Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How will WW3 start?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


And our treasonous "president" will be sitting in the oval office, smoking a J, and clapping his hands with glee.




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Here is a scenario perhaps....The current US government keeps severely overreaching it's powers. The people that are real Americans and not socialist dependents get enough and real trouble breaks out. The folks that rely on government clash with the aforementioned. This goes widespread and the US economy weak as it is collapses in on itself. Some freakish regime like N. Korea really can reach the west coast with a Nuke. So called Allies that rely on the American dollar jump in against the aggressors. In desperation we launch a nuke. The world goes to hell in a hand basket.
From the past.....do a little research and see how close we came more than once to nuclear armageddon with the USSR. That old movie "war games" from the eighties was very slightly based on a real incident. More than once DEFCON levels were stepped up in the belief that russian nukes may have been launched. scary stuff. We almost weren't here to discuss the start of WW3!
Here is another....The US dollar collapses and the government goes broke, you know like public and for real, not secret everything is OK look the other way broke like we are now. This starts a domino effect collapsing economies around the world. All that weaponry is still out there. With nothing to lose no telling what tinpot might throw the first punch.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by texas thinker
Here is a scenario perhaps....The current US government keeps severely overreaching it's powers. The people that are real Americans and not socialist dependents get enough and real trouble breaks out. The folks that rely on government clash with the aforementioned. This goes widespread and the US economy weak as it is collapses in on itself. Some freakish regime like N. Korea really can reach the west coast with a Nuke. So called Allies that rely on the American dollar jump in against the aggressors. In desperation we launch a nuke. The world goes to hell in a hand basket.
From the past.....do a little research and see how close we came more than once to nuclear armageddon with the USSR. That old movie "war games" from the eighties was very slightly based on a real incident. More than once DEFCON levels were stepped up in the belief that russian nukes may have been launched. scary stuff. We almost weren't here to discuss the start of WW3!
Here is another....The US dollar collapses and the government goes broke, you know like public and for real, not secret everything is OK look the other way broke like we are now. This starts a domino effect collapsing economies around the world. All that weaponry is still out there. With nothing to lose no telling what tinpot might throw the first punch.


What your talking about here is a massive nuclear exchange. That would be quite different than a traditional world war.

Now to your specific scenario I have to ask you this.

If America is already imploding then why in the world is North Korea going to launch a nuke? Seems it would be a waste of a nuclear weapon on their part.

Not a realistic scenario.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


eh, good point...I guess I harbor some hope that America will turn herself around and the current implosion will reverse itself. The nuclear remarks I was just referencing close calls from decades ago that I find fascinating..not really related to the topic at hand, sorry bout that.

The new pope angle I find interesting too....the Church holds a ton of power in the world and you know that old saying about power corrupts.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I have a theory...so pleaase don't shoot me down.... Feb 1st, So. Cal goes gun crazy for Christopher Doner who is on the run. Theres a media blackout and live coverage about Dorner and very little mentioned in the news about the pope giving his resignation. According to this thread: La Replublicca: Blackmail ring behind popes resignation On March 1st, a 300 page report will be released to the public about the corruption within the church and reveal the truth of whats going on behind the scene. I forsee a big event happening just before or on that day to help coverup (media blackout).... any plausability???



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by texas thinker
 


Well I can certainly see the beginning part of your scenario happening but it wouldn't equate into a world war, it would just be confined to America and perhaps spread to other countries but it would be civil unrest, revolution, revolt, civil war....not a world war where one side is against the other.

It would be each nations populace upset with their governments and systems, each localized to their particular countries.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by watcher3339

Originally posted by Hopechest
There will never be another world war.

The world is simply too globalized now where the economic losses will outweigh any benefits gained.

Add to that the profliferation of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction is all but a foregone conclusion and this will make an all out war very unlikely.

We will always have conflicts, some of them large, but the world will never divide up into sides again and go at each other with everything they have.


While that thought is lovely and I hope that you are right I think you are being overly optimistic.

I would agree in large part with the poster who states that WWII never ended. Given that the roots of WWII were deeply embedded in WWI and the E.U. was created in an attempt to avert future war by creating an economic interdependence that isn't running too smoothly right now and I would say that the global economic ties could actually be the cause of the next global conflict.

Globalization boils down to a massive redistribution of wealth. As the living standards in developing countries rise the living standards in long developed countries fall for the vast majority of their populations. While certain entities at the top of the food chain do quite well in this scenario it increasingly seems that the rank and file is becoming aware someone did in fact move their cheese. And they want it back. So, like most wars greed and pride will play a large role. There are more than enough players who feel that their position is slipping and a whole other set who feel ready for greater world stage acknowledgment and respect. Add to that a whole host of skirmishes and standoffs that only require one itchy finger to go large and I, sadly, suspect that we could actually be quite close to a major war.

And war has been good for business since time began. The tools to wage it and the spoils of it cannot be overlooked in the cost benefit analysis sure to be run by those in charge. Throw in that any debtor nation that was sided opposite a creditor would have a very face saving way to default, and it really only feels like a matter of time.

