What signals the "official" start of WW3?

I was having a discussion with some friends the other night about WW3 and was surprised to find that they had varying opinions on what constitutes world war and time frames for it's start. Some ideas that were thrown around were : We are already in it and it began with the first Gulf War, We are already in it and it began 9/11/01, We are already in it and it began when the US invaded Iraq, We are not in it but could be at any moment, and We are not in it yet but will be soon-things need to escalate first. I am not quite sure what I think at this point. Originally I thought our moving into Iraq would have been the starting point, but as things have not really escalated beyond the middle east I don't personally think this is WW3 yet. My hubby thinks WW3 began 10 years ago, so he definitely has a different opinion. My friends all hold some combination of the other views above.

I had a couple of questions myself: what are the criteria for "world war" to be recognized, and if we are actually in the beginning salvos of WW3 what date will be given as to when it started? I would love to get some fellow ATSers opinions on this.

I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I didn't see anything resembling this on the search function. Also, I wasn't entirely sure where to put this (it isn't really a prediction or anything like that) so I am asking if the mods will move it if they feel like it is in the wrong forum.

well i suppose were all involved in a world war on terrorism but thats not ww3 so i dont really know-im sure theres some official nato protocol that means its started or something but i think this is a real intresting post,im sure someone on ATS will come up with the official answer?

regards

Well...wont it be "official" when multiple countries actually declare war against each other?

Makes sense, no?

[edit on 16-10-2004 by anjeeeee]

In my opinion, history books will say that it started with either 9-11 or the cole/embassy/9-11 attacks. The books probably also will look at the terror attacks in Russia (not the school tho). For people here now, it will start when the global powers realign for the Iran War. Thats when things willl really hit the fan for the middle east and probably the indonesian region. WWII, in the US understanding of it, didn't really start until Pearl Harbour. For europeans, it probably started with nazi germany invading poland, so things can be slightly different.

edit to add

Oh and a number of people are calling it World War Four. WWs I and II were conventional 'my army fights your army and holds your cities' type wars, where as the Cold War, in this line of thought, was WWIII, fought thru proxy, and this Terror War being fought not against a combination of states and non-governmental agencies.

[edit on 16-10-2004 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by anjeeeee
Well...wont it be "official" when multiple countries actually declare war against each other?

Makes sense, no?

[edit on 16-10-2004 by anjeeeee]

I am interested in the criteria though. Is it war on 3 continents? 4? 5? Is it determined by a certain number of nations invloved? Would it include muliple skirmishes on different fronts that are unrelated? Is it something that smolders for several years under the radar then suddenly escalates?

I am also curious as to what the history books will say and if what we are seeing is indeed the "beginning" or not.

I was just curious what some of you thought as I am no longer convinced that it has started yet, although I had previously thought that way when we went in Iraq.

Thanks for playing! I am enjoying the discussions

Well, it's like anything else. There are no clearly defined criteria that are universally accepted. Everyone is going to view it differently.

My own take is that a "world war" in the past has constituted a military conflict involving a large number of the nations on the planet. By that reckoning, you might say that WW3 has begun when the conflict exists in more than a single region. (i.e. two or more regions). That criteria might have been met if there were two ongoing "wars" in Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time, but instead the two actual campaigns didn't overlap. The resulting insurgencies are overlapping though.

It would be difficult for a world war to erupt in those two conflicts though, for several reasons. 1) Iraq and Afghanistan didn't have an alliance of nations with which to defend against the coalition forces 2) They were both subdued (atleast in terms of the initial campaigns) relatively quickly and 3) While many nations took part in these conflicts, the policies and major actions were directed almost entirely by the U.S. and U.K. So there was never really much chance for a large multi-national conflict on both sides, since it was in both instances a coalition more or less against single countries, rather an an opposing alliance of countries.

Now, if Iran and Israel get to scrapping with one another, that has far greater potential to draw in other nations on both "sides" of the conflict. That would mean there was more than one country fighting against more than one country, essentialy. If and when that happens, that would be a powder keg that could result in world war based on that criteria.

All in all, I'd say WW3 will have begun if there is a large scale conflict in the middle-east including two or more nations on each "side," and possibly a simultanious conflict on the Korean peninsula. If there's ever a WMD attack inside Europe or the U.S. I wouldn't expect such a scenario to be too far fetched.

Let us pray this never happens, though. Regional wars are bad enough. A world war in today's security environment is a terrifying thought.

