Been wondering this for ages. If there where ever a world war 3 would it be the same as the 1st and 2nd world war where nearly every one had to pitch in to do something and everything came to a stand still or would it be different today with different tech and other factors?. Think world war 3 is closer then ever be for with all the things what happening around the world its only a matter of time in my opinion.
If we make Gaben world leader there will never be a WWIII... but if it happends it will probably mean the end of the most part of humanity with all these weapons....
All I know is that I hope I've already died of old age if countries just say "**** it" to mutual assured destruction.
Of course I hope that never happens though.
We're just a pale blue dot floating through space. Everything we've ever done as a species will become utterly meaningless if we somehow mange to wipe ourselves out through sheer stupidity (and I hope to hell even grorious reader realises this).
Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba destroys NATO, the USA, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Japan. Then Russia and China rules the world. Then the hipsters and SJWs can live in the world of their dreams. The end.
Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba destroys NATO, the USA, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Japan. Then Russia and China rules the world. Then the hipsters and SJWs can live in the world of their dreams. The end.
Why would hipsters and SJWs want Russia and China ruling the world?
Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba destroys NATO, the USA, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Japan. Then Russia and China rules the world. Then the hipsters and SJWs can live in the world of their dreams. The end.
I don't believe WWIII will be a hot war (at least not until the end), it's most likely to be an economic war that we are already involved in. Technology and the economy has somewhat removed the need to physically battle countries to do incredible damage to a population, just look at the US and their shit economy for one example. We can all thank the banking syndicates for this, they are to blame for all major wars.
Of course these fuckwads in the US government certainly do love to blow shit up from far away, their idiotic tactics could always come into play at a moments notice. *shrug*
Maybe the existence of nuclear weapons has prevented a third World War, because countries know that if they start a war it could go nuclear and if it goes nuclear they all lose (or to quote Benedict XVI "in a nuclear war there are no victors, only victims"),
@gamerguru100 said:
@samanthademeste said:
Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba destroys NATO, the USA, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Japan. Then Russia and China rules the world. Then the hipsters and SJWs can live in the world of their dreams. The end.
Why would hipsters and SJWs want Russia and China ruling the world?
Some of them probably would. In some circles it is seen as chic and sophisticated to be "critical" of the U.S. and the West in general and to place much of the blame on them. Of course this is more sophomoric sophistry then it is actual sophisticated thinking. If Russia and China ever were to rule the world, those "hipsters and SJWs" would eventually come to see the error of their ways as their precious ideals are trampled under foot.
Afraid? I think the only person that's afraid is you, since you're scrambling to avoid the point by playing games. Nothing is new about extremism. It's not fiction generated by American policy makers.
The only people that think America is at war with Islam are extremists. Just because we have bases in some Muslim countries and have conducted drone strikes in others doesn't mean what you're trying to show. You can't conduct a global war on terrorism without being active in the regions where it's prevalent.
They should use paint guns for war ! That way the injured survive. WAR is no answer.
War is most definitely an answer under certain circumstances.
Hey i understand when there is no choice do what you must, but don't use soldiers to do it. I don't believe in using others as pawn. I believe if there is no choice, use one bomb, finish the area outward from the middle. End it once and for all, this is the only exception i believe is right.
the only reason you don't see it as a "war" is because one side is completely dominating over the other.
Nobody is at war with muslims, everybody is at war with terrorists, which, unfortunately and lately have been primarily muslim extremists.
Which, btw are NOT YOUR "BROTHERS" pal, any of them will gladly and willingly put a bullet in your skull in an eye blink ( even though beheading has become favorite lately ).
They should use paint guns for war ! That way the injured survive. WAR is no answer.
War is most definitely an answer under certain circumstances.
Hey i understand when there is no choice do what you must, but don't use soldiers to do it. I don't believe in using others as pawn. I believe if there is no choice, use one bomb, finish the area outward from the middle. End it once and for all, this is the only exception i believe is right.
