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: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:11 AM
Great post but what would happen if all these factors contribute to the start of WW3 and the current state of middle east crysis.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:45 AM
i agree 101% with the china / india water war hypothesis - as any abstraction upstream will have a direct impact on indian agriculture , freshwater fisheries , river transport etc etc

an all out war between china and india would polarise the entire world - with many nations having to make hard choices in deciding who to support [ and cutting thier losses in the other camp ] ,

the situation would get messy quickly - as both sides have vast leverage to attempt to persuade potential allies to join thier side , embargoes , denials of service and punative taxes would fly thick and fast

the arctic recources grab OTOH will be settled far more peacably , IMHO the beligerants will settle for dividing it into zones and maintain an uneasy truce , my logic being that it is far easier and more protitable to exploit a 20% slice peacully that attemt to seize and hold 40% and develope it in the face of POSSIBLE sabotage and raids

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:51 AM
Heres another one to add to the list.

As I'm sure most of us on ATS are aware, back in 1908 a comet/meteor exploded in Tunguska levelling 2000 square miles of forest.

Imagine that happening again today, over a populated area - say in India or Pakistan, or over the Middle East?

With the current state of instability in those areas I suggest that it would be a case of "shoot first and ask questions later, with a huge loss of life because of the initial impact, and another massive loss of life due to a "retaliatory strike" in the middle of the confusion.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:19 AM
Very well posted. All three are underexposed flashpoints, of that their is no doubt, but I would contend that none is likely to begin a third world war - or even a localised nuclear conflict (if such a thing is actually possible).

I'd like to deal with the China issue, because it often appears on this thread. There is often pre-supposed into posts on this site that China has the arrogance or indeed diplomatic power to act in this way. It doesn't.

The reality is that China needs the rest of the world far more than the rest of the world needs China - at least for the moment. It is certainly an emerging economic superpower but it is still only one of many such superpowers. The economic consequences of annoying the rest of the world in the manner of an act like this would far outweigh those presented by the problems faced without it.

Put simply, China could not afford a conflict of that nature with India - because it cannot afford conflict with the UN. So it just won't happen.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:33 AM
India and China Friends or Foe?

This is one of the best articles and detailed information to date I have read on the net about China and India relations, as well as the US and Soviet.

It's a long article so take your time reading it because it will open your eyes on China and India's past, present and possible future history.

Thanks to the OP for bringing this topic up, because I believe it is a very important topic.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by Realtruth]

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:43 AM
Thanks for the replies, all! Whew, I had no idea this'd end up flagged and starred as much as it was, but apparently I'm not the only one concerned about causes for WWIII.

I Think these 3 causes for WWIII are the direct result of the biggest root problem of all:

There are too many people in the world, creating too many more people in the world. Whereas nature used to keep population in check with disease and starvation, medical and agricultural advancement, along with humanitarian aid, has allowed us to artificially raise the population cap far beyond its naturally sustainable limit in too many parts of the world. And while there is only a finite amount of resources, there is an ever-increasing population putting a strain on those resources. The projected critical resource to human shortage is now within 20-40 years, tops.

It is only through literally Earth-changing technological innovations that we have managed to remain at above human-capacity on this planet. As a result, population rises to meet that new capacity. However, that capacity is, in turn, based off of finite resources (such as oil, arable land, and water) that are rapidly thinning out. As the number of these resources decreases, and the number of humanity rises, we are setting the stage for such a large number of deaths that it could technically register as an extinction-level event.

I don't think most people realize what it means when suddenly we only have enough food and water (the two most basic survival needs) to meet the absolute minimal needs for 1/3 to 2/3 the population. That is what we are looking at in the next 15-45 years.

We currently live in a beautiful illusion of abundance, where food is simply a quick stop by any local store (money notwithstanding), and water is always a few feet away, accessable with the turn of a handle. For the vast, vast majority of us, (even me, and I was homeless for 6 months), this has been the case for our entire life. We have never had any reason to believe otherwise. Even if there is no money to be had, there was a local soup kitchen or church or other charity, more than willing to provide a hot meal, or at least a loaf of bread. This beautiful illusion obscures the fact we are staring down the barrel of a near-future scenario where there is not only no food to be given away, but not even food to buy. Each person who will get the minimum of food and water to survive will do so only through the violent or starvation death of another one or two humans in their place.

