Is it not time to have another World war as we would soon find out who had the biggest bomb and not wait for 1

Question

With all this prancing around with WMDs and practice runs the World will never have peace. Usually we have some semblance of peace after a war. Come on let's get it over with and bomb the hell out of one another. Let's see if the Yanks have the stomach to fight someone who can fight back this time like the VC. I guess not. As for their bully boy friends in the Middle East?. They need to know their place and get back to their ghettos before they start another war.

Answer 1

I am inclined to agree with you. I am sick to s**t of watching the yanks running around the planet causing mayhem and havoc to countries that are barely able to stand on their own two feet let alone stand up to the military might of the U.S while the so called "civillised countries" of the world turn a blind eye to the human rights abuses, Geneva Convention abuses, murder of innocent civillians and the Fascist bully boy tactics employed by successive American governments.

Why wait for the yanks to choose the right time for them to invade oil rich countries and steal their wealth? Why wait for the yanks to run another propaganda campaign of lies and mis-truths to justify their injustices against innocent countries? We all know what the yanks are after and what they are trying to achieve and we all know that the governments of the so called "civillised countries" are like frightened rabbits in the headlights of a car, bowing and scraping to the American threats. Blair is a prime example. He has his own intelligence network that would have been well able to inform him that Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction and had NO PART in the attack on the World Trade Centre but he backed the yanks all the way. What a spineless little fool. He honestly thinks that he can exert some control over the lunatics in Washington. Like Chamberlain thought he could control Hitler. What a cretin.

The time has come for truly civillised societies to bring pressure to bear on America for systamaticly abusing it's position as the world's leading superpower. We cannot allow the most powerful nation on earth to continue to interfere in the affairs of other countries and to create unnecessary conflict simply to amass profits for it's military industrial complex. America has no right to destabalise countries with CIA covert operations in order gain control and steal their wealth, it has no right to present lies and manufactured "evidence" against innocent defencless nations, it has no right wage war without the consent and permission of NATO and the UN and it has no right to murder tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process. All these actions are rightly considered immoral, unethical and illegal in any civillised democratic country.

Russia, China and the EU have a duty to ensure that America abide by internationally agreed rules on human rights and military engagement and that they take responsibility for the conflict and unrest that they are causing in the world. No more covert operations, no more sanctions and military action based on American lies and fabrications and no more unilateral military action by the United States of America.

Our own governments are as responsible for the current world situation because they are standing by while America runs amok on this planet persueing it's own agenda of world domination. Our own governments are elected and installed to protect our interests, not the interests of the United States. It's about time we stood up to the yanks and let them know that this is our planet, not theirs. We can start by removing all American military establishments from all countries within the EU and we can boycott all American goods, services and industries to bring pressure on the American government. We are going to have to make a stand some time. Now is as good a time as any.

Answer 2

At any given time in history, there are numerous wars and conflicts going on. Currently there are 40+/- conflicts in the world. The only time the WORLD WAR status is attibuted to a war is when the superpowers square off on opposite sides in open declarations of war. We are far from that scenario, altho i agree the spark is there to ignite a larger conflagaration. But for now, just think regional conflicts, proxy wars, brinksmanship and disagreements between rump states.

When the US, Russia and/or China square, then come back and we'll talk WW III. The history books haven't declared the Cold War as WWIII or the current war on terror as WWIV. You'll know when WWIII hits, that burst of EMP will be your first warning....

Unfortunately, WWIII will be global suicide, therefore in answer to your question, as long as there's rational superpowers who believe in MAD, there will be no WW3. By definition, the next world war wil be nuclear, how could it not. In a nuclear war there will be no winner. In a nuclear world, the only true enemy is war itself.

The next World War will involve a nuclear exchange, how could it not if both sides believe no price for victory will be too high. 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 what country would be victorious, 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.

While we hear talk of a nuclear-Iran or a confrontation with NorKor, little is said about the 2 bulls in the glass shop. The arsenals of Russia and the US are enough to destroy a million Hiroshimas. But there are fewer than 3000 cities on the Earth with populations of 100,000 or more. You cannot find anything like a million Hiroshimas to obliterate. Prime military and industrial targets that are far from cities are comparatively rare. Our biggest threat is from an accidental launch by the Russians.

At the point of global suicide, it doesn't matter who is on what side....where you go to hide, or how long you can survive. In a nuclear age like i said before, the only true enemy is war itself.

As Einstein is often quoted as saying, WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones....

Answer 3

Can i have my holiday first?

Everyone seems to be worrying about war and all the bollocks that is going on around the world. I'm 30 years old and have never known a time when war wasn't threatened. However, I and most other people are still here and I want to enjoy life while I can.

If America and UK governments want to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan and all them other places good luck to them I'm sure they have their reasons, but it is us innocent citizens who normally pay the price - 9/11 and the London tube bombings are cases in point.

So to say why don't we set off all our WMD's is a bit daft. Cos the retaliation will be on a much larger scale.

We don't need to bomb the crap out of eachother, anyone who has a basic knowledge of human history will see whole empires collapsing, millions being wiped out by disease, etc.

With 6billion people on the planet nature will find it's own way to dispose of us before too long.

Disease, Volanic eruptions, Tsunami, Asteroid - at least these things the planet can recover from.

But in the meantime I will go on holiday and enjoy myself. Life is for living not worrying about what missile is going to kill you!

Answer 4

MAD is an ackronym for Mutually Assured Destruction. It means that if one nation launches an attack using WMD on another country with similar capabilities, such as Russia and the U.S., then both countries would blow the crap out of eachother. If this was done with Nuclear weapons, then the dust kicked up from the massive explosions would block out the sun and cause nuclear winter, which would mean nearly all life on earth would end. I see your frustration with long drawn out wars, but you simply cannot bomb something and hope you killed it. In vietnam for example, 3 times more bombs were dropped by the US than all bombs dropped in WW2. We can see from that example that without proper ground support, bombing is ineffective at solving problems. Regarding your rant against the U.S., the "yanks" are the world police and it is our duty to protect democracies around the globe. Having the most powerful military in the world, the U.S. is obviously in its rightful place as the enforcers of UN actions. Also, please don't attack the "stomach" of U.S. soldiers as they are some of the most determined and resourceful people on earth.

Answer 5

As an American myself I disagree with our involvement in world affairs. I personally believe the United States should leave everybody alone no matter the conflict. If there is genocide, let them work it out, if one country invades another, its their problem. If a country hates America, let them hate America, don't invade them unless they attack us first. I do support the war in Afghanistan but, not the one in Iraq. America should return to its isolationism that we had prior to World War II. An as an American I would like to deeply apologise for our involvement in world affairs. I am sorry for being involved in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Kosovo. We should have never been involved. None of those countries with the exception of Japan ever attacked us. I hope we can just leave the rest of the world alone and spend our money here at home where we in America need it.

Answer 6

on the present challenge, i don't think of there will be yet another international conflict. because of the fact each u . s . prefer to do their own enterprise. the international is govern with the aid of economics. If Iran, NK attack yet another u . s . they might perish as we talk. yet united statescan attack their enemies because of the fact they have the main effective economic equipment and different international places nonetheless prefer to do enterprise with united statesdue to the fact of funds. working example, united stateshas conflict and the the remainder of the international might grant united stateswith uncooked ingredients. yet small international places like Iran and NK would be unable to do ****. Bombs are basically terrorists acts, it won't in any respect provide up on the grounds which you cant fulfill all people.

Answer 7

Difficult one who would we fight ? Who would the french surrender to ?? What would we fight with ?? Down to 3 boats, 5 planes one of which is a Sopwith Camel. And about 100 front line soldiers with 400000 doing the health and safety plus admin work ..... We could conscript some hodies, but this may infringe there human rights to be lazy and ignorant...........

Answer 8

The best way to stop the fighting is for Britain to put all its nuclear weapons really deep inside the ground, then warn the rest of the world, that if they don't stop fighting and killing one another we will detonate ours and blow the world up, if that doesn't stop the pointless killings then nothing will.

Answer 9

No. Too many innocent people would suffer as well for the sins of America's current neofascist leadership.
There is a change in the wind anyway.

Answer 10

Well Derrybornandbred, the Catholic Irish excelled themselves during the last war by keeping themselves out of it so your authority on this matter hardly encourages enthusiasm.