World War III

reply to post by GargIndia


I wasn't a general I was a Spec4.
I don't want ANYONE to shoot ANYONE else ever again,but they don't ask me.
India is in far more danger of loosing real estate that the US,with a Chinese incursion being ignored.
If the US ever gets hit DIRECTLY nukes won't do any good and the 1st people to launch one in aggression will be VAPORIZED by advanced weaponry, the likes of which hasn't been discussed here.If you think our weapons tech stopped at nuclear power you are quite naive. World war is becoming a dinosaur and thank God for that.
Soon conflicts will be as well if we can talk to each other regularly.All the lies of my old paranoid theories are proving to be true and all of it is getting exposed now,so maybe peace in 20 years as the information age marches on.

Looking through this thread as a whole, I would like to suggest that the notion of a "World War III" as an "encapsulated event" like WWs 1&2 is obsolete - something of a visionary convenience, more for Hollywood movie simplification than reality. A simple Googlesearch through various war-monitoring sites evidences that worldwide warfare today is continuous; only the localities change from time to time. In that sense we're already in WW3 and will continue to be indefinitely.

As the Industrial Revolution continued and transnationalized, so old-style wars (for territory, spoils, national aggrandizement, religion, etc.) has been gradually but inexorably superseded by economics. This was already the case by WW2, which had an industrial/profit dimension substantially different than the ostensible national/ideological one. Today that evolution is far more advanced. Ideological/political/religious imagery is still used for propaganda purposes, but economic interests determine events.

reply to post by GargIndia


Prophets have been known to mis interpret things. Also most of the time they are dead wrong. Nostradamus was wrong. He said armageddon would have been in 1997. Obviously we are still here. And what about the Mayans? Woops still here. Point is since the future is not written yet its not set in stone.

"Everyone is prepared to fight the last war."

We are already knee deep in World War III. It's just hard to see it when you expect it to resemble World War II. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc., these are just battles. It's a war of information, technology, and resources. It doesn't matter how big your army is if you can't feed, equip, and transport them. It doesn't matter how well trained your army is if you don't know where to engage the enemy.

If a world power is looking to start a major conflict, they do so out of desperation; they have already lost. "'The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Tsung Tzu

Why in the most peaceful time in human history do people have such a wish so another great conflict. Several things now work in favor of the lack of global conflict. Things like the UN have created a global stage where diplomacy involves the entire planet and even playing field. You have a global economy to a degree never before seen, a major war would wreck that. US power is so completely dominate that nobody even tries to challenge it. Profit loss for a nation is no longer in the profit side. War cost money, more than ever not even the US has money to pay for a long term global conflict. That leads to the last and that is nobody is prepared for it. NATO barely had enough ordnance for the Libya campaign. Russia and China do not even conduct military excercises on a major scale and are not even sure how to fight a global war. The US still has also greatly decreased its abilities in these areas as well although they are the only people who even put a small effort into maintaining this ability. And last the great powers have more in common than they do as rivals. While they will aurgue over minor conflicts that have no real global threat like Syria when a real threat comes along like North Korea you quickly saw The US, EU, Russia and China all in lock step together. For anyone who watched geo politics that is telling.

It seems that we just can't get enough of apocalyptic theories and/or prophecies. I for one, love a theory/prophecy full of hunches and funny feelings, they entertain me so. Unfortunately for the prophet, in the end it all turns out to be nothing more than mumbo jumbo. It is sad to see here however, that some of you taking part in this thread are desperate to be proven right about such feasible events. Our world is in such bad condition that if only one nuke is detonated our world would cease to exist as we know it, it will have such economic consequences that we would be sent back to the middle ages. Personally, I wish nothing ever happens.

Now, merit to some extend needs to be given to the dude who started this thread, wars do start following financial meltdowns according to author James Rickards in his eye-opening book Currency Wars. James Rickards is Senior Managing Director for Market Intelligence at Omnis Inc. Please read it not to substantiate your theories but to educate yourselves as to what we can and must do in the event of the unthinkable.

Many of these comments and observations are really outstanding.

And I certainly hope this can be avoided, but given our history, I think it is doubtful.

I make no psychic predictions at all - these are just probabilities based on our past as a society.

Thank you all for your comments - I think you shed some light on this for me.

Joe

I expect WW3 even im fairly certain that nothing will happen.

reply to post by JoeP2247

The echoes of history for the majority go as follows. Its been copy, paste, rinse, and repeat.
Never underestimate human stupidity.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by JoeP2247

 

The echoes of history for the majority go as follows. Its been copy, paste, rinse, and repeat.
Never underestimate human stupidity.

edit on 27-5-2013 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)

That is what really bothers me about all this - as if we are doomed to repeat it.
Joe

The point of nuclear weapons isn't so you can really kick someone's butt but good. It's a deterrent. No one in their right mind would launch a nuke against another country that either has nukes, or has an ally with nukes. Because by doing so, you've just doomed your country. Within minutes of your launch, once a target is determined, many nukes will be coming your way. It's not an attack, it's a suicide launch. Thus it's a deterrent. You won't launch because you CAN'T launch. The only person that would launch is someone who wants to go out in a blaze of glory. And that's exactly why you can't allow a country like NK to get nuclear weapons.

And the OP has absolutely no basis in reality - there is nothing backing up his claims that a war will occur on the borders he suggested. There are many other countries that are much more likely to go to war first. So I hate to be the Debbie Downer to the Doomsday Parade, but I feel this is just another fearmongering thread with no basis in fact, with a conclusion that makes no sense.

reply to post by JoeP2247


I can only hope you're right. With close to 7 billion people on earth, our resources slowly and inevitably diminishing to nothing, humans polluting every single environment, we desperately need a cataclysmic event to thin out the worlds population.

Originally posted by fleabit
The point of nuclear weapons isn't so you can really kick someone's butt but good. It's a deterrent. No one in their right mind would launch a nuke against another country that either has nukes, or has an ally with nukes. Because by doing so, you've just doomed your country. Within minutes of your launch, once a target is determined, many nukes will be coming your way. It's not an attack, it's a suicide launch. Thus it's a deterrent. You won't launch because you CAN'T launch. The only person that would launch is someone who wants to go out in a blaze of glory. And that's exactly why you can't allow a country like NK to get nuclear weapons.

And the OP has absolutely no basis in reality - there is nothing backing up his claims that a war will occur on the borders he suggested. There are many other countries that are much more likely to go to war first. So I hate to be the Debbie Downer to the Doomsday Parade, but I feel this is just another fearmongering thread with no basis in fact, with a conclusion that makes no sense.

A nuke is just another weapon. Even in the MAAD cold war days there was near misses to all out exchanges twice - in 1962 and 1983. What makes you think the US and probably Russia cannot defend such an attack?
Especially 68 years after such a weapon was first developed. Before MAAD most in the military believed a tactical nuclear war was possible - now there is no USSR to which MAAD is even applicable.

Secondly - it is really possible the US possesses a greater weapon now than a nuclear one - but many countries do posses a nuclear weapon as their best weapon.

I think you are reading too much into the post. My post is simply an observation and that observation has nothing to do with current political situations.

Joe

reply to post by Tianmat

Ya people expect some big ol war with some fancy cause like the last ones. Well a world war has been going on for a long time, is been nothing big little proxy wars for generations. But in the end if you tally up the numbers its pretty much the same as any big world war that people expect, as such it is more effective. So ya! the whole world war 3 thing is not coming on some nondescript mystical date, it has been going on for a long time. It however just has not been televised and advertised as that to the populous.

On the onset of globalization the technological age and the constant wars for resources and control, I do not expect even the tinder box areas like India, Pakistan or the middle east to light up and go full on nuclear war, expect a bunch ever on going proxy wars by both and all powers involved, till such a point that the areas are no longer useful and have been striped. At which point things will move to greener pastures, etc, etc.

After the west leaves the middle east expect the more extreme factions to take over, and even expect them to be democratically elected, and if not well then a little bloodshed will win then there place. Its practically how it goes and its no mystery why there getting funding, and support, or were from. Its all basically just set up that it will be an ever ongoing thing. Like the op said the new wars are fought were the old ones remained unresolved. So no WW3 will not start in some grand faction and fashion, like all wars it is an ever going and flowing thing, and the reverberations of the first world wars are reverberating and are going on right now, though albeit on smaller scales all through out the world, it will not accumulate in some big grand concert "cue the curtains" like the other ones though. Because frankly its just not necessary.

