Will we see a World War in our time?

[The Huskar Social Union]

No they wont.

Why? Because most Muslims dont want to throw their fucking lives away over a pointless cause that would do nothing but demonize their religion and destroy entire familys. This is not the Middle ages, there is no global holy war.

What if there was a war and nobody showed up? It's a war of ideas and you can't stop a man who knows that he's right.

It would not be much of a war then would it...

Also his holy war is not a war of ideas, its a bullshit make believe haphazard cause that has no bearing and will never happen, so he is not right.

I was talking about arabiyaah's global muslim jihad nonsense rather than the Pakistani military.

How is Iraq,Afghanistan,Lebanon,Palestine,Syria(Shia side),Uyghurstan,Uzbekistan,Dagestan,Chechnya,Kashmir,Bosnia,Thailand,Myanmar,Mali,Algeria,Nigeria,Somalia,Eygpt,Yemen,and the Pakistani sectarian war nonsense? How that is international and in several continets Asia,Europe,and Africa which is global nonsense?

Yeah that is never going to happen, there are way too many conflicts and hostilities between those countries and the different people living there for them all to unify in to one large force. And even if it did with your "Military plans" i.e. "the mass charge of death because god will protect us" they would be slaughtered to the last man and the Indian Military would not suffer any major losses.

[Cilestis]

But any way the definition of a global war is a war that involves mutliple nations a global holy war is a world war. So i am on topic

You may be on topic but you're definitely not in reality.

[Roski]

Side 1: USA, NATO, Anzac, Israel, South Korea, and Japan Brazil
Side 2: Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and Syria

In all likelyhood.

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

Hopefully, how else will I start war profiteering

[Cilestis]

Hopefully, how else will I start war profiteering

Calm down Moriarty.

[Mizrad]

And, in your opinion, who would come out on top of this war?

Probably the US and her allies, China might be able to support a war but without help from the US it would collapse. However who is to say they wouldn't ally with America? Russia on the other hand would be screwed.

What would be the causes?

Either economic issues, Russia, North Korea [If the US were to go to war there, China and Russia would intervene], the US or terrorism.

Who would be involved?

At least most of NATO, I don't know what most other countries would do because I don't know how it would start.

Where would it be fought, and with what weapons?

All over the globe with as much technology as possible, maybe even small-scale nuclear weapons.

Is it possible, or a certainty?

Within our lifetimes? Very possible, [I've probably got 70 to 80 years left so....] however it may not happen within that time frame. Will there be a World War 3 in general? Absolutely.

How much time do we have?

At least twenty years, nobody is in a position to start a world war right now even if NATO all got together, fixed the EU and paid off the US' debt.

[Herargon]

Hopefully, how else will I start war profiteering

Calm down Moriarty.

Moriarty?

[Cilestis]

Calm down Moriarty.

Moriarty?

Sorry, Sherlock Holmes reference...

[Shie]

A chinese uprising? China's doing better off than you think.

(China gets pissed that they make everything for us, rises against us)

China makes everything for us for them.

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

Moriarty?

Sorry, Sherlock Holmes reference...

I get it, but no, I wouldn't spark anything intentionally.

[Blakullar]

Since it would be both political and economic suicide for modern day nation-states to go to war with one another, given our heavily globalised world, we probably wouldn't see a world war of the sort the first two were. Indeed, I can see a world war being fought between mega-corporations instead of countries, since they are the only real political entities left with the wealth and the incentive to wage a prolonged conflict. The reality is that ordinary people do not want war; look at the protests across the world against the war on terror. A government that goes against the wishes of its own people is asking for unpopularity and electoral defeat. Corporations only have/need one incentive: profit. This is acquired from a market, and by placing competition in a stranglehold to dominate the markets, they acquire the most profit. Competition between mega-corporations will most likely become more fierce as the struggle for Earth's dwindling resources heats up: and yes, it seems a bit far-fetched, even comical, but we could see Texaco soldiers fighting Shell soldiers over control of oilfields and the global petrol market.

TL;DR: if there is a world war in our time, it will probably be fought by corporations instead of governments because popular opinion is often heavily weighted against war, while companies only need to worry about profit and are therefore more likely to go to war with one another.

[Herargon]

Since it would be both political and economic suicide for modern day nation-states to go to war with one another, given our heavily globalised world, we probably wouldn't see a world war of the sort the first two were. Indeed, I can see a world war being fought between mega-corporations instead of countries, since they are the only real political entities left with the wealth and the incentive to wage a prolonged conflict. The reality is that ordinary people do not want war; look at the protests across the world against the war on terror. A government that goes against the wishes of its own people is asking for unpopularity and electoral defeat. Corporations only have/need one incentive: profit. This is acquired from a market, and by placing competition in a stranglehold to dominate the markets, they acquire the most profit. Competition between mega-corporations will most likely become more fierce as the struggle for Earth's dwindling resources heats up: and yes, it seems a bit far-fetched, even comical, but we could see Texaco soldiers fighting Shell soldiers over control of oilfields and the global petrol market.

TL;DR: if there is a world war in our time, it will probably be fought by corporations instead of governments because popular opinion is often heavily weighted against war, while companies only need to worry about profit and are therefore more likely to go to war with one another.

That was very interesting to read and sounds plausible.

[The Sotoan Union]

A chinese uprising? China's doing better off than you think.

(China gets pissed that they make everything for us, rises against us)

Why would they be pissed? They make lots of money.

[Herargon]

(China gets pissed that they make everything for us, rises against us)

Why would they be pissed? They make lots of money.

China produces very much goods for the world.
If a war is to happen, and China is not involved in it, consumption of goods - except agricultural, industrial and military - will decline.
That could ruin China's economy, despite the money made from weapon trade.

[Blazedtown]

Since it would be both political and economic suicide for modern day nation-states to go to war with one another, given our heavily globalised world, we probably wouldn't see a world war of the sort the first two were. Indeed, I can see a world war being fought between mega-corporations instead of countries, since they are the only real political entities left with the wealth and the incentive to wage a prolonged conflict. The reality is that ordinary people do not want war; look at the protests across the world against the war on terror. A government that goes against the wishes of its own people is asking for unpopularity and electoral defeat. Corporations only have/need one incentive: profit. This is acquired from a market, and by placing competition in a stranglehold to dominate the markets, they acquire the most profit. Competition between mega-corporations will most likely become more fierce as the struggle for Earth's dwindling resources heats up: and yes, it seems a bit far-fetched, even comical, but we could see Texaco soldiers fighting Shell soldiers over control of oilfields and the global petrol market.

TL;DR: if there is a world war in our time, it will probably be fought by corporations instead of governments because popular opinion is often heavily weighted against war, while companies only need to worry about profit and are therefore more likely to go to war with one another.

What the fuck did I just read?

[Herargon]

Since it would be both political and economic suicide for modern day nation-states to go to war with one another, given our heavily globalised world, we probably wouldn't see a world war of the sort the first two were. Indeed, I can see a world war being fought between mega-corporations instead of countries, since they are the only real political entities left with the wealth and the incentive to wage a prolonged conflict. The reality is that ordinary people do not want war; look at the protests across the world against the war on terror. A government that goes against the wishes of its own people is asking for unpopularity and electoral defeat. Corporations only have/need one incentive: profit. This is acquired from a market, and by placing competition in a stranglehold to dominate the markets, they acquire the most profit. Competition between mega-corporations will most likely become more fierce as the struggle for Earth's dwindling resources heats up: and yes, it seems a bit far-fetched, even comical, but we could see Texaco soldiers fighting Shell soldiers over control of oilfields and the global petrol market.

TL;DR: if there is a world war in our time, it will probably be fought by corporations instead of governments because popular opinion is often heavily weighted against war, while companies only need to worry about profit and are therefore more likely to go to war with one another.

What the fuck did I just read?

You've just read some text. Captain obvious.

Now more serious: he said that if a WW3 happens, it will be fought by corporations because of:
1) Popular opinion is against war.
2) The struggle for Earth's dwindling resources forces companies to fight each other over who gains the money of the resources.

[Herargon]

Let me guess, where are you living? I'm just curious.

American south.

Ah, okay.

[Pravengria]

So, I posted a thing about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, consisting of China, Russia and a few other smaller countries, and how their coalition rivals that of NATO, and offers the world a sense of polarity (by this I mean that NATO will have some sort of opposition, where as if the SCO didn't exist, they would have juristiction in whatever places they felt they needed it, without any pushback).

But does anyone here think that we'll see a World War?
Doesn't matter who against, but I'd wager that it'll have something to do with Russian expansionism, or even the Chinese quest for resources throughout Asia and Africa.

And, in your opinion, who would come out on top of this war?
What would be the causes?
Who would be involved?
Where would it be fought, and with what weapons?
Is it possible, or a certainty?
How much time do we have?

Every century has atleast one great war, Ive no doubt we'll see a war this century. Given the recent flashpoints from the Arab Spring in 2011, tensions in Asia (Sorry NKorea and Thailand not talking about you), Ukraine, and the economic crisis, hell I havent seen this much upheavel since the 80s.

[Blazedtown]

What the fuck did I just read?

You've just read some text. Captain obvious.

Now more serious: he said that if a WW3 happens, it will be fought by corporations because of:
1) Popular opinion is against war.
2) The struggle for Earth's dwindling resources forces companies to fight each other over who gains the money of the resources.

I gathered that much. The idea of companies waging warfare against each other is absurd and is the realm of idiotic dystopic fiction.

[Indira]

Unlikely. The world is far more interconnected than ever and the world is more at peace now than it's ever been

[Blazedtown]

Unlikely. The world is far more interconnected than ever and the world is more at peace now than it's ever been

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

That idea was proven wrong a century ago.

[Herargon]

Unlikely. The world is far more interconnected than ever and the world is more at peace now than it's ever been

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

That idea was proven wrong a century ago.

Hmm, interesting. Time will learn if this is true.

[Pravengria]

Unlikely. The world is far more interconnected than ever and the world is more at peace now than it's ever been

That's a bold statement.

[Herargon]

Unlikely. The world is far more interconnected than ever and the world is more at peace now than it's ever been

That's a bold statement.

Maybe, but don't forget we live in the present. We have seen the past, and can learn from it, but we cannot learn from it how the future will be.
Sure, we can predict the future or at least try it, but the future will not be as everyone expected it.
This is because the future's look depends on every action of mankind, every man, woman, child, a bird that is flying through the woods, a tiger dying, a tree growing, an alien finding a new planet called Earth, a star exploding, a supernova, a black hole ---

In short: the future depends on everything. It is unpredictable.

[Pravengria]

That's a bold statement.

Maybe, but don't forget we live in the present. We have seen the past, and can learn from it, but we cannot learn from it how the future will be.
Sure, we can predict the future or at least try it, but the future will not be as everyone expected it.
This is because the future's look depends on every action of mankind, every man, woman, child, a bird that is flying through the woods, a tiger dying, a tree growing, an alien finding a new planet called Earth, a star exploding, a supernova, a black hole ---

In short: the future depends on everything. It is unpredictable.

I admire the philosophy, though I wasnt agreeing with him. Im not so optimistic on humanity.