World War 3 ?

No, I do not think the current players in the dangerous parts of the world could ever sustain a World War 3, and their allies while faithful are no so dedicated to join in their conflicts to the extent necessary for a world war. It takes huge players striving for huge gains and currently all we have are sudo-world powers making plays at each other without fully dedicated allies to back them up.

I think it'd be hard to have happen. Of course there's always a perspective issue and just thinking something could never happen doesn't always mean it can't.

I'd agree that the nuke factor really does play its part in keeping things from spiraling out of control like that. There are certainly a lot of issues around the world and some serious ones, but still feel that kind of major world conflict is pretty unlikely.

Certainly hope I'm right. Reading about those kinds of wars in history is one thing, living through one would be something I'd like to avoid.

These events may lead to an American occupancy in Syria, but I find it highly unlike that it could cause world war 3. The un would mostliky intervene before it reached such a critical point.

At this point, a war would be bad for everyone. Of course it might have reasons, but I personally believe that wars will stop, as shown by the years (not conflicts, though). Hopefully humans will learn to live together. If don't, we could create the Fakku country...

I do think there is a chance of a war. But NOT a world war 3. I doubt people still haven't learned the consequences of fighting another country's war. World War 3 could happen in the future though. And it could just be called The War for Natural Resources

World War 3 happens after Israel starts war with Iran. We back Israel(idk why, its run by Ashkenazi jews) and China and Russia back Iran. The holocaust happened and it means burnt offerings. 6million Jews had to die for Israel to be created. Idk why the US backs Israel, they give the least and take the most

I can not vouch for the validity, so you do not have to infer what I say as fact, better yet don't, I don't want to be accountable for false information if is, so do your own research. The reason I accept this... is due to enough evidence, across the board, stating/leading to this conclusion, popular examples including comedy oriented shows such as "Family Guy" and "Daily Show" (not meant to incite conflict). (I'm not gonna be liked for this...) I can not stress this enough, I am neither inciting nor condoling racism. Simply expressing my observations and re-conveying said statements. And any one who derives meaning for racist intent out of this is simply stupid...

From what I've been told, those who are in control of much/most(can't remember which, but a significant enough amount) of the wealth in the US are of Jewish decent with a strong sense of commitment and adherence towards Israel. If the US were to, say, abandon Israel, it wouldn't bold well for the US's economy. A recent example of the influence was chris christie public apology. And the US, or congress (lobbyist) to be exact, like to whore out to these men (all wealthy people to be exact) for huge amounts of cash and gifts, so crossing them is a taboo.

Russia and China probably back Iran as a buffer to block the US from trying to take more ground and to act as a basis for them to respond to the US in the guise of "self defense" (of allied nations). With Iran already hostile towards the US, and especially Israel, and with the US hands tied to Israel. If they want a large scale conflict with the US, it would be as easy as inciting armed conflicts between Iran and Israel.

Edit: Though, for perspective, it would be counter productive for China to war with the US, seeing as they own (a chunk of) our asses. Russia, would also favor a non-violent approach, seeing as their also a country controlled by a rich crowd, but... Putin seems like he may be letting the power go to his head... I'm fairly certain he has passed over the line to dictator or is at least very close... With statements that equate too "Ukraine, don't resist. Lay down and accept it" to "playing in a professional hokey game, in which the players deliberately take a horrible dive for" (he was bad and the score was 26 to 6, with Putin scoring, I think, 6 of those 26 shots...) and not noticing it... With more political assassinations since Putin's taken office... His ego just may grow large enough for him to want to play happy war time with his citizens... Though I have to wonder, if republican elected officials act as representatives of the republican consensus, then there should be plenty of Americans who want to run into that war, as well...

Sorry I don't know how quote on my phone. But much of my research is similar to what bakapink wrote. I'm not an antisemite but their higher ups seem to have a lot of pull. Putin is right there at dictatorship. If world war 3 breaks out I just hope I'm not drafted. I actually do want to join the marine corps but of my own free will 💪, if that makes sense

I agree with this.


We're under a nuclear Pax. What we're facing is Cold War II not World War III.

Action in the Middle east has been ongoing and this current action in Syria isn't going to be a new trigger.

