posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:22 PM
Personally I don't feel that the "War on Terror" qualifies as a "World War" simply for the fact that only one side in this war is a superpower.
What we are dealing with, presently, is more aptly a "Vietnam Jr.". There is no great risk of maps being redrawn in a war where one side relies upon
IED's and limited, 30 year old armaments.
The US most definitely is engaging in Imperial adventurism presently. But such behavior will not devolve into WW3 unless the battle is joined, on the
other side, by a nation with a large, standing, army, navy, and air force. And, as it appears presently, no nation with those types of resources is
going to step to the plate any time soon.
I think the one interesting factor which exists now, but did not previously exist, is that we do face a nuclear danger even as we deal with 2nd and
3rd world nations. Pakistan and India both are capable of a nuclear launch and both are perilously close to our theater of operations in the debacle
we are presently engaged in in Afghanistan. For all the "Iran this and Iran that - North Korea this and North Korea that" talk that we engage in...
I still keep my eyes set upon Pakistan as our most legitimate danger presently.
Let Pakistan launch a missile and, then, we most certainly will be looking at WW3. Until then, it's all just blood for oil and opium.