What would be more likely to start a war out of....
a lack of oil
52.5% (160)
52.5% (160)
one country invading another
33.4% (102)
33.4% (102)
less developed countries revolting against more developed countries
13.4% (41)
13.4% (41)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: What could start a third world war?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

orangeban:

HouseOfSyn:

World War I - Germany gets a mad on.

Well, to be fair, it was more like Serbia got into a tussle with Austria-Hungary, and because Serbia asked big brother Russia to lend it a hand, Austria-Hungary asked Germany to lend a hand. And then Britain went, "A chance to fight Germany?! Right on!" Meanwhile, France got conquered.

Correct except for France being conquered. Austria-Hungary asked Germany to help who took the chance to invade France who asked Britain to declare war on Germany. In 1914 The Western front never got any closer than 40miles to Paris.

Sonicron:
Try "Lack of crucial resources". Oil? What's oil in the end but a luxury commodity? Try imagining several countries running dangerously low on drinking water... shit's gonna hit the fan on an unprecedented scale.

Luxury commodity, are you serious? Transportation infrastructure and shit-ton of jobs aren't just luxury. If going to war will stave of mass rioting and keep the guys that run the show in power, you bet they will do that.
Also oil is more than just gas for your someones car

INB4 CHINA ATTACKS US OVER DEBT-
Ninja'd

Look fellas. China isn't going to attack the United States. China couldn't care less about the debt for now, and even when they do, they'll use economic arms against the U.S, not firearms. You see, although the U.S (and most other countries) need China, China needs them too. If China stopped producing for them, the U.S could stand back up and start manufacturing. They have the money and man power. For now China is happy, VERY happy to lend the U.S money.
If China ACTUALLY had a reason to attack the U.S, it would be over water; their glaciers that they get their water from are melting away, and soon they'll have a huge water crisis. They would be retarded to attack the U.S, the most powerful country military wise. They could use their aforementioned economic arms, but it just be SO much simpler to steal the water from third world nations or weaker first world nations.

In my opinion? The U.S, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and any other first world country I can't think of are safe from first world country vs first world country war for a long while. They'll just bully smaller countries for their resources. After that, however, some tensions may rise.

For less developed countries to "Revolt" they first have to actually be ruled by something other than themselves...and last I checked the first world does not govern the third world.

So not only is the notion of a revolt literally absurd, it would make no sense even if third world countries WERE ruled by first world countries.

What are they going to say? "We should invade countries that are more technologically, economically and militarily superior to us, THAT will teach them for constantly sending us aid"?

Probably over oil or some other crucial resource.

But the only way for us to avoid a third one, is to make Valve rulers of the world.

A European Unification movement begins to try and resolve the crisis of the economic shitstorm, pushed forward by the French and Germans. One of the two aforementioned powers takes charge, UK says "fuck this" and opts out. Britain starts having shit flung at it by mainland Europe. Meanwhile, Europe starts throwing more and more weight around elsewhere, such as the Middle East. Embargoes turn into policing actions turn into more aggressive steps, and the first world powers that don't step in line start facing sanctions of their own. In light of the weakened economic position, bullying people into line becomes the order of the day to try and keep the ship from sinking. Inevitably someone will have their toes trod on, and a detente situation arises from the increased tensions. Ultimately it boils down to Europe vs Russia, because Russia has a newly united gaggle of tyrants looking to make more elbow room, and Russia doesn't want to dance to their tune. China sees an opportunity to expand and gain more power by tag teaming on Russia with Europe, and the UK aids Russia because they share the same struggle. From there, the US is roped in to preserve the UK and to try and knife China for all the cyberattack bullshit they keep trying to pull to steal US government and corporate secrets. Inevitably this turns into a full on conflict.

Unfortunately, the battlegrounds are predominantly fought in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the bordering territories between China and Russia, along with a combined naval and aerial embargo of the UK. This ultimately means somebody, when the war starts turning sour on their end, will begin using the heavy ordnance indiscriminately to prevent defeat, as the lands being ruined are not their own. Some territories in Eastern Europe get quite literally nuked, which brings everybody to a state of near suicidal readiness. If it was a missile that went off, God help us all. If not, diplomacy steps in as people start demanding the others to stand down. More nukes go off, as retaliatory strikes occur. From here, either a full blown nuclear holocaust happens, or more likely threat of such forces both sides to back down, leading to a new cold war.

Incredibly unlikely and requiring numerous leaps of assumption on my part, but this is what I can come up with.

I don't think a world war could happen again, nukes and other pieces of modern warfare hardware are too big a deterrent to standard ground troops. Thankfully, those days are over, replaced by the threat of asymmetrical warfare, in which a much weaker force fights with "dirty" tactics.

When the world has run out of Bacon and Coffee

Noswad:
100 years war, England failing in both it's goals to take the French crown and hold on to Aquitaine. Just of the top of my head, probably a few more if I bothered to look it up.

Yeah, rather surprisingly, France was on the backfoot for most of the war... pretty much until the third phase from 1420-ish onwards. IMO the Burgundians were idiots...

TheIronRuler:
Losing Calais and the control over Dover Channel, Jersey Island... Spanish Succession. Just off the top of my head.

The first three, not really 'wars' per se, and the result of the War of Spanish Succession is somewhat debatable with regard to 'winners'. From a purely French perspective, it was a draw, though the background of the Battle of Almansa never fails to amuse.

While talking about France... the Wars of the First Five Coalitions & American Revolutionary War (a massive reason America won was because the French kept Britain occupied far from New England) are the standout 'decisive' war victories.

HouseOfSyn:

orangeban:

HouseOfSyn:

World War I - Germany gets a mad on.

Well, to be fair, it was more like Serbia got into a tussle with Austria-Hungary, and because Serbia asked big brother Russia to lend it a hand, Austria-Hungary asked Germany to lend a hand. And then Britain went, "A chance to fight Germany?! Right on!" Meanwhile, France got conquered.

Correct except for France being conquered. Austria-Hungary asked Germany to help who took the chance to invade France who asked Britain to declare war on Germany. In 1914 The Western front never got any closer than 40miles to Paris.

Yeah, messed that up, meant to say invaded, not conquered. Thanks for correcting.

Though if we're getting detailed, France got involved because they had an alliance with Russia, who got involved on behalf of Serbia, and Britain, who had no alliance with France, got involved when Germany marched through Belgium, who we did have an alliance with.

Though it's generally regarded that we would of happily igorned the Belgian alliance if we hadn't wanted a chance to attack Germany, since Germany and Britain were major rivals on the world stage.

TheIronRuler:

orangeban:

HouseOfSyn:

World War I - Germany gets a mad on.

Well, to be fair, it was more like Serbia got into a tussle with Austria-Hungary, and because Serbia asked big brother Russia to lend it a hand, Austria-Hungary asked Germany to lend a hand. And then Britain went, "A chance to fight Germany?! Right on!" Meanwhile, France got conquered.

.
I have to give it to the Serbs for an awesome resistance name, "The Black Hand".

Indeed, though have you read the details of the assasination of Franz Ferdinand? Absolute bloody shambles, complete cock-up the entire thing, they're bloody lucky they managed to kill him.

orangeban:
Yeah, messed that up, meant to say invaded, not conquered. Thanks for correcting.

Though if we're getting detailed, France got involved because they had an alliance with Russia, who got involved on behalf of Serbia, and Britain, who had no alliance with France, got involved when Germany marched through Belgium, who we did have an alliance with.

Though it's generally regarded that we would of happily igorned the Belgian alliance if we hadn't wanted a chance to attack Germany, since Germany and Britain were major rivals on the world stage.

Yes! It's seems almost bizarre that Great Britain had an alliance with Belgium but that friendship gave them a foot-hold on the continent for a war that was inevitable.

The arms race (which gave us the machine gun, the aeroplane, the dreadnought etc) in the early part of the century was really one of the reasons most of Europe was ready and seemingly eager to kill on such an industrial level.

The end of World War 1 also outlined what would happen in the Middle East for the last 100 years and perhaps the next 100.

Good talk. I love history.

Sorry to piss you people off but right now there is no money to fight wars.

Afghanistan involved the manpower of 300,000 soldiers and cost a few trillion dollars. Fighting a huge war in several countries? Yeah, right.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
How about "Other", or "Lack of crucial resources other than oil".

Your poll is missing quite a few options. I dont see why "one country invading another" is a separate option either - countries dont invade each other for the lolz anymore. Nowadays oil is likely to be the driving force.

