[Discussion] World War III At Your Doorstep

[JojocIaw]

Hey guys.

I was reading a thread on here talking about Hitler and it got my brain churning. I was thinking about the imminent third world war. As much as the world tries to avoid another world war, I believe based on basic understanding of human nature, that we will face a unavoidable situation that will lead to war.

As long as there are people there will always be a difference in choice. When these two choices collide with each other you get friction. When the friction peaks then the result is an unavoidable conflict despite any effort to stop it.

We will face a lot of hardships during this time, assuming you or I are still alive and well. We may be friend or foe depending on the circumstances. These moments may be the last ones we share together. I wonder if the loss of life will be greater than what we have seen. For what ideals will the enemy be fighting for? Who will ally to stop the enemy? Which nation will betray which? Who will lead this group of people to cause so much destruction?

I hope that we do not live to see such a thing but I can ascertain that it will happen nonetheless. I will leave you with this quote:


"Man achieves what he want's to achieve irregardless of his motives. Whether or not that equates to peace or war, that is for him to decide and for us to bear. We are merely the pawns in his game of chess."

Leopoldo Rodriguez

 

[Anduril]

lol and i am going to be the hitler in the third world war....xd

 

[Itachi Namikaze]

I think that if there were to be a third world war that it would be started in one of these places. United States, China, or the area surrounding Afghanistan including places like Pakistan or Iran.

It would largely be a western culture vs. eastern culture war. The thing is the only powerful players in eastern culture are closely tied economically with the U.S. and are fairly far behind in military technology.

If there were going to be a third world war the only places I see coming off unharmed are land locked places in the continental U.S. and relatively out of the way places like Australia and Hawaii and some Malaysian island chains.

Just an opinion though. Either way if it does happen I hope that neither of us die.

 

[BishamonSama]

Nations on a global scale are much different today from how they were 70 years ago, when the second world war started. Back then, international relations really dominated war, and, perhaps more importantly, wars happened on a much larger scale.

Today, however, wars are defined generally by the struggles of smaller ethnic and cultural groups against nations. The war in Afghanistan, for example, is being fought by the Taliban, a relatively small force, against the U.S. and NATO, a combined force with much more resources and many more troops at its disposal than the Afghan terrorists.

So, Taliban vs. NATO wouldn't start a World War just because, well... the Taliban isn't big enough!

Some may point to Iran, North Korea, or another similarly-unstable nation as a possible source for WWIII-type aggression. Iran and North Korea may be led by maniacs, but they're not dumb enough - and not insane enough - to start WWIII. Starting WWIII in this day and age would likely result, through some means, in the use of nuclear weapons. And that just wouldn't be a good thing. Humanity would literally blow itself up.

To summarize my two points, wars are not fought on the same scale or by the same caliber combatants as they were 70 years ago, and today nations possess weapons of such great power that, if a true WWIII on the scale of the previous two world wars were to start, most life on earth could be wiped out.

So I don't believe we'll ever see a WWIII on the scale of the previous two world wars. The world's just different. Human nature isn't different, but the world is.

 

[Itachi Namikaze]

Nations on a global scale are much different today from how they were 70 years ago, when the second world war started. Back then, international relations really dominated war, and, perhaps more importantly, wars happened on a much larger scale.

Today, however, wars are defined generally by the struggles of smaller ethnic and cultural groups against nations. The war in Afghanistan, for example, is being fought by the Taliban, a relatively small force, against the U.S. and NATO, a combined force with much more resources and many more troops at its disposal than the Afghan terrorists.

So, Taliban vs. NATO wouldn't start a World War just because, well... the Taliban isn't big enough!

Some may point to Iran, North Korea, or another similarly-unstable nation as a possible source for WWIII-type aggression. Iran and North Korea may be led by maniacs, but they're not dumb enough - and not insane enough - to start WWIII. Starting WWIII in this day and age would likely result, through some means, in the use of nuclear weapons. And that just wouldn't be a good thing. Humanity would literally blow itself up.

