World War III

[La montage]

Do you think it'll happen anytime soon? If so, how and when?

Personally I think WW3 won't happen anytime soon unless some magical event caused all nuclear weapons and other superweapons to stop working all at once.

1. For there to be a world war, at least two nuclear powers would have to fight each other. If two nuclear powers launched an all out war, nuclear munitions would certainly be utilized.

2. Both of the previous world wars took several years for every country that was ever involved to get involved. A modern war of that scale would not last near that long, so it most likely wouldn't ever escalate into a world war.

3. Only the US has the capability of invading a country overseas and sustaining its forces long enough to deliver a decisive blow with conventional forces, which means the chances of someone attempting to invade the US is virtually zero. Additionally, every country that even has a half-decent military has a significant amount of trade with the US, which means none of those countries would ever go to war with each other unless something really severe occurred.

4. Why would you WANT a third world war? Or any major war for that matter? Atomic bombs would be eradicating every country involved.

What are your thoughts?

 

[tMoon]

I don't think it's all-that-easy to predict when a world war will break out. I think it's inevitable, but I don't know when. Now, what that war consists of, I have no idea, but I'm doubting thousands-on-thousands of troops meeting on a battlefield.

1. You're mistaken. A world war doesn't mean nuclear weapons would be utilized and as stupid as the policy is, the policy of deterrence would likely play a big part. A world war with nuclear weapons would end the world, or at the very least, heavily handicap it. There are plenty of bombs and weapons that can be utilized to heavily damage an opposing force, nuclear weapons are not the goto option.

2. Why wouldn't it last that long? Are you aware of how long the Syrian Civil War has been going, our how long the U.S. was in Iraq? Don't really think you can easily predict the length of the war. There may be the technology to knock cities off the face of existence, but that doesn't mean they'll be continually used.

3. No? Plenty of country's have sufficient military capacity to invade another. China has a military big enough to put 5 million boots on the ground. Now, I would argue the U.S. out-classes them all, mainly because we spend 610 billion dollars on our military (more then China/Russia/India/U.K./Germany/Saudi Arabia combined). Invading the U.S. would be incredibly difficult, but its possible, definitely if something happens heavily crippling infrastructure/government/etc. Trade can be a compelling reason not to mess up ties, but other things can trump it, and new trade deals can be made. Ex: Russia and China are becoming big trading partners.

4. War does not mean the eradication of a country.

 

[deadmou5e]

i think there will be eventually or soon because the america's just seem to be getting worse in everywhich way. their debt is so high it's surreal. war generates tons of cash too, it's good for the states too since they will just go and control countries. plus theres threats from all over, china, north korea, russia, it's just getting bad out here. i think it'll come, why wouldn't there be a world war 3 anyways there's been 2 in the last 100 years there's for sure going to be more wars in our lifetime

 

[Dunworry]

Eventually? Of course, war is inevitable. But to submit to the idea of an apocalyptic war that would kill human kind is silly. While it is true that the nuclear weapons we have developed since the last display of them in WW2 are far more advanced and deadly, it is extremely unlikely for that event to happen. No matter how insane or twisted a leader may be, they will release that a, fighting the U.S. will likely result in a loss and b, that a nuclear war would, as Tmoe put it above, severely handicap the entire world, which would be against the wishes of the vast majority.

 

[D A N O]

It really is too difficult to say if, or when the next world war will occur. I could only see proxy wars being the trend under current circumstances.

Fortunately, as the world has advanced over all of these years, we've learned to value life and freedom to a greater extent than in the past. This in itself would serve to dampen the chances of a globally devastating war.

 

[Sept]

If there were to be a 3rd World War, It would almost 100% be USA vs Russia. I personally don't think it will happen just because both Countries know they wont be able to help themselves from using nuclear powers and it would just cause the end of human-kind.

 

[DRSX]

If there were to be a 3rd World War, It would almost 100% be USA vs Russia. I personally don't think it will happen just because both Countries know they wont be able to help themselves from using nuclear powers and it would just cause the end of human-kind.

Well did you ever hear the quote Einstein said? Goes something like “I know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.


Meaning that world war 3 will be so bad that it will literally get us back to the stone age cause of the nukes.

 

[Pope]

There are many variables and I could easily be wrong but I do believe it will happen sometime in the next 30 years.

 

[El Days]

If there were to be a 3rd World War, It would almost 100% be USA vs Russia. I personally don't think it will happen just because both Countries know they wont be able to help themselves from using nuclear powers and it would just cause the end of human-kind.

