Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

World War 3?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • World War 3?

    For the last couple of weeks, I've been hearing the War on Terrorism title slowly being replaced (I think) on more than a few news media places, replaced with the World War III title.

    Is the current War on Terrorism actually World War III?
    0
    Yes
    0%
    0
    No
    0%
    0
    Potentially, yes, but will never reach that scale
    0%
    0
    Stay Alert, Stay Alive!

  • #2
    I voted "Yes".

    Looking at it logically, it's a "war" and it's "global" - so yes, IMO it's a "World War".

    Just because WWI and WWII involved whole nations and vast movements of armies all over the place doesn't mean that all World Wars have to follow the same trend. War as a major exercise in global domination stopped with the invention of the Atomic bomb. It's taken this long for the "art" to evolve into something else.

    Three years ago my Government told us that they were stepping down expenditure on Defence because our country (the UK) was now the safest it had EVER been from war and/or foreign attack. Ironic huh?

    Dr. S.
    Imagine a ball of iron, the size of the sun. And once a year a tiny sparrow brushes its surface with the tip of its wing. And when that ball of iron, the size of the sun, is worn away to nothing, your punishment will barely have begun.

    www.sinisterincorporated.co.uk

    www.tabletown.co.uk

    Comment


    • #3
      Just Say No

      I think the War on Terrorism is more like the War on Drugs.

      World War I and II had blocks of states fighting each other in open war. The sheer amount of casualties in both wars make them different than lots of wars that have gone before.

      The War on Terrorism is declaring a war on something that has existed since time began. You may as well declare war on the ocean or time. I expect that our experience with the War on Terrorism will work about the same as the War on Drugs. I have no doubt we will win this war just as fast.

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, I'm going with 'no' since to begin with no declaration of war was made.

        After that, the definitions of war need to be looked at to necessarily see if non-state actors qualify to make it a 'world war' instead of a 'world-wide war'.

        Both are of course a matter of semantics since if you're being shot at, it's a 'war' and it's taking place on a global 'world' level. But without the conventional uniformed armies occupying territory... it certainly doesn't fit the past definitions at all.

        Of course then, are we also involved in economic 'world wars' as we speak with China, Japan, ad the EU? Are the IMF and WTO 'enemies' to be 'beaten'?
        If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: World War 3?

          Originally posted by Jim H. Moreno
          For the last couple of weeks, I've been hearing the War on Terrorism title slowly being replaced (I think) on more than a few news media places, replaced with the World War III title.

          Is the current War on Terrorism actually World War III?
          If by "World War", you mean akin to the prior two world wars - not even close. Yet is is conjecturally world wide, but many of the "participants" are unwilling, and it is not a distinct campaign against them that is being waged. The prime combatants are, on the one side, the United States and Great Britain, and any nation that openly offers substantive assistance to the above two; on the other side, is al-Qaeda in the driver's seat, with conceivably any other Middle East terror/extremist organization (e.g. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, other Islamist groups (Moro Islamic Front, al Islamiya(think that's the right name) Chechens) and, in fact, any terror group, such as Aum Shinrikyo any remnants of 1970s Europeans terror orgs. This will never be more than irregular warfare (asymmetric, if you wish) because the terrorists know that no matter how many ships, buildings, buses or other objects they bomb, they still exist only the margins of society. In short, a terror group willing to hide behind civilians, hide in mosques, hospitals, schools, comes up short when they meet a national armed force, or police force who are willing to take a few civilian casualties, destroy a mosque, hospital or school, in order to confront and destroy the terrorists. This is becoming the trend. While it is still unthinkable to in any way attack, for instance, the Imam Ali Mosque in An Najaf, a neighborhood mosque in any Iraqi city being used to store armaments, or to stage attacks from may well find its walls crashing in, and anyone inside placed at hazard by the presence of the terrorists.

          The popularized vision of WWIII (that is, US v -Russia) seems a distant memory. Though the classic confrontation model lies on the scrap heap, such a confrontation remains a possibility so long as two real or potential protagonists with functionally capable nuclear weapons continue to exist. Perhaps the most ominous is Israel, who may cite a laundry list of opponents. Will the Arab republic ever try a concerted attack again? If so, there is no doubt that Isarel will seriously consider "going nuclear". India-v-Pakistan, India-V-China, Pakistan-China-v-India-Russia. Even US-v-China (or Russia) is not out of the question. These are, by and large not at all likely. The currently mosy likely, Pakistan-v-India is never more than an itchy trigger finger away. Personally, I believe one (India, I think) will let one go, possibly in Kashmir, or a border region. Diplomacy may hold Pakistan back from the nuclear brink, and these two will learn the lessons learned by others nearly sixty years ago.
          Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
          (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

          Comment


          • #6
            World War 3, part 2

            In addition, there are the "maybe" nuclear powers, including;

            1) South Africa - voluntary mothballed their nuclear program ten years ago, but could surely resurrect in it short order;

            2) Brazil & Argentina - both had active nuclear weapons programs, but were "convincec" to halt research and development. As with South Africa, could reconstitute, though it would ba a longer process;

