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

2006-12-18 13:19:38 · 8 answers · asked by well wisher 1 in Politics & Government Military

8 answers

Have you heard of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, Israel vs a coalition of Arab nations....Egypt, Syria and Jordan. That was worse than the current situation.....it didn't raise a blip on the world war scenario (not that it didn't have the potention as a spark)...just relegated to the heap of regional conflicts between rump states. When the strategic super powers square off into two camps, then come back and we'll talk world war.

Until then, just think regional conflicts, proxy wars, sabre rattling and brinksmanship.... After the next world war, we'll be back into the stone age and you won't have to worry whether a world war occurred or not. Your first inkling that a WORLD WAR has started is when your video game ot TV go out from that initial EMP blast...so forget about it.

2006-12-19 16:26:47 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

It can't be realistically called a World War unless at least another major power is involved. Besides, when you think about it, the definition of a World War is rather arbitrary.

Technically, the American Revolution was a World War when the French got involved on our side. They fought the British all over the world. The Napoleonic wars were also technically world wars, since again there was fighting in Africa, Asia, North America, and Europe. Add to that list the Seven Years' War, and the definition of a World War get very vague.

With the current fighting being confined primarily to Iraq, it hardly qualifies by any standard.

2006-12-18 13:52:59 · answer #2 · answered by Jason H 1 · 2 0

there in simple terms isn't a WWIII with convectional war besides. the ingredient is not any one desires to get entangled the Europeans do no longer want a repeat of WWII and in spite of if North Korea desperate to invade South Korea and Japan China will sit down it out and enable the U. S., South Koreans, and eastern combat it out on their own. yet North Korea maximum in all probability won't invade South Korea or Japan on account that must be in simple terms reason for the U. S. to circulate into North Korea and overthrow the dictatorship of North Korea. The North Koreans have a bigger armed forces than the United State however the U. S. has fare extra advantageous technological widely used war than North Korea and whoever has the extra useful technologies wins the wars. And in Africa there are continually wars being fought, maximum international locations stay out of it by using fact it do no longer contain them. And the middle east is a multitude if Israel is attacked the U. S. and in step with probability the united kingdom gets entangled even nonetheless it won't strengthen right into a international conflict. The chilly conflict is over, it relatively is been over for a whilst yet that does no longer mean a rustic can't be attacked with nuclear, chemical, or organic and organic weapons. If there ever became a WWIII that must be the top of mankind. international locations have nuclear and a few have chemical yet they are afraid to apply them by using repercussions. A organic and organic weapon is illegitimate by making use of UN standards yet some international locations do no longer obey UN rules.

2016-10-15 05:10:57 · answer #3 · answered by dudik 4 · 0 0

No. That is alarmism by certain political groups to justify their worldview. Last year an annual study showed that even with all the wars overall violence has been decreasing for the last several years. If you absolutely must call it a world war, then the Cold War was WW3, and this would be WW4.

2006-12-18 13:24:38 · answer #4 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 1 1

Y E S!!! SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 with the terrorist attacks
on the WTC in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington,DC and the aborted attempt in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

2006-12-18 13:26:53 · answer #5 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0 2

No. There aren't enough world powers fighting.

2006-12-18 13:27:07 · answer #6 · answered by redrancherogirl 4 · 1 0

No, but if bush stays in office it may soon be commencing

2006-12-18 13:26:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

no not really

2006-12-18 13:26:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers