It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


3 Overlooked Causes for World War III

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+39 more 
posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:00 PM
When asked what will cause World War III, most people will immediately say "The Middle East". Try it, it's a fun experiment. However, the truth is most nations have known what the Middle East is like for hundreds of years, and have managed to prevent having an all out global war so far. While it's certainly possible that this region will eventually cause WWIII, I'd like to examine three almost entirely overlooked causes that will almost certainly cause a World War if not addressed in the very near future. If nothing else, they are each ticking time-bombs with a span of a few decades or less before all hell breaks loose.

Diversion of The Brahmaputra River

SUMMARY: China, faced with an imminent food and water crisis, has proposed, approved, and begun the South-North Water Transfer Project (南水北调工程) to divert many rivers to increase its arable land capacity. The Brahmaputra River is one of the rivers chosen for diversion. Currently it feeds into eastern India, and is a vital source of water and tributaries there. If diverted, eastern India will be in an immediate water crisis, both for drinking and farming, and roughly a million people stand to lose their home, lives, or both. Both countries are at hostile relations with one another, and literally millions of lives depend on the fate of this river. If China proceeds with the diversion, India will consider it an act of war, and will act accordingly. If China doesn't complete the diversion, millions of Chinese will end up dying as a result of water and food shortage. Both are enormously populated nuclear powers and fully committed to their stance.

OUTCOME: If a nuclear exchange does not take place, India will most likely be defeated by Chinese conventional warfare unless assisted by equally strong allies, such as the United States. China would follow suit, and the UN would quickly find itself polarized by two most powerful members. World War would be the inevitable next step unless a compromise were reached. If nuclear exchange does take place between India and China, India may find itself without allies, and destroyed by China. In a "best-case" scenario, millions will find themselves displaced or dead by the removal of half India's water source. There is no "good" outcome to this situation.

Claims on The North Pole

SUMMARY: Few people consider the incredible impact that one country's sole ownership of The North Pole would have. It is estimated that a fourth of the world's undiscovered gas and oil is present there, along with other strategic resources like uranium, titanium, and gold. Additionally, as global climate change shrinks the polar caps, the North Pole will soon become the quickest sea route between 3 continents, and five major countries, each of which claims ownership despite international law that states no country shall have ownership of the North Pole. Russia, Canada, America, Denmark, and Norway all have placed various claims on the area. In fact, now anyone can attempt to place a claim on the area. With such an incredible wealth of economic and strategic advantage at stake over an area rife with controversy, it is only a matter of time before one country attempts a squat and violence ensues.

OUTCOME: Between their planting of a flag on the sea bed, and new evidence suggesting their continental shelf extends all the way to the pole, and a powerful military and economic backing to enforce its claim, Russia is the most likely to attempt the first squat. While Norway, Denmark, and Canada may demand UN sanctions as a result, the U.S., threatened by both the military proximity of their traditional nemesis as well as the loss of countless potential resources, will most likely threated military action against Russia. With the incredibly high Anti-American sentiment in Russia, the advent of Putinism, and the view that America's military is significantly weakened as the result of the Iraq war, Russia will most likely not back down until violence escalates between the two nuclear nations. This may in turn be seen as an ideal opportunity for Russia, North Korea, and China to create a joint venture to strengthen the Russian position in the region, prompting the U.S., Candada, and their respective allies to respond in kind. With so much at stake, it is highly unlikely the situation will be resolved peacefully.

Population Growth vs. Food Supply

SUMMARY: we've known since 1909 that the world population was outgrowing its food supply. Historically, countless wars have been waged in order to increase agricultural productivity. The Green Revolution helped to assuage this briefly, by improving grain output by about 250%. Even still, of all the nations on Earth, only a handful export grain, and the United States provides over half of those exports. Taking into effect the increased demands on U.S. food supply by a growing population made more so through immigration, the paving over of arable land, the finite nature of some resources, erosion and pollution, it is estimated that the U.S. will have to start scaling back food exports as of 2020 until by 2050 there are not only will all food exports have halted, but that the American population itself will have begun to exceed its own food supply. Food costs in America will be about 3-5 times what they are today. That is not to say that a dollar's worth of food will cost $3-5, but rather if you currently spend about 10% of your income on food, you can expect it to account for 30-50% of your income. Costs will continue to rise until either the demand placed upon the food supply is significantly decreased around the world (estimates place this anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 the population, depending on the country).