I would still like you to be righ though. I really would.
edit on 23-2-2013 by watcher3339 because: (no reason given)


I never stated there wouldn't be war, only that it wouldn't be a world war as we've seen two other times.

Globalization has absolutely nothing to do with re-distribution of wealth, its simply countries reliant on other countries for their survival. Its impossible to operate independently anymore.

And rank and file citizens are not going to form their own army and take on the established powers in a war that wages across the world. That would be science fiction.

However if you could think of a reasonable scenario that you would think would define a world war 3 I would be more than happy to debate you on that.


Globalization has everything to do with a redistribution of wealth. Look at the earning potential relative to cost of living of an average high school graduate in the developed world versus the same in a developing country. There is far more opportunity in the developing country. The "lowest tier" of human resources in any country suffers or benefits by the investments of the highest. Globalization has moved the investment. That is why a man with a high school diploma could comfortably support a family on one income in the 1950s but not today.

It is absolutley possible to operate independently but it has not been deemed profitable for corporations for the past several decades. The economic interpendence after WWII was not created to make money. It was intended to hamstring (Germany specifically) countries so that one country would not have all the means of waging war on its neighbors. Germany seems to be suffering now not out of an inability to operate alone - their economy was functioning nicely until they really started to suffer the drag from the Southern E.U., but because of the interdependence that was forced on them. This is increasingly an issue in national politics and not just for Germany.
The U.K. to hold a national referendum on leaving the E.U.
The United States making bold moves to become energy independent and return manufacturing to its shores.

THIS is the rank and file at work. This is no kiddie sci fi pic. This is real people who look in their wallet, feel screwed and then vote accordingly. The politicians might have agendas but they can't ignore issues that sweep through broad swaths of the electorate.

I know you said there could be war but not world war. That is specifically the point at which I am disagreeing with you. It is world war I suspect on the horizon. Globalization was a bad idea, lofty and idealistic perhaps, but it doesn't work. And war, which it aimed to end is too intrinsic.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
WW3 has already started years ago.

We dont have enough occupations, "revolutions" and "wars" going on right before our eyes now to know this?
9/11 was the day ww3 started.

What people should be asking is how it will end.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
World war 3 never has to start. Why is it not obvious by now that war doesn't solve any problems? How can people still be so blind to believe that war is needed? War is and always has been run by governments, and big officials that never even go to war themselves. World war 3 is a joke. people are waking up spiritually now,and realizing that war does nothing. It's time to start helping our neighbors, its time to start living in kindness and compassion. Its time to start realizing that there is an abundance on this planet, for everyone, there need not be greed. We have so many technologies out there now that would make things run on the fraction of the cost, and eventually wouldn't even need money. Geothermal power is just one example. There is so much we can do to better life on this planet.....But we choose to go to war? Are we for real? Wake up.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
It's hard to know when a future war will start when the defining parameters of what a war is, have become so obfuscated.

How would you know. It's not tin hats and bayonets with tanks rolling down crumbled streets, shooting at civilians as they flee.

It's a strategic and political manoeuvre that no one has to leave their office to achieve.

It's a black op that takes out someone who has the influence to orchestrate ground based immediate assaults, preventing a possible future attack.

It's a secret.

No more air raid sirens. No more food rations in muddy ditches.

Now it's xbox on the flat screen, and al jazeera live updates from Iran on the radio.

How will you know if WWIII has started, in the midst of occurring, or over.

Apart from who gets the first news item on cnn?



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by watcher3339
 


Your delving into economics now and not addressing the OP.

Given your points, how do correlate globalization with a world war?

How does it play out in your view, who will be on which side, how will they fight? I see a lot of upset people under your scenario but nothing that would or even could end up in a world war.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


I assumed that since the OP put a 3 at the end of world war that he is assuming it will be similar to the first two.

If the parameters extend beyond that however it could certainly be possible. I could see an economic alliance forming to topple other ones around the world.

I think he is referring to tanks rolling down the streets though.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceBoy97
i see a lot of articles in here on specific topics. but with all the spcifics in the way i honestly cant see exactly how at this point ww3 could start. somebody please enlighten me.


America will implode in the next decade causing a global-economic crisis that many rogue nations will take advantage of.
Nukes will be fired. Fingers will be pointed, causing even more tensions and conflicts.
This creates even more nukes being fired off, creating more tensions, creating more nukes being launched.

The last surviving member of the human race will be a sherpa named Larry. He will die drinking a nice tea with yak butter in it.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by xxshadowfaxx
 


It's not "the people" who want, or will start, a WW3, it's the greedy, satanists that run the world - therefore, false flag, move the troops, start genocides - it will be such fun for those guys.

Nobody in this world has to starve - but they do, because of the satanist.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by watcher3339
 


Your delving into economics now and not addressing the OP.

Given your points, how do correlate globalization with a world war?

How does it play out in your view, who will be on which side, how will they fight? I see a lot of upset people under your scenario but nothing that would or even could end up in a world war.


