How will World War 3 start?

finchy

Cheery Saturday evening subject. Wife's watching Strictly Come Dancing, so my thoughts naturally wandered to annihilation.

Frank the tank

I was just thinking the same, I've just watched my beloved Hucknall town get annihilated 5-0 so one annihilation in a weekend is enough for me fella.

finchy

Never mind, Norwich have just beaten Manchester United. Gives me hope for the post-apocalyptic wastelands.

Herbsman

worldwide helmet compulsion

Alain Quay

It will happen if China invades another major nation. No other scenario would be of WW status.

sungod

gf finding out how much my new wheels cost

ben@31

Some boffins reckon world war 3 has happened already, as proxy wars bewteen USA and the Soviet Union or countries backed by them.

Off the top of my head, this has involved...

Angola
Afghansistan
Chechnya
China
Cuba
Czechslovakia (Uprising / Invasion)
Egypt
Ethiopia
Georgia
Germany (Espionage)
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Korea
Lebanon
Somalia
Syria
Vietnam
Yugoslavia

Add to this, any incidents such as Garry Powers U2 getting shot down, nuclear submarines colliding (how do they explain submarines that are 150m long colliding in an ocean thats 106,400,000 square km? ) deliberate military flights into each others airspace, espionage, inciting revolts or regime change, etc.

So technically it's "How will WW4 (or even WW5) start" ?

edhornby

Didn't Einstein hypothesise "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

I think this is really quite prescient and Ben31's hypothesis also has validity - consider that we are developing drone warfare then we are in the middle of WW3 and WW4 will be decided by the side with the greatest troops just like the middle ages all over again

ben@31

edhornby wrote:

WW4 will be decided by the side with the greatest troops just like the middle ages all over again

True. Wars with Afghanistan and Vietnam have already shown this. The most powerful nations in the world with nuclear weapans and billion dollar aircraft carriers can't beat a peasant goat herder with a third hand rusty AK47.

We can't beat guerrilla warfare.

To wage war you need... 1 the will to fight, 2 the resources to fight and 3 the support of the people / regime. You shoot one peasant goat hearder with an Apache helicopter and he gets replaced by ten more. Then the Government who owns the Apache helicopter will lose the next election.

Having worked in the Armed Forces and seen them decimated by budget cuts to the point we are impossibly stretched. I reckon future wars will be decided by who runs out of money first. For example, one reason for Ronald Reagans star wars initiative was to force the Soviet Union to spend even more money on the arms race, in the end the Soviet Union could no longer afford the cold war.

OffTheBackAdam

It will be decided by who's got the best computer nerds, to disable the enemy's C&C, energy & other systems & services.
No need to invade, unless you want more land, of course.

napoleond

When NapD leaves MrsNapD's toilet seat down up more time...

cooldad

No doubt Wiggle will be to blame.

dmclite-3.0

When middle east oil runs out.........war time.

solosuperia

I seem to remember that water has been suggested as the catalyst that will start the next major conflict.

pinno

Aren't we in a World War right now ?

Lets take direct conflict for a start;

Isreal - Gaza/Egypt/Jordan/Iran add into the mix:
The civil war in Syria and the mess just bubbling away in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If we take war as a conflict, not necessarily with arms:

The war on the environment fuelled by Global capitalism and dwindling resources. The have want and the have nots have to say yes, obligated into economic slavery and struggling/failing to compete on a playing field heavily weighted towards those with the money and power..
We are currently:
Stripping away rainforest for:
Soya and beef production/feed and 'Bio-fuels'.
Farming plankton for animal feeds, thereby reducing whats available for marine life. Never mind the raping and pillaging of the seas.
The Chinese are poaching Ivory (and Rhino horn) like there is no tomorrow added to their wanton destruction of environments for mineral extraction in Africa.
The oIl industry is contemplating the destruction of the Arctic regions for oil.
Mongolia has an area the size of Wales which has been destroyed due to the extraction of Cobalt, Mercury and other minerals on a massive scale and now the leacheates have entered the water courses and a town of 22,000 people have been displaced as a direct result of the mining, never mind the fact that the area is like the surface of the moon. Nothing lives (and all because everyone wants the latest smart phone).
Brazil, Indonesia and Borneo are destroying rainforest by the hectare on a dailly basis.
The slow acidification of the seas due to combined effect of Carbon Dioxide and acid rain is a ticking time bomb and who knows what will happen next.

The list goes on.

We are in a global war right now. Its not necesserily in the conventional sense but its a war nonetheless - a war for and on finite resources.

Cleat Eastwood

pinarello001 wrote:

lots of stuff..

funnily enough I was just think much along the same lines - not necessarily about the environment but how local conflicts these days are stoked and exploited for global concerns. I'd add that the next big conflict will be when people realise the class war is still raging and every minor infraction has been to the benefit of the bourgeoisie.

Also the way things kick off on this forum it'll more than likely be started by an angry female communter - does angela merkel ride a bike.

The Ors

pinarello001 wrote:

Aren't we in a World War right now ?

We are in a global war right now. Its not necesserily in the conventional sense but its a war nonetheless - a war for and on finite resources.

Wot he said but add some religion into the mix!

verylonglegs

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

lots of stuff..

funnily enough I was just think much along the same lines - not necessarily about the environment but how local conflicts these days are stoked and exploited for global concerns. I'd add that the next big conflict will be when people realise the class war is still raging and every minor infraction has been to the benefit of the bourgeoisie.

Also the way things kick off on this forum it'll more than likely be started by an angry female communter - does angela merkel ride a bike.

Yeah, I've wondered this too, the threat of being controlled from corporatism rather than nation states imo is more dangerous. When you look at the size of the global mining companies for example, the amount of resources they seek to take control of and power they seem to wield, it's a little disturbing.

Peddle Up!

verylonglegs wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

lots of stuff..

funnily enough I was just think much along the same lines - not necessarily about the environment but how local conflicts these days are stoked and exploited for global concerns. I'd add that the next big conflict will be when people realise the class war is still raging and every minor infraction has been to the benefit of the bourgeoisie.

Also the way things kick off on this forum it'll more than likely be started by an angry female communter - does angela merkel ride a bike.

Yeah, I've wondered this too, the threat of being controlled from corporatism rather than nation states imo is more dangerous. When you look at the size of the global mining companies for example, the amount of resources they seek to take control of and power they seem to wield, it's a little disturbing.

Yep. Neo-cons vs the rest of us.

rick_chasey

Won't be one for a while.

WW1 was old 19th Century European politics played out in 20th Century - with all the globality that comes with it. I doubt that'll be repated.

WW2 - was where a western world was fundamentally politically divided with regard to ideology and nationalism was especially tied up within that. Those conditions don't exist anymore, nor does the Western powers have enough colonial reach to draw other continents into their war to make it a 'world' war.

Nowadays, however people might govern their people, broadly speaking most nations are 'free-market' in some form or other - even China.

I don't see any conditions where one or two wars that could conceivably kick off leading to nations from across the world being drawn in and fighting their own wars.

So I can't see it happening in this current enviroment at all.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Won't be one for a while.

WW1 was old 19th Century European politics played out in 20th Century - with all the globality that comes with it. I doubt that'll be repated.

WW2 - was where a western world was fundamentally politically divided with regard to ideology and nationalism was especially tied up within that. Those conditions don't exist anymore, nor does the Western powers have enough colonial reach to draw other continents into their war to make it a 'world' war.

Nowadays, however people might govern their people, broadly speaking most nations are 'free-market' in some form or other - even China.

I don't see any conditions where one or two wars that could conceivably kick off leading to nations from across the world being drawn in and fighting their own wars.

So I can't see it happening in this current enviroment at all.

I hope you are right, but the question is what will happen if the current environment changes quickly?

rick_chasey

To what?

China is unmanagable enough as it is for its current leaders that they spend almost all of their time trying to deal with their own internal issues to worry about starting a big war.

How would all the continents get involved without the colonial empires?

I genuinely can't see a situation where that would happen.

World wars are a symptom of colonialism.

Peddle Up!

Rick Chasey wrote:

To what?

China is unmanagable enough as it is for its current leaders that they spend almost all of their time trying to deal with their own internal issues to worry about starting a big war.

How would all the continents get involved without the colonial empires?

I genuinely can't see a situation where that would happen.

World wars are a symptom of colonialism.

But with globalisation come new opportunities to wage war?

Cleat Eastwood

and colonialism is just capitalism in its purest unadulterated form - the conditions for conflict seem just about right.


