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

16 answers

i am sad to say yes. i am afraid someone will end up discharging a nuclear weapon, and then it will start a nuclear holocaust basically

2006-08-22 19:21:35 · answer #1 · answered by . 5 · 1 0

No. World Wars start when there conglomeration of nations forming superpowers who have conflicting ideaology and pressing economic interest. Much as things seem bad at the moment there is no comparison with the situation in the 20th century. There is no Islamic superpower. The west could swat the entire Arab world like flies if it wanted to. The large Islamic counties are very poor with very little military power. The rich Arab countires are small and have a vested interest in maintaining the global status quo.

The only true Superpowers are the "West" and China. China is mercifully not part of the current Islamic/West debate. Their economy is doing very nicely, thank you, and they have no interest in war. The US/UK so called alliance does not have much support in Europe ( even in the UK ) and the UK's continued economic prosperity is tied in it's relationship with continental Europe.

Terrorism is a result of an ideological conflict that does not have popular and political support or economic credibility.

It's impossible to see how a World War would line up.

2006-08-22 19:52:03 · answer #2 · answered by dws2711 3 · 0 0

Absolutely.

And i hope this will rid the earth of this pesky humanity. We are supposedly the ones with intelligence, but somehow we do not show a shred of it. Therefore we haven't deserved to rule this planet any longer. I'd say, let's have WW3 start sooner rahter than later. Let's use nuclear weapons and let's use them aplenty. The more the better. A few million years later the earth will have forgotten what we have done to her.

2006-08-22 20:41:11 · answer #3 · answered by The answer man 4 · 0 0

I think that this generation is going to see a series of wars in the Middle East, but not the total world involvement needed for a "world war".

2006-08-22 19:17:28 · answer #4 · answered by trueblue88 5 · 0 0

In case you have been asleep or in a coma since 9/11, we are in the middle of it. It will last a long time.
We are fighting idiots who would rather put a bullet in your head than allow you to type a question on Yahoo. If you are a woman, they want you in a burlap sack. If you try to meet with them and just try to "talk it out", you end up on Yahoo videos getting your head cut off.

2006-08-22 19:20:20 · answer #5 · answered by An Unhappy Yahoo User 4 · 0 0

As long as there are presidents like Bush yes www3 is very likely. Under his regime we have seen more countries attacked then ever. He is stirring up a hornets nest

2006-08-22 19:23:27 · answer #6 · answered by kalule 2 · 1 0

Nope

2006-08-22 19:20:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

no, the u.n. would prevent a large scale war from happening. we'll probably see more of the same: terrorists, rogue dictators, and overzealous presidents.starting small scale skirmishes.

2006-08-22 19:45:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

WWIII will end the world. Doubtful.

2006-08-22 19:17:55 · answer #9 · answered by D 4 · 0 0

Yes, sadly it is highly likely.

2006-08-22 19:17:25 · answer #10 · answered by inzaratha 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers