GameBanshee Forums

Anyone know? We need a good world war around here, and I'm getting a bit antsy.

An atomic war. 7 years

[QUOTE=Morlock]Anyone know? We need a good world war around here, and I'm getting a bit antsy.[/QUOTE]

What now? You WANT a war? Sorry, but that sound really dumb.

Anyway, I guess the 3 world war is there, on the streets. Is the war of the "freedom" versus "terrorism" installed by Bin Laden and Dubbia. But, of course, many people wont agree with me.

If you're looking (facetiously, I hope) for a world war, I'd suggest focusing on pairs of nations with a history of distrust, animosity, and a willingness to use nuclear arms. Nothing will set the entire matchbox alight like a nation that takes its "nuclear option" and runs with it. Right now, Pakistan/India is one such polarity, and Israel/Iran could shape up eventually into another.

I agree with fable

Same here. Although, who ever disagrees?

what about the US/North Korea? what about them?

Isreal/Iran will launch first and then it will turn into mass chaos with everybody blowing up everybody.

Well, If the US ever did go to war with North Korea, then South Korea would pitch in to our aid, and China would most likely come to aid North Korea. With a war of that magnitude going on, it would be hard for us to maintain our battle on terrorism. Maybe not, though.

Hmmm.. If anyone want a World War please leave Norway out of it....Or I'll send some scary black metal dudes down on you

Seriously I would stick to the peaceful solution, which don't seem to exist anymore

When The US has all of the control over middle-eastern oil and when US and China have depleted all of their own oil reserves. It's not that far away.
It's going to be a Chinese land invasion to middle-east first, responded by US nuclear action over protection of *their* oil.

Well, here's a scenario. If China attacked Taiwan, then the US would most likely come to Taiwan's aid. Russia might then join in with China along with North Korea, and possibly Iran.

Come on, guys. Let's keep our heads in the realworld. The likelihood of China attacking Taiwan is infinitesimal, given the US-Taiwanese defense treaty. Neither major power wants to start a war with the other, especially China, which has a history of avoiding wars with outside powers wherever possible. The original question was in any case about nuclear war, and that's entirely different from conventional warfare.

Well, If the US ever did go to war with North Korea, then South Korea would pitch in to our aid, and China would most likely come to aid North Korea. With a war of that magnitude going on, it would be hard for us to maintain our battle on terrorism. Maybe not, though.

US attacking North Korea? After they were the ones to split the country like it is in the first place? I suppose it wouldn't be unprecedented.
But then you could say Vietnam for the same kind of reasons and that could cause far too much political upheaval.

And what about the links between China and Russia, if one goes to alert doesn't the other soon follow suit?

@Revan&Ravager: Is there any particular reason why you think Russia and China have a close relationship?

Personally I think the chance of a world war is almost nonexistant by now. The colonies are all gone and in the rich world people have more to gain by trade than war.

Over the next century superpower status will be transferred Conflicts will occur, in what magnitude I don't know.

In WWI all the European alliances set off the war and while there aren't many colonies around now, alliances still exist, either formally such as NATO or just close ties. When one country declares war a domino effect starts and you end up with a world war.

Why would there be a domino effect? These days war always seems to take place in the poor world, where nations don't have resources to deploy millitary anywhere but at home. Do you have any likely candidates for a war that might spread?

I don't inculde terrorism in this obviously. While it is not necessarily local I wouldn't count it as a war.

I've been predicting since the late 1970s that the next world war(s) will be caused by conflicts involving oil and Islam. Energy shortages and the Iranian hostage crisis were on everyone's mind back then. I figured the war(s) would take place sometime between 2010 and 2020. I also joked about a future United States of Mexico and hydrogen-powered bicycles, which might seem a little far-fetched, but I also joked about the use of male names for hurricanes, the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union, and a reunified Germany. (I wrote some horrible science fiction based on those ideas; I'd rather not mention what I had to say about extra-terrestrials.) I was just a dumb kid back then, but my views haven't changed much since then.

I'm worried about nuclear proliferation, and I'm even more worried about the nuclear weapons in the former Soviet republics which have not been adequately secured. We have much to fear from a "rogue" attack. But to put things in perspective, I think it's useful to remember that the United States is the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons against another nation (Nagasaki, Hiroshima). Furthermore, President Bush has expressed an interest in using "bunker busters" and other tactical nukes against "hardened" or underground targets. Since other nations are deterred from using nuclear weapons by the mighty nuclear arsenal of the United States, I reckon the United States is more likely than other country to be the first one to use nuclear weapons in any future armed conflict.

Americans love their nukes. Back in the 1950s, Senator Lloyd Bentsen suggested that we should threaten North Korea with a nuclear attack to force the withdrawal of their forces during the Korean War. But you want to see a domino effect? Picture this: just last month, a U.S. Congressman suggested that we should nuke Mecca if any terrorist group ever attacked the United States with a nuclear weapon. If anything could start a world war, that certainly could. I originally intended to post this in the "Muslim Hunting" thread, but it seems more relevant in this discussion:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Tancredo: If They Nuke Us, Bomb Mecca"
Associated Press
Monday, July 18, 2005

DENVER — A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.

Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Fla. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.

Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.

"Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."

@Vondondu: I also see to two most likely candidades for committing a nuclear attack as either the US or a result of proliferation, but I don't belive that is the same as a world war.