It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WW3 does not look like WW2 Compare the Two - WW3 is already Here.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Just a thought -when did the generation that was in WW2 actually recognize that war as WW2? the War today may be labeled as WW3 Only in retrospect, How many countries does it take to actually become a world war? How Many Casualties?

Comparisons any history buffs out there ? Also you have to take account of the technology and who are we Fighting& where ect ect?

Compare WW2 Wtih whats going on in todays theaters of operations and countries involved .

WW2 - WW3-
Who
Where
How long
Countries involved
Casualties
Teck used?




posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
do your own homework....



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
In terms of the information that Albert Pike got from the demon in 1887, World War 3 was given the green light in 1991 with Gulf War 1.

Then Afghanistan (2001) Gulf War 2 (2003), Libia, Syria.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: GnosticMountain
On your opening question, "World War 2" was a government decision made about half-way through.
One of Churchill's aides suggested three options;
1. Name the two wars in terms of their dates (e.g. War of 1914-18. etc)
2. Name the two wars in terms of their lengths (e.g "Five Years War, etc)
3. Name them World War 1 and World War 2.
Obviously the first two were quite impractical without knowing when the current war was going to end.
Typical civil service "guidance"; make two of the three choices impossible so that the decision-maker is forced into adopting what's left.
I got this from a foot-note somewhere in Martin Gilbert's biography of Churchill.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
WWIi was huge they earned the world part. Every country declared war save:

Ireland
Spain-sent troops to axis
Sweden-supported Finland. preparing to invade Norway at wars end.
Switzerland-Bombed by both sides
Portugal-sent troops to allies
Afghanistan
Yemen
Vatican City
Andorra
Liechtenstein
San Marino-Briefly occupied by Germany
Tibet

Wikipedia shows about 60 "belligerents" involved in the military action against ISIL.
wikipedia



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: GnosticMountain

It would be less of a 'war' and more of a 'self-extermination' of a species!



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: GnosticMountain

A world war involves the world....fighting in many different countries around the world all at the same time.

Ex: ww2 had us fighting in Europe, Asia-Japan, France, England, Africa...at the same time-hence a "world war".

So your assumption is waaaaay off. Hey...do some studying yourself!



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: GnosticMountain

maybe it was when Germany invaded Poland and England declared war on Germany .



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: GnosticMountain

"This is what a world war looks like: strange bedfellows, conflicting agendas, alliances of convenience. And if you think the core of the fighting, the issues and ideologies at stake, seem muddled, try to find out what World War I was all about. Clarity is not a requirement for a world war" - Frida Ghitis, CNN



...terrorist attacks from individuals linked to the Syrian fighters have not only killed people in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey, but also in Canada, France, Australia, Nigeria, Denmark and elsewhere. And let's not forget Egypt, where intelligence experts and Russian authorities believe a Russian passenger plane was deliberately downed just a few weeks ago.

Does it sound like a world war?

The term "world war" obviously conjures the two great conflicts of the 20th century. A striking parallel this time is the reluctance of the United States to get involved -- the public wish to stay out, to say, "This is not our fight."

www.cnn.com...


When Moscow and Beijing get involved, then we'll "see humankind’s first battles for the heavens."



“A U.S.-China war is inevitable” recently warned the Communist Party’s official People’s Daily newspaper after recent military face-offs over rights of passage and artificial islands built in disputed territory. This may be a bit of posturing both for U.S. policymakers and a highly nationalist domestic audience: A 2014 poll by the Perth U.S.-Asia center found that 74% of Chinese think their military would win in a war with the U.S.

Unlike the Taliban or even Saddam’s Iraq, great powers can fight across all the domains; the last time the U.S. fought a peer in the air or at sea was in 1945. But a 21st century fight would also see battles for control of two new domains.

The lifeblood of military communications and control now runs through space, meaning we’d see humankind’s first battles for the heavens. Similarly, we’d learn “cyber war” is far more than stealing Social Security Numbers or e-mail from gossipy Hollywood executives, but the takedown of the modern military nervous system and Stuxnet-style digital weapons.

time.com...



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: GnosticMountain

I think that you will find somewhere on N.A.T.O website that 5 countries at war make it a world war officially



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: GnosticMountain

The big difference is that none of our leaders have the balls to call it WW3.

The second big difference is that this time is not clear who are the bad guys and who are the puppets.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
It is habitual on these Boards to think WW3 is starting, or has started.

We are not in a World War. It has not started. It is not on the horizon.

World wars seem to involve lots of nations devoting their industries to the destruction of their foe. I see no parallels between WW1 and WW2 to the low level conflicts across the Middle East.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: GnosticMountain

The big difference is that none of our leaders have the balls to call it WW3.

.


Thats because it isn't a world war.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Misterlondon

Tell ATS to close this forum.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Misterlondon

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: GnosticMountain

The big difference is that none of our leaders have the balls to call it WW3.

.


Thats because it isn't a world war.


World war: A war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world.

Those involved:
US - Most of EU - Russia - Most of ME

Those that may be involved in the near future:
Rest of EU - China - Canada

If that is not "all or most of the principal nations of the world" I do not know what is.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

That was in a time when country's lacked the capability to do a lot of damage in a very short time.

Now ww3 could be a massive build up or lots of little fires and one big bang.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
i mean really who the hell actually think ME as a whole is going to get ganged up on by the rest of the world LOL

no world war, nobody wins, just dumb lazy reasoning



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ringdingdong

But it is basically happening.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: SBargisen

but it really isn't at all



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ringdingdong


Your idea of a win and a bunch of elites in billion pound bunkers idea of a win would be two totally different ideas.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join