This is not a "likely" or "probable" scenario. It is currently the default.
The math does not lie. At our current rate of growth, we are looking at a population of about 520 million by 2050. We are, at the same time, paving over arable land, and rapidly thinning out our water supply. All food that we currently eat is so heavily dependant on oil for fertilizer, production, and transportaiton, that fully 10 calories of oil are consumed for every 1 calorie we eat.

Now, assuming that the oil holds out, and we can keep using just as much oil to produce food in 2050 that we can now, here's the projected math:

Clearly, the scenario of a maximum population of 350 or 315 million based on an agriculture using the current level of technological subsidies, implies that no food or feed crops will be exported and that the cultivation of non-food crops, such as cotton and tobacco, will be replaced by food and feed crops. Indeed, a significant increase in domestic food needs due to population growth will absorb the food surplus currently exported.

However, we cannot assume the oil will hold out. Demand for oil has already exceeded supply. According to Peak Oil theory, between now and 2020, the gap between demand and supply will be so great as to be unsustainable. Even without Peak Oil theory, production of oil is not presently filling the demand, and this gap is still only widening as to have nearly the same effect. If one is to assume we must by neccessity significantly reduce our consumption of oil in the fertilization, production, and transportation of food, this will, likewise, create an additional shortage of food. Here is the projected math.

According to this scenario, the maximum size of U.S. population that could be fed by such an ecocompatible agriculture would be only about 210 million. This number could be increased to reach 240 million if cultivation of export crops and other non-food crops were to be eliminated. Note, fossil energy inputs are still a required input in this system.

For America, one of the most prosperous, abundant, and well-fed nation on Earth, that means that 32-60% of the projected 520 million people will have to die, through one means or another, just in order to feed ourselves. I cannot even begin to imagine the horror of living in a place that today is already experiencing regular starvation. 60-95% perhaps? The sheer numbers are too staggering and sickening to even consider. But if humanity is to survive the remainder of this century, this reality must not only be considered, but prepared for.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:54 AM
The most important one was missed off the list.


India, Pakistan and even China have a dispute over "who owns what". Kashmir is run by an administration of all three nations. However, India and Pakistan have the highest tensions over it.

The disputed areas of the region of Kashmir. India claims the entire erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir based on an instrument of accession signed in 1947. Pakistan claims all areas of the erstwhile state except for those claimed by China. China claims the Shaksam Valley and Aksai Chin.


Now, China and India are unlikely to go hostile over this area, but Pakistan and India have done in the past. Both are driven by nationalist agenda's, a conflict would suck most of the region in (including coalition troops in Afghanistan)

Problems will only occur in Pakistan was taking over by radical extremists, who see Kashmir as the "Holy Grail".

[edit on 9-1-2008 by infinite]

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:55 AM
It is getting to the point where all the super powers in the world rely on each other. So much so economically that a world war would be catatrophic for all the economies in the world. China needs us we need them, europe needs us we need them, ect. ect. It is not the way it used to be, sixty years ago I see ww3 as a possibility, now I believe we have grown up and depend on each other. It is just not economically viable for any super power to engage one another in full scale world war.

What could happen though is a accident, which almost occured in the past. A computer glitch or hack in which missles are launched or precieved to be launched. Along the lines of the movie war games, this is one reason all nuclear weapons need to be eliminated. They are an accident waiting to happen, and the time is ticking.

The above posters overlooked causes I believe are all very possible but I think will result in minor skirmishes and alot of red tape, especially the artic circle scenerio. And as Infinite above me said it very well "Kashmir" could be the real problem not just the middle east.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by Starwatcher]

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:24 AM
I've seen a few replies that the various Super Powers, including China, all rely on one another far too much to engage in a Third World War, and to be honest, I think this is certainly the case for all normal situations. This is also one of the reasons that, while I think WWIII could be started in the Middle East, I feel it is far more likely that the SPs will just continue to adjust their policies depending on whatever Caliphate/Warlord/Monarch/Prime Minister/President is in power.