To summarize my two points, wars are not fought on the same scale or by the same caliber combatants as they were 70 years ago, and today nations possess weapons of such great power that, if a true WWIII on the scale of the previous two world wars were to start, most life on earth could be wiped out.

So I don't believe we'll ever see a WWIII on the scale of the previous two world wars. The world's just different. Human nature isn't different, but the world is.

Some people are dumb enough to try and start WWIII and I agree nuclear weapons would be used but not every country would be destroyed or even damaged really. Not many countries would stand against the U.S. and NATO, and of those that would even fewer have the capabilities to successfully attack distant countries and thus the war would be limited by the mobility of those nations and WWIII would likely end in a complete obliteration of most smaller nations and the opponents of the U.S. and Nato.

I do agree with you though that wars are now very ethnicity focused and that could play a big role in causing another WW. You never know, one random hate crime over race or religion could spark the fire.

 

[-Kratos-]

Dude... I think the same as you, that there will be a III WW!
There are so many conflicts, unavoidable ones which cannot be left behind. A promise which is being broken, the need to avenge different losses which were caused in the past, there are still grudges that are being held against the other states, they are waiting, just a snap of fingers and there it goes.....:rag:

 

[Cyborg]

Right now, the only country that could challenge the US and hence cause World War 3 is China, but militarily its still vastly inferior. It'd take at least a decade for them to be more on par. Even then, there would have to be a reason....i don't think North Korea or the US support for Taiwan's independence is enough, although a Cold War is almost a given.

 

[Caliburn]

There is no "imminent" third WW, in fact the world probably is further from a new WW than it has ever been since the 2nd WW. Your logic is completely incorrect. Yes there will always be wars and disputes, however wars and World Wars are extremely different. There have been countless wars since the 2nd WW, however not a single one of them was ever given the title of WW.

The situations in which the first two WW played and our current situations are completely different. It's nearly impossible to cause something like a WW in our current society unless something really catastrophic happens, however that's something that can't be predicted.

 

[Anduril]

Some people are dumb enough to try and start WWIII and I agree nuclear weapons would be used but not every country would be destroyed or even damaged really. Not many countries would stand against the U.S. and NATO, and of those that would even fewer have the capabilities to successfully attack distant countries and thus the war would be limited by the mobility of those nations and WWIII would likely end in a complete obliteration of most smaller nations and the opponents of the U.S. and Nato.

I do agree with you though that wars are now very ethnicity focused and that could play a big role in causing another WW. You never know, one random hate crime over race or religion could spark the fire.

More likely the US and nato would suffer more ....and possibly loose there monoply...
u see they are the ones with an economic crunch currently and it will take some time to recover from it which will still be hazy..... when your economy is suffering u cannot think of war or its a suicide.....

 

[ackeem1992]

ww 3 i believe is in very near future,

 

[Hyperion]

WW3 has already started.

Its just not visible right now

 

[Itachi Namikaze]

More likely the US and nato would suffer more ....and possibly loose there monoply...
u see they are the ones with an economic crunch currently and it will take some time to recover from it which will still be hazy..... when your economy is suffering u cannot think of war or its a suicide.....

I don't want to sound rude but I disagree completely with you. At least in terms of the U.S., after every major war since the industrial revolution the American economy has surged and has become more prosperous than ever. In fact WWII was the reason that it became the strongest superpower at that time. And not because of military strength but because of economic power. The U.S. was and sort of still is a manufacturing nation that is very resource rich. China has also become a manufacturing nation but they don't have as large a variety of natural resources.

And with the U.S. economy split between manufacturing and management (a smaller section is agriculture), a WW would only help America, boosting exports of basically everything. The only way that the U.S. would be hurt is if the continental U.S. were to be attacked which unless Canada decides to turn on it is highly unlikely considering how far ahead American military is than anywhere else and the fact that it has the largest standing army in the world.

Facts are facts and they have proven to benefit resource heavy nations with the capability of mass producing goods, so the U.N. and NATO (the nations involved) might be a little hurt but other than a loss of some manpower the U.S. would escape largely unscathed in terms of economic power and most of it's military strength.

 

[Hyperion]

I don't want to sound rude but I disagree completely with you. At least in terms of the U.S., after every major war since the industrial revolution the American economy has surged and has become more prosperous than ever. In fact WWII was the reason that it became the strongest superpower at that time. And not because of military strength but because of economic power. The U.S. was and sort of still is a manufacturing nation that is very resource rich. China has also become a manufacturing nation but they don't have as large a variety of natural resources.

And with the U.S. economy split between manufacturing and management (a smaller section is agriculture), a WW would only help America, boosting exports of basically everything. The only way that the U.S. would be hurt is if the continental U.S. were to be attacked which unless Canada decides to turn on it is highly unlikely considering how far ahead American military is than anywhere else and the fact that it has the largest standing army in the world.

Facts are facts and they have proven to benefit resource heavy nations with the capability of mass producing goods, so the U.N. and NATO (the nations involved) might be a little hurt but other than a loss of some manpower the U.S. would escape largely unscathed in terms of economic power and most of it's military strength.

-1 for your flaw.

Keep it coming, this is an interesting read

 

[Talk No Jutsu]

I don't want to sound rude but I disagree completely with you. At least in terms of the U.S., after every major war since the industrial revolution the American economy has surged and has become more prosperous than ever. In fact WWII was the reason that it became the strongest superpower at that time. And not because of military strength but because of economic power. The U.S. was and sort of still is a manufacturing nation that is very resource rich. China has also become a manufacturing nation but they don't have as large a variety of natural resources.

And with the U.S. economy split between manufacturing and management (a smaller section is agriculture), a WW would only help America, boosting exports of basically everything. The only way that the U.S. would be hurt is if the continental U.S. were to be attacked which unless Canada decides to turn on it is highly unlikely considering how far ahead American military is than anywhere else and the fact that it has the largest standing army in the world.

Facts are facts and they have proven to benefit resource heavy nations with the capability of mass producing goods, so the U.N. and NATO (the nations involved) might be a little hurt but other than a loss of some manpower the U.S. would escape largely unscathed in terms of economic power and most of it's military strength.

One of the few reasons America was unscatched during WW2 because Germany or Japan didn't have the technology to make planes that could fly as far as the US ... the Only US island that was bombed was Hawaii ... and that was pearl Harbour 7th december 1941 .... which was a surprise attack, the US was getting ready for the war anyway ... and also US actually provoked Japan to attack it .... (Because of other things that happened in China) .... and also the USSR (Soviet Union) was bombed so heavily that more than 40,000 villages were destroyed, it was only bombed, more than 3 Million German + Italian + Romanian + other soldiers also attacked USSR on 22nd July (Coincidantly Napoleon Bonaparate attacked Russia on the SAME DAY) ... and Russia were utterly defeated (mainly due to Stalin because he wouldn't ackowledge that Germany would attack so quickly) = That was Hitler's biggest Flaw, attacking Russia, which ultimatly lead to his defeat in Europe ...

Now back to USA, The war with USA - Japan lasted longer than in Europe, Japan refused to surrender leading to the atomic bombing which was totally unneccary, because they both signed a pack meaning that Civilian targets were not to be harmed, and US violated that pack, meaning that US could now build military bases near japan and in Europe, when the US deprived Europe and Japan (and countries near Japan) from it's resources, it attacked Middle East, and now we have a war ..


Bottom line = US's economy was/is mainted by other countries/continuty of wars

 

[Itachi Namikaze]

-1 for your flaw.

Keep it coming, this is an interesting read

I said variety of resources not abundance. The U.S. has a myriad of resources that China does not have. And are you disagreeing with my entire post or just that?

