# Will There Be A World War 3 Within The Next 50 Years???



## BetaBoy90 (Jan 5, 2010)

Will there be another world war in the recent future? If so, will we all die?


----------



## Riles (Jun 28, 2010)

Hopefully I would be dead.


----------



## SOME (Jul 13, 2009)

I seriously have no idea, but within 50 years_ I'd be dead._..

all I gotta say is sucks for them.


----------



## fanatic203 (Jun 23, 2010)

I honestly don't think there will be a World War 3 because if there was, the technology exists now such that the world would easily be blown straight to hell. In 1945, we were already dropping atom bombs. Think what we could do now. Governments know this, so they would do everything they could to prevent a war.


----------



## SomeRandomGuy (Aug 3, 2010)

Nukes ended WWII. They will prevent another full-blown world war from starting. This is why maintaining a nuclear stockpile is important. Hey, it worked during the Cold War.


----------



## Dub16 (Feb 28, 2010)

Yes. Ireland will invade the Faroe Islands and instate Seamus the leprechaun as President, and then all hell will break loose!


----------



## matty (Nov 2, 2009)

Dub16 said:


> Yes. Ireland will invade the Faroe Islands and instate Seamus the leprechaun as President, and then all hell will break loose!


I watched a doco on this the other night. It is a real threat, I am concerned for the world.


----------



## Dub16 (Feb 28, 2010)

matty said:


> I watched a doco on this the other night. It is a real threat, I am concerned for the world.


haha, Me too Matty! I've already started buildin a bunker oot da back of me gaff! Solid oak timber will protect me against nuclear strikes, won't it?


----------



## Manfi (May 30, 2010)

Sure ****ing hope not. 
But if there is going to be one I hope I will be young enough to fight in it cuz we're all gonna die anyways, might as well go with some bang! :duel


----------



## KittyGirl (May 14, 2010)

Yes- but the next war is sure to be the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!!


----------



## Dub16 (Feb 28, 2010)

KittyGirl said:


> Yes- but the next war is sure to be the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!!


I thought that wasnt meant to happen til after Christmas?


----------



## Rbk (Aug 5, 2010)

I think that viruses are bigger danger :roll The world war must be started by strong country and I dont see strong country which can have a interest in starting the war. The only problem can be with Iran and its nuclear, but I don't think that they can start world war because noone will help them.


----------



## g0t Anxiety (May 16, 2010)

Canadians shall take over turkey and rename it chicken!


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

Islamic country attacks Israel, Israel retaliates, US backs Israel, other middle-eastern countries join islamic state, Chinese-Russian-North Vietnamese-North Korean coalition backs the middle eastern states; Europe backs US and Israel...it could happen...maybe?


----------



## RJF (Mar 29, 2010)

Ultra-conservatard president gets elected, tries to build another missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, Vladimir Putin gets angry, owns Poland like he owned Georgia, America gets angry, and suddenly everybody is angry and throwing ICBMs like a toddler throws its food. 

Meh, I actually doubt that we'd all be destroyed if World War III broke out. It seems like the use of nuclear weapons would be something of a last resort, and they'd only be used on major cities. It's not like Russia would just take stock of their nuclear arsenal and randomly toss it at America, taking out every center of civilization possible. And they'd have to have launched some kind of ground or technological strike to be able to do even *that*, seeing as how we have a nationwide anti-nuclear strike system in place (NORAD, which we operate with Canada). Russia has one as well, although it mainly protects the Greater Moscow metropolitan area. 

Then again, it'd be a waste of money to make a nationwide system. What would they be protecting again? Siberian brown bears and the Amur tiger.


----------



## Rbk (Aug 5, 2010)

It is very hard to say who started the Georgian war. I think that both sides are resbonsible. Russians were prepering for that war and were much stronger, but Georgia was the first side to attack city under russian "peackeeping"-soldiers control. So I will not say that Russians started that war. We need strong evidences which we don't have right now. 

War between Poland and Russia is very unrealistic for many, many reasons. Two countries don't have de facto borders(only small, isolated Kaliningrad region is bordering with Poland), so to attack Poland, main russian army must pass Belarus. The second thing is that Polish army is much stronger than Georgian and the firth - Poland is a NATO member and convencional army of NATO is much stronger than whole Russian army. 

The only thing that Russians can do to hurt Poland is to use a nuclear weapons. I don't believe that US or UK or France will use its nuclear weapons in revenge if ONLY POLAND will be attacked by russian nucks. So I think that Polish government have its own nucks like Israel, but of course - noone will speak about that. 

And to real - there will be no war in Europe. Why? - Because nobody wants it. And the relations between NATO and Russia are much better than people think. The two sides need each other.

What I'am afraid is the situation in North Korea. They are really mad and can start the war. They don't have modern technologies, but they don't need them. They have so many soldiers, artillery, rockets, tanks, warships and other military weapons, that they can kill hunreds of thousends or even millions of citizens in South Korea. They also have nuclear weapons and rockets to attack Japan. US don't want to start war with them, but they will must, because North Korea is working on intercontinental rockets which will be able to hit cities on American west coast.


----------



## CourtneyB (Jul 31, 2010)

fanatic203 said:


> I honestly don't think there will be a World War 3 because if there was, the technology exists now such that the world would easily be blown straight to hell. In 1945, we were already dropping atom bombs. Think what we could do now. Governments know this, so they would do everything they could to prevent a war.


^^THIS.
I dont think there will be one. I think its all talk. You know how fast the entire world would be blown to bits if WWIII happened??? They were destroying huge amounts of land back in the 1940's. Imagine the damage that easily could be done presently. Technology is so much more advanced nowadays that there would be no need to need to fight back because once it started everyone would be gone within a very short amount of time. I think countries talk a lot of s*** publicly to make themselves seem "big and bad" but in private they all are trying their hardest to prevent it from happening because they know the outcome.


----------



## Riles (Jun 28, 2010)

Do zombies have sex all day? If so I want to be a zombie.


----------



## thesilenthunter90 (Mar 18, 2010)

Yes, and it will probably be driven by oil. I am sure capitalist republican america will be at the heart of it this time, ideoligy driven iran, delusion driven n. korea, and insanity driven russia will play its part. I forgot about americas little ***** britain. The french will surrender early and Ireland will be annilated witout anyone noticing.


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

I hope I'm around for world WAR IV. I got me soddin stick ready.


----------



## anide (Jul 21, 2010)

Actually, are we not in one now? Anyone remember the "global war on terror" and the "coalition of the willing"? The US and NATO have been at war with terror in multiple countries for the past decade. 

It might not have tank battles, but it seems like we will have a world-scaled war of mixed tactics and asymmetry for the next century. How is it possible to stop what is going on right now?


----------



## Rbk (Aug 5, 2010)

anide said:


> How is it possible to stop what is going on right now?


It is very easy but cannot be done by the democratic country


----------



## Manfi (May 30, 2010)

anide said:


> Actually, are we not in one now? Anyone remember the "global war on terror" and the "coalition of the willing"? The US and NATO have been at war with terror in multiple countries for the past decade.
> 
> It might not have tank battles, but it seems like we will have a world-scaled war of mixed tactics and asymmetry for the next century. How is it possible to stop what is going on right now?


this whole terror bull **** is used to scare you Americans. In a couple of decades when oil runs out in the ME you guys will leave and people over there won't even remember that you exist. Nobody over there would give a rats *** if you guys weren't bombing them and colonizing them for the past 5 decades.
Remember the scare tactics of the cold war? You guys are too easy.


----------



## anide (Jul 21, 2010)

I agree that the "global war on terror" is an unwise response to a complex problem, nevertheless, the US and other nations have many thousands of soldiers fighting in multiple countries.

Are we in WWIII and we don't even know it? The discourse in America certainly has been aggressive and often one-sided. "You are either with us or against us" was a popular and delusional refrain.


----------



## RJF (Mar 29, 2010)

Rbk said:


> It is very hard to say who started the Georgian war. I think that both sides are resbonsible. Russians were prepering for that war and were much stronger, but Georgia was the first side to attack city under russian "peackeeping"-soldiers control. So I will not say that Russians started that war. We need strong evidences which we don't have right now.
> 
> War between Poland and Russia is very unrealistic for many, many reasons. Two countries don't have de facto borders(only small, isolated Kaliningrad region is bordering with Poland), so to attack Poland, main russian army must pass Belarus. The second thing is that Polish army is much stronger than Georgian and the firth - Poland is a NATO member and convencional army of NATO is much stronger than whole Russian army.
> 
> ...


Russia had already threatened military action against Poland if the missile defense system were to based in that country. Actually, if I remember correctly, Russia didn't just threaten military action, they *promised* it.

Oh, and Belarus is a member of the CIS, which Russia clearly dominates. I don't think it's a very big stretch of the imagination to envision Belarus all but inviting the Russian army to stroll through their country on the way to Poland.

