly water.
WW1 started by a political matter of Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated
Along with political tensions prior to this, industrialization, a unified Germany back in 1871, the wars Germany launched against nations during it's unification, secret alliances within nation, ect.
Along with political tensions prior to this, industrialization, a unified Germany back in 1871, the wars Germany launched against nations during it's unification, secret alliances within nation, ect.
There's much more to it than that, including Pangermanism, Territorial Expansion for a new Empire, Nationalist pride and many other things.
Let's not start a history lesson here I passed this exam a month ago and I really don't want to talk about it haha.
In comparison the U.S. has approximately 5,000 fully operational and deployed nuclear weapons.
Holy Shit! I knew we had a lot, but I didn't think we had that many.
On topic:
Considering the current global climate, I would say money, power, territory, resources, etc.
Nukes are just such a sissy way of fighting a way
They also act as a deterrent, no leader wants to launch a major attack, because he/she knows their country will be turned into a wasteland.
What happened to the good old Normandy style fights we had back in the World Wars
You're referring to the wars where one army was on Side A, and the other on Side B, and they huddled in trenches while raining bombs on each other? The wars where chances are more soldiers died from infection, then from bullets?
lets continue on the subject. the only reason why some countries haven't pulled out (i cant remember where) is to teach and protect the indigenous population so they can be self reliant and are able to rebuild when we aren't there. the only reason i can see a new war beginning is a possible proxy war when two nations start then other nations get behind one of the two.
yeah but i really don't know the exact country... i think it is afghanistan.. some people want us to pull out but others think that if we do the taliban would win.. i don't think we would ever win.. if we destroy the taliban another organization would just come back to fill its place
The wars where chances are more soldiers died from infection, then from bullets?
The wars where millions, leave alone billions of civils didn't die in a millisecond and didn't turn huge amounts of territory into radioactive wastelands, yes those wars.
don't forget the wars were revenge comes into the equation... like Dresden in WW2... the fire being so intense that it was sucking in oxygen from a large distance away... and it was so powerful that people were sucked into the flames.. n i mean being sucked into the flames feet first a meter off the ground
The wars where millions, leave alone billions of civils didn't die in a millisecond
The atom bomb has been used twice, at which point it killed somewhere around 205,000 people. While I understand how you came up with your 'number', most if not all countries in the world that can be considered a viable target for a nuclear strike, have most certainly researched and built defense systems.
Imagine the chaos of quotes if you could edit your mistakes.
1.famine
We have more than enough food, it's just not distributed equally.
most if not all countries in the world that can be considered a viable target for a nuclear strike, have most certainly researched and built defense systems.
How on earth could anyone defend themselves against the deadliest and most powerfully explosive device in the world from impacting a huge city??? And my number comes from the outcome of a Nuclear World War 3, which would probably devastate over a third of Earth's civil population. (Imagine a nuclear bomb dropped on Bangladesh or China, Millions dead =/ )
