World War III - A Prediction

[Aramike]

I'm currently tasked with writing an essay summarizing my belief that a third world war is just barely over the horizon. Inspired by some fairly "fiesty" discussion here, I figured that I would try something new - writing with an audience. I'm hoping to avoid pitfalls and inaccuracies due to my overlooking of something, and I figured this would be fairly innovative.

This is not intended to be a political discussion in any way. Nor is it intended to decide right versus wrong. It's simply going to be a summary of my theories regarding current national stability. I also don't need any spelling or grammar help - already have enough of that. ;)

I know it may be a tad lengthy and heady, so I don't expect a flurry of responses. But any help anyone can give is appreciated.

So, without further ado...

Preface:

Going in to the year 2009, the world faces greater uncertainty than ever before. The United States of America is engaged in two unpopular wars. Russia is showing signs of a communist re-emergence with its recent displays of solidarity with Venezuela and Cuba. Iran and North Korea have clear intentions regarding nuclear weapons. The People's Republic of China (PRC) is liberalising material consumptions. Isreal is, well, Isreal. A world-wide fiat economy is facing a total collapse. These are just a few examples.

It is of my belief that we are quickly approaching a tipping point. Governments are finding it increasingly neccessary to take extreme steps to preserve their economies. Rhetoric between nations are more clearly defining moral differences, creating an air of anger, hostility, and sometimes pure hatred. A large contingency of the populations of the more prosperous countries are becoming more and more resentful of their governments' political aspirations and leanings.

Moreso, we're entering an era of nearly unfetterred access to communication. This brings with it an unforseen side-effect: ideas are flowing far more easily than bare information. For every snippet of raw news, there are seemingly hundreds of blogs explaining to the reader how to interpret it.

Governments that used to be able to control the dissemination of ideas find that control decreasing rapidly. This is both encouraging and frightening - I believe that freedom of speech is a basic human right. But, I also understand that some ideas are inherently dangerous.

We find ourselves in a world where even the worst among us can reach out to millions.

The world's resources are decreasing as its population explodes. Planet Earth is smaller than ever before. Cultures extend beyond national boundaries - your very neighbor could easily be your sworn enemy. Where oceans and borders separated us, fiber optics and satellites have brought us closer together than ever before.

I'm not saying that any of this is "bad".

Simply, I believe that these are the perfect ingredients for the next world war.

Next: Part 1 - History

[subchaser12]

I can help you with the title.

More Right Wing Paranoia

Relax guys, Russia went to Cuba, I really don't think we need to start digging trenches at Disneyland just yet. If there is a World War 3 the US better not be involved. They can't even handle an insurgency in Iraq with RPGs and AK-47s. China would smoke the US military.

[Aramike]

Part 1: History

I believe to best examine our path to World War III, we should start at the previous world war.

The causes of the Second World War are as simple as they are complicated. In basic terms, it was a story of imperialist ambitions driven by resentment leading to a public feeling of cultural superiority. The two sides of the war were called the Allies and the Axis. I believe the more accurate terminology would be the aggressors, and the defenders.

World War II featured the first and only modern incarnation of violent political evolution. Nazism, facism and imperialism directly challenged both democracy and communism. Emotions were supercharged as every player could clearly see the superiority of their system. By the end of the war, there were clear political winners and losers ... sparking an even more dangerous showdown.

The combined victories of the US, its allies, and the Soviet Union climaxed in a showdown known as the Cold War. This "fight" was far more than just the military build-up that most associate with the era. It was a social and economic showdown as well. Both principle nations raced into space, engineered their economies, and spread their ideologies beyond their borders. Similary, the US endured what is now known as McCarthyism while the USSR consistantly repopulated its gulags.

Even more to the point, the very term "Cold War" became quite misleading. The Soviets and Americans found themselves fighting wars with each other via proxy. The USSR invaded Afghanistan. The USA went into Vietnam (this even after fighting the Chinese in Korea). The Cold War was very hot, indeed.

All the while the world witnessed a dangerous build-up of nuclear arsenals. Both principle nations (USA/USSR) continuously condemned one-another regarding atomic weapons, each blaming the other for their proliferation. Reduction talks occurred frequently, usually used as an excuse for decommissioning obsolete weapons while gaining political stock. (It is notable here that the USSR never officially acknowledged the concept of "nuclear winter").

While the world sat by and watched, both nation's spheres of influence changed rapidly. Cuba, just miles off of the continently United State's shore, became a de facto state of the USSR. The US began deploying nuclear weapons throughout Europe.

Going forward we see the collapse of the Berlin wall as the Soviet economy was crushed under the weight of it's military spending. We see the powder keg that is the middle east (Isreal's formation as a sovereign nation, Iran Contra, etcetera) begin to define its political battle lines, and we see the Western Bloc become the primary ideological influence throughout most of the world.

The notable holdouts to this sudden spread of democracy were China, North Korea, North Vietnam, and Cuba. Cuba's isolation rendered it relatively unimportant in the eyes of the West (no one wanted a repeat of the Bay of Pigs invasion). Vietnam had already drummed up intsnse public scrutiny so it was brushed aside. North Korea simply had its proximity to China as an insurance policy. And finally, the Chinese's strong racial isololationist beliefs were interpretted to have no serious expansionist ambitions.

Prior to the collapse of the Berlin Wall, however, most experts would agree that the world was teetering dangerously close to war. In hindset, I believe that the ability of the superpowers to wage war by proxy prevented an all-out world war, possibly saving millions. I realize this view is debatable, but it really isn't terribly relevant to begin with.

In conclusion, I believe that the world of the post-WWII era and the Cold War era achieved a balance. If there was indeed to be a war, the battle lines would have been clear. I posit that it is that very clarity that prevented World War III from occuring during those eras.

Next: Part 2 - Contributing Factors

[Aramike]

I can help you with the title.

More Right Wing Paranoia

Relax guys, Russia went to Cuba, I really don't think we need to start digging trenches at Disneyland just yet. If there is a World War 3 the US better not be involved. They can't even handle an insurgency in Iraq with RPGs and AK-47s. China would smoke the US military.Do you actually have anything to say regarding the merits of the topic or do you just troll around looking for a fight?

This isn't a politically charged topic at all. Please step aside unless you wish to comment on the actual content instead of merely carrying over your argumentative crap from another thread.

The idea I'm writing about involved NOTHING regarding anyone's beliefs of what is right or wrong. I thought that was clear. :roll:

[subchaser12]

This isn't a politically charged topic at all. Please step aside unless you wish to comment on the actual content instead of merely carrying over your argumentative crap from another thread.

The idea I'm writing about involved NOTHING regarding anyone's beliefs of what is right or wrong. I thought that was clear. :roll:

War isn't possible without the politics. There would be no way to write a paper about a hypothetical World War III without the politics. The only way to do that would write a technical paper on the equipment of World War III.

Well if you want to use this forum for peer review be my quest, but be warned, the Europeans will be waking soon.

[Aramike]

This isn't a politically charged topic at all. Please step aside unless you wish to comment on the actual content instead of merely carrying over your argumentative crap from another thread.

The idea I'm writing about involved NOTHING regarding anyone's beliefs of what is right or wrong. I thought that was clear. :roll:

War isn't possible without the politics. There would be no way to write a paper about a hypothetical World War III without the politics. The only way to do that would write a technical paper on the equipment of World War III.

Well if you want to use this forum for peer review be my quest, but be warned, the Europeans will be waking soon.I agree. But this is in NO WAY about whether or not those politics are right or wrong. It's simply a presentation of the facts then an attempt to come to logical conclusions of said facts.

In your mind, for some reason, it's "right-wing"??? HUH???? Care to demonstrate how????????

Just can't help yourself?

Dude, you've got a problem. Please restrain yourself.

Btw, you've already demonstrated you don't know the difference between right and left wing politics. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=145502&page=18.

[subchaser12]

In your mind, for some reason, it's "right-wing"??? HUH???? Care to demonstrate how????????



Easy. This reads like a Pat Buchanon book. War, talking about war, hypothocising about the next war and starting wars is all a right wing thing. Playing war computer games. War war war. It's all the right can talk about. Without an enemy there is no right wing. It's rag heads and commies over there and homosexual domestically. You all can't exist with no one to attack. It's just your style, this constant state of paranoia and "Oh no they are comming for us!!!" ahhh!

And of course I know you are a right winger from dealing with you in the other thread. Sorry mystery man, but you aren't a political enigma at all. Wear your "I love Faux News" sweater with pride. Don't be ashamed.

Your hypothesis is weak, we are about as close to World War 3 as we are to building colonies on Jupiter.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'd like to offer some advice for your consideration, but some more info about the assignment might help others do the same. Also, Expect me to be a bit harsh-sounding in some of my criticisms. That's just my style, inspired by nearly a decade's worth of military-style criticism. It's all in a joking and completely innocuous manner, I promise.

If this is a formal essay, it it best not to use the first-person context, and it may help to expand the scope a bit. For example;


I believe to best examine our path to World War III, we should start at the previous world war.


could be changed to;

To examine the increasingly alarming potentiality of a Third World War, we must first examine the sociopolitical trends that contributed to the first two.


-------------------------

Secondly, the preface, while well-written, lacks a good attention-getter. After all, that's really what a preface is all about. To begin by basically saying; "there's gonna be a Third World War" you immediately lose any audience that believes differently, as Subchaser 12 has helpfully pointed out.;) It comes off as a bit "paranoid". Also, the media's tendency to overuse the "more bad than ever before" catchline, tends to diminish its' effectiveness a bit.
You're very close, however, and I'd listen to other members' input before incorporating any of my suggestions.
Personally, I would begin with something examining the tremendous cost in lives and material of the world wars, since no one can deny that. Touch on everything that might affect people personally. Lost soldiers, political intrigue and backstabbing (plenty of that to go around), the Holocaust, civilian casualties, horrifying weapons, etc etc.

--------------------------

From there, you'll want to use the previously established examples as benchmarks for just how bad a modern world war could be. Keep it brief, but potent, since this is just the preface. Complex technical explanations are not needed at this stage. Something like "blah, blah,blah nuclear weapons (insert Hiroshima, Nagasaki casualties here and weapon yields here, expressed in relevant terms "could vaporize 50 city blocks", or whatever) but blah blah, but hydrogen bombs (maybe a knowledgable reference to the term Tellar-Ulam device and/or something appropriately nuclear-sounding) and then something about the theoretical devestation they could cause. Graphic, but not too detailed.


The world's resources are decreasing as its population explodes. Planet Earth is smaller than ever before. Cultures extend beyond national boundaries - your very neighbor could easily be your sworn enemy. Where oceans and borders separated us, fiber optics and satellites have brought us closer together than ever before.

I'm not saying that any of this is "bad".

Oh? Then I probably don't need to pay much attention for a little while, and thus I'll miss some key points.
Imo, what you are trying to do is build a chain here. If you miss a link or digress too much, you're going to lose the reader's interest. Even if that reader is a high-school teacher, they need to read this essay and be like "Holy crap! I can't put this down! I never knew that things were this bad!".
Ever wonder why so many people read so little? It's because good, intelligent people with good ideas don't write them in a way that makes people want to read.

You've got some good points, but the links could be more solid. Here's a good one;

Moreso, we're entering an era of nearly unfetterred access to communication. This brings with it an unforseen side-effect: ideas are flowing far more easily than bare information. For every snippet of raw news, there are seemingly hundreds of blogs explaining to the reader how to interpret it.

Governments that used to be able to control the dissemination of ideas find that control decreasing rapidly. This is both encouraging and frightening - I believe that freedom of speech is a basic human right. But, I also understand that some ideas are inherently dangerous.


That all sounds good if your reader is completely unfamiliar with the history of WW2, and subsequent conflicts. The freedom of information arguably makes conflict less likely, as experience in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Afghanistan again, and Iraq shows. It tends to erode public support of military endeavors in many ways. There are many examples of controlling governments being extremely belligerent. I trust I need not make a list, but I will if you would like.
Of course, that's my personal opinion, no matter how much empirical evidence I may claim to support it. This is your essay, so if you wish to say the opposite I would recommend something relating to preventionism. That's always a good reason to trust state control. Yeah, I could say that in a less biased way, but it's your essay, and I'm just trying to help you write it, not make ideas for you.

PART II
On to history!


Quite frankly, this section needs more research. And, imo, it needs to include a bit about WW1, it being so integral to the causation of WW2. I really can't offer much advice without colouring it with my own beliefs, however, there are some major inconsistencies here. Firstly, World War 2 was certainly not the "first and only modern incarnation of violent political evolution". While I applaud you on sufficient use of vagueness in that statement, it needs either more supporting evidence, or enough bulls*** to make it incomprehensible.

The causes of the Second World War are as simple as they are complicated. In basic terms, it was a story of imperialist ambitions driven by resentment leading to a public feeling of cultural superiority. The two sides of the war were called the Allies and the Axis. I believe the more accurate terminology would be the aggressors, and the defenders.

