It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World War III

page: 5
57
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by daveinats
 


What you say is a wishlist rather than a believable war scenario.

There are other better ways of reducing population than war. These are contraception, education, and incentives (penalties).

Killing a few millions in China/India wont make any difference.

Even an arm chair general needs to have better logic than this.




posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by daveinats
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.


I think this is a very valid observation.

The Economist (the magazine) noted some years ago that if China ever fell below 7.5% growth they would be ripe for revolt. I thought that was BS at the time. Now I am not so sure - after the events in Libya, Egypt, etc.. and this financial debacle. I don't see China maintaining that growth rate and it appears revolt is quite possible in the 21st century against tyrannical powers.



Joe



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuppa
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.



1. Prophecies should be treated as possibilities, which can be changed if precursors change.

2. Not all prophets are accurate. I agree. And I sincerely wish WWIII does not happen and such prophecy does not come true.

So just write this prophecy down and see if it holds any truth, as it is about events in near future.

Enjoy.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


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

Okay, but I don't see that as a resource rich highly sought after place. I should reread your thread to find what the unresolved conflict is there?

Thanks if you want to tell me.
edit on 27-5-2013 by intrptr because: BB code



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


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

Okay, but I don't see that as a resource rich highly sought after place. I should reread your thread to find what the unresolved conflict is there?

Thanks if you want to tell me.
edit on 27-5-2013 by intrptr because: BB code



Sure - the one that concerns me most is the "liberation" of India from Great Brittan and the following cut up to form Pakistan. That border area has been a hot bed since the time Pakistan was formed - and the utter hatred of the Hindu in India toward the Muslims in Pakistan has only gotten more heated as time has gone by. And now they both have nuclear weapons.

Secondly, the Maoist revolution following the war has now become a communist v capitalist regime in China - that revolution has not only not gone away and now the Maoists in China have been usurped by the capitalists in the eastern coastal region. They are still there - Mao philosophy is still there and it seems inevitable that the two will collide.

One can also look at the Korea's - the border clashes between Russia and China over Manchuria and a number of other issues left over from WWII - there are so many issues.

Point is - that old China-Burma-India theater has so many unresolved issues - these are just a few.

Joe


edit on 27-5-2013 by JoeP2247 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

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.


How about other methods besides launching? There are suitcase nukes, and I remember a thread a while back that mentioned that Russia has over 200 nukes planted around dams and other infrastructure targets all over the US ready to be detonated. Probably not true, but I'm just pointing out there are other ways to nuke somebody without using ICBMs.

As far as ww3, I have to stand by maquino on page 3. But world leaders do not control every terrorist group, so there is always the chance that some lunatic might get ahold of something nasty, like a nuke for example. And of course, there are always wars that are not world wars. And if you live in an area where a semimajor conflict arises, it may as well be a world war, bc your world will be turned upside down.

Depopulation, if it occurs, will not be done by warfare. Perhaps a disease or a manmade "natural" disaster. Something where its "nobody's fault", and we must all unite to recover or survive, leading eventually to a more official one world government, perhaps.
edit on 5/27/2013 by 3n19m470 because: i meant page 4, sorry, too many threads open at once. youre lucky i even out the correct reply to this thread



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JoeP2247
 

Thanks for the rundown. Yah, lots of festering sores. As populations continue to increase, there must be a quest for more living space and resources there.

Ever played Risk?



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
the US outspends in budget militarily the rest of the world combined
en.wikipedia.org...

even with a notorious overpricing there is simply no contest here, its what it is... in my mind a WWIII would only be possible after an absolute, complete collapse of the US economy, but like a complete devastation... Short of that nobody would choose to fight a guaranteed lost war



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by laytheovers
the US outspends in budget militarily the rest of the world combined
en.wikipedia.org...

... nobody would choose to fight a guaranteed lost war


War is like a casino - everybody thinks they are going to win - until they lose.

Your point is good though -

Joe



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by JoeP2247
 



Ever played Risk?


No, not really.

Joe



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JoeP2247
 

Its a board game where players start small, then acquire territory and build armies. As the continents fill up with armies there is no space left to conquer and players must begin to attack each other to acquire territory. Thats what spills into the final conflict.

Diplomacy and alliances (which are broken) are the key to wining the whole planet. Plus a little luck.

Good parallel to world events.

The ultimate goal being to conquer the world.

Risk



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Yes - there is a certain parallel.

Joe



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeP2247

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


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

Okay, but I don't see that as a resource rich highly sought after place. I should reread your thread to find what the unresolved conflict is there?

Thanks if you want to tell me.
edit on 27-5-2013 by intrptr because: BB code



Sure - the one that concerns me most is the "liberation" of India from Great Brittan and the following cut up to form Pakistan. That border area has been a hot bed since the time Pakistan was formed - and the utter hatred of the Hindu in India toward the Muslims in Pakistan has only gotten more heated as time has gone by. And now they both have nuclear weapons.

