re: What Would It Take To Start WW3?

quote:

---

China goes to war in the South China Sea. China has been building up it's forces for some time now and has made domination of the South China Sea a priority. This is bringing them into conflict with Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan (which they were already very much in conflict with anyway).

---

This will happen only after they occupy North Korea and Taiwan. Once they do that, Japan goes nuclear and it's on.

Alabama losing this weekend to MS State..

Losing to both Mississippi schools in same year, would create an up rise never seen before.

oil, if the world need oil and the US wont share it with everyone

quote:

---

What Would It Take To Start WW3?

---

Some stupid frick fanatic detonating a nuclear device in the right place at the right time and making it look like it's someone else's fault, causing panic and pandemonium, and resulting in some bad fricking decisions from that panic. Long story short, if it happens, the Earth will be a very quiet place for the next 10,000 years.

quote:

---

WWI happened partly because of concentrated wealth in the royal houses of Europe. The dumb fricks were bored and had no idea how far along weaponry and come. The combo made for some real carnage. More real democracies and a global middle class is a good way to avoid major conflicts. Rich people don't die in wars, so if the decision to go to war is in the hands of the middle classes - the ones who will do the dying - it is less likely that we go to war. Nuclear wise - we got like 2500 ICBMs and China has like 25. China owns TBills - just like the Social Security Fund - you can't call in the debt - it is due when it is due.

---

excuse me but.....




'I have frequently been astonished since I have been in this House", Churchill went on, 'to hear with what composure and how glibly members, and even ministers, talk of a European war. He would not 'expatiate on the horrors of war', but there had been a great change which the House should not omit to notice,' and then he sat out his reasons for believing that, as far as warfare was concerned, that era was at an end. In days when wars had arisen from the policy of a minister o the passions of a king, when they were fought with small regular armies of professional soldiers, when the fighting itself was often suspended for the winter, 'it was possible to limit the liabilities of the combatants'. But now, ' when the mighty populations are impelled on each other, each individual severally embittered and inflamed, when the resources of science and the civilization sweep away everything that might mitigate their fury, a European war can only end in the ruin of the vanquished and scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors. Democracy is more vindictive Cabinets. The wars of peoples will be more terrible than the wars of kings.'

- Winston Churchill
From : Churchill: A Life by Martin Gilbert

I say we get some half-wit Dutchman to set fire to the Reichstag.

Or try to annex the Sudetenland.

you mean what would it take to start WWIV...right?

WWIII is happening right now.

It won't. The arenas for a "world war" have changed. It won't be fought in the trenches.

Maybe I am naïve but I have a hard time believing all-out, total war is possible between countries anymore. The 'enemy' always has a face and a story that can be immediately broadcast across the globe. It would be very hard for leaders and the military to mobilize non-combatants to win a total war.
Propaganda doesn't work on an informed populace.

What I can see happening is the breakdown of society due to some disaster(s) followed by regional conflicts over natural resources.