World War III: will there ever be one?

I think we will in the next century. It will be a war over resources, not ideologies, though.

Sean Trane wrote: The T wrote: Simple question. Just out of curiosity. I really think it's highly unlikely, at least not one centered on US-Europe as in the past two... Opinions?   WWII was definitely more global, with the Pacific being a huge theatre     Actually, ever since I was old enough to realize that the cold war was a non-issue (even if you threw first your nuke missile, you automatically lost, since the other side would do it too almost instantly, therefore creating two losers and no winners), I came to realize that the next war would be the muslim world against the occidental-christian world

Oh, Good Lord, again...
It's not even sure that one side or the other would be united!

In the Muslim world, there are two countries which are not from Arabic culture and could fight each other for the domination of the Middle East: Turkey and Iran.
 - Turkey is often seen by Arabic countries as the Ottoman empire - the former "oppressor" (and the former military alliance with Israël wasn't a good promotion for Turkey as leader of the muslim world).  It would have hard times to lead an united "Muslim world".
 - Iran? Since it's suspected to develop nuclear weapons, the other muslim countries could chose to ally with the Occidental-Christian to be protected.
Anyway, the two countries want to the local powers - and this may lead them to create a muslim federation turned against them.
Thinking about it, France is beginning to have a good reputation in Tunisia and Lybia, not to mention the links with Lebanon, Algeria and Morocco. Maybe not all christian nations would be at bad terms with the muslim world...

And for this "Occidental-Christian" world... I'm not even sure the European Union would stand united before the next decade!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Tapfret wrote: World War III? Was there ever really a WW II? Some historians see the majority of conflict remaining in the world a direct result of resource allocation at Versailles. Essentially, WW I never ended. Versailles was just an excuse (as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was an excuse for WWI), the Central Powers were formed by totally different countries (except Germany) and even the Italians were part of the allies since 1915. The imperialist Japanese Empire was enemy of Germany in Micronesia. The reasons for WWII were mainly expansionist and a common racist environment, even if Versailles would had never happened, the anti-Semite feeling of part of Germany and Italy would had caused WWII. IMO of course Iván

No, Versailles wasn't "just an excuse": for the German right-wing, it was the main motive for revenge against the Allies, especially France which really wanted to keep Germany down after the first World War.
The Versailles treaty made Germany lost all its colonies, the Danzig corridor and other parts of Poland, the region of Schleswig-Holstein (near Denmark)... and pay an enormous retribution to France.
If Germany would have only been asked to retrocede Alsace-Lorraine to France, the German population would have not felt this treaty as a "diktat": it would have been a small defeat, just like another war.

The harsh conditions of the treaty were the very core of the German nationalist diatribes of the 20's to 30's. The success of Hitler was due to his social-economical demagogical propaganda, his anti-communism AND his nationalist propaganda. Let's say his anti-semitism and his racism were the "cream on the cake" for many people, but not the main cause of WWII.

By the way, anti-semitism wasn't very developed in Italy which, in the contrary, had always seen the Jewish community with positive views since the "Black Death": in Venice (Venezia), the leaders of the ghetto managed to keep the plague out of the town and were awarded for their jobs.
Some of the most important leaders of the Fascist Party were jewish, including Mussolini's son-in-law!

A last word about Italy: in the first World War, this country could have fought with the two empires (Germany and Austria-Hungary), since the three nations were originaly in league as the Triplice.
If the Allies hadn't talked about the Terre Irredente, it's not sure Italy would have chosen this side: there was also a rivalry with France about Tunisia, and the situation in Ethiopia/Somalia was tense between UK and Italy.

In the 30's, UK and France had a pro-Italian diplomacy, until they refused to endorse the expansionist appetites of Mussolini (who, then, turned towards Hitler, in a move first motivated by opportunism).
Would the French and English governments allowed Italy to invade Albany and Ethiopia, maybe the Fascists legions would have fought against the Nazis!

Atavachron wrote: I think a "world war" would likely come years from now from an unexpected place, like Mexico; say the Mexican government seizes all the assets of their drug gangs and becomes one of the wealthiest countries in the Western Hem, eventually massing well-armed troops at the US border waiting to take back the Southwest and most of the Coast.  Now you have a Pan-American conflict, Canada and Britain get involved, the new United Tribes of Mesopotamia join South America, Russia and China send troops to both sides .. IT'LL BE A MESS, PEOPLE Or maybe not.

Tapfret wrote: aginor wrote: i think World War III is gonna be fought mostly on the internett, as it is the bloggers, the govourments, file sharing sites, Wikileaks and other hacker leagues, so the war is gonna be fought against govourments and highly skilled hackers (and it is actualy started, it is just not scene by the naked eye) the other side is the economy and where youre interests are, and how you chose your friends (as it always is),  So....World War XP or maybe iWar?

yes, Zyber war

World War III? Was there ever really a WW II? Some historians see the majority of conflict remaining in the world a direct result of resource allocation at Versailles. Essentially, WW I never ended.

Atavachron wrote: I think a "world war" would likely come years from now from an unexpected place, like Mexico; say the Mexican government seizes all the assets of their drug gangs and becomes one of the wealthiest countries in the Western Hem, eventually massing well-armed troops at the US border waiting to take back the Southwest and most of the Coast.  Now you have a Pan-American conflict, Canada and Britain get involved, the new United Tribes of Mesopotamia join South America, Russia and China send troops to both sides .. IT'LL BE A MESS, PEOPLEOr maybe not.

I can't imagine that happening. Seems even more unlikely than Russia or China launching a surprise attack on the west, and that is also improbable, imo.

Does most of the Muslim world hate Israel?  Are there an exceedingly large number of megalomaniac leaders in this world?  Is oil still the main source of energy on the planet? Are there 100's of millions of religious zealots roaming around, looking to impose their BS on anyone and everyone?

As long as those 4 things remain true, I see it as inevitable.


Edited by johnobvious - September 19 2011 at 12:45

UK Business secretary Vince Cable likens economic crisis to war..

BBC article

Edited by Blacksword - September 19 2011 at 11:43