Is World War 3 starting to happen?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Posted by TigerSuperman (3489 posts) 1 year, 2 months ago

Poll: Is World War 3 starting to happen? (54 votes)

Yes 15%
No 83%

Even after WW2, things were not full solved. Middle Eastern conflict rose higher than before, and countries who joined the UN or stayed quiet from most outside media have also had bottled up conflicts. There are several issues with Asian and South American countries growing, North Korea is getting more weapon ready and now...

We got an actual coup in the Ukraine. Are the signs back?

#1 Edited by Master_Live (15772 posts) -

No. But if it does, I welcome our new Russian masters.

Loading Video...

#2 Posted by vfibsux (4252 posts) -

No. Look up the Cold War, if it didn't happen then it won't happen now.

#3 Posted by ferrari2001 (17295 posts) -

Probably not but it is a rather scary situation brewing. Russia being allowed to invade any country that they choose sets a bad precedent for foreign policy and could lead to more conflicts in the area. Although the use of military force against Russia in order to prevent such action will also result in more conflicts in the area. It's a difficult situation and with the absolutely dreadful state of the U.S. foreign policy I don't see many positive outcomes from this situation.

#4 Posted by themajormayor (24200 posts) -

It will be a world of much better music:

Loading Video...
Loading Video...
Loading Video...
Loading Video...
Loading Video...

#5 Posted by wis3boi (31956 posts) -

^ what, no Katyusha? Shame on you D:


@topic, no, it isnt

#6 Edited by JML897 (33133 posts) -

There won't be a World War 3. Wars today are fought much differently than in the past so even if the US/EU have a conflict with Russia it wouldn't be a "World War"

#7 Posted by sherman-tank1 (8192 posts) -

@vfibsux: That is terrible logic but no. Right now the only likely scenario is if a naval clash occurs in the South China Sea which results in escalation.

#8 Edited by vfibsux (4252 posts) -

@sherman-tank1 said:

@vfibsux: That is terrible logic but no. Right now the only likely scenario is if a naval clash occurs in the South China Sea which results in escalation.

Ummm no it is not terrible logic it is common f'ing sense. We were at a constant state of being on the brink of WW3 for decades and it never happened, that was not by mere chance. Nothing has changed, we are still both too powerful to go to war with each other. The reason NATO is not saber rattling is because they are not going to do anything. Even if NATO pushed into Western Ukraine to defend it, even if shots were exchanged, it would surely deescalate before a full blown WW3 materialized because neither side wants it. WW3 would require the Russians mounting a full on offensive of Europe, not a "naval clash". What do you think Obama would do if Russia sunk one of our ships right now? Just one. Do you think we start carpet bombing Moscow? Do you think we even retaliate militarily other than moving assets into the area and bombing Russia with harsh words?

Not going to happen dude.

#9 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5489 posts) -

You wish. Americans and their wars!

#10 Edited by vfibsux (4252 posts) -

@TheWalkingGhost said:

You wish. Americans and their wars!

.....says the Off-Topic poster as Russia invades another country.

Wow.

#11 Edited by one_plum (6364 posts) -

Not yet, but it's going to be a matter of time when world resources get scarcer.

#12 Posted by sherman-tank1 (8192 posts) -

@vfibsux: First of all it is not the same. We are two decades removed from the Cold War. Different times, different people, different technology, different scenarios. Secondly I'm not talking about Russia. I'm talking about the Chinese aggression in the Pacific. And I don't think a World War will happen either. I'm just saying that your reasoning isn't very full proof and what the most likely event is that causes the third World War as of right now, however slim.

#13 Posted by metal_zombie (2288 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

@TheWalkingGhost said:

You wish. Americans and their wars!

.....says the Off-Topic poster as Russia invades another country.

Wow.

I sure it's americas fault that russia invaded smh

#14 Edited by vfibsux (4252 posts) -

@sherman-tank1 said:

@vfibsux: First of all it is not the same. We are two decades removed from the Cold War. Different times, different people, different technology, different scenarios. Secondly I'm not talking about Russia. I'm talking about the Chinese aggression in the Pacific. And I don't think a World War will happen either. I'm just saying that your reasoning isn't very full proof and what the most likely event is that causes the third World War as of right now, however slim.

Well I was not talking about China, I was talking about what is going on right now.....and when it comes to NATO/Russia scenarios my reasoning is just fine. It is the same, WW3 would destroy our countries and perhaps the world if it got to that....which is why it did not happen and why it will not happen in our lifetime.

And a China/Taiwan scenario isn't going to cause a WW either.

#15 Posted by sherman-tank1 (8192 posts) -

@vfibsux: I agree when it comes to NATO/Russia. However, Russia has taken a back seat to China now. I'm not sure if you heard, but China and Japan have serious territorial disputes recently. Not only that but there hatred for each other is still alive and well. I think it will brush over but there is a possibility things can go further. Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines are also having disputes of their own with China, which is why the US and Vietnam have become allies in recent years. I also think you make the mistake of Asiatic culture having the same thought process as us. To us it would make sense not to commence a world war with all these powerful weapons and over such measly gains, but their thinking is a beast of its own. They aren't as predictable as we would like to think.

#16 Edited by vfibsux (4252 posts) -

@sherman-tank1 said:

@vfibsux: I agree when it comes to NATO/Russia. However, Russia has taken a back seat to China now. I'm not sure if you heard, but China and Japan have serious territorial disputes recently. Not only that but there hatred for each other is still alive and well. I think it will brush over but there is a possibility things can go further. Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines are also having disputes of their own with China, which is why the US and Vietnam have become allies in recent years. I also think you make the mistake of Asiatic culture having the same thought process as us. To us it would make sense not to commence a world war with all these powerful weapons and over such measly gains, but their thinking is a beast of its own. They aren't as predictable as we would like to think.

Yea but the disputes are over stupid little rocks in the middle of the ocean, there is always a chance of an altercation but I doubt it leads to anything substantial. The biggest threat in the next 20 years is China taking Taiwan, and they will at some point. The way they are developing their anti-U.S. arsenal they are going to take it at a time of their choosing, give them another 10 years or so and they will be ready. The last time they tried all it took was one carrier group to dissuade them, they will be ready this time.

And I don't say a World War will not happen due to their culture or thinking, but rather ours. We will back down before it gets to that. The only way it becomes a world war is if we truly feel we're next.

#17 Posted by sherman-tank1 (8192 posts) -

@vfibsux: I think China is trying to take Taiwan from the inside actually. Who knows I guess. The whole concept of another world war scares me.

#18 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

No. The threat of Mutual Assured Destruction is too strong for WWIII to occur.

#19 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

If I had a dime for every time someone said that in my lifetime, I'd be rich. I'm just plain immune to it now, doesn't scare me one tiddly bit. Valar morghulis.

#20 Edited by lonewolf604 (8538 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

No. The threat of Mutual Assured Destruction is too strong for WWIII to occur.

This is my view as well, but the thought of some maniac who actually wants world destruction is scary. But I guess maniacs want a "world" to conquer anyway. You can't really build a kingdom on nuclear waste lands.

#21 Posted by jcknapier711 (470 posts) -

Technically speaking, we should be going to war against Russia, because we signed a treaty with the Ukraine that we would defend them. If we go to war against Russia, they probably have agreements with other countries. No doubt North Korea would probably take chaos as an excuse. Same with certain powers in the Middle East. With the American military distracted in Europe, who knows what could happen?

I personally do not believe in the MAD principle anymore. There are too few people these days in 1st world countries who truly remember what the horrors of war are like. Sure, you may have watched a film film or two or more likely something less disturbing on youtube, but you haven't smelled the rotted burnt flesh and seen your buddy twitching and dying where you and he were having a laugh a moment before, etc, etc.

#22 Edited by Toxic-Seahorse (4328 posts) -

@jcknapier711 said:

Technically speaking, we should be going to war against Russia, because we signed a treaty with the Ukraine that we would defend them. If we go to war against Russia, they probably have agreements with other countries. No doubt North Korea would probably take chaos as an excuse. Same with certain powers in the Middle East. With the American military distracted in Europe, who knows what could happen?

I personally do not believe in the MAD principle anymore. There are too few people these days in 1st world countries who truly remember what the horrors of war are like. Sure, you may have watched a film film or two or more likely something less disturbing on youtube, but you haven't smelled the rotted burnt flesh and seen your buddy twitching and dying where you and he were having a laugh a moment before, etc, etc.

Not necessarily. Honoring our defense promise to Ukraine doesn't have to mean war with Russia. Just send troops to surround Crimea to intimidate. Russia isn't going to attack. Neither side wants a war between the West and Russia (which would be heavily lopsided anyways).

As for the topic, Putin isn't dumb enough to get into a war with the west. Not only would it be lopsided int he west's favor, but what does he have to gain anyways? A couple of broke Eastern European countries? I guess easier access to water for naval units, but that's not really a good cause to fight a war they would most likely lose. If Putin was crazy enough to want to take over Europe or start a nuclear war, he would have already tried by now.

#23 Posted by vfibsux (4252 posts) -

@jcknapier711 said:

Technically speaking, we should be going to war against Russia, because we signed a treaty with the Ukraine that we would defend them.

It is a myth, and ironically Russia signed it too lol.

4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;

#24 Posted by jcknapier711 (470 posts) -

@Toxic-Seahorse said:

@jcknapier711 said:

Technically speaking, we should be going to war against Russia, because we signed a treaty with the Ukraine that we would defend them. If we go to war against Russia, they probably have agreements with other countries. No doubt North Korea would probably take chaos as an excuse. Same with certain powers in the Middle East. With the American military distracted in Europe, who knows what could happen?

I personally do not believe in the MAD principle anymore. There are too few people these days in 1st world countries who truly remember what the horrors of war are like. Sure, you may have watched a film film or two or more likely something less disturbing on youtube, but you haven't smelled the rotted burnt flesh and seen your buddy twitching and dying where you and he were having a laugh a moment before, etc, etc.

Not necessarily. Honoring our defense promise to Ukraine doesn't have to mean war with Russia. Just send troops to surround Crimea to intimidate. Russia isn't going to attack. Neither side wants a war between the West and Russia (which would be heavily lopsided anyways).

As for the topic, Putin isn't dumb enough to get into a war with the west. Not only would it be lopsided int he west's favor, but what does he have to gain anyways? A couple of broke Eastern European countries? I guess easier access to water for naval units, but that's not really a good cause to fight a war they would most likely lose. If Putin was crazy enough to want to take over Europe or start a nuclear war, he would have already tried by now.

Just like we're kicking the tar out of the Iraqi's there in Fallujah? Sorry, but if we can't even conquer third world countries like Afghanistan, we don't have a prayer against Russia. Superior firepower or not.

(PS: I know Fallujah isn't in Afghanistan. I just know some knucklehead is going to correct me for something I don't think.)

#25 Edited by sherman-tank1 (8192 posts) -

@jcknapier711: Afghanistan is a very different case. Research the situation a little more so you understand why the US has struggles there. In straight up total war US wins hands down. Not to mention Russia's military has many logistical and morale problems evident in Chechnya. In case you didn't know they have been struggling to defeat an enemy far less sophisticated than the Taliban since the mid-90s.

#26 Posted by vfibsux (4252 posts) -

@jcknapier711 said:

@Toxic-Seahorse said:

@jcknapier711 said:

Technically speaking, we should be going to war against Russia, because we signed a treaty with the Ukraine that we would defend them. If we go to war against Russia, they probably have agreements with other countries. No doubt North Korea would probably take chaos as an excuse. Same with certain powers in the Middle East. With the American military distracted in Europe, who knows what could happen?

I personally do not believe in the MAD principle anymore. There are too few people these days in 1st world countries who truly remember what the horrors of war are like. Sure, you may have watched a film film or two or more likely something less disturbing on youtube, but you haven't smelled the rotted burnt flesh and seen your buddy twitching and dying where you and he were having a laugh a moment before, etc, etc.

Not necessarily. Honoring our defense promise to Ukraine doesn't have to mean war with Russia. Just send troops to surround Crimea to intimidate. Russia isn't going to attack. Neither side wants a war between the West and Russia (which would be heavily lopsided anyways).

As for the topic, Putin isn't dumb enough to get into a war with the west. Not only would it be lopsided int he west's favor, but what does he have to gain anyways? A couple of broke Eastern European countries? I guess easier access to water for naval units, but that's not really a good cause to fight a war they would most likely lose. If Putin was crazy enough to want to take over Europe or start a nuclear war, he would have already tried by now.

Just like we're kicking the tar out of the Iraqi's there in Fallujah? Sorry, but if we can't even conquer third world countries like Afghanistan, we don't have a prayer against Russia. Superior firepower or not.

(PS: I know Fallujah isn't in Afghanistan. I just know some knucklehead is going to correct me for something I don't think.)

You are talking apples and oranges here.

First of all we never went into Iraq or Afghanistan to "conquer" and we succeeded in what our goals were- oust the Taliban from power and deny al Qaeda a safe haven to train and launch attacks from. We also got Bin Laden. The only thing left is to leave it to where the Afghans can handle things. Iraq was the same story, we never went in with the intention of "conquering" them. And I am not sure what you are talking about, but Americans are not in fallujah fighting Iraqis in 2014. I think you need to go back and research what is going on there.

A war against another superpower would not be about conquering either, it would be about inflicting unacceptable losses to the other side where they withdraw from the fight, period. That is about as close to a "win" as anyone would get. And I don't know where you get your ideas from, but we absolutely could handle the Russians or any other country on this Earth. Don't judge our military based on counterinsurgency ops. And there is much to say for experience as well, being at war for over a decade gives you quite an edge over a country that has simply been in training mode.

#27 Posted by amalager (121 posts) -

Nope, I don't think so. Too much is at stake for all of the countries who will be involved. Or probably they will if it will kick-start their economic growth or at least alleviate their financial problems, they might do so. But of course I wouldn't want WW III to happen---it's too troublesome.

#28 Posted by foxhound_fox (90605 posts) -

Impossible to say.

Did people think WWI was going to start when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated?

#29 Edited by Toxic-Seahorse (4328 posts) -

@jcknapier711 said:

@Toxic-Seahorse said:

@jcknapier711 said:

Technically speaking, we should be going to war against Russia, because we signed a treaty with the Ukraine that we would defend them. If we go to war against Russia, they probably have agreements with other countries. No doubt North Korea would probably take chaos as an excuse. Same with certain powers in the Middle East. With the American military distracted in Europe, who knows what could happen?

I personally do not believe in the MAD principle anymore. There are too few people these days in 1st world countries who truly remember what the horrors of war are like. Sure, you may have watched a film film or two or more likely something less disturbing on youtube, but you haven't smelled the rotted burnt flesh and seen your buddy twitching and dying where you and he were having a laugh a moment before, etc, etc.

Not necessarily. Honoring our defense promise to Ukraine doesn't have to mean war with Russia. Just send troops to surround Crimea to intimidate. Russia isn't going to attack. Neither side wants a war between the West and Russia (which would be heavily lopsided anyways).

As for the topic, Putin isn't dumb enough to get into a war with the west. Not only would it be lopsided int he west's favor, but what does he have to gain anyways? A couple of broke Eastern European countries? I guess easier access to water for naval units, but that's not really a good cause to fight a war they would most likely lose. If Putin was crazy enough to want to take over Europe or start a nuclear war, he would have already tried by now.

Just like we're kicking the tar out of the Iraqi's there in Fallujah? Sorry, but if we can't even conquer third world countries like Afghanistan, we don't have a prayer against Russia. Superior firepower or not.

(PS: I know Fallujah isn't in Afghanistan. I just know some knucklehead is going to correct me for something I don't think.)

Not even close the the same situation. Not to mention it would be all of the West vs Russia, not just the U.S. Our numbers alone would dwarf them even before we consider the superior technology our army has.

Insurgents are much more difficult to fight than a national army. They hide among civilians and use hit and run tactics. We never tried to conquer Afghanistan and Iraq (although we easily defeated the Iraqi military in under a week) but we took over each country easily and then turned it over to the people who live there. We accomplished our mission (whether that's good or was worth it is a different topic) but again, the Russian military aren't insurgents.

This whole discussion is dumb though because a war between Russia and the West is never going to happen. Neither side wants it. Russia would back down if the U.S. or EU would send troops to protect Ukraine. Not send troops to fight the Russians in Crimea, but just to sit on the border of Crimea and intimidate.

#30 Posted by coasterguy65 (6253 posts) -

It's doubtful, I don't think we will ever see a World War 3. As a person who lived through the cold war I can tell you this is really nothing compared to the escalations that happened during the Soviet era, and that was with Presidents that had balls. My prediction....Obama will draw his "red line", Putin will do whatever the hell he wants, and Obama will do nothing but complain.

#31 Edited by lamprey263 (25403 posts) -

Well, if Russia got into it pretty bad with the United States and UK and other counties that might join the fight, who knows what could follow. Maybe North Korea sees a window to attack South Korea, maybe Iran gets involved, but I think it's going to take quite a bit of development to get there, no need to jump the gun and assume the worst.

#32 Edited by -Renegade (8340 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

No. But if it does, I welcome our new Russian masters.

aint no country strong enough or has enough allies to take down the USA. we got nukes you cant fuck with a country that has nuclear power. thats why ukraine is getting its ass handed to it right now. they were dumb enough to let them take away their nukes.

anyways there would have to be some catastrophic event to start a world war 3. it just wont happen.

