What's new

WW3 Imminent, or are we already there?

And on the topic of America being the major reason of Germany being defeated in WWII:
- about 300-500 thousand Americans died in WWII
- about 30-50 millions of USSR people died in WWII
But USA definitely had the most to gain from WWII, and came out as an economical victor in the aftermath
 

NickDaGreek1983

Oh, my days !
Look on the map at all the fighting hotspots on the planet at the moment, who's fighting who and where people are moving troops about etc. You'll realise its World War 3, at least geographically.

I've been looking around at all the conflicts going on, and how they're linked, and the potential they have to cause shit storms amongst one another. (CBA to post what I've seen because its too long)

Whats everybody elses thoughts, to anybody else thats been keeping up to date?

Things to consider:

- Flight MH17 (Blown up on the 18th anniversary of a similar incident, and event crucial enough to draw international attention to Ukraine) and MH370
- Middle east, Gaza & Israel
- Chinese Seas
- Korea
- Africa
Good points but how about the euro-zone's (economic) interests? USA vs everyone? The economic pressure of eurozone (GER) VS Greece, Portugal, Spain? Spain's "civil war"? And (I'll say it again) the fact that Schumacher (I googled to see how it's written correctly!) got more attention than Ukraine/Russia..?
 
Pearl harbour wasn't unprovoked, I cat remember exactly what the document was called that pushed Japan into doing it, but it had 8 main points to it.

On top of that, Britain was aided by the USA, not saved. We would've still won the war, just with alot more deaths on our side, and the Russians. In both WW1 and WW2 Americans turn up late and then props fish for it after all the groundwork was already done.
It's funny how History changes based on where you learn it. That's the interesting thing about history, unless you were there you are simply taking someone elses version of the events. And even then if you were there it's your version, through your eyes it could be completely different through someone elses.

In the US we are taught that the world could not survive without our heroic efforts. That Hitler was the worst and what he did to the Jews was inhuman (and it was), what we don't really touch on is the concentration camps we had for the Japanese, this goes largely ignored in our history books. In North Korea they are taught that they won the war. In Britain you're obviously taught that you would have defeated Germany with or without our help.

As such I try to base my theories (that's all they are theories) on logic. Most of the time I find that what makes the most sense is conflict in resources. Oil and Iraq is an obvious example. But even if you look at Isreal vs. Palestine the media preaches that it's a battle over sacred holy lands, they never mention how crucial water is as a resource there and how the area of Land being fought over resides over a huge water table. Similarly many of these conflicts are deemed important for humanitarian reasons, the Ukrain and Russian conflict and why the world should get involved. But look at Syria, that country is still a mess 1700 deaths in the last 2 weeks, but the media isn't covering it. Why is that?

TLDR; History is a Bill as are the media portrayed reasons countries get involved in conflicts.
 
It's funny how History changes based on where you learn it. That's the interesting thing about history, unless you were there you are simply taking someone elses version of the events. And even then if you were there it's your version, through your eyes it could be completely different through someone elses.

In the US we are taught that the world could not survive without our heroic efforts. That Hitler was the worst and what he did to the Jews was inhuman (and it was), what we don't really touch on is the concentration camps we had for the Japanese, this goes largely ignored in our history books. In North Korea they are taught that they won the war. In Britain you're obviously taught that you would have defeated Germany with or without our help.

As such I try to base my theories (that's all they are theories) on logic. Most of the time I find that what makes the most sense is conflict in resources. Oil and Iraq is an obvious example. But even if you look at Isreal vs. Palestine the media preaches that it's a battle over sacred holy lands, they never mention how crucial water is as a resource there and how the area of Land being fought over resides over a huge water table. Similarly many of these conflicts are deemed important for humanitarian reasons, the Ukrain and Russian conflict and why the world should get involved. But look at Syria, that country is still a mess 1700 deaths in the last 2 weeks, but the media isn't covering it. Why is that?

TLDR; History is a Bill as are the media portrayed reasons countries get involved in conflicts.

thank you for this...

i always think, what if we are really north koreans and brainwashed???? i think its fundamentally healthy to always look at things with an open-mind, never to be black and white, and to truly break down things logically... in my eyes this applies to everything, your emotions, everything.
 
Pearl harbour wasn't unprovoked, I cat remember exactly what the document was called that pushed Japan into doing it, but it had 8 main points to it.

On top of that, Britain was aided by the USA, not saved. We would've still won the war, just with alot more deaths on our side, and the Russians. In both WW1 and WW2 Americans turn up late and then props fish for it after all the groundwork was already done.

US cut off fuel resources to Chinese. And Chinese intercepted a wrong message sent by US or something and it was translated wrong.

If God exists why is there suffering if he's such a pure and omnipotent entity? Clearly god is a bill.
 
Last edited:
US didn't have concentration camps they had isolation areas in California because we didn't trust the Japanese until the war was over, we essentially gave them a little community. No where near concentration camps. Lol.

And even then it was a portion of Japanese living on the West Coast that participated, and I think we took away their citizenship or something.
 
To answer the main question of the thread: no we are not close to WW3. And there will never be another war at the scale of the previous great wars.
I wouldn't say never. Let's face it, we're only human and we do stupid things, sometimes on a massive scale.

I think it just won't be for a long while.
 

NRF CharlieMurphy

Kindergarten Meta
US cut off fuel resources to Chinese. and Chinese intercepted a wrong message sent by US or something and it was translated wrong.

If God exists why is there suffering if he's such a pure and omnipotent entity? Clearly god is a bill.
LOL

even if you DON'T believe in God being ignorant to even what the Bible teaches is no excuse for this kinda thing.
 

Art

Grave_Intent
Here's a simple salution... Pull ALL our foreign and military aid from the rest of the world and watch it destroy its self. Then it's our for the taking.

Sense when has any other country EVER came to the aid of the US?
Answer: NEVER
 
Last edited:
thank you for this...

i always think, what if we are really north koreans and brainwashed???? i think its fundamentally healthy to always look at things with an open-mind, never to be black and white, and to truly break down things logically... in my eyes this applies to everything, your emotions, everything.
Maybe you are brainwashed in the american way. Thats another way to look at it. We never really know...
 
I wouldn't say never. Let's face it, we're only human and we do stupid things, sometimes on a massive scale.

I think it just won't be for a long while.
Globalization and Democratization levels are too high for massive war to ever occur currently. It's not conjecture, it's down to a science.

No two democracies have ever engaged in all out war (Russia is not longer rated as a Democracy, their recent incursions do not count as Democracy on Democracy conflict*)

For major war to occur between major nations, they need to de-democratize- and for this to happen, certain variables need to be present. In many cases, it's not even possible for current democracies to ever revert to non-democracies- only a number still exist where it's possible- and it's mostly countries subject to what's called the "Resource Curse" curse variable- an economy with intractable resources can lend itself to intractable balance of powers.

*Freedom House Index
 
its looking bad. countries and groups need to try to understand each others point of view instead of putting more and more pressure on the opponent and try to win. These are mostly small groups' actings, like governments and organisations, its not the people who want war...
 
Globalization and Democratization levels are too high for massive war to ever occur currently. It's not conjecture, it's down to a science.

No two democracies have ever engaged in all out war (Russia is not longer rated as a Democracy, their recent incursions do not count as Democracy on Democracy conflict*)

For major war to occur between major nations, they need to de-democratize- and for this to happen, certain variables need to be present. In many cases, it's not even possible for current democracies to ever revert to non-democracies- only a number still exist where it's possible- and it's mostly countries subject to what's called the "Resource Curse" curse variable- an economy with intractable resources can lend itself to intractable balance of powers.