[edit on 16-10-2004 by AceWombat04]

The World War 3 was actually the "Cold War" even though it hadn't evolved into a direct conflict between the main opposing sides, many nations were involved in it...
On the other hand, nowdays we're in something which might be called but isn't necessarly the World War 4. If we call it that way, we can clearly say it started in late 80's and early 90's and will last until the end of Iraq and Afganistan occupations...
It has all started with the break down of the Soviet Union, since a lot of weapons came to black market from the new formed poor countries which where either in the Warsaw Pact or were actual republics of the USSR. Later on it evolved into the 1st Gulf War and wars on the Balkan peninsula where republics of the ex-Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia proclaimed independence. At the same time we have the Israeli-Palestini war in progress as well as rise of tensions between the USA and some countries in the Middle and Far East. Conflicts which follow are the war in yugoslavia between the Yugoslav Army and the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), also known as UCK (Ushtria Clirimtare E Kosoves) is a terrorist organisation supported by Al-Qaeda. The USA made the same mistake with KLA as they made with the mujahedeen fighters during Afganistan war in the 80's, when the supplied them with weapons, money, clothing, food, ammunition, intelligence information, and other necessary equipment needed to fight a war against the USSR, so they supplied the Albanian terrorists with weapons and good NATO-standard training. In 1999, they helped even more by bombing FR Yugoslavia for 72 days, when the Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic accepted that KFOR troops move into Kosovo to maintain peace, which the failed to do...
I have particularly good information on this since one of my good friends was deployed to Kosovo along with the rest of the Russian troops forming the Russian KFOR contigent. At the beggining the Russian troops were covering the region around Pristina, as well as one part of the city as well, and parts in south-east Kosovo, where Serb population was the majority of population, so everything went well for some time, until the Russians were assigned a different part of Kosovo where Albanian population was major, so there was no actual need for protection against KLA. Just a few weeks after this Serbian population was attacked several times, in the region previously guarded by Russian peacekeepers, but now the US troops were in there. More and more casualties started to occur, until finally the Russian conginent was withdrawn from Kosovo since they couldn't protect the non-Albanian population, where it didn't exist...
After this wars, Al-Qaeda attacked the USA, on 11th September, by hijacking civil aircraft and hitting them against the twin towers, and other locations in the USA. US government used this as an excuse to attack Afganistan, where they came to a heavy resistance, from the same mujahedeen fighters they supported some 10-20 years ago. The Al-Qaeda leader wasn't captured (obviously). After this one the invasion of Iraq happened, which we all know enough about.
During this same time, we have the Chechen terrorist attacks in Russia. Russian Army comes to a heavy resistance and casualties in the Chechnya, where the well equipped Al-Qaeda (and maybe US)-supported terrorists fight-back at the same time performing terrorist acts in other parts of Russia. Recently, we have conflicts between Russian and Georigian troops on the Russian-Georigian border. We also know about the last attacks in Russia: the bomb on a bus stop as a divertion moment for the two bombs on the planes, a Tu-134 and Tu-154, then the Beslan school and the suicide bomber in front of a metro station.
The possible war between Iran and Israel would be a beggining of a World War 5, since the war on the Korean peninsula would follow, as well as a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and a certain clash between the enemies from the Cold War. This war would also include the fight for ressources.
Well, a funny fact is that Montenegro, a republic of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, has declared war on Japan back in the 40's, 1943 I think, but has never declared peace, so...

That's my opinion so...

No war since WW2 can be classified as WW3. When WW3 happens, we might not even be around to talk about when WW4 will happen, b/c the next world war could very well send humanity back into the stone age if nuclear weapons are used and used and used some more.

Like posters before me, i do believe that the current situations in North Korea and Iran could explode (no pun intended) at any moment. Iran will not quit making "nuclear power" (yeah right nobody is buying this), and the US and Israel have said on numerous occasions that we won't let them obtain nuclear weapons. Kim Jong Il, the NK dictator, is just a time bomb waiting to erupt. He's CRAZY. His people are dying, and instead of helping them he's pumping funds into his nuke program. And he already has Nukes, this is a fact. He could seriously put the world at risk on a whim.

It WILL get nasty in the next 10 years. We've been lucky to avoid HUGE global conflict since WW2, but our time of peace is over.

When WW3 starts, just pray to whatever god you pray to that nuclear weapons are not overly used. Hell, just pray they aren't used at all. Becuase when nukes start flying, civilization as we know it is finished.

the bible says that the new world order will try to fight the "angels from the sky" and will send "fire as bright as the sun" but in the end it will be armageddon.(has to do with aliens)
If you have time research the bible code its says in 2012 the world will end and scientists have proven thqat the is a secret code in the bible(that predicts the death of john keneddy and the new world order)

would not WW3 be the war on terrorism I mean just about 20 countries are at war with terrorism as duely layed out in their congreses as leagal war inactment ....I also would like to note more countries are in this war than were involved directly in WW2

For classification purposes i do not believe the war on terror could technically be considered a world war. this is because even though it does involve multiple countries, it does not involve multiple counties against each other, it involves them against a different kind of enemy altogether.

hypothetically speaking, if something were to happen that brought about a conflict of US, UK, et al VS China, NK et al, that would qualify as a world war similar to the others. I think you're looking for two sides comprised not only of multiple nations but of multiple nations wielding a certain significant amount of power each.

hypothetically speaking, if something were to happen that brought about a conflict of US, UK, et al VS China, NK et al, that would qualify as a world war similar to the others. I think you're looking for two sides comprised not only of multiple nations but of multiple nations wielding a certain significant amount of power each.



actually to imply this would be WW3 might indicate there would be others to follow but in this senario I would call the war the final war

It WILL get nasty in the next 10 years. We've been lucky to avoid HUGE global conflict since WW2, but our time of peace is over.

weve not been "lucky" to avoid huge global conflict,weve worked hard as nations and peace loving people to reduce global conflict of a violent nature,the world isnt at war and theres nothing to prove it will get "nasty" in the next 10 years.

WWIII will start when two major nuclear powers go against each other. That is, US vs China or Russia.

Weird that is the first time that I ever double posted. I don�t even know how that happened????







Edit ouble post

[edit on 10/17/2004 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Thruth
the bible says that the new world order will try to fight the "angels from the sky" and will send "fire as bright as the sun" but in the end it will be armageddon.(has to do with aliens)

I do not know what Bible your reading, but mine most assuredly does not say this.

The battle of Armageddon begins when all the Middle Eastern countries rise against Israel, and attack it. To prophecy is a bit vague on what side the US will take on this matter. We have always defended Israel in the past, and that is the real main reason behind the hatred toward the US that seems to come from the radical factions in the Middle East, and is most likely the real reason behind the 911 attacks. Those of most radical Muslim faiths will never accept anything less then the Israelis packing up and getting out of the Middle East. Any of these peace plans are only postponing actions by countries that hate Israel to try and get them out a piece at a time instead of through direct conflict.

Israel is the center of all problems. They provoke the Arab countries against them, and then start complaining. Later, they go into Palestini villages, and refugee camps and kill civilians, saying they thought they were related to some terrorist acts...

defcon:

And just where are the Israelis supposed to go? You say they
will pack their bags and leave the Middle East? Where do they
go after this? Maybe a large island out in the middle of the Pacific?

ZOOMER

Originally posted by ZOOMER
defcon:

And just where are the Israelis supposed to go? You say they
will pack their bags and leave the Middle East? Where do they
go after this? Maybe a large island out in the middle of the Pacific?

ZOOMER

That would help a lot in maintaining global peace, since it's Israel who is the primary terrorist target, and since Israel has allies, the allies become secondary targets. So if they go somewhere else, the Allies would be safe. The rest of terrorists would be easy to defeat.

Originally posted by ZOOMER
defcon:

And just where are the Israelis supposed to go? You say they
will pack their bags and leave the Middle East? Where do they
go after this? Maybe a large island out in the middle of the Pacific?

ZOOMER

I was not taking sides, or saying they should leave, sorry if this came across in that way. I was simply stating why the conflict exists, and why the US is so hated in the Middle East. To be honest, I am of the mind set that we should dig down and find who�s ancient ruins are there first, and that�s who�s land it should be.

Since there are no Canaanites left, I am voting that the next set of ruins is Biblical Israel; Palestine came later. Still this leaves us in the same situation though, they want the Israelis out, and will not compromise, and the Israelis feel that this is their land and should be allowed to live there.

Originally posted by khruschev
Israel is the center of all problems. They provoke the Arab countries against them, and then start complaining. Later, they go into Palestini villages, and refugee camps and kill civilians, saying they thought they were related to some terrorist acts...

Now, lets at least be honest here, who started targeting civilians first?
Then there is the fact that the Palestinians have never been afraid of the use of massive propaganda that shows the Israelis in a bad light. By way of example, it would be a typical move for them to arm a 14 year old and send him into a combat zone, then show the photos later of how the other side massacred an innocent unarmed teenager.