            3) Japan has been considering some sort of nuclear program, officially in response to the DPRK, though others suppose that Japan simply want to be a member of the "nuclear club", with all that that portends. As the only nation to feel the effects of a nuclear weapon, many claim that Japan cannot pursue nuclear weapons - this is dangerous thinking;

            4) Germany - less credible thatn the thought of a nuclear Japan, Germany must still not be dismissed. As with Japan, it may simply be realpolitik at work. Germany views herself being left behind, and find it not to their liking. While the electorate will be resistant, if the necessary programs are couched in the proper bureaucrat-speak, they Bundestag may be able to proceed forward until the program reaches a critical stage and then, when they feel it necessary, announce to the people that Germany is a nuclear nation. While some of the far left will object loudly, most Germans will accept the fait accompli;

            5) The aformentioned Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is an unknown quantity to some degree. It is generally accepted that they have from 1-10 weapons, probably 2 to 4. It is also generally accepted that they have no viable delivery system. While they have been selling modified SCUDs, they do not have missile technology requisite to functioning as either an intermediate or intercontinental ballistic missile. Neither do they have a functional bomber capable of delivering such a weapon;

            6) South Korea or the Republic of Korea (ROK) has discussed a nuclear program, but it has gone no further. US diplomatic and military forces have strongly discouraged the ROK's acquisition of nuclear weapons. I believe that the ROK with nukes is scarier to the US than the DPRK with nukes.

            7) The Former Soviet Union (FSU) republics are a special case. The holders of nuclear weapons (Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan) all pledged to hand over their weapons from destruction and, while both Ukraine and Kazakhstan have since made statements to the effect of keep a "small number" of nuclear weapons (both Tu-160 "Blackjack" bombers and ICBMs) destructions are proceeding according to schedule, and both nations may have reconsidered, largely on economic grounds.

            8. It is also known that several of the nations of the Maghreb have voice some interest in beginning nuclear research, though it is likely that such an attempt would result in UN sanction, and a request by the IAEA to inspect any facilities.
            Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
            (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

            Comment


            • #7
              World War 3, part 3

              Finally, the two nations who may be forced by financial constraints to reduce (most likely) or eliminate (unlikely) their nuclear forces - England and France. England's Trident SSBNs and France's Force de Frappe - both MRBMs and bomber delivered weapons, are units of national pride more than functional weapons - proof that they are on the "first tier" of military powers. Regardless, the wepaons are real, functional, and have the will to be used behind them. But, the cost of maintaining these weapons is prohibitive - inquire to the USAF, the cost of maintaining a missile wing, a wing of B-1s or B-52s (a B-2 wing is atypical because of special requirements). The British and French must balance pride against fiscal responsibility. In fact, a number of British lobbyists have advocated reduction or elimination of the Navy's Trident fleet. Partially on costs grounds, these groups, who opposed the initial deployment of the subs, feel that the subs are an anachronism.

              "World War III" is no more or less a posibility than any other politico-military flare-up. It is, though, not likely to be the cataclysmic Armageddon that we lived with during the Cold War.
              Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
              (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

              Comment


              • #8
                I believe the war on terrorism to be a global war.

                Any nation that requests assistance to combat terrorism will likely recieve help from the USA. Our military forces are engaged in convert and overt operations around the world. Our citizens must take precautions when overseas and in country that was unheard of before 9/11.

                All presidents and the administrations to be elected will do so in an enviroment of war, global war. Diplomacy is conducted with War in mind. Imports and exports guarded and searched as never before. Its scope is global even if it does not involve all nations actively. It is not Total Scorched Earth War. Yet all inhabitants of the Earth will feel its affects in some way and to me that makes it a World War.

                It is impossible to draw but few similarities to this current war and WW1 or WW2 or many other conflicts of the past. Each generation that is fighting and dying in a war will come to describe it as the current situation developes. They will stamp it over time with a mark unquestionly thiers. Future generations will discuss this period of time as detached as we speak of the "Hundred years War".
                Blood, Sweat and Tears are common demoninators of this war and those of the past. It marks the human race even as it is denied by some. I accept and embrace this part of Human culture at its best and worst.

                When stationed in Korea, there were signs posted upon entering and leaving US military posts. They read "Think War".
                I made my own and posted it at my front door within a week of 9/11. It will come down when the global war on terrorism has ended.

                Its hard to be an infantryman, retired, and not risk all, while other dogfaces walk the line in harms way.

                Its just the way i feel.
                Only Tearful, Animal Man Through the Nature of his Being is Destined to
                a Life of Warfare...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Re: World War 3?

                  Originally posted by hogdriver
                  iPerhaps the most ominous is Israel, who may cite a laundry list of opponents. Will the Arab republic ever try a concerted attack again? If so, there is no doubt that Isarel will seriously consider "going nuclear".
                  While speaking with a name I can't name high up in the NCCS it appears that the world came close to glowing twice.

                  1) Cuban Missile Crisis: Esp. when the radar established under Operation Falling Leaves detected a a satelitte coming over the horizon as a missile launch from Cuba.