*Freedom House Index
lets hope so... no one thought russia would do what they did though. its all about the ruling persons' actings...
 
lets hope so... no one thought russia would do what they did though. its all about the ruling persons' actings...
Yes, but it's very telling that Russia had to revert to a state of partial democracy in order to invade another democracy. It literally could not sustain a state of liberal democracy, and at the same time invade another democratic state- it's a testament to the impossibility of doing both at the same time.

And Russia is a unique case- it only recently democratized since the collapse of the SU, and many of it's existing institutions are still-existing relics from the time it was non-democratic. Because those institutions stick around, countries such as these are more prone to allow the country to easily relapse into it's pre-existing state. It's not as much the case with most other countries, and over time the relapses fade as those old institutions crumble.
 

Wemfs

The only morality in a cruel world is chance.
Humans are naturally warring creatures, why wouldn't we destroy ourselves?

If Russia and USA get into a direct conflict shit could hit the fan, but they'd need a reason, and last night it was revealed that Russia are doing nuclear tests against a 1987 treaty signed by Regan, and Obama is calling them out on it.

And geographically speaking, neither WW1 or WW2 were actually faught globally, but purely because it involved all world superpowers you could count it as a world war.

Look what the superpowers are doing at the moment.
I think it's in human nature to destroy/consume. We will be the cause of our own demise. Humans are like a cancerous growth on the planet.
 

IMakeItL00kC00L

Do not provoke a god
US didn't have concentration camps they had isolation areas in California because we didn't trust the Japanese until the war was over, we essentially gave them a little community. No where near concentration camps. Lol.

And even then it was a portion of Japanese living on the West Coast that participated, and I think we took away their citizenship or something.
Its nothing compared to german concentration camps, siberian work camps, and the japenese treatment of American POWs
 

JLG

Noob
I live in Russia and I have relatives in Ukraine ,thanks to internet I can hear the news people are fed in US and compare them to the ones fed to Russians. They are completely different. For example no one in States mentions that the whole Ukrainian situation started with outside "western" sponsorship of radical groups within Ukraine. And I personally know a lot of people from Crimea, who are more Russian then Ukrainian and when the actions of anti-Russian radicals started to threaten their safety were all for Russia to step in. At the same time Russians never talk about Crimean local government figures being in close contact with Russia or other bullshit they feed people here.

You don't see the point: blaming one nation or another is pointless and stupid. The Governing structures of these countries are the ones who have a lot to gain from military conflicts, while idiots from both nations will scream at each other or even go to war to kill each other to "protect" their nation !!!!Our governments is what our people need to be protected from!
I'm more interested in figuring out the truth of a situation, instead of playing some blame game. If you can truthfully tell me that Russia, under President Putin's watch, did not annex Crimea from Ukraine, then please explain who did. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, regardless of how many of its citizens are of Russian descent. Mexico can't all of a sudden annex California unless it wants to start a war, despite the fact that nearly 39% of Californians are Hispanic. And, yes, I'm fully aware of how land in California, Texas, etc. became part of the USA. The point is that we should try to be as objective about these discussions as possible.
 
I think it's in human nature to destroy/consume. We will be the cause of our own demise. Humans are like a cancerous growth on the planet.
According to Hobbes "Leviathan" and Rousseau's "The Social Contract" this is not the case.

I guess you could argue they're wrong, but you'd have your work cut out for you. These men were complete geniuses -so far ahead of their time it's scary-, and their work has been used to craft successful theories and explanations of human nature for centuries now.

You'd also have to tackle Locke's "Two Treatises"...
Basically, what all these men found was that cooperation and government was just as much, and even more, a natural state of humanity than anarchy. They found that despite our common notion, that humans are inherently destructive and competitive, and that cooperation and government is an artificial solution (in the same way we view synthetic medicine to cure natural disease) was wrong. Human nature turned out to be cooperative and constructive- anarchy and destruction of others was more unnatural in comparison.