Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Is WWIII A Possibility? (Read 15559 times)

Is WWIII A Possibility?

I think not, I hope not, but it's not inconceivable.

Possible flash points...Syria, Ukraine, an Israeli miscalculation, an Iranian miscalculation, some sort of nuclear accident.

The following countries have nukes: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel and Iran.

Is the possession of nukes a possible factor.

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #1 –
There is this most unusual thing on the Internet; an Albert Einstein quote actually said by said Einstein.
Quote from: Albert Einstein
I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth — rocks!


A multipolar world, when there is not one or two powers dominating it, tends to be more complex. Complexity breeds bugs. There is a lot of military hardware hanging around, more is likely to be produced.

Some have a different idea of World War III.

Quote
The advantage of people with guns is that they are cheap and easy to train. In the modern day, it’s true that bombers, tanks, and artillery can lay waste to infantry—but those industrial tools of warfare are just so expensive that swarms of infantry can still deter industrialized nations from fighting protracted conflicts. Look at how much it cost the United States to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, versus how much it cost our opponents. The hand-held firearm reached its apotheosis with the cheap, rugged, easy-to-use AK-47; with this ubiquitous weapon, guerrilla armies can still defy the mightiest nations on Earth.

The Age of the Gun is the age of People Power. The fact that guns don’t take that long to master means that most people can learn to be decent gunmen in their spare time. That’s probably why the gun is regarded as the ultimate guarantor of personal liberty in America—in the event that we need to overthrow a tyrannical government, we like to think that we can put down our laptops, pick up our guns, and become an invincible swarm. [...]

The day that robot armies become more cost-effective than human infantry is the day when People Power becomes obsolete. With robot armies, the few will be able to do whatever they want to the many. And unlike the tyrannies of Stalin and Mao, robot-enforced tyranny will be robust to shifts in popular opinion. The rabble may think whatever they please, but the Robot Lords will have the guns.

Forever.

Where this scenario really gets scary is when it combines with economic inequality. Although few people have been focusing on robot armies, many people have been asking what happens if robots put most of us out of a job. The final, last-ditch response to that contingency is income redistribution – if our future is to get paid to sit on a beach, so be it.

But with robot armies, that’s just not going to work. To pay the poor, you have to tax the rich, and the Robot Lords are unlikely to stand for that. Just imagine Tom Perkins with an army of cheap autonomous drones. Or  Greg Gopman. We’re all worried about the day that the 1% no longer need the 99%–but what’s really scary is when they don’t fear the 99% either.


There are weaknesses with this line of argument, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #2 –
Unlike WW1 and WW2, WW3 won't be Germany's fault.

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

The following countries have nukes: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel and Iran.

Iran has nukes?

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: jax on
In the SNAFU that was the Great War the faults were widely spread, but Germany made the first move.

I'm talking more about the almost jittery willingness to go war (and thus the support promised to Austria-Hungary) than about invasions of Luxembourg. The Kaiser's Germany was not terribly pleasant.

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

Quote from: krake on

Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

The following countries have nukes: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel and Iran.

Iran has nukes?

My bad.
The Ukraine used to have the third largest stock of nuclear weapons, but they gave it up on the basis of inclusion of the Crimea in their country and the guarantee of their territorial integrity by the U.S., GB and Russia.

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #9 –
Quote
The Ukraine used to have the third largest stock of nuclear weapons, but they gave it up on the basis of inclusion of the Crimea in their country and the guarantee of their territorial integrity by the U.S., GB and Russia.


Well, nobody said that guarantees don't lapse over time. It's called the weakest link principle.

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

Quote from: Frenzie on
The Kaiser's Germany was not terribly pleasant.
Unlike most armies, which are extremely pleasant. :faint:
I'm not really sure what you think I said or for that matter what you're saying, but Germany isn't an army. However, being overly militaristic is one of the things that made it unpleasant.

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #11 –
I like the concept that there were not exactly two distinct wars, but that The war began in '10s (this is the question 'why?'), lasted for a handful of long years being in its warm phase, then it was choked, making one side devastated, while the War's mainspring didn't vanish but was just buried under pressure of the Versailles.
What the Versailles did was not peace but only a ceasefire - which was "properly" used by the Germany side and not very much properly by the other one.

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #12 –
Prior to WW1, all of Europe was a militaristic powder keg just waiting for something-- like the assassination of an archduke-- to set it off. Once that happened, treaties set in place beforehand all but guaranteed WW1 would happen.

I don't know if we have quite the same thing in place today or not. Do we have treaties between nations that say, for example, that if Ukraine is invaded by Russia that NATO will come to the aid of Ukraine? That could be a touchpoint to get WW3 going. Right now, it doesn't sound like we do, much of Europe appears to want to stay out of the affairs of Russia and the former Soviet states and they seem to hope the US will stay out of it too. If that happens, there will be a local war between Russia and Ukraine, but that's about it. Maybe there won't even be a war as the weaker side realizes they don't have the force needed to have a hope of winning.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on
don't know if we have quite the same thing in place today or not. Do we have treaties between nations that say, for example, that if Ukraine is invaded by Russia that NATO will come to the aid of Ukraine?

Afaik NATO means that if a NATO member is attacked, we all come to their aid. Ukraine is (or was) an aspirant member only.

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #15 –
Wouldn't like to think there would be such a calamity. Years ago the confrontation re the Cuban missle thing was a great worry and near the edge. However if nations spent less time interfering with someone else there would be less of a chance of disaster. Anyone who interferes with my obtaining an Irn Bru supply or the marching season should take care though.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #16 –
The big question is Have nuclear weapons made WWIII unthinkable?

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

The big question is Have nuclear weapons made WWIII unthinkable?
You were thinking about it, weren't you? It's not only thinkable, movies have been made by media moguls that have thought long and hard of their profitability.

Otherwise as a big question for big countries with big bombs it isn't very likely. Smaller countries with smaller bombs is a different set of questions.

I don't think any of USA/NATO, Russia, or China are going to war with each other this century using nuclear firecrackers or otherwise.

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #18 –
:devil: Perhaps it's time to bomb the small countries before they do something stupid.:devil:

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: Colonel Rebel on

One hopes that our Portuguese friends will keep us well informed.   :left:

Once the Portuguese depression has ended, he'll willingly guide all of us. Until then, please don't mention it! :'( :no: Like rj, he knows everything there is to know about the US.

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #22 –
Bit late on the matter of bombing small countries jimbro. Serbia got that in 1999 and many innocents killed. Damnable.. Anyway a WW3 is a semi-regular throw-up in the world. Rogue State - stolen stuff - a skirmish going daft and so on. I think I would lean towards the side that says there will not be one. Well as long as you keep McCain out the White House (Ryan too). Bothare like someone who has skipped out an open day in a mental hospital. Let us all depend on wise counsel.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #23 –
Whenever McCain and Palin come to mind, I pause for a couple of seconds and give thanks.

I'd sooner have Smileyfaze and Lex Luthor as President and Vice President.

Re: Is WWIII A Possibility?

Reply #24 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

Whenever McCain and Palin come to mind, I pause for a couple of seconds and give thanks.

I'd sooner have Smileyfaze and Lex Luthor as President and Vice President.

Quote
What-ever can happen will happen if we make trials enough.
- Augustus De Morgan

:devil: