It is claimed that very specific events started the ball rolling for WW1 and WW2. Both wars took some time to escalate to their peak.
In the future, if there's anyone left, will they look back at 9/11 as the specific event that started WW3?
2006-09-08 22:46:05 · 27 answers · asked by shoby_shoby2003 5 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I know what you're saying...but lets hope not.
2006-09-08 22:47:09 · answer #1 · answered by gromitski 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you ask certain neocons, WW3 was the cold war, and what we're engaged in today is WW4.
To me, "world war" implies that there's an equal and opposite superpower (or conglomeration of powers) on both sides. Any way you look at it, the nations of the middle east have no chance of inflicting total defeat on the United States, as in militarily conquering the U.S. and overthrowing its government. That makes me reluctant to call this a true world war.
It is possible that the train of events in the middle east will lead to the U.S.'s end as a true superpower, but if that happens, it won't be because the U.S. is defeated militarily. It'll be because maintaining an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy is terribly expensive and our economy can't keep up with it.... kinda like happened with the old Soviet Union. Or Britain, back when its empire was dismantled.
Anyway, history will be written by future historians. Obviously, 9/11 will be viewed as a pivotal turning point. Whether they call it a world war or something else remains to be seen. I don't think it matters all that much; the actual events are more important than the labels we choose to put on them.
2006-09-08 23:05:18 · answer #2 · answered by Bramblyspam 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question. Technically, not yet. At present there are several independent conflicts occuring globally over several different issues, not many nations teaming up on opposing sides over a singular issue. "War on Terror" is ambiguous, because terrorists are not nationalists in the true sense....and you cant really go to war against a principle, ideal, or belief. Iraq was a genuine war in the true sense, nation vs nation. As was Afghanistan. In some senses the current situation may be much worse than a World War. How would you fight a global war on Catholicism? How would you wage war against those who believe in Santa Claus? Pretty much the same right now.
2006-09-08 23:57:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes what ever you are saying is indeed true as Newton said Every action has equal and opposite reaction. So one action triggers the other. Soon you, me and everybody will see the curtain raiser of WW3 and that day will definitely bring DOOMSDAY upon Earth and I donh't know whether i will see the end of it. But the aftermath will be worse than the war.
2006-09-08 22:56:31 · answer #4 · answered by Bacti 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think so. It doesn't involve the same amount of countries as the world wars did. I know it takes some time for a whole world war to develop, but it's been years and still nothing happened.(I mean nothing that would involve so many countries) And anyway, it would take more continents to start a world war.
2006-09-08 22:55:33 · answer #5 · answered by Hellomynameis 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WW 3 already surpassed off and WW 4 change into Vietnam. The politicians merely dont call them international Wars yet all of us understand more beneficial positive dont we? a international warfare is something that lasts longer than a year costing billions and shortage of life.
2016-10-15 23:42:53 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
world war 3 i am sure the world leaders realize is going to be of such magnitude that it would be difficult to control or sustain and /or even calculate it's aftermath because of the amount of nuclear arsenal that different countries of the world possess and therefore it is presumed that w.w.3 would not happen.....answer of part 2 of your question is that since the whole world is still debating on whether the twin towers were destroyed by external forces or demolished by internal ones and the causes and effects of the same it would not be very wise to treat the same as a pretext for waging a third world war........
2006-09-08 22:55:52 · answer #7 · answered by uknownotlove 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously before WW1 and WW2 people were not aware that they were living the beginning of world wars.
Only history will tell whether we are living the beginning of WW3, but I think it is possible that we are.
2006-09-08 23:00:41 · answer #8 · answered by Hi y´all ! 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq war started it.
Saddam was the one; controlling Shias, sheikhs and jews. Bush the biggest fool of human history, started it which will end with China becoming World power.
2006-09-09 08:46:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
While I agree it is possible, I really don't think so. It seems the US and it's allies are the only ones fighting the war on terrorism / not a war against another country.
However, if other countries decided to jump in...old agenda's flare up...anything is possible.
2006-09-08 22:56:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it will be officially considered WW III until North Korea and Iran join the "fun"
The Asian countries will jump all over North Korea and the EU will jump all over Iran. Then it will truly be a world war.
2006-09-08 22:48:19 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