World War III is already here

[mapuc]

First some words before. Some weeks ago on the Swedish P1 radio program "Philosophical room" a person asked a question

When will World War III start ?

Here is what peace and conflict researcher and professor of intelligence analysis, Wilhelm Agrell said:

http://speisa.com/modules/articles/i...ll-happen.html

Both Wilhelm Agrell, Professor of intelligence analysis and Kristian Gerner, a history professor, in the program agreed that the conflicts we now see in the Middle East, North Africa and terrorism in Europe should be designated as a world war.

Are they wrong or ?

Are they wrong because-No it can't be true I do not believe it ?
Or
Are they wrong because-A more technical/logical answer is given by the author ?

Or is it correct what they have said ?

Markus

[Platapus]

It would first depend on how the term "world war" is being defined. Without knowing the definition, it is impossible to evaluate the situation.

[Tchocky]

They're wrong because we're seeing less mass conflict than ever before

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-2...ieve-it-or-not

Not trying to be too cynical but labeling it as WW3 is an attention grab.

And COME ON, terrorism in Europe?! There's less than ever FFS.

[Oberon]

There's a distinct lack of Soviet T-72s in the Fulda Gap, if we are in WWIII then I want a refund.

[fireftr18]

The whole concept of "world war" is that the majority of the world is involved in the war. I believe we are in WW3 now. I feel the 9/11 attacks plunged us into it. Successful prosecution of the war prevented it from getting deeper, although I feel we could have done a better job.

[Torplexed]

World War Three? I don't think so, in the manner in which such a possible conflict was anticipated during the Cold War years.

The Third World at War? Looking at the increasing tally of dysfunctional former colonies and non-aligned, non-nations, that is a term I'd certainly agree with.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

World War Three? I don't think so, in the manner in which such a possible conflict was anticipated during the Cold War years.

The Third World at War? Looking at the increasing tally of dysfunctional former colonies and non-aligned, non-nations, that is a term I'd certainly agree with.

I like that way of putting it. The Third World at War. In some ways an extension of the proxy wars during the Cold War. Some liked to consider the Cold War as a stand off between the First World(North America, Western Europe and Japan) and the Second World (Soviet Union and China) Third World (former colonies). I suppose that the Soviets would have called themselves the First World and considered the West as the Second World having power but an inferior modis operendi.

What is occurring now is simply an extension of the pecking order some what established during the Cold War (post WWII decades).

In some ways I feel that China benefits the most currently they can spend their budgets on improving and expanding their military. While the West especially the US cuts spending. China also has the advantage that its population is not war weary.

[Aktungbby]

How 'bout we look at it as it really is: as the tribulation of the first world war with a 20 year break to raise another crop of cannon fodder for the 'second war of 'german expansion' so called WWII and the post colonial fallout of that portion of the conflict with the faulty Anglo/franco colonies of Israel, Iraq, Iran, India, Indo-china and Afghanistan; Rearing their respective hydra-to-be-seared heads. Generally the creation of a post war political vacuum such as post revolution France( Bonaparte) post WWI Weimar inefficiency (Hitler) post Tito Yugoslavia: The current Balkan mess or post Iraq( ISIS) and the collapse of the so called Soviet empire(Ukraine) stemming back to the Bolshevik murder of the Czar keeps the fuse well lit...into the 21 century. With the perceived lack of western economic and military force, post-Tibetan takeover acquisitive China, everyone's former colony, is now into the act.....in the Cowslick.

[Stealhead]

WWI wasn't started by communists therefore you can't blame this all upon them. I must strongly disagree that the past 100 years of conflict is the fault of communists. China for example what a can of worms that is the KMT was far worse then the Chinese Communists and I very highly doubt they'd have stayed an ally of the US decades post war.

[ikalugin]

Well, what we could see now (various local conflicts) is the kind of various things that happen pre WW, ie the Balkan wars before the WW1 or Manchuria/Spain before WW2.

In my opinion WW3 (which would be largely conventional) would occur due to the:
- desintegration of inherently unstable post Cold War global security system.
- rise of alternative economic powers outside of North Atlantic area.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Oberon

There's a distinct lack of Soviet T-72s in the Fulda Gap, if we are in WWIII then I want a refund.

For Refund you'll have to contact the Germans, the Germans will see this as a valid reason by shifting the blame on Poland to invade the country.

Problem solved and you still have your refund

[Betonov]

While this could be technically considered WW3, we should reserve that title for something more deserving.
This should just remain the global war on terror or global clash of civilizations for the PC crowd.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

For Refund you'll have to contact the Germans, the Germans will see this as a valid reason by shifting the blame on Poland to invade the country.

Problem solved and you still have your refund

[ikalugin]

I think we are around "you have asked for this" on the happening scale moving towards "you cant stop this".

[Jimbuna]

We'll know WW3 has started when whole armies are mobilised and sent to fight in other countries....what we see now are little more than skirmishes but said skirmishes do have the potential to escalate matters to a far greater meaning and threat.