Where/When Will WW3 Start? (When Will Ww3 Start)


scratch
#1
Considering how thinly the American military is now spread out and an election looming as well as `bold statements` about solving the Iran problem where will the next threat to America come from?

Fully aware of its position regarding North Korea and its real nuclear capability will America continue its present course in the Middle East and forget about its most deadly enemy in the Pacific Rim?

Since the truce in 1953, the conflict has never been resolved.

Two or three nights ago I was watching "Charlie Rose" on PBS and he had six experts making their points of view known about North Korea's intentions vis-a-vis the United States.

The consensus was that North Korea would wait until the U.S. had fully committed to Iran (which would be after the November election) and then make a pre-emptive strike on Alaska and all the Pacific coast states.


 
Ariadne
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

Considering how thinly the American military is now spread out and an election looming as well as `bold statements` about solving the Iran problem where will the next threat to America come from?

Fully aware of its position regarding North Korea and its real nuclear capability will America continue its present course in the Middle East and forget about its most deadly enemy in the Pacific Rim?

Since the truce in 1953, the conflict has never been resolved.

Two or three nights ago I was watching "Charlie Rose" on PBS and he had six experts making their points of view known about North Korea's intentions vis-a-vis the United States.

The consensus was that North Korea would wait until the U.S. had fully committed to Iran (which would be after the November election) and then make a pre-emptive strike on Alaska and all the Pacific coast states.


I don't know about that. The US economy has not hit bottom yet. The next election could result in a Democratic gov't ... probably will because they always go democrat when the economy starts to suck. Then everyone complains about the social programs, and they're back to republican. It all depends on how long the recession lasts. In the meantime, if it's democrat gov't, they will respond to both questions of "when are the troups coming home" and from Iraq "when are you leaving". The expense of keeping troops and invading is a lot to bear for a failing economy right now. Iran is not going to do anything except respond. They saw what happened to Iraq and they won't let it happen to them without retaliation, but they're more interested in the capitalist market than the killing war.

As for North Korea, they're shooting blanks. Their last few tests were duds, and they're only a threat to the South Koreans right now.

That's what I think. Where will the next threat come from? Who knows ... maybe it will be internal, like civil disobedience. Maybe the Iranians will be blamed and someone will rally all the European leaders together to attack.
 
scratch
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Ariadne View Post

I don't know about that. The US economy has not hit bottom yet. The next election could result in a Democratic gov't ... probably will because they always go democrat when the economy starts to suck. Then everyone complains about the social programs, and they're back to republican. It all depends on how long the recession lasts. In the meantime, if it's democrat gov't, they will respond to both questions of "when are the troups coming home" and from Iraq "when are you leaving". The expense of keeping troops and invading is a lot to bear for a failing economy right now. Iran is not going to do anything except respond. They saw what happened to Iraq and they won't let it happen to them without retaliation, but they're more interested in the capitalist market than the killing war.

As for North Korea, they're shooting blanks. Their last few tests were duds, and they're only a threat to the South Koreans right now.

That's what I think. Where will the next threat come from? Who knows ... maybe it will be internal, like civil disobedience. Maybe the Iranians will be blamed and someone will rally all the European leaders together to attack.

Very well laid out. Thank you.
But never forget who was backing the North Koreans, the Soviets and the Chinese, who have certified nukes!
Last edited by scratch; Jul 13th, 2008 at 01:18 AM..Reason: add info
 
Ariadne
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

Very well laid out. Thank you.
But never forget who was backing the North Koreans, the Soviets and the Chinese, who have certified nukes!

Having nukes, nucular according to Mr Shrub and nuclear for the rest of the world, doesn't mean they will be used. Shrub has had his finger on the trigger for years and doesn't even know what it's called. Hopefully the other guys know what it's called, and still don't want to use it. The Chinese and Russians have no reason to blow up the world, and the North Koreans can barely get one off the ground. If the Koreans are an example of Russian technology, then the Chinese and Russians aren't much to worry about either. Their most recent tests have failed in distance. Their nukes can't make it to North America. If there was any concern, it would be about the guy that doesn't know that it's called a nuclear bomb but can send one off at a moments' twitch. Maybe he will have another epiphany and become a born again super christian, start drinking again, and embrace oil. Hopefully, he won't invade Iran, as I don't think they will let it go.
 
Walter
#5
Where/When Will WW3 Start?

It started September 5, 1972 in Munich and continues to this day.
 
hermanntrude
#6
consider for a moment the motives of the makers of the documentary:

basically they want a dramatic show, one which will be popular and enticing to the general populous, which means they need to show the world something dramatic and preferably scary.

now consider for a moment the selection of the six "experts":

The makers of the documentary already know what they need to say, now they're looking for an expert to make their conclusion seem more viable. A bit of research will tell them which currently knowledgeable people share the same beliefs as the makers of the documentary. A few phone calls later and two things are now possible, if not inevitable:

1) the world will know about the theory and be very frightened
2) the makers of the documentary will be a little bit richer than before
 
FUBAR
#7
And how are the North Koreans going to get to Alaska? If there is a new world war it will be over resources and water. If the Chinese tie up more resources like they're doing now the only way to get them will be conflict.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

Considering how thinly the American military is now spread out and an election looming as well as `bold statements` about solving the Iran problem where will the next threat to America come from?

Fully aware of its position regarding North Korea and its real nuclear capability will America continue its present course in the Middle East and forget about its most deadly enemy in the Pacific Rim?

Since the truce in 1953, the conflict has never been resolved.

Two or three nights ago I was watching "Charlie Rose" on PBS and he had six experts making their points of view known about North Korea's intentions vis-a-vis the United States.

The consensus was that North Korea would wait until the U.S. had fully committed to Iran (which would be after the November election) and then make a pre-emptive strike on Alaska and all the Pacific coast states.


It is one thing to have a handful nuclear weapons, and another to be able to deliver them to targets. North Korea could attack South Korea or Japan with their little arsenal of nukes but they would be completely annihilated by the American reprisal. Korea is not a serious threat to anyone but themselves.
 
cortex
#9
The next threat to America will be its profound lack of brain power.
 
Canaduh
No Party Affiliation
#10
When exactly did America become the world,

Never forget the old saying. WW3 will be fought with jets and weapons, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
 
quandary121
Green
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by sensfan View Post

When exactly did America become the world,

Never forget the old saying. WW3 will be fought with jets and weapons, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones.


I know not with what weapons wold war III will be fought, but World war IV will be fought with sticks and stones

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Last edited by quandary121; Jul 13th, 2008 at 11:56 AM..
 
Canaduh
No Party Affiliation
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by quandary121 View Post

its not that old and Einstein said it

I'm 22 anything over 30 is old, unless its a MILF.
 
Lineman
#13
I can agree with Walter to a certain extent. It's not the wars we see in the history books of massed armies nations waving flags but one of power projection by proxy. The players that make the news like Israel and Hamas etc. are not unnecessarily the ones pulling the strings. My opinion is the big change is there's 3 main players now as opposed to the cold wars 2. Oil rich countries can now manipulate events to the same large extent the old players did. Though the conflicts have mainly stayed modest in size, Iraq being the exception. Whenever the US or Russia seem to get involved directly the results have been disastrous. The Saudis seemed to have learned the lessons from observation and stay in the background.

Who knows, maybe I've read too many of the conspiracy theory threads here.
 
Canaduh
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Lineman View Post

I can agree with Walter to a certain extent. It's not the wars we see in the history books of massed armies nations waving flags but one of power projection by proxy. The players that make the news like Israel and Hamas etc. are not unnecessarily the ones pulling the strings. My opinion is the big change is there's 3 main players now as opposed to the cold wars 2. Oil rich countries can now manipulate events to the same large extent the old players did. Though the conflicts have mainly stayed modest in size, Iraq being the exception. Whenever the US or Russia seem to get involved directly the results have been disastrous. The Saudis seemed to have learned the lessons from observation and stay in the background.

Who knows, maybe I've read too many of the conspiracy theory threads here.

Maybe, but IMO you have about hit the nail on the head. The USA ever since WW2 has held more power with a pen than its military, Korea, Nam, Mogadishu, Afghan/Iraq and god knows how many failed and backfired CIA plots... tali ban anyone.

I see 3 foreseeable starts to WW3
- Nations do nothing and oil reserves run out
- Global warming, the ice caps melt... race to good agricultural land
- Religion, West vs Mid East.
 
dj03
#15
Quote:

The consensus was that North Korea would wait until the U.S. had fully committed to Iran (which would be after the November election) and then make a pre-emptive strike on Alaska and all the Pacific coast states.

North Korea does not have the military capability of striking any part of the United States with either conventional or non-conventional forces. North Korea's bargaining chips are that it has conventional artillery that can directly target Seoul, missile technology that can hit Japan, enough military to cause the US substantial losses in invading the place and some support from China and Russia.

Besides, slow progress is being made between the US, its allies and North Korea with the US recently taking them off the states that support terrorism list and removing some sanctions against them.


