Do you think we'll ever see another World War?

[NightWatcher]

Do you think that we'll ever see another World War in the classical sense of armies from a coalition of countries moving against another coalition of countries, an Allies vs Axis kind of conflict like we saw and participated in WW2?

Will we see tanks and troops march across countries taking up territories like on the Risk board game, or have we advanced beyond traditional war? Will the wars of the future (and present) be fought by drones, sanctions, and isolated strikes?

13 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	10 (77%)
	No
	2 (15%)
	Other:
	1 (8%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[A HERETIC I AM]

1. If the circumstances are right, absolutely. n/t

[hlthe2b]

2. hmmm. just as a Maylasian passenger jet is shot down over the Ukraine, timely question....

Sadly.. It doesn't take much to escalate out of control



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/malaysia-airlines-plane-cras_n_5595516.html

[NightWatcher]

7. Jane Harmon made the point of Archduke Ferdinand's assassination (and the overreaction)

leading to WW1.

I see how things could go sour and get out of hand.

[hlthe2b]

9. Precisely

[LordGlenconner]

11. Not enough

The Russians shot down a Korean Airlines 747 in the 1980s with more people on board during the cold war and it did not result in war. That plane also took off from the US and had a number of Americans on board.

I think we all need to tap the brakes on how this might impact global politics.

[NightWatcher]

12. I didn't mean that this would lead to a world war, but it did trigger my question

Ships have been sunk, heads of state assassinated, planes downed, and other actions have not lead to war, but I was asking because it seems the level of conflict and pressure around the globe seems to be pretty high and getting worse.

[Tetris_Iguana]

16. That airliner was also downed in a different world

led by two stable superpowers engaged in a nuclear standstill.

While I doubt today's tragedy will directly lead to a much larger war, it's much more unstable and fractured world then back then.

What this crash will lead to are more sanctions, which may knock the next dominos down.

[hlthe2b]

17. One would hope that would be the sane reaction, but how many politicos have been assasinated, yet

all it took was one Archduke's death to trigger one our most bloody wars in history.

It is not anonymous people on a political forum that need to "tamp the breaks"... No one here is doing or has the power to do anything but observe events and discuss them. That admonishment is rather silly and a bit condescending, IMO.

[LordGlenconner]

18. Good lord, you're talking about an event 100 years ago

What application does that have to this situation? Answer: Nothing.

Furthermore, since you have reading comprehension problems I'll draw you a picture: I was not saying that people should stop talking about it, I was pointing out that they need to tap the breaks on breathless predictions of WW3over a downed airliner, which by the way is the reasonable position.

Do try and get a grip. Thanks.

[hlthe2b]

20. And you are talking about expected reactions in areas of the world not undergoing current

instability and strife.

No one here is predicting anything. But, that is why the rest of the world under auspices of the UN are going to have to step in to quell the reaction. To think otherwise is to demonstrate the naivete of a lifetime.

I have no difficulty with reading comprehension and I absolutely recognize ugly condescension for what it is.

[LordGlenconner]

22. Thank you, secretary general

(eye roll)

[hlthe2b]

23. LOLOL... YOU name yourself "LORD" Glenconner and say that to me?!!!

[LordGlenconner]

24. ...

[hlthe2b]

25. ...

Truth hurts, eh "Lord"?

[SummerSnow]

3. WW3 would result in no survivors .WMD's can do this.

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. That is assuming the actors would use them. n/t

[Hayabusa]

32. Agreed

Most wars are fought for something tangible rather than pure hatred, rather it be resources or land. There's no way a full scale WMD attack will happen to destroy what is being fought over.

[A HERETIC I AM]

33. Perfectly stated.

"There's no way a full scale WMD attack will happen to destroy what is being fought over."

I'm thinking WWIII would start for the same reason all wars start - resources/greed.

Couple rising sea levels which cause MASSIVE migration of incredibly poor people (I'm thinking Bangladesh, as a perfect example) into areas unable or unwilling to assimilate them with depleting resources across the board.

