World War III - A Prediction

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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)

Originally Posted by joegrundman

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.

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]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

ZOMG undersealcpl. Did you just write all that?

Roger that. you must be snowed in too.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by 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...

...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. 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]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

This might help ya create some theories

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.


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.)

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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)

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]

Originally Posted by Task Force

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

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]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

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.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.