[QUOTE=HunterJup;44337712]Tensions caused by Russia, North Korea, China etc....
The world superpower is going away from America and to China, and people dont like it.
Change is happening, and war will follow.[/QUOTE]
You sounded like you were implying that a conventional war could not be considered WWIII because it wasn't nuclear.
When oil and coal runs out, countries will literally be fighting it out for who gets what, so the government(s) are deciding whether or not to go nuclear, but they have always thought of the long term effects.
Wasn't the 2nd world war about occupying more land?
You could say the 3rd world war is already happening, but in a cyber sense, 4th world war probably robots rebel against humans and establish dominion over the earth.
What I think is that a war will happen between Pakistan and India. Afghanistan, Russia, and them countries will be with India, and the US, etc... will be with Pakistan. There are also many tensions in other areas, such as between Japan and China. However, this will probably be the end of the world as we know it.
[QUOTE=inspirit;44358137]When oil and coal runs out, countries will literally be fighting it out for who gets what, so the government(s) are deciding whether or not to go nuclear, but they have always thought of the long term effects.[/QUOTE]
Um no not really. Alternative energy is rapidly moving forward, especially thanks to dwindling oil. It's not like countries don't realize they're running out and they've prepared.
[editline]26th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=bakht;44362089]What I think is that a war will happen between Pakistan and India. Afghanistan, Russia, and them countries will be with India, and the US, etc... will be with Pakistan. There are also many tensions in other areas, such as between Japan and China. However, this will probably be the end of the world as we know it.[/QUOTE]
No, the US has been distancing itself from Pakistan rapidly and has very good relations with India.
[QUOTE]I still think it will be very interesting to see what happens when Africa becomes industrialized and steals the labor from China.
[/QUOTE]
Not happening by one billion miles. Most of Africa will have a rough time industrializing. Way more rough than for latin american countries in the 19th century. And that is, too fucking rough.
[B][I][U]ON TOPIC:
[QUOTE]When oil and coal runs out, countries will literally be fighting it out for who gets what, so the government(s) are deciding whether or not to go nuclear, but they have always thought of the long term effects.
[/QUOTE]
The US has a seen a surge on its oil production which it could mean no more dependence on imported oil from the M.East.
[/U][/I][/B]Everything I'm going to say here is backed up/taken from [B][U]"The Better Angels of our Nature"[/U][/B] by [I]Steven Pinker[/I]. I have quoted it in many other posts. If you don't know what this book is about, search it up. If you know it and you still haven't read it, go buy it and read it. It's a must.
First of all, your question encloses an affirmation, that another world war is a determined event.
That it must happen.
Now, if we take a look at a chart of how many wars have happened in past centuries, you won't find a cyclical function (Ie, sin and cos). It means that there is no really a way to know whether a war will break out or not. It's not something determined. It may happen, it may not.
Point aside, some people like also to think that because there were 1000 wars, the chance of another war is smaller and that because there were 0 wars, the chance of a new war is huge.
This is simply a faulty reasoning, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution"]due to this[/URL].
To give an example, the chance of a coin ending up one face or another is 50%. If you get one side 100 times, it may look as if the coin was charged/duped, while it also (if it was not charged/duped) can be that those 100 times, the 50% of one side was realized.
People like to think that different faces turning up mean a "true" coin, while that is not true.
There's no force behind humanity that forces it to clash between itself. There is no "Mars". People and states don't have a craving for war that the more time it is reprised the more violent it will burst out like some like to think.
[QUOTE][I]That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed; [/I]
[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://imageshack.com/a/img856/3428/cr5.gif[/IMG]
As you can notice, there is obviously a trend, which shows wars dwindling.
"But wait cutthecrap, they are only for Europe".
But of course! They are only for Europe, and the interesting thing is that this pattern also follows the next items:
-Development of trade within Europeans nations.
-Development of communication and relationship between people of different countries (globalization)
-Development of supranational entities such as the EU and the UN.
-Citizens have developed a higher consciousness for issues such as atomic bombs, chemicals, war crimes, attacks in their own soil. [B][I][U]Remember how the Spanish reacted to the train bombs?
[/U][/I][/B]
-Democracies don't go to war with each other. And when I say democracies, I mean proper democracies. Not North Korea, not Russia, not Belarus, not Cuba.
We can therefore link all those processes with an effect: [I]less war-[/I]
So, as the world develops (poverty is at an historical low), the "chances" and causes for war keep lowering. South America hasn't seen a war nor a conflict after all the countries became democracies. War happened only between loose states or dictatorships.
Will another world war 3 happen? Not in my opinion, its quite unlikely due to the above.
Will it be nuclear? Again, not in my opinion. This is only if we consider a war between states and not rogue agents/non-state organizations.
The basis for this is that the loser might not use WMD.
On what evidence do I suggest this? Well, the germans could have used chemicals during WW2 and yet they didn't. What's more, Allies actually released -accidentally- chemicals and immediately they communicated it to the OKH and the Germans understood what had happened and didn't retaliate.
Another one: The soviet union didn't use nuclear weapons in 1991, which meant defeat. If one of the parties is brought down by force -as it happened with the USSR via economic methods- and yet doesn't uses WMD, it sets a precedent.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;44376265]
Point aside, some people like also to think that because there were 1000 wars, the chance of another war is smaller and that because there were 0 wars, the chance of a new war is huge.
This is simply a faulty reasoning, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution"]due to this[/URL].
To give an example, the chance of a coin ending up one face or another is 50%. If you get one side 100 times, it may look as if the coin was charged/duped, while it also (if it was not charged/duped) can be that those 100 times, the 50% of one side was realized.
People like to think that different faces turning up mean a "true" coin, while that is not true.
There's no force behind humanity that forces it to clash between itself. There is no "Mars". People and states don't have a craving for war that the more time it is reprised the more violent it will burst out like some like to think.
[/QUOTE]
The given outcome for one flip is 50%. Standard deviation makes any chance of flipping it that many times insignificant.
Your graph is also extremely broad and redundant. You even gave the reasons as to why it is redundant in your post so I'm not sure why you put it there in the first place. However, if you use a graph that is more appropriately suited to an era more relevant:
[t]http://www.systemicpeace.org/war2013.jpg[/t]
[url="www.systemicpeace.org/conflict.htm"]Source[/url]
You can see that leading up to the Cold War that the amounts of societal warfare began increasing at a significant rate while interstate warfare remained relatively low due to the introduction of the United Nations, NATO, and the Warsaw Pact. Even after the Cold War we're still experiencing a larger total of warfare than even before the Cold War had started.
You say that Democracies don't go to war with each other, are you not aware of the Iraq War? Also I'd like a source for your "poverty is at an all time low" because there's plenty of sources out there saying it's relatively stagnant (some even show increasing trends):
[img]http://depts.washington.edu/wcpc/sites/default/files/papers/2011%20Poverty%20Rate%20graph.jpg[/img]
[url="http://depts.washington.edu/wcpc/about/newsarchive"]Source[/url]
[t]http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/Unemployment%20rates%20over%20time.png[/t]
[url="http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/indicators/topics/work-and-worklessness/unemployment-rates-over-time/"]Source[/url]
To your "South America isn't under any conflict", Colombia has long been at war with Rebels in that country, since the sixties actually.
There is no reason to believe that there won't be a World War III in the future. All it takes is one dumb move from someone.
Only part I agree with you is that I don't believe it will be nuclear. M.A.D. handles that.
[QUOTE]You can see that leading up to the Cold War that the amounts of societal warfare began increasing at a significant rate while interstate warfare remained relatively low due to the introduction of the United Nations, NATO, and the Warsaw Pact. Even after the Cold War we're still experiencing a larger total of warfare than even before the Cold War had started.
[/QUOTE]
Because before the Cold war had started (1950) the process of decolonization and spread of USSR influences to the thirld world hadn't happened. Is it a coincidence that just after the collapse of the USSR (1991) It starts a sharp decline?
That graphic would be much more complete if it gave a view on which percentage each continent shares.
[QUOTE]To your "South America isn't under any conflict", Colombia has long been at war with Rebels in that country, since the sixties actually.
There is no reason to believe that there won't be a World War III in the future. All it takes is one dumb move from someone.
Only part I agree with you is that I don't believe it will be nuclear. M.A.D. handles that.[/QUOTE]
First of all, as with any other conflict.
[QUOTE]You say that Democracies don't go to war with each other, are you not aware of the Iraq War?
[/QUOTE]
-Democracies don't go to war with each other. And when I say democracies, I mean proper democracies. Not North Korea, not Russia, not Belarus, not Cuba.
Iraq was a single party state at the time, ruled by Saddam Hussein.
[QUOTE]Also I'd like a source for your "poverty is at an all time low" because there's plenty of sources out there saying it's relatively stagnant (some even show increasing trends):
[/QUOTE]
Globally. Not country specific.
[IMG]http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/worldpoverty-600x396.jpg[/IMG]
[url]http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/chart-of-the-greatest-and-most-remarkable-achievement-in-human-history-and-one-you-probably-never-heard-about/[/url]
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Extreme_poverty_1981–2008.png[/IMG]
This one is from the World Bank.
[QUOTE]To your "South America isn't under any conflict", Colombia has long been at war with Rebels in that country, since the sixties actually.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. My bad, when I said "conflict" I meant interstate conflict as in the "Falklands [I]Conflict[/I]" or the Argentina-Chile 1976 conflict.
And the FARC is not a civil war nor a societal war
I actually saw a YouTube video on something like this. Apparently there will be an "economic reset" which will result in countries just demanding more power, more wealth etc. Which will eventually just lead to a world war, somewhat similar to how World War 1 started I suppose.
I think that there are two potential causes: one that would potentially exist during our lifetimes due to the value collapse of a global currency and a much more distant one where the urbanization of central Africa causes border disputes and power hunger to be an alltime high in the region.
For the former, I think that the current direction that currencies are going is either going to result in China as a whole collapsing into a civil war or the American Dollar becoming worthless. Either way would cause widespread chaos as countries struggle to deal with the repercussions on the global economy.
For the latter, I believe that in a few centuries from now, unless the global powers of the time intervene, the African countries will have some gruesome warring over territory, ultimately resulting in one or more becoming empirical and allied while attempting to attack southern Africa, a more westernized Middle East (which is most likely will to happen before an urbanized central Africa) and even potentially the Caucasus.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44323086]It won't.[/QUOTE]
You never know man. Even World War I was called "the war to end all wars".
[QUOTE=xZippy;44400756]You never know man. Even World War I was called "the war to end all wars".[/QUOTE]
It was obvious there would be another one to everything that had more than two brain cells to clack together.
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44401442]It was obvious there would be another one to everything that had more than two brain cells to clack together.[/QUOTE]
Uhh... yeah. It's kind of easy for [I]us[/I] to say that since it already happened. Not so easy for people living in the 1910's, otherwise such a phrase for a war wouldn't even exist - regardless of how many brain cells were "clacking together". They weren't exactly expecting shit like a U.S. harbor being surprise attacked and a genocide going 30 years later.
As for the topic, I think the world has had enough world wars, but life's full of surprises.
[QUOTE=xZippy;44412832]Uhh... yeah. It's kind of easy for [I]us[/I] to say that since it already happened. Not so easy for people living in the 1910's, otherwise such a phrase for a war wouldn't even exist - regardless of how many brain cells were "clacking together". They weren't exactly expecting shit like a U.S. harbor being surprise attacked and a genocide going 30 years later.
As for the topic, I think the world has had enough world wars, but life's full of surprises.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] Foch advocated peace terms that would make Germany unable to pose a threat to France ever again. After the Treaty of Versailles, because Germany was allowed to remain a united country, Foch declared "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years".[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;44414261]Foch advocated peace terms that would make Germany unable to pose a threat to France ever again. After the Treaty of Versailles, because Germany was allowed to remain a united country, Foch declared "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years".[/QUOTE]
Did Ferdinand Foch also predict anything else that was gonna happen in WW2 that [i]didn't[/i] involve Germany?
There is a high probability that it will be a space war.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating - read the sticky" - Megafan))[/highlight]
I'm going to get rich and buy all the petrol and keep it in a massive tank so I'll have a lifetime supply
[img]http://static1.bornrichimages.com/wp-content/uploads/s3/1/2012/09/12/1347441730.jpg[/img]
You'll never take my boxer rumble from me.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating - read the sticky" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Masterofstars;44401442]It was obvious there would be another one to everything that had more than two brain cells to clack together.[/QUOTE]
to the people in charge yes it was obvous, but to the people who had spent 6 years slogging it in the trenches being bombed,blown up, gased, stabbed, and pummeled with machinegun and sniper fire, it was. that sentiment reflected the outcome of the 1920s, everyone acted like there was no tomorrow.
[editline]1st April 2014[/editline]
i think WW3 will all start from some misunderstanding or accident, something like crimea will happen then, both sides will rapidly escalate and someone will accidentally fire, someone will fall and both sides will start shooting.
the only thing that determines if this becomes ww3 is the price the agressor side(s) is/are willing to pay for their gain
If it doesn't start by some psycho like Kim Jung Un going nuts on another country or two; It will ultimately start by a limit of natural resources and/or trade blockades.
I could be wrong though. Lets not forget the coming of Cyber-warfare!
I'm sorry but any teacher who asks "How do you think World War 3 [i]will[/i] start" is a fucking sadomasachistic under-par sub-human pesimist scumbag.
-snip-
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating - read the sticky" - Megafan))[/highlight]
The Geopolitical conditions don't really add up to it right now. Even a war with a country as batshit as North Korea would only be a regional conflict.
Things will have to get much worse for any countries with global reach or large alliances would ever go to war in such a globalized civilization.
[QUOTE=KD007;44426590]I'm sorry but any teacher who asks "How do you think World War 3 [i]will[/i] start" is a fucking sadomasachistic under-par sub-human pesimist scumbag.
-snip-[/QUOTE]
World War III (I prefer the term Global Anarchy) will occur due to catastrophic famine on a scale in which we've never seen before. An actual war with military alliances happening seems highly unlikely due to nuclear weapons. In general, what humanity is going to face in the late 21st century is going to make WWI and WWII look like kids fighting in a sandbox. Hopefully I'll be living on an Island in the middle of the ocean with recreational drug users that no one gives a shit about when that happens.
Probably with the end of petrol and america holding most of the remaining
Someone bans chocolate and then everyone riots and civil world war will start.
But more seriously. North Korea and America will have a war. And then countries will join when called apon. Thus creating a endless pit of lead.
Nobody would help North Korea if they do anything because most of their actions are completely unprovoked and that won't earn them the help of China or Russia, even they know better than that.
Perhaps one day with growing pressure for the USA to cut ties with Israel both nationally and internationally relations will be cut and Israel will see no reason to uphold any diplomatic or moral obligations to please the USA anymore and go full out on Palestine. It won't be much of a World War seeing few people would help Israel.
If Russia were to do something truly terrible right now to Ukraine or decide that other parts of ex-bloc nations belong to Russia then that has the potential to cause NATO to act, some Middle Eastern countries may decide to help Russia. North Korea may offer to help as an excuse to lash out at South Korea because they're a major ally to NATO which would then cause a chain reaction and bring in the other major major NATO allies in the East such as Japan and Australia to SK's aid. China has had close relations in the past with Russia but due to its slow capitalization they may decide that all their investments in basically every western country are more important than Russia's land grab yet they are still obliged as contractual allies to help.
Those are my theories.
I believe there is 2 ways that could get us to a world war 3
First is: the world war 3 will begin from resources conflict. most likely going to be over Oil if we don't get other source of energy before we empty all the remaining. ( heard the US Navy started some experiment using electrolysed water to create some sort of fuel, maybe this will prevent future conflict )
Nowadays progress and conflict make prevision very relative, in a year we could discover something that would make revolutionary advancement thus preventing future wars over resources.
Second is: if there is any World War 3 it will be a War of Power. Human's ego and cupidity will always grow off proportion and maybe one day we will all decide to kill each other because our neighbours has a greener grass.
One thing is certain, if it happen, with our technology, The scale of causalities will be so high that it would make all the other wars looks like kids playing with toys
"...some damned foolish thing in the Balkans."
Really, there are multiple flashpoints that could lead to war, if not World War 3. Russian imperialism could spark something, economic collapse, etc.
World War 3 will probably start sometime after the next nuke has been launched.
[QUOTE=ScoobyV2;44558833]World War 3 will probably start sometime after the next nuke has been launched.[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about nuclear tests or a proper launch?
Oil, most likely.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Don't just state your opinion, explain it - read the sticky" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Tobin;44559025]Are you talking about nuclear tests or a proper launch?[/QUOTE]
Like... a proper launch?
I just mean if a country attacks another with an atomic bomb.
And depend what countries those are and if one is involved in an alliance like NATO.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.