And less developed countries revolting? Ha! That would be a short war. I would love to see Somalia revolt against Europe. That war would be over in 5 minutes.

But... erm... Europe isn't a country...

OT: I think that the only thing that would start a third world war is the same thing that started the previous 2, someone being a no1 dick and pissing the hell out of everyone.

It could be oil, or space. Or paranoia, if new weapons are made that could effectivly nuke a country before it could react back.

HouseOfSyn:

orangeban:
Yeah, messed that up, meant to say invaded, not conquered. Thanks for correcting.

Though if we're getting detailed, France got involved because they had an alliance with Russia, who got involved on behalf of Serbia, and Britain, who had no alliance with France, got involved when Germany marched through Belgium, who we did have an alliance with.

Though it's generally regarded that we would of happily igorned the Belgian alliance if we hadn't wanted a chance to attack Germany, since Germany and Britain were major rivals on the world stage.

Yes! It's seems almost bizarre that Great Britain had an alliance with Belgium but that friendship gave them a foot-hold on the continent for a war that was inevitable.

The arms race (which gave us the machine gun, the aeroplane, the dreadnought etc) in the early part of the century was really one of the reasons most of Europe was ready and seemingly eager to kill on such an industrial level.

The end of World War 1 also outlined what would happen in the Middle East for the last 100 years and perhaps the next 100.

Good talk. I love history.

Yay for history! Good talk indeed.

And I don't know the details of the Belgium alliance, but I think it was a treaty declaring that Belgium shall always be neutral and the signers of the treaty shall protect Belgium's neutrality. I think all of the big powers signed it, but no-one really took it seriously, especially not 100 years (I think it's that long) after it was signed.

Angry Juju:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
How about "Other", or "Lack of crucial resources other than oil".

Your poll is missing quite a few options. I dont see why "one country invading another" is a separate option either - countries dont invade each other for the lolz anymore. Nowadays oil is likely to be the driving force.

And less developed countries revolting? Ha! That would be a short war. I would love to see Somalia revolt against Europe. That war would be over in 5 minutes.

But... erm... Europe isn't a country...

OT: I think that the only thing that would start a third world war is the same thing that started the previous 2, someone being a no1 dick and pissing the hell out of everyone.

Uhm, he never said Europe was a country and the fact that he's from Germany (I think) would imply that he knows that. However if you go to war against one country in the European Union you go to war with Europe.

In 1997, I gave a presentation to my social studies class about the threat of global terrorism and the danger in responding to it by invading harboring countries, toppling them, and leaving a power vacuum in which bin Laden's vision of an Islamic United States could come to fruition. The balance of power shifts, tensions mount, wah baam- WWIII.

Taking longer than I thought. Still coming.

Th3Ch33s3Cak3:
Well...
WW1-someone invades Europe.
WW2-someone invades Europe.
WW3-someone invades Europe?

Although I can't see another World War happening at all.

WW1- Franz Ferdinand shot, everyone starts trying to scare the other shitless, neutral country is invaded to get to France.
WW2- Hitler demands tons of stuff, breaks some treaties, then a neutral country is invaded to get to France.
WW3- A world power bombs another? Someone has a booboo when playing with nukes? Russia invades everyone and declares that they were communist all along?

I don't see another World War happening again, really... although I can imagine a nuclear holocaust.

If they cancel Game of Thrones.

But honestly, it'll be because a country will get too big for it's borders, egotistically and/or populationwise. All I can really say is that it's going to be hell. I don't plan on being in one.

I believe that WWIII will most likely be started by a lack of resources. Oil comes to mind first, but water might end up being more important if the current trends in environmental and climate change continue. Land could be an issue if countries, particularly in the far east, continue to experience growing populations. For that matter, if current economic trends continue, wars might be fought over money, and debt of that money.

Countries don't just invade each other, there's always a reason, with the current geo-political climate that would most likely be a lack of resources.

Angry Juju:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
How about "Other", or "Lack of crucial resources other than oil".

Your poll is missing quite a few options. I dont see why "one country invading another" is a separate option either - countries dont invade each other for the lolz anymore. Nowadays oil is likely to be the driving force.

And less developed countries revolting? Ha! That would be a short war. I would love to see Somalia revolt against Europe. That war would be over in 5 minutes.

But... erm... Europe isn't a country...

Fine then.

Somalia vs France. Ha! That would be a short war.

