WW III would look like....
Sorry, I can't fix the OP spelling.
World War Three.....
WW III would look like....
Sorry, I can't fix the OP spelling.
Last edited by GGT; 08-05-2014 at 02:10 AM.
I'm suggesting a premise....that World War III is already in place....but we're reluctant to say so.
I'd love it if someone could convince me otherwise.
Nukes are still in their silos O_o;Originally Posted by GGT
Having nuclear weapons is the main metric?
Nope, countries being mean to each other is the main metric. That's why we're up to World War 198471893712389712987318927 right now.
Hope is the denial of reality
Well, when did "being mean" account for anything? How far back are we going to go?
About the same time when a world war entailed having most major powers engaging in an overt conflict against one another that produces millions of casualties.
Edit: I'll make it simple. What are the criteria for a world war and how have those criteria been met today?
Last edited by Loki; 08-05-2014 at 04:37 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
That's not simple, Loki. But several nations are being drawn into military conflicts. If they don't have a military force, they offer financial assistance instead, funding weapons and armaments. The US is good at being a middle man in these negotiations/trades.
WWIII may never be a "declared" war as it was in the past, with thousands of soldiers on front lines, or in submarines or aircraft, and it may not be a Nuclear war....but it will still be a World War. It will involve more than three first world democratic nations, and drag a few second nations along. We're already on the edge.
Has it ever occurred to you that this kind of behavior is standard for pretty much all of modern history? So according to your criteria, we've been in a non-stop world war for at least the last several centuries. Good job in trying to butcher yet another term.
It is my contention that your lack of knowledge of history can only be matched by the grandiosity of your historical claims.
Hope is the denial of reality
The world has been at war, in some form or other, since history has been recorded. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about modern warfare, which includes economic sanctions, monetary disputes, trade boycotts....and inflicting pain on innocent civilians in other nations. That wasn't part of War, as our ancestors understood it.
But that was then, and this is now.
Now it's considered a violation of human rights to block water access, prevent medication inflow, or blow out electrical grids. Those are considered illegal actions by the international community, but in domestic situations it's seen as political fall-out.
What would you consider WWIII?
Hell.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
In WWI about 40 million were either killed, wounded or went missing in action.
In WWII over 60 million died alone. No idea how many casualties there were when you include the wounded.
How does that compare to today. Its frankly offensive and belittling of the real struggles of the World Wars to provide any kind of parallel with today.
If WWIII did occur it would be a nuclear holocaust with billions of casualties.
A death-toll of billions or even millions doesn't have to be integral to the definition of a World War. It may be a necessary or just possible consequence, however, of the primary characteristic, which is the involvement of, well, most of the important world
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
GGT, people have attempted to apply the label "World War" to several other wars and conflicts, both hot and cold, for reasons similar to yours, but without any success.
It would be interesting to know whether or not it has become more difficult to recognise a state of war given the development of more sophisticated methods. Then again, perhaps it's still all down to declaring war
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
None of those are new.
Hope is the denial of reality
A world war would A) have to involve a significant portion of the world's states/the territories they govern directly involved or supporting the war in some capacity, B) involve at least some active violence by land, sea, or air, in most regions of the world, C) the mobilization of a major segment of manpower in the primary participating countries/territories over and above their peacetime levels and/or a similar mobilization of their economy on a war footing, D) the primary participating countries/territories should be numerous enough or large enough that this mobilization is significant as a proportion of the global economy/population.
One thing this means is that activities like peace-keeping or asymmetric warfare in small theaters are never going qualify as a World War, no matter how broad their scope is. The only criteria met right now is B. The Cold War was rather closer to being a world war than anything in the last decade.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I always thought the Cold War was actually WWIII.
Congratulations America
A weird world war that doesn't even quality as a war at all between any of the major powers of the world. You'd have a far better argument for the Napoleonic Wars or a bunch of wars in the 18th century.
Hope is the denial of reality
You mean like the west declaring "War on Terrorism", when terrorism can mean anything from cyber spying, computer system sabotage, arms dealers, rebel insurgencies, and drug cartels to Islamic jihad?GGT, people have attempted to apply the label "World War" to several other wars and conflicts, both hot and cold, for reasons similar to yours, but without any success.
It would be interesting to know whether or not it has become more difficult to recognise a state of war given the development of more sophisticated methods. Then again, perhaps it's still all down to declaring war
Some people consider this Cold War II.
Only in the smallest context would your hypothesis make sense. (B) means things like water, electricity, medicine, or basic shelter are frequently "held hostage, but wouldn't meet other metrics.
If you think modern "World War" falls into distinct categories, but doesn't mean WWIII, please explain that to me.
I don't see Fuzzy proposing any hypothesis...And you've still not produced any kind of criteria that could be used to denote something a world war.
Hope is the denial of reality
You may not think that rebel incursions or insurgencies are another World War, but I think they are. Why? Because that's how we've acted and reacted.
Putin responds by banning all food imports. What a guy. He's riding popular opinion when making national policy, while hoping Russians don't ask too many questions.
Then they do not qualify as falling into the B criteria. Special forces operations, drone strikes, local insurgencies, these might be used to meet B. Sanction regimes, the Israeli blockade of Gaza, etc. do not. I said active violence and I meant active violence, because that is what actual war entails. A world war is an actual war (even if it might not be a declared one), not a metaphorical one. Which is why I do not agree with Hazir's belief that the Cold War was, effectively, WWIII. It came close in some respects, including actual violence in multiple theaters across the globe, but ultimately failed to to go far enough (and thank God for that).
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Then how do you consider today's events? If "active violence" is how you define and categorize things.....then how does US domestic violence play in that picture?
Clearly a higher murder rate in the US is a valid criterion for the existence of a world war...
Hope is the denial of reality
huh?
The domestic US murder rate has been decreasing, while international murders in the US have been increasing. This isn't just a glitch in data collection.
As unrelated. The Laci Peterson murder has nothing to do with a gang killing as part of a turf-war over drugs in San Antonio has nothing to do with the Unabomber has nothing to do with that recent detainment in Aruba has nothing to do with the raid which seized Osama bin Laden.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
And this has about the same relevance regarding a world war as the Peruvian price of strawberries. So are you going to put forth actual criteria for the existence of a world war?
Hope is the denial of reality
Then you should "advize" some political figures who think otherwise.
Pretty sure the only person who thinks otherwise is you...
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote