are you worried about world war three???

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:51 pm

I ponder it sometimes but its out of my control so I dont dwell on it. Bush will be gone in a year so if we can just hold on that long............

lemon_and_mint · Post by **lemon_and_mint** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:52 pm

i think it will be clearerby the end of 2008 - in the past couple of weeks they have already taken several steps which i hoped would not be taken.

I think we are on the way - maybe just before the halfway stage now - but what happens next is anyones guess.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:02 pm

jimbo;753946 wrote: so do you think bush is the biggest danger to a ww3 :-3

i always thought the germans might go for the hatrick or china may start going for revenge on japan :-3

come on people get your thinking caps on suzy wants my lap top back :-5:-5:-5

Yes I think Bush is a dangeous man. Not because hes evil but because hes dim.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:08 pm

WWIII can happen for any of the above mentioned reasons. Do I worry about it not much. I will be glad to see Bush Jr. out of the White House.

It will happen not sure I will be around to see it. Hoping it won't happen in my life time or my kids.

War's are inevitable its a Human thing we can't stand to be one upped.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:41 pm

Presumably by World War Three you're suggesting a mass nuclear exchange involving at least hundreds of warheads? Anything short of that is pretty low-grade whether it's regional or not. Is that what we're discussing here?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:44 pm

I don't fear or see a WW 3 in the future, at least not the likes of WW 2 with as many nations involved. I do see a continuation of Regional Conflicts involving two, maybe three countries. This Christian/Muslim/Jew thing will go on endlessly only because of the extremists of each group.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:01 pm

jimbo;753992 wrote: how about the last world war spoticus , how many million died then , and only one side had the bomb then

how do you think it would go spot , who would use nukes first or do you think that a few people have them now they would not be used as no one would want to get nuked back

The underlying question is whether, if millions of people died in nations equipped with nuclear devices, those countries would hold back on their use. If you think it's credible that they might then maybe you could indeed re-run the scale of your last world war without going nuclear. I don't see it as a possibility.

The countries capable of delivering weapons in an intercontinental context are China, Russia, the US, France, the UK. Regionally you have Israel, India and Pakistan but they don't count in what we're discussing. Any state which cobbles together a dozen or two of these things isn't even in the regional running.

I think someone's going to unleash a quick billion deaths with tailored biological material in the next twenty years That might precipitate a nuclear first strike by one of the five main players as self-protection while engaging in retaliation. In which case yes, we have WW3 within the definition I asked for.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:16 pm

I do worry about it a bit. GWB scares me how much of a war monger he appears to be.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:48 pm

I am no more worried about it now then when I was when the Soviet Union and the States were pointing nukes at each other. Or during the Iran/Iraq qar, or during Russia/Afganistan war, or during all of the other wars and close calls there have been ever since the first atom was split.

King Terry · Post by **King Terry** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:50 pm

suzycreamcheese;754014 wrote: I do worry about it a bit. GWB scares me how much of a war monger he appears to be.

But Bush will be history soon ...... thank God ...... and some other American nutter will take his place, for sure, although I hope not ......

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:35 pm

WW3 - yes I have thought about it

I agree with Spot - and I feel it will be a bacteria release - since 9/11 anything is possible then full barrel Nuclear .. the US will be involved with a long lingering war we have on our hands no matter who becomes Pres. - this war will escalate and I have thought of WW3.

Patsy

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:08 am

I can't say I'm worried about having WW3, but with the world situation the way it has been, I think it might be highly likely. I don't have a feeling as to what kind of warfare would occur.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:18 am

jimbo;754012 wrote: ok buddy how do you see it all kicking off , who starts it , who resorts to germ warfare and who uses/who gets nuked

President Falwell's administration decides that what's missing from a 21st century implementation of Manifest Destiny are the European diseases which took down 90% of the native American population and paved the way for the beachhead in the East and the subsequent 19th century expansion westward.

They release "the Product", seal the Homeland borders (that's why they're building that fence to the south at the moment) and implement their CBW defence inoculations with the effective jabs developed by the same facility as the disease itself and the rest of the world starts to sicken very quickly (except the Israelis of course - they have the jabs and the fence as well).

One of the four non-US countries with ICBM capability says hand us the antidote too or we'll take out Lubbock in retaliation. The US first-strikes all four mass-nuclear countries in response because they've been able to satellite-track submarines for decades and nobody knew. Lubbock survives, the US loses 25,000 citizens in failed inoculations and holds a Memorial Day for them annually thereafter. World population stabilizes at 800 million within a year, new factories are generously built for the survivors to work in under new and enlightened management and nobody ever goes to war again.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:42 am

jimbo;754017 wrote: it kinda makes you wonder if bush/blair have shares in the arms companies

well it wouldnt surprise me, but Blair isnt PM anymore, so thats one out of the way. I also think Blair went into it with Bush because hes a coward more than wanted to start it. Still horrible, but different intentions. He wanted to keep on the right side of what he saw as the winning team, and ignoring what the whole country and most of his own cabinet wanted. Probably a freemason pact.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:05 am

suzycreamcheese;754265 wrote: well it wouldnt surprise me, but Blair isnt PM anymore, so thats one out of the way. I also think Blair went into it with Bush because hes a coward more than wanted to start it. Still horrible, but different intentions. He wanted to keep on the right side of what he saw as the winning team, and ignoring what the whole country and most of his own cabinet wanted. Probably a freemason pact.

Did you not see his way-off-the-scale keynote evangelical rant to the Labour Party Conference back before 9/11? He really meant it - his let's go out and remove the dictators and clean up the planet speech. If anyone was pushing the agenda it was him, not the Americans.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:55 am

How likely is it Bush will push for war with Iran before the end of his term? Would he get away with it?

IMO you should worry what happens in pakistan. Anyone who would use a nuclear weapon in the present world climate is not rational which is exactly how i would describe religious fundamentalist if any kind. All pakistan's nuclear weapons are stored in areas where islamic fundamentalists have a lot of support.

One way or another Pakistan is going to be unstable for some time to come so maybe we can look forward to india and pakistan's disputes turning in to war and dragging us all in to it.

i

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:17 am

I think like someone already said it depends on how you define WWIII, whether you mean a general nuclear war, or a more conventional conflict that was on a large enough scale. I think that its quite likely that there will be a very large-scale (and perhaps nuclear) conflict at some point over the next few decades as there are a lot of political and economic factors that could cause conflicts.

Also we have the rise of new powers in the world, and when new rising powers meet older perhaps declining ones then you have conflict. So what was true of Germany in 20th century Europe will probably be true of China and India in 21st century Asia. Also the rise of extremist Islam in the middle east has many parallels with the rise of totalitarianism in the 20th century (as does the generally cowardly response to it).

But also like someone else said, in terms of your own personal life its best just to get on with it, as the world has always been a dangerous place (always). And Nuclear weapons just mean that the danger of ruin became a global one, but thats the nature of the species. Nothing is certain, and the future may not be as bleak as people think, of course only time will tell.

lemon_and_mint · Post by **lemon_and_mint** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:52 am

i also think that if the uk thinks it will get away with only suffering 7/7 21/7 and the glasgow airport truckbomb, although many people were killed and injured in those attacks, then it is deluding itself.