How do we define WW3?, page 1

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?

Maybe.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

Mainstream Media IGNORES Iceland Revolution
  Posted 8 days ago with 96 member flags

Nigel Farage: The EU Titanic Has Now Hit The Iceberg
  Posted 18 days ago with 26 member flags

Here Are The 5 Worst Places To Be When The Dollar Collapses
  Posted 4 days ago with 19 member flags

The Coming Canadian Housing Crash
  Posted 14 days ago with 18 member flags

What is *THE* domino you\'re waiting for, and why?
  Posted 8 days ago with 17 member flags

Google Trends - The Powers That Be should be scared
  Posted 1 days ago with 16 member flags

Greece bank run
  Posted 12 days ago with 15 member flags

25 May 2012 (the day europe collapsed)
  Posted 3 days ago with 14 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: