probably not. I would think issues like the nuclear threat of Iran will be more likely to be called the beginning of WW3. I really think we have more to come from iran they are not done yet...
2006-08-16 08:27:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by ggroess 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
When the Soviet Union collapsed the threat of a new global war diminished. We are now in a period of history characterized by the existence of only one major power pole. All the military might, and ability of waging war anywhere on Earth, is gathered around the U.S. and it's major allies (this could be easily named an Anglo-Saxon military hegemony). No doubt, this huge concentration of power and wealth towards the Western countries in contrast with the poverty and political instability in the East and Orient, has created a favorable environment for terrorism which continues to spread and gain power. But, in my opinion, the war against terrorism is more likely to be called a new kind of war rather than a world war. Only if a terrorist organization could somehow gain total military and political control over at least two or three countries in possession of a nuclear arsenal (and that is a grim but unlikely perspective), an eventual war against this hypothetical enemy would truly be a world war.
The status of war (throughout all human history) has been perpetual, but only at a regional level. There will always be a military conflict somewhere on this planet (a global peace is almost impossible, at least for now), but I think that as the time passes, and the destructive power of the human race continues growing at such an alarming pace, a WW III could even mean the destruction of the human race.
As for the islamic nations, they first have to solve the dissentions among themselves, if they are to create a military alliance; And the main religious factions (Sunni, Shiite) are far from solving their own religious issues( in the Gulf War in 1991 Saudi Arabia was an ally of the U.S.). And if such an alliance would be created, they still wouldn't have enough strenght to wage war and maintain a war against the U.S and NATO military block.
2006-08-16 10:03:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by alex 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the start of WWIII began right after WWII ended. With the careless breaking up of Axis countries with no respect to ethnic borders, it was inevitable that fighting would continue. It's just been so subtle, so regionalized, that no one's noticed. Only now does it once again enter the limelight, because of the larger scale deaths. When was the last time, for the past three generations, that you DIDN'T hear about someone being shot or blown up on the European/Asian continental mass?
2006-08-16 08:31:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by graytrees 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No I dont believe this is WWIII. However, I do believe Islam is going through growing pains where the vast majority of it's people are uneducated and easily led by corrupt hypocritical despot governments. The West has something to offer the Middle-East and they know it. Why else are so many millions migrating to the West? Not to invade but to improve their lives.
2006-08-16 09:30:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by connavar_bane 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that if a WW3 comes up in the next ten years...the previous 20 or so will have a lot to do with the start of it...I also think (and I don't want to sound conceited b/c I am american) that if a real world war broke out...that a very small number of nations with very strong militaries will put an end to it quickly.
2006-08-16 11:28:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by chavito 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Unfortunately, it looks that way. Already, some are saying that elements within our government are looking for a scenario where nuclear weapons will be used. Not the large megaton nuclear bombs, but smaller (but very deadly nevertheless) bombs in places such as Iran (their nuclear facilities). Any if we and Israel attack Syria and Iran, which we plan on doing, then you can see popular uprisings in the middle Eastern countries and an anti-american stance from such countries as Russia, China, India, Japan, etc. So yes, its very possible considering that were out to control the oil. If there were no oil there, we wouldn't be there. and we want that oil at any price. Remember, both Cheney and Bush are oil men.
2006-08-16 08:36:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by wally 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Georgia attacked S. Ossetia and Russian Peace keepers. it is not approximately "Russia commencing WWIII" yet approximately our proxie states antagonizing a reemerging great ability. it relatively is too undesirable that Obama's backers are a team of hellbent crazies that think of we could consistently carve Russia into 3 separate products. And McCain is risky too so he won't be a competent wager the two.
2016-11-04 23:05:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I totally agree with you. Hitler also started hating all non-white and Jews around 1939 and did not like anything about them So started killing them.
And the new Hitler now is "Islamc Fascism" which does not like non-muslims believes in hateful radical extremist ideology and building private armies throughout the muslim world to achieve their pan-islamic twisted agenda.
Well they would be able to create many bomb blasts all over the world and would bleed different nations.
But when the rest of the sensible world unites together and would take some drastic and unpleasant steps to thwart this menace, these people would be wiped out.
Consider this problem as pest problem, which never goes away but you have to keep spraying pesticides to keep them away from neighbourhoods.
Its all the game of numbers. When the problem multiplies and is felt across the globe, then like minded civilized countries would join together to defeat this new Hitler.
2006-08-16 08:33:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by JIM 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
no..........20 years from now we'll say that the iranian hostage crisis from 1979 was the start of ww3.
and it is in fact the start of a global struggle against terror....no different than the terror the nazis instilled in europe. unfortunately, i think it'll take another 9/11 event or worse to really shake the american people awake......too many democrats (they're the ones denying there is a problem) have their heads up their collective a s s e s. another catastrophe will be the green light we need to really take the fight to those hell-bound cowards, i'm sad to say.
2006-08-16 11:19:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by zoo2626 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No and I don't believe that WWIII is going to happen
2006-08-16 09:13:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by andelska 3
·
0⤊
0⤋