Does World War III Seem as Possible as it Once Did?

[YSSMAN]

I really am not sure what gets me thinking about things such as this, but it is an interesting question. For so many years, it always seemed completely possible that World War III could happen at any point, generally described as a Nuclear exchange between the United States and Soviet Russia.

But after "The Wall" fell, does it not seem possible any longer? I can rember at the ripe age of four when the Gulf War started, and how worried my Mother was that it was going to be the start of the next World War. But nothing happened, and we were out pretty quickly. Since then, we have obviously gone back to Iraq, and added to that is the War on Terror. Some people describe the combination of the two as World War III, but I'm not so sure of it.

***The thread might get a bit confusing here, so bare with me***

I suppose thoughts of these often come about after playing different videogames, or watching many of the futuristic cartoons on Adult Swim. I thought maybe I would discuss a few, then leave it open to you...

1) Ghost in the Shell:

Often times in Ghost in the Shell, they talk about a World War III and a World War IV, both of which would have happened in the very near future according to the show's timeline. It is often said that the third World War had occoured between unnamed countires, but involving a nuclear exchange over Eurasia, as well as the nuclear bombing of Tokyo. It all results in a re-establishment as Japan as a world power, and the creation of the "American Empire" which consists of The United States of America, The American-Russian alliance, and the newly aquired lands in North and South America. Millions of people die, but the world almost seems uneffected by it...

Then there is the World War IV, also known as the "Second Vietnam" which occours between Asia and Europe as they fight to protect Vietnam from internal troubles (or atleast that is my understanding).

Then there are wars that include one headed by the "American Empire" and the UN for control over Mexico and South America, and what is baiscally the second Korean War, another war spearheaded by the "American Empire" and the UN to re-instate peace in the region.

...To me, it all sounds too strange to work out correctly. But then again, it is completely possible as well I suppose. The idea of the "American Empire" is strange, but it would not be the first time that things such as that have been foreshadowed.

2) Tom Clancy:

Tom Clancy's works both in books and in videogames often deal with subjects that generally involve the United States, and several other countires as well. Although most works origionaly storied a conflict between the US and the USSR, most of the newer stories invole the US with much smaller nations. To tie in with Ghost in the Shell, I shal make reference to the game Ghost Recon: Advanced War Fighter.

Once again, Mexico is at the center stage of an internal conflict with a coup occuring against the Mexican government, which leads to the death of the Canadian Prime Minister, and the dissapearance of the American and Mexican Presidents. Of course, battles are hard fought, and of course the Americans win out. But it is strange that both involve Mexico as a place of another war, maybe not on a grand scale, but on one that is a disturbance to the world's balance of peace.

Other than that I suppose is the story in Ghose Recon 2, in which war breaks out between North and South Korea. The game apparently spans between 2007 and 2011 (if you look at PS2 and XBOX versions), so that in my mind would make it a world conflict. I never played the game, so I'm not so certain on the story, but it must be interesting nonetheless.

For quite some time, people were worried that a World War III could break out between the US and Korea, spinning the Asian continent into chaos. Thankfully however, it never happened.

3) Battlefield 2:

In Battlefield 2, it is foreshadowed that the United States would face off with an allied power of China and a coalition of nations from the Middle East. Specifics are never all that great, but seem within reason once again. China is an easy target for most war games between the US and "Country-X," but the addition of a Middle Eastern Coalition was interesting, and again seems completely reasonable as well.

***End of Strange Pop-Culture War References***

So does it seem as strange to you? So often it is foreshadowed that it will happen, and it seemed to be all-the-rage in the late 1970s and 1980s in the US to make movies and TV shows about World War III.

My strange and awkward theory:

I cannot go any say that World War III isn't going to happen, but I cannot say that it will either. I think the world, for the most part, has learned it's lesson with the first two, and I think it will take a huge attack on either the US or the EU for anything major to happen any time soon.

If I am to see World War III before the end of my days, I can imagine it happening between the US/EU Allies, and Iran (possibly Syria). Of course, the war will be fought because of nuclear weapons, and it will be a very bloody and costly war should it ever happen.

I suppose the question then becomes, do you think it could happen? Maybe not right now, but maybe 10, 20, or 30 years into the future? Which nations would be involved? Why would they be fighting? I'd like to hear your thoughts...

 

[GT4_Rule]

I think World War III might be coming up close, seeing the tension between Arab countries and the Western World, like Israel, US and Europe. Especially Iran. That country is doing anything it can to get hold of nuclear warhead, and I just read on today's newspaper an article about Iran "stockpiling" on suicide bombers to be deployed "worldwide" if US or Israel attacks Iran. The conflict between Muslims and the rest of the world is enough to make me believe that a war will break out between the two. But yes, you are right, WWIII would most likely be fought with nuclear weapons.

Edit: I do not think China will be in the Axis force if WWIII breaks out, because China has been aligning itself to Western allies closely in the past few years. All they need now is to topple the Communist government.

 

[ledhed]

Nope except for extremist there is nothing to gain and everything to lose with war ....think about it for two seconds...the US alone can blow the world into little radio active pieces....Russia..as weak as it is can also ..STILL ....blow the world into little bits of flotsam....... China cant yet.....but give them time and incentve.....say like letting IRAN have nukes and not pputting pressure on North Korea.....


You want slaughter on a massive scale not seen since WWII then let Iran have their way with nukes....go for it .

i hope I do not live to see such stupidity .

 

[Keef]

I think if you take the phrase literally--World War--we're pretty much in a world war right now with the terrorism thing. Many countries are fighting in some way against terrorist happenings in their own country. Obviously it isn't a total-war situation like WW1 or WW2, but it is even more widespread across the globe than the two World Wars.

I think a total-war fiasco is very unlikely to happen in this age. Nobody fights like that anymore, especially sice extremists and terrorists are sort of showing us how it's done over in the Middle East. I think modern wars will be more subtle, more difficult, more mysterious, and less violent than the previous wars. At least this war seems less violent than Korea or Vietnam. I also think modern wars will last much longer and be less gung-ho. They will be more technology-oriented--for us--and the enemy will be more clever and more resourceful.

I also think a war between China is highly unlikely. China is an economy growing by the day, and if they ever run into problems with their economics they might even get the courage to ask the U.S. to help straighten the problem out. I can see these two countries becomeing even closer allies in the future, especially in a civil sense. Overall I'm not worried about any war that could pop up, but Iran and a few other Middle East countries are just lookin' for a whoopin'. I hope it all blows over without conflict, and I think the conflict, if there is any, will be minimal.

 

[YSSMAN]

I would doubt in any way that China would think about a war with the United States. Both countries have too much money invested in eachother to ever consider a war between us, so thats a really good thing if you think about it. Like it has been said above, I also would not be surprised to see the United States and China come closer and closer together as Allies, especially now that China is moving closer, and closer to democracy and a free-market economy.

Again, I also agree with what was said above. If there is one nation to start a true World War, it will be Iran. But on a global scale, don't be surprised to see Venesuela (sp?) start something as well, as they seem to be pushing the State Department's buttons quite often. If there is to be a war with Iran, I would be willing to bet that it will be UN-backed, with most of the fighting done by the European Union, not the United States. We are allready stretched thin enough in terms of on-the-ground troops, but I would not be surprised to see the United States involved mostly in Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground combat, as well as naval warfare (presumably shared between the United States and the United Kingdom).

...Its funny to think about how videogames have kinda showed the way for warfare to progress, and I think as we see warfare evolve, it will most likely shrink as a whole. Funny enough, I think MGS4 shows future warfare in a strangely true way. Although I think it will be more of a cross between MGS4 and GRAW, things are all going to come down to technology and the power of a few men on the battlefield.

 

[GT4_Rule]

My opinion on role of US in a war with Iran would be monetary support as well as other forms of aid. I don't believe that US will deploy too many troops to Iran to fight, because their main focus right now is Iraq.

North Korea might be planning something too, I think they were the ones who shared the nuclear technology with Iran. North Korea was also planning to launch another continental missile that can target up to Alaska in the coming weeks, according to the Japanese news.

 

[DuckRacer]

My opinion on role of US in a war with Iran would be monetary support as well as other forms of aid. I don't believe that US will deploy too many troops to Iran to fight, because their main focus right now is Iraq.

The US will probably not deploy many troops, if any. I think when things really heat up in Iran and war is declared, it'll be when the next administration is in power. It'll probably be Democratic, and they'll say "Screw the middle east, we're out of here", and all the troops in Iraq will be brought back. If the US is going to go to war with Iran, it'll be just destroying nuclear powerplants, and other key locations.

North Korea might be planning something too, I think they were the ones who shared the nuclear technology with Iran.

They might've helped, but Pakistan shared nuclear secrets and tools in building nuclear weapons, which helped in the development if Iran's nukes. As for North Korea planning an attack against us, I doubt it. They may be controlled by a madman, but the nukes they have are a sign of "Ok, we can hurt you, stay away", not "We have nukes, we're gonna blow everyone up".

As for WWIII, it's a question of when and how it'll happen, not if it will happen.

 

[Gil]

YSSMAN, There are two works of fiction that you should check out.
One is Footprints of God by Greg Iles. The other is:
The Day after Midnight by Stephen Hunter.
Both will scare the daylights out of you. They did me. Even after I reminded myself that they were fiction.

IMHO, WWIII could still happen, but now that almost every jerkwater country has an atom bomb, it wouldn't be nearly as "straight-forward" as it would have been 10 years ago.

I have to say that I believe the "philosopher" that said after WWII "I don't know what WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

Hopefully, that knowledge will keep all world leaders from initating a nuclear holocaust.

 

[niky]

...Its funny to think about how videogames have kinda showed the way for warfare to progress, and I think as we see warfare evolve, it will most likely shrink as a whole. Funny enough, I think MGS4 shows future warfare in a strangely true way. Although I think it will be more of a cross between MGS4 and GRAW, things are all going to come down to technology and the power of a few men on the battlefield.

Actually, videogames give a very skewed perspective of how warfare might develop. Games like the Rainbow series and Full Spectrum show how it is now... urban guerilla fighting and small special forces units sent against terrorists.

But stand up battles between terrorists and SWAT/Special Forces teams seem to be a thing of the past. As technology gets more and more sophisticated, the enemy has been getting smaller and smaller. Elusive, never in large or even medium sized groups.

A single terrorist will go into a train station and set off a bomb, or an anonymous man in a business suit in a restaurant across the street will make a call on his cellphone and blow up a police station. Modern terrorism doesn't involve a gang with AK47's storming embassies anymore. They're too afraid of getting a chest full of 5.7mms, ripped right through their bulletproof vests. They're getting smarter.

-----

World War III is over... it was the Cold War. Fought in backrooms and jungles with subterfuge, misdirection, propaganda and stealth. It was fought in dozens of small countries around the world, Afghanistan, Cuba, the Philippines, etcetera. The two participants were the biggest military powers the world had ever seen, but their war was carried out primarily through intermediaries. That actually goes a long way to explaining the hate many people have for the US. The USSR was responsible for a hell of a lot of it, but with that monstrous bureaucracy dead and gone, it's kind of hard to pick on it.

World War III saw the biggest military escalation ever, the biggest armies, the most powerful and sophisticated weapons. And in the end, it was the damnably expensive preparation for war that killed the less flexible and more inefficient Soviet government, not the war itself. The US bankrupted the Soviet Union out of existence (oh, it's more complicated than that, for sure, but that's generally what happened).

A traditional war in the modern sense is just too expensive to wage on a global scale. Witness the billions (is it a trillion yet?) spent in small theaters like Afghanistan and Iraq. That's why Iran and NoKor can afford to be so noisy about their aggressive tendencies... they sense that no one can afford to lash out at them... not at this point. To them, nukes are a weapon, but not in the traditional sense, but in the economic sense. Counters to be played in that obsolete Cold War style of bluff and bluster. Take a clue guys, China dropped that long ago... and see where they are now.

Our current "war" with extremists is more of a police action. Not to start a flamefest or anything, but the US Administration really wasn't prepared for this kind of war, mentally, and tried to prosecute it in a traditional way. Full scale military action isn't really a deterrent to terrorism. It's taking a sledgehammer to broken glass on the floor, hoping to smash it into splinters too small to cut your feet on.

Instead, you've got to go in on your hands and knees and pick it up piece by miniscule piece. Careful planning, reconaissance, tagging and surgical strikes on terrorist facilities and the terrorists themselves is the answer. A straight out military action leaves you vulnerable to flying glass shards.

It is hard to motivate people to confront a faceless enemy, thus the rhetoric of a "War on Evil" or a "War on Terror"... but the sad truth is, this war won't be won with guns raised under the red, white and blue... it can only be won with computers, good old fashioned police work, and true international cooperation.

In this, it would be well and good to drop the CIA entirely... form a new body that the rest of the world might be less suspicious of, and more receptive to.

I have to say that I believe the "philosopher" that said after WWII "I don't know what WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

Hopefully, that knowledge will keep all world leaders from initating a nuclear holocaust.

If we ever do have another major war, and people do start lobbing A-Bombs around like grenades... that just might come true. And not because of the destruction, per se... but because of the almost certain collapse of the world economy. No one can afford it... and it'd take a madman... and extremely gullible and idiotic followers... to start one.

 

[YSSMAN]

... I don't think there are many sane leaders in the world that would ever concede to a full-on nuclear exchange like what was once thought possible. Sure, Makmudamenajiad (whatever he calls himself) in Iran seems stupid enough to do it, as well as Mr. Kim-Jong in North Korea is dumb enough to do it as well...

But who has the nukes?
- The United States
- Russia
- France
- The United Kingdom
- China
- North Korea
- India
- Pakistan
- Israel?

...Of all the known nations to have nuclear technology, I would only place North Korea on the list of folks who are dumb enough to use it...

IMO, its going to be small tactical teams that take care of the fighting for a good part of any kind of modern war... I mean there will obviously be the massive influx of regular-grade ground troops to take care of some combat, as well as the large role of air-superiority, but special forces are going to be key elements in any modern war. Afghanistan proved that, and to some extent, Iraq as well.

...I love talking about war... It gets me excited...

 

[GT4_Rule]

YSSMAN: you'd have to add Iran to the most-likely-to-use-nuke list. Come on, look at that president's behaviors. He acts like he's the ruler of the world and repeatedly say that he will use nuke if western powers attack.

 

[a6m5]

U.S. and China have a lot invested in each other, but that has not stopped them from butting heads. I do agree that the relationship is going in the right direction, but I'm surprised that noone has mentioned Taiwan. I don't see China going to war against the U.S. over North Korea, but I can definitely see it over Taiwan. If Taiwan officially delcare independence(they've always unofficially been independent), I am 85%() sure that China will attack Taiwan. If the U.S. intervene, I can see it leading to a huge war. China should play smart and realize that they lost Taiwan in the 1940's, but they won't, because they are all about expanding their territory. If they gain Taiwan back, that is a lot of water/sea lane they gain back too.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Nuclear weapons will only be used as a last resort. Everyone knows that the world is worth too much to blow it up IMO.

 

[DuckRacer]

Nuclear weapons will only be used as a last resort. Everyone knows that the world is worth too much to blow it up IMO.

Does "everyone" include the madmen leaders in North Korea, or Iran? And do they include all the suicide bombers, who are crazy enough to become a moving bomb?

If people are nuts enough to kill themselves along with an entire building, they'd be nuts enough to blow up an entire city with a nuke.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

WW3-- North America, UK, Japan and maybe a few small countries.
VS.
Germany, Poland(if they count) Russia, and countries in-between
VS.
Middle East, and some of the far east.

It's gonna be a Blast, baby!

 

[a6m5]

USA vs China

On or leaning towards the U.S. side: NATO, Japan, Australia, Taiwan.

On or leaning towards the Chinese side: North Korea, Tibet, Arab terrorist organizations.

Could go either way: Russia, South Korea.

 

[Gabkicks]

Nuclear weapons will only be used as a last resort. Everyone knows that the world is worth too much to blow it up IMO.

what if they have the "if i can't have it, nobody will" reaction to losing the war

 

[Anderton Prime]

I think WWIII will erupt when the US and Iran square off. From that point, the entire race is doomed.

 

[YSSMAN]

USA vs China

On or leaning towards the U.S. side: NATO, Japan, Australia, Taiwan.

On or leaning towards the Chinese side: North Korea, Tibet, Arab terrorist organizations.

Could go either way: Russia, South Korea.

Well, yes theoretically. NATO would have to be on the side of the US, assuming that China attacks us first. The same can be said of Australia and Taiwan both of which are part of the ANZUS and SEATO signed post-WWII to protect American interests in the Pacific. Japan would also have to be a part as well, as obviously we would be using their country as a spring-board to attack China, and being that their lack of a "millitary" prevents them from doing any actual fighting, we would be doing it for them.