You seem to be mad for some reason, I hope you aren't trolling.

 

[Jack Spicer]

It might happen, but I don't see it in my lifetime. Then again, who knows. I hope it doesn't.

 

[Itachi Namikaze]

One of the few reasons America was unscatched during WW2 because Germany or Japan didn't have the technology to make planes that could fly as far as the US ... the Only US island that was bombed was Hawaii ... and that was pearl Harbour 7th december 1941 .... which was a surprise attack, the US was getting ready for the war anyway ... and also US actually provoked Japan to attack it .... (Because of other things that happened in China) .... and also the USSR (Soviet Union) was bombed so heavily that more than 40,000 villages were destroyed, it was only bombed, more than 3 Million German + Italian + Romanian + other soldiers also attacked USSR on 22nd July (Coincidantly Napoleon Bonaparate attacked Russia on the SAME DAY) ... and Russia were utterly defeated (mainly due to Stalin because he wouldn't ackowledge that Germany would attack so quickly) = That was Hitler's biggest Flaw, attacking Russia, which ultimatly lead to his defeat in Europe ...

Now back to USA, The war with USA - Japan lasted longer than in Europe, Japan refused to surrender leading to the atomic bombing which was totally unneccary, because they both signed a pack meaning that Civilian targets were not to be harmed, and US violated that pack, meaning that US could now build military bases near japan and in Europe, when the US deprived Europe and Japan (and countries near Japan) from it's resources, it attacked Middle East, and now we have a war ..


Bottom line = US's economy was/is mainted by other countries/continuty of wars

Ok first off you are completely missing the point. The US's separation from other nations that could pose a threat to it is it's greatest defense. The U.S. navy and air force is unrivaled and any attack on U.S. soil would be the most foolish thing in the world as any invading forces would be demolished. There is no way to argue this as it would just happen, the U.S. is so much more advanced and has so much more manpower and economic power that they would literally crush any nation right now who attacks them.

You can't compare the U.S. military then and now. That is like comparing the abacus to the computer. And it was only the U.S. versus Japan then and it wasn't the full force of the U.S. military. You obviously know nothing of history or war if you think that because Japan made the U.S. military split up it's forces and go to separate islands then they did well. Look at Japanese losses and American losses in WWII before Hiroshima and Nagasaki and you will see that the numbers aren't anywhere close.

I would never ever say that the U.S. provoked Japan to attack it in WWII. That is a complete lie. There were pressures coming from all fronts but the U.S. did nothing worthy of a sneak attack on an unsuspecting island. The Japanese just wanted to cripple American naval power before the U.S. became a real player in WWII. It didn't work as the U.S. still beat them.

 

[Hyperion]

Ok first off you are completely missing the point. The US's separation from other nations that could pose a threat to it is it's greatest defense. The U.S. navy and air force is unrivaled and any attack on U.S. soil would be the most foolish thing in the world as any invading forces would be demolished. There is no way to argue this as it would just happen, the U.S. is so much more advanced and has so much more manpower and economic power that they would literally crush any nation right now who attacks them.

You can't compare the U.S. military then and now. That is like comparing the abacus to the computer. And it was only the U.S. versus Japan then and it wasn't the full force of the U.S. military. You obviously know nothing of history or war if you think that because Japan made the U.S. military split up it's forces and go to separate islands then they did well. Look at Japanese losses and American losses in WWII before Hiroshima and Nagasaki and you will see that the numbers aren't anywhere close.

I would never ever say that the U.S. provoked Japan to attack it in WWII. That is a complete lie. There were pressures coming from all fronts but the U.S. did nothing worthy of a sneak attack on an unsuspecting island. The Japanese just wanted to cripple American naval power before the U.S. became a real player in WWII. It didn't work as the U.S. still beat them.

You do know Japan surrendered months before Truman bombed them right?
So it was a cowardly act on the Americans to bomb them anyway.

