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

Keeping in mind the political situation in the entire World.

2007-08-20 05:00:57 · 21 answers · asked by Zacky 2 in Politics & Government Politics

21 answers

Zacky good question, Now, I have been deployed to Korea and that place is a time bomb and be a catalyst in starting a world war.

I have also been on the Pakistan/India border and trust there is no love lost there between the 2.

The Middle East it has and always will be a ticking Time bomb, and the recent rant by the Iranian Leader shows me personally that at some point he is gonna make a move soon, and set things off.

The world is pretty unstable it could start anywhere.

2007-08-20 05:06:52 · answer #1 · answered by dez604 5 · 2 0

I think the rest of the world just doesn't care as much as America does for it to escalate to WWIII. However this does not mean that it still cant. For example, if either side was to launch a Nuclear Attack, if any terrorist group was to start attacking other countries or if America decides to completely take over Iraq, it could escalate quickly. This being said these things are extremely unlikely. The war resembles a lot of the Korean and Vietnam war as it was mostly fought between America and the enemy but in both cases the fight was more over communism, something that linked other world powers, then anything else. The middle east is a fairly isolated country and does not have any allies that are "world powers."

2007-08-20 05:09:02 · answer #2 · answered by Schoony 2 · 2 1

It depends what you mean by 'World War III'. I doubt that any advanced nuclear-capable nations (like the United States, Russia, China, England, France, etc) will ever go to war with each other while remaining in one piece. Everyone is just too scared by the idea of mutually assured destruction. I suspect that in the near future, wars will be primarily fought between small, prenuclear nations and either other small, prenuclear nations or some large, nuclear nations that don't end up using their nuclear weapons in said wars.

Besides, if the democrats get in in 2008, they will almost certainly withdraw many troops from the Middle East soon afterwards, which would make the situation a lot less dangerous.

2007-08-20 05:10:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

There has been only one world war.

It started in 1914 and has never ended.

There have been peaks and valleys with regard to the levels of violence. Weapons, tactics and battle fields have changed but the war never stopped.
Our concept of a world war should not be limited to the standards of WWI and WWII as individual, conventional conflicts.
They were interdependent just as the war is today. It's all part of the same evolving power struggle.

We will never see another conventional conflict like we are accustomed to. The nuclear age, communications, religious affiliations and globalization won't allow it but, that the world is at conflict and will continue to be for several more generations to come is a certainty.

2007-08-20 05:20:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

As it stands, any millitary action regaurding Iran-Isreal, Iran- USA or North-South Korea, could and would start off a chain reaction that would plunge the world into conflict.

And dont think russia and china would take the side of the western world, they are iran's allies.

I've thought about this for a while now and it freaks me out!!!, i just wonder if People my age will be the ones to fight...or my children.

2007-08-20 12:23:49 · answer #5 · answered by matt h 2 · 0 0

No danger of that occuring in besides. In my 51 years in the international no try against, alongside with those lots worse than what's happening interior the Gulf areas and North Africa, has introduced approximately something even close to to the thought a international conflict will start up.

2016-11-12 23:52:40 · answer #6 · answered by bojan 4 · 0 0

If America pulls out of IRAQ the situation could escalate into WW3.The superpowers would argue over the Oil,Arab neighbours will enter the conflict supporting either Sunni or Shiite.Turkey and the Kurds will go for it and Arabs would support Syria against Israel.

2007-08-20 05:23:52 · answer #7 · answered by siaosi 5 · 0 0

My view is, it already IS a third world war. We just aren't calling it WWIII. The difference from all previous world wars is that we are not fighting a nation, but we are fighting a group of people who are losely/tightly (depending on which country you are talking about) divided by the religeious line.

With the muslim view of non-believers of their religions being their enemy, it really is a global war. If you notice, we (United States) are calling this war a "global war against terrorism." So in a way, we have decleard this war, a WW III.

2007-08-20 05:08:15 · answer #8 · answered by tkquestion 7 · 2 2

No. I think China is going to start taking more of an interest in the middle east, and the US will let them. When China gets in there, they wont stand for a lot of the stuff the US takes. China doesn't mess around.

2007-08-20 05:05:52 · answer #9 · answered by Master C 6 · 1 2

WW III has already started, WWIII began on 9/11/10 with the terrorist attacks on the US and the
Iranian takeover of the American Embassy in
Tehran in the Carter Administration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2007-08-20 05:10:12 · answer #10 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers