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.


How do we define WW3?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:11 AM
Between Iran, North Korea, and every other hot spot, there are tons of warnings by posters prophesying WW3. But after seeing the variation in nations and other players, it got me wondering.

What is required to define the big one as WW3?

Is it the use of nukes? Do superpowers have to clash? Do both sides have to have decent air powers or space assets?

Since 2001, multiple nations have engaged in warfare against a common enemy around the globe, yet it wasn't considered a world war.

What will it take for you to consider a conflict, a World War?

For me, I think it will have to involve the USA, Russia, and China. It will have to involve attacks in multiple countries by military action. I don't think nukes are a necessity, but are likely.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:18 AM
I think it is one of those things, where you'll know it when it happens.

When it happens there will be no denying this is WWIII. Really it could happen any day. Conflicts on multiple continents where almost every nation is forced to pick sides.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:26 AM
I would most definitely say that the conflicts that have come to pass as of 9/11 would constitute WWIII. I believe what we have been witness to for the past 9 years is the opening of one front in this war. As things start to heat up in Korea you will see the second front open and it will finally be recognized that the world is at war. China will stay quiet and it will be quick in Korea, the USA will go into "war mode" use it's shiny new toys and it'll be done. What we really have to worry about is the Iran/Israel/Hezbollah timebomb. If that goes off while we are in Korea, it could get a little iffy.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:27 AM
reply to post by Wolf321

I suppose it would have to involve a direct conflict between at least two of the major powers...that spills over to direct involvement by those powers' allies.

Like a conflict that pits U.S. forces directly against Russian forces...which then involves multiple NATO countries and spilling over to adjacent powers, etc.

In WWII, of course, we ended up with a European conflict and a Pacific conflict going on at the same time which made it nearly global in scale.

Could a Middle-East conflict (Isreal .v. Iran et al) plus an Asian conflict (Korea .v. Korea) flare up into such a nearly worldwide armed involvement?


If it happens again...will it this time directly impact North and South America?

I agree that I don't think that the use of nucs is required to qualify...a substantial conventional multi-major-power war would do it.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:28 AM
The sinking of the Cheonan may be considered the trigger in the history books. For all we know, history books may say: WW3 began March 2010, followed by 6 months of phony wars and sanctions, followed by 7 years of annihilation.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:30 AM
Im pretty sure we are in ww3 we just havent seen it directly through military action yet.

But we could be pretty subjective with our assumptions considering a lot of us are in the US, or westernized countries. The war starts with sanctions and propaganda not just military action.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by onequestion]

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:35 AM
I'm a little surprised no one has yet use nukes as the defining characteristic. Maybe that is a good thing. I guess some think that there would be restraint on using them, and rely on conventional weapons.

I don't know if its from movie concepts or my own experience, but I would have to imagine a force that would be formidable to the US would have to be involved, specifically the air forces. Iraq was no air threat and North Korea will only be a numbers threat, not by capabilities so I don't see that being part of it.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:38 AM
reply to post by john124

Dear john124

What history books??

When WW3 starts the whole earth will know it and it will not be by switching on the computer.

7 years I will give it 7 hours.

Then there will be nothing, and if pockets of population do survive it will take millennia to get back to where we are now.

I do not think people in this day and age take it seriously enough. They feel they will be saved.

They have taken in the propaganda of the media.

They believe the toys that the US have will work.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:43 AM
reply to post by MAC269

A lot of interesting beliefs there. Can you elaborate as to why it would be that way in your opinion?

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:55 AM
We only have WW1 and WW2 to go on really ,They were the wars that started the saying world war.Once we had the power to mobilise armys to all parts of the globe which came about with oil and therefore vehicles,that way everyone could get in on the action.I would say WW3 would need to include all allies and all the axis countries all fighting before it can be a world war .We have to keep up the standards so WW4 has something to go on.Like Rocky 1 thru to Rocky VI, same story different players.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:22 AM
Hmm, this is a very good question OP.

I think, that even if war breaks out with Korea, and we go there, and even if China joins... that coining the term WW3 from the media is a death sentence for the global economy. I think, that TPTB will do EVERYTHING in their power to sway the media from reporting what is really going on.