You seem to believe that the US cannot be beat?
Vietnam anyone?

BTW, I'm just being random... CONTINUE!

 

[Talk No Jutsu]

Ok first off you are completely missing the point. The US's separation from other nations that could pose a threat to it is it's greatest defense. The U.S. navy and air force is unrivaled and any attack on U.S. soil would be the most foolish thing in the world as any invading forces would be demolished. There is no way to argue this as it would just happen, the U.S. is so much more advanced and has so much more manpower and economic power that they would literally crush any nation right now who attacks them.

You can't compare the U.S. military then and now. That is like comparing the abacus to the computer. And it was only the U.S. versus Japan then and it wasn't the full force of the U.S. military. You obviously know nothing of history or war if you think that because Japan made the U.S. military split up it's forces and go to separate islands then they did well. Look at Japanese losses and American losses in WWII before Hiroshima and Nagasaki and you will see that the numbers aren't anywhere close.

I would never ever say that the U.S. provoked Japan to attack it in WWII. That is a complete lie. There were pressures coming from all fronts but the U.S. did nothing worthy of a sneak attack on an unsuspecting island. The Japanese just wanted to cripple American naval power before the U.S. became a real player in WWII. It didn't work as the U.S. still beat them.

Bold part - Really ... Demolished ...

1) WW3 isn't going to be like WW2 or WW1 .... Nuclear Weapons won't be a second option, most countries like Isreal are going to the fire them the second after war is declared,

2) Russia have more missiles than any country times 2 on earth ... So NO US supperioty here..

3) USA is has started more wars in the last 20 years than Russia in the last 200 years or China ....

4) US is now the world's bigger aggressor ... so you don't need to be worried about any military attack on US rather you need to be worried about which country is going to be attacked by US because of it's resources...

5) I know more about History than even your father did ... I studiest WW2 than more historians ever did ....

6)

You must be registered for see links

7)

You must be registered for see links

8) US economy is still going because of all the wars, the Military Industrial complex never had such a fun time as they are having now ...

9) The only reason US interfered in Libyia because it has the biggest oil resources in the whole of africa, with them 4th biggest in the whole world..

10) US tried to overthrow/overthrew the goverment of these countries for their intrests:- China 1949-50s, Albania 1949-53, East Germany 1950s, Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Costa Rica mid-1950s, Syria 1956-57, Egypt 1957, Indonesia 1957-58, Iraq 1963, North Vietnam 1945-74, Cambodia 1955-70, Laos 1958-60, Ecuador 1960-63, Congo 1960, France 1965, Brazil 1962-64, Dominican Republic 1963, ,Cuba 1959-Present, Bolivia 1964, Indonesia 1960, Ghana 1966, Chile 1964-73, Greece 1967, Costa Rica 1970-71, Bolivia 1971, Australia 1973-75, Angola 1975-80s, Zaire 1965, Portugal 1974-76, Jamaica 1976-80, Chad 1981-82, Grenada 1983, Suriname 1982-84, Fiji 1987, Libya 1980s, Nicaragua 1981-90, Panama 1989, Bulgaria 1990, Albania 1991, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 1980s, Somalia 1993, Yugoslavia 1999, Ecuador 2000, Afghanistan 2001, Venezuela 2002, Iraq 2003, Haiti 2004, 2011 Libyia.

11) I might reply back to you in like next 15 hours cuz I'm going to school....

 

[Itachi Namikaze]

You do know Japan surrendered months before Truman bombed them right?
So it was a cowardly act on the Americans to bomb them anyway.

You seem to believe that the US cannot be beat?
Vietnam anyone?

BTW, I'm just being random... CONTINUE!

Not fully backed by U.S. military or public. Next question? The U.S. has not fought a full scale war since WWII and spreads it's military very thin.

And I was not talking about the validity if the bombing, just saying that the U.S. had Japan beat hands down before that happened. So come at me bro.