World War III?

[GWS]

I found this brief set of WW III scenarios a quick and interesting read.


WW III Thoughts

Read More

 

[ma96782]

Let's skip WW3 and go directly to WW4. And since it's Friday Night.....here is your FREE movie.

Aloha, Mark

PS....wait a min. that one was already featured.

So then......how about something from the black and white files?

 

[Tony617]

Didn't Albert Einstein say the he does know what weapons will be used for WWIII but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones?

 

[Oro]

I firmly believe there is very little chance of a "World War" breaking out any time soon.

The prior four "world wars" (yes, there have been four) Each came about when a power or combination of powers could calculate a perceived military advantage to risk a wider war. Currently, none of the potential "bad guys" has a stand-alone chance against the western order. Whether you calculate Iran and proxies, China, or Russia - none have the military structure to confront the US single handedly, or the US/NATO alliance collectively.

Iran, Russia, and China also do not have any strong ties of military cooperation or mutual aid treaties in place, and even acting in concert would not offer a serious challenge to the western allies at this time.

I skimmed that article and there were no credentials about the author - I'm not sure of his expertise here. I did find a few factual errors such as that Japan is expanding it's military for the first time since WWII - not true as it has been done before. Another was a superficial understanding of Turkey and deep misunderstanding of its posture towards Russia. So I would not take that article as much more than some eye candy to buff the web site, which is in the business of selling products based on fear.

We have genuinely had four truly "world wars" - the Seven Year's War, the French Revolutionary and Napoleanic Wars, the Great War, and the European portion of "World War II" from 1939 to 1945. The Pacific War was a distinctly different and disconnected conflict that really only overlapped in time, and not in the nature of the conflict. Historians are finally starting to more clearly make this distinction and it will be the more standard interpretation in the not-too-distant future. Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote a book on just this subject

 

[albin25]

Just before/during what we now know as WWl… it was "The Great War" and "The War to End All Wars".

What We now call WWII was the "War with Germany" and the "War in the Pacific/With Japan". At some point to recognize it was the second time the World was at war, WWI was entered into common usage when we felt we needed to start numbering them.

Now everyone is worried about a WWIII happening. Well, I got news for ya, the World has been at war for quite some time…."The East Europe War","The Middle-east War", The RussoChinoRanian War", "The Southern Border Invasion"…..
…. As is usual, the winners will get to name it, let's just hope it's not "The War to End America". !

 

[Camelfilter]

... Currently, none of the potential "bad guys" has a stand-alone chance against the western order. Whether you calculate Iran and proxies, China, or Russia - none have the military structure to confront the US single handedly, or the US/NATO alliance collectively...

Correct.

Unfortunately our current administration is inept from the top down. Such is commonly known worldwide.

So inept that Iran, China & Russia are making moves that could result in global conflict. They are banking on an inept administration either not reacting, or reacting dismally.

See Afghanistan withdrawal.

 

[Stomper]

Correct.

Unfortunately our current administration is inept from the top down. Such is commonly known worldwide.

So inept that Iran, China & Russia are making moves that could result in global conflict. They are banking on an inept administration either not reacting, or reacting dismally.

See Afghanistan withdrawal.

Ol' Pedo-Joe can't plagiarize, talk shít, kiss LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ azz, or sniff his way outta this one….


His only recourse is to have his brother accept more bribes…..

 

[Certaindeaf]

Didn't really read the whole thread but $5 WWW will involve folding chairs so..

 

[nwslopoke]

What constitutes a WW? Does Canada have to be involved?

The power brokers can't keep their tax paid mitts of lower conflict countries since the end of WWII. Especially us.

Will there be a nation wide shooting war within our shores? That's hard to see. I wouldn't be surprised by border conflicts at all. Historically California has had them over water rights, for example. I can see border states in a shooting war.

 

[Camelfilter]

What constitutes a WW? Does Canada have to be involved?

Great point!

WW = global deaths numbering in millions, once it's "over". Involving multiple countries world wide.

Active war zones/deaths/casualties need not be in every involved country.

If such devolves to nuclear? Either directly or indirectly (HEMP/EMP), all life affected.

IMO.

 

[ma96782]

LOL......

Unless and until.......

"War Were Declared"

My guess is.......we will not be counting up. Not that it makes all that much of a difference (to some).

Aloha, Mark

 

[Oro]

Correct.

