Poll: What could start a third world war?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Phisi:
Nazis from the dark side of the moon, I called it.

"There is no dark side in the moon, really. As a matter of fact it's all dark!"

Damned oil! They really need to make a practical alternative for car fuel and radiators and fast. When the world oil runs out, If there are no substitutes by then, war will be inevitable.

wintercoat:

HouseOfSyn:

Andothul:
... the US economically squeezes China to the breaking point...

I'm not intending to troll you but the idea of the U.S economically squeezing any country, let alone China, is laughable.

That would be like Greece economically squeezing Germany.

You do realize that China's entire economy revolves around American consumerism. If the U.S. wanted to, they could sever all ties with China, causing China to literally implode in on itself. To "economically squeeze" China would be an easy thing for the U.S. to do. They are more reliant on us than we're reliant on them, to an appalling degree. It's just that the current situation is more profitable for both sides. The U.S. gets cheap products, and China gets amazing trade deals.

And the idea of American consumerism stopping is utterly laughable. China is in the position it's in because they were able to exploit the consumer needs and wants of the Americans (and all 'developed' countries). Yes China would economically collapse IF American consumerism stop but that is a massive, and utterly unlikely IF.

If it were about oil, it'd just be everyone against whatever country still has some left.
If that's a world war, then lots of countries going to afghanistan is a world war.
And if less developed countries were to revolt somehow(I don't see what they'd do), they wouldn't be very succesful, one could hardly call it a war.

So one country invading another would make most sense.
If, per example, Japan went crazy and invaded the US then all the other western countries would fight Japan. Still not a very long, I imagne, but more of a fight then the other scenarios.
Maybe if for some reason the UN split into two groups that that would cause a real world war.

rayen020:

HouseOfSyn:

Andothul:
... the US economically squeezes China to the breaking point...

I'm not intending to troll you but the idea of the U.S economically squeezing any country, let alone China, is laughable.

That would be like Greece economically squeezing Germany.

You mean like what is happening right now in the EU? although we may all be interpreting the term "squeezing" differently...

Perhaps, it's probably the wrong word to use. Greece are putting up one hell of a fight against Germany's desire to own all of Europe which I hope Italy and Spain do too. The Euro is a joke currency and was never going to work especially with Angela Merkal being such a tyrant. :/

Apologies for double post. :)

bauke67:
If it were about oil, it'd just be everyone against whatever country still has some left.
If that's a world war, then lots of countries going to afghanistan is a world war.
And if less developed countries were to revolt somehow(I don't see what they'd do), they wouldn't be very succesful, one could hardly call it a war.

So one country invading another would make most sense.
If, per example, Japan went crazy and invaded the US then all the other western countries would fight Japan. Still not a very long, I imagne, but more of a fight then the other scenarios.
Maybe if for some reason the UN split into two groups that that would cause a real world war.

Actually, by the time oil becomes scarce enough to go to war over, the wells in the Middle East would have long been dried up and stored away, along with all of the other large wells. It'll be superpowers vs superpowers, fighting over each other's reserves, rather than everyone fighting over scraps of land.

the second option is the reason for the first

Nouw:

rayen020:
-The second Korean War, Sooner or later...

Don't you mean resume ;)? Just a little misconception that the Korean War stopped. It's just on pause. For now...

yeah, i actually did know that. However i list it that way because i figure even though it's only been a ceasefire for the past fifty years, popular history will remember it as two seperate wars.

None of the above.

What hugely reduced the possibility of a World War is what is the big boogy man of many activists: GLOBALISATION

In other words, don't shit in your own back yard, and with everyone trading and depending on each other we all are in the same back yard. Neither America nor any European country isn't going to declare war on China... not while that will risk losing all their cheap but high quality t-shorts, iPods and Xbox video game consoles.

And china isn't going to attack it's customers when it is betting so rich off them buying their goods!

The path to war begins with sanctions or when there is otherwise no trade. Then they don't fear the disruption that comes from interruption in co-operation.

Countries are divided by geography and culture but trade brings people together in co-operation.