As a side note, I see, as ever, the capitalist west have no regard for the small change
"BBC correspondents say the strike targeted a Hamas official and that a number of children were killed."

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

To what?

China is unmanagable enough as it is for its current leaders that they spend almost all of their time trying to deal with their own internal issues to worry about starting a big war.

How would all the continents get involved without the colonial empires?

I genuinely can't see a situation where that would happen.

World wars are a symptom of colonialism.

We don't have formal colonialism anymore, but what about, for example, economic colonialism in Africa? Developed countries buying up MASSIVE amounts of agricultural land in a fairly volatile part of the world. With the amounts of water needed in modern agriculture, wars over water might lead to major powers being sucked in.

confused@BR

The U S A is becoming self-sufficient in petrochemicals within a reliable period thanks to 'fracking'. This has changed everything but few have troubled themselves to notice. Suddenly, all those oil reserves in Russia and the Middle East have lost importance.

Whether this makes the State of Israel more or less viable I have no idea, although it is Religion plus Water Rights that is going to be the trigger in that part of the world.

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

To what?

China is unmanagable enough as it is for its current leaders that they spend almost all of their time trying to deal with their own internal issues to worry about starting a big war.

How would all the continents get involved without the colonial empires?

I genuinely can't see a situation where that would happen.

World wars are a symptom of colonialism.

We don't have formal colonialism anymore, but what about, for example, economic colonialism in Africa? Developed countries buying up MASSIVE amounts of agricultural land in a fairly volatile part of the world. With the amounts of water needed in modern agriculture, wars over water might lead to major powers being sucked in.

The world isn't going to go into war about water any time soon.

People have been prophesising world wars about resources for years and years and they never develop.

You get the odd gunboat politics from the west in a few key nations but that's about it.

I mean the states is about to become an oil exporter again by the end of the year for starters.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

To what?

China is unmanagable enough as it is for its current leaders that they spend almost all of their time trying to deal with their own internal issues to worry about starting a big war.

How would all the continents get involved without the colonial empires?

I genuinely can't see a situation where that would happen.

World wars are a symptom of colonialism.

We don't have formal colonialism anymore, but what about, for example, economic colonialism in Africa? Developed countries buying up MASSIVE amounts of agricultural land in a fairly volatile part of the world. With the amounts of water needed in modern agriculture, wars over water might lead to major powers being sucked in.

The world isn't going to go into war about water any time soon.

People have been prophesising world wars about resources for years and years and they never develop.

You get the odd gunboat politics from the west in a few key nations but that's about it.

I mean the states is about to become an oil exporter again by the end of the year for starters.

Despite my gloomy title, I actually share your optimism that WW3 is not about to kick off. However, just because something has not happened yet, does not mean that it will not happen in the future. Very few people predicted the fall of the Soviet Union and WW2 might have been unthinkable to those living in 1935. In 10 years time, you might be looking back at WW3 and saying "so that's how it all happened" - although as I say, I don't think you will.

Peddle Up!

johnfinch wrote:

Despite my gloomy title, I actually share your optimism that WW3 is not about to kick off. However, just because something has not happened yet, does not mean that it will not happen in the future. Very few people predicted the fall of the Soviet Union and WW2 might have been unthinkable to those living in 1935. In 10 years time, you might be looking back at WW3 and saying "so that's how it all happened" - although as I say, I don't think you will.

Of course these days there is a highly important factor in deciding whether or not to go to war. Nukes.

finchy

confused@BR wrote:

The U S A is becoming self-sufficient in petrochemicals within a reliable period thanks to 'fracking'. This has changed everything but few have troubled themselves to notice. Suddenly, all those oil reserves in Russia and the Middle East have lost importance.

Whether this makes the State of Israel more or less viable I have no idea, although it is Religion plus Water Rights that is going to be the trigger in that part of the world.

This assumes that shale gas will live up to its expectations - an assumption which is not without its challengers.

http://www.postcarbon.org/report/331901 ... america-in
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8914
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26 ... cp=12&_r=0

pb21

I think there are a few things going on at the moment which could lead to bigger conflicts down the road.

Food shortages and increasing prices.
Issues with energy security and increasing prices.
An increasing segregation between the rich and the poor, those who have food and energy and those that don’t.