World War III (three)

moshkito wrote: Hi, I hate this one ... sad as it may be. It would have to happen in a place where the significance of its existence is the most important part of it, and that could be, natural resources, or simply, the history. Right now, I think there is only one place for this, but I am hopeful that both religions come to the table together and stop all this atrocity, including the fundamentalism interpreting something completely out of context with the whole thing. In an over populated world, I'm not sure that there is a proper answer to this poll or question, as there are too many choices and opportunities, but I got to tell you ... I really do not want to see another Guernica outside my window ... and that is EXACTLY what we are asking for, otherwise!

The religious aspect is a layer of complication, which I think may be irreconcilable. I think religious and cultural difference may be a catalyst in a global conflict, but I don't think will be the root cause.

Religious fundamentalism is also a blurred grey area. Different commentators have different ideas around what constitutes fundamentalism, and the line at which conservative religious views, turn into extremist views. Moral relativism comes into play. For instance, in Islam homsosexuality is regarded as an abomination and is forbidden. By western standards that's an extremist view, but in Islam it's a mainstream view, even if the vast majority of Muslims probably wouldn't wish actual harm on a gay man (although there's no scientifc way of validating that assumption) It's the same throughout all Abrahamic religions. Religion is underpinned by a need to control the flock.

In any case, we have seen how factions within Islam are played off against each other by US and Russian proxies, and the Middle East is arguably the most likely powder keg for a third world war, with a former Soviet state being in very close second place. I imagine Russia would be less likely to to want the immediate action on its own doorstep.

Blacksword wrote: moshkito wrote: Hi, I hate this one ... sad as it may be.   It would have to happen in a place where the significance of its existence is the most important part of it, and that could be, natural resources, or simply, the history.   Right now, I think there is only one place for this, but I am hopeful that both religions come to the table together and stop all this atrocity, including the fundamentalism interpreting something completely out of context with the whole thing.   In an over populated world, I'm not sure that there is a proper answer to this poll or question, as there are too many choices and opportunities, but I got to tell you ... I really do not want to see another Guernica outside my window ... and that is EXACTLY what we are asking for, otherwise! The religious aspect is a layer of complication, which I think may be irreconcilable. I think religious and cultural difference may be a catalyst in a global conflict, but I don't think will be the root cause. Religious fundamentalism is also a blurred grey area. Different commentators have different ideas around what constitutes fundamentalism, and the line at which conservative religious views, turn into extremist views. Moral relativism comes into play. For instance, in Islam homsosexuality is regarded as an abomination and is forbidden. By western standards that's an extremist view, but in Islam it's a mainstream view, even if the vast majority of Muslims probably wouldn't wish actual harm on a gay man (although there's no scientifc way of validating that assumption) It's the same throughout all Abrahamic religions. Religion is underpinned by a need to control the flock. In any case, we have seen how factions within Islam are played off against each other by US and Russian proxies, and the Middle East is arguably the most likely powder keg for a third world war, with a former Soviet state being in very close second place. I imagine Russia would be less likely to to want the immediate action on its own doorstep.

Sean Trane wrote: ...  However if it would start in the Far East (Spratley Islands), I can't see this developing into a global war... whatever China will do will probably remain at the economic sanction levels, and certainly not be religion-related (unless the Moro of Philippines, Brunei and other start to act up their Muslim faith against the theoretically religion-less Chinese or Vietnamese regimes.  ...

Brexit not on the list  

PROGMAN wrote: many believe it will start Cyber not by actual weapons

A cyber attack is arguably an act of war. The UN may now even document it as such, although I suspect there are constant 'small' cyber attacks being carried out all the time, by all nations capable of doing it!

I still think the most likely flashpoint will be the Middle East, probably Iran.