If the story had been in a out-of-the-main-stream-media I wouldn't believe it at all not a inch

If it hadn't been for the Swedish news paper aftonbladet, who had the article some weeks before.

I have always had huge respect for Mr Wilhelm Agrell ´cause I know his knowledge in his field of expertise is not just thing you -throw away as-
ye ye what ever.

And how many countries are fighting IS/ISIS/ISIL ? and how many soldiers/fighter jet/plane has to be involved before you call it a war?

When it comes to terrorism in Europe-I try to recall if there has been some attack after the thing in Copenhagen. Or before Paris.

Markus

IS is dangerous, but it is localised at the moment. Unless it spreads across additional territories (ie if it somehow overtakes saudis and other Gulf monarchies) it is not an external threat to Europe.

IS is dangerous very dangerous indeed.

What I tried to say is: A world War- has it be fought in several countries or is it enough that several countries is fighting in on country against each other or together against one ?

Markus

I think (and this is just my opinion) that what we have in the Middle East, AS OF NOW, is not the beginning of a World War, but it is definitely unsettling. To me, it is a religious war over something we've been fighting for over centuries. Look at the Crusades; were those considered 'world wars'? I will admit, ISIS is much more organized than Al-Qaeda and the Taliban ever were, but they identify as a terror group, and therefore are considered part of the war on terror.

My concern lies in, as said by Torplexed, is in the 'recently' formed countries in the Far East, namely India and Pakistan. The U.S. keeps a close watch on Pakistani military movements, and while relations at this moment are cordial between the two, what's to say that won't blow up in our faces? Not to mention the nuclear programs of the two countries, whether they exist or not.

And of course, you have the old superpowers butting heads, and some of the still-communist countries. Vietnam: not on my watch list. The US and Vietnam may not be the best of friends, but there is little animosity towards us, especially further south. Same with Cuba.

What I mean are China and North Korea. I will say, I don't like the Russians (despite being part-Russian, though I know a few and am friends with them), but I REALLY don't like the Koreans and Chinese. Koreans, at the moment, are not much of a military threat towards the US directly, but China is turning into a pre-WWII Russia without the economy. They have manpower, materiel strength, and factories to waste. They could support a materiel war for quite some time. Morale, on the other hand, may be difficult, as (to my knowledge), the Chinese don't have many food sources due to extreme overpopulation.

And finally, Russia. The bear. We all know the rivalry between Washington DC and Moscow has never stopped. As a bit of a 20th-century wargamer, I can say that Russian attitude to most Americans is...poor. Team-killing is abound on multi-national servers, and it isn't uncommon for an American player on a Russian server (or vice-versa) to be targeted by everyone in the game (First-world problems, I know).

Russia is also the first country in decades to annex another territory (the Crimea Incident), but they're a bit lower on my list as they just aren't the superpower the used to be, with the collapse of the economy during the nuclear arms race and fight for general military superiority in the Cold War.


One thing I can say for certain is that, as long as possible countries and their allies have nuclear capabilities and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction is around, we won't have to worry about the world being blown apart (FUN FACT!!!!: We only need 8 nukes to blow up the entire world! The US has (or had) 5000 of them. Russia claims to have about half that. :dead::o:nope:)

Have any of the involved countries declared a legal state of war? Might be hard to call something a world war if no one declares war.

But World Operations Other Than War does not have the same ring to it

WOOTO? :nope:

Many years ago on CNN I heard and saw some in the studio saying

"Today we do not declear war, it's an old way."

It was something like that it was many years ago, so I can't remember every word.

Denmark didn't declear war on Libya or IS. The sent their Fighter jets and start bombing.

Markus

One of the many reasons the US Congress does not declare war is that once they do, quite a few of our laws change and start giving the President considerable individual authority that will stay with the President until Congress declares the war over.

Given the choice of OOTW and keeping control/power and declaring war and giving much of that power to the President, it is not surprising that Congress chooses not to declare war.

I would like to see a drastic restriction of OOTW as it think it circumvents the US constitution.

War should be something to be avoided and used only as a last resort. OOTW makes fighting wars easier and that is what I feel should not happen.

If we are going to send the military someplace to kill and die, we need to declare war.

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9745..._b12dcacb_orig
Tu214R flight.

World War is a war between Great Powers.

As we speak you've got tens of thousands of Americans doing business in China and American investors are working alongside Russian, even with the sanctions.

Until a no-fly zone is implemented over Europe and the Chinese coast, I don't see us being in a world war.