2007-01-21 14:25:55 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yes
2007-01-21 21:30:11 · answer #1 · answered by fast f 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you will analyze the last two great wars, you will find than both have deeper reasons than just that of the 'Catalyst' reason like assassinating an archduke or invading a sovereign country. Before world war I was declared there were smaller wars all of them trying to resolve the deeper reasons, no great war was fought because there was no catalyst. so, a great war cannot happen without a deep reason, but it also needed a catalyst. A catalyst however can only become a catalyst if it is treated as one. Consider the assassination of Francis Ferdinand. do you think a war would have erupted when Austria tried to resolve it diplomatically? Or Poland perhaps, do you think the allies would want to remove Hitler without his invasion? History has told us that the answer is no. so in our case, unless someone from the coalition of the willing or from the axis of evil, do something stupid and someone from the opposite side do something more stupid, then a war will happen
2007-01-21 15:50:39 · answer #2 · answered by Stalker 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the time of the great wars is over. You'll never see anything like that again, thankfully. A lot of people seem to miss the point but after the two world wars governments have learned to moderate themselves. They know that there is no real winner in a war of that nature so starting one is pointless. Despite their many failings, most leaders really aren't as stupid as people would like to believe. They aren' t going to start a war in which they do not believe they can really win.
2007-01-21 14:35:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very probably. Not only that. Mark my words watch out Mexico. Mexico is prized target for terrorists. If drug lords join guerillas and destabilize Mexico the US could find itself swamped and its military diverted to an internal problem thus leaving the rest of the world on its own. That's one scenario only of multiple that could bring about conditions for a "free for all' around the hot spots in the world. Let's hope someone see the light and the need to legalize all drugs and take away the power of gangs, terrorists to raise money through traficking...
2007-01-21 14:37:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To me a world war means that the vast majority of the planet is engaged in some sort of combat.
Welcome to the world of the jihad.
Welcome to WW III.
2007-01-21 15:19:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not as long as we keep the middle east in balance. If we cannot control Israel, and they begin indiscriminate bombing of Iran like they did in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, l think a world ware will ensure, but that will be the last "world" war.
2007-01-21 14:42:16 · answer #6 · answered by The Cythian 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I think eventually there will be a world war...
But I think it will be over natural resources
2007-01-21 14:34:02 · answer #7 · answered by dexter 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Eventually, the world in its current state isn't heading towards peace.
2007-01-21 14:30:11 · answer #8 · answered by Draco Paladin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is EXACTLY what the US is trying to prevent in Iraq; it is called balance of power. It is also why there is so much concern with Iran and their fanatic government.
Then you have North Korea, India and Pakistan trying to be important.
It is called diplomacy and sanctions.
2007-01-21 14:34:20 · answer #9 · answered by jacquesstcroix 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
we are already in it with the Moslems. All Muslims are war mongers
2007-01-21 14:31:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