Somewhat out of sequence, that needs more explaining, preferably in this portion of the essay. Most points need at least one concrete-sounding piece of evidence to develop further reader interest. Fail to do that, and you can sound like you're jumping to conclusions, thus losing interested readers. At the very least, some sort of disclaimer that explains that the assertion will be explained later is needed.


I'm not going to criique every single part of what you have posted, because most of it is on the right track, and this is a long reply, already. You seem to have the makings of a good piece here, and in most American public schools you'd get at least a "B".
If you would like further advice from me, just say so or PM. I'd be happy to review anything, no matter the length. Just give me a day or so to respond.

One final caveat. A good ( and by that I mean; "gets a good grade") essay, imo, is comprised of one of two things; Extensive research and solid cross-referencing, or completely incomprehensible bulls***. You can mix the two, but if you're going to go to that much effort, you might as well do the research.
Bulls**ing itself can invole a great deal of work if you're not comfortable with the process. The basic principle is to use as many large, obscure words as possible, and try to make your points a vague as you can, whilst simultaneously using agressive-sounding, but ultimately meaningless vernacular. In this way, should you be called to explain yourself, you can observe your teacher's favorable and unfavorable reactions, and respond accordingly. That, however, is the last line of defense. Generally speaking, most public school teachers (and even a surprisingly large number of university teachers, in my experience) won't even bother to check your sources as long as the bibliography sounds credible. My personal favorite technique is to simply make up books and authors, and then give them pre-90's copyright dates. Just because a prof or teach can't find the source on the internet or in the library doesn't mean it doesn't exsist. Worst-case scenario, they ask for some evidence. You just google some term you used, find an essay or book with that in it, edit in the relevant information, print it, and hand them that. Even then, if they actually find the original source, you can claim that a friend from some remote place gave it to you. Obviously they were cheating and you are disgusted that they would mislead you so, or something to that effect.


I hope this advice helps, and I'll be happy to provide more on subsequent portions of the essay, legit or otherwise. However, I would ask that I be allowed to review any BS you may choose to include. I'd hate to see you get in trouble for a mistake that a BS vet like myself could prevent.


Keep up the good work:up:

[UnderseaLcpl]

In your mind, for some reason, it's "right-wing"??? HUH???? Care to demonstrate how????????



Easy. This reads like a Pat Buchanon book. War, talking about war, hypothocising about the next war and starting wars is all a right wing thing. Playing war computer games. War war war. It's all the right can talk about. Without an enemy there is no right wing. It's rag heads and commies over there and homosexual domestically. You all can't exist with no one to attack. It's just your style, this constant state of paranoia and "Oh no they are comming for us!!!" ahhh!

And of course I know you are a right winger from dealing with you in the other thread. Sorry mystery man, but you aren't a political enigma at all. Wear your "I love Faux News" sweater with pride. Don't be ashamed.

Your hypothesis is weak, we are about as close to World War 3 as we are to building colonies on Jupiter.

Start a new thread on this topic if you wish but please don't derail Aramike's request for help. There are plenty of idiot rightists like myself who would be happy to debate the finer points of why we suck so bad.

[joegrundman]

ZOMG undersealcpl. Did you just write all that?:o

[UnderseaLcpl]

ZOMG undersealcpl. Did you just write all that?:o

No. I willed it into existence:p

Why do you ask?

[joegrundman]

I'm awestruck!

And why did you spell colour with a U. I thought you was amerkin

[kiwi_2005]

This might help ya create some theories:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Vanga

Baba Vanga, (3 October 1911 – 11 August 1996) was a Blind Bulgarian mystic, Clairvoyant, these are her predictions. It gets weirder the more you read down. :roll:


2010 - The start of WWIII. The war will begin in November of 2010 and will end in October of 2014. Will start as a normal war, then will include usage of nuclear and chemical weapons.

2011 - Due to the radioactive showers in Northern Hemisphere - no animals or plants will be left. Muslims will begin chemical war against Europeans who are still alive.

2014 - Most of the people in this world will have skin cancer and skin related diseases. (as a result of chemical wars).

2016 - Europe is almost empty

2018 - China becomes the new world power.

2023 - Earth’s orbit will change slightly

2025 - Europe is still barely populated

2028 - Development of a new energy source. (Probably controller thermonuclear reaction) Hunger slowly stops being a problem. Piloted spaceship to Venus deploys.

2033 - Polar ice caps melt. World ocean levels rise.

2043 - World economy is prosperous. Muslims are running Europe.

2046 - Any organs can be mass produced. Exchange of body organs becomes the favorite method of treatment.

2066 - During it’s attack on Rome (which is under control of the Muslims) U.S.A. uses a new method of weapons - has to do with climate change. Sharp freezing.

2076 - No class society (communism)

2084 - The rebirth of the nature.

2088 - New disease. - People are getting old in few seconds.

2097 - This disease is cured.

2100 - Man made Sun is lighting up the dark side of the planet Earth.

2111 - People become robots.

2123 - Wars between small countries. Big countries don’t get evolved.

2125 - In Hungry the signals from Space are received. (People will be reminded of Vanga again)

2130 - Colonies under water (advices from aliens)

2154 - Animals become half-humans.

2167 - New religion

2170 - Big drought.

2183 - Collony on Mars becomes nuclear nation and is asking for independence from the Earth. (same way as U.S. did from England)

2187 - Successfully two volcano eruptions are stopped.

2195 - Sea colonies are fully supplied with energy and food.

2196 - Full mixture between Asians and Europeans.

2201 - Thermonuclear reactions on the Sun slow down. Temperatures Drop.

2221 - In the search of Alien life, human beings engage with something very freighting.

2256 - Spaceship brings a freighting new disease into Earth.

2262 - Orbits of planets start to change progressively. Mars is under a threat of being hit by a comet.

2271 - Physic properties are calculated over, since they changed.

2273 - Mix of yellow, white, and black race. New race.

2279 - Energy out of nothing (probably from vacuum or black holes)

2288 - Travel through time. New contacts with the aliens.

2291 - Sun cools. Attempts to fire it up again are taken.

2296 - Bright flashes on the Sun. Force of gravity changes. Old space stations and satellites begin to fall

2299 - In France, there is a partisan uprising against Islam.

2302 - New important new laws and mysteries about the universe are uncovered.

2304 - The mystery of the Moon is uncovered.

2341 - Something frightening is closing in with Earth from the space.

2354 - Accident on one of the man made suns, will result in drought.

2371 - Mighty hunger.

2378 - New and fast growing race.

2480 - Two man made suns will collide. Earth is in the dark.

3005 - War on Mars. Trajectory of planets changes.

3010 - Comet will ram into the Moon. Around Earth there is a belt of rocks and dust.

3797 - By this time, everything living on Earth dies. But humans are able to put in the essentials for the beginning of a new life in a new star system.

[caspofungin]

further to what u-lcpl said, i think it's important to have some sort of idea of the target audience -- ie if this is for a magazine/blog then it's ok as it is, but if it's supposed to be for academic purposes there are a lot of statements that you make which aren't as black and white as you nake them come across.

[Subnuts]

2371 - Mighty hunger.
Grab a Snickers.

[August]

If radioactive showers kill off everything in the northern hemisphere how does China (which is in the northern hemisphere) become the new world power?

[joegrundman]

If radioactive showers kill off everything in the northern hemisphere how does China (which is in the northern hemisphere) become the new world power?

i guess we'll find out in 10 years

[Oberon]

Technically though, aren't we already in the Third World War?
The War on Terror involves quite a few world nations on just about every continent. To me that classifies a world war, even if it isn't superpower against superpower...yet.

[joegrundman]

Nonsense, Oberon, this is, at the very least, the sixth

[A Very Super Market]

Yes, World Wars have happened many times before the Great One.

Most of them had to do with the English and French finding an excuse in Europe to duke it out in...Canada!

There are numerous definitions of them....by casualties....ground covered....and its very hard to find a correct one. The Napoleonic Wars certainly would have counted, if defined by casualties, but it was a strictly European affair. Compare to the Dutch-Portuguese war, which was fought strictly in their colonies...

[Enigma]

Start a new thread on this topic if you wish but please don't derail Aramike's request for help. There are plenty of idiot rightists like myself who would be happy to debate the finer points of why we suck so bad.

:rotfl:

:up:

[Frame57]

Wait a minute! Didn't Nostrildumass predict that the human race would somehow become spliced with Koala bears and we would all be living on Euctalyptis leaves....:hmm:

[OneToughHerring]

Wait a minute! Didn't Nostrildumass predict that the human race would somehow become spliced with Koala bears and we would all be living on Euctalyptis leaves....:hmm:

Are you trying to tell us something about that trip you took to Australia...? ;)

[Letum]

Technically though, aren't we already in the Third World War?
The War on Terror involves quite a few world nations on just about every continent. To me that classifies a world war, even if it isn't superpower against superpower...yet.

If you want to count the 'war on terror', then we should also count the 'war on drugs'
the 'war on illiteracy' and 'the war on all other abstract nouns'.

[Frame57]

Wait a minute! Didn't Nostrildumass predict that the human race would somehow become spliced with Koala bears and we would all be living on Euctalyptis leaves....:hmm:

Are you trying to tell us something about that trip you took to Australia...? ;)Koala's are Naughty....:rotfl:

[A Very Super Market]

I think "The war on abtract nouns" sounds like an excellent name for a Monty-Pythonesque sketch

[Aramike]

Undersealcpl, some good suggestions. I'm going to incorporate some in my final draft (I'm writing this for a think tank I belong to). Thusly I've tried to be quite broad and brief in my historical references as most are quite familiar with it anyway. Where I'm going with it should (hopefully) make sense. :|\\

I intentionally wanted to be broad and inconclusive about the histories because, in the final analysis the details supporting my eventual conclusions are my focus. Therfore I wanted a broad-based but true introduction to modern history. Also, far more importantly than WWII itself was the political aftermath. In fact, I believe that there will be very few parallels to WWII in the 3rd WW and that they will be broad. That will be more relevent to my final conclusions.

Also, a quick note of disagreement ... while I do agree that increased communications helped spurn peace for a time, I'm going to be attempting to illustrate my belief that said peace would be temporary.

Heck, the reason I enjoy writing such papers is that in several years I can say conclusively that I was right or wrong. :know:

caspofungin: good point, and I agree that things aren't as black and white historically. Again, though, my goal is to get through the history abstractly (and accurately). I'm going to be far more detailed when I start breaking down the reasons to support my theory.

[Letum]

Technically though, aren't we already in the Third World War?
The War on Terror involves quite a few world nations on just about every continent. To me that classifies a world war, even if it isn't superpower against superpower...yet.
If you want to count the 'war on terror', then we should also count the 'war on drugs'
the 'war on illiteracy' and 'the war on all other abstract nouns'.
I don't mean to be rude, but you are an iliterate idiot.
Since when where drugs abstract nouns? :shifty:

[Oberon]

Good point guys, I wonder why the Great War was designated as the first world war, and also agreed on the war on terror being a rather inept name for it. However, the 'war on terror' has possibly claimed more lives in a shorter space of time than the 'war on illiteracy' although perhaps not the 'war on drugs'.
Coming to think of it, the United Nations Security Council and UN peacekeeper forces being involved in a conflict would perhaps make it a world war because of the multinational element of it.
Unless the true definition of a world war is not multiple countries being involved in the fighting, but the fighting being involved in multiple countries. :hmm: And in which case, would it be shearly the number of countries the fighting is involved in, or the multi-continental nature of the war? :hmm: In which case, the First world war would surely not particularly count as a world war because aside from the wars in the Ottoman Empire and the Georgian area, I believe, all of the fighting took place in Central Europe. :hmm:

[Aramike]

Good point guys, I wonder why the Great War was designated as the first world war, and also agreed on the war on terror being a rather inept name for it. However, the 'war on terror' has possibly claimed more lives in a shorter space of time than the 'war on illiteracy' although perhaps not the 'war on drugs'.
Coming to think of it, the United Nations Security Council and UN peacekeeper forces being involved in a conflict would perhaps make it a world war because of the multinational element of it.
Unless the true definition of a world war is not multiple countries being involved in the fighting, but the fighting being involved in multiple countries. :hmm: And in which case, would it be shearly the number of countries the fighting is involved in, or the multi-continental nature of the war? :hmm: In which case, the First world war would surely not particularly count as a world war because aside from the wars in the Ottoman Empire and the Georgian area, I believe, all of the fighting took place in Central Europe. :hmm:I think that, what would make a world war such would be the complete military mobilization of many nations along with declarations of war.

[Oberon]

Good point guys, I wonder why the Great War was designated as the first world war, and also agreed on the war on terror being a rather inept name for it. However, the 'war on terror' has possibly claimed more lives in a shorter space of time than the 'war on illiteracy' although perhaps not the 'war on drugs'.
Coming to think of it, the United Nations Security Council and UN peacekeeper forces being involved in a conflict would perhaps make it a world war because of the multinational element of it.
Unless the true definition of a world war is not multiple countries being involved in the fighting, but the fighting being involved in multiple countries. :hmm: And in which case, would it be shearly the number of countries the fighting is involved in, or the multi-continental nature of the war? :hmm: In which case, the First world war would surely not particularly count as a world war because aside from the wars in the Ottoman Empire and the Georgian area, I believe, all of the fighting took place in Central Europe. :hmm:I think that, what would make a world war such would be the complete military mobilization of many nations along with declarations of war.