OUTCOME: Third world countries will outstrip their ability to feed themselves long before America does. Several nations survive only through humanitarian aid, which will decrease further and further as increased demand for the dwindling food supply increases. Nations that do not completely collapse under the weight of riots, mass starvation, and debt incurred to buy food, will find themselves flooded with refuges from those that do, further straining the food supply of the more stable nations. As the problem worsens, every nation will likely enact a strict rationing system and birth control measures, until even that proves insufficient to handle the load. The world will split into those willing to commit mass genocide to feed those that remain, and those willing to go to war to prevent said genocide from happening. To the victor will go the farmland.

If anyone has questions, or additional possible causes for WWIII outside the typical responses, I'd love to hear or discuss them.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:23 PM
I find this a very interesting post, however I have been under the impression that at this current moment China and India are actually more allies than anything else?

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:28 PM
What a strong post Libra and you deserve a star for these crucial issues facing the World in the coming future, are you running for Pres. if not maybe you should to talk about the real issues facing our world:

Whether it's true or not, I was told many years ago by a palestinian christian "yeah thats right, a christian", the issue for Isreal and the palestinian problem is in actually the water below the ground. The palestinians only want the land in the west bank that sit on the biggest fresh water reserve. The Isreali's know that by giving this piece of land they would be hanging themselves, because the bad blood thats been running through the veins of the palestinians since losing this land in 1947 would cause the palestinians to use the water as a barganing chip,thereby starving Isreal of this valuable resource.
Maybe if this is true why dont Isreal make a pipe line or a man made river like Godify did in Libya. Maybe from the Uphratis and Tigris if the fighting ever ends, but its like a catch 22, so who would throw in the towel first.

We all know the world is running out of its valuable resources so why cant the people try to put down the weapons and try to tackle whats really important, mans future living on this rock.
great post, gwhint

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:34 PM
Get your bloody hands off my desert! I have an idea, the weapons of mutual mass destruction are being rattled like sabres more and more these days. Things were a lot different when it would take battalions of tanks and artillery to take out a few thousand people. Now one red button and a couple keys switched in unison can take out millions.
The brave new world. Soon to be the cowardly nonexistent world.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 08:36 PM
nice post, well thought out..but i think Pakistan will be the next after Iran,then India will join in against Pakistan..after that the nukes will start flying

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:04 PM
A very interesting thread. I wasn't aware of the China plan to divert rivers, and I can see a war breaking out between the 2 most populous nations on Earth over such a vital resource.

The North Pole isn't one I expect to escalate, although I can see that as a primer for other actions that could lead to a war.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:20 PM
Yes excellent post and well researched.

I agree with both posts that China and India have both issues and an understanding of one another.

I think fresh water will be (or already is) a huge issue in this area so lets hope that both parties can negotiate and make compromises, though if it does come to war between these 2 giants they might solve part of the over population of our planet quite quickly…

With the food issue I think that there is still a lot of unused land in the world that could be made fertile if put under enough pressure or the demand is high and the price is right.

Recently I read an article that milk is and will continue to be in high demand now and into the future so places like Australia and New Zealand are changing from sheep to cows quite quickly.

The North Pole with all its resources is going to prove a tough one I think but let’s hope that everybody can play nice and compromise over who gets what.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:00 PM
Lets us not forget that Christianity is dying and in order to fulfill the prophecies of the Bible they must have their "Battle of Armageddon" otherwise it will all be bullschitt- and they cannot have that!

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:02 PM

Originally posted by JCM64
I find this a very interesting post, however I have been under the impression that at this current moment China and India are actually more allies than anything else?

You, good sir could not be more wrong. The Chinese and the Indians are enemies on more then just one front..

Aside from the fact that they are polar opposites when it comes to government, India being the world largest Democracy and China being the worlds largest Communist country, the two are at odds on that front.

