2006-09-30 08:22:52 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
no since the stakes would be potential annihilation of humankind......the irony of the nuclear age is that leaders will find that mutual destruction is not a viable option to resolve conflicts
2006-10-08 06:13:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
It could be 28 minutes from now or 280 years from now. When the superpowers square off against each other in two camps, then come back and we'll talk WW III.
Until then, just think regional conflicts, wars between rump states, proxy wars and brinksmanship. If you recall the Yom Kippur War in 1973, a coalition of Arab States (Egypt, Syria and Jordan) were soundly defeated by the Israelis. That was a worse situation than the current conflict and it didn't raise a blip on the world war radar (not that it didn't have the potential to spark a global war).
The next World War will involve a nuclear exchange, how could it not. In the first 30 minutes, nearly a billion people will have been vaporised, mostly in the US, Russia, Europe, China and Japan. Another 1.5 billion will die shortly thereafter from radiation poisoning. The northern hemisphere will be plunged into prolonged agony and barbarity.
Eventually the nuclear winter will spread to the southern hemisphere and all plant life will die. You ask when world war three will start, you are asking when will we commit global suicide. My answer is it won't happen soon because the larger superpowers are more rational than the rump states in the middle east.
2006-09-30 16:10:06 · answer #2 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What do you think the war on terrorism is? It is a war of ideology. We are the free society fighting fascism, socialism, and communism. Part of this war is the war of economics. Countries that have been very socialist are starting to realize it is a colossal failure: Canada, England, Germany, France, etc. Some of these countries aid and abed the terrorists.
2006-09-30 15:37:03 · answer #3 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only if Bush and Blair stay in office or Rumsfeld and cheney stick around. The neocon yanks are so gung ho they seem to be itching to get their thumbs on the nuke buttons. Unluckily because Bush didn't actually win his first election it is legally arguable that he may be able to stand for a third term. If he stole it from Gore (with the aid of brother Jeb) then perhaps he might do another volte face and argue that he is entitled to run again - who knows?
American foreign policy appears to make WWIII almost inevitable.
2006-09-30 15:27:35 · answer #4 · answered by Helen P 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
World War III has been underway since 1947.
2006-09-30 15:26:03 · answer #5 · answered by . 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
what are you talking about?we are in world war III now!
2006-09-30 15:26:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
WW3 began in 2001.
2006-09-30 15:39:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, we are in the very early part of it now
2006-09-30 15:30:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i think north korea is getting close to a launch on the states
2006-09-30 15:26:25 · answer #9 · answered by steve 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
How many more times - we are having WW.III now.
2006-10-07 14:51:47 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