Power & Geed doe,,, just wait

theyre are country's invading other countrys right now.. i think it has started tbh

 

[FruitFlies]

I don't think it's all-that-easy to predict when a world war will break out. I think it's inevitable, but I don't know when. Now, what that war consists of, I have no idea, but I'm doubting thousands-on-thousands of troops meeting on a battlefield.

1. You're mistaken. A world war doesn't mean nuclear weapons would be utilized and as stupid as the policy is, the policy of deterrence would likely play a big part. A world war with nuclear weapons would end the world, or at the very least, heavily handicap it. There are plenty of bombs and weapons that can be utilized to heavily damage an opposing force, nuclear weapons are not the goto option.

2. Why wouldn't it last that long? Are you aware of how long the Syrian Civil War has been going, our how long the U.S. was in Iraq? Don't really think you can easily predict the length of the war. There may be the technology to knock cities off the face of existence, but that doesn't mean they'll be continually used.

3. No? Plenty of country's have sufficient military capacity to invade another. China has a military big enough to put 5 million boots on the ground. Now, I would argue the U.S. out-classes them all, mainly because we spend 610 billion dollars on our military (more then China/Russia/India/U.K./Germany/Saudi Arabia combined). Invading the U.S. would be incredibly difficult, but its possible, definitely if something happens heavily crippling infrastructure/government/etc. Trade can be a compelling reason not to mess up ties, but other things can trump it, and new trade deals can be made. Ex: Russia and China are becoming big trading partners.

4. War does not mean the eradication of a country.

The war in Syria is prolonged because of innocent civilians, the U.S are targeting terrorist groups which means they are not simply there to kill ALL Syrians. It's complicated because groups such as ISIS hold down fronts which are heavily populated by innocent civilians, this acts as a shield.

I understand that China has a large army (number of troops wise) but getting troops into the U.S will prove difficult. The U.S has by far the strongest Air Force and also has a much more technically skilled and war ready Army and Navy. I can't say this for certain, but the U.S troops are more likely better trained for combat situations than Chinese soldiers are. Also, if you account for Special Forces you'll find that Seal Team 6, Delta Force etc are amongst some of the best in the world (British SAS are also boasted as being one of the best SF teams).

 

[i sell gp]

world war III is fun to watch

 

[hattez]

America will definitely be in it because we stick our nose in everyone else's shit. Im tired of trying to police the fucking world. Lets stop trying to help third world countries and clean up our own shit. Our infrastructure is falling apart! Our roads, buildings and society are at a all time low.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Not gonna happen any time soon in my opinion. Everybody is aware that world war 3 would mean mutually assured destruction... meaning no one is gonna win, everyone will just die.

 

[El Days]

Not gonna happen any time soon in my opinion. Everybody is aware that world war 3 would mean mutually assured destruction... meaning no one is gonna win, everyone will just die.

Greed, new world order and population control :idea:

 

[Ronaldo7]

Greed, new world order and population control :idea:

Still, death is a primary source of motivation. For sure the thought of death > greed, so people will think 5 times before pushing that button.

 

[Saint Grimm]

OP makes some good points, but there is no real requirement for nuclear war to be world war 3.

I've read a few articles here and there when I'm bored about Russia and USA starting the next WW, not sure how factual they are, I don't much care one way or the other... Either Russia will kill us or there won't be a war between the two of us, simple at that (lol).

But - From what I've read, Russia wants the USA to stay out of whats going on in Syria, but our allies are involved and asking for our help. So do we stand up against Russia and risk war, or do we lose support from our allies?

The specific article I'm referring to I'm currently unable to find, it was a link that came across my facebook feed, which alone could mean you should question it's authenticity. However, if it was authentic, and the writers belief of Russia getting THAT angry over the USA jumping in (we should really quit 'jumping in' on shit regardless...) then the article, and I also agree, could easily start WWIII. (We DO already have ground troops in Syria... So I'm not 100% sure if the article was old, or perhaps 100% fake. Or, Putin could have said fuck it, let america come fuck this up for everyone lol)

But if it were to happen "soon", then the Syria issue is the ONLY thing I can see that would cause it.


Oh... But the point of ww3 not being required to be a nuclear war... The main ideal for war is resources, land, money.... And if you nuke something, the land is uninhabitable and most if not all of the resources would also be destroyed... So nukes would be a last-ditch effort to win.