World War 3

Samaris · 01-08-2016 12:20PM

"world war
noun
a war involving many large nations in all different parts of the world. The name is commonly given to the wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45, although only the second of these was truly global."

"During the early-21st century the Syrian Civil War and Iraqi Civil War and their spillovers world-wide are sometimes described as proxy wars waged between the United States and Russia, which led some commentators to characterize the situation as a "proto-world war" with nearly a dozen countries embroiled in two overlapping conflicts." (Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war)

Maybe because we don't see this sort of thing until it's over, or maybe because we expect either nuclear annihilation or mass battlefield stages across Europe to count as World Wars, but it does seem like the world is indeed in a war period.

This one is mostly confined to Europe, Middle East, North Africa and America, primarily focused in a Middle East theatre. The far East isn't really involved, which does limit its globality a bit. Other countries (Russia) are as much taking advantage of everyone being distracted to be dicks, which may qualify as being part of it, even if the goals are a bit different.

Interestingly, and perhaps because it doesn't fit the historical definition of -war-, terrorist attacks, even those prompted by the same ideals that the war is based on, don't qualify as war. It doesn't help though that this war is immensely complicated and, much in the same way that an amateur onlooker -during- WWII might not have grasped all the points that we can get in retrospect, my analysis is going to be faulty. But I've found that most people don't actually understand it all anyway, so hell, maybe this will be interesting to explore. /lurks off to do some reading

Gatling · 01-08-2016 12:22PM

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Erdogan and Putin hate each other's guts. Erdogan is an Islamist and Neo Ottoman. The last person Putin would forge an alliance with.

And Erdoğan has been all over Putin publicly thanking him for his support during his show coup,
Likely Turkey will need Putin to deal with the Syrian kurds when they form their own state in the next 12-18 months ,

Jawgap · 01-08-2016 12:29PM

Samaris wrote: »

"world war
noun
a war involving many large nations in all different parts of the world. The name is commonly given to the wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45, although only the second of these was truly global."

"During the early-21st century the Syrian Civil War and Iraqi Civil War and their spillovers world-wide are sometimes described as proxy wars waged between the United States and Russia, which led some commentators to characterize the situation as a "proto-world war" with nearly a dozen countries embroiled in two overlapping conflicts." (Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war)

Maybe because we don't see this sort of thing until it's over, or maybe because we expect either nuclear annihilation or mass battlefield stages across Europe to count as World Wars, but it does seem like the world is indeed in a war period.

This one is mostly confined to Europe, Middle East, North Africa and America, primarily focused in a Middle East theatre. The far East isn't really involved, which does limit its globality a bit. Other countries (Russia) are as much taking advantage of everyone being distracted to be dicks, which may qualify as being part of it, even if the goals are a bit different.

Interestingly, and perhaps because it doesn't fit the historical definition of -war-, terrorist attacks, even those prompted by the same ideals that the war is based on, don't qualify as war. It doesn't help though that this war is immensely complicated and, much in the same way that an amateur onlooker -during- WWII might not have grasped all the points that we can get in retrospect, my analysis is going to be faulty. But I've found that most people don't actually understand it all anyway, so hell, maybe this will be interesting to explore. /lurks off to do some reading

There's an argument often discussed that we've had several 'world' wars already - the Napoleonic Wars had something of a global dimension - and that 'WW1' and 'WW2' were 'peaks' in a global war that ebbed and flowed during the first half of the 20th century - in that framework, 'local' wars such as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Spanish Civil War, and even the Irish War of Independence, are woven into a wider narrative.

Junkyard Tom · 01-08-2016 12:32PM

Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds.

Samantha Fox.

Samaris · 01-08-2016 12:53PM

Jawgap wrote: »

There's an argument often discussed that we've had several 'world' wars already - the Napoleonic Wars had something of a global dimension - and that 'WW1' and 'WW2' were 'peaks' in a global war that ebbed and flowed during the first half of the 20th century - in that framework, 'local' wars such as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Spanish Civil War, and even the Irish War of Independence, are woven into a wider narrative.

Yeah, it's one of the things that makes the concept of "world war" difficult to define. Where does it go from being a large conflict to a truly global war? Does this count, does that count, while trying to use the truly exceptionally disastrous occurrences of WW1/2 as the main point of reference.

I suppose I can only say thank god that we don't have enough of them at WW1/2-scale to have an absolute and definable list!

Fleawuss · 01-08-2016 12:59PM

FURET wrote: »

Such a wealth of foreign and military policy expertise on show here.

I don't think anyone here has claimed a status to bolster an argument they put forward. I think only you have used an alleged status in a sarcastic manner to avoid answering an argument put forward.