1: A shortage of oil is going to affect us all equally, this will make oil more valuable this will be more relevant to oil producing countries. This is not to secure their own oil supply, this is to GET RICH off selling the more valuable oil.

But you won't be able to sell this oil if every country in the world knows you stole the land it lies beneath, they will impose sanctions or use military force to return it to its rightful owners. Either way the oil WILL end up on the open market and sold for it's price. The question is who gets the money. Iraq had a lack of oil and invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, but that started a war to remove them from the land they took. When America invaded Iraq it was not for oil, it had comparatively little and the new democratic Iraq controls that oil so I'll hear none of that conspiracy theory.

(America went into Iraq for many bad reasons but oil wasn't one of them. It was primarily they were spoiling for a fight with Saddam and how they unscrupulously believed the lies of Saddam's enemies who lied about his weapons of mass destruction. They admit to this, they say they lied about Saddam's WMDs and are proud they did as they believed he was an evil man who must be removed from power, and america could only do that fearing WMDs)

In WWII, you could say Japan's involvement was caused by oil, America placed sanctions on Japan refusing to sell oil to them so Japan invaded Philippines and wider islands of Malay peninsula and Pacific to secure their oil. But that was because they were denied the oil that they could afford.

2: one country invading another is not going to lead to a cascade in conflict like in the First World War, as for one EVERY military planner and politicians now realises the futility of starting a huge war over a small border conflict and they have other methods of persuasion, like sanctions.

3. less developed countries are far too divided between themselves and even within themselves to rise up against richer countries, even if they could the rich countries would unite in part or in whole against any country that does. For example poor countries like Afghanistan starting a religious war of training armies of terrorists to carry out attacks like 9/11. Now they are struggling to survive only ever able to fight a low intensity but persistent guerilla war.

Lack of oil. But what interests me more, is what it will be fought with. Nukes? Infantry?
Well. Whatever it is, the next war will be fought with sticks and stones... :/

Talk about dumb options
Go figure out how politics work and give us some decent answers.

At this point, the possibility of a world war is virtually zero. This is the case because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons since the end of WWII. At the start of WWI and WWII, the aggressors couldn't clearly estimate the costs of war or the spoils of winning. In the age of nuclear weapons, it's a lot easier to estimate what you'll lose by initiating conflict (your capitol city, most populated cities, and strategically important cities). No one wants to lose their major cities. So...I vote 'None of the Above.'

I'm gonna go with one country has a lack of oil, invades a less developed country for oil, and is then revolted against.

Either Pakistan/India (almost happened in 2001/2002), North Korea/South Korea (but at this point, even China is tired of North Korea's shit), or China/Taiwan (the US REALLY likes Taiwan, and China REALLY hates that Taiwan still exists). The only situation where the US would face Russia is the last, and it is a pretty slim chance. Russia doesn't want war with the US, the 50 years of the Cold War proved that.

rayen020:

Nouw:

rayen020:
-The second Korean War, Sooner or later...

Don't you mean resume ;)? Just a little misconception that the Korean War stopped. It's just on pause. For now...

yeah, i actually did know that. However i list it that way because i figure even though it's only been a ceasefire for the past fifty years, popular history will remember it as two seperate wars.

That is true sadly. Hopefully schools get it right >_<.

wintercoat:

Actually, by the time oil becomes scarce enough to go to war over, the wells in the Middle East would have long been dried up and stored away, along with all of the other large wells. It'll be superpowers vs superpowers, fighting over each other's reserves, rather than everyone fighting over scraps of land.

But how will they go to war without oil? Or, if they have some new fuel, why go to war?
How could there be any superpower withouth oil?
Or if both sides still have a little bit left, then there won't be any within a few days, if it's any decent kind of worldwar so still no point in going to war. That'd be wasting fuel.

edit

Myth busting time.

MYTH #1: China owns the US.
The vast majority of US sovereign debt is to its own federal reserve system.

MYTH #2: China will someday "ask for its money back".
Long story short... Study up on how debt works. Particularly government-issued treasury bonds. Not to mention the widely-known interdependence of both countries from an economic standpoint.

MYTH #3: Oil is a luxury resource.
Quite the opposite. Agriculture and the transportation of goods are both utterly dependent on fossil fuels. Take away ammonia-based commercial fertilizers, farming vehicles, and mass trucking/shipping, and you've got a "Mad Max" world.

MYTH #4: The US will start WW3 by attacking another major power.
Absurd! This is far more likely to be initiated by a rogue state or a non-state entity.

MYTH #5: Germany started WW1.
Germany did not start WW1. Europe did. The first declaration of war was between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. The cascade of alliances started from there, until the whole continent was at war.

MYTH #6: Russia and China are buddies.
So not true. They may have common rivals in the West, but they are very much not in a position to cooperate. Even less likely is the possibility that they would back each other up in a major war.

MYTH #7: China is angelic and the US is its only rival.
While the US might be the "world police," China is the neighborhood bully. Japan, Philippines, and Vietnam are especially feeling the hurt of China throwing its weight around.

bauke67:

wintercoat:

Actually, by the time oil becomes scarce enough to go to war over, the wells in the Middle East would have long been dried up and stored away, along with all of the other large wells. It'll be superpowers vs superpowers, fighting over each other's reserves, rather than everyone fighting over scraps of land.

But how will they go to war without oil? Or, if they have some new fuel, why go to war?
How could there be any superpower withouth oil?
Or if both sides still have a little bit left, then there won't be any within a few days, if it's any decent kind of worldwar so still no point in going to war. That'd be wasting fuel.

You're forgetting one very crucial factor: Governments are stupid. Case in point: war exists in the first place, even though it's not a cost effective method of dominance.

4 letters:

S
O
P
A

nobody screws around with the internet

How about social differences between people which transcend today's ideas of borders, countries and treaties.

Well, I reckon it'll be all 3. May not be instantly, but it'll happen.

Then again, it could be even more than those 3.

I reckon though that America, Africa or the Middle East would be the battle ground.

China can rally too many soldiers too quickly, and the terrain is too much of a hell, and the rest of Asia I reckon will take the side of China (at least initially) to prevent invasion.
So Asia is out.

The Europe has already been contested over.
Russia is - fucking Russia.

The Middle-East is already a common warzone.
If Africa's terrorist problem is dealt with, the middle will be a perfect battle ground.
I don't want to go into why, this will go on forever then... haha

and the world already hates America, if a World War were going to happen, I reckon the majority will attack America at one point or another.

wintercoat:

You're forgetting one very crucial factor: Governments are stupid. Case in point: war exists in the first place, even though it's not a cost effective method of dominance.

True, but when it comes to starting a world war, you'd think they'd be a little more cautious.
Also, I'm not exacctly sure how expensive a war is, so I'don't how cost effective it is.

TheIronRuler:

North Korea will try to launch another nuke but this it it will get off the ground! And fall in their own territory. That would be something I will love to see.

Cue the headlines: "Heh. Had the silly thing in reverse!"

As for what could cause WW3? An economic reason. But it can wait, really. Maybe a few decades, or centuries.

TheIronRuler:

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

Obligatory 'Kane Lives'

bauke67:

wintercoat:

You're forgetting one very crucial factor: Governments are stupid. Case in point: war exists in the first place, even though it's not a cost effective method of dominance.

True, but when it comes to starting a world war, you'd think they'd be a little more cautious.
Also, I'm not exacctly sure how expensive a war is, so I'don't how cost effective it is.

Wars cost trillions. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a rather small-scale war, and it cost trillions. The gains made form the war are nowhere near the cost, in lives lost, money spent, or resources used. A world war nowadays would cost an unbelievably ludicrous amount. In lives. In resources. In money. In world-wide stability. Even barring the use of nuclear arms, at the end of it all, the winner will be left with scraps no longer worth fighting for.

Like the last two World Wars, something retarded will start the next World War.
Either some big political figure is killed by someone and the targeted country has complications finding the assailant (because he is defended by his country, or fades into nothingness) or some government faction gets over zealous in some way that makes people freak out and start killing.

