2007-01-19 23:13:27 · 8 answers · asked by rockzamba 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
IF it comes to world war 3, the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and rocks to be sure.
2007-01-19 23:18:27 · answer #1 · answered by Ex Head 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WW3 would be devestating to all the countries involved. Yes, it would involve a limited use of nuclear weapons. I don't believe that any country would launch sufficient nuclear weapons to destroy the planet. Humans are pretty dumb as a species, however, we aren't that dumb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two times nukes were used. The cities were destroyed and alot of lives were lost. However, the planet as a whole survived.
Further, remember War is very seldom held just to kill another. Conflicts are over land and resources, sometimes, political differences. WW2 and WW1 started out because, Germany, wanted to conquer Europe. The U.S. got involved after we were attacked by Japan in Pear Harbor WW2. Even that was based on the Japanese desire to conquor the Pacific asian countries. The attack was designed to cripple the U.S. ability to fight and wage war in the Pacific. Again a grab at land and resources.
Desert Storm, or Iraq 1, as some people are calling it. Started also as a land grab when Iraq, Husein, attacked and conquored Kuwait. Iraq wanted control of its oil fields. This united the nations of the world to come together to form a coalition against Iraq and to retake Kuwait. Basically, I don't think it would interest any country to obliterate another country with nukes. It would destroy the land and resources making them unusable to all. That's why nukes haven't been used in the middle east. The world needs the Oil.
The U.S. had a legitimate reason to invade Afghanistan. We were attacked by a terrorist group that was heavily supported by the Taliban. However, the world didn't see the legitimacy of an international attack on Iraq. That is why there isn't a large international coalition in Iraq now. The U.S. and England took it on themselves. I have to give credit to England. They didn't have to get involved with this fight. They did so to support thier ally America.
I think we would regret it. Alot of lives would be lost. Inflation would climb to an extreme level. The national debt in the U.S. is out of control and with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan we are spending an unimaginable amount of money and resources. A world war would involve alot more money. The only thing that is certain is the weapons industries would boom and they would become even wealthier.
In a nutshell, what would I think after WW3? I would think that the human race will never learn from it's mistakes and how long am I going to wait in line for my next gallon of milk. If you don't believe me, ask you grandparents about food ration coupons in WW2.
2007-01-20 01:10:37 · answer #2 · answered by krzylove 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well i pearsonaly see WW3 as kinda a nuculear threat war, i dont think the world will be good after WW3 i think it will be one big depressed world
2007-01-19 23:18:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depending on who starts it, Iran, North Korea. Their country wont exist after WW3
2007-01-19 23:37:35 · answer #4 · answered by americanmalearlington 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there will be much of a world left after another World War. This time it will be fought with nuclear warheads, so I don't think we'll have to worry about rebuilding.
2007-01-19 23:22:21 · answer #5 · answered by vanhammer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The United states and most of north america will be the same, the rest of the world will be destroyed.
2007-01-19 23:17:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yup it will be full of insects because thats about all that will exist after a nuclear holocaust what a pity insects don't read books or create music
2007-01-19 23:28:54 · answer #7 · answered by Natashya K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WWIII is on right now...The result will depend on how much the west`s liberals are able to help the Islamo-fascists.
2007-01-19 23:36:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