World War 3...

Discuss historical events and information concerning any culture, time, or location in our world (or even the frontier beyond).

Unread postby Famed Hero » Thu May 20, 2004 6:16 am

You guys can discuss "World War 3" in whatever context you want although the only real foreseeable war for the next good while will be the War on Terrorism. A true military world war is unlikely to happen, probably never within our lifetimes.

Shadowlink wrote:like i said
ummm i want to discuss about this because many people predict that world war 3 will come very soon, it was said that after 9/11 happened 555 days after it is world war 3, of course it didn't happen, people predict that World war 3 will start because China will attack Taiwan, I ask my parents about this and my parents said 80% China will attack Taiwan, after that North Korea will attack south korea and U.S will get more problems in the middle east, what you guys think?


The problem with Shadowlink's post is lack the of timeframes. WW3 is predicted to happen soon? How soon is soon? Your parents think there is an 80% chance China will attack Taiwan. An 80% chance based on what? Is there a reason for the 80% or a timeframe in which this will happen? North Korea will probably never attack the South and the U.S. will ALWAYS have problems in the Middle East.

Elven Fury wrote:I think India and Pakistan or Israel and Palestine is a more viable option for an immediate cause right now...

but... what would an attack at the olympics precipitate?


Your scenarions would make more sense although still unlikely for the most part, especially India and Pakistan.

An attack on the Olymipics is a VERY real threat currently. Only time will tell on that matter though.
Saint Joan of Arc, Pray for us!
User avatar
Famed Hero
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:48 pm
Location: Springfield, IL

Unread postby SYL » Thu May 20, 2004 6:35 am

The war on terror is a sham. A true war on terror would be fought without weapons, at the moment, it's a "war to create terror". Besides, abstract nouns are not viable targets for military conflict.

I would like to believe that world leaders learned enough from the mistakes of the 20th century, which cost untold millions of lives in the two largest armed conflicts mankind has seen. I certainly hope that another such conflict never happens. I also do not believe it is "inevitable" that a nuke will fly in the next ten years.
aortic high arctic part mood altered paradise is lost
SYL
Esswhyell
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:44 pm
Location: Ivory Tower

Unread postby Famed Hero » Fri May 21, 2004 6:03 am

SYL wrote:The war on terror is a sham. A true war on terror would be fought without weapons, at the moment, it's a "war to create terror". Besides, abstract nouns are not viable targets for military conflict.


Most nations around the world are fighting against terrorism in many different aspects, not just with bombs and rifles. I would like to know your definition of what you obviously didn't define very well.

If you are fighing against the creators of terror, well then yes I would call it the War on Terrorism.

SYL wrote:I also do not believe it is "inevitable" that a nuke will fly in the next ten years.


From where and why would you guess? I don't think these open-ended statements are making much way for you :wink:
Saint Joan of Arc, Pray for us!
User avatar
Famed Hero
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2002 4:48 pm
Location: Springfield, IL

Unread postby Shadowlink » Fri May 21, 2004 12:53 pm

http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-3/ww3.htm here u go, read this, i'm going to ask more people about when World War 3 will come and what they predict will happen
User avatar
Shadowlink
Langzhong
 
Posts: 4883
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 5:57 pm

Unread postby Honour and Power » Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:55 pm

I don't think there will be a world war for a long time, but when there is gonna be one it wouldn't be the middle-east Vs. The Western World

I think by that time the U.S.A. will have a secure foothold in the middle-east pulling every rulers strings. Also Russia would have rebuilt it's armies and gain a lot of influence in the regions to the south (and all former Sovjet-Union States).

Then Europe is getting worried by th power of the USA and will demand to give land/give money/pull back from the Middle-east.

Ofcourse the USA will laugh at Europe's demands and gets in an offensive position. Then after yet another while, Russia and the US will starta war and damn you can be sure that Russia has (maybe not anymore by that time) America at it's throat: They will install any sort of weapon of mass destruction on Cuba and be able to blow away America's Eastcoast

After a timeof war and death and destruction there will be a peace treaty again and Europe has solved it politically.
Since I am surrounded by my enemies, I shall exstinguish my fire with destruction
Honour and Power
Initiate
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 1:50 pm
Location: Shadow Moses Islands

Unread postby SYL » Thu Jun 10, 2004 9:45 pm

If you are fighing against the creators of terror, well then yes I would call it the War on Terrorism.


I think you misunderstood. The only way to stop terrorism, is to put an end to what the root causes of terror are. It's not to kill terrorists or innocent civilians mixed up in the pile. It's certainly not to invade countries.

Greater help given to third world countries. An end to the West's habit of interfering with governments we don't like (whether they're democratically elected or not). Stop the injustices being meted out by the WTO and such organisations which bleed the third world and other developing nations dry for the benefit of corporate fat-cats. The USA does much good in the world, but it is not shown to the people who become terrorists, because the USA is also the reason they don't have a job, or healthcare, or they have a dictator. Remove the injustices, help these people, and I guarantee you, terrorism will drop dramatically.

However, as things stand now, we're seeing a huge swathe of terror-bombings and attacks rip through Iraq and other countries. The Madrid bombing showed that the War on Terror, is not stopping Terror.

And pointless, over-generalised sweeping statements are still mine to make. :P
aortic high arctic part mood altered paradise is lost
SYL
Esswhyell
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:44 pm
Location: Ivory Tower

Unread postby agga » Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:18 pm

2 suggestions:

1. Arabic nationalism. This was Saddam's aim, and he was a complete failure. You can get huge nationalist movements when the populace is desparate, poor, and humiliated (i.e. Post-WWI Germany and Italy, post-9-11 USA).

A big barrier to this happening in the middle east is the fact that everything is controlled, very tightly, by super-rich, militaristic royalty (backed up by the USA). But if the royal families (including 'presidents' like Mubarak) started to fall, it would leave space for a nationalist-arabist-islamist leader to unite the population. That's what Osama bin Laden wants: restoration of the Caliphate that Genghis Khan destroyed 800 years ago.

Such a nation would certainly be anti-Western, as we've done so much to encourage and support the greedy dictators/royals over there. And if they don't have nuclear weapons, how can we use ours against them? There, you would have a huge military conflict which would approach the proportions of WWII. Eventually, it would spread to Pakistan and India, and you might get some nuclear action there. Israel might pull theirs out to stomp some Arabs.

But it will never happen!

I'm much more hopeful for a Space War, USA-Europe VS China. Give it a hundred, hundred and fifty years for some Moon Bases to be built, and we'll start having battles over asteroids and comets, and sweet polar areas on the Moon and Mars. I'm just sorry I won't be around to see it.

That's a good idea for a thread: WWIII is stupid, and will never happen, except in the context of a Space War. Who will fight the first space war, and how long will it be? What's the population threshold for armed conflict? I.E., do we have to wait until there are a couple hundred colonists, or until there are thousands?

And don't say it won't happen. You don't know what you're talking about. Space War!!!
User avatar
agga
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:45 pm

Unread postby TheGreatNads » Fri Jun 11, 2004 5:26 pm

Priest wrote:Most nations around the world are fighting against terrorism in many different aspects, not just with bombs and rifles.


Most nations that claim to be fighting terrorism are usually the ones committing the most terrorism.

Priest wrote:I would like to know your definition of what you obviously didn't define very well.


I can't speak for him, but there's a near consensus on what terrorism is, it's basically the threat or use of violence to install fear or coerce a civillian population to achieve political, ideological, or religious goals. Basically, most nations who ever use violence are happy to use terrorism when it suits them.
TheGreatNads
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:02 am
Location: nowhere new, ever

Unread postby Tigger of Kai » Fri Jun 11, 2004 5:41 pm

A consensus among relativists perhaps. Terrorism is one of the most controversial terms around. Obviously. Violence by anyone, for any "political, ideological or religious goal"? That definition is hopelessly broad and loaded so that virtually everyone becomes a terrorist. Maybe you believe this, but you can't be a "consensus" all by yourself.
Mithril! The dwarves tell no tales. But just as it was the foundation of their wealth, so also it was their destruction. They delved too greedily and too deep, and disturbed that from which they fled.
User avatar
Tigger of Kai
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 12:26 am
Location: Scarborough, Canada

Unread postby Liu Pi » Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:49 pm

Sorry Elven Fury, i don't mean to pick holes in what you said but when you put Shites on page 2 of this thread some might take offence to that as it is a British way of saying S**t. Sorry i just wanted to say as i have a Shi'ite friend and i think that he misread what you put although i did explain to him that is was probably because you were unsure of spelling or typing quickly. Sorry once again i just thought i'd better mention it. Anyway back to the title inhand. I entirly sure if there ever was a world war 3 that it would go Nuclear (although i do have my doubts about certain countries). I think that the most likly candidates for starting it would be North Korea and South Korea or India and Pakistan. If it were the later i doubt that Britain would become involved as both Pakistan and India are members of the Commonwealth although Pakistan was only recently allowed back in because it was expelled after the Military took over.
"You cannot dream yourself into a character; you must hammer and forge yourself one." - James A. Froude
Liu Pi
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Location: UK

PreviousNext

Return to World History Deliberation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved