eastbank Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 world war 3 will happen when and if the powers that be decide...in the meantime i'm off to the boozer....hope it doesn't start yet....i've booked to go to bristol t'morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barpen Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 not, the fact that we've only ever had 2 world wars does sort of confirm this Flawed logic I'm afraid. The reason why WW1 was the first world war was because before that the World lacked the resources to fight wars on a global scale. So in the last 100 years there were 2 and very nearly a third. I'm sad to say that we are probably about due for one. I suspect that some nutter will get hold of a nuclear weapon and explode it in a major city. The government of that country will look for a likely regime to blame and nuke 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 WW2 was really WW1.1, and the Cold War was really WW1.2 - neither would have happened if it wasn't for the first one. The current war on terror is only happening as a result of us arming the Middle East in a hope they'll join us against the Russians. a ww3 wouldnt just get rid of the bad guys and the people that dragged the country to its knees would it, millions of innocent people will die in the process. Unfortunately it wouldn't get rid of the bad guys either, just under half of them at most. The winning ones will always live (but be portrayed as heroes), and a handful of the losing ones will go into hiding for a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Squirrel Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Future world war is very probable but how it is executed is another question. Nuclear war is very unlikely because although it is described as 'the ultimate deterrent', it is no longer a truly viable weapon. WMD's were developed at a time where wars were dependent largely on 'carpet bombing' of areas to secure infrastructure was eliminated sufficiently. Back in the day, the good 'ole Nuke was sure to decimate large areas of land/industry etc without sacrificing manpower of the striking side and its huge devastating capabilities ensured almost 100% success but the downsides were equally huge. Following a Nuclear attack, contamination of the area(s) is not only devastating locally for many years afterwards but can also have worldwide effects, possibly effecting the 'striking' side from afar... Plus, as most warfare is conducted with a purpose in mind (other than to destroy the enemy) Invasion usually follows bombing raids with a view to occupy the bombed enemy area. This can prove very tricky and hazardous when the area you intend your troops to invade and occupy is heavily contaminated land with contaminated supplies (water etc) Modern warfare is no longer so dependent on 'carpet bombing' or the need specifically to destroy large areas of land/industry etc to achieve the desired results.. Laser and GPS guided missiles can destroy significant strategic targets more accurately without the need for such weaponry and without the massive consequences to civilians, land, resources and own welfare. Any future world war is likely to be very precise and tactical to the point of almost being surgical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SYorksDeano Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 World War 3 has already started. Our lass has just said "does my arse look big in this" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steptoad Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I thought we were already fighting WW3, we're in the early years, but I'm pretty sure we've kicked off already. It just that the not all the participants have handed in their entry forms yet and opposing teams haven't been finalized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAxe Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Israel already kicked it off, all we need now is escalation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Flawed logic I'm afraid. The reason why WW1 was the first world war was because before that the World lacked the resources to fight wars on a global scale. So in the last 100 years there were 2 and very nearly a third. I'm sad to say that we are probably about due for one. I suspect that some nutter will get hold of a nuclear weapon and explode it in a major city. The government of that country will look for a likely regime to blame and nuke 'em. The Romans might not have agreed with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 will there ever be one i mean, the war on terror is never ending and all governments will always make up excuses to invade this country or attack that 9/11 was a monumental let down, even though i passionately believe that the US government had a major hand in it all, i think that was the point to go and flatten most of the world and get these nutters once and for all but they did not, and just made up a dumb war which can never be won troops fighting and dying under complete lies, just for world power and corrupt financial gains, this is true so where will all this end, i believe that the likes of Wikileaks, Michael Moore and Zeitgeist are the way forward for us all, people who are passionate about social change and open information will we ever have a nuclear war, a chemical war or will the war on terror be around in a hundred years time i have opened a can of worms here, so i will let the board speak for itself yes ww3 will happen. when is the problem. my money is around the time of peak oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitch_1980 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 yes ww3 will happen. when is the problem. my money is around the time of peak oil. I wonder if thats the reason some people dont want to admit we have an oil problem? Oh and some scientists already think we have past the peak as we are using more than we are drilling etc. Then you have the fact that some countries may have lied about how many barrels they have in storage... Can someone tell me if this is true......was there a while back a sanction that said "countries can only bring up more oil if they already have that amount in storage" ....which if true...is stupid as it gives countries a reason to lie about how much they have in storage so they can drill more etc....but as i said, can someone tell me if this is true? Anyway back to the question....... yes..... and within 100 years.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.