How will WW3 start?

[Kendo 2]

...I think the only nations capable of making war on such a scale are the US and China.

 

Countries with standing armies over 1,000,000:

China

India

North Korea

Russia

United States

 

and all of them have nukes, dubious foreign policies and interests in acquiring raw materials. Politicians (being how they are) can screw things up over night.

[grannywils]

I have stayed away from this thread all along, as war in general is probably my very least favorite topic.

 

However, I felt it incumbant upon me to respond at least to the last couple of posts (prior to Kendo) on this very important subject.

 

The previous two World Wars were won for a variety of reasons; but economics while playing a role, had in my opinion very little to do with the end results. I will not go into those two wars now since the OP wanted to discuss possible reasons for a third World war.

 

Brokenergy has suggested possible participants but then claims that global war is just too expensive. Well, when did that ever stop anybody? Small conflicts, you say? Within or between nations. How exactly did WWI and WWII begin?

 

To patently refuse to believe that a third world war is likely or even possible just because it would be expensive is in my opinion just a tad naive. The bigger and badder we all get, the more likely it is that we will all want more. We cannot rely on the sanity or diplomacy of leaders anymore to make logical determinations against going to war. In fact there are factions in multiple regions that would welcome the possibility of an outright Armageddon.

 

The political and economic climate in which we currently find ourselves is a disaster just waiting to happen. Trade relations between nations if broken down would cause crumbling economies throughout the world. Some injured parties in scenarios such as these would have no recourse but to go to war.

 

When I hear people say that global war is just not possible, or is too expensive or is too far fetched, I just have to remind them that there were probably lots of folks who felt that way back in the early 20th Century and again about 30 years later.

 

We need to be paying attention to the world around us.

 

 

 

 

 

[Harbringe]

Wow Granny was that ever good

[brokenergy]

I have stayed away from this thread all along, as war in general is probably my very least favorite topic.

 

However, I felt it incumbant upon me to respond at least to the last couple of posts (prior to Kendo) on this very important subject.

 

The previous two World Wars were won for a variety of reasons; but economics while playing a role, had in my opinion very little to do with the end results. I will not go into those two wars now since the OP wanted to discuss possible reasons for a third World war.

 

Brokenergy has suggested possible participants but then claims that global war is just too expensive. Well, when did that ever stop anybody? Small conflicts, you say? Within or between nations. How exactly did WWI and WWII begin?

 

To patently refuse to believe that a third world war is likely or even possible just because it would be expensive is in my opinion just a tad naive. The bigger and badder we all get, the more likely it is that we will all want more. We cannot rely on the sanity or diplomacy of leaders anymore to make logical determinations against going to war. In fact there are factions in multiple regions that would welcome the possibility of an outright Armageddon.

 

The political and economic climate in which we currently find ourselves is a disaster just waiting to happen. Trade relations between nations if broken down would cause crumbling economies throughout the world. Some injured parties in scenarios such as these would have no recourse but to go to war.

 

When I hear people say that global war is just not possible, or is too expensive or is too far fetched, I just have to remind them that there were probably lots of folks who felt that way back in the early 20th Century and again about 30 years later.

 

We need to be paying attention to the world around us.

 

The causes of first and second world wars were already in-place long before those conflicts arised. To give a long essay on how they both started and ended would take at least several pages worth of referneces and note taking, something that I don't really have the time for at the moment. It a simple fact that war is expensive, by the end of both wars both the alies and enemies ran out of money and went into a period of depression before bouncing back (Germany being faired the worst, which is bad in economics in Europe as it is the powerhouse of the European economy). The US is currently in debt for massively funding two major wars between 2001-present and bailing out big bussness between 2007-8.

 

Do you think that NK is going to attack SK causing WW3? It would cause a regional war between the two nations but nothing big as everyone in the world would be fighting one side or another. What about Iraq? Or Afganistan? Did other nations in the Persian Gulf or the international community intervined with force when the US and others invaded in both nations? Did the arab states decided to attack Israel over the issue in Gaza in 2008? No, they have more domestic issue to take care of than to cause a huge war where both sides will lose. You feel that some of us are being far-fetched over this but global economies are being more interwined because of globalism and this causes more problems when wars arise as seen in the commodites' index.

 

No-one in majority really wants war and no-one in majority is going to make a willing scarifice that could cost their economy and lives of their cilizens. Because when they come is going to hit your hit pocket and no polie is going to lose his/her job because of that.

[grannywils]

No one denys that war is expenisve. That would be ludicrous. I believe what I said was that economics did not play a major role in who won or lost WWI and WWII.

 

Nor did I say anything about North Korea attacking South Korea, In fact I made no mention of any specific entity attacking any other. However, since you do mention it and then go on to say that "everyone in the world would be fighting one side or the other"; does that not constitute a "world at war"?

 

I am being a little glib there. but I am trying to make a point. You say that in Iraq and Afganistan other nations in the Persian Gulf and International Community did not intervine with force when the US and others invaded both nations. You make a good point. However, I believe that it is a somewhat empty one. Why not let the big guys fight that battle for them and get all the bad press while perhaps they might reap some of the benefits?

 

The danger lies in areas where the big guys need to confront one another and can no longer avoid it. No, by and large, they don't want global war. It would either cause the end of the planet or the embarrassment of one of the largest governments in the system, when it had to back down.

 

But the day will come when one of us has to rush to the defense of one of our allies against someone who is supported by one of the other big guys. Either that or one or two of those guys mentioned in Kendo's very astute post earlier will just go ahead and decide to duke it out. Then some of us will feel the need to get involved and put a stop to it.

 

Anyone who cannot as least see that as a possibility has his or her head in the sand. In addition, believe it or not, there are those who actually do like the idea of war. Don't ask me why. I will never understand it.

 

 

[marharth]

No one denys that war is expenisve. That would be ludicrous. I believe what I said was that economics did not play a major role in who won or lost WWI and WWII.

Well bad economics played a pretty large role with Germany in WW2. It was a large cause of WW2. I suppose the outcome didn't have as much to do with economics, but it was one of the main reasons that Germany wanted a war.

[grannywils]

No one denys that war is expenisve. That would be ludicrous. I believe what I said was that economics did not play a major role in who won or lost WWI and WWII.

Well bad economics played a pretty large role with Germany in WW2. It was a large cause of WW2. I suppose the outcome didn't have as much to do with economics, but it was one of the main reasons that Germany wanted a war.

 

Are you serious?

 

[grannywils]

Do you think that Hitller's desire for world domination and his need to take over all the surrounding territory might have had anything to do with the Axis' entry into war. Maybe he wanted to get back the land lost in WWI. Have you heard anything about his desire to cleanse the population of undesireables. This is just a thought of course, but it is only a beginning. No economics so far....

[ginnyfizz]

Grannywils, I know that you will be nodding your head sadly (as I do) at this poem, which I studied in high school - one of my Grandads was in WWI and effects as described in that poem were witnessed by him;-

 

Dulce et decorum est, by Wilfred Owen

 

As to the economics of the world wars, I can agree with both Granny and Marharth to an extent. German irridentism and the desire for Lebensraum in the 1930's springs to mind, let's face it a war abroad can distract attention from bad situations at home, as well as giving you the chance to grab that Lebensraum, some tasty natural resources and maybe some cheap slave labour. So Marharth has a point that this was at least some of the reason why the German regime wanted certainly WWII.

 

But as per Granny, economics was not the only factor either in the cause or the end result. Suicidal gallantry, sheer determination (and the misjudgment of such by the enemy), force of numbers, General Winter and other forces of nature have always played their part.

 

Not to mention half assed politicians with twitchy trigger fingers...

[grannywils]

Grannywils, I know that you will be nodding your head sadly (as I do) at this poem, which I studied in high school - one of my Grandads was in WWI and effects as described in that poem were witnessed by him;-

 

Dulce et decorum est, by Wilfred Owen

 

As to the economics of the world wars, I can agree with both Granny and Marharth to an extent. German irridentism and the desire for Lebensraum in the 1930's springs to mind, let's face it a war abroad can distract attention from bad situations at home, as well as giving you the chance to grab that Lebensraum, some tasty natural resources and maybe some cheap slave labour. So Marharth has a point that this was at least some of the reason why the German regime wanted certainly WWII.

 

But as per Granny, economics was not the only factor either in the cause or the end result. Suicidal gallantry, sheer determination (and the misjudgment of such by the enemy), force of numbers, General Winter and other forces of nature have always played their part.

 

Not to mention half assed politicians with twitchy trigger fingers...

 

 

Very moving poem, Ginny. And, yes of course you are right, as is Marharth. Economics played a part. But I cannot agree with him when he says that Germany entered the war for economic reasons. I was simply addressing some points he may have missed.