Is the world experiancing the Third World War? WW3?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Apr 12, 2015.

  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    Yes, I am referring to the events in the middle east.

    With the ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in Syria/Iraq, the uprising in Yemen, Egypt battling its own extremest, and instability from Morocco to Pakistan (even India), the setup looks very similar to Europe the months before WW1 except its religious groups rather than family and patriotic chest thumping.

    There is also the collateral effects of the west being targets for these radicals as seen by attacks and recruitment of jihadist. As much as they battle each other, they spend a lot of effort going well outside the region making it truly a world wide event.


    So, are we IN WW3 now?
    When do you think it started?

    If not, do you think it will or will not?

    I think we are, and it began about the time the Suuni Baathist in Iraq where stripped of all power (in 2004? cant remember when) and left to become a core of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. Also saw the rise of Al Queda in Iraq who formed in the power vacuum after Saddam.
     
  2. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #2
    Naw. A World War would be an upset of such massive scale, the fate of entire nations and their billions upon billions of citizens hang in the balance.

    What we're seeing in the mideast is a regional skirmish all the developed nations have a vested political interest in.
     
  3. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #3
    IMO, the only thing preventing a WW3 is commerce.
     
  4. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #4
    No it's Taylor Swift
     
  5. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    The likes of ISIS woul love it to be WWIII, or the World Islamic War but not even close and that name IMO would do a disservice to the billion plus Muslims around the world. But something like the Middle East could always spark something bigger.
     
  6. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #6
    I was always told living here in Europe.

    If WW III ever broke out we would all be killed before we knew who started it.:p
     
  7. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #7
    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

    - Albert Einstein
     
  8. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #8
    I do not think we are in WW3. Radical Islam is a huge problem, but those psychos do not have entire countries, just regions. It does not help that we created organizations such as ALQ and ISIS.

    OTOH, you don't have Russia, Pakistan, China, etc (and any other country with nukes) going out and nuking each other.

    There is always potential for WW3 and that only increases with the non-stop meddling. Unfortunately, the banksters can start a world war any time they want.
     
  9. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #9
    Does not have to be billions.
    Millions of lives are under threat.

    Yet commerce funds these radicals, selling oil for bullets

    AQL and ISIS is open expression of hatred toward western ideals.
    There is a far, far more hatred that is not expressed.
    And dont forget Iran is controlled by a handful of powerful fanatics, any one of which could toss a nuke.

    WW3 does not have to be fought with nukes.
     
  10. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #10
    But not the current geopolitical status quo. There is nothing any Middle Eastern nation can do, either by themselves, or en masse, that will directly effect the western world in any lasting way.

    A direct and imminent threat to the sovereignty of the western world and eastern powers would be a prime requirement for a World War.
     
  11. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #11
    Frankly I worry about Russia and Eastern Europe and the PRC in Asia more than I do about a bunch of lunatics in the Middle East. I do find it worrying that there is a clump of countries with common borders that are all armed with nukes (Russia, North Korea, PRC, India, Pakistan) and all of which are unpredictable.
     
  12. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #12
    I think for WWIII to break out there would have to be much more world involvement. While there are isolated attacks to Western countries, primarily all the fighting is happening in the Middle East with countries that aren't exactly world powers (i.e. Russia, China, India, major Western European countries)

    Could the current situation in the middle east the launchpad for WWIII, perhaps, but I don't see that happening... as of yet anyways.
     
  13. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
  14. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #14
    Yes.

    The Third World is in bloody turmoil; ergo, it's a Third World War.
     
  15. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #15
    WW III as something that resembles - even slightly - the first two wars called 'World Wars' - No. The majority of the world's nations (and people) are living in relatively peaceful times. This despite the horrendous bloodshed happening in a small area of the middle east and also Africa.

    If WW III starts soon, my best guess is that it will start in the South China Sea when China goes a step too far and hostilities break out between it and one of the American allies. Japan, Taiwan, etc. If China doesn't back down and forces the US to actually come to its ally's aid then things could easily spiral out of control. Probably won't - but they could.

    I think it'll happen in the South China Sea (instead of Europe between Russia and NATO) because the Chinese and US militaries don't really understand each other well, and don't have the experience of knowing how far they can push a small incident and keep it from escalating.

    In Europe, NATO and the Soviet/Russian military have been pushing back and forth for so long that there is now an very good understanding of how far they can go before it is too late to pull back.

    There just isn't enough history yet between the US and Chinese militaries in South East Asia. There's a reason why during the beginning part of the Cold War people feared the start of WW III in Europe.... we didn't yet know how the Soviets would react, and what they might start. Now... we don't worry so much about WW III in Europe. I think we are just at the beginning of similar type of situation in SE Asia, with a world power we don't really understand.
     
  16. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #16
    I'm extremely concerned about China's moves in the South China Sea. But I think the chances of that developing into armed conflict between the US and China are so minute as to be non-existent.

    In many respects the days of armed conflict between superpowers are over. The threat of even the smallest "limited" nuclear exchange makes that so. What US President would risk having his country or his troops subject to a nuclear attack over some spits of land off the coast of the Philippines? It just isn't worth it.

    Major powers have much more effective tools at their disposal. Trade sanctions, for example, placed on a China that overstepped its territorial ambitions would throw that country into an economic crisis. The US could certainly impose an oil embargo via its deepwater navy - something the Chinese would be incapable of preventing. A US/China trade embargo might impose some hardships on US consumers - but if the case was dire enough I think most of us would skip a generation or two of iPhones and big screen TVs - rather than get into a shooting war with China.

    No: what is going on in some countries in the middle east is merely another chapter in the process of decolonization that began over a century ago. Ethnic and racial hatreds are bubbling into violence in the power vacuum created by the fall of dictatorships. But this violence in no way threatens the economic or personal security of the US, Asia or Europe.

    No more world wars. Ever.
     
  17. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #17
    Perhaps due to Indian blood running in my veins:)p). Out of all the countries you've listed, India is the least dangerous one. Especially since they've been trying to improve indo-american relationships.
     
  18. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #18
    Well there is always a chance that India and Pakistan could throw nukes at each other. I feel the tension between the two countries has always been a ticking time bomb, even though it's not really talked much about in western media.
     
  19. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #19
    I assure you, I don't think India will let it go that far. But yes, the rivalry is there. And hardly discussed.
     
  20. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #20
    What about Pakistan?
     
  21. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #21
    I believe Pakistan is capable of that. But I am a citizen of NZ and haven't lived in India since I was 3 so perhaps I shouldn't comment.
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    When i went to India it was very widely discussed. Although it was shortly after the Mumbai bombings.
     
  23. TechGod macrumors 68040

    TechGod

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2014
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #23
    Oh but that was very long ago, I don't think it's bought up much in the Indian side.
     
  24. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #24
    I agree that the chances of a world war are remote. I merely assumed that it - hypothetically -had happened. The South China Sea is simply the first place I'd look to find the triggering events.
    The US wouldn't go war over a spit of land in the South China Sea. But - hypothetically - Japan might. Not directly of course. But they might contemplate using force to remove a Chinese platoon and re-occupy an island that China was claiming - thinking that a limited engagement in a remote area would simply show they had drawn a line. If Japan has miscalculated and China retaliates disproportionately you can see how a real shooting match can develop between the Japan and China. Would the US stand by and let China do serious damage to Japan in violation of several treaties the US and Japan have in place? Instead of Japan you can substitute Taiwan or the Philippines.

    I think you're also correct about the use of nuclear weapons - they won't really come into play - not in a big way. As long as invasion and occupation (of a nuclear armed nation) are not being contemplated I think the nuclear weapons will stay in their silos. For the most part. Though if China was losing badly I wouldn't want to be in Taipei or Tokyo or Manila (whichever nation was the one that challenged Chinese hegemony initially).

    China believes it can outlast the US and the West in any trade war. Keep in mind that they control something like 75% of the production of rare-earth metals that are vital for some much technology. China is used to thinking about time by the decade and the century. They would put up with 10 or 20 years of hardship if it meant being dominant in 50 years.

    My late father was a China Watcher. One of the things I learnt from him is that China was a pre-eminent power on the planet for over 2000 years - until the early 1800s. We - Westerners - forget that with our educational emphasis on western history, and European empires. But the Chinese have not forgotten. And when you have a history that is 2000 years long, you can afford to overlook a mere two centuries as an aberration. When you teach that the Long March was recent history, and that massive upheavals are part of progress - a 10 year trade war with the West is not so difficult to contemplate.
     
  25. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #25
    I think China's ability to outlast the US and the rest of world based on rare-earths is vastly overstated.

    The reason China has such a large share of the world market is because they price those commodities below what western firms can produce them at. The last time China imposed export quotas, US firms ramped up production. Most analysts believe that - if push came to shove - we could easily meet world demand from non-China sources.

    The Chinese economy is, IMHO, vastly more vulnerable to trade sanctions than the US. Not just from the loss of export earnings (and corresponding soaring of urban unemployment) but also from the loss of such basic items as food. The US alone exports $25 billion worth of food to China. And China has to feed a fifth the world's population on 8% of the arable land.

    Cold, hungry, and out of work. I think the Chinese people would blink long before American or European consumers stormed the palace gates demanding new iPhones.
     

Share This Page