AdamxD:
If they cancel Game of Thrones.

I swear to God if this happens I will launch the nukes myself.

(Joking of course, but it would be terrible.)

Perhaps the perceived entitlement of butthurt internet users?

But I'd probably go with water.

s_h_a_d_o:
Perhaps the perceived entitlement of butthurt internet users?

Maybe Dragon Age 3 will be the end of us all.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Fine then.

Somalia vs France. Ha! That would be a short war.[quote="AdamxD" post="18.373351.14431159"]If they cancel Game of Thrones.

I dunno... France seems to get invaded hell of a lot... I mean they didn't last long against Germany in World War 2...

Durgiun:
I'm guessing that China will ask America to pay up what it owes and then America will throw the most collossal bitch fit the world has ever seen and presto - World War III.

This, or Iran/North Korea doing something stupid like making long ranged nuclear missiles then waving them around like they're 10 years old experiencing alcohol for the first time (and it's just a shandy, in comparison to the big boys alcohol).

Q: What could start a third world war?
A: Me.

Q: What could be done to prevent it?
A: James Bond.

Q: Would your country help start or finish it?
A: They would attempt to finish it, but such efforts would be futile. My Moon base is impenetrable.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Angry Juju:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Fine then.

Somalia vs France. Ha! That would be a short war.

I dunno... France seems to get invaded hell of a lot... I mean they didn't last long against Germany in World War 2...

That's only in the past hundred centuries, and that was because France was still more or less destroyed from WWI. Not to mention the prevailing mentality in France at that time. There's a saying in France about this situation that went "the man went to WWI with flowers on their bayonets, they went to WWII crying.". You could find the same attitude thal led to appeasement in the UK under Neville Chamberlain and they weren't the ones who had suffered the worst.

serious answer: complications due to climate change.

Non serious answer: Aliens

Guys. WWIII is not only possible, it's quite likely to start within the next five years.

Iran has been building a nuclear arsenal, which they will inevitably use against Isreal (OR Isreal will prevent this with a preemptive strike). Either way, the result is the same: a conflict that America will get involved in. All this is inevitable, the only difference it makes is whether other countries get involved and convert this into a full-blown World War.

Ironically, I was typing this comment while listening to the Ink Spots - I Don't Want to Set the World on Fire.

I think WW3 will have little to do with Oil.

My bet is North Korea does something insanely stupid and the US and South Koreans invade and take over the Korean Peninsula.

China and Russia dislike this very much and China starts pressuring the US in the pacific and uses the US as a scapegoat for their slowing economic growth and terrible conditions.
China becomes more stressed as the European markets dry up because of a bad recession and constant influx of North Korean refugees.
There is another uprising in Taiwan and China blames the US for instigating it.
Israel bombs Iran and disrupts oils supplies to China.

After all these stressors China lashes out and has its first skirmish with the US in the pacific. Escalation doesn't take long as by this point the Chinese and the Americans hate each other.
China cyber bombs the US government via proxy and the US economically squeezes China to the breaking point.

You can do the rest but the Axis would consist of China, Russia, Iran , North Korean resistance, and possible others.

Canada have enough of seeing other idiotic countries and flip their shit.

I think it would be incredibly hard.

There are more people working behind the scenes to prevent wars than there are people working behind the scenes to start them, despite what the media or some of those same fire-starters might want you to think.

Total, worldwide nuclear disarmament within the current geopolitical climate. No mutually assured destruction would make governments a whole hell of a lot less polite.

Durgiun:
I'm guessing that China will ask America to pay up what it owes and then America will throw the most collossal bitch fit the world has ever seen and presto - World War III.

This.

Honestly, I don't see it going any other way except for oil if it hits first.

Noswad:

Yopaz:

You know, since you've got a joke on France I got one for you. Try to make a list of all the wars France have won through the times. Personally I can only think of one. The French revolution, and the only reason they won that was because both sides were French.

100 years war, England failing in both it's goals to take the French crown and hold on to Aquitaine. Just of the top of my head, probably a few more if I bothered to look it up.

I'm not even remotely connected to the UK so I don't see why I would care about their defeat in the past. I also started by saying I was going to make a joke. I know that France has have had an amazing track record through history, but their more recent history does warrant a few jokes from time to time. Lighten up. The facts about France and its history count more than the jokes.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here