Unfortunately our current administration is inept from the top down. Such is commonly known worldwide.

So inept that Iran, China & Russia are making moves that could result in global conflict. They are banking on an inept administration either not reacting, or reacting dismally.

See Afghanistan withdrawal.

I think our current administration has been inept in handling the Ukraine War, and a closer cooperation with European allies would have been much smarter and a better deterrent. BUT: the current chapter of the Ukraine War is the shot-in-the-arm the US and Europe needs to maintain a high level of operational capability, and weapons investment. Western preparedness and capabilities are going to get a nice boost out of the realization that Putin was perfectly capable of going full-Hitler on a European neighbor.

Our 2nd-tier missile systems wiping out their S400s, Pantsir, and other 1st tier defense systems is a real lesson. On the other hand, the Chinese now know how crappy the tech underneath their systems is, and how desparately they need to re-engineer everything. The future is by no means entirely safe for us, but in the near-term, we have a wide margin of safety that won't be challenged.

 

[Cavedweller]

The prior four "world wars" (yes, there have been four) Each came about when a power or combination of powers could calculate a perceived military advantage to risk a wider war.

I would take issue with several of your statements. Firstly, I would say that your proposition that there have been 4 WWs is highly Eurocentric. One might as well go back to the Roman era, or better yet, Alexander the Great and start numbering. His war of conquest truly embraced all of the known world and its great powers, from a European point of view.

Secondly, I would propose that there were not 2 WWs, but only World War 1 Part 1 and World War 1 Part 2. WW2 would never have happened (at least the European portion) except for excessive penalties imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. It was largely to restore Germany to a pre-Versailles condition that WW1 Part 2 was fought.

Lastly, I would challenge your statement that there was any calculation of risk by any of the powers involved in WW1. It began as a regional conflict (Austria vs. Serbia), triggered by what today would be considered a terrorist act, which accreted into a wider conflict as additional nations were dragged in by a complex web of alliances.

 

[Tony617]

I found this brief set of WW III scenarios a quick and interesting read.


WW III Thoughts

Wasn't this an ad for MIRA Safety and all of their safely products they are selling? But other YouTube channels are talking about the same scenarios as well.

 

[GWS]

Secondly, I would propose that there were not 2 WWs, but only World War 1 Part 1 and World War 1 Part 2. WW2 would never have happened (at least the European portion) except for excessive penalties imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. It was largely to restore Germany to a pre-Versailles condition that WW1 Part 2 was fought.

I would consider your idea of WW I part 2 Western hemisphericocentric in that ignores the entire Pacific War fought by every major Allied power and considering Japan's war in China, cost millions of lives in its own right. Regardless of my creation of new words, World War Two was its own entity,. Started in its own time, after an extended period of peace (over 10 years at least) and fought by more countries over a vastly wider area.

 

[GWS]

Wasn't this an ad for MIRA Safety and all of their safely products they are selling? But other YouTube channels are talking about the same scenarios as well.

Yep, that's where I found it but since I thought it to be concise and well written and they weren't directly plugging their gear I figured I'd share it.

 

[Oro]

I would take issue with several of your statements. Firstly, I would say that your proposition that there have been 4 WWs is highly Eurocentric. …

You quote other European example(s), which does not negate the point. The fact the wars were indeed euro-centric, is not way doesn't make them less true. One would be better served asking why only European powers started world wars. Part of the answer is simply technological - only after 1600 was their the technology to make a conflict "global." No Roman or Grecian (also european) conflict could be construed as "global." It's not Eurocentric per se, it's technology-centric.

Also, my examples are not wholly Euro-centric. In fact, the oldest example of the Seven Year's War crucially involves the Asian Carnatic Wars in India, French and Indian War, and other non-European conflicts that were elemental to the whole and making it a global or "world" war.

Secondly, I would propose that there were not 2 WWs, but only World War 1 Part 1 and World War 1 Part 2. ….

While there were big similarity in the line-ups on both sides, it was not inevitable. In 1932, Germany was on no inherently hostile path with other western powers. It was bent that way in the short interim by a smaller minority. I highly recommend "The Origins of the Second World War" by A.J.P. Taylor, which clearly and in a large consensus among historias, dispelled that line of thought a while ago.

Lastly, I would challenge your statement that there was any calculation of risk by any of the powers involved in WW1. It began as a regional conflict (Austria vs. Serbia), triggered by what today would be considered a terrorist act, which accreted into a wider conflict as additional nations were dragged in by a complex web of alliances.

Germany had been calculating its force-ratio with England, and perfecting it's planned war with France, for about two decades prior to August, 1914. The naval spending programs and constant evolution of the von Schlieffen Plan. They had one month between events to contemplate action before green-lighting it by letting Austria attack Serbia. They knew the alliances and were it would lead; the Kaiser was painfully aware. I highly recommend a closer study of "The Guns of August" on this point. It's an older work, but imminently readable and covers this quite well.

ETA: In linear terms, Austia-Hungary did NOT launch an attack on Serbia - which it NEW would involve Russian entry, until it had backing from Germany. Germany KNEW full well that Russian entry involved French entry, and that's why - for weeks prior, they massed their army on the French border, not Russian. The only wild card in Germany's calculation was the UK. They were unaware that there was an Anglo-French entente about mutual assistance. But their naval program had calculated for that, and they felt safe. Germany had war-gamed and calculated all the scenarios and green-lit the Serbian invasion despite there being no genuine need for it, knowing the consequences. While some people outside the diplomatic and military leadership were wholly surprised at the war, those INSIDE and making policy and executing it knew fully well where it was going.

 

[Tony617]

I would consider your idea of WW I part 2 Western hemisphericocentric in that ignores the entire Pacific War fought by every major Allied power and considering Japan's war in China, cost millions of lives in its own right. Regardless of my creation of new words, World War Two was its own entity,. Started in its own time, after an extended period of peace (over 10 years at least) and fought by more countries over a vastly wider area.

Yes the UK and Aussies were involved in the Pacific theater war. The UK had a lot of colonial territory taken. My first trip to Singapore back in the early 1990s we toured the Fort Siloso on Sentosa Island. It saw action in WWII but Singapore and other countries were invaded by the Japanese in WWII. I cannot imagine with the high tempeatures and high humidy the solders stationed in Fort Silose had to endure.

 

[Cavedweller]

I would consider your idea of WW I part 2 Western hemisphericocentric in that ignores the entire Pacific War fought by every major Allied power and considering Japan's war in China, cost millions of lives in its own right. Regardless of my creation of new words, World War Two was its own entity,. Started in its own time, after an extended period of peace (over 10 years at least) and fought by more countries over a vastly wider area.

That's a good point. Do you think the Pacific war would have been considered a world war had there been no war in Europe? Would there have been a war in the Pacific involving the European powers had FDR not provoked a Japanese attack as an excuse to get involved in Europe, or would it have remained a regional conflict between Japan and China?

 

[GWS]

That's a good point. Do you think the Pacific war would have been considered a world war had there been no war in Europe? Would there have been a war in the Pacific involving the European powers had FDR not provoked a Japanese attack as an excuse to get involved in Europe, or would it have remained a regional conflict between Japan and China?

Given Japanese aspirations, I'd say yes war was indeed inevitable. Their war in China, which started back in 1931 was consuming resources at a prodigious rate and neither Japan nor their Korean or Chinese holdings had the oil, rubber or minerals necessary. Japan did not like being dependent on American scrap steel and oil and they saw expansion as their best option. The English had their holdings/colonies in Borneo, Burma and India, The French in Viet Nam and the Dutch in Borneo and Sumatra. And we had the Philippines. Japan wanted all of them to both boot out the colonists and set themselves up as the rulers of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. In short Japan was going to take these. Do you think the USA, UK and the others (Except France) wouldn't fight to keep their colonies and the riches they held. As to FDR provoking Japan by saying "Hey if you don't stop killing all those nice Chinese folks, not to mention shooting up one of our gunboats, we'll cut off your oil and money."... Japan's slaughtering of Chinese people (See "The Rape of Nanking" and other books on the subject) made a lot of Americans push Roosevelt to do something to stop them... Whether that fed into FDR's "plot" to get us into the war or an inevitable series of events that got us into WW II, I dunno. From what I've read, It was Japan's decisions and actions that brought us into the war.

ETA It was Hitler's foolish decision to declare war on the US after we declared war on Japan that gave FDR the green light to declare war on Europe. Nazi Germany Yes I know Hitler was treaty bound to do that, but we all know how cavalier he was about abiding by treaty requirements if they didn't work in his favor.