Torrasque:
Like the last two World Wars, something retarded will start the next World War.
Either some big political figure is killed by someone and the targeted country has complications finding the assailant (because he is defended by his country, or fades into nothingness) or some government faction gets over zealous in some way that makes people freak out and start killing.

Well, the killing of Archduke Ferdinand wasn't exactly the reason for WW1, it was just the trigger, a convenient excuse Austria-Hungary and Germany needed.

Countries do not go to war over leaders being killed, really...but thing is, leaders usually do not get killed if the relations between the countries aren't hostile for other reasons in the first place. And it's those other reasons the countries go to war over.

Well if we've learned anything from the past two world wars, it's that the Germans are the bad guys. They're going to do something weird, and then everybody will hate German-Canadians like me.

Oil or North Korea.

They're major pains in the asses and problems in this world.

The next germany i wonder who that will be.

wintercoat:

Wars cost trillions. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a rather small-scale war, and it cost trillions. The gains made form the war are nowhere near the cost, in lives lost, money spent, or resources used. A world war nowadays would cost an unbelievably ludicrous amount. In lives. In resources. In money. In world-wide stability. Even barring the use of nuclear arms, at the end of it all, the winner will be left with scraps no longer worth fighting for.

And that's why any sensible government wouldn't do it.

bauke67:

wintercoat:

Wars cost trillions. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a rather small-scale war, and it cost trillions. The gains made form the war are nowhere near the cost, in lives lost, money spent, or resources used. A world war nowadays would cost an unbelievably ludicrous amount. In lives. In resources. In money. In world-wide stability. Even barring the use of nuclear arms, at the end of it all, the winner will be left with scraps no longer worth fighting for.

And that's why any sensible government wouldn't do it.

If you can name one power country that could be reasonably described as sensible when it comes to resource acquisition, I'll concede the point.

Vegosiux:

Torrasque:
Like the last two World Wars, something retarded will start the next World War.
Either some big political figure is killed by someone and the targeted country has complications finding the assailant (because he is defended by his country, or fades into nothingness) or some government faction gets over zealous in some way that makes people freak out and start killing.

Well, the killing of Archduke Ferdinand wasn't exactly the reason for WW1, it was just the trigger, a convenient excuse Austria-Hungary and Germany needed.

Countries do not go to war over leaders being killed, really...but thing is, leaders usually do not get killed if the relations between the countries aren't hostile for other reasons in the first place. And it's those other reasons the countries go to war over.

Oh I know Franz wasn't the reason WW1 started, his death was just a great catalyst for the war. Kind of like how the death of a big political figure would be the catalyst for WW3. It doesn't have to be the leader of the country, it could be the Vice President, the ambassador to that country, the leader of a territory, or the leader of the opposition party. Basically, anyone important enough and popular enough for people to freak out when they are killed in some random country or by some random country.

Lets say that a group of officials goes over to Iran to check out their nuclear reactors because they think they are unsafe. In that group, you have the vice president of a country, a few key members of the ruling party of another country, some big name scientists (lets pretend Neil deGrasse Tyson has to go for some reason) and the president of another country. While at the reactor checking shit out, there is a meltdown and everyone dies. Very quickly after the meltdown, a terrorist group says "yeah, we did that shit. WHATS UP" and escapes into the shadows of lets say... the UK. All of the countries affected by the meltdown (directly and indirectly) are going to be "WTF UK, GO GET THOSE GUYS", but for whatever reason, the UK can't find them, or think its nbd. That would make relations between the UK and the affected countries, really shitty. If there was economic strain or political strain or some kind of big time strain (like the Greece problem for instance), then that meltdown might be a big enough catalyst to start WW3.

wintercoat:

If you can name one power country that could be reasonably described as sensible when it comes to resource acquisition, I'll concede the point.

I'm not sure wether we count as a "power country", but Dutch politicians wouldn't dare do anything radical or something the EU might disaprove of.(exceptions are there though)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked