WW3, Will it happen?

I was thinking recently, and wondering "What if we will have WW3?" Once I thought about it for awhile I then thought, "Who will win? Communists or NATO, America, Etc." Post your thoughts on this question right down there.
|
|
|
|
\/

Here we could only speculate.

In my opinion, the time window for WW3 will open between 2014 and 2016 and the main protagonists of war will be US and China. The process is going in the right direction, West is going bankrupt and is disarming quite rapidly and this will go even more rapidly after break of Euro and USD, on the other hand China and Islamic world is rapidly arming. After leaving of US forces from Europe and Mediteraneum, EU will see invasion from Islamic world with China support. US will have to fight war in Pacific against China and also be weakened from inside and from South America.

Russia will be neutral at first, but on which side Russia will fight and bring victory in war will depend on who will attack Russia to get their natural resources.

which communsits? wake up kid

and how do you imagane a WW3? that everybody gone nuke themselfs or what?

Well it could be argued that Desert Storm was WWIII as it included countries from around the world.
Remember there was no Pacific war in WWI yet because the war took place in Europe then it was called WWI.

Desert Storm included all of western Europe.

I would think the Arab Spring spreading to Taiwan creating a conflict that could grow to include the US and China could potentially become a serious conflict.

Of course the nuclear weapons available today still means serious global effects... radiation zombies perhaps...

GarryB wrote:Well it could be argued that Desert Storm was WWIII as it included countries from around the world.
Remember there was no Pacific war in WWI yet because the war took place in Europe then it was called WWI.

Desert Storm included all of western Europe.

I would think the Arab Spring spreading to Taiwan creating a conflict that could grow to include the US and China could potentially become a serious conflict.

Of course the nuclear weapons available today still means serious global effects... radiation zombies perhaps...

this should go in general chat I presume?

this should go in general chat I presume?

Good point... done.

One other possibility for WWIII is with the current debt crisis...

They talk about countries in debt, but they never say who they owe money to.

What happens if a country seriously in debt to another country decides to invade instead of defaulting?

Different countries within military blocks (NATO) might find themselves at war and might look outside the alliance for support.

It could get very messy... look at how things got out of control in WWI. Wo would have anticipated a guy getting shot could start full scale trench warfare on the western front?

There are two extremely important factors for WW3.

1. We reach number 7 billion of people and we are overpopulating our planet.
2. Natural resources are not unlimited, but limited and we already overcome their limits.

WW3 will be for natural resources, which will insure the winner to survive. In this war billions will die, be it with nukes, guns or by knives and axes as in Rwanda.

By my opinion process of EU integration is going to slowly. Thats why I always thought EU will need some external threat to speed up process of integration and become much like US. Ofcorse as there are no more evil SSSR to scare its citizens any more there was a problem. I think non existent Iran nuclear tipped missiles can not scare anyone but I never cross my mind economic crisis can be used to achieve the same. So in that light my personal opinion is that this crisis is artificial and will go away as soon as EU comision/parlament get the upper hand over the each and one national governments members of the EU. Result will be much like US state with one strong inner and outer politics, united military etc.
Remember idea of EU was formed as a defence body able to cope with external economy threats and secure its own. Now with fight for every last earth resource scattered across many states world wide EU economy has to have its military component and thats much harder to achieve than economy union.

medo wrote:
WW3 will be for natural resources, which will insure the winner to survive. In this war billions will die, be it with nukes, guns or by knives and axes as in Rwanda.

Rwanda - lol UN piece keeping mission where people where killed much faster than in Hitlers concentracion camps.

Viktor wrote:By my opinion process of EU integration is going to slowly. Thats why I always thought EU will need some external threat to speed up process of integration and become much like US. Ofcorse as there are no more evil SSSR to scare its citizens any more there was a problem. I think non existent Iran nuclear tipped missiles can not scare anyone but I never cross my mind economic crisis can be used to achieve the same. So in that light my personal opinion is that this crisis is artificial and will go away as soon as EU comision/parlament get the upper hand over the each and one national governments members of the EU. Result will be much like US state with one strong inner and outer politics, united military etc.
Remember idea of EU was formed as a defence body able to cope with external economy threats and secure its own. Now with fight for every last earth resource scattered across many states world wide EU economy has to have its military component and thats much harder to achieve than economy union.

Quite opposite. EU mast fall apart on independent states and national currencies to survive. If you think those parasites in Bruxeles will save anything, than you are really naive or you too much believe EU propaganda. A lot of EU citizens migrate to Australia and Portugal prime minister said to Portugal citizens let they go living in Brasil or Angola. So Africa is now a destination for migration from Europe? Also Greece is starving. Thanks to those Bruxeles idiots and of course national politics, EU becomes new Zimbabwe.

Crisis is not artificial as you think. Believe me, people could live without banks, but they can't without natural resources. Only solution to this crisis is to save natural resources and to help them to regrow. We need fertile soil, we need food, we need forests, we need fresh water, we need fish in rivers and sea, we need wild animals,... we need a lot of natural things to live. When you start caring for your environment, you start caring to produce your own food and your own products and you could survive and crisis will go away. The way of saving banks and money oligarhs and destroying everything to save them lead to starving and death of nations. From history we know, how bad things happened when civilization was destroyed, because they destroy their natural resources, although in past that happened in local isolated regions, but this time it will be global.

If we are not starting saving our environment and natural resources, than our own planet will force WW3 on us, we like that or not.

As was shown in the soviet union and in Zimbabwe... large farms are more efficient and productive than much smaller farms.

In the Soviet Union the problem was big rich land owners so the land was divided up for the people.

In Zimbabwe the land was largely owned by white colonial farmers and Mugabes solution was to take the land and give it to the black natives.

In both cases production collapsed and both regions went from a food surplus to a food shortage.

At the end of the day the EU contains countries that need a strong currency to thrive, and countries that need a weak currency to thrive.

Russia has a lot of funds tied up in the Euro so a complete collapse will not be in their interests.

Personally I think they need to create a new extra currency, based directly on the current Euro.

The new currency could be called the new euro and be worth 1/20th of the euro. Countries like Greece and Ireland and Portugal etc can adopt the new euro which will be worth exactly 1/20th of a euro, and the other countries that want a devalued currency can also switch to the new euro. New euros can be traded at a fixed equivalent of the old euros, so if you go from Germany and you have 5,000 euros in your pocket, to Greece, when you get off the plane and go into the shops you don't need a calculator to work out what everything is worth. An icecream in a show that has a price of 20 new euros will cost you one euro.

In Germany it will be the same... that icecream will cost 1 euro, but if you want to pay new euros it will cost 20 new euros.

The value of currency will change in the international stock market but the value of the euro and the new euro will be fixed with each other at that 1:20 ratio...

The whole point of a monetary union was so that you could use your money anywhere within that union. By making the two currencies fixed like that it will still work.

Obviously I picked a 1:20 ratio out of the blue... it might work better with a 1:10 or 1:5, but you want to keep it simple... ie no 1:13.35 or anything.

As an added bonus it will encourage shopping tourism to places where they have the new euro.

It's not about currencies, it's about natural resources. All those financial bubbles grow on thesis, that natural resources are unlimited and that is why West is catched in such large credit crisis. Natural resources are not unlimited, but limited and we already overcome their limits and their quantity is now only falling. It doesn't matter of you have 1 currency or 100 currencies, when you are without natural resources, they are all only worthless printed papers.

The problem in the EU is the problem with the Euro.

Half the countries in the Euro zone like a strong currency because it suits their economy. The other half suffer under a strong currency and have now failed.

The solution is to either ditch the Euro and go back to national currencies, to prop up the failing economies for the forseeable future till they convert their economies to suit the strong euro, or some sort of agreement on the Euro... either a 5 year cycle of strong Euro and weak euro to suit both halves of the Euro, or to create a new euro as I suggest.