Snickers Man · 01-08-2016 01:04PM

Is there any likelihood that Putin would invade the Baltic republics to try and bring them back into Russian hegemony? What's in it for Russia? Anything that couldn't be delivered by peaceful negotiation?

What seems to have spooked many people is the annexation by Russia of the Crimea. But there was an obvious reason why he should do that. Sepastopol, on the Crimean Coast, is a major Russian naval base and in fact its only warm-water naval base. Granted, it only provides access to the Black Sea and Russia would have the tricky problem of exiting via Istanbul and the Bosphorus to get anywhere else but even to maintain a presence in the Black Sea is an important strategic goal for Russia.

When the Ukrainians held a coup to get rid of the pro-Russian Yanukovych the Russians got spooked and quickly moved to secure Sepastopol as a major naval base. By snatching Crimea, without too much difficulty since a majority there are Russian anyway.

Could America and Nato live with that? Of course they could. The price of removing Russia from the Black Sea falls a long way short of a nuclear war and that's what it would take to dislodge them. Right wingers and republicans might bluster about Obama's timid foreign policy but no sane US president of any hue would seriously try to dislodge Russia from the Crimea. They have been there for centuries, and it would take a lot more than a rattling sabre to remove them. It would have to come to blows.

The Baltic republics are different. I think. Members of the EU. No obvious assets without which Russia couldn't survive so far as I know. (Does anybody know different?) Why would Russia risk a world conflict just for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?

lawlolawl · 01-08-2016 01:06PM

Miserable shower of glass- half-empty types in this thread

Oops, almost forgot to add a notable quote.

"Find me in the club, bottle full of bub...... " - Curtis '50 Cent' Jackson.

Junkyard Tom · 01-08-2016 01:09PM

FURET wrote: »

Such a wealth of foreign and military policy expertise on show here.

Geri Halliwell (Ginger Spice)?

GerB40 · 01-08-2016 01:13PM

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori - Rachel off s club 7

BoJack Horseman · 01-08-2016 01:20PM

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

the amount of spending on arms worldwide at the moment is massive it has surged in the last 3 years

It depends on where in the world I assume....?
Take NATO & your 3 year "surge".
The 3 year expenditure increase (adjusted) betweek 2014 & 2016 is 0.8%
For NATO Europe this "surge" amount to 3%.

i even saw yesterday that smaller countries like norway are buying masses of light tanks

40 new IFVs is a long way from the harbinger of doom.
It's far from "Masses" and will amount to about a half dozen per year.

You should relax, If WW3 is imminent, the world is doing a pretty poor impression of preparing for it!

lawlolawl · 01-08-2016 01:22PM

"I have become death, destroyer of worlds" - Phil 'The Power' Taylor.

Jawgap · 01-08-2016 01:26PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It depends on where in the world I assume....?
Take NATO & your 3 year "surge".
The 3 year expenditure increase (adjusted) betweek 2014 & 2016 is 0.8%
For NATO Europe this "surge" amount to 3%.

40 new IFVs is a long way from the harbinger of doom.
It's far from "Masses" and will amount to about a half dozen per year.

For anyone who grew up in the 1980s those figures as 'masses' of tanks are just laughable!!!

That's barely enough to equip one Soviet motorised rifle regiment!!

Cheerful Spring · 01-08-2016 01:32PM

Some breaking news on RT

Russia ready for constructive partnership with NATO, invites military experts for talks - MoD

https://www.rt.com/news/354141-russia-nato-partnership-ready/

The tension is building. Nato may drag us into a war if they don't talk to Russia. Putin can only keep the hardliners at the Kremlin in check for awhile. This will be the next Cuban missile crisis if America don't listen and keep on surrounding the Russians

Ted111 · 01-08-2016 01:33PM

'Never in the field of human conflict was
so much owed by so many to so few'

Sinéad Desmond. TV3.

4068ac1elhodqr · 01-08-2016 01:35PM

If was offering a betting market on this it would be 5/1 odds <5yrs.

Noticed in just the last week there has been a escalation in the media of perceived threats (probably just looking for increase in big-stick buying budgets). Here's a couple of cheery articles anyway, including interactive maps. They naturally feature the 50mt for which you'd need to wear a hard hat and most probably good sunglasses. (Think there some 100mt made also).

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1518917/what-would-happen-if-a-nuclear-bomb-hit-britain-look-at-this-map-to-find-out/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-would-happen-nuclear-bomb-8514152

Pakistan and the unsuitability of Turkey's bases would be more of a concern that the three main organised superpowers.