CNN


The best chance for WWIII at the present time would be a US attack on Iran, followed by an Iranian attack on Israel, followed by everyone else in the world taking sides.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Lineman View Post

I can agree with Walter to a certain extent. It's not the wars we see in the history books of massed armies nations waving flags but one of power projection by proxy. The players that make the news like Israel and Hamas etc. are not unnecessarily the ones pulling the strings. My opinion is the big change is there's 3 main players now as opposed to the cold wars 2. Oil rich countries can now manipulate events to the same large extent the old players did. Though the conflicts have mainly stayed modest in size, Iraq being the exception. Whenever the US or Russia seem to get involved directly the results have been disastrous. The Saudis seemed to have learned the lessons from observation and stay in the background.

Who knows, maybe I've read too many of the conspiracy theory threads here.

The body of historical conspiracys would surprize you I bet. You are a product of conspiracy, I am a product of conspiracy, both of us have been educated and informed by a conspiracy everyday since birth. Truth is far stranger than fiction, not much of the generally accepted historical perspective transferred to the masses is correct. You have to dig arround a bit but after a while you discover that the bankers have been running the planet since my grampys day and we've been lied to and mislead for a long long time. That's how the rich and powerful stay on top.
 
Lineman
#17
Deleted partial post.
Last edited by Lineman; Jul 13th, 2008 at 02:17 PM..
 
Lineman
#18
Well I don't know if I'd agree about the bankers and getting rich. You don't move mountains and control the rise and fall of civilizations "just for the money".
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Lineman View Post

Well I don't know if I'd agree about the bankers and getting rich. You don't move mountains and control the rise and fall of civilizations "just for the money".

I think that's true but money is an extension of power, till it's spent it's just paper.
 
Lineman
#20
Ok, so they've got most of the money and they've paid to move mountains and control the rise and fall of civilizations, but to what end? Keeping the rest of us submissive? That would get boring wouldn't it. What's the end to the means?
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Lineman View Post

Ok, so they've got most of the money and they've paid to move mountains and control the rise and fall of civilizations, but to what end? Keeping the rest of us submissive? That would get boring wouldn't it. What's the end to the means?

The end is to stay in power in perpetuity. I know I'd get bored being omnipotent but I'm not psycopathic and most of those at the top definitely are so it's impossible to judge them by ordinary citeria because they have no conscience and they life to control.http://www.ponerology.com/psychopaths_2.html
 
scratch
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

The end is to stay in power in perpetuity. I know I'd get bored being omnipotent but I'm not psycopathic and most of those at the top definitely are so it's impossible to judge them by ordinary citeria because they have no conscience and they life to control.http://www.ponerology.com/psychopaths_2.html

dark,
as always well put.
 
hmsmark
#23
North Korea couldn't launch an attack against the US west coast and Alaska. It might not be able to launch an attack against the west coast of Japan! NK has a few nukes, sure. However, they would be destroyed if they used them, even if the US didn't hit back with nukes. Their army is big, but old and unsupplied. Their tanks are 50 years old and the NK Army doesn't have enough gas to put half a tank worth of fuel in all their vehicles. They would be destroyed by South Korea and Japan's Air Forces and mopped up by the ROK's modern Army before the US even really got in the fight over there.
 
MissAnnika
Free Thinker
#24
all the major powers have nuclear arms and everyone has someone on their side as well. i doubt any of them would be stupid enough to attack one another with this knowledge, but then again i could be giving more credit
 
MissAnnika
Free Thinker
#25
i wonder if people expect a 3rd world war just cuz its happened before.
with this theory i guess i should expect to get the chicken pox just because its happened before eh?
 
scratch
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MissAnnika View Post

all the major powers have nuclear arms and everyone has someone on their side as well. i doubt any of them would be stupid enough to attack one another with this knowledge, but then again i could be giving more credit

During the Cold War a phrase popped up: "MAD" = Mutually Assured Destruction. For over 40 years this was respected. But the world has changed drastically and common sense is no more.
Actually we were safer with a Cold War.
 
MissAnnika
Free Thinker
#27
i heard of a species of monkey who has giant orgies instead of fighting.
now i think we should all follow their example and make love not war
 
Scott Free
Free Thinker
#28
In university I read a series of 12 essays on what started the second world war. Each gave a very compelling argument for causes but none of them were the same.

The third world war started a while ago but a specific date for when it started can't be chosen until a victor writes one (provided anyone survives at all).

At this point with the advantage of being so close to modern history I think it is right to say the second world war never really ended. The argument for that, however, would be a longer more complicated post.
 

Similar Threads

0
The Editors: An End Has A Start
by Blackleaf | Jun 8th, 2007
0
54
Start a new party?
by Alberta'sfinest | Dec 22nd, 2005
26
Ought we start petitions...
by Machjo | Feb 4th, 2005