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]

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.

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.

[subchaser12]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by subchaser12

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/show...145502&page=18.

[subchaser12]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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

[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....

[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