Quote from one Superhero to another:
Q. If you could have just one superpower, what would it be?
A. Probably... Russia?

Gatling · 01-08-2016 01:37PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

if America don't listen and keep on surrounding the Russians

Actually it's the other way round Russia over the last few years has pushed it's troops westward towards Europe and NATO ,

BoJack Horseman · 01-08-2016 01:37PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The tension is building. Nato may drag us into a war if they don't talk to Russia

Come off the hysteria wagon comrade.

Russia has been in partnership with NATO for many years & things aren't as frosty as some would like to portray, there have always been channels of dialogue.

Your link is further to Moscow agreeing to the idea of a joint conference back in June

Cheerful Spring · 01-08-2016 01:42PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Come off the hysteria wagon comrade.

Russia has been in partnership with NATO for many years & things aren't as frosty as some would like to portray, there have always been channels of dialogue.

Your link is further to Moscow agreeing to the idea of a joint conference back in June

I guess you did not bother to watch the video i posted of Putin speech only a month ago. If you don't see that hes facing pressure within Russia to respond i give up. He said he will respond to the actions of the west if they don't stop what there doing. Its hes job to protect 146 million Russians and the missile shield is a security risk.

BoJack Horseman · 01-08-2016 01:44PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Its hes job to protect 146 million Russians and the missile shield is a security risk.

So, Russia's 40+ missile shield installations are ok...
But the 1 in Romania is a threat to the world and your boy must 'act' (whatever that means).....

Get a grip of yourself.

You can hoard canned goods and put tape diagonally across your windows.....
Elsewhere sanity will prevail.

valoren · 01-08-2016 01:45PM

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his - Nathan Carter.

Cheerful Spring · 01-08-2016 01:47PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, Russia's+ missile shield installations are ok...
But the 1 in Romania is a threat to the world and your boy must 'act' (whatever that means).....

Get a grip of yourself.

You get a grip when Putin says something i think its holds more water then what i say on a forum. He paints a grip picture of the future. Instead of questioning me listen to what he said!

Gatling · 01-08-2016 01:48PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

said he will respond to the actions of the west if they don't stop what there doing. Its hes job to protect 146 million Russians and the missile shield is a security risk.

What exactly are the west doing ,

Did you see the video where he stated he wants to return to the 1914 Russian borders at all

Cheerful Spring · 01-08-2016 01:51PM

Gatling wrote: »

What exactly are the west doing ,

Did you see the video where he stated he wants to return to the 1914 Russian borders at all

Listen to Putin he says the missiles shield can be used as an offensive weapon. And if America chooses can fire nuclear weapons from Romania at Russia. This upsets the strategic balance and for Russia this is unacceptable.

Melodeon · 01-08-2016 01:53PM

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his wife life for his friends." ~Jedward

Jawgap · 01-08-2016 01:53PM

War is the continuation of policy by other means - Pat Spillane

Every battle is won before it ever fought - Jim Gavin

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. - Joe Brolly

Gatling · 01-08-2016 01:56PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

upsets the strategic balance and for Russia this is unacceptable.

Putin talks crap ,

He's been ramping up tensions for years portraying NATO as some kind of evil bogeyman while pushing his troops westward along with funding far right groups across Europe too

BoJack Horseman · 01-08-2016 01:58PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

And if America chooses can fire nuclear weapons from Romania at Russia

What weapon specifically?
What nuclear weapon in the US inventory can be launched from the MK41 vls?

And the bonus question is 'why?'
If the US wanted to Nuke Russia, it would to so much more effectively by SLBM.....

You & the Czarina's scaremongering hold little water.

Cheerful Spring · 01-08-2016 02:00PM

Gatling wrote: »

Putin talks crap ,

He's been ramping up tensions for years portraying NATO as some kind of evil bogeyman while pushing his troops westward along with funding far right groups across Europe too

Putin is the president of Russia he not some guy on the street saying war is coming. We can keep saying Putin is talking crap, but its hes job to protect Russia. Anyway we keep ignoring the warning signs till its too late to turn back, its not as if we have not been stupid in the past and ended up fighting major wars in the west.

Fleawuss · 01-08-2016 02:01PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Listen to Putin he says the missiles shield can be used as an offensive weapon. And if America chooses can fire nuclear weapons from Romania at Russia. This upsets the strategic balance and for Russia this is unacceptable.

The balance for Putin is the domination of Eastern Europe and a return to Russia's "greatness". When he talks about the misfile shield he's whining that he can no longer intimidate Romania. The Eastern European countries have seen enough of Russia and we should heed their abhorrence of it.

World War 3

Comments