posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:49 PM
I can agree that an asteroid could start a world war, but I disagree with the manner in which you describe it as occurring. This is not a criticism of
your thread or premise, but just of how you see things going down that lead to war.
First, is the fact that if any object of the size necessary to evaporate a city like a nuclear blast, would not leave the same tell tale signature
clues such as radioactivity that specifically will be tested for plutonium or uranium to determine its origin, I mention this because I just don't
feel that just because a city explodes and the government does not know why, that they will want to launch on their neighbor in retaliation.
Second, is the fact than any nation knows that before the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation of self defense, you have to have proof for the world
court to prove you had the justification to strike before being annihilated.
While smaller nation states do have their limitations on protocols and procedures, I do agree that a "Cowboy" of sorts could seek or want to release
a nuclear device just to be able to. You know, just for diabolical laughing reasons.
While these differences in our approach to WWIII are different, the reason I stated I agree that it would lead to war is because during such a
calamity or disaster event is the perfect time to invade your neighbor if you had such plans on the shelf all along.
Taking advantage of military strategic opportunities are looked upon differently in the military services and as such, I have no doubt that someone,
even the big super powers will take advantage of a really big disaster to offer support services for relief purposes.
Those areas that are most strategic to the super powers, it can be reasoned they will under the cover of helping and providing support that they will
take advantage of key locations and then when other nation states wake up is when those expansionist imperialistic gestures will be met with threats
of conventional war and ultimately nuclear war.
Depending on how wide spread the disaster encompasses will determine the areas that would most likely become new areas for battles over specific
territory or geographic locations. At the point of nuclear exchanges is when the game comes to an end and new game begins.
While world war with nuclear exchanges is another tread, you are right to state that it would lead to war. Anyway, that is all I wanted to discuss.
Thanks for the thread.