Do you think WW 3 will happen in the 21st century? (POLL)

War has moved on from massive global conflict. It can happen but I don't think it will. Disputes are settled on a much smaller scale in most of the world. There are exceptions but I think we've gotten most of the craziness out of our system.Tiefster

One of these exceptions would be cheap energy.

War has moved on from massive global conflict. It can happen but I don't think it will. Disputes are settled on a much smaller scale in most of the world. There are exceptions but I think we've gotten most of the craziness out of our system.Tiefster

Damn straight. And it's gonna be fought over resources - fuel, water, population space, etc...

Hence this is why only beautiful people should breed - ugly people are agro and more likely to kick off a world war...

I hope not I just turned 18 but it most likly will be us agianst iran,N korea,iraq etc

21st Century?Brainkiller05

These world wars, or, at least the first one (which led to the second) happened because of rivalries between the Great Powers. Is there any now? Aside from political tension at times between the West and Russia, there is no reason to suppose WWIII will happen any time soon. Furthermore, the advent of things like the hydrogen car, for example, are helping along the issue over resources. Salt water can be purified, science can make things grow more plentiful to feed the growing population. I'm not saying WWIII will never happen, I just don't think it will anytime soonpeter1191

things like hydrogen power wont necessarily smooth things over. it will mean a shift in power and the west wont give up there power without a fight.

For the most part we are still using proxy wars to fight our enemies so WW3 isnt really that close. There will be plenty of wars. Doesnt matter who's in charge, rep or dem. The planet is entering a hostile era. Oil supplies will be tapping out in some areas in this century, and developing countries are beginning to strive for nuclear power and larger armies, not all are friendly to other nations.

There are so many things pushing countries to the brink, let alone your simple deranged dictators who just want more power and control. Eventually this will all boil into WW3, most likely once Oil supplies start tapping out.

I'm not sure how the "War on Terror" isn't considered to be WW3 when it involves most countries in the world, more than WWI and WWII combined if you include the Coalition of the Bribed andCoerced.obsolete2k1

Its not a conventional "world war," which is why nobody thinks of it as such. Iraq is the only place where there seems to be constant fighting, and even there, it is nowhere near the level/ferocity that was seen in any of the fronts contested in the first and second world wars.

[QUOTE="Tiefster"]War has moved on from massive global conflict. It can happen but I don't think it will. Disputes are settled on a much smaller scale in most of the world. There are exceptions but I think we've gotten most of the craziness out of our system.mohfrontline

Quite possibly. Theoreticall... WW3 could break out at any possible moment. We might not have the trigger that started 1... we might not have the pissed off country that has gotten shafted by another war... (actually.... if you could countries that America/the West have intervened we may have alot of those... even though they might not have been involved in a war). It's entirely possible... Though which countries and who fights who is effectively up in the air. Alot of people are saying China and the US, China may become a superpower soon and we will be butting heads like we did with the Soviets during the Cold War. MattUD1

I agree with China, and i think china agree's with that as well. China lately has been designing and building warships specifically designed to counter US Warships. They are planning for something, and with their excellent economy pushing forward, once they reach the mark of Superpower, we possibly could enter a new cold war. Not that that's always bad, we could always have another reagan start up "Star Wars" again. I could use a sequel...

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]Quite possibly. Theoreticall... WW3 could break out at any possible moment. We might not have the trigger that started 1... we might not have the pissed off country that has gotten shafted by another war... (actually.... if you could countries that America/the West have intervened we may have alot of those... even though they might not have been involved in a war). It's entirely possible... Though which countries and who fights who is effectively up in the air. Alot of people are saying China and the US, China may become a superpower soon and we will be butting heads like we did with the Soviets during the Cold War. Tolwan

I agree with China, and i think china agree's with that as well. China lately has been designing and building warships specifically designed to counter US Warships. They are planning for something, and with their excellent economy pushing forward, once they reach the mark of Superpower, we possibly could enter a new cold war. Not that that's always bad, we could always have another reagan start up "Star Wars" again. I could use a sequel...

