If there will be nothing worthwhile left to rule over why even skirt the egdes of WWIII?

Question

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/index.html
http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/
http://ahboon.net/2007/02/07/hiroshima-the-unseen-pictures/
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Hibakusha/index.shtml
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/index.html

Answer 1

Talk of WW3 goes beyond terrorism and I don't know if people can grasp the magnitude of this type of talk. It could very well be a conventional war but with today's weaponry who to say what damage can be done.
Look how much damage is being done in Iraq with conventional tactics against an unconventional group of fighters. Imagine if we did go all out against another force that has nearly the same weaponry. WW 3 shouldn't be evened mentioned over rumors and maybes. Haven't we learned our lesson with Iraq?

Answer 2

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except syria & Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?
When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatolla Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)
In a speech, Rudy Giuliani said that while the Soviet Union and China could be deterred during the cold war, Iran can't be. the Soviet and Chinese regimes had a "residual rationality," he explained. Hmm. Stalin and Mao--who casually ordered the deaths of millions of their own people, formented insurgencies and revolutions, and starved whole regions that opposed them--were rational folk. But no Ahmadinejad, who has done what that compares? One of the bizarre twists of the current Iran hysteria is that conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history's greatest mass murderers.
Last year, the Princeton scholar, Bernard Lewis, a close adviser to Bush and VPresident Cheny, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal predicting that on Aug. 22, 2006, President Ahmadinejad was going to end the world. The date, he explained, "is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the Prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque", usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back. This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalytic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world" (my emphasis). This would all be funny if it weren't so dangerous.

Answer 3

You gone so far,
anyway am not pessimistic that much, i believe that we should look to these things in a different way not always take the extreme side.
its not for any country benefit to get Thur that or to try to start such a this war, we all remember what happened in the cold war , nothing happened, only bubbles for a political reasons to keep the companies in both sides working and selling
and this is the goal, not anything else,
wish that i answered you.

Answer 4

The sound of a fork scratching on a plate, simply to consider of it offers me the shivers, chalk on a board, vehicle or condominium alarms that move off non quit, this boy screeching the opposite day, his voice so prime pitched it gave the impression of an alarm and made me soar, was once terrible and he might now not quit and mom and dad simply letting him run wild, was once stressful my 8yr ancient while he saved jogging over and doing it in my sons face.ggggrrrrr

Answer 5

I don't believe anyone will intentionally start WWIII. IF or when it happens it will start like WWI. From something that shouldn't amount to a hill of beans. WWI started from an assasination of an arch duke. It should have been no big deal but it escalated.

But you are right. If we have WWIII there won't be enough left worth having.

Answer 6

Because not everyone plays by the same rules.

If the US got rid of all of our nukes, that doesn't mean that Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, or anyone else will get rid of theirs. Same goes for any country that gets rid of their nukes. So far, it has actually been a safety to keep a nuclear war from happening.

Also, WWIII doesn't have to turn nuclear. It could very well be conventional.

Answer 7

So very true. Allow me to add one more link:

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/index.html

Imagine that happening everywhere, and you will see why the only solution for humanity is to ban nuclear weapons, strengthen the United Nations, and end war forever.

As Gandhi said: "I don't know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Answer 8

I feel that those that are weak and lack the will to survive will not be missed anyway. Our modern society has bred too many useless mouths that contribute nothing yet take and take and take. I say bring it on.

Answer 9

And who besides the US would be launching nuclear weapons. I think you are about 30 years too late for this argument.

Answer 10

Because the world is a stupid place, with stupid people in charge of it. I say live it up before we all get turned into dust.