By having a fixed rate of exchange as I suggest then you get all the benefits of the Euro, but the economies that rely on a weak currency can not only survive but likely do rather well.

It will also be another alternative to the US dollar.

Regarding resources, technology is the most valuable resource, along with education.

A well educated high tech population can use resources far more efficiently than a much poorer country with lots or resources in the ground.

A good example would be here in New Zealand. An American company has been buying land and drilling for oil of the east coast of the north island and they think there is a large amount of oil there. New Zealand wont benefit from this. These American companies will come in and take the oil and we will be left with any mess they leave behind. Even people in the region where the oil is wont benefit because they don't have oil drilling skills.

At the end of the day it is not the countries with lots of raw materials that become rich except if they develop those resources themselves and start producing the products that make the real money... which is a transition Russia is trying to make now.

I live in EU and I could tell you it's not about Euro, it's about economy, which practically doesn't exist. First EU ordered limitations in farming and industry production with quotas for member countries to protect big corporations. Than industry remove outside EU, because it is too expensive here and corporations make better money with importing cheaper food and products from outside EU. If you produce nothing and want to live, you need money, so states and banks take big credits and now they have to pay them, but there is no money, because there is no production to make money. That mean higher taxes and less money for citizens, which already live on minimum. The main problem is, if you have to import food, because you have destroyed farming and you don't have money to buy it outside, you will starve and die. This is exactly what is happening in Greece and other bankrupt countries. Who will pay state dept, when state lost its citizens?

Russia show the way from crisis, take care for your natural resources and protect them and became self sufficient in strategically important products, one of which food certainly is.

Not just the EU.
Since joining the WTO New Zealand has lost a lot of industries... we had a clothing industry, but who can compete with China, so now we have a fashion industry.
We currently rely on dairy exports, but Chinese companies are coming over here and buying farmland. American oil companies are buying up land too.

My brother lives in Thailand and I agree with their laws... foreigners cannot own land in Thailand.

The problem with farming in Europe is that it was largely small farms that needed huge subsidies from the government to actually be productive.
Also the climate is a little more extreme there than in other places like here in NZ. Farmers here don't need to put all their stock in heated barns to protect them from the weather.

With a new Euro that is worth 1:20 of the standard Euro then Imports suddenly become expensive and in the local market farmers wont need subsidies to make a profit. Imported seed becomes expensive, tractors and farming equipment will need to be bought from within the EU.

Of course I come from New Zealand and the EU imports lots of things from us now, so I really shouldn't be saying all this, but Russia has a lot of Euros, so if the Euro itself collapses then Russia will lose out on that investment.

but Russia has a lot of Euros, so if the Euro itself collapses then Russia will lose out on that investment.

If Euro collaps, than it will be replaced with national currencies, so Russia will just change Euros into French Franks and German Marks.

If the Euro collapses who will they trade Euros with?

Who is going to give Russia marks or francs or deuchmarks for worthless Euros?

Might be a good idea to start spending Euros now... they could use the Euros to buy the Mistrals, and those 500 Panhard armoured vehicles they want for Sochi. They could even use them to buy engines for the Ka-225Ts.

I have the idea that World War III, if it comes, is most likely to take the form of another Indo-Pakistani war, escalating to the use of nuclear weapons. I can see them fighting it out over control of sources of clean water. I hope China, Russia and the US manage to stay out of it, because even with just two countries throwing nukes it'll be pretty bad for everyone. The climate change resulting from the multiple detonations could cause widespread crop failure, and mass starvation in many places. Here in the US we'll be spared from famine, although I suppose most of us won't be gaining any weight either, not that we really need to.
Can you imagine the insect plague that would follow such a war, with a subcontinent turned into a charnel house, with stores of insecticide destroyed or lost, bringing deadly disease to kill many who've survived the nuclear bombardment?
None of us have any control over these events. All we can do, I suppose, is hope this third World War never comes.
Just my two cents. Sorry for such a bleak and cheerless first post, everyone.

The climate change resulting from the multiple detonations could cause widespread crop failure, and mass starvation in many places.

A nuclear explosion has little to no effect on climate change, which is more to do with the ability of carbon to absorb and hold heat.

GarryB wrote:[The climate change resulting from the multiple detonations could cause widespread crop failure, and mass starvation in many places.

A nuclear explosion has little to no effect on climate change, which is more to do with the ability of carbon to absorb and hold heat.[/quote]

You're right, and I should have been clearer. I had in mind a global cooling caused not by the explosions themselves, but by the ash and smoke from firestorms filling the air, bringing exceptionally cold temperatures, like the freeze that followed the 1815 Tambora volcanic eruption.

You are referring to what was dubbed nuclear winters.

Might be a good counter to global warming....

I rather suspect that any conflict between India and Pakistan will involve city killers where a ground burst is ineffective and airbursts offer the best effect and lowest radiation result.

The problem of course is what countries will get caught up and who will continue to flog a dead horse.

A few thousand nukes would probably cause a man made extinction where only a select few insects and bacteria that could withstand the radiation would survive.

Large scale geurilla and regional wars? sure but against superpowers? Never again since 1945

A few thousand nukes would probably cause a man made extinction where only a select few insects and bacteria that could withstand the radiation would survive.

Only two countries on the planet have thousands of nukes, and they have too much to lose from such a conflict.

The US public don't care (generally) about the US invading various little countries, because they know they wont be effected directly. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya... these are all far away places that have no capability to directly attack US citizens on US territory except in one off terrorist attacks.

China or Russia on the other hand have plenty of capability to do some serious damage to the US so even if the politicians and military want to the people will likely rise up and stop them... not to save the Russian people of course, but to prevent the retaliation in kind.

The Russians would likely do the same and for the same reasons.

As such a real WWIII would be difficult to start.

BTW it is very debatable as to whether it should be called WWIII because WWI was pretty much a European war and therefore only a world war in eurocentric eyes.

This is reinforced with the view that WWII started with the invasion of Poland in 1939, so the Japanese invasions of territory in the early 1930s is ignored.

If WWI can be argued to be WWI because countries came from all over the world to fight (ie NZ, Australia, South Africa, Canada, US etc, then perhaps one could argue that WWIII has already happened and was the Korean War in 1950, which pretty much makes Desert Storm in 1991 WWIV... so we are actually looking at WWV.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:A few thousand nukes would probably cause a man made extinction where only a select few insects and bacteria that could withstand the radiation would survive.

Large scale geurilla and regional wars? sure but against superpowers? Never again since 1945

There have been thousands of nuclear tests carried out, and the effect was minimal, all things considered.

I have many possible scenarios, but the one I favor right now is something like this:

The United States, being blood thirsty as it has since the Korean War, creates another "terrorist" attack on American soil (just as the CIA set up 9/11), and then point the finger at Iran. The US will then use this as an excuse to invade Iran, just as we used 9/11 as an excuse to illegally invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq, being mostly Pro-Russia at the moment, will probably kick out all of the American troops from it's soil. Russia and China will consider going to war with America greatly. The US will attempt to invade through Afghanistan, but Pakistan will shut down the ports, leaving the personnel in Afghanistan stranded. This once again false war in the middle east will be used by the US government to restrict freedoms illegally even further. This will then push the US to the brink of revolution, or collapse. The people will become fed up of it, and the military will lead the revolt against the government. The few military units that remain loyal will begin rounding up and executing civilians in the US that oppose the revolution (French rev. style), and foreign militaries like Russia and China will use the collapse to invade US soil, and carve it up, finally ending it.

It won't be quick, and it will be bloody, but honestly I hope Russia can somehow bring down the US and end this evil, corrupt and oppressive government, and Israel.