Your thoughts on WW3? - 4

lord greg · 03-11-2013

Posted by Shaymus*

Well, WW3 really happened then it wouldn't contain any Nazis or Germans at all.It all ended there. Maybe if it happened, there would only be Iraqis and people from Russia as new war era enemies.

Who says? Germany is one of the strongest economic powers right now so would almost certainly get involved. They may not be involved in fighting but would at least help with logistics or finance

TD* · 03-11-2013

What tells you this "war" would even be named WWIII...

Rexx · 03-11-2013

Posted by TD*

What tells you this "war" would even be named WWIII...

because 3 comes after 2...

TD* · 03-11-2013

The war of the Spanish Secession or Seven Year's war are also considered as "world wars" yet they do not carry the WWnumeral name. Heck with all the nations fighting the War on Terror, should we name that WWIII? I just don't think we should get ahead of ourselves and naming this theoretical war WWIII as we cannot know with certitude how it will play out. That is why war's are usually named once they have concluded.

Blueh · 03-11-2013

In order to be considered a world war, all continents must be fighting with one another.

lord greg · 03-11-2013

Posted by Blueh

In order to be considered a world war, all continents must be fighting with one another.

not true

Posted by TD*

The war of the Spanish Secession or Seven Year's war are also considered as "world wars" yet they do not carry the WWnumeral name. Heck with all the nations fighting the War on Terror, should we name that WWIII? I just don't think we should get ahead of ourselves and naming this theoretical war WWIII as we cannot know with certitude how it will play out. That is why war's are usually named once they have concluded.

The Napoleonic war also.

TD* · 03-11-2013

Neglecting Antarctica Blueh :0

Seriously a world war must have the involvement of a multitude of nations or alliances across the planet.

lord greg · 03-11-2013

Exactly. Also South America didn't have any or little fighting

Blueh · 03-11-2013

Posted by TD*

Neglecting Antarctica Blueh :0

Seriously a world war must have the involvement of a multitude of nations or alliances across the planet.

Penguins are fierce fighters. Don't underestimate their power.

But there still was fighting globally in all parts of the world during a world war. Parts of Brazil had some minor fights, African colonies. You usually hear more about the worldly powers fighting since a majority of the battles involved them.

http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/me...s-a-world-war/

PumaD · 03-11-2013

No matter how fatal the WW III could be, the fourth one will be stones and fists only.

Blueh · 03-11-2013

Posted by PumaD

No matter how fatal the WW III could be, the fourth one will be stones and fists only.

???

PumaD · 03-11-2013

Posted by Blueh

???

Let me clear it up a bit using a qoute:

"I know not with what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones." - A.Einstein

I guess my attempt of using that quote just failed. =p
But I'm pretty sure after a WorldWar III there won't be any sticks, only stones.

iHot · 03-11-2013

Posted by TD*

The war of the Spanish Secession or Seven Year's war are also considered as "world wars" yet they do not carry the WWnumeral name. Heck with all the nations fighting the War on Terror, should we name that WWIII? I just don't think we should get ahead of ourselves and naming this theoretical war WWIII as we cannot know with certitude how it will play out. That is why war's are usually named once they have concluded.

Man stop stressing about the name. Some believe the war on terror to in fact be WW4 and the war in iraq and afghanistan to be WW5.

Anyways Korea has threatened America before and I hope Koreas allies will deescalate this situation (China especially). If Kim-Jung Un is stupid enough to launch an attack on the U.S. with his ****ty 4,000 km range nukes he's got another thing coming to him. That thing is America stopmping down on Korea with all our nuclear might.

To think Obama wants to cut our nuclear weapon stock. We're nearing war here!

Blueh · 03-11-2013

Posted by iHot

Man stop stressing about the name. Some believe the war on terror to in fact be WW4 and the war in iraq and afghanistan to be WW5.

Anyways Korea has threatened America before and I hope Koreas allies will deescalate this situation (China especially). If Kim-Jung Un is stupid enough to launch an attack on the U.S. with his ****ty 4,000 km range nukes he's got another thing coming to him. That thing is America stopmping down on Korea with all our nuclear might.

To think Obama wants to cut our nuclear weapon stock. We're nearing war here!

The US doesn't need nukes to defeat North Korea. We probably aren't even going to use the nukes we have anyway since they're so deadly. We have waaaayyy advanced technology. The only issue in getting in a war with them is if China chooses to get involved.

Labyrinth · 03-12-2013

Incorrect grammar. I swear if you talk about war again I will definitely not read your thread ever again.

03-11-2013	47
TD* Registered User Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 102	What tells you this "war" would even be named WWIII...

03-11-2013	50
Blueh The Orator Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Yes Posts: 3,307	In order to be considered a world war, all continents must be fighting with one another.

03-11-2013	53
lord greg The General Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: England Posts: 1,753	Exactly. Also South America didn't have any or little fighting

03-11-2013	55
PumaD donald trump'd Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 1,438	No matter how fatal the WW III could be, the fourth one will be stones and fists only.

03-12-2013	60
Labyrinth Banned Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Not specified. Posts: 44	Incorrect grammar. I swear if you talk about war again I will definitely not read your thread ever again.