UPSB v3
Serious Discussion / World War 3
-
Date: Thu, Jun 10 2010 03:33:31
Do you think it'll happen? If so when?
-
Date: Thu, Jun 10 2010 03:35:44
Probably eventually. I mean the world is in a constant cycle of war and peace: destruction and rebirth. Not really sure when
-
Date: Thu, Jun 10 2010 08:11:07
i imagine in our life time. as technology advances, we'll need more oil, and so will other nations. as oil becomes scarce, there will be wars.
-
Date: Thu, Jun 10 2010 23:58:16QUOTE (Boshi @ Jun 10 2010, 12:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>i imagine in our life time. as technology advances, we'll need more oil, and so will other nations. as oil becomes scarce, there will be wars.
I think clean water will become a bigger problem. Tech advance = less oil (hybrid cars) -
Date: Fri, Jun 11 2010 00:03:54
I actually think it won't happen. As technology advances, you have more and more powerful WOMDs. At that point, a World War 3 would just kill everyone. No one would win, everyone would lose, and that's something that military officers aren't going to risk. So unless we basically take out some 50 to 100 years worth of technology in everyone's military... you can't win a nuclear war.
-
Date: Fri, Jun 11 2010 12:16:38
It won't happen. We have entered a new phase of world history. Democracy is spreading and democratic states do not wage war on each other. One day the whole world will be made up of democratic states and the military phase of history will have ended. And until then, nuclear weapons will make it so devastating for two major powers to go to war with each other, that it will not happen.
This seems to me like pure logic that it has to happen this way. I do not believe in the superstition that history has to repeat itself. It doesn't. Sometimes history changes for good.
Chart over number of democratic states through history:
The democratic peace theory. -
Date: Fri, Jun 11 2010 17:52:45
Just because democracies haven't historically gone to war against one another doesn't mean that once EVERYONE's a democracy, everyone will live in harmony, that's absurd
Plus even the DPT states "rarely", and all it takes is 1
That being said, do I think there will be a world war to the scale of what we've seen? No. This day and age "altercations" are the new rave, nobody declares war and we just fight over a small area until somebody fully occupies it.
Though, it wouldn't surprise me at all if 15 years down the road this Israel/Palestine Gaza strip thing doesn't turn into an international affair, with Israeli officers killing unarmed peacekeepers, if stuff like that continues then other nations will step in and tell Israel to chill the fuck out, and US being the way that we are, will continue to back Israel, and boom, international conflict that could potentially escalate (Remember, WW1 started over fairly small conflict, and then other bigger nations took sides) -
Date: Fri, Jun 11 2010 20:14:42QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jun 11 2010, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Just because democracies haven't historically gone to war against one another doesn't mean that once EVERYONE's a democracy, everyone will live in harmony, that's absurd
Plus even the DPT states "rarely", and all it takes is 1
That being said, do I think there will be a world war to the scale of what we've seen? No. This day and age "altercations" are the new rave, nobody declares war and we just fight over a small area until somebody fully occupies it.
Though, it wouldn't surprise me at all if 15 years down the road this Israel/Palestine Gaza strip thing doesn't turn into an international affair, with Israeli officers killing unarmed peacekeepers, if stuff like that continues then other nations will step in and tell Israel to chill the fuck out, and US being the way that we are, will continue to back Israel, and boom, international conflict that could potentially escalate (Remember, WW1 started over fairly small conflict, and then other bigger nations took sides)
They did not have nuclear weapons when WW1 broke out. Had both Britain and Germany had nuclear weapons, then I am pretty certain that, that war would never have broken out. I mean something like Cuba missile showed pretty clearly that even the most oppressive of leaders are not ready to push the button and fire the first nuclear weapon.
I don't think it is likely that the Israel-Palestine conflict would escalated into a world war. The US would gain nothing from allowing Israel to perform actions that would anger other great powers, as it would most likely result in very costly economic sanctions. Whatever the Jewish lobby in the US might offer in support the American president, would vastly be outweighed by the opposition resultant from being seen as the one causing trade with the EU or China to break down.
I do not say that the post-military phase in history will mean that all international relations will be harmonious. There still will be disagreements, but they will be less significant, and there will, because of globalization and international trade, be more incentives to find compromises. The conflicts might be like disagreement between the US and China over the exchange rate of the renminbi, or like the disagreement between EU and United States over the Iraq war. -
Date: Sat, Jun 12 2010 00:29:36
what is the definition of world war anyway... do u require every country to send in at least 1 soldier or x armies or just "support" or money?
cuz if its just say "moral support" then u can have very small wars but if the UN as a whole is "involved" in it then its kinda like "world war", in other words, proxy wars -
Date: Sat, Jun 12 2010 09:17:11
I think they say world war if most of the continents have countries involved in it and a large proportion of the countries in the world are fighting.
I fully agree with TheOnion. Nuclear weapons and democracy combined make a nuclear war near impossible. As weapons get more and more powerful, the chance of a world war decreases. No-one will start a war if there is mutually assured destruction (MAD) of sides. -
Date: Sat, Jun 12 2010 17:37:37QUOTE (Loanshark @ Jun 10 2010, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I actually think it won't happen. As technology advances, you have more and more powerful WOMDs. At that point, a World War 3 would just kill everyone. No one would win, everyone would lose, and that's something that military officers aren't going to risk. So unless we basically take out some 50 to 100 years worth of technology in everyone's military... you can't win a nuclear war.
What's WOMB? And since Technology advances, won't people think/create of ways for defense against nukes? And since the Nuke is so powerful and leaders don't have the balls to launch it, what's the point of them? From what I know, there was only one nuclear war (not world) and that was the A-bomb on top of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. -
Date: Sat, Jun 12 2010 18:02:52
A WOMD is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
And just because technology is advancing and bombs could potentially be super powerful and kill everyone doesn't mean someone is building a small-scale bomb to, say, take out a city. -
Date: Mon, Jun 14 2010 15:12:25QUOTE (RoastBeef @ Jun 12 2010, 06:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>What's WOMB? And since Technology advances, won't people think/create of ways for defense against nukes? And since the Nuke is so powerful and leaders don't have the balls to launch it, what's the point of them?
There are defences against nuclear missiles being developed. The trouble is, once this is developed, there could be satelite launched, submarine launched etc nuclear weapons. Defence will never catch up.QUOTEFrom what I know, there was only one nuclear war (not world) and that was the A-bomb on top of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
That was a world war (II). -
Date: Mon, Jun 14 2010 15:25:51QUOTE (Mats @ Jun 14 2010, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>There are defences against nuclear missiles being developed. The trouble is, once this is developed, there could be satelite launched, submarine launched etc nuclear weapons. Defence will never catch up.
That was a world war (II).
And let's face it, the USA didn't really know what the hell they were doing with those bombs -
Date: Tue, Jun 15 2010 23:17:03QUOTE (Mats @ Jun 14 2010, 08:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>There are defences against nuclear missiles being developed. The trouble is, once this is developed, there could be satelite launched, submarine launched etc nuclear weapons. Defence will never catch up.
That was a world war (II).QUOTE (Biji @ Jun 14 2010, 08:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>And let's face it, the USA didn't really know what the hell they were doing with those bombs
So was that the reason why the world wasn't destroy? and now that we have more knowledge one it, it could destroy the human race? -
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 06:29:37QUOTE (Biji @ Jun 14 2010, 08:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>And let's face it, the USA didn't really know what the hell they were doing with those bombs
wow thats more stupid than some of the shit that comes out of vendettabfs mouth. if we didnt drop those bombs then thousands of American soldiers would have died trying to invade Japan. and of course they knew what they where doing Nagasaki and Hiroshima are one of the 2 biggest and most populated cities in Japan at the time. America wanted to do as much damage as they could so the Japs would give up! -
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 07:58:03
maybe he was talking about the impact of the nuclear bomb
-
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 12:03:31
I'm talking about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
tl;dr
Drop 7 bombs, send in everyone 48 hours later.
But sir what about radiatio-
I said...SEND. IN. EVERYONEEEEEEEEEEEEE -
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 13:55:34
I wouldn't be surprised if WW3 did happen,be it in our lifetime or the next, there's just too many freaking weapons out there now, people will eventually use them =/
-
Date: Wed, Jun 16 2010 22:47:23QUOTE (AoD1 @ Jun 16 2010, 02:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>wow thats more stupid than some of the shit that comes out of vendettabfs mouth. if we didnt drop those bombs then thousands of American soldiers would have died trying to invade Japan. and of course they knew what they where doing Nagasaki and Hiroshima are one of the 2 biggest and most populated cities in Japan at the time. America wanted to do as much damage as they could so the Japs would give up!
That doesn't mean they understood what would happen, and the consequences. In fact, the people involved have stated that they didn't know what they were dealing with.
Please remember this isn't spammers bin, it's Serious Discussion -
Date: Thu, Jun 17 2010 18:39:35QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jun 17 2010, 12:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That doesn't mean they understood what would happen, and the consequences. In fact, the people involved have stated that they didn't know what they were dealing with.
Please remember this isn't spammers bin, it's Serious Discussion
Yes the bomber crew how delivered the bombs might not have had full knowledge about the consequences of a nuclear strike. They were kept on a need-to-know level of information for security reasons.
But I am certain that the president, the military advisors and the scientists involved in the project knew full well what a nuclear strike was capable of doing. There had been test bombings which showed pretty clearly that a nuclear strike was capable of wiping out a whole city. And actually, I would say they were actually used to that amount of civilian casualties for strategic bombing missions. The fire-bombing of Tokyo on March 10th 1945 killed about a 100,000 civilians, which is more than the Nagasaki bombing did. The whole strategic bombing campaign in the months up to the dropping of the atom bomb had killed about half a million Japanese civilians, more than twice as much as for the nuclear bombs.
No, the decision of dropping the nuclear bombs was just based on a calculation, which said that it would cause less casualties for both sides to drop the bombs, and scare the Japanese into surrendering, than to invade the Japanese home islands. And I think they were right at that, as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings had about a quarter of a million casualties, and an invasion of the Japanese main islands was predicted to have over a million allied casualties, and over ten million Japanese casualties. Those numbers seem quite realistic to me when one considers the kind of civilian opposition the allied forces met from the Japanese under the previous part of the war in the pacific theater. The battle over the small island of Okinawa (it's about half the size of Long Island) had over 50,000 American casualties, over 100,000 Japanese military casualties and over 250,000 civilians died because of the battle. Again, that's more casualties than for both the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki bombings put together, for just one tiny Pacific island.
Things could have played out differently. The Japanese might not have surrendered, and the Americans might have had to both drop several more bombs, and then still do the invasion afterward. But as things played out, it is pretty clear to me that it was a very good decision for all parties to drop the nuclear bomb.
Damn I am getting off topic... -
Date: Fri, Jun 18 2010 06:01:02
All I see is a lot of speculation. I think its safe to say that there are far too many factors to account for to predict something like this.
oh an p.s. There are a lot of reasons people think the Japanese would have surrendered w/o dropping the bombs, but that's for another discussion. -
Date: Mon, Jun 21 2010 08:43:14
@aod remember what i said about shit?
and ww3 probably wont happen, or atleast not anytime soon because of deterrence.