If a war the scope of a third world war happens it will be over something bigger than Syria, and right now the only nation that could consider it is Russia. It is neither import or export dependant, and has its own natural resources. China and Germany are strong, but both are export-dependant, and Germany is natural resource starved. America is import-dependant and losing it's core industrial infrastructure at a terrifying pace.

The only one that can make a move is Russia, and that should be scary.

There are men/women who fear neither nuke nor dying for a "noble" cause. It's entirely possible for hot headed and irrational people to forget the darker parts while idolizing what they want, to end up seeking repeats. (History is doomed to repeat itself. Take for instance America's willingness to forget Vietnam so quickly... now were fighting another war with no plausible end, refusing to quit because we don't want to carry the label of "lost"). US history classes acted like it never happened, Vietnam, dedicating months on the glorious "bravery and winning" of WW2 without showing the horrors or the lost of morality. (I would gamble, 30 years from now, that Iraq and Afghanistan, the "War on Terror" is not taught in US history classes. What in it would convey the US in a positive light.)

(Teacher independently brought in a film showing the German's perspective before, during, and after, from the perspective of children who were brainwashed (for lack of a better word) into the glory of fighting for their country (sound familiar). If it wasn't for that, I would have never viewed the German's as fellow humans, would have regarded them the same way as CoD a enemy foot soldier, a bad guy who can only be killed.)

The best example of this (paragraph one) are people declaring how we should take up arms against Russia for a country they've never heard of before nor know of it's location. Unless history is drilled into us, it is more readily forgotten, and even after it is, as time passes, we begin to forget. What I am saying is... It is entirely possible for the shock of the first active use of a nuke to fade from memory, and for people foolish enough to become high on their position and narcissism, to cause a large scale international conflict.... Maybe it might not be able to reach the scale of WW2's involved nations, but nuke's are not a 100% full proof deterrent forever. This possibility, no matter how small, does give rise to a chance, that will grow as time passes, and that does scare me.

rant: I mean... Putin targeted NASA... Completely independent of the conflict, and stating that they will not take them to the international space station, another independent (of politics) work made through the collaboration of multiple countries. He is a spiteful and vain person as far as I regard him, attacking anything with a US label... Though I know most of our country would do the same... ~sigh~

I agree that it can. A nuclear war isn't impossible. And powerful and cunning to the spiteful and vain you called Putin. That's the combination of traits that makes him so dangerous. A co-worker of mine opined that he wants to be a new 'Iron Man of Russia' like Stalin or Lenin, and I think he has a point.

It sounds like you had a great teacher :D

I care about defending the Ukraine because a lot of people around me have Ukrainian heritage and ties. I'm glad my country was first in line to call for sanctions ect...

I don't think the Syrian situation is anything like that. The States and by consequence their allies are again getting involved in something they shouldn't. But I don't think that incident is enough to start another major war. At best the conflicts happening this year signal the start to a cold war with subtle, careful expansion of influence.

A third world war is always going to be a possibility, it could even be soon, but I don't think the topic creators incidents are enough to start it (though I think he's right in saying they are important, and bad things are happening)

Its hard to say weather a conflict the size(or larger than) WW2 will ever happen again. There's always the possibility but it would depend on decisions made in the run up to it. For example WW2 was a completely avoidable war for the most part. The main reason it happened was do to the allies poor decisions in the years prior.

Something thing that could make WW3 more feasible would be a way to counter nukes. There really isn't one right now but that wont last forever.

Great reason to want to aid, but so many people want to trow in what we "should do" at the drop of the hat in the US... It's hard to create an opinion for yourself. So I, remain unsure what the right best approach is, and don't want to fix myself on an idea till enough information is collected. But I do find myself agreeing with the sanctions, peaceful means should come first.

edit: But as far as I know, no one has tried talking things out in a global conference with Russia and Ukraine, which I think would be a lot less volatile.



Agree.



Agree.



I often forget to use this in consideration, a counter to nukes... Maybe some form of electronic canceller/emp counter missile...

I was thinking more along the lines of lasers, but I suppose those could work too.

