World War 3 has already happened, and, is happening NOW - are people really this Blind?!

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
[I did a quick search and found "World War 3 Prediction..." and "What if World War 3..." not much else - mods, if this topic has already been discussed, please feel free to freeze with a re-direct, if you wouldn't mind - thx]


I mean... aren't we already in the middle of it?

Am I missing something?

Wikipedia defines the 'notion' of a WW III as "hypothetical future successor to World War II["

Explain to me how we are not already there.(?)

We are probably there in terms of geography & countries involved (on 'both' sides of the 'terrorism issue' - I put that in quotes because many countries see us as the big bad bullies, horning in on anything we can), and certainly there in terms of manpower and money thrown at it!

Are we denying this reality simply due to the fact that we have not "gone Nuclear"?



(Hate to say it (but, am glad to be on the winning side, at least), but, we are Nazi-esque world-conquering figure in this one - for the last 9 years - only we are spreading our reach (forces) in the name of freedom, liberty, and 'anti-terrorism')



edit on 12/14/2010 by SquirrelNutz because: deleted large, unnecessary portion - I really only want a simple answer to this...




posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
In a way it's being fought, but not all out. I mean, if it was really physical, there would be advanced tech being used which we can barely even imagine. We'd have chemical and biological warfare, etc..

What is happening is financial/currency/information wars.

You could argue that Iraq/Afghan war meant world war, but I think that's kind of stretching it.

I think it will only get out of hand, ie chemical, biological, possibly nuclear .. if things get really FUBAR. Then expect the generation to remain SNAFU. I'd argue we're already there.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


War has to be announced. If we are in the middle of WW3 then America is the enemy this time, cause the American people don't know.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


But, there really wasn't that much separation in technology (relatively speaking) from I to II, eh?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mizzijr
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


War has to be announced. If we are in the middle of WW3 then America is the enemy this time, cause the American people don't know.


Well, you might be on to something...



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
In My Opinion it is the 4th Crusade we are currently in the middle of, Using ideology to mask territorial gains.


Wether or not it leads to the major players facing off directly instead of fighting proxy wars remains to be seen.

I do believe that there is a distinction.

for the underlying idea behind your thread.


Respectfully,

~meathead



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


I don't catch your point, sorry. There was definitely some technological advances. It seems that a good chunk of our technological advances in the last few generations was a result of projects started in ww2, but not finalized until after it ended. The cold war gave us the motivation to keep on advancing "black ops" style. Please let me know if I'm not addressing your question properly. Am a bit under the weather.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
There isn't ground combat occurring in every key border area; the sides are not clearly delineated and no strong alliances have been formed; no one has declared war; we are not in a wartime economy; first world countries are not under active attack.

World War 3 has not started, but perhaps what you're talking about are skirmishes leading up to it, and will be considered the "prologue" in future history books.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mizzijr
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


War has to be announced. If we are in the middle of WW3 then America is the enemy this time, cause the American people don't know.


Only semantically. War is an act-governments are the only reason that you think it is a declaration.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
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.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Combating insurgents and terrorists can hardly be considered anything like fighting the Axis powers and the Nazi war machine. We're not exactly going up against a big bad well-equipped and wealthy enemy. Plus I don't think there are enough countries involved in the conflict to really call it a World War.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Sorry, that didn't come out right.

There were significant advances from each war to the next - but, the curves would've been similar technologically (but nevermind that
- I have my point, I think)

I guess all I'm saying is everyone seems to be waiting for some huge WMD to be used before an official acknowledgement of being in a "world" war is given.

Everything about what's going on over in the Middle East is every bit a world war that the last 2 were. I'm just wondering what the hold up is.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Bush/ Cheney said it , the people missed it, well not all, for i got it, and know it, any one that doubt's or goes against there plan is an enemy of the USA and the TSA NSA DHS for they have the last say. ZIG BUSH all hail the mighty one!!!! For his legacy is the freedom you surrender for your freedom.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Combating insurgents and terrorists can hardly be considered anything like fighting the Axis powers and the Nazi war machine. We're not exactly going up against a big bad well-equipped and wealthy enemy. Plus I don't think there are enough countries involved in the conflict to really call it a World War.



Originally posted by Solasis
There isn't ground combat occurring in every key border area; the sides are not clearly delineated and no strong alliances have been formed; no one has declared war; we are not in a wartime economy; first world countries are not under active attack.

World War 3 has not started, but perhaps what you're talking about are skirmishes leading up to it, and will be considered the "prologue" in future history books.


I agree with both of these, to a degree.

The only thing I say to refute is simply this... Wars are fought differently, now. Technology has given us the ability to hunt our enemy better as well as exterminate him more efficiently. And, do it quicker and more discretely.

There is simply no need for boots on the ground (in many cases), or a line in the sand (in most cases, these days), even a country to blame it on to attck our enemy.

edit on 12/14/2010 by SquirrelNutz because: addendum last sentence



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
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.


Right, standing...sure, but couldn't China possibly have some insane tech that they're perhaps starting to mass produce for a future advanced army, navy, air force? Isn't it possible they could be ready to stand up to the U.S. within...say 5 years or so? They've definitely got the brains and numbers.

Not saying it IS the case, but certainly possible, imo.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


I once heard that the term "world war" wasn't used until after it was over and being inked in the books. Perhaps the future generation will know, Sept 11th, 2001 as the beginning date of a world war that lasted over a decade. I have no clue.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


China could easily give us a run for our money right now. But they aren't and probably won't do so. The dirty little secret of the world, these days, is that the US and China are basically one in the same. Both nations are inching towards the "middle" in the creation of a new type of totalitarian free market capitalism economic model.

China gets Starbucks and we get the Patriot Acts...

~Heff



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Your father needs to take you out to the woodshed and beat your dumb ass for comparing the last 10 years to a world war. In WW I there were 16 million troops killed, in WW II it was over 25 million. In both conflicts about the same number of civilians as soldiers were killed, so about 80 million combined deaths in the first two world wars.

Go back to your X-Box.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
we are in a world war that has no front, no line, nor army as the "known" army, it is a war of belief, practices and will, how do you fight an army that has no colors, banner nor home land, and were most of the solders blow them self's up! Has many places to hide/ stage and plan from? yes this is the new world war, there are drug wars, pirate wars, info wars and terror wars. Happening all over the world, at the same time.If this not a world at war then i do not know.
edit on 14-12-2010 by bekod because: added text



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I definitely think we are in a world war. Besides America's unjust invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, there are other conflicts going on in the world. I believe Africa is a battleground right now, with fuel from external superpowers. I think South America is also under attack from capitalistic societies looking for more natural resources at the expense of the people.

In my opinion, i would consider that a "world war". The technology doesn't have to be advanced or nuclear.
the people don't even have to be aware of its happening. As long as different cultures, religions, and lifestyles clash in various locations around the world, there is a "world war". Directly or Indirectly.




new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join