English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-07-29 09:07:56 · 17 answers · asked by nicecleanpaul 1 in Politics & Government Military

17 answers

No. There aren't enough major powers on opposite sides to become WWIII

2006-07-29 09:13:49 · answer #1 · answered by Charles D 5 · 0 1

War takes many forms.

Traditionally, it took place at a place and with two (Or more) foes fighting in person.

Now the nature of war has changed. People are still fighting, but it seems to me that such wars are now on a terrorist level. We have conventional armies fighting against terrorists. (To themselves, they are soldiers, they may or may not call themselves terrorists.)

This means that the old fashioned idea of military forces fighting on a battlefield away from civilians is now history. I know that civilians have suffered since time began, but you know what i mean. Now people are not sure who is a true civilian and who is not.

So if you mean a conventional third world war, similar to that fought in the second world war, with more than two continents involved, no.

If you are thinking of the new form of war, where people's sense of security is shaken, and religion instead of territory the battlefield (Ideology is involved in both the conventional and new form of war) then the third world war started in the first war in the Gulf, in the early 90s.

Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

2006-07-31 08:29:12 · answer #2 · answered by Balaboo 5 · 0 0

nope, not compared to the other two. the comparison doesnt match in terms of the number of countries involved, the actual declaring of war on multiple countries by multiple countries aka alliances, the number of people enlisted/overseas/fighting, or the number of causlties, or the number of square miles/acres that are actually apart of combat.

is there conflict stretching across the globe? yes
but
if we are simply defining a "world war" as any conflict that spans the globe, no matter how many people are involved or the number of casualties, then we are way past three of them!

2006-07-29 18:33:08 · answer #3 · answered by sbcalif 4 · 0 0

No there is no 3 world war.What we have is war against terrorists from 3 world

2006-07-29 09:35:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No but the US Empire is ongoing (for the next 40 years anyway)

2006-07-29 11:26:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

while you're awaiting the tip of the international long adequate, sometime you would be top. pass see in case you will locate a time, every time in oh say the final century or so, whilst some nut or different wasn't predicting the tip of the international.

2016-11-03 06:33:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

probably..and it will be a religious one...publicly christian privatly masons blair and bush vs the muslims and unfortunatly the muslims have large conclave of sympathisers already living behind the security of our borders so it's gonna get nasty

2006-07-30 18:17:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Decidedly YES!

2006-07-29 09:36:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

one word YES as blair and bush think theyre the world police and have to get involved.

2006-07-29 09:11:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I have...conflict on a global scale, no matter how many people are involved, is already happening.

2006-07-29 09:11:15 · answer #10 · answered by Julia L. 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers