A conventional WWIII??

Question

Do you think that we are slowly creeping towards another World War? Please give reasons to explain why you think so.

Answer 1

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.... In a nuclear age like i said before, the only true enemy is war itself.

Answer 2

Guerilla warefare is a tactic that only seems to be practical for terrorists, fanatics, and separatists. If the official government of a sovereign state declared war with another sovereign state, guerilla warfare would not work out so well, because everyone knows one place to find the enemy when their boundaries are drawn on the globe. There are plenty of government leaders doing their fair share of saber rattling these days. Iran and Venezuela seem particularly agressive. North Korea is giving up its reactor, because it was falling apart anyway; I think that they will be just as hostile as they have been. China hasn't exactly been a good neighbor to the U.S. Putin seems interested in flexing some Russian muscle. I would say that a conventional World War III is a real possibility, but it cannot be compared to a war against a terrorist guerilla group.

Answer 3

Well, traditionally, a World War primarily involves war between European countries, and since Europe was the most technologically advanced, and generally thought to be the "hub" of the world, it became a World War (although South America, most of Africa generally weren't involved). But, since we've greatly increased our technology since WW2, especially transportation, basically the whole world can gank one area very quickly if the need arose, so essentially every war has been a world war since many wars involve a UN led task force, which is comprised of soldiers from many nationalities.

Answer 4

WWII was started by a dictator. He told us day after day what he was going to do and how he was going to do it. Some could not believe that the horror was real and made excuses for him. He is just posturing, spouting off, likes to hear himself talk, etc. and they were called peacemakers. Others took the tact that he said what he meant and meant what he said and they were called war mongers. Does any of this sound familiar? We are not creeping towards another world war we are hurtling towards it and this time the bad guys have nukes. Oh yeah, and oil. Great question kiddo, keep them coming.

Answer 5

Now, every war is a world war, because faraway countries involve themselves. The phrase has become meaningless.

If there is a WW3 in the sense of WW1 and 2, I think the flashpoint will be in Kashmir or Taiwain, but it's unlikely that a truly worldwide war will be fought with anything other than nuclear weapons.

Answer 6

No I don't. The threat from North Korea is being slowly removed. North Korea is being closely monitored and they are complying with all of our demands.

Iran will agree to our demands eventually. They don't really have a choice. I mean its pretty bad when the French are pissed off at you and are talking about bombing and invasion.

Aside from those two locations there are really any hot spots in the world worthy of note.

Answer 7

I don't think a nuclear world war will serve anybody's purposes. I could see China threatening us with bombardment but I don't think it would work. A conventional war with China would be very ugly.

Answer 8

I don't think we have enough enemies with a large enough sum conventional military to take us on. I think conventional war is going to be dead for a long time. All we're going to see here on out is guerrilla tactics.

Answer 9

It feels like it is just around the corner....

Answer 10

bush wants world domination and will go to war to achieve it. He has made a lot of enemies and will continue to use their resistance to us rule as an excuse to invade them