But consider this situation:

You are the leader of a country that no longer has enough food and water for your people, and importing them and/or humanitarian aid is no longer an option because of scarcity of supply against demand. You have hundreds of millions (if not billions) of citizens screaming for food and water. They are dying off in staggering numbers due to food riots, starvation, and thirst. Rationing both has failed to be adequate, there simply isn't enough to meet the minimum daily requirement for anyone. Technological developments to resolve the problem are years, perhaps decades away.

You have two choices:

  • Institute Genocide, and reduce your country's population. This will cause you to be hated throughout all of Earth, including your countrymen. Regardless of the situation, you will go down in history as another Hitler.

  • Invade a Neighbor, and take their food and water by force. In this case, if that country is also desperate for food and water, you must dispose of their population as well, unless the war is bloody enough to reduce the population of both of your countries enough to restore the balance.

    Both cases have been used throughout history to solve this problem in the past. We are rapidly approaching the problem again. Perhaps, if we are lucky, we will have enough foresight to develop technologies and methodologies that will yet again artificially extend the population cap to an even higher natually unsustainable level. Each time we do this, however, the stakes get higher and higher the next time we approach the limit.

    The more likely option, however, is war. As this begins to happen to more and more countries, World War becomes more likely. Eventually there will be a line drawn in the sand as to what is acceptable to save your country from starvation, and what is not. Then countries will choose which side of the line they will stand on. At this point, World War becomes inevitable.

  • posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:45 AM
    reply to post by neformore

    I have thought of that situation a lot in the past and it scares the bejezus out of me.

    I know the US, China and Russia all have adequate technology to determine if a meteor strike or what ever Tunguska may have been happens to them, however some less developed countries might have a knee jerk panic reaction to it and it would be a case of shoot first ask questions later.

    I don't believe this to be a world war scenario however, just a situation where a bunch of people will lose their lives and the country that reacts before they think is going to come out looking pretty bad to the rest of the world.

    posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:29 PM
    reply to post by thelibra

    you have some interesting theories but since you are not G-D your theories will not start ww3-----in the book of zechariah----G-D says that in the end of this age just before Messiah comes to save us from exterminating ourselves that the focal point of trouble will become jerusalem.

    all the worlds major nations will come against her and all that insist on sticking their nose into jerusalem and the lives of the jews will become severely injured for their efforts.zechariah 12.sadly pres. bush is there now trying out his ideas to force peace- this is not good news for the usa

    posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:47 PM

    Originally posted by yahn goodey
    you have some interesting theories but since you are not G-D your theories will not start ww3-----in the book of zechariah----G-D says that in the end of this age just before Messiah comes to save us from exterminating ourselves that the focal point of trouble will become jerusalem.

    Now, I'm not even going to attempt arguing against the Bible, or God for that matter. Circular arguments do not interest me. Thankfully I don't need to, because I didn't say Armageddon, the Apocalypse, Rapture, or anything of the sort. I said World War III. Huuuuuge difference.

    We've had two World Wars so far, and the world hasn't ended. Just because we may end up having a third doesn't mean the world will end, and just because 1/3-2/3 humanity ends up dying doesn't mean it's End Times. I'm just talking about the next major multi-national conflict.

    posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:50 PM
    I don't see how we could avoid it..........WW3 that is.

    Consider all the senarios mentioned here and so many more too numerous to mention.

    Then consider a complete accident like Carl Sagan once mentioned. A metor hit or an accident of nature that is perceived as a nuclear strike?

    I really think once one of those demons is unleased, escalation is a frightening reality......

    And in the past MAD was a deterant.........but can you even have that tactic with a country that may have a reglious ruling and hence foreign policy based on the commitment of their belief rather than the rational of stewartship to the planet and or its people?

    If a nation like Pakistan falls into extremist religious rule you can be something might be lobed with a nuclear payload towards India.......and then?

    I don't want to think of the consequences.........

    posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:58 PM

    Originally posted by futuretense
    And in the past MAD was a deterant.........but can you even have that tactic with a country that may have a reglious ruling and hence foreign policy based on the commitment of their belief rather than the rational of stewartship to the planet and or its people?