Why shouldn't we use our VOLUNTEER armed forces? Using a nuclear weapon should be the last resort. There are many different levels of actions that can be taken before we need to use something of that magnitude. I'm not sure why you believe indiscriminate killing (which a nuclear blast would most likely achieve) is better than targeted military action by men and women who signed up to perform such duties.
Afraid? I think the only person that's afraid is you, since you're scrambling to avoid the point by playing games. Nothing is new about extremism. It's not fiction generated by American policy makers.
The only people that think America is at war with Islam are extremists. Just because we have bases in some Muslim countries and have conducted drone strikes in others doesn't mean what you're trying to show. You can't conduct a global war on terrorism without being active in the regions where it's prevalent.
Don't bother. I refuse to believe he is doing this unintentionally.
is the us were really at war with all muslims there wouldn't be any more muslims.
US was at war with the Vietnamese... Vietnamese won and are still around.
US went to Iraq and Afghanistan... accomplished nothing, terrorist are better than ever now.
Somebody has a shitty memory. We won the war against Iraq in 72 hours. We occupied Afghanistan for 10 years. The only thing Afghanistan shows us is the insurgency is more patient than some of our populace and elected officials. Shocking.
It will never happen. The world is too connected and dependent on one another. There would have to be drastic changes that would lead to another World War (i.e. Massive trade embargoes, nationalism on the rise, economic depression around the world, significant terrorism or state-terrorist act, etc, etc).
@GrayF0X786 said:
the war against the Muslims is already happening
the only reason you don't see it as a "war" is because one side is completely dominating over the other.
Right...
Throughout the history of the world, states have involved themselves in counterterrorism and counterinsurgencies. For example, anarchists, communists, nationalists, and today Islamic extremists. I wouldn't really call it a world war on Muslims.
@TheWalkingGhost
We lost in Vietnam and there's no sugarcoating it. We left earlier, gave the responsibility to the South, it wasn't really a declaration of war, it doesn't matter what you say. We lacked the initiative and the willpower and payed for it in military and civilian blood. The goal was to keep the North out of the South and the North won. Yes we did kill a lot of them but they still won. Yes we did win all the battles but they won.
@airshocker
We did tactically but that's it. Keeping Iraq stable was a failure on our part due to our lack of understanding of what type of conflict we were in. The same goes for Afghanistan but for different reasons. In the end due to our mistakes, we indirectly created an insurgency. No it's not some CIA conspiracy bs but rather a series of events: Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, treatment of Iraqis in the occupation, and the CPA's drastic actions in dismantling the Iraqi government that fostered an insurgency. We did win the war but couldn't win the peace which makes our victory irrelevant.
We did tactically but that's it. Keeping Iraq stable was a failure on our part due to our lack of understanding of what type of conflict we were in. The same goes for Afghanistan but for different reasons. In the end due to our mistakes, we indirectly created an insurgency. No it's not some CIA conspiracy bs but rather a series of events: Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, treatment of Iraqis in the occupation, and the CPA's drastic actions in dismantling the Iraqi government that fostered an insurgency. We did win the war but couldn't win the peace which makes our victory irrelevant.
No, we left. We didn't keep the peace because we withdrew. There is a distinction to be made here.
The insurgency WAS under control. Then democrats and President Obama decided the job was done before it actually was. Iraq could have been stable, and ISIS would be irrelevant. Instead, they're destroying Iraq and Syria and butchering civilians.
I would say its not fully blown impossible, just very unlikely. At least the way things currently are looking, things look peaceful and stable enough to not be drowned into another major war.
Course, I say there can always be unexpected twists of fate, and unknown situations/countries capable of surprise attacks, that might possibly lead to another war.
We lost in Vietnam and there's no sugarcoating it. We left earlier, gave the responsibility to the South, it wasn't really a declaration of war, it doesn't matter what you say. We lacked the initiative and the willpower and payed for it in military and civilian blood. The goal was to keep the North out of the South and the North won. Yes we did kill a lot of them but they still won. Yes we did win all the battles but they won.
Did you even read what I posted or twist it to make it mean whatever the hell you wanted? First read what I actually said and then comment. Officially it was a stalemate and nobody won and the south was taken after we left. Doesn't matter what you say.
Log in to comment