In which case the First World War is in fact, more like the Fourth World War, as before that you have:

The War of Spanish Succession
The Seven Years War (described by Churchill as the First World War)
The French Revolutionary Wars

As well as perhaps the War of Independence.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Also, a quick note of disagreement ... while I do agree that increased communications helped spurn peace for a time, I'm going to be attempting to illustrate my belief that said peace would be temporary.

It's all good. You can attempt to say whatever you want in your essay, of course. I just didn't know if this was for a report, research project, thesis, or whatever else. Just trying to show other possible conclusions (and arguments, should the piece be used in a debate setting)



And why did you spell colour with a U. I thought you was amerkin


I use American/British spelling interchangeably. I am American, though. Yay US!!!!



edit- oh damn, fatty's right. Yeah, you can't BS if it's going to be published or anything. I have some good book recommendations that provide a lot of in-depth documentation regarding the causes of WW1 and 2, if you need source material.

[fatty]

If this is being prepared for a think tank then I need to add a cautionary word to Lance's suggestions and say that the editor of the journal/newsletter WILL follow up on your sources. They will ask you to fix them and if too many appear to be incorrect or fraudulent your paper will be thrown out. Better to play it safe and cite your facts with reputable sources, preferably from peer-reviewed journals. I can't overstate how important citations are. The easiest way to critique a piece is to attack its sources. Academics will do this, and if you base your arguments on non-existant or dubious material then your work will not be taken seriously.

Your preface is lacking a strong thesis statement and an overview of your argument. Don't pull punches on the academic reader, map it out for them and tell them where you're headed. It's not until the very last sentence that you state where your argument is headed, and you need to define the terms you are working with. What is a "world war?" Does it mean the kinds of grand alliances that we saw in the previous world wars? Your discussion of state protection of economies and scarcity of resources suggests that the world war will be like a Hobbesian state of nature, with every state against every other state. This kind of sidesteps some of the most prominent thoughts in international relations, like democratic peace theory (democratic states have never and will never go to war with each other), the closest thing to a 'law' in political science. You should think about some of these competing theories and address them directly as you go on.

Also, avoid vague and sweeping statements. They might seem self-evident to you and the circle you are writing for but to convince people beyond your comfort zone you must be precise and provide examples. The line...

Rhetoric between nations are more clearly defining moral differences, creating an air of anger, hostility, and sometimes pure hatred.

...is a bit of a red flag in particular. Whoa, what rhetoric has been creating 'pure hatred' between nations? Provide examples and explain how they are relevant to the idea of an imminent third world war. These may seem like insignificant details but a good argument is built upon empirical observations; they had better be solid.

I'll provide additional critiques as you post more.

[Aramike]

Good stuff, fatty. As far as sources and references, I have all my information well catalogued. It just doesn't translate well when copying/pasting to a BB, so I've left it out.

As far as not making assumptions, I'm really not. The people this is being directed toward I've worked with for over 15 years. I know how they think. Eventually, the hope is that we all are able to work together in expanding upon the idea, forming an official position piece for submission to those we consult for.

The reason I'm airing it out here first is really do get an idea of what people with some historical perspective think about my conclusions. So far, I haven't concluded anything yet, but if I just posted a 200 page piece I'm pretty sure no one would read it. :cool:

In fact, in the next part especially, I won't be posting it in its entirety. My summary on North Korea's position and capabilities alone is about 10 pages long and includes much tedious information as well as some things not quite public.

Again, I'm pretty much just trying to draw the reader with me to my conclusions, and hoping that a spirited debate follows. Even so far, without any conclusions being made, there've been some intriguing perspectives posted....is a bit of a red flag in particular. Whoa, what rhetoric has been creating 'pure hatred' between nations? Provide examples and explain how they are relevant to the idea of an imminent third world war. These may seem like insignificant details but a good argument is built upon empirical observations; they had better be solid.That is a very good criticism of a very anecdotal statement. I will be explaining this further.

[nikimcbee]

ZOMG undersealcpl. Did you just write all that?:o

Roger that. you must be snowed in too.:lol:

[nikimcbee]

If this is being prepared for a think tank then I need to add a cautionary word to Lance's suggestions and say that the editor of the journal/newsletter WILL follow up on your sources. They will ask you to fix them and if too many appear to be incorrect or fraudulent your paper will be thrown out. Better to play it safe and cite your facts with reputable sources, preferably from peer-reviewed journals. I can't overstate how important citations are. The easiest way to critique a piece is to attack its sources. Academics will do this, and if you base your arguments on non-existant or dubious material then your work will not be taken seriously.

Your preface is lacking a strong thesis statement and an overview of your argument. Don't pull punches on the academic reader, map it out for them and tell them where you're headed. It's not until the very last sentence that you state where your argument is headed, and you need to define the terms you are working with. What is a "world war?" Does it mean the kinds of grand alliances that we saw in the previous world wars? Your discussion of state protection of economies and scarcity of resources suggests that the world war will be like a Hobbesian state of nature, with every state against every other state. This kind of sidesteps some of the most prominent thoughts in international relations, like democratic peace theory (democratic states have never and will never go to war with each other), the closest thing to a 'law' in political science. You should think about some of these competing theories and address them directly as you go on.

Also, avoid vague and sweeping statements. They might seem self-evident to you and the circle you are writing for but to convince people beyond your comfort zone you must be precise and provide examples. The line...

Rhetoric between nations are more clearly defining moral differences, creating an air of anger, hostility, and sometimes pure hatred.

...is a bit of a red flag in particular. Whoa, what rhetoric has been creating 'pure hatred' between nations? Provide examples and explain how they are relevant to the idea of an imminent third world war. These may seem like insignificant details but a good argument is built upon empirical observations; they had better be solid.

I'll provide additional critiques as you post more.

Yeah, what fatty said.:yep: You need to list specific examples with concrete details to back up your ideas. You're doing a good job of having other people proof read.

I didn't catch it, but is your world war conventional or nuclear?

[Task Force]

This might help ya create some theories:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Vanga

Baba Vanga, (3 October 1911 – 11 August 1996) was a Blind Bulgarian mystic, Clairvoyant, these are her predictions. It gets weirder the more you read down. :roll:


2010 - The start of WWIII. The war will begin in November of 2010 and will end in October of 2014. Will start as a normal war, then will include usage of nuclear and chemical weapons.

2011 - Due to the radioactive showers in Northern Hemisphere - no animals or plants will be left. Muslims will begin chemical war against Europeans who are still alive.

2014 - Most of the people in this world will have skin cancer and skin related diseases. (as a result of chemical wars).

2016 - Europe is almost empty

2018 - China becomes the new world power.

2023 - Earth’s orbit will change slightly

2025 - Europe is still barely populated

2028 - Development of a new energy source. (Probably controller thermonuclear reaction) Hunger slowly stops being a problem. Piloted spaceship to Venus deploys.

2033 - Polar ice caps melt. World ocean levels rise.

2043 - World economy is prosperous. Muslims are running Europe.

2046 - Any organs can be mass produced. Exchange of body organs becomes the favorite method of treatment.

2066 - During it’s attack on Rome (which is under control of the Muslims) U.S.A. uses a new method of weapons - has to do with climate change. Sharp freezing.

2076 - No class society (communism)

2084 - The rebirth of the nature.

2088 - New disease. - People are getting old in few seconds.

2097 - This disease is cured.

2100 - Man made Sun is lighting up the dark side of the planet Earth.

2111 - People become robots.

2123 - Wars between small countries. Big countries don’t get evolved.

2125 - In Hungry the signals from Space are received. (People will be reminded of Vanga again)

2130 - Colonies under water (advices from aliens)

2154 - Animals become half-humans.

2167 - New religion

2170 - Big drought.

2183 - Collony on Mars becomes nuclear nation and is asking for independence from the Earth. (same way as U.S. did from England)

2187 - Successfully two volcano eruptions are stopped.

2195 - Sea colonies are fully supplied with energy and food.

2196 - Full mixture between Asians and Europeans.

2201 - Thermonuclear reactions on the Sun slow down. Temperatures Drop.

2221 - In the search of Alien life, human beings engage with something very freighting.

2256 - Spaceship brings a freighting new disease into Earth.

2262 - Orbits of planets start to change progressively. Mars is under a threat of being hit by a comet.

2271 - Physic properties are calculated over, since they changed.

2273 - Mix of yellow, white, and black race. New race.

2279 - Energy out of nothing (probably from vacuum or black holes)

2288 - Travel through time. New contacts with the aliens.

2291 - Sun cools. Attempts to fire it up again are taken.

2296 - Bright flashes on the Sun. Force of gravity changes. Old space stations and satellites begin to fall

2299 - In France, there is a partisan uprising against Islam.

2302 - New important new laws and mysteries about the universe are uncovered.

2304 - The mystery of the Moon is uncovered.

2341 - Something frightening is closing in with Earth from the space.

2354 - Accident on one of the man made suns, will result in drought.

2371 - Mighty hunger.

2378 - New and fast growing race.

2480 - Two man made suns will collide. Earth is in the dark.

3005 - War on Mars. Trajectory of planets changes.

3010 - Comet will ram into the Moon. Around Earth there is a belt of rocks and dust.

3797 - By this time, everything living on Earth dies. But humans are able to put in the essentials for the beginning of a new life in a new star system.

I wonder if any of these will actualy happen.:-? (AHHHHHH im in the northern hemisphere, along with a large portion of subsim members.:huh:)

[nikimcbee]

Also, a quick note of disagreement ... while I do agree that increased communications helped spurn peace for a time, I'm going to be attempting to illustrate my belief that said peace would be temporary.

It's all good. You can attempt to say whatever you want in your essay, of course. I just didn't know if this was for a report, research project, thesis, or whatever else. Just trying to show other possible conclusions (and arguments, should the piece be used in a debate setting)



And why did you spell colour with a U. I thought you was amerkin


I use American/British spelling interchangeably. I am American, though. Yay US!!!!



edit- oh damn, fatty's right. Yeah, you can't BS if it's going to be published or anything. I have some good book recommendations that provide a lot of in-depth documentation regarding the causes of WW1 and 2, if you need source material.

Do what I do, just translate for our Brit, Aussie, and Kanadian couzins.

Ex: They are a colo(u)rful lot. See no mis-translations.

[nikimcbee]

This might help ya create some theories:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Vanga

Baba Vanga, (3 October 1911 – 11 August 1996) was a Blind Bulgarian mystic, Clairvoyant, these are her predictions. It gets weirder the more you read down. :roll:


2010 - The start of WWIII. The war will begin in November of 2010 and will end in October of 2014. Will start as a normal war, then will include usage of nuclear and chemical weapons.

2011 - Due to the radioactive showers in Northern Hemisphere - no animals or plants will be left. Muslims will begin chemical war against Europeans who are still alive.

2014 - Most of the people in this world will have skin cancer and skin related diseases. (as a result of chemical wars).

2016 - Europe is almost empty

2018 - China becomes the new world power.

2023 - Earth’s orbit will change slightly

2025 - Europe is still barely populated

2028 - Development of a new energy source. (Probably controller thermonuclear reaction) Hunger slowly stops being a problem. Piloted spaceship to Venus deploys.

2033 - Polar ice caps melt. World ocean levels rise.

2043 - World economy is prosperous. Muslims are running Europe.

2046 - Any organs can be mass produced. Exchange of body organs becomes the favorite method of treatment.

2066 - During it’s attack on Rome (which is under control of the Muslims) U.S.A. uses a new method of weapons - has to do with climate change. Sharp freezing.

2076 - No class society (communism)

2084 - The rebirth of the nature.

2088 - New disease. - People are getting old in few seconds.

2097 - This disease is cured.

2100 - Man made Sun is lighting up the dark side of the planet Earth.

2111 - People become robots.

2123 - Wars between small countries. Big countries don’t get evolved.

2125 - In Hungry the signals from Space are received. (People will be reminded of Vanga again)

2130 - Colonies under water (advices from aliens)

2154 - Animals become half-humans.

2167 - New religion

2170 - Big drought.

2183 - Collony on Mars becomes nuclear nation and is asking for independence from the Earth. (same way as U.S. did from England)

2187 - Successfully two volcano eruptions are stopped.

2195 - Sea colonies are fully supplied with energy and food.

2196 - Full mixture between Asians and Europeans.

2201 - Thermonuclear reactions on the Sun slow down. Temperatures Drop.

2221 - In the search of Alien life, human beings engage with something very freighting.

2256 - Spaceship brings a freighting new disease into Earth.

2262 - Orbits of planets start to change progressively. Mars is under a threat of being hit by a comet.

