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: 7
57
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeP2247
World War III


It will most probably start in 2014
The death toll will be at least 10 times greater than World War II (600,000,000+)
It will be fought mainly in the China-Burma-India theater.
It will likely end in a nuclear exchange.

This is not a psychic prediction ( I have no abilities in that regard) . It is our historical pattern as a society though - and here is why I make these specific predictions.

The median time interval between a financial disaster and a major war is 6 years. It can be as short as 4 years (like the Panic of 1857 to American Civil War in 1861) or as long as 7 years (like the panic of 1907 led to the First World War in 1914). The pattern is always the same though - a financial debacle leads to war and it seems to take about 6 years for this to happen. I would speculate this time interval is related to how long it takes for the negative financial situation to fully filter down to society and erupt. I also observe that the monetary gains generated by the act of war ends the financial disaster most of the time. This pattern has been true for at least the past three hundred years of western history.

With each major war technology develops that increase our killing power by factors of about 10. For example, the introduction of the rifled musket in the 1850’s increased KIA to over 800,000 in the American Civil war - Machine guns led to 9,000,000 deaths in World War One - advances in air power killed at least 60 million people in World War II (I personally think it was over 80 million) - and so on.

Wars start where the last war was left unresolved. For example, World War Two was an almost inevitable product of the Versailles Treaty after the First World War. The theater of World War Two left most up in the air was the China-Burma-India theater which left many issues moldering.

Wars escalate to the extreme of the weaponry available to the parties. If one side is going to lose and the only weapon they have that might" escalate" to the point of winning is a nuclear weapon it will be eventually used. This is very much a Clausewitz theory of war and the United States and most modern powers do use Clausewitz as a model theorist. You could read “On War” - it is still required reading in military schools.

Mark Twain once said (paraphrasing) that if history doesn’t repeat itself, it sure rhymes.

I am curious what you guys think.

Joe

Your theories seem to be predicated on a collection of cherry picked evidence, association fallacies, and confirmation biases.

How do you define the terms "financial disaster" and "major war?" The current economic downturn is only marginally worse than the 1980s recession, and yet the only conflict that would possibly fit the timeline here (it would actually be outside the 7 year window by a few months, counting from the end of the 1981-82 recession), according to your theory, is the Gulf War, which didn't see sufficient casualties. The Vietnam War also had fewer casualties, and also occurred in a nation that was not a part of "unresolved tension" from the Korean War, or World War II if you discount the Korean War.

It is accurate to suggest that war is near based on the prevalence of conflicts which begin during or shortly after financial crises. But the precision of predictions made based off of this general data is likely to be severely inaccurate.




posted on May, 28 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
The OP's predictable cycle reminds me of a 17 year bull, 17 year bear, stock market cycle I heard about, and can be plotted back almost 100 years (2001 is one of the turning points). Interesting unseen engine that may drive our society.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


Einstein


I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

edit on 28-5-2013 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by Lingweenie
 


It was widely expected that 2001 stock market crash is a prelude to a world war. However it proved to be a false signal.

Then 2008 crash happened (which looks like a real crash brought by real economic factors). This crash has shaken the Western economies like never before.

I think there are two critical issues - oil and demographic changes, that will dictate the course of near term future events.

Explosion of Muslim population in last two decades coupled with increasing radicalization is happening at a time of low fertility of Western population coupled with decline of Catholic church.

Oil has become a reason for serious competition between East and West, as East needs this critical resource in ever increasing quantity.

These two things are central, and we need to see how these will be managed.


Yeah I can agree oil is deffinately the biggest factor. It's used for pretty much everything. It's used to make plastic, and fuel, as well as many other things. And once oil is gone there will be no transportation. And of course you need to transport food to stores, and then have people travel to the store to buy the food. And once oil is becoming more and more scarce, the price of pretty much everything will go way up. Due to the fact you need fuels in order to distribute goods one place to the other. And these companies need to cover the money they spent in the prices.

People are under the assumption oil will always be around. But there's only so much of it. And eventually it will all be used up. Sure, oil can regenerate again, but that is a very very long process, far to long to hold you breathe on. The only thing we can do is look at renewable sources of energy that will always be around. But, companies aren't interested in that. They rather sell something that is in limited supply, and have great control over it. Since this yields much more money. Supply and demand at it's finest.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Lingweenie
 


Oil is key to agriculture. Fertilizers, pesticides, transportation and processing of produce - all are heavy on petroleum use.

The agricultural production of the world would decline greatly without petroleum.

We already have a situation in India where power plants are idled and natural gas is sent to fertilizer plants, as making fertilizer has higher priority over power production.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Events in the middle east will see the next major war erupt as the big nations are dragged into the conflict.

If there is a military conflict between Iran and Israel, or countries in the region unite against Israel, America and allies under Zionist control will be forced to defend their 'ally'.

I don't think it will be 2014 though, a lot still has to happen first, although I guess things could accelerate very quickly the way it is going at the moment.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   
The hydrogen fuel cell, will change things. In five years the oil needed for transport will plummet, The moment the alternative is viable, the price of oil will stabilize and go down. If they leave it any longer, they will have missed the boat. Its serious stuff, the moment full scale production starts, petrol goes the way of steam. Who holds the patents?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   
i agree with your economic views, but in view of the huge degree of propping up the financial system with the lofty sounding "quantititave easing", the gap between economic failure and WW3 will be measured in months or fractions of. its all breaking down now, its not quite hit the fan.

the middle east is the most likely area to begin a war if indeed it has not already started. today it was announced that the UN ban on financing the syrian rebels expires this week and the west will shortly (officially) begin to arm them with bigger armaments.

those who control the world money also decide when war should break out. see the following link.
rense.com...
so far, all or most of his design has come about. it is certainly no accident but deliberate planning. 4 star general wesley clark speaks of taking out several mid-east countries by the zionist controlled US back in october 2007. have a listen to him here www.infowars.com...
enabling this are the illuminati controlled presidents leading up to obamination whose character differs little from satan.
its hard to imagine the syrian conflict not escalating to world war once the big hardware is let loose. i dont think there is much time left and my money's on august this year. nukes may not be used initially but when push comes to shove you can bet the red corpuscled zionists wont hesitate.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


It seems the plan to attack Iran has been postponed.

The stock market is showing clear sign of another up-move.

The Syria rebels have not made enough headway, and Syria is key if Iran is to be contained.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by anonentity
The hydrogen fuel cell, will change things. In five years the oil needed for transport will plummet, The moment the alternative is viable, the price of oil will stabilize and go down. If they leave it any longer, they will have missed the boat. Its serious stuff, the moment full scale production starts, petrol goes the way of steam. Who holds the patents?


No! Hydrogen fuel cell is only for scaring oil producers.

The alternative energy scenario is picking up but needs another 15 years of peace (at least) to become viable.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
You make a persuasive argument re: the trend of correlation between financial turmoil and major war, historically. My only questions would be 1) Have the credit crisis and the other related and subsequent financial upheavals amounted to a detrimental effect equivalent with those associated with previous major wars, and 2) Does the correlation - even though it has been repeated - actually equal causality or do we just hypothesize that it does?

If the answer is yes to both of those questions, all I can say is that I hope humanity can buck this trend.

Peace.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   
2016, that will be the year
and as each year passes you will start to see more rich elite/celebs getting out of hollywood and other areas of CA and moving North or out of the country
They have already begun to get out now, and sell their homes



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
I think not.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Not another fear mongering thread.. I highly doubt we will see a nuclear war, those countries wont get backed that much into a corner, to take over a country could take a lifetime...US and NATO has been in Afghan for over 10 years and still hasn't taken over the country.. To take over a country the size of America, China, Aus, RUSSIA...good luck.
edit on 28-5-2013 by live2beknown because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jalbrook

Originally posted by JoeP2247
World War III


It will most probably start in 2014
The death toll will be at least 10 times greater than World War II (600,000,000+)
It will be fought mainly in the China-Burma-India theater.
It will likely end in a nuclear exchange.

This is not a psychic prediction ( I have no abilities in that regard) . It is our historical pattern as a society though - and here is why I make these specific predictions.

The median time interval between a financial disaster and a major war is 6 years. It can be as short as 4 years (like the Panic of 1857 to American Civil War in 1861) or as long as 7 years (like the panic of 1907 led to the First World War in 1914). The pattern is always the same though - a financial debacle leads to war and it seems to take about 6 years for this to happen. I would speculate this time interval is related to how long it takes for the negative financial situation to fully filter down to society and erupt. I also observe that the monetary gains generated by the act of war ends the financial disaster most of the time. This pattern has been true for at least the past three hundred years of western history.

With each major war technology develops that increase our killing power by factors of about 10. For example, the introduction of the rifled musket in the 1850’s increased KIA to over 800,000 in the American Civil war - Machine guns led to 9,000,000 deaths in World War One - advances in air power killed at least 60 million people in World War II (I personally think it was over 80 million) - and so on.

Wars start where the last war was left unresolved. For example, World War Two was an almost inevitable product of the Versailles Treaty after the First World War. The theater of World War Two left most up in the air was the China-Burma-India theater which left many issues moldering.

Wars escalate to the extreme of the weaponry available to the parties. If one side is going to lose and the only weapon they have that might" escalate" to the point of winning is a nuclear weapon it will be eventually used. This is very much a Clausewitz theory of war and the United States and most modern powers do use Clausewitz as a model theorist. You could read “On War” - it is still required reading in military schools.

Mark Twain once said (paraphrasing) that if history doesn’t repeat itself, it sure rhymes.

I am curious what you guys think.

Joe

Your theories seem to be predicated on a collection of cherry picked evidence, association fallacies, and confirmation biases.

How do you define the terms "financial disaster" and "major war?" The current economic downturn is only marginally worse than the 1980s recession, and yet the only conflict that would possibly fit the timeline here (it would actually be outside the 7 year window by a few months, counting from the end of the 1981-82 recession), according to your theory, is the Gulf War, which didn't see sufficient casualties. The Vietnam War also had fewer casualties, and also occurred in a nation that was not a part of "unresolved tension" from the Korean War, or World War II if you discount the Korean War.