They both have a soaring population .. India is actually expected within the next few decades to surpass the Chinese in this title... What does this mean for the two nations? Given the size of their population you imagine compact cities with millions upon millions and very little country. In reality both China and India's populations are both primarilly rural ..

that also is important because so many already farm every ounce of land as possible (and in China it cost thousands of untold lives to get food to the cities) .. Both deal with speratic uprisings BECAUSE of the fact that the populations are rural. The Rural farmers are forced in China to give everything to the government troops to provide for the cities where the populations in the factories are to poor and must be provided for (as they contribute to Chinas economy massively). In India its the same case, only less severe as China.. The Rural farmers still support the massive cities, and more and more are leaving farms to got o the cities and the new jobs, and land being run by inexperienced farmers end up producing less.

If the river where diverted form India, the people in the region would die, be displaced and productivity would drop dramatically.. putting more stress on decreased food supplies for the rest of the rural country.

We used to send manufacturing to China, and we sent support to India.. we bring in Medical experts, engineers, telecommunications and much more from India, but now China's communist government, seeing that there is more then just factories, unfairly lowered corporate taxes to levels any Democratic nation could not contend with (at that scale) .. China began stealing the services we export to India. So both nations, with rapid increasing economies have to fight each other with incentives to get the best American and European corporations.

The only thing India and China DO have in common.. is their combined disdain for the American government. No, India is not America's enemy.. but technically neither is China. But we are not friendly either. It's mutual.


The problem with the North Pole is that no one really has a way to "claim" .. When Russia put a titanium flag on the sea floor, the world laughed. Who knew they where serious when they did it..

But the Russian government nor its state run corporations have the ability to exploit the North Pole.. not any time soon either. It was only in the past decade they could stop their most average wells from shooting all over their forest.

With the majority of the effort coming from American consultants, American oil companies and American federal international aid.

The other prospect is the near impossibility to have an oil platform that far north. The caps may shrink.. but we only get reports from the Summer months.. during the winter season the caps grow and re-freeze... open passages become closed, new ones open.

The problem with a platform is that given a bad year it could be destroyed by ice.. also the north Pole is NOT a land mass.. its entirely afloat .. and thus moves. huge, massive icebergs that can be the size of American states could and most likely eventually would crush a small platform.

Its all bluffs, its all who's # is the biggest.

This is the only scenario I don't see escalating. It shows the strains of modern nations on resources that they would even say something like "I claim the North Pole" .. but nothing more.. the real issues between the nations lie elsewhere.


Population Growth vs. Food is going to be one of the biggest issues in the future.

Right now the Western societies in their crave for "lets give back to the world" exploited the nations in Africa, Latin America, South America, Asia and Eastern Europe in some cases. Then, after they destroy a system that DID work.. they bring in foreign food from mostly the United States and feed millions upon millions of people that SHOULD NOT BE THERE.. if the food supplies stop, and the importing closed.. millions would die every year on top of the millions that already do. it would be a catastrophic scenario. I don't know if it would be a world war.. but no doubt poor nations would fight poor nations. America does not use nearly as much farm land that it could. If America utilized every farmable land it had.. it could feed the world. But instead we don't because it doesn't make profit for farmers.

Just some thoughts of mine,

to be quite honest I think Water shortages will be the biggest issue in the future.. and therefore the Chinese Indian issue is the most important. Every where on Earth people already fight for control of water.

Who controls almost ALL water in the Middle East?


Why is there no Kurdistan? Mostly because their land has the vast majority of Turkish water.

In China and India dams have been built up to preserve water.

In Egypt there is a water emergency, and the great Dam on the Nile that was supposed to relive this problem has failed.

Even in the US major water issues are coming to light. Especially in the South East and the state of California.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:06 PM
reply to post by thelibra

Maude Barlow head of the Council of Canadians was here on her book tour in late October and she talked about this at the lecture she gave that evening. Scary really to think that two of the world's nuclear nations could bomb each other over water but it could happen. Ms. Barlow felt that this one one of the worst world hotspots, for both lack of water and the nuclear threat possible from these countries. Here's a couple more flash points Some of the nations listed there are nuclear equipped.

As the North Pole, Russian and American troops in open conflict on Canadian soil! Oh my.

One or two will happen before number three I think. Honestly, there are a better chance of a something happening to facilitate number three than it happening through it's own means.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by GAOTU789]

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:08 PM
Very interesting reading, thanks for the enlightening post.

A war between China and India could easily end in a nuclear exchange of apocalyptic proportions.

I'd been planning on getting a geiger counter, and now i might just do it.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:11 PM
That China one scares me a good bit. As much as I hate to say it, such a war between those two would help with the food problem mentioned in number three as a matter of population control. With the output of grain that the US does, I can see that becoming a huge political bargaining chip in the years to come, and for those who say the US is in decline it would be a "rebirth" of the economy and political power. All in all pretty scary stuff and fairly close at hand. Space colonies would be an interesting solution, but not something that could come about in the next 20-30 years.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:11 PM
excellent points OP. I think that when a lot of us try to grasp WWIII, we see an Emperor Palpatine-like takeover, but really it will probably be much more mundane events like those in your posts.

I would also suggest that, on a more grand scale, cutting off America's trade routes, especially those with China and other asian countries, would probably force us into a huge conflict.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:20 PM
Assurd Mutual Destruction.

Two nuclear powers do not exchange weapons.

They may go to war, but the odds of it ending in nuclear exchange is about .0001%

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

I think you mean MAD

Mutual Assured Destruction.

But you're probably right.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:24 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

Under normal circumstances yes (eg. war for land, religion etc).

But we are coming to times where normal circumstances will not be the case. A fight for survival, such as the access to life-giving water is far more serious. The country at the brink of defeat would be like a cornered animal, using the last of it's strength in an attempt to grasp victory.

Without water, you die... it's that simple, so don't underestimate a nation's desperation in the face of death.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:41 PM
Nice post, and I even starred and flagged it. I like it just cause it's creative, and somewhat believable. But not entirely.

The very last sentences of that same article at Global Security read:

Negotiations since the 1962 Sino-Indian border war have taken place to resolve the conflicting border claims. After more than thirty years of border tension and stalemate, high-level bilateral talks were held in New Delhi starting in February 1994 to foster "confidence-building measures" between the defense forces of India and China, and a new period of better relations began.

More recently, China and India have had much better relations, especially in that very area of joint water and energy development. From an article written back in 2003:

On June 20, 2003, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visited China after forty years of cold relations between the two countries. It was the first time in ten years an Indian Prime Minister visited China, marking an important milestone for the relationship between the two most populous countries in the world.

As a result of the talks, Vajpayee and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao agreed to increase cooperation in science, technology, commerce and education; to ease visa rules; to set up joint infrastructure development projects focusing on water and energy resources; and to establish cultural centers in each other's countries.

Even more recently in 2007 they have conducted joint military operations together:

India and China have wrapped up five days of joint military exercises, the first such drill involving the the world's two largest armies.

Troops from both countries participated in a mock scenario Tuesday, during which they targeted a training camp set up by terrorists along the Indo-China border.

...India and China have tried to expand trade and diplomatic ties in recent years although they still have several territorial disputes. The two countries fought a brief war in 1962 over their disputed Himalayan border.

So I guess what I'm saying is that at least the current relations aren't all that bad, and they are already engaged in co-development. So the degree to which the OP attempts to elevate the gravity of the situation on that basis seems overdone a bit.

Even so, that's not to say that what you are proposing still could happen, because it could. Just how likely it is may be more a matter of perspective.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:38 AM
Interesting info.!
Thanks a bunch.

One quick point about the water shortage scenarios that were mentioned. Wouldn't desalination solve alot of the water problems? I believe there was some talk about that for the water shortage in Cali.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:46 AM
Good thread. The causes of most wars are overlooked for what happens during the conflicts. What started WWII wasn't the holocaust (though it occured during), it was Japan's need for new natural resources, so Japan invaded a region of China. Not many people understand this.

If you look at the cause of most wars, it will usually be because a group needs a new supply of natural resources, whether it be land, water, or oil.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:33 AM
Another thing that could lead to WW3 is the american missile shield and the doctrine of preventive war combined.

In the last phase of the missile shield, hundreds, if not thousands of missile interceptors are to be installed.

If you're Russian you fear that the retaliation option isn't working anymore... then the only way to counter a pre-emptive strike against you is to attack first... see how's that working? At least if you gonna die and have no option of counter attack, let's attack while we have time.

That's what worries me about that missile shield and the old crew in the white house thinking the cold war isn't finish and that the russians must be destroyed because they are still communists bastards.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by Vitchilo]

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in