#33 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17713 posts) -

Tensions have been worse and yet WW3 didn't break out.

Quite frankly with mutually assured destruction I don't see any World War happening again. No matter how pissy leaders get they still don't want to die, and everything being destroyed accomplishes nothing for anyone.

#34 Posted by Stesilaus (3520 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

@TheWalkingGhost said:

You wish. Americans and their wars!

.....says the Off-Topic poster as Russia invades liberates another country.

Fixed. :P

#35 Posted by hippiesanta (9987 posts) -

It already happened since 9/11 attack ...

and according to Nostradamus ..... WW3 will be scattered everywhere and not at the same time

#36 Edited by vedette20 (15 posts) -

I think people in every country learned lesson from history, although it might happen.

#37 Posted by indzman (19965 posts) -

I wish america to rule world after WW III, greatest country EVER !!!

#38 Posted by thegerg (15911 posts) -

@jcknapier711 said:

@Toxic-Seahorse said:

@jcknapier711 said:

Technically speaking, we should be going to war against Russia, because we signed a treaty with the Ukraine that we would defend them. If we go to war against Russia, they probably have agreements with other countries. No doubt North Korea would probably take chaos as an excuse. Same with certain powers in the Middle East. With the American military distracted in Europe, who knows what could happen?

I personally do not believe in the MAD principle anymore. There are too few people these days in 1st world countries who truly remember what the horrors of war are like. Sure, you may have watched a film film or two or more likely something less disturbing on youtube, but you haven't smelled the rotted burnt flesh and seen your buddy twitching and dying where you and he were having a laugh a moment before, etc, etc.

Not necessarily. Honoring our defense promise to Ukraine doesn't have to mean war with Russia. Just send troops to surround Crimea to intimidate. Russia isn't going to attack. Neither side wants a war between the West and Russia (which would be heavily lopsided anyways).

As for the topic, Putin isn't dumb enough to get into a war with the west. Not only would it be lopsided int he west's favor, but what does he have to gain anyways? A couple of broke Eastern European countries? I guess easier access to water for naval units, but that's not really a good cause to fight a war they would most likely lose. If Putin was crazy enough to want to take over Europe or start a nuclear war, he would have already tried by now.

Just like we're kicking the tar out of the Iraqi's there in Fallujah? Sorry, but if we can't even conquer third world countries like Afghanistan, we don't have a prayer against Russia. Superior firepower or not.

(PS: I know Fallujah isn't in Afghanistan. I just know some knucklehead is going to correct me for something I don't think.)

What makes you thnk that the US can't conquer Afghanistan?

#39 Posted by Master_Live (15772 posts) -

@-Renegade said:

@Master_Live said:

No. But if it does, I welcome our new Russian masters.

aint no country strong enough or has enough allies to take down the USA. we got nukes you cant fuck with a country that has nuclear power. thats why ukraine is getting its ass handed to it right now. they were dumb enough to let them take away their nukes.

#40 Posted by Flubbbs (3533 posts) -

no.. NATO is a bunch of p^ssies.. not that i want to see it happen or anything

#41 Posted by vfibsux (4252 posts) -

@Stesilaus said:

@vfibsux said:

@TheWalkingGhost said:

You wish. Americans and their wars!

.....says the Off-Topic poster as Russia invades liberates another country.

Fixed. :P

Please tell me you are trolling.

#42 Posted by chaplainDMK (6908 posts) -

Well aint this just dandy

#43 Posted by deeliman (3455 posts) -

@vfibsux If I recall correctly, he has autism.

#44 Posted by uninspiredcup (12383 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

No. But if it does, I welcome our new Russian masters.

Loading Video...

Easily the best national anthem.

#45 Posted by vfibsux (4252 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@vfibsux If I recall correctly, he has autism.

??

Stesilaus?

#46 Posted by deeliman (3455 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

@deeliman said:

@vfibsux If I recall correctly, he has autism.

??

Stesilaus?

Yes.

#47 Posted by BattleSpectre (6871 posts) -

Yes, you suckers can enjoy fighting. I'm going to be sitting back in my bunker enjoying my next-gen systems.

#48 Posted by Gaming-Planet (14360 posts) -

I'll surrender and join up with Russia.

I'll be the the guy who leaks top secret information.

#49 Posted by Big_Pecks (5597 posts) -

Russia won't get it off the ground.