It is accurate to suggest that war is near based on the prevalence of conflicts which begin during or shortly after financial crises. But the precision of predictions made based off of this general data is likely to be severely inaccurate.


This most accurately reflects my exact sentiments.
edit on 28-5-2013 by Hendrick99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Jalbrook
 


Not really. China and India are already engaged in border skirmishes of key strategic area. Area that if India loses could enable China to seize Northern India. The importance of Northern India is that it is India's breadbasket(a breadbasket that is capable of feeding a billion+ people). China is awfully hungry, and a war is a good way to distract attention from worsening economic conditions.

Plus, the USA might show a hissy fit at the political level, but at the civil level, level of the citizens, most would likely be in favor of China. Due to India's abuse of Hb1-Visa's and the current immigration hostilities, it is highly unlikely American's would support even humanitarian aid for India.

Russia though, is India's main arm supplier, and Russia has large borders with China. Germany has close economic ties with China, while the UK has close economic ties with India. Of course a major war might enable many smaller wars in Africa and Latin America(with world's attention focuses elsewhere and an atmosphere of war, there might be lower inhibitions from other nations to fight amongst themselves).

What I see America doing in all this? Staying out of it mostly. Well, if Muslim nations try to take advantage of the situation, it could lead to America's eye on the Middle East, while the other more major war takes place.

I doubt WW3 will be like WW1&2 in the clean two sides of fighting thing, WW3 is more likely to be an event when many different wars take place at the same time.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Can't you all see it, we are already in WW3.....The U.S. Canada, Europe ( The trinity) are already fighting wars everywhere....Call it a war on terrorism or whatever...it is still a war encompasing the world!



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
There is a natural mountain pass between India and China which is defended by specialized Mountain Corps defending those area's , that area is impenetrable in any full scale or limited war ...

1. India and China will never fight ... there are no victors in the war even if a war does occur..China will fail to do any serious inroads into India...The actual Chinese army used for offensive operations is 8,00,000 strong , only these troops will be involved in any offensives ..

2. Its is going to be down right impossible to supply such a massive army and military thrust into mountainous regions considering the long supply lines.. The only way Chinese can in anyway make a thrust into India is through Pakistan Punjab regions i.e if they can get their armor formations there without India noticing ...

3. India won't be fighting China alone if any war does occur , it most likely be allied by Vietnam, South Korea, Japan which India is currently have extensive military co-operation ...

4. and people saying Northern India will be captured.....cmon....do you realize how much of a military force would be required to hold that much ground... ? Indian army alone is 1.3mill strong + another 3 - 4 million reserves and not to mention managing the massive population.....

5. India and China will never fight....ill repeat this point....the west wants the two Asian neighbors to fight quiet badly....its just not going to happen ....
edit on 28-5-2013 by maddy21 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by JoeP2247
 


This is a very interesting topic, to me, as it applies to all of us. We all know the history of mankind, and it is full of violence, hatred, and from the 20th century onward, worldwide war. I like how you use logic in your argument, but we all know mankind isn't logical, and these things can start anywhere, and thus erupt into full scale war quickly. So, really, where it starts, doesn't really matter. Things escalate quickly, and can make it to a World War, from anywhere.

Just a few examples:

China - Japan
N.Korea - Japan
Israel - Syria
Israel - Iran
Russia - Ukraine
Russia - Turkey
Syria/Iran - Iraq/Israel

But, the recent movements in the borderlands of China, and India, have been most disconcerting. I fully believe we will see another World War. I do not think there will be a full on nuclear war. There may be limited exchanges, but people only start war to claim resources. You can't claim irradiated resources. Or, you can claim them, but they aren't very useful anymore.

I do believe China is one of the country's that is willing to start a conventional war to add resources to it's coffers. Russia is, as well. Both of these countries are biding their time, waiting for the US to weaken, and/or fall. Both country's use proxy states to further debilitate the US (Sryia/Iran/N.Korea), and or antagonize our allies (Japan/Israel).

It is scary, really. It's truly sad, as well. I hope that one day we can truly put this kind of violence behind us, but I doubt it. It will take a major societal change, worldwide. I don't see that day near...maybe after the next World War. Or the one after that...so sad.
edit on 28-5-2013 by Catacomb because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I would just make few comments about some of the remarks on this thread regarding where any war would start.

Middle East
The US has weaned itself off of ME Oil. It doesn't need it any more.
Russia makes it's own.
China is getting the vast majority of it's oil from outside the Middle East (Africa, South America, etc.).
Israel does not want a war with Syria. It wants Assad right where he is. Better a, largely, secular and cowed enemy than another bunch of religious nut jobs.

India / China
Why would either want a war? India is a Russian ally and China and Russia are getting very friendly of late.

Asia / Pacific
Now I think you are talking.
The US has announced it's pivot into this area. In effect putting it's tanks on China's lawn.
China has border disputes with a lot of US allies in this area. Japan, South Korea, Phillipines, etc.
I think it highly likely that China may decide to flex it's muscles while Obama is still in the White House.

Just my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join