WORLD WAR III ... Is it on the cards?

[mad=dog]

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.

[shamrock_uk]

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

[Stratos]

One is more awesome than the other.

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

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Orbost: 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.

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.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by mad=dog: 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.

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.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Orbost: 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.

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.

[mad=dog]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: 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.

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 ]

[Aragorn1]

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 ]

[Dave_the_quack]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: ... 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.

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.

[Jorath Calar]

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.