...I do doubt however that China would actually side with Terrorist orgainizations, but a loose pact seems rational.

South Korea: Given their ties to the US, chances are they are almost obligated not only by the Korean War, but also by their hatred of the Chinese to fight on the side of the US.

Russia: Now there is a tough call, and I think it would come down to who could buy out who. But given Russia's ties not only to NATO, but also loosely to the EU and other G8 nations (all of which would presumably be on the side of the US with the exception of China), I could see the Russkies leaning twards the US as well.

----

I think the scariest thing we need to worry about would be Iran, and if there could ever be a similar treaty such as NATO essentialy tying together all Middle-Eastern countries as a unified body. Although I doubt Iraq would sign, and the involvement of nations such as Saudi Arabia, Qutar, The UAE, and Egypt is questionable, putting Iran and Syria together is bad news... Very, very bad news...

 

[a6m5]

South Korea: Given their ties to the US, chances are they are almost obligated not only by the Korean War, but also by their hatred of the Chinese to fight on the side of the US.

Those days are almost completely over. They've been starting to warm up towards China and North Korea these days, while criticizing the U.S. One of their high ranking official also stated that South Korea don't want to be involved in the Taiwan Strait Conflict. That could've been just lip service to China, but who knows.

Russia: Now there is a tough call, and I think it would come down to who could buy out who. But given Russia's ties not only to NATO, but also loosely to the EU and other G8 nations (all of which would presumably be on the side of the US with the exception of China), I could see the Russkies leaning twards the US as well.

Another country that's been siding with China lately, while going anti-U.S. on my issues. They should either stay neutral or side with China in a war scenario, but they are pretty cunning, so I'm not sure.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

I'm tellin you guys, it's gonna be a 3-way!

 

[a6m5]

LeadSlead and his fantasies.

 

[GT4_Rule]

It might be three-way, as LeadSlead said. It might very well be.

On the issue about Taiwan vs. China:

I think China should, (this might be harsh but) screw Taiwan and forget about them, because no matter what threats they use Taiwan will not go back to China. They broke away from China for a reason. Forget about Taiwan, and let them be what they want to be. It really annoys me, as a person of Chinese-descent, that China is desperately trying to get back Taiwan using any tactics available.

 

[ledhed]

* deleted* double post****************

 

[ledhed]

China can only invade Taiwain if the US steps aside and does nothing. and even then AFTER China does that who will still buy Chinese products and continue trading with them ? So China gets taiwain after a bloody struggle and becomes hated by the world ...sactioned at the very least for years..so whatever progress China has made economically they have thrown away ..so now they have to try to feed themselves again on a third or even fourth world economy...and all this for what again ?

And this is a best case scenario..like if the US gets a Kerry type as President..If the US honors its commitments ,,China Fails in its invasion loses a large chunk of its invasion forces and suffers the same sanctions including the loss of its largest trading partner...and all this for what ?

If China slowly continues its reforms and its form of government changes from authoritarian..Taiwan will most likely return or join with them at its own accord.

We call it "talking loud but saying nothing " ....to describe what is going on with China re taiwan and Chavez in Venezulela and the nut job over in Iran..
When they start saying something..DUCK .

 

[Pebb]

I reckon a WW3 could happen, but WW3 is a scary thought.

 

[Cosmic]

WW3, I can already see it happening in the future.
I don't think it will last long tought. A few atomic bombs here and there and yeah, you can figure the rest out by yourself.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Well, if their ever Was a WWIII, Australia will be on the USA side, As far as i know we have helped out in pretty much every single war USA has been in since Australia formed as a nation. I doubt a war will be fought on Austalian shores, though i could be wrong.

 

[DQuaN]

Australia would be the only country left intact!


WTF Mate?

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, if their ever Was a WWIII, Australia will be on the USA side, As far as i know we have helped out in pretty much every single war USA has been in since Australia formed as a nation. I doubt a war will be fought on Austalian shores, though i could be wrong.

...BTW: Why has Australia always been on our side? Not that it is a bad thing, but I've always wondered why. There is a comedian who makes regular reference to that here, and I forget his name, but it is rather funny when you think about it I suppose.

I've always thought of Australia as a kick-ass country that is strangely familiar when compared to the US. Of course, the accents are different, and you guys drive on the wrong side of the road (j/k), but the folks seem to be the same, buildings look similar, etc.