Lasers would be hard to guide, since you would have to take into account gravity, wind pressure, moisture, and be cable of determining the exact location, and with nukes being long range weapons, with the fallout of an explosions also posing danger, determining the right time to attack it with a laser would be hard, I'd imagine. There's the danger of the fallout drifting into the atmosphere. But it is possible, I remember hearing from somewhere, that the US military is working on using lasers, on battleships, as a counter measure towards missile attacks.

Battleships? Don't know anything about that I heard more along the lines of using it on aircraft. As for where to strike it, I'm sure that at the point we would be able to use lasers to strike it down(not to long from now I imagine) we will have ways the military can use to detect incoming missiles. Lasers to me just seem like the best option because of how precise they are.

Yeah, if that happens it comes back to boots on the ground and manufacturing capacity (and strategy, tactics ect).

This is why outsourcing all of North America's production is a very, very bad thing. We can't mobilize factories we don't have.



Kicking them out of the G7, cutting political and economic ties, and putting NATO on the boarder where the right moves IMO. Anything more would solidify Putins position with his people and give him every reason to do whatever he wanted.

I think it was handled well by my governemnt, and it restores a little of my confidence in it (not that I have much confidence in any of my parties).

Now, if they'd joined NATO last year like it seemed they would it would have been diferent. It would have been sensible to join if they wanted closer ties with the West. But they didn't. That sucks for their people but being pragmatic that means we really have no right to go in on their behalf right now.

But if they HAD joined NATO it's not likely Russia would be doing this right now. Allies are important, if you're a minor nation that cut ties with it's major power you need a new one ASAP. I think the common Ukrainian realized this, even if the government doesn't.



It's not easy to set up talks like that, and even when you do they're not straightforward things. I couldn't even tell you who could adequately represent the subset Ukrainian people who don't want anything to do with Russia.

Besides, there isn't really anything TO talk about. It's not realistic to go to war with Russia right now, and the Russians are far, far more powerful than the Ukrainians. They want the land, and they can and are taking it. We oppose that and will try to punish them as best as we can.

The tract of land actually being annexed is actually pretty small, but it has a long and extremely bloody history. This time at least for the most part the Ukrainians just hold down the fort without firing till they're out-manned to a hopeless point and surrender.

Wasn't that the fault of their president who had made promises too but allowed himself to be bought off last minute by a Russian bribe?



I think the people elected (temporarily) a man, supreme court judge (or something along those lines), shortly after chasing the president out.

Russia would either be forced to come and express it's intent, or turn down peace talks, the later would indefinitely make Putin look bad, as a warmonger. If they do come to talk, their would be no sound reason they would have for, what is nothing less than an invasion. If they did bring sound arguments, they could be discussed fittingly. But in this way, all allied parties would have put this on the table before raising any arms against Russia, directly or indirectly.

(More of this, and coordination with Russia, could have avoided the nuke drop's in Japan during WW2. So I like the idea of talks being made.)



Russia is invading east Ukraine as well, that is when Putin stated to Ukraine "they (armed unknown soldiers) are not affiliated with Russia, but don't resist them Ukrainian soldiers".

You make it sound as if even just trying to set up such a conference would put Putin in a bad position. I think your being way way to optimistic here in believing that he couldn't come up with a plausible reason for his actions or that he would even care to begin with. Say he turns down the conference. . . . . then what? Is being branded a warmonger going to derail whatever plans he may or may not have?

Yes.



That's probably right.


He already looks like a warmonger, hence the sanctions.

The thing is he really doesn't look like any more of a warmonger than the U.S. already does IMO.



This is a reason for him to have no reason to come to talks. Taking territory itself is the reason.



If you don't show strength and enough power to make ignoring you have consequences there is no way to have peace talks. Dealing with other powers and nations and cultures isn't the same as negotiating with other English or European based cultures.

The sanctions have to come first and they have to sting or there can be no peace talks.


I beleive quite a few Americans in power wanted the show of strength for the world to fear. Some who wanted it regretted it immediately, or eventually regretted it, but at the time more than enough people wanted to make that demonstration of power.




I've only heard they have troops on the boarder.



I don't know about lasers but battleships seem like a logical launching point for any counter-measures. That or aircraft carriers.

With the size of their Navy if the US is creating any anti-nuclear countermeasures I'm sure they'd use their navy to give themselves some distance from the land and some earlier detection.