Secondly, the Maoist revolution following the war has now become a communist v capitalist regime in China - that revolution has not only not gone away and now the Maoists in China have been usurped by the capitalists in the eastern coastal region. They are still there - Mao philosophy is still there and it seems inevitable that the two will collide.

One can also look at the Korea's - the border clashes between Russia and China over Manchuria and a number of other issues left over from WWII - there are so many issues.

Point is - that old China-Burma-India theater has so many unresolved issues - these are just a few.

Joe


edit on 27-5-2013 by JoeP2247 because: (no reason given)


1. The dispute between India and Pakistan can result in a war but such a war will be called a 'localized' war. I see no reason why a 'world' war will erupt over this.

2. The border between China and India has been peaceful for last 50 years. This is a very long time. Clashes would have happened hundred times over if this was a 'hot' issue. Even this dispute cannot result in a 'world' war.

You are confusing a 'local' war with a 'world' war. We are talking about world war scenario here. A world war means majority of population of the world at war.

I am not sure what you mean by a 'Maoist revolution'. Do you mean Nepal?

There have been insurgencies in India and China but these are very unlikely to cause war between States.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia

Originally posted by JoeP2247

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


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

Okay, but I don't see that as a resource rich highly sought after place. I should reread your thread to find what the unresolved conflict is there?

Thanks if you want to tell me.
edit on 27-5-2013 by intrptr because: BB code



Sure - the one that concerns me most is the "liberation" of India from Great Brittan and the following cut up to form Pakistan. That border area has been a hot bed since the time Pakistan was formed - and the utter hatred of the Hindu in India toward the Muslims in Pakistan has only gotten more heated as time has gone by. And now they both have nuclear weapons.

Secondly, the Maoist revolution following the war has now become a communist v capitalist regime in China - that revolution has not only not gone away and now the Maoists in China have been usurped by the capitalists in the eastern coastal region. They are still there - Mao philosophy is still there and it seems inevitable that the two will collide.

One can also look at the Korea's - the border clashes between Russia and China over Manchuria and a number of other issues left over from WWII - there are so many issues.

Point is - that old China-Burma-India theater has so many unresolved issues - these are just a few.

Joe


edit on 27-5-2013 by JoeP2247 because: (no reason given)


1. The dispute between India and Pakistan can result in a war but such a war will be called a 'localized' war. I see no reason why a 'world' war will erupt over this.

2. The border between China and India has been peaceful for last 50 years. This is a very long time. Clashes would have happened hundred times over if this was a 'hot' issue. Even this dispute cannot result in a 'world' war.

You are confusing a 'local' war with a 'world' war. We are talking about world war scenario here. A world war means majority of population of the world at war.

I am not sure what you mean by a 'Maoist revolution'. Do you mean Nepal?

There have been insurgencies in India and China but these are very unlikely to cause war between States.




Why do you assume a Pakistan/India conflict can be localized? It cannot. We are aligned with India - we will have to go to their aid - by treaty.

Mao overtook Chang Ki Shek in the 40's - we are aligned with Taiwan by treaty - we have to go to their aid.
And that pits the capitalists v communists in that country - by definition. Now the Maoists are challenging the capitalists in the mainland after they have been deposed - I do not know what you find unclear about this.

Please explain what you think is not clear - I do not understand - and I really want to be wrong here.

Joe



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


S&F
I think that this has been a great post to get everyone talking. I have enjoyed reading everyone's opinions and reasons as to why they feel that way. I feel that this thread has given a "360 view" of your questions.

IMHO:

I personally believe that WWIII has already begun. I think that we have given it many names, such as Desert Storm; but it has not built to its crescendo yet. I think that will be the point that most will consider it WWIII.
edit on 5/27/1313 by Martin75 because: spelling

edit on 5/27/1313 by Martin75 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by voynichman
 


I disagree, we will see a revolution forming in China, the rich vs the poor. It will not happen though. When the leaders se it coming straight at them, they will engage another country in a war in order to deflect the anger



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Tattiio
 


A revolution in China is NWO wishlist.

Chinese are ruthless is suppressing dissent. They have no qualms about killing their own people.

No Chinese revolution in near future (20 years).

I rather see Taiwan and Korea bowing to China.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by Tattiio
 


A revolution in China is NWO wishlist.

Chinese are ruthless is suppressing dissent. They have no qualms about killing their own people.

No Chinese revolution in near future (20 years).

I rather see Taiwan and Korea bowing to China.




More ruthless than in Egypt under Mubarak or in Libyia or Syria - I don't think so.

Joe



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


Mubarak and Assad are bogged down by sectarianism. (religion).

China is more effective in internal law and order.

There is nothing wrong in giving where it is due.

China has a lot of plus points as a political entity. Ignore it at your own peril.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
China has a lot of plus points as a political entity. Ignore it at your own peril.


I do not think so.

Joe



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join