Economics is my answer to the OP. Coupled with geography it is the basis of history and politics.
Why would there be a world war? Look at all the flash points that are available for accidental confrontation: China/Japan Island dispute, North Korea just begging for someone to pay attention to them, Russia trying (and ostensibly succeeding) to stage a come back. North Africa conflicts with increased attention from the U.S. and now plans for a drone base -- how does China feel about us starting to play in their backyard given their overwhelming financial investments in Africa? Japan's leader is uber nationalistic and likely wouldn't have reached office if Japan hadn't suffered nearly two decades of economic stagnation. He publically announced his intentions to devalue the Yen and since more export/manufacturing to Japan could very well mean less for China - cue island dispute. Which, of course, the U.S. has already stated that the islands are covered by our defense treaty with Japan. So, entangling alliances, just like WWI. Failing super powers, just like WWI. People out to make a name for themselves, just like WWI...

It seems to me that the the more things change the more they stay the same.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by watcher3339

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by watcher3339
 


Your delving into economics now and not addressing the OP.

Given your points, how do correlate globalization with a world war?

How does it play out in your view, who will be on which side, how will they fight? I see a lot of upset people under your scenario but nothing that would or even could end up in a world war.


Economics is my answer to the OP. Coupled with geography it is the basis of history and politics.
Why would there be a world war? Look at all the flash points that are available for accidental confrontation: China/Japan Island dispute, North Korea just begging for someone to pay attention to them, Russia trying (and ostensibly succeeding) to stage a come back. North Africa conflicts with increased attention from the U.S. and now plans for a drone base -- how does China feel about us starting to play in their backyard given their overwhelming financial investments in Africa? Japan's leader is uber nationalistic and likely wouldn't have reached office if Japan hadn't suffered nearly two decades of economic stagnation. He publically announced his intentions to devalue the Yen and since more export/manufacturing to Japan could very well mean less for China - cue island dispute. Which, of course, the U.S. has already stated that the islands are covered by our defense treaty with Japan. So, entangling alliances, just like WWI. Failing super powers, just like WWI. People out to make a name for themselves, just like WWI...

It seems to me that the the more things change the more they stay the same.


Ok but how does it play out?

Is China going to risk world economic sanctions in order to take back a couple of worthless islands from Japan?

I doubt it.

Is North Korea going to bomb someone knowing full well that America's policy is to strike back with enough nuclear power to destroy them?

I doubt it.

Your claiming all these economic problems, which is accurate of course, but you are not tying them into the development of a world war. I am arguing that the costs outweigh any benefits any countries would gain by doing this.

Remember I did say that there would still be conflict and wars, I am only arguing against a world war as we've had in the past. You will not see anything go beyond regional conflicts or at most you will see proxy wars again, but never anything like world war II.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaceBoy97
 

50/50 chance that it starts with a political assassination; 50/50 chance that it starts over land and natural resources.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


*not enough space to quote orginating post*

China doesn't really care about the islands. I mean they do, but not really. They care about Japan's economic policy. And North Korea is a thorn in their side that they have no real choice but to protect. The number of Chinese who died there in the Korean Conflict was too high for them to just walk away now.

In terms of risking nuclear war. It depends. Exactly how advanced is the Strategic Defense Initiative these days? There is no way for us to really know the answer to that but Bush and Putin went from Bush's "I can see his soul" to a very cold relationship over the extension of SDI in Europe which indicates that they have achieved a certain level of results. May not take out all the risk for U.S. and friends, but it certainly seems to be a mitigating factor.

In terms of sides? Because I do believe it is financially motivated the sides aren't necessarily set. It seems likely that China would be with Iran because they need their oil. I lean with Russia on that team too but they can be unpredictable. We went out of our way to pick up India from Russia with that massive trade deal a few year back (which included taking a huge part of our naval fleet as an advertising piece). Pakistan falls opposite India which makes sense both in terms of regional history there and Chinese military supplies to Pakistan. Syria is with Russia (and likely Pakistan) so again it makes sense that they would all be on the same side. I suspect it will be a largely Pacific based war (ah look U.S. announed that they are a Pacific Power!). Europe likely will hang together and be with U.S., Japan, South Korea. Canada via fealty to the Queen and NAFTA will be with E.U./U.K., the U.S,. and Mexico.

It's enough to make moving to Brazil look very good.
Again though, my sides are not set in stone. Wherever the western world can pick up the most cash benefit is where they will fall. And, barring a miracle, they pretty much need a war of that scale to fix their books.

The U.S. has had a technology gap benefit for a long time now. It's closing. If they are ever going to do anything major it will pretty much have to be within the next 4-7 years. E.U. situation, unresolved, only moves up that timeline.
edit on 24-2-2013 by watcher3339 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by watcher3339
 


There is no way Russia is going to side with China especially when they have nothing to gain. Basically the world war your describing is the entire world against China, Syria, and Pakistan.

How long of a war do you think that will be.

China has absolutely no capability to transport troops and no country is going to invade them so what you will have are one huge set of economic sanctions that cripple their country. Believe me, the government of China knows all too well what an angry populace can do to government officials, its how Mao was able to bring communism in.

I fail to see anything China would gain from starting a war.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by watcher3339
 


Yours is a GREAT POST! I wish everybody would read it to see just what has been happening in the world in the last month. Thank you.





new topics




 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join