    Yeah, somehow I don't see religious sects that have no problem swallowing bombs and blowing up orphanages as being dissuaded by mutually assured destruction. However, even that may be changing.

    I started a thread on the rise of terrorism for profit, and it died a quiet little death with zero responses. However, if you're inclined to read about the future of terrorism, I'd recommend it. In a nutshell, terrorism is now starting to shift away from "blowing up oneself for (insert deity here)" and shifting more towards "blow up this target and collect a paycheck for it". It's rapidly becoming an anonymous business enterprise for countries to use against one another without declaring war.

    posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:02 PM
    reply to post by thelibra

    Hey libra, glad for your not taking the bait and going down that (+) path and staying on the real subject:

    A couple of years ago while I was working in Egypt the sabres started rattling on the subject of Ethiopia wanting to build a dam across the Blue Nile and it really rialed Egypt to the breaking point and I thought war was going to break out.
    With all the problems in the world with a water shortage and we all know its more prescious than gold "To live or not to Live" that is the question, it would be good to know or maybe bad to know from ATSers from all the different countries, whats the story with your water reserves?, dont you think, maybe we will be able to predict the next big conflict. But you posted a very good thread on the state of the world, thanks, gwhint

    posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:29 PM
    reply to post by thelibra

    so what you are saying is you believe a ww3 without the mass use of nukes will precede the ww4? or ww5? of the final battle for world control by mad dictators before Messiah saves the 1/3 to 1/10 that survive ?sorry thats hard for me to comprehend.

    i am not a genius you could be right but i suspect that once the nations start down the road to ww3 and get into it--everything in their arsenals will be deployed until its over and done.

    posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:37 PM
    Well, i happen to know, that nuclear attacks have been neutralized already a few times. (Like in Lebanon latest war)
    The aliens will not let that happen, cause it affects more than just planet

    I feel very safe, cause i know we have aliens at work, who have far - far
    advanced technology at hand.

    No WW3 ever, but earth changes coming, to clean up this place and restore our Mother earth.

    The biggest terrorist on earth is the Bush clan. They stole, embezzled,
    confiscated in the thousands of TRILLIONS of $ from US & many countries.

    Don't believe it? Read this:

    posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:45 PM
    reply to post by Rockpuck

    You don't need a platform to get the oil an gas out of the North pole. The Snow White field for example, the world's northernmost LNG project, has no surface installations, only seabed installations.

    [edit on 9/1/08 by HelenSanders]

    posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:42 PM
    reply to post by thelibra

    theLibra: Read your post with interest and enthusiam. As a new member to ATS I am very happy to find where sidelined intelligence officers, diplomats , old school journalists, marginalised university academics and others of wisdom and compassion meet and greet on their off days, which these days is most days while those in power proceed apace with their puerile plans, playing masters of the universe sans understanding.

    You asked for comment, fresh input apart from the usual, and I have it.

    It is an echo of your views, lensed through a far away star. Just to say recently we have received ¨amazing news¨ of a climate armageddon far far away in another galaxy in another time, a place just like Earth, similar circumstance, similar time frame, similar personalities, similar outcome. Not all bad. Making a TV serial of it by stages [ ] here in China. Backstop position is occassional podcasting until our promotional efforts catch on, viral marketing, word of mouth, blogs and the usual. Full disclosure is at [ ]

    It is comedy, entertainment, drama, realistic, and amazingly similar to your thoughtful laying out of the facts as you know them.

    I agree. Absolutely.

    Together forward. Please. You first if you prefer.

    paul sayers
    TeamBridge Business Social Club
    Changchun, Jilin Province, CHINA PRC
    Phone number on website

    posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:59 PM
    I think World warIII will be over POWER&Money. the NWO will be the power, it is an insane though. I know "BUSH" will be the President for years to come and he will orchestrate Another 911!!!! World WarIII will begain he will impose Martial Law and the United States of America will be no more.Money and OIL will flow,Canada,Mexico and the United States will be one. Bush is the new Hitler! He and his father are following in the Grandfathers foot steps.

    new topics

    top topics

    << 1    3  4 >>

    log in