Hey people,

Was just wondering how far are we from the "world war lll"
From Laden to Saddam , From Israel to palatene , India to Pakistan Everyonez fighting. There are wars everywhere.

I am just not sure if ANYONE would survive the WORLD WAR lll because of the nuclear weapons and the other WMDs that we posses.

Just hope these wars END.

A World War III would probably have to include the Western world, China and possibly Russia. Those are the only ones that have the ability to wage wars worldwide.

I wish the world was as optimistic as Iceland, instead of World War 1 and World War 2 we have had World War "The Former" and World war "The Latter" apparantly there will be no more world wars acording to the Icelandic language... takk fyrir... :D

Of course there's also the camp that believes WW3 has already taken place via the Cold War, and we're currently waiting on WW4, to paraphrase Albert Einstein said, I have no idea what weapons will be used in WW3, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and rocks.

We would win. [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

I can make a spear out of a stick and a rock...

So did he mean spears, or did he mean a stick and a rock seperately?

You mean IW? Yeah...we'll form our own army and IW would win because we know all about killing from these games we play, and Choc would be named the New World Malevolent Dictator.

Unfortunately, a World War does not seem likely anytime soon. I say unfortunately, because most every previous generation of humans has had a nice crisis, be it disease or strife, to knock down the population numbers. Currently, even with our tragedies with tsunamis and in Iraq, there are pitiful few deaths to keep up with the rabbit-like birth rate of humans. Sorry, but for the good of the whole, I'd like to see a bunch of us die. Thanks for playing.

I don't know what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but I'm sure WW4 will be fought with sharpened sticks.

Ah, but would you have a similar opinion if the previous world wars had been fought on American soil? Do you only have this opinion because you feel relatively safe where you are now anyway, or are you looking forward to your own personal struggle for survival?

WW3 seems pretty unlikely anytime soon. Both the previous wars were fought between countries of similar power and status. Nowadays, no country has the economic or military strength to mount any serious challenge against the States.

Any of the situations mentioned (Palestine, India/Pakistan etc) stir strong emotions across the world, but if conflict did start, and the States intervened on one side or the other, can you really see other countries committing themselves to fight against the States? I can't.

We don't have the situation anymore of two superpowers matched against each other in economic/military might or in idealogy.

The world is a far safer place now than anytime in the 20th century.

Finally, Timber, could you be any more grossly offensive if you tried? Wars of any scale inflict nothing but suffering on all sides, and to suggest that there is somehow an upside to millions of people dying is just sick.

Nevertheless, there are serious welfare implications to a burgeoning population...

And when my exams are over I'll read up about that TL, I'm astounded if that's the case.

<font color = lightgreen>Orbost, Timber sometimes makes statements simply to stir things up. Of course, he was only kidding....

...we should predetermine who gets "culled" in WWIII. [img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img] </font>

[ 05-26-2005, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

A *slightly* better alternative to WWIII might be a space program useable by Joe Citizen. Wars are fought over control of resources. As long as there's room to keep expanding to new sources, the pressure to fight won't build up.

WORLD WAR 3!

What we need is not a WW3 Timber my fellow.. but what we need indeed is a smart ship, space sending, sylvan seed bearing planet hopper to take our populations to the far off far offs.

No World War III, at least not in the mold of past wars. No more huge armies, they're too vulnerable to our current offensive weaponry, even if non-nuclear stuff is used.

If we do have a WWIII, it won't be over politics, as the first two were. It will be over resources - water and oil.

Aerich! Would you kill for a piece of land!?

Well... Canadians are not reproducing fast, and we have to rely on immigrants to fill up our numbers. We've also have lots of land to spare, so I propose Canada get left out of the potential future world wars... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Aren't you guys a little crowded down there in the US? ;)

Well... you don't need a big military might to launch a few nuclear missiles around... I'm way more scared of some strange country getting it's hands on womd than I am of them getting an army the size of the US.

You might if it was the last piece of oil-bearing land left...

Nuclear weapons have a tendency to underkill. Overkill is accomplished by a tremendous amount of these weapons, not the weapon itself. During the cold war era peace was maintained through parity and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Since the amount of nuclear weapons needed for complete destruction is so immense such an action had to be deliberate and each block was able to do it to one another. Hence total destruction of the other meant total destruction of yourself. The equivalence of the entire chain of command simultaniously putting a gun to their head and pull the trigger.
A single nuclear weapon is still a weapon of awesome (British awesome, not US awesome) power. Not something that should be treated lightly.
As for WWIII it's not happening anytime soon. The previous World Wars have all been about resources. While oil is a resource western democracies are eager to control I don't see that control contested by a powerblock of equal size. Actually that is the only thing preventing WWIII from breaking out as the world is still largely colonial with the first world trying to control the third world and its abundant raw materials for our industries.

Just out of curiosity, what's the difference between the two awesomes?

One is more awesome than the other. :D

Nah, I think he means the difference between "awesome" as in great, massive, awe-inspiring etc. and "awesome" as in cool.

Don't forget China, they've been doing some major ramping up militarily in the past several years. They have uge natural resource reserves that are being diverted to supply their military, more than a billion people, even if they could only put 1/2 their population into uniform and spent 2 months training them... ouch.

Umm... no.

The Great War (aka WW1) was fought over the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and every country in Europe having an agreement to assist their allies (sort of like NATO) in the event of an attack, a little research and some reading at Wikipedia will help you alot.

WW2 was caused directly by the bankrupting of Germany by the Armistice signed at Compiègne, in France that ended WW1, The devastating depression in Germany led the way for National Socialism (aka Nazism) wherein the state of affairs was largely blamed on minority groups, Jews and Gypies among others. Hitlers goal of eliminating the Jews as well as his expansionist ideas were the cause for WW2, the hunt for resources was only important so far as they fueled the war machine.

Thanks, I try REEEEEAAAAL hard. Most people are accostomed to my bile and just let me prattle along. *sigh* It's only every now and then that I get a newbie around to try to offend.

But, if I had to choose between half of us dying and all of us dying, I'd go with the first one. Of course, as has been pointed out, if resources were not limited, this would not be an issue. Not until our kind had spread like a virus to every corner of the galaxy, at least. But, hey, why stop with one world -- I'm sure we choke them all into a slow death. ;)

Not really. Think about it. The Schlieffen Plan was not concieved overnight. A main battle plan for assaulting France was circulated as early as 1905. (All those who believe the Sclieffen Plan was made in WWII raise your hands). The assasination might have started the ordeal, but look beyond that and answer the following questions. Why was the crown prince assasinated? Because A-H Empire was expanding into the young Balkan nations. You have to realise that Serbia was not free of Ottoman rule until the end of the 19th century. It was a very young nation fairly rich in resources. Why was Germany so eager to join up? Because Germany needed to eliminate England to gain global power. France was seen as a temporary enemy that needed to be overrun so attention could be turned towards England. It is said that England always borrows a German word when at war and then forget the original meaning. In WWII the word was flak (FLugzeug Abwehr Kanone). In WWI it was strafe. The German meaning is "punish". Every school in Germany would start out by the headmaster yelling "Gott strafe England" (God punish England) and the pupils would yell back "Er strafe ihn" (He will punish them). It was a common German warcry on the front. This kind of hate was simply bred into the Germans. England was preventing the German nation from expanding.
Now these are some of the reasons for WWI. The assasination may have been the catalyst, but I do not consider it the real reason.

EDIT: Minor correction. Serbian independence 1873, not 1903 as I thought.

[ 05-28-2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]

You are in way both right, although one is looking at short and one at long term causes. As Mad=dog says, contential power struggles were nothing new, and evryone had plans to invade evryone else to soem extent, the French plan (i forget the number, may have been 45), which involved the invasion of Alscase-Lorraine, at that point in German hands, was carried out in the early stages of the war. WWI was world politics being played out over the conflicts of smaller nations, much like the Cold War, indeed that term had twice applied to uneasy peace between rival contintental powers before the modern day one.

Germany had expanded her navy and was threatening not only her world interests but the UK directly. Germa feared being trapped between hostile RUssia and France, hence the Schleifen plan, meant to eliminate France before Russia could moblize, this was in fact probably the barrier to the aversion of the war. Russia feared Germany's military power, and also need to control the Dardanelles, her link to world, and so supported Balklan nations against AH agression in the area. France had suffered a humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian was and wnated her lost regions back, and to restore national honour. There will be other complex relations that also have to be considered, and these are the main ones i can recall now, i has been two years since i studied this period.

The point about Russian mobilisation preventing Peace is thus explained:

Germany feared a war on two fronts, so decided if it came to war to eliminate France then take on Russia.

THis could be accomplised because the Russians woud take a long time to mobilise, although this was greatly over estimated by German planners and along with Von Moltke's alteration of the Schleiffen plan can be seen to be an integral part of its failure.

With the assasination, Russia feared war and began to mobilise, so the Germans could not strike when they were not ready. Germany therfore had to initiate its plans while Russia was unprepared.

Germany could not stop now, unless Russian mobilisation was stopped, and Russia couldn't stop mobilsation, de to the time it would take, leaveing them vulnerable to attack, until the risk of war had subsided, a vicious circle. Interesting documents on this exist, including communication between the Tzar and the Kaiser, all related to try and resolve the crisis if possible, although due to the above factors and the countries' national ambitions, proved to be impossible.

[ 05-30-2005, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]

Maaaaate.

Would the rampant AIDS epidemic in South Africa sort of be a suitable... *ahem* solution to your posed problem? I remember a friend of mine prattling on about how he thought the worlds population would greatly decrease because of the spread of AIDS in third world countries.

Of course, I could be talking out my arse. I too am concerned about the human race becoming overpopulated.

Well since people are speculating who will start WW3... I know, The chinese...


Here is the situation...
Due to the chinese "one family-one baby" family policy were male babies are prefered and girlbabies are either killed or adopted to other countries, soon we will have have a nation of billion males who are not getting laid and have control of nuclear weapons...

Scared?
I am.

I doubt that very much. I read somewhere they import females. I'd much rather have a billion crazy males then 2 billion dissaffected couples :D .

Well, to quote Napoleon, "when China stirs, the world shall tremble."

Thanks, I try REEEEEAAAAL hard. Most people are accostomed to my bile and just let me prattle along. *sigh* It's only every now and then that I get a newbie around to try to offend.

But, if I had to choose between half of us dying and all of us dying, I'd go with the first one. Of course, as has been pointed out, if resources were not limited, this would not be an issue. Not until our kind had spread like a virus to every corner of the galaxy, at least. But, hey, why stop with one world -- I'm sure we choke them all into a slow death. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]OK, OK, I'll reinsert my humour chip and be slower to take offense in the future.

I thought everyone here was smart enough to realise nothing happens for one reason alone. And sorry to say this, Morgeruat, but Wikipedia is comparable to a children's book when it comes to definitions and explanations. You hardly have the entire picture when you read about World Wars 1 and 2 there.

Every heard of the Willy-Nicky telegrams? Did you know that Switzerland actually fought an aerial war with Germany in 1940?

Not to be offensive here, but sometimes the simplicity with which people pose reasons and causality amaze me.

And yes, I'm a history student ;)

I beleive i did mention them, although not by name [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yeah, Wikipedia was lacking for the 2nd World War in my experience, but perhaps I'm more used to a British-centric view of it.

And Switzerland fighting against Germany? What what?! Any links? I'd like to read up about this [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-30-2005, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

I beleive i did mention them, although not by name [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't bother to read absolutely everything as thoroughly as I should, but I noticed many conclusions were being drawn on facts and figures that don't say that much at all.

Shamrock, check out this book if you're interested http://stonebooks.com/archives/981111.shtml . I've just googled "switzerland aerial war 1940" and this came up. I don't think this is everything known about the subject, but I'm too lazy to do any more research [img]smile.gif[/img]

I am a biologist myself. I take great professional pride in maintaining the ability to explain my work in simple terms. Otherwise I fear I might loose connection with my subject and ultimately fail to see the greater picture.
Being a natural scientist I have to cut to the core of a problem so I can establish a research strategy. For that reason I need to be able to summarize facts and put them into a simple, yet functional frame. I am perfectly aware that the same does not apply to history. Nevertheless there is no need to cloud something with obscure and irrelevant facts.
I will have to admit I do not know of the Willy-Nicky telegrams, but I would guess that it is an English nickname for correspondance between the Kaiser and the Tzar. I did not know Germany and Switzerland fought aerial combat(s) in WWII, but again I'll take a wild guess and assume it is over violation of air space. I do not consider these facts directly relevant for the subject of hand, but I am willing to be lectured. After all I live to learn.

PS: Did you know that the allies attempted and failed an invasion in France in august 1942 at Dieppe? Just another little trivia about war rarely mentioned.

IIRC, the Deippe attack was a botched raid, not an atempted invasion. It involved a small amount of tropps. I beleive the objective was to capture and hold the port for a short while then with draw.

Your assumptions are right, but your conclusion "I do not consider these facts to be relevant for the subject at hand" I find rather strange, to be honest. Although the initial discussion was about World War 3 and the probability of it happening someday soon, we have found ourself on the path discussing the outbreak of both the first and the second World War. My reaction was towards the very blatant assumptions that I read in this thread, and my examples illustrated the fact that nearly everyone usually fails to see the exact picture of an event. Conclusions should therefore be carefully drawn.

Geez, I actually can't believe that I should be defending myself here. As a scientifical person yourself you should know that functional frames are usuable to illustrate something, not to function as hard evidence for a theory, mad=dog. To take a subject that's probably a little closer to your turf than mine; the theory of Charles Darwin was hardly original in his time. Evolution was a known principle, Darwin was just the man that labelled the ideas on the subject as 'scientific'. The Church wasn't opposing to evolution because of the inconsistencies it had with 'Genesis', but because evolution told us the world was far from harmonious. That the reason some of us existed was by mere fortune, by a twist of fate.
Most conclusions that have been drawn by people from history are so incredibly wrong that it's frustrating. Behind every argument there are a gazillion more waiting to be explained and thought upon. And who are we to judge which argument is more valuable than the other?

Of course I know that the Willy-Nicky telegrams are hardly interesting for someone who wants to know the basics about World War 1. But they do describe the tense situation in Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century. They do illustrate the manner in which European royalty and politics alike were intertwined with each other. Above all, they do show us that war was hardly something that people wanted, it was just expected to happen.

OOC: Kudo's for your English, by the way. Although you're from Denmark (or maybe moved there, that's an option too, of course) I think you do a better job than some of the native speakers on this forum. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ 05-30-2005, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Link ]