Damn straight. And it's gonna be fought over resources - fuel, water, population space, etc...

Hence this is why only beautiful people should breed - ugly people are agro and more likely to kick off a world war...

D3nnyCrane

i really hope you're kidding >____>

I'm not sure how the "War on Terror" isn't considered to be WW3 when it involves most countries in the world, more than WWI and WWII combined if you include the Coalition of the Bribed andCoerced.obsolete2k1

probably because it doesn't seem as brutal, you don't have mustard or chlorine gas and medical advances reduce the death toll. Better weaponry (aircraft/naval forces with accurate weaponry) and protection reduce injury to the user as well. We're also getting to the point of even letting machines do some of the work. Was it the french or Russians who lost the most men in WWII???

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"]

Damn straight. And it's gonna be fought over resources - fuel, water, population space, etc...

Hence this is why only beautiful people should breed - ugly people are agro and more likely to kick off a world war...

firebreathing

i really hope you're kidding >____>

I'm not sure how the "War on Terror" isn't considered to be WW3 when it involves most countries in the world, more than WWI and WWII combined if you include the Coalition of the Bribed andCoerced.obsolete2k1

probably because it doesn't seem as brutal, you don't have mustard or chlorine gas and medical advances reduce the death toll. Better weaponry (aircraft/naval forces with accurate weaponry) and protection reduce injury to the user as well. We're also getting to the point of even letting machines do some of the work. Was it the french or Russians who lost the most men in WWII???

i don't really understand your reasons why this wouldn't be considered a world war. Vietnam had chemical warfare, one of your requirements for a WW, but it wasn't considered one. There were medical advances which helped to reduce the death toll in both WW, but they were still WWs. Better weaponry? tell that to the tens of thousands of civilians the US alone has killed in Afganistan and Iraq. The Americans bombed a wedding in Afghanistan and killed over 40 people with their "better" weaponry. They have also killed Canadian soldiers as well as other allies with their better weaponry.

It was the Russians who suffered the most casualties during WWII.

nope

go to youtube and type in pinker+history+violence

[QUOTE="firebreathing"][QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"]

Damn straight. And it's gonna be fought over resources - fuel, water, population space, etc...

Hence this is why only beautiful people should breed - ugly people are agro and more likely to kick off a world war...

obsolete2k1

i really hope you're kidding >____>

I'm not sure how the "War on Terror" isn't considered to be WW3 when it involves most countries in the world, more than WWI and WWII combined if you include the Coalition of the Bribed andCoerced.obsolete2k1

probably because it doesn't seem as brutal, you don't have mustard or chlorine gas and medical advances reduce the death toll. Better weaponry (aircraft/naval forces with accurate weaponry) and protection reduce injury to the user as well. We're also getting to the point of even letting machines do some of the work. Was it the french or Russians who lost the most men in WWII???

i don't really understand your reasons why this wouldn't be considered a world war. Vietnam had chemical warfare, one of your requirements for a WW, but it wasn't considered one. There were medical advances which helped to reduce the death toll in both WW, but they were still WWs. Better weaponry? tell that to the tens of thousands of civilians the US alone has killed in Afganistan and Iraq. The Americans bombed a wedding in Afghanistan and killed over 40 people with their "better" weaponry. They have also killed Canadian soldiers as well as other allies with their better weaponry.

It was the Russians who suffered the most casualties during WWII.

For our sake i hope ww3 happens this century, if it were to happen any later than 2099 it would be just plain suicidal and the earth would probably be destroyed.middito

"I don't know what world war III will be fought with but world war IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

there will never be another world warg-unit248

But for sure galatic wars.

[QUOTE="middito"]For our sake i hope ww3 happens this century, if it were to happen any later than 2099 it would be just plain suicidal and the earth would probably be destroyed.eo12601

"I don't know what world war III will be fought with but world war IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

an ironic quote by the man who helped create theatomic bomb.

It has already begun.buxboy