<p>ok..</p>
<p>so i'v often wondered about this- will our generation be involved in a world war?
and by our generation im reffering to ppl 17-20 years of age, so is it likely that there will be another world war within the next 60-80 years?</p>
<p>what conflict could possibly spark of WWIII?</p>
<p>I think there will be a new world war within the next century. Wars are just unavoidable.</p>
<p>Actually, I highly doubt there will be another world war. After WWII, the U.S. became the most powerful military machine in the world...our technology is so advanced that if there was ever an engagement, it would be short term. Nuclear weaponry has made avoiding another world war imperitive and has kept expansive dictators in check, as has the formation of the UN.
But as for declared war...it is very unlikely, especially with the globalization of the economic marketplace. There is a growing interdependence among all nations in the modern world, and if one decides to go on an expansion shananigan, it would be cut off from all necessary resources to be competetive in a large scale war.</p>
<p>It is true that we have an arsenal of super weapons and interdependent global economic ties with other nations. But among these economic ties, there lies the source of conflicts. U.S. is the most powerful in the world, but how long will that status last? Japan relied heavily on economic ties with other nations during WWII, but the Japanese army still conquered a good chunk of Asia.</p>
<p>but those ties weren't nearly as strong...the communication/internet era has increased such interdependence.....and now....someone tries to go on an invasion campaign, you'll see American, French, or British troops on the front in little time.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
as has the formation of the UN.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>hahahahahahahashaha</p>
<p>i think the Un is alsmost redundant.</p>
<p>eh...organizationally it's not that great....and it's decently corrupt.....but.....it does keep information flowing from country to country.</p>
<p>While the UN might not be the most effective organization (a fact our government hasn't much helped), it is an amazingly excellent thing in theory. The idea of an organization that brings together most of the nations on Earth is beautiful.</p>
<p>no for 2 main reasons...</p>
<p>nuclear warfare will keep nations in check</p>
<p>modern communications technology...internet, email, travel
communication is a key to peace</p>
<p>Religious fanaticism will spark WWIII.</p>
<p>^ Eventually... Yes.</p>
<p>:(</p>
<p>I say the uneven distribution of wealth betwee the poor and rich nations will cause WWIII.</p>
<p>If there is another world war I hope we'll be senior citizens and therefore too old to be drafted -- if it results in a draft.</p>
<p>Religious fanaticism, of some sort or another, although the kind that jumps to mind now is Muslim extremism. Or, another insane ruler like Kim-Jong II, or a manipulative one like Fidel Castro.</p>
<p>As the great granddaughter of two Wehrmacht veterans from the Sudetenland, I certainly hope not ... </p>
<p>Ironically, I think that if there is to be another world war in the foreseeable future, it will likely come from unresolved issues resulting from the division of land after the first one. Remember that the Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne ceded all Ottoman territories (i.e. Arabia and the Middle East) to France, Great Britain, Italy, and Greece. Most of these territories were later given independence and were divided into fairly arbitrary national boundaries without regard to ethnic and religious differences within their borders. Fairly random chieftains who happened to have favor with the powers that be at the time were also placed in power and their decendants rule to this day. This has led to a great deal of the strife we see in that region. Throw in the formation of Israel, the fact that Islamic culture in general doesnt necessarily recognize national borders, and a general anti-American sentiment resulting from our oil-thristy policies and intrusive culture and you have a variety of scenarios that could lead to another world war. If we keep bombing and invading places, at what point do most of Western Europe, Russia, China, and India decide enough is enough and send in their own troops to stop us? We can only keep that pot on simmer for so long before it goes to full boil. </p>
<p>Another flashpoint to watch is India and Pakistan. It seems like if those two go to war, there could be a general piling on by the Muslim nations followed by the potential entry of China and lord knows who else after that even if it doesn't immediately go nuclear. </p>
<p>As for claims of American military invincibility, I think thats a crock of dookie. Remember that the Germans and the Japanese thought themselves invincible at first, too; and their early successes in the second war seemed to confirm their beliefs - until Stalingrad and Midway. England, France, and Spain had periods during which they felt themselves to be invincible as well. Dont forget the Romans, the Carthaginians, the Mongols, and the ancient Egyptians, either. All it would take for us to lose the upper hand is for someone in a hostile nation to figure out how to shut down, trump, or blind our satellite and laser technology. Once they did that, theyd be fighting an army of comparatively soft, spoiled, city-dwellers on their own terms. I do think it would be fairly impossible to successfully invade the U.S. due to our relative geographic isolation. Basically, wed just find a way to nuke the fleets of the invaders unless Central and South America and Mexico suddenly managed to gain a large degree of unity and military competence as well as a desire to take us out. Now THAT would suck! I doubt we have to worry about Canada too much. </p>
<p>I seriously doubt well be able to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists indefinitely, either. Unfortunately, I fully expect to see a mushroom cloud over one of our port cities in my lifetime. Sorry to sound so negative, but GAH!!! Methinks Im not far enough removed from AP Euro, yet ...</p>
<p>I agree. The U.S. is the leader of the "industralized" world, but China is emerging as the head of the "developing" world. China gives large economic aid to a lot African nations, Cuba, and North Korea each year. I do think U.S. has most advanced military in the world and that will not change for awhile. The problem with today's world is that the poor nations are growing alienated from the Democratic-Capitalistic system of America. The U.N. is getting weak and it is controlled by the wealthier nations of the world. So as we move ahead, the poor nations of the world will turn to all mean neccssary to feed its people. This growing conflict will eventually cause a major social clash. I mean the extreme Islamic movement in the middleeast may just be the spark to ingite the war.</p>
<p>If there is going to be a war, you can bet it isan't going to be a nuclear war. Im sure no one wants to blow up the world. However, it's slightly plausible to say that if the us ever considers china to be a direct threat, they might engage in a small war that will mpostly likely be asimilar to world war II and I, I think it'll be more of an economic struggle type war. edit: I doubt that the war will be one to determine a sovreighty in any country. France and Germany thebohemina? Maybe, but it's not going to be a direct clash. All i know is it won't be like bush's pre-emptive approach invading iraq to potentially "democracise" it.</p>
<p>There'll be no move against us for our "pre-emptive" invasion and occupation of Iraq, though we've clearly run afoul of the UN for it. Now say we invade Iran or Syria ... Things might change and the saber rattling is definitely there. BTW, ALL wars are economic struggles. Even the religious wars are really about economics in one form or another. The religious aspect is just there to inflame the populace to want to fight. Those poor, foolish suicide bombers are just being manipulated to do what they do to an economic end. In this case, it's about wanting to form a Muslim superpower that controls the world's oil. Why do you think the Arabs are so involved in the Chechen situation in Russia? Do you really think it's about religion? Think "oil pipeline." The Russian hinterland has lots of oil and as long as there's an insurgency going on, building a pipeline to get it out will be impractical.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/ww3.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/ww3.html</a>
<a href="http://www.bible-prophecy.com/ww3.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.bible-prophecy.com/ww3.htm</a>
-according to these websites, WWIII =Armageddon.</p>
<p>Well if there ever was a WWIII, we as a global community would certainly be doomed. We have all of these nuclear weapons at our disposal. The launching of one would make a good part of the world inhabitable for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. While most people/goverment or military officials would most likely not launch a nuclear weapon (after all, they would be effected too), imagine what would happen if a suicide bomber was able to get his/her hands on one...</p>