- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What Would It Take To Start WW3?
Posted on 11/13/14 at 7:09 am to Darth_Vader
Posted on 11/13/14 at 7:09 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
So that whole Hitler, Stalin thing... Ever hear of em? Maybe FDR, Tojo, Churhill? Ring any bells?
I got nothing. We're not all history buffs here, how about a link or an explanation? And let's ease up on the condescending tone. I don't get all uppity when I explain Spiderman story arcs to people unfamiliar with them.
1
Posted on 11/13/14 at 7:13 am to LucasP
I will take a stab at this. Of course some aren't history buffs, but everyone has heard of WWII, well lets just say most everyone. What kind of link would be needed for WWII?
Posted on 11/13/14 at 7:15 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
What kind of link would be needed for WWII?
Public schools bro. How about a Batman analogy? I can always understand things better when put into Gotham terms.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 7:19 am to LucasP
I don't if I should laugh or cry.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 7:23 am to Spaceman Spiff
So you're not even gonna try? Pretty weak man. A real student of history could put any conflict into terms of the caped crusader fighting villains. I'm disappointed.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 7:39 am to LucasP
Not even going there. If it takes that to make one understand something, then they should re-evaluate their collective.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 7:44 am to Spaceman Spiff
Just out of curiosity, I googled it. There's not much but I did find this:
Thought it was kind of funny.
Here's the link
quote:
Let me tell you what you missed. This film is analogous to World War II. It's an American-British alliance forced into despicable fascistic behavior in order to crush the Axis powers. You might have heard of this name, Hitler?????? Nicholson's Joker's television takeover "I am not the terrorist, Batman Is" speech is lifted directly from the same speech that Hitler made over the radio 60 years ago referrring to a terrorist named Winston Churchill. This world has gone out of scale and human beings have been reduced to cartoon figures, overwhelmed by the out-scale world they built not realizing what was happenning. Joker embraces this new fascistic world of evil and gratification. Batman copes with it, never understanding why young Jack Napier wasted his parents for no more than a whim. Art museums are supposed to be art museums, not privileged snooty restaurants for the well connected. The media is SUPPOSED to take sides against evil (Robert Wuhl), not be fascinated by it (Kim Bassinger). Police Commissioner's are not supposed to be familiar with the dice tables. This film is fascism vs. fascism in a world gone out of scale. Only the tormented Batman lowers himself to his enemies level (exactly what WE did in WW-2) so as to defeat him and then afterwards, try to reclaim his humanity. The film also works as mass entertainment. "What kind of a world do we live in where a man dressed up as a Bat steals all of my press?" This is a cinematic Masterwork up there with Citizen Kane and best of John Ford. Sorry some of you didn't pick up on that. You missed it.
Thought it was kind of funny.
Here's the link
This post was edited on 11/13/14 at 7:45 am
Posted on 11/13/14 at 8:39 am to damnedoldtigah
quote:
All they have to do is push a few buttons if things get that bad for them and the rest of the world ....
and what would that accomplish, exactly? they would get blown the frick away and everyone (including china) would turn on them
that would be like a larger (and more devastating for us and probably europe) gulf war (the first one)
Posted on 11/13/14 at 8:41 am to Yat27
quote:
I once read someone write the following on going to war with Russia: fighting a conventional war with Russia is like getting in a fist fight with someone that you know has a pistol in his pocket. You don't know if he will use it or when he will use it but you know that it is there.
quote:
Both of the kids have guns in their pockets, and one of them is severely outclassed in a hand-to-hand fight. It's a pretty scary scenario.
Russia is obviously drunk in this scenario, also
Posted on 11/13/14 at 8:44 am to damnedoldtigah
quote:
All they have to do is push a few buttons if things get that bad for them and the rest of the world ....
At least the Soviets went down peacefully. I don't know that I trust our overlords to do the same when things like the energy supply gets tight -- and you can make the case that the neocons initiated the plan that accounts for that.
This post was edited on 11/13/14 at 8:44 am
Posted on 11/13/14 at 8:49 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
I don't know that I trust our overlords to do the same when things like the energy supply gets tight
if this occurs, then there may be world wars. however, the world is going to devolve regardless
i was watching videos about globalization last night and i saw a great quote from mill...i couldnt find it but i found this one
quote:
But the economical advantages of commerce are surpassed in importance by those of its effects which are intellectual and moral. It is hardly possible to overrate the value, in the present low state of human improvement, of placing human beings in contact with persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike those with which they are familiar. Commerce is now what war once was, the principal source of this contact.
there is a reason that the # of violent deaths is going down every year across the world. there is also a reason that international conflict has all but died (the 2 iraq wars being the exception) in about the last 40 years. there are civil wars that are almost exclusively limited to either the breakdown of the USSR bloc and/or islam.
it's not impossible that another world war occurs (again, if oil does become scarce it is inevitable), but it's highly unlikely. hell, with globalization and international trade, poor people are becoming more and more rare. that alone will exponentially decrease the chance of a world war.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 9:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and what would that accomplish, exactly? they would get blown the frick away and everyone (including china) would turn on them
Actually, that is my point. It wouldn't be just Russia getting blown away. We would all go. While there are third world counties that would not take a direct hit, the after effects would get to them eventually (I.e., nuclear winter, radiation fallout, etc). There would be no winners - other than cock roaches which were hypothesized to be the only living thing that would survive the radiation.
Hopefully, the doomsday scenario never happens.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 9:30 am to rzd30
quote:
This is all nice, but it would not even be fair at the current point with how superior our Naval and Air ofrces are compared to the rest of the world.
I read this as orifices and couldn't help but chuckle.
Oh, and for WWIII, it would take a complete overhaul of the global economy. Like someone said earlier, economic mutually assured destruction is the biggest inhibitor of a global war at the moment. Until that changes, we're good.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 10:08 am to slackster
quote:
quote:
Oh, and for WWIII, it would take a complete overhaul of the global economy. Like someone said earlier, economic mutually assured destruction is the biggest inhibitor of a global war at the moment. Until that changes, we're good.
People keep saying this over and over in this thread but this notion of today's economic environment making a general war less likly ignores the fact that the economies of the major powers in 1914 were just as intertwined as they are in 2014.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 10:44 am to Darth_Vader
^This.
The economies have nothing to do with it. A spark may smolder at first, but can flare up rather quickly. Take China plopping its oil wells off of Vietnam or the China/Russia/Japanese island disputes. Or maybe in the middle east Iran decides to do something either overt or covert - maybe, say, launching a small nuke-tipped missile from a remote area in a bordering country. Or maybe Pakistan and India unleashing hell over a border dispute. Or maybe a Russian fighter having a targeting/launch malfunction resulting in a launch against allied a/c which was seen as an act of aggression and fired on in return.
Just a little spark.
The economies have nothing to do with it. A spark may smolder at first, but can flare up rather quickly. Take China plopping its oil wells off of Vietnam or the China/Russia/Japanese island disputes. Or maybe in the middle east Iran decides to do something either overt or covert - maybe, say, launching a small nuke-tipped missile from a remote area in a bordering country. Or maybe Pakistan and India unleashing hell over a border dispute. Or maybe a Russian fighter having a targeting/launch malfunction resulting in a launch against allied a/c which was seen as an act of aggression and fired on in return.
Just a little spark.
This post was edited on 11/13/14 at 10:48 am
Posted on 11/13/14 at 10:47 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Posted by Spaceman Spiff ^This. The economies have nothing to do with it. A spark may smolder at first, but can flare up rather quickly. Take China plopping its oil wells off of Vietnam or the China/Russia/Japanese island disputes. Or maybe in the middle east Iran decides to do something either overt or covert - maybe, say, launching a small nuke-tipped missile from a remote area in a bordering country. Or maybe Pakistan and India unleashing hell over a border dispute. Just a little spark.
Yep. It's far easier for countries to go to war than you'd think.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 10:49 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
1. Russia continues to try to reclaim the old Soviet Union. Let's say Ukraine falls back under Russian control and NATO stands by and does nothing. This would probably signal to Putin that NATO would likewise do nothing if he went after the Baltic states or perhaps even Poland. If he overreaches and tries to go after these states,
Similarities to Germany pre-WW2 right now are eerie. Substitute NATO for League of Nations and it's a carbon copy.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 10:50 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
economies of the major powers in 1914 were just as intertwined as they are in 2014.
We'll that's obviously incorrect. I'll allow an argument that the major governments are just as involved, but it is simply disingenuous to argue that the public at-large has never been as connected as they are right now.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 10:50 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Yep. It's far easier for countries to go to war than you'd think.
I wouldn't put it past someone like Iran/Syria/NK instigating something covertly in which another country getting the blame.
This post was edited on 11/13/14 at 10:51 am
Posted on 11/13/14 at 11:27 am to Spaceman Spiff
What would keep WWIII from using nuclear weapons?
Would the nukes and MAD be what actually prevents a world war?
Would the nukes and MAD be what actually prevents a world war?
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News