2271 - Physic properties are calculated over, since they changed.

2273 - Mix of yellow, white, and black race. New race.

2279 - Energy out of nothing (probably from vacuum or black holes)

2288 - Travel through time. New contacts with the aliens.

2291 - Sun cools. Attempts to fire it up again are taken.

2296 - Bright flashes on the Sun. Force of gravity changes. Old space stations and satellites begin to fall

2299 - In France, there is a partisan uprising against Islam.

2302 - New important new laws and mysteries about the universe are uncovered.

2304 - The mystery of the Moon is uncovered.

2341 - Something frightening is closing in with Earth from the space.

2354 - Accident on one of the man made suns, will result in drought.

2371 - Mighty hunger.

2378 - New and fast growing race.

2480 - Two man made suns will collide. Earth is in the dark.

3005 - War on Mars. Trajectory of planets changes.

3010 - Comet will ram into the Moon. Around Earth there is a belt of rocks and dust.

3797 - By this time, everything living on Earth dies. But humans are able to put in the essentials for the beginning of a new life in a new star system.

I wonder if any of these will actualy happen.:-? (AHHHHHH im in the northern hemisphere, along with a large portion of subsim members.:huh:)

You missed 2018:

Subsim's nemisis, tractorsim, finally rules the sim universe with farmingsim 2018 with GWX 4.5467 Farming Ferrets of the Northern tundra.

Tractorsim's shin dig is hosted in Ames, Iowa by Neil Stephens. The highlights: pig wrastlin', apple pie bake off, the new john deer tractor mod, and an over-alls fashion show; hosted by Steed.

[Task Force]

Subsim's nemisis, tractorsim, finally rules the sim universe with farmingsim 2018 with GWX 4.5467 Farming Ferrets of the Northern tundra.

That will never happen. Ill never surrender to Tractorsims. Subsimmers.... we will fight to the end!!!

In the distance the rumble of enemy tractors shakes the ground. Us subsimmers get are modified torpedo rockets and wheeled deckguns prepared for battle.on the horizon huge towers of smoke appear. then... A giant explotion in the distance.

Neal (are commander) tells us to CHARGE!!!

Then we see shells from there battle tractors rip through the air above us. The shell hits the ground and puts a large hole into it.Then the enemy tractors appear on the horizon. they open fire (as do we). One of are torpedo rockets slam into a enemy tractor... setting it ablaze. Eventual it Explodes destroying 3 other tractors around it. (a entire group of tractors. distroyed)

once we get ontop of the hill are wheeled deckguns open fire on neals command.
soon, are torpedo rockets get ontop of the hill. and open fire on the battle tractors. One battle tractor soon explodes into a huge fireball once its aamo locker catchs fire.The second battle tractor fires its huge 16 inch guns and distroys one of are deckgun groups. (who wants to be in group 2)

suddently us subsimmers start a massive charge towards the enemy tractors. They are quickly distroyed by are torpedo rockets.

then the enemy fourm makes its last charge... there super duper battle tractors.
(dule 20 inch guns.)Soon three out of the origional 7 deckgun groups are distroyed. (who wants to be in the deck gun groups.lol) 2 tropedo groups are also distroyed.

Once we got into range for are weapons, all h*** is starting to break loose on the battle tractors. soon there armor is periced and there ammo lockers catch on fire (the Tractorsim battle tractors weakness) end it explodes. The 2nd battle tractor soon is also distroyed.

THE SUBSIMMERS ARE VICTORIOUS!!!

Soon there entire country is taken over by the subsimmers.:p (Im bord I know. lol)

[Task Force]

2371- mighty hunger.

AAAAAAWWWW I haven't had dinner yet.:lol:

[TarJak]

I intentionally wanted to be broad and inconclusive about the histories because, in the final analysis the details supporting my eventual conclusions are my focus. Therfore I wanted a broad-based but true introduction to modern history. Also, far more importantly than WWII itself was the political aftermath. In fact, I believe that there will be very few parallels to WWII in the 3rd WW and that they will be broad. That will be more relevent to my final conclusions.My main concern with what I've read so far is that it really over simplfies what is in essence a much more complex set of causes for the politics in the first place. Ignoring these means that essential data for your readers is left out. Of course if this data does not support what you are trying to say then it may be legitimately left out.

I point to the fact that the recent conflict in the Balkans actually stemmed from geo-politicial, racial and social issues that date back to pre christian times. If you simplify the prelude and history too much, without such as a nod towards understanding the causes, then readers like myself will discount the work as lacking in depth and either ignore it or pull it apart.



caspofungin: good point, and I agree that things aren't as black and white historically. Again, though, my goal is to get through the history abstractly (and accurately). I'm going to be far more detailed when I start breaking down the reasons to support my theory.I'm not sure that you have been that accurate simply because you have been over broad. I'm not suggesting that you need to incorporate all the reasons for all the nations getting involved in WW2 or their inclinations and oscillations in the post-war era, but so far I don't see much accuracy in what you've posted so far. Korea and Vietnam were NOT wars by proxy. Korea was also NOT all out unrestricted warfare between the US and China (the two major powers involved in the conflict), however US and Chinese servicemen certainly died and were wounded in large numbers by direct contact between units of both sides. None by proxy.

My suggestions for what they are worth is to be a little less broad brush and a little more accurate.:D

[Yahoshua]

I can help you with the title.

More Right Wing Paranoia

Relax guys, Russia went to Cuba, I really don't think we need to start digging trenches at Disneyland just yet. If there is a World War 3 the US better not be involved. They can't even handle an insurgency in Iraq with RPGs and AK-47s. China would smoke the US military.

If you're going to comment at least put some substance in your posts.




*EDIT*

Now having read through all the posts and seeing that most people have already pointed out the obvious mistakes in the pieces that you've shown us I have a few questions:

What is your goal in this Paper? Are you bound by page or word count limitations or by a narrow subject field?

What are the points you are trying to get across and what mechanisms do you intend to use in order to tranfer those ideas and concepts onto paper?

Do you plan on being short and to the point or do you plan on being a little more elaborate and descript on current, past and their possible influences on future events?

Just feeling around to see exactly what it is you're trying to do here.

[AntEater]

Actually, after reading carefully what he wrote, I think I can agree with much of it.
I don't see the current russian resurgence as anything communist, though.
It might be called somewhat more totalitarian but it is not based on Marx or the idea of a dictatorship of the working class.

But regarding the flow of information, Aramike really has a point and I've often thought about wether this is good or bad.

A recent example is the Kosovo war.
Back in 1999, western information was basically monopolized by CNN and other major news networks. Who controlled them controlled opinion. The golden age of spin doctors.
I've often asked myself if the case for intervention would've stood before a world opinion with the access to news media of today.
The Internet of 1999 was largely a nerd playground compared to today.
There were allready newsgroups and forums, but no blogs, no comment functions, no streaming video....
In the other way round, with the media of 1999, the west would've unanimously supported Georgia in the August war, which might have escalated into real tension between NATO and Russia.
If the 24/7 Sakashvili show on CNN would've been the only source of information for westerners, Georgia might have been a NATO member by now and NATO and Russia on the brink of war.

But I suppose the current freedom of information won't last that long. You can spin the web as well, they're just figuring that out....

[Zachstar]

I got a few lines in until you said this

Iran and North Korea have clear intentions regarding nuclear weapons.

If you can't even get recent history right you have no business trying to say what will cause the Third World war..

At best I can only agree with the title subchaser12 gave.

[Onkel Neal]

I got a few lines in until you said this

Iran and North Korea have clear intentions regarding nuclear weapons.

If you can't even get recent history right you have no business trying to say what will cause the Third World war..

At best I can only agree with the title subchaser12 gave.


What, I think he has a right to speculate that NK and Iran are pursuing nukes. I think they are too.

[nikimcbee]

Anteater is right. It seems to me the current state of Russian politics is more about nationalism than communism. I don't know how powerful Zyuganov currently is. Russia has always been an authoritarian state, regardless of who's incharge.

I think it would seem that the Russians are embracing the communist era more for a personal pride, nostagia, than re-embracing communism itself. I wonder if Russia is dumb enough to re-introduce a command economy?

[Koondawg]

Let's look at it from this perspective...

My kids 7 and 9 I do believe will see great events. And if anyone has noticed that history does repeat itself...thus it will endour another repeat...
Only we can wait and see...I havn't heard anything about a modern day Nostradamus

KD

PS: has anyone yet seen "The Day the Earth Stood Still 2008" Kinda makes you wonder...

BTW its available to watch already on the net...

[Thomen]

Aramike,
If I may make a suggestion or two..

I would use a couple books as source that are on this topic.
Even, though highly ficticious there are atleast two that come to mind and can give some insight.
a.) Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy
and
b.) Team Yankee, by Harold Coyle.

There is are two more books I can suggest about that very topic, written as a study paper/book by a General (ret), but unfortunately, I am in Germany right now and can't give a title. But I think it was called World War III. It was was pre 1990's, so no idea how usefull it might have been.


EDIT:
I think I found it at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Third-World-War-Untold-Story/dp/0025471104

[August]

I think I found it at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Third-World-War-Untold-Story/dp/0025471104

I read that book back when the first version came out (1978). I was a very young army private stationed in West Germany at the time so I found it rather gripping although I didn't think the end was very plausible.

[Aramike]

Thanks for the suggestions and feedback, everyone. I'm going to try to put some more stuff up from my paper tomorrow or Monday, once I get some of the kinks worked out.

A couple things in specific...Aramike,
If I may make a suggestion or two..

I would use a couple books as source that are on this topic.
Even, though highly ficticious there are atleast two that come to mind and can give some insight.
a.) Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy
and
b.) Team Yankee, by Harold Coyle.Good suggestions. Actually, Red Storm Rising is one of my favorites. Clancy co-wrote it with Larry Bond who authored a book called Red Pheonix regarding a limited conflict in North Korea. I'll have to look into Team Yankee and the other title you suggested.I don't see the current russian resurgence as anything communist, though.
It might be called somewhat more totalitarian but it is not based on Marx or the idea of a dictatorship of the working class.I agree and probably should have been more clear about it. I was more referencing the fact that the Russians are attempting to rekindle relations with the old communist bloc. They are indeed taking some serious steps in the wrong direction (repealing speech/press freedoms are a recent example), and I believe that this will be a major cause of the conflict I predict.I think it would seem that the Russians are embracing the communist era more for a personal pride, nostagia, than re-embracing communism itself. I wonder if Russia is dumb enough to re-introduce a command economy?I think you have a good point there as well.

[Aramike]

Oh, and someone asked whether or not I believe such a war would be nuclear or conventional. I do have an opinion about that but admittedly, I can't support it. I'm going to withhold my thoughts regarding it until I've further reflected upon my reasonings.

The type of conflict is beyond the scope of what I'm working on, however. I'm simply going to attempt to demonstrate how I believe the world's current state of affairs have us on an express elevator down to the hell of the 3rd World War.

[Oberon]

Back in the days of the Cold War, was it not NATO policy that if the Soviets advanced beyond a certain point battlefield nuclear weapons were to be used? :hmm:

[Aramike]

Back in the days of the Cold War, was it not NATO policy that if the Soviets advanced beyond a certain point battlefield nuclear weapons were to be used? :hmm:Yeah, in a sense. In fact, this directly led to the development of the so-called neutron bomb.

[baggygreen]

Maybe I should send you a similar piece I wrote when studying a nat. security degree.

It went down fairly poorly with the uni types (ANU is possibly the most liberal of all unis in oz) but I was satisfied with what I wrote - it was fully sourced and I don't think it was overly far-fetched. I'll see if I can find it.

[Aramike]

Maybe I should send you a similar piece I wrote when studying a nat. security degree.

It went down fairly poorly with the uni types (ANU is possibly the most liberal of all unis in oz) but I was satisfied with what I wrote - it was fully sourced and I don't think it was overly far-fetched. I'll see if I can find it.Cool. Let me know if you can dig it up.

[Kapt Z]

Technically though, aren't we already in the Third World War?
The War on Terror involves quite a few world nations on just about every continent. To me that classifies a world war, even if it isn't superpower against superpower...yet.

If you want to count the 'war on terror', then we should also count the 'war on drugs'
the 'war on illiteracy' and 'the war on all other abstract nouns'.

Not really relevant to the thread I guess, but we do love those 'War on .....' phrases.;)

[joegrundman]

Yes, it makes it all sound so manly

[Rilder]

We need some aliens to attempt to invade us to unite us.

[Frame57]

We need some aliens to attempt to invade us to unite us.Sounds corny, but true in a sense. On a micro scale we see siblings who fight like cats and dogs, but then watch what happens when an outsider starts something... the siblings unite for each other, and then go back to fighting with each other when the threat is over...:hmm:

[Digital_Trucker]

The US has enough invading aliens already:DI think 90% of our government are straight out of Men In Black.

[Frame57]

The US has enough invading aliens already:DI think 90% of our government are straight out of Men In Black.True-true:up: