2007-10-28 06:42:37 · 18 answers · asked by life_is_insane 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
A war of global proportions similar to World War II is not likely within the next ten years or so. By 2015, that could change.
Neither Russia nor China have the technical ability to tangle with (primarily) the US, nor with it's potential allies. None of our NATO allies have the technical ability to tangle with the US, for that matter.
Not for a lack of trying, though. Both Russia and China gauge their abilities in comparison to the US. Both will try to acquire Western technology, and reverse-engineer it if they can.
The solution? Maintain a technological lead. (easier said than done, admittedly.)
WW II was fought with 'dumb' bombs and dumb bullets. Modern warfare is much more lethal -- and, more accurate. The trend had its beginnings during the Vietnam war. First, with 'smart' packages for the bombs, and the first night vision devices.
In the thirty-odd years since then, we have gone from iron sights and best guestimate aiming, to laser range determination and computerized aiming. It is no longer a question of hitting the target with your first round; it is a question of where you want to hit your target.
If the US is to avoid being drawn into another World War, it has to be seen (by our adversaries) as too tough to handle. A technological superiority is a given. Implied is that we have to have enough of that technology on hand, and ready to go at a moment's notice.
That means a much bigger military, trained and equipped, by 2015.
wsulliva
2007-10-28 07:15:24 · answer #1 · answered by wsulliva 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you mean an all-out battle involving all the powerful nations of the world (like the two World Wars of the previous century), I don't think it's likely any time soon. I don't think the leaders of an of the great powers see anything to gain by having a big all-out war.
Except President Bush, of course. I think he's irrational. If he bombs Iran it will greatly complicate the war in the gulf, but that's not WWIII. If he uses NUKES in Iran, then all bets are off. God only knows what serious damage that could unleash, but I still don't think you could call it WWIII, it would be a diplomatic disaster, not a military one. I don't think he'll do that, but as I say I think he's irrational.
2007-10-28 13:49:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It has already begun. We're in the small scale stage right now similar to Poland in 1939. The greatest chance the war has right now of expanding is if Turkey sends troops over the border into Iraq to fight the rebel forces. However that's not the only country that can escalate the war. Iran, Israel, Syria, India, Pakistan, or several other nations in that region are only a military maneuver away from escalating the war.
2007-10-28 20:03:03 · answer #3 · answered by Odie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd say at practically any moment it (WWlll) could start, but at the same time, there's not really any more danger today than say,10 years ago.
Countries are always in conflicts, different races and religions hate each other, and nut-case politicians with delusions of achieving world power are as common as *turds in a toilet!
*(distasteful analogy was done on purpose, and directed specifically to people like that -- because that's about what I think of them)
But live and enjoy yourself. Some nut-case could launch the missile strike that will end the world this afternoon. But, unless you're regularly having lunch with these guys, there's nothing much you can do besides demonstrate, and that's about as effective as putting on sun-block before jumping into a burning house.
2007-10-28 13:57:13 · answer #4 · answered by Reality Man 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no evidence to support the supposition that there will be a III world war.
I don't see many other countries gearing up for a conflict, just because the U.S.A. and IRAN are shouting does not mean the rest of the world will play ball or dance to their tune.
The U.S.A. cannot for the moment finish what it started in Iraq, never mind sticking its fingers into IRAN.
2007-10-28 13:52:32 · answer #5 · answered by conranger1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Zero chance. A world war has, by definition, over 50% of the world engaged in conflict over the same war...no one of significance except the USA has the capability to go to and sustain serious armed conflict. And Iraq is NOT a serious armed conflict...our total casualties to date do not even equal one major battle of WW II.
2007-10-28 14:09:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran or North Korea. Something tells me were going to get attacked again and then were going to be back to square one hunting the middle east and just looking for a phantomn that my or may not exist. Thats what i think will happen anyhow. more then likely, we're going to start it ourselves if we don't change our war mongering.
2007-10-28 14:05:13 · answer #7 · answered by rex 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At the moment - ZERO
In the future - I would say 20-30%
2007-10-28 13:46:26 · answer #8 · answered by harsh_bkk 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it's happening now...war between US and Iraq..although not actually called WWIII...it still involves tremendous casualties on both sides.
2007-10-28 13:45:44 · answer #9 · answered by kymkam 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
well, If WW means the whole world involved,
no chance that'll happen
2007-10-28 15:21:34 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