The whole thing has moved beyond that. It will be an ever on going thing on a smaller scales, thought more spreed out which ultimately puts in and outputs the same amount of energies that the first two world wars did. So no WW3 will not start in some far off day with some vague yearly given number, it has started and is going on right now step by step slowly and surely, though not quite as people have been conditioned to think it will be. There are always deviations from the past, and in each age such things are manifested though if albeit following pretty much the same rules and models, they are always a bit different in there implementations to suit the age and the times.

And so in such matters never ask yourself how will it go down? That is folly. Ask how is it going down right this very moment? Because it's not some mythical thing, its merely just the ebb and flow of civilizations and the aspect of group dynamics and there ecosystems. People have a tendency to look for the flashy and noisy which will be happening in some far flung day, but overlook the very things which are right in front of there noses at that very moment. The elephant in the room I believe its called, the things which they turn a blind eye to.

reply to post by JoeP2247

My prediction however is simply based on history - that the next war always starts where the last one failed to settle matters.

You mean the Middle East, then. At the end of WWII the Jews were "granted" a homeland. Its been the contentious boil on the butt hole of humanity ever since.

Not the far east but the "middle" east. Right in the middle of it all.

Also, the forces that wage war nowadays have learned from history (by this time) how to keep the conflict at a less than "global" level. Where that leads is eventually dependent upon how big a slice of pie the warmongers cut at any one time. If they get greedy and impatient like Hitler (open too many fronts at once), then watch out.

If they keep carving out one nation at a time (like they have), then we'll see.

This is just my opinion and based on nothing more.

If there is fighting in the middle east in the context of a larger war it will really just be a side show.
The only strategic interest we have in the middle east (excluding Israel) is oil. Frankly, we really don't need it. We are quite capable of developing our own synthetic - the military already does. And anyway, most of our oil needs are supplied from Canada, Mexico and internally.

Fighting in the middle east if it happens will be more like a Serbia in World War One or North Africa in World War Two - ie - sideshow.

IMHO

Joe

reply to post by intrptr


No - I specifically mean the geography between India and Manchuria. That is where the last war left many, many loose ends.

This all could start with an internal revolt in China, by the way.

Joe

I wrote a paper on this years ago…
The two largest (population wise) countries in the world are China and India. Both have a population explosion of poor, lower class citizens.
China has little land to move into that is population friendly. India is in the same boat. So they must look outside their own borders.
China is bound mainly by Russia (which will not take kindly to encroachment), Taiwan (which the Free World would not take kindly to encroachment) and several small countries, which do not give the amount of land needed. Tibet has suffered horribly at the hands of China, but has not buckled under.
India, former ally to Russia, has a similar situation. It needs to expand, but where? Not to Bangladesh with it’s poverty. Pakistan with it’s poverty and Islamic problems, not to mention nuclear capability. India just got rid of those two parasites in the last 50 years or so.
My thoughts, way back when, would be a limited confrontation between China and India to kill off a few million of each countries poor and still leave the rich leaders alive and well. Remember both countries have a rich upper class and basically no middle class.

Why will start? Isnt there enough war in the world already? The middle east is on fire and every time it looked like things cooled down, the situation kept escalating. The first world war and the second world war overshadow much of the armed conflicts that took place in the history of mankind. Only because we do not see armed conflict at an intensity like on the Western Front of WWI or the Eastern front of WWII, does not mean we do not have plenty of war already.

Originally posted by Merinda
Why will start? Isnt there enough war in the world already? The middle east is on fire and every time it looked like things cooled down, the situation kept escalating. The first world war and the second world war overshadow much of the armed conflicts that took place in the history of mankind. Only because we do not see armed conflict at an intensity like on the Western Front of WWI or the Eastern front of WWII, does not mean we do not have plenty of war already.

Fair point.
I don't know the real why of any of this - no one can really know. I do know the cycle though and I think the history is very clear -

Joe

I think this will be a WWI type situation - with strange alliances that still do not make sense. Really, it did not make sense and should never have happened.