Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: January 03 2010
Location: Lowell, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 3247
Posted: September 17 2011 at 06:25
Probably yes. Unfortunately, as long as ideology is so divisive around the world and there is the insistence that one ideology is "better" than others, the potential for a massive war is possible.
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Posted: September 17 2011 at 06:31
yanch wrote:
Probably yes. Unfortunately, as long as ideology is so divisive around the world and there is the insistence that one ideology is "better" than others, the potential for a massive war is possible.
I have trouble believing that you honestly believe all ideas are equal.
I don't think he does (another idea). Maybe he believes that the expectations and consequent actions engendered by the attainment of differing goals have shaped the types of confrontation we encounter today. The camoflague of the term 'ideas' will never disguise or democratise the underlying reason for conflict: morality. (and I suspect you know this)
Edited by ExittheLemming - September 17 2011 at 07:04
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
Posted: September 17 2011 at 06:51
The idea of a global conflict happening nowadays seems rather dubious. It would need an open opposition between nations or alliances of nations able to find a reason to fight against each other.
In fact, I have some "scenarios" about it, but I'm not sure everyone would see my theories about the separation of European Union, a war between Russia and a European-Mediterranean union including Turkey, a Pan-Arabic democratical federation, an undercover economical war between China and India becoming an open conflict... as very serious.
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: September 17 2011 at 07:57
Some say the cold war was WW III so the question is will #4 happen? Perhaps we already have that in the so called global war on terrorism. So who needs a world war when that one is neverending?
Edited by Slartibartfast - September 17 2011 at 07:58
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Posted: September 17 2011 at 08:10
Probably not, although if there were, it wont be the kind of conflict we feared throughout the cold war, and it will never be referred to by our leaders as a 'world war'
Such terms are slowly being erased from the 'news speak' dictionary, along with 'economic depression'
As H.G Wells wrote in his book "The New World Order" the only way to avoid another world war is to bring the world under a system of global governance, with one world bank, one language, one religion, one army. He wrote "many will oppose the new world order, and will die protesting it" If there was a shred of truth in Wells' vision of the future, the one world army (NATO?) will actually be in a constant state of war, with countries who don't want to sign up to global governance. Peace through the simple stamping out of all those who oppose you.
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Posted: September 17 2011 at 08:40
ExittheLemming wrote:
I don't think he does (another idea). Maybe he believes that the expectations and consequent actions engendered by the attainment of differing goals have shaped the types of confrontation we encounter today. The camoflague of the term 'ideas' will never disguise or democratise the underlying reason for conflict: morality. (and I suspect you know this)
Yeah, but removing morality entirely wouldn't exactly solve the problem...
Slartibartfast wrote:
Some say the cold war was WW III
That would be silly since there was very little actual conflict.
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: September 17 2011 at 08:42
^ I didn't say I was one of those who do. In terms of the actual destruction accomplished, certainly not. But then it depends on what you include in the cold war, what happened in Cambodia for instance was communism vs. capitalism to a certain extent. It had genocide. What more can you want? The pursuit and escalation of nukeular (nuclear to most of us) weapons hasn't benefited any one other than those who made money off of producing them. The waste products from all of that will be a danger to humanity for a long time to come even if you dismantle all the weapons.
Perhaps you over-estimate the likelihood of the world ever really being made an orderly place?
On a lighter note:
Edited by Slartibartfast - September 17 2011 at 08:52
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Posted: September 17 2011 at 10:53
Slartibartfast wrote:
Cambodia for instance was communism vs. capitalism to a certain extent. It had genocide. What more can you want?
Terrible things happening in Cambodia does not imply "world war". The pursuit and escalation of nukeular (nuclear to most of us) weapons hasn't benefited any one other than those
who made money off of producing them. The waste products from all of that will be a danger to humanity for a long time to come even if you dismantle all the weapons.
Nuclear weapons are overrated.
Perhaps you over-estimate the likelihood of the world ever really being made an orderly place?
Where did I say that I thought that would ever happen?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.168 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.