This forces the "host" countries to make a grab for more oil/food/whatever in order to try and ameliorate the problem. Other countries say "not so fast" and it begins to get out of hand.

I am by no means qualified as an analyst of global politics, but if it happens, I think it will be started by China or India and will involve Australia from the get go.

England comes to the Aussies aid, the US comes to both while trying to keep China/India from stepping on everyone's dick. North Korea sees an opportunity to fire some missiles into the sea in an attempt to hit something, pissing off the Japanese. (OK..that's a little tongue-in-cheek)

It will be poor people just wanting to survive and a wealthy nation not giving a fuck.

[MohRokTah]

4. No.

World War II was not like World War I, which was not like the Crimean War, which was not like the American Civil War, which was not like the war ebtween Mexico and The US, which was not like the Napoleanic wars, which was not like the War for American Independence.

War has consistently evolved over time. No war is ever like the wars that preceded it. Technology, strategic, and tactical advances always occur.

The one constant about war, though, is the generals always seem to fight the current war under the suppositions of the prior war.

[Chan790]

5. No.

I expect any future "hot" conflict of that size would escalate to nuclear nearly instantly.

[unblock]

14. i think city-destroying nukes will rarely be used, nor will they end a "world war".

"small" nukes might be used, detonated at ground level, to destroy heavily reinforced structures.

i don't see anyone ceasing a "world war" due to a nuke. if someone nuked one major american city, there's absolutely no way in hell we'd stop fighting. i can't imagine china or russia or anyone else stopping either.

i think japan was an anomaly, partly because the nuke was so far ahead of anything they had, partly because they didn't know how many we had, and mostly because they were looking to surrender anyway.

[mylye2222]

6. Yes.

Too much tensions everywhere. And Western ecomomics in endless turmoil wich fabors more and more ultraviolence and faaciqm. Those facists puppets of Kremlin. Cultural crisis.... The perfect explosive cocktail in the shaker right now.

[smirkymonkey]

35. +100

Yes, I am getting a bad feeling about all that is going on in the world right now. The planet seems to be a tinderbox.

[librechik]

10. I don't think we can make that happen in the next 50 years, we're so divided

and I'm afraid we won't be around much longer after that, because of the same divisions.

[Nye Bevan]

13. If we had developed the atom bomb sooner, we would have dropped one on Berlin.

No D-day needed. No more mass movement of armies, tanks and troops.

[KamaAina]

15. Einstein said he had no idea how World War III would be fought.

But he did know how World War IV would be fought.

With sticks and stones.

[Tom_Foolery]

27. Beat me to it...

[RKP5637]

19. I'm more concerned about civil war in the US, some kind of coup d'état, somehow. n/t

[pipi_k]

21. I honestly don't know one way or the other

It would be madness.

But we, as a species, probably aren't above total self destruction.


who can say for sure?

[The_Commonist]

26. We are in one now, and have been since 9/11/01, aka "The New Pearl Harbor"

We just don't recognize it or call it that.
Just like previous World Wars, it is a shift of paradigm and power.
We are in the midst of the "Corporate World War."
Once it is over, we will live on a Uni-Polar Corporate controlled planet.
Nation-states will be, and are becoming, irrelevant.

History never quite repeats itself exactly, and we've been waiting in vain for another "Hitler" to show up, so we could call it World War 3. But we've been living it for over a decade now. "Terrorism," Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, etc, are simply the current battlefields.

[onecaliberal]

28. It is certainly possible.

If someone like McCain were ever to get in office it would definitely happen.

[maryellen99]

30. If McCain was President

The nukes would already be on their way to Russia.

[Jamastiene]

29. Sadly, yes. n/t

[Xyzse]

31. What is the definition of one?

Some of the wars such as the Korean and Vietnam war can be considered "World Wars".

Chances are, there would be quite a few wards matching or exceeding them in scope, but it will not be called a World War. It would be called something else.

[Hekate]

34. Just give Dick Cheney & Pals their chance. Another chance, that is. nt