                  2) The Yom Kippur War when Israel went as far to put their nuclear weapons out of the igloo on ready aircraft.

                  But for the thread as stated. While I'll never say never; I find it unlikely at the moment to see the archtypical World War III.

                  Cheers!


                  Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                  "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                  What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I believe there is a good chance that in the long run the potential for world war exist. Basically, my great fear is a world conflagration between our fundamentalist extremist and the islamic jihist fundamentalist extremist. Bush 2 is now a bastion for the fundamentalist extremist already and they are presently greatly enflaming the entire middle and near east islamic populations plus islamist world wide. Bush 2 has turned classic foreign policy upside down and now listens to no one except a "higher power"as he is quoted. God is talking to George and telling him what to do. In my employment when someone talks like that on the streets we start getting into a police defensive status fully expecting trouble. Iraq policy is now such a mess the administration is flip lopping and now want UN or NATO involved to help our building of democracy. This will draw in other western christain powers into the powder keg. We will spent many many years suppressing islamic movements over most of the islamic world as we slowly grow weaker and weaker from lost of men and money. We can not use weapons of mass destructive as it will be guerilla war everywhere. Islamist jihist have reportedly already murdered 110,000 moderate and liberal moslems in middle east mostly in Algeria and Palestine. This killing is continuing. In america moderates and liberals are under heavy assault for a powerful right wing. If you need proof just listen to Rush Radio. As reasonable and compromising elements are removed or suppressed from their respective societies that leave nothing but war and repression from religious zealots as they seek religious world victory. This benefits no one but the Chinese and they will likely grease the wheels to promote this conflagration.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The War on Terror is WW IV. WW III was the Cold War, encompassing all the conflicts around the globe from 1948 to 1989.
                      "Going to war is always an admission of defeat." --Jacques Chirac

                      "In the case of France, you're right!" --Rush Limbaugh

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Joisey
                        The War on Terror is WW IV. WW III was the Cold War, encompassing all the conflicts around the globe from 1948 to 1989.
                        Hmmm, I was going to disagree with you but in the time it took for this page to load up, I reconsidered and I think you might have a point. Certainly, if we are going to consider the "War on Terror" as a World War, then the Cold War fits the same profile.

                        Again - hmmmmmmm..........

                        Dr. S.
                        Imagine a ball of iron, the size of the sun. And once a year a tiny sparrow brushes its surface with the tip of its wing. And when that ball of iron, the size of the sun, is worn away to nothing, your punishment will barely have begun.

                        www.sinisterincorporated.co.uk

                        www.tabletown.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The only problem with a WWIII in the traditional sense is this:

                          The MAD scenario, or Mutiualy Assured Destruction.
                          It means that if worst comes to worst, blow everyone to hell and damn the consequences. Also, he who fires first dies second.

                          It the idea behind our Submarines and thier missiles. No one would launch a nuclear attack on the US because there is no way they could eliminate all of our missile boats AND our ground based stuff in conjunction with a nuclear attack before we could hit back.

                          If Russia (or any other nuclear power nowadays) did launch at the US, the president would spend his last 15 minutes to order a retalitory strike against them. ANY president would, it's how the human mind works.

                          Eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth, nuke for nuke.....

                          And think, what if Hitler had nukes, but so did his enemies? Maybe he wouldn't use them during the war in fear of Berlin dissapearing under a mushroom (maybe he would, I dunno) but in his bunker, he mind broken, driven insane from stress, lack of sleep, and numerous drugs, maybe he would press the proverbial red button, and go out with a bang, along with the thousands of German civilians and Russian troops.

                          If Israel were going down, why wouldn't they strike out at the Arab world while they could?

                          Again, I suggest you read "Total War: 2006". Very good book about a new world war that doesn't invlove nukes from US or Russia, and has a very interesting writting style.

                          Also, its pre-9/11, so keep that in mind.

                          It is my greatest fear that this is the scenario of armageddon

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            how to start a world war

                            I view the current situation as brush fires breaking out in the mountains. Sure, a few people may die, but easily contained and exterminated although it can flare up every now and then.

                            To get to a "true" worldwide mobilization of forces where basically men in all nations ages 18 -> 35 are involved..... just wait a few decades for oil production to decline. Honestly, I can't see another major military power getting behind "the other side" for anything less than depleted/threatened resources. Someone has to think they have nothing to lose before gambling all they have.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Dr S & Joisey

                              I have to disagree - the use a "cute" term, the Cold War was an "un-war". It was a war that wasn't a war unless and until it turned "hot". In essence, the Cold War was a 45-year long military exercise. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact engaged in provocations, deception, standard and non-standard diplomacy. Each time that one made a move, the response set the tone of whether the move was towards or away from war. While all of this was happening, those nations not a part of either alliance could only hold their breath, pray, and wait.

                              A World War in the traditonal sense is a thing of the past. Given the exorrbitant cost of modern war (witness the cost of war only in Iraq), anything near to worldwide combat could continue for only a matter of weeks. A six-month World War would bankrupt (or nearly so) every active participant.
                              Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
                              (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X