With the near crash of the market again last week, the riots of the economic crashes in Greece, the near fall of the Euro, the abominable state of the United States economy, job markets, and over all faith in our country- I would bet that we are infact in the beginning stages of WW3, the news media has just yet to call it that, for fear of mass panic and chaos.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:27 AM
WW1 was not called that when it bagan, was it even called that when it ended? WW2 was not named that as it was going on either was it...they were called 'great wars' I believe, not sure...

I am sure, that I agree with the sentiment the US has been in what will be called WW3 since 2001.

I think, possibly, despite the current PoliticalyCorrect attempts to deny it, history will probably call it "WW3 The Great Muslim/Christian World War"

maybe not...

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:28 AM
WW3 is already here. It started long time ago. Its mainly an information war and a war of ideologies. The differrence between the classic "WW" ist tha it is fought in small spots with different means. Weapons and nations clashing in one spot, infowarfare in some other spot.

Personally i think it broke out with 9/11 and is still fought till today.

Its a war for our "heads" and beliefs, each side (and there are many) tries to win our minds, and have our accord for whatever trick they plan next.

So WW3 imo, is a new form of war, that not only includes weapon-fire excange, but everything that was invented till today (TV, commercials, lifestyle, belief systems, etc.)

Its not nations fighting anymore, but corporations, its a war "of" money, not "for" money.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:40 AM
reply to post by xynephadyn

Good point.

I guess if they can physically distance the people from the war, but still affect them, they would sensationalize it for fear purposes and call it WW3. However, if they are trying to keep the illusion of stability, they would just call it a conflict or crisis or something. I never thought about it like that.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:45 AM
reply to post by Wolf321

Dear Wolf321

Ok I do not know how many nukes the US have right now but I know they are a lot less than they used to have. Mostly because they are the up dated ones that are more powerful and more accurate.

So you have the situation were the US is wining using conventional weapons against NK or Iran say with there bright shinny toys.

The side that is considered to be loosing will go nuclear. In don’t so it will bring in other nuclear armed allies.

Then you have MAD mutually assured destruction. Hell we where 30 seconds away from this in 1996 by accident.

Anyway more to the point why would you consider that it will not go nuclear. They have these things for a reason they used them in 45 so they will again it is only a matter of time.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:51 AM

Originally posted by MAC269
The side that is considered to be loosing will go nuclear. In don’t so it will bring in other nuclear armed allies.
Anyway more to the point why would you consider that it will not go nuclear. They have these things for a reason they used them in 45 so they will again it is only a matter of time.

In an NK or Iran scenario, they have limited to no delivery mechanism for nukes even if they have them. If they did use them, they would likely be very localized to the battle, and I don't see that bringing in a flood of nuclear retaliation. At most, I would see one or two strategically placed nukes to limit fallout impact.

Unless you are talking about China, Russia, France, Great Britain, India or Pakistan, being hit by a nuke first, or one of those feel immediate threat of being completely overrun, I don't see nukes as the first Go To weapon.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:06 AM
reply to post by Wolf321

Dear Wolf321

Apparently the NK have the ability to it Tokyo with an ICBM. So Seoul would be a piece of cake. Suppose to bring in China that lunatic nukes both Beijing and Seoul.

It is just that I feel the situation is very dangerous and I would not trust TPTB to run my bath water let alone run a country.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:30 AM
reply to post by Wolf321

We are already in WWIII. It's not a "conventional war"

What is a conventiional war?

Waterloo? WWI? WWII?

Warfare changes over time.

To me, conventional wars are fought face to face, with close up weapons, where you watch the life fade from your opponents eyes. That was what war was for thousands of years.

We cannot assume anything.

These "baby" wars are, in my opinion, WWIV. And it's going to be a lonnnnnng one.

For years, WWIII was considered to be a nuclear war. Maybe that will occur around WWV. Or not.

War is now mostly economic. Baby wars to suck the fortunes out of opponents.

Some folks say WWIII was Ronald Reagan's policies that led to the economic downfall of the USSR. I consider that this might be correct.

Maybe now we are in WWIV.

Maybe we are now in the infancy of WWV?

Edited to add: The wars continue, and now it's difficult to say, what stages of the WW's we are in. I'm confused. Is anyone else not confused? If not, explain to me how we got to this point with a world at war and confusion and constant turmoil and no relief in sight.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by kyred]

new topics

top topics


log in