Are we already in World War III?

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps you could take a moment and explain what you mean?

Why do you call those countries dictatorships? I see very little difference between them and us....OH! unless you mean that in this country we get to choose between Hillary and Trump? Do you think this represents Democracy?

I can hardly wait to see what you offer.

Who ever told you that needs a major ass kicking. Its not only wrong, its so far off base (both factually, and logically) that it's ridiculous.

It IS true that wars fought in far back previous centuries are often known today by names that were not used at the time. For example "the Wars of the Roses" fought in Middle Ages England were not called that until Shakespeare's time centuries later. And obviously no one called "the Seven Years War" that name until after it was over (same with the "Thirty Years War", and the "Sixty Years War", and the "Hundred Years War").

But that is not the case with the two world wars of the Twentieth Century. In fact both were still in living memory when I was a child in the Sixties (actually they both still are), and the grown ups around me all talked about life during both world wars, including about how both were called that at the time.

The attacks of 9-11 were 15 years ago, and your putative third world war still hasnt happened yet.

But you're saying that 9-11 is to your 'world war three' what the shooting of the archduke was to world war one.

But the shooting of the Archduke was NOT a "distant prolologue" to WWI. The opposing alliances of European powers had already formed years before the assassination. And when it happened its sparked the "tinderbox of Europe" to burst into flames full tilt within weeks. And the whole duration of the war was only four years anyway (again 9-11 was 15 years ago). So 9-11 and the Assassination were not analogous events in the way you are suggesting.

WWIII will only happen when the US declares war on Russia. As much as I hate Trump I think Hillary's first act would have been to push the button. She was implying it heavily in her debates and I think it's one of the big reasons she lost. Now Obama has only four days to do so.

Right, now that we will probably be annhilated in 4 days, I have to bid you and everyone farewell.

I'm going to miss this Earth.

If we are in WW 3 then who is the enemy?

If you insist that we are in a war, then we are at war with Islam. Which we shall win but a lot of people will be hurt.

As a huge fan of (non zombie) post apocalyptic books part of me would love the collapse of society, as long as it is a friendly collapse with no one getting hurt

Looks more like the cold war heated up again, Nato had been poking the bear for a long time and the bear regained its claws.

The term WWIII has been reserved for a global thermonuclear war, so we'll have to come up with another way to say it.

In principle, you make a very good point.

about the term "WWIII" :not exactly
about whether,or not, he is making a good point: not exactly (its more like we are in "Cold War II" than in "WWIII".

The term "world war three" is "reserved" for meaning the modern equivalent of both of the other two world wars- which means the superpowers directly attacking and fighting each other (regardless of what weapons they use). Not collections of proxy wars like we had during the cold war, and like we have now.

Not Russia backing a small country fighting another small country backed by the US. But Russia and the US fighting each other ( or Russia fighting China, or whatever combination). The main powers like Russia, the EU, China, fighting each other.

Since each of the superpowers is also a nuclear power, and since it is assumed such a war would escalate to the use of the most powerful weapons- then it assumed that such a war would also be a thermonuclear war.

But its the situation in which the main powers fight each other that makes it a world war a "world war". Not the choice of weapons. What we have now is the war on terrorism gradually merging with a renewed version of the old Cold War. That it might lead to an actual world war is not impossible. But we are not actually in a world war at the moment.

By their very nature, beginnings can escape notice for a while. Maybe not so much by their nature, as by the way we partition things.

No. We were teetering on the edge for a while with the Syrian situation, but with Trump's successful inauguration the conflict will wind down relatively quickly I suspect. I have no doubt Hillary would have continued making things worse in Syria until every Syrian citizen was either a corpse or a refugee and would likely have agitated Russia into open conflict with America. Trump elected. WW3 averted.

When no people remain alive in Syria besides Assad's supporters and people who keep their opinions to themselves, there will be peace for a while. The quiet ones will be just one more group that feels horribly betrayed because the US made big promises and didn't back them up. It usually takes about 20 years for one of those to bite us in the ass.

This just in, new poll numbers show 53 percent of Americans want to keep Syrian refugees out, and 37 percent want to let them in. I'll answer my earlier question: yes, we collectively deserve Trump.

Last edited by jrjones9933 on 25 Jan 2017, 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

ISIS and the other fictional moderates who were supposed to replace Assad? Boo-hoo. Can't say I care much. Fortunately Trump has promised to team up with Putin and kill them all. Dead people can't feel horrible about betrayal.

Back to the original question, it's kind of up to the president. I've been braying about this for 12 years or so, since it took a little while to sink in that the authorization to invade Iraq and go after Al Qaeda everywhere, forever since Congress renews it without much reform, is a declaration of perpetual war whenever and wherever the President thinks he can get away with it. This authorization is also permission for the drone war. I wrote and called and raised the alarm whenever people wanted to discuss it, which wasn't often.

Now that power is in the hands of President Trump. If he finds ISIS and thinks he can pull it off, he has the legal authority to invade or just destabilize any country he chooses, with a plausible reason or maybe just repeated assertions.

...Your comment about 250-year lifespans is intereting .
How would you deine French cililization ? As dating from the French Revolution ?F
From the time in the 19th Century that (IRC) the Commune/war with Prussia was over ?
How about British civilization ? From 1066 ? From the time (IIRC) post-Cromwell that what we now call the Windsors were brought in from Scotland as the Royal Family ?
Chinese ? Do ww trace it from - The Opium Wars ? Sun Yat-Sen ? Mao,s revolution ?
I,d really like to discuss this .





onychus"]

ars ? Sun Yat-Sen ?

I don't think our system is as stable as you think it is.

The last few years have proven that our system is at the very least extremely broken. Now the reactionary obstructionist party is going to control all 3 branches and the new leader of the executive branch (who the majority didn't vote for) is an aspiring dictator with deep admiration for and business ties to Russia and Syria.

History tells us that the average length of time that a major civilization lasts is only about 250 years. The US is already rapidly approaching it's expiration date.[/quote]

That is often true about beginnings.

But that doesnt change the fact that the OP failed to prove his point. In fact he was quite wrongheaded in how he argued it because his conclusion was largely based upon a single false analogy (that today is a lot like the start of world war one, when in fact the two periods of history are not alike at all- or not alike in the way he believed they were).