Not likely that the Russian army would have been attacking missile bases, though. I'd guess air or rocket strikes while the bases were still under operation. Although it could easily be considered an act of war, I don't think NATO would go all-out on Russia on Poland's behalf.

The North Korean nuclear "program" is a joke. Yeah, they could inflict damage on South Korea, but they don't have the power or the means to go much further than that. Last time they attempted to launch a long-range ballistic missile, it didn't even make it halfway to Japan before it splashed down in the ocean.

Your own argument can be used against you in this case. The United States is undoubtedly the most powerful member of NATO, both economically and military. Their presence along the DMZ is extremely strong, and there shouldn't be a doubt in your mind that the United States would be fully capable of annihilating the North Koreans. Their country is dirt poor, they don't have the resources to carry on a war.

I know the same thing was said about Vietnam, but while North Korea is very mountainous, it doesn't have the same kind of guerrilla-warfare enabling terrain as does southeast Asia. Not to mention that we now live in a world of Predator missiles and precision airstrikes.

The only thing to be feared from war with Korea is the possibility of China stepping in to assist it's ideological ally.


----------



## Rbk (Aug 5, 2010)

RJF said:


> Russia had already threatened military action against Poland if the missile defense system were to based in that country. Actually, if I remember correctly, Russia didn't just threaten military action, they *promised* it.


I remember that they said that they will move iscander missiles to Kaliningrad if Poland and US make missile defence shield. But relations between Poland and Russia are much better now after Smolensk tragedy and now when first patriot missiles arrived they said only that they are angry. But this was really polish mistake to place the patriots just few kilometers from Russian borders.



RJF said:


> Oh, and Belarus is a member of the CIS, which Russia clearly dominates. I don't think it's a very big stretch of the imagination to envision Belarus all but inviting the Russian army to stroll through their country on the way to Poland.


Yes, that's true. But we can't be 100% sure if Belarus will be loyal.



RJF said:


> Not likely that the Russian army would have been attacking missile bases, though. I'd guess air or rocket strikes while the bases were still under operation. Although it could easily be considered an act of war, I don't think NATO would go all-out on Russia on Poland's behalf.


It can be true, but don't forget that Poland have its own military and for small agression Poland can repeat in small counter agression. And in central Europe Poland is stronger than Russia.

But as I said - conflict between Russia and NATO states is unrealistic. Noone will have interest in that kind of war. And wars are starting for interest. I think that Russia is afraid of China and they want to be allied with European countries, not enemies. And Europe needs Russia too.



> The North Korean nuclear "program" is a joke. Yeah, they could inflict damage on South Korea, but they don't have the power or the means to go much further than that.


They can just smash South Korean cities out of a map and it is not only nuclear danger. They got thousands of artillery pieces which are targeting Seul. And they have I think about milion soldiers which are fanatics



> The United States is undoubtedly the most powerful member of NATO, both economically and military. Their presence along the DMZ is extremely strong, and there shouldn't be a doubt in your mind that the United States would be fully capable of annihilating the North Koreans.


Of course that US is capable to destroy North Korea. The main thing is that US is totally ruling in air. North Koreans have the same planes that we had in Poland, but moved 40 years ago to museums like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-5

US is much stronger in military equipment and can destroy n.korean army but n.koreans will kill hunreds of thousands of s.korean civilians and what after the war ends? Second Afghanistan? Unification with South Korea? Madness.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

I think the era of outright warfare among powerful nations is essentially over. There is too much economic integration for a powerful country to risk going to war with another powerful country. The closest thing we might see is proxy wars between smaller countries backed by larger superpowers.  The superpowers will of course stand to gain some economic advantage from the outcome of these wars, like control over oil fields. These proxy wars have been happening for a while actually.


----------



## virtue134 (Feb 8, 2011)

"I know not with what weapons World _War_ III will be fought, but World _War_ IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- _Albert Einstein_


----------



## Kennnie (Oct 21, 2010)

the next 20 at most


----------



## Pangur Ban (Feb 2, 2011)

Only time will tell...


----------



## lyssado707 (Oct 29, 2004)

I hope not. That would be horrible.


----------



## farfegnugen (Aug 16, 2010)

I would guess it is inevitable given that we haven't gone 50 years without a major war somewhere in the history of civilization. I doubt we have mass armies aligned against each other on the battlefield, but it would be more tactical. It doesn't even take a government to release biological weapons upon a population that could be devastating not only medically but would bring the world economy to a screaming halt.

I think the real line is going to be drawn not between countries but between the haves and have nots. We are on the brink of major health discoveries that could easily create a division within a single country between those who can afford access and those who cannot.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ask China -- they fund our wars, since we have no money.


----------



## Selbbin (Aug 10, 2010)

Well, if China has a civil war and only a small percent of the population fights it will be the biggest war ever in history...

But a total 'world' war is doubtful. We don't have the same war policies anymore; there is too much to risk. We'd need a situation like the German expansion, but from another nation like China. But with MAD systems in place, a total war can't work anymore; just as a cavalry division is now useless. A nuclear deterrent DOES stop a full total war. Why attack if you can't possibly win? 

We'll only see small scale wars for a while yet, such as Vietnam and the current situations. But 50 years is a long time...


----------



## Resonance (Feb 11, 2010)

Selbbin said:


> Well, if China has a civil war and only a small percent of the population fights it will be the biggest war ever in history...
> 
> But a total 'world' war is doubtful. We don't have the same war policies anymore; there is too much to risk. We'd need a situation like the German expansion, but from another nation like China. But with MAD systems in place, a total war can't work anymore; just as a cavalry division is now useless. A nuclear deterrent DOES stop a full total war. *Why attack if you can't possibly win? *
> 
> We'll only see small scale wars for a while yet, such as Vietnam and the current situations. But 50 years is a long time...


Perhaps because you are a religious fundamentalist and don't mind everyone dying. The logic of MAD is little defence against ideology. Imagine Iran, or North Korea being full-blown nuclear powers, or Sarah Palin or someone similar being elected president in the US. I think a WWIII within the next 50 years is a distinct possibility: economic cycles, population growth, resource depletion, increasing fundamentalism within political elites...it could happen.


----------



## rawrsmus (Feb 6, 2011)

I don't think there will ever be another world war, it's not likely to happen.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

Resonance said:


> Islamic country attacks Israel, Israel retaliates, US backs Israel, other middle-eastern countries join islamic state, Chinese-Russian-North Vietnamese-North Korean coalition backs the middle eastern states; Europe backs US and Israel...it could happen...maybe?


That's FOX news' wet dream!



RJF said:


> *Ultra-conservatard president gets elected*, tries to build another missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, Vladimir Putin gets angry, owns Poland like he owned Georgia, America gets angry, and suddenly everybody is angry and throwing ICBMs like a toddler throws its food.


That or some Democrat like Obama who btw has continued with the militarist foreign policy of the status quo.



thesilenthunter90 said:


> Yes, and it will probably be driven by oil. I am sure *capitalist republican america* will be at the heart of it this time, ideoligy driven iran, delusion driven n. korea, and insanity driven russia will play its part. I forgot about americas little ***** britain. The french will surrender early and Ireland will be annilated witout anyone noticing.


Like the one Ron Paul wants? That republican is in favor of capitalism more than any other republican politician and he is not a war monger like the rest.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

She'll be right, mate.


----------



## Kuyaz (Aug 2, 2009)

Unlikely.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

It's already going on, dude. It just hasn't hit the US yet.


----------



## copper (Nov 10, 2003)

WintersTale said:


> It's already going on, dude. It just hasn't hit the US yet.


Same thing happened with WW II. It started in 1939 and we didn't get involved until late 1941.


----------



## copper (Nov 10, 2003)

anide said:


> It might not have tank battles, but it seems like we will have a world-scaled war of mixed tactics and asymmetry for the next century. How is it possible to stop what is going on right now?


It will last 10 minutes with when all the Nukes in the world are launch. Then WW 4 will be fought with sticks and rocks if anyone is left.


----------



## Selbbin (Aug 10, 2010)

Resonance said:


> Perhaps because you are a religious fundamentalist and don't mind everyone dying. The logic of MAD is little defence against ideology. Imagine Iran, or North Korea being full-blown nuclear powers, or Sarah Palin or someone similar being elected president in the US. I think a WWIII within the next 50 years is a distinct possibility: economic cycles, population growth, resource depletion, increasing fundamentalism within political elites...it could happen.


Absolutely. But they won't be 'total wars' like the two world wars of the 20th century. Unless, like you say, it's a resource struggle (Like the Japanese in WW2), which could happen. But to drive hundreds of millions to take up arms they must have a reason to fight; not just the governments. Can't wage a war without an army.

Also, the crazies is the reason they want to build a missile defense shield. Nuclear weapons were a shield enough against say, the Soviets. MAD worked. But as you say, against fundamentalists it's no defense.


----------



## Selbbin (Aug 10, 2010)

copper said:


> Same thing happened with WW II. It started in 1939 and we didn't get involved until late 1941.


And WW1. You guys just take a while to get dressed.


----------

