World war three

[dmcauliffe09]

I recently read an article regarding the theoretical possibility of "terrorists" coming into possession of nuclear arms. Unfortunately I do not have a link available. However, the basic argument of said article was this: lest we wind up causing our own nuclear demolition, all nations possessing nuclear arms should and must disarm themselves. The article also mentioned how the United States and Russia account for an unnacounted stockpile of Cold War arms.

Stupidity, the lust for power, and the need to intimidate are a common factor in nations that possess nuclear arms. We as a people must fight against this or face fatal consequences. We are led to believe that nuclear nations truly want to use nuclear energy in pursuit of innovative and revolutionary energy as these same nations test their nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear arms in any nation is dangerous and a big slap in the face to the people. All it takes is one leader of one nation to set off a deadly war.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm going to laugh when WWIII happens & goes by & no nuclear weapons were ever used in it. That would just blow out the whole concept. Kind of like 2012. Either way, articles such as that, to me, only seem to be used as scare tactics.

[Magón]

There are a lot of anti-nuclear groups all around the world, that usually protest the creation of Nuclear Plants, but they also protest nuclear arms as well. As for WWIII being started by nuclear arms, I'm not sure that's the most likely, nor do I think WWIII will be on the scale that the two previous World Wars were. I don't think you'll see such a large fleet heading to Saudi Arabia the size or bigger than the one that attacked Okinawa, nor do I think you'll see two large standing armies come marching against each other, battling over this town or this city, etc. I think WWIII is more likely to be a closed continental issue. Like nations in North,Central, and South America fighting each other over the resources still here, rather than going to Europe, the Middle East, etc.

Plus, most nations who have nuclear arms are fairly rich and/or supported nations. Such as India and Pakistan. But of course, the issue in Pakistan is that Al Qaeda or the Taliban forces there to, will topple the government and take the nuclear arms for themselves, and shoot them off to the US, Europe, wherever. Because Pakistan does have the ability to build ICBMs, which Iran, the other worry does not.

So basically, the nations and governments now that are in charge and have nuclear capabilities probably won't be firing them off and destroying the whole world. They do have a group who says who can have nuclear weapons, or just nuclear power plants all together. This group is called: The Imperialists, and they're made up of mostly Western Nations who have nuclear arms.

[Dimentio]

World war three will most likely have occurred within twenty years.

[Rusty Shackleford]

terrorism wont state the war. and imperialist country will.

nuclear arms will most likely not be used in the beginning. thats just insane.

they may not even be fully deployed, some people actually care about humans.

[Dimentio]

terrorism wont state the war. and imperialist country will.

nuclear arms will most likely not be used in the beginning. thats just insane.

they may not even be fully deployed, some people actually care about humans.

I somehow think it will be more reminiscent of the Thirty Year's War, with the Middle East as the Battleground.

[theblackmask]

All it takes is one leader of one nation to set off a deadly war.

Gonna have to disagree here. Major wars are not caused by one leader on a whim. They are the product of many different material circumstances involving many countries on a global scale. To say that one crazy person could be the cause of World War 3 is scaremongering.

[Dimentio]

Gonna have to disagree here. Major wars are not caused by one leader on a whim. They are the product of many different material circumstances involving many countries on a global scale. To say that one crazy person could be the cause of World War 3 is scaremongering.

Give me access to a few ICBM's and lets see what I could do to prove you wrong :cool::lol:

[Montes]

Gonna have to disagree here. Major wars are not caused by one leader on a whim. They are the product of many different material circumstances involving many countries on a global scale. To say that one crazy person could be the cause of World War 3 is scaremongering.

My friend, Dr. Strangelove, disagrees.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Terrorists already have nuclear weapons in their possession - state terrorists.

The only way to disarm is through international revolution.

[bots]

While fear mongering it is important to mention e-bombs, or electromagnetic bombs. Way easier to make than nukes, pretty devastating if used in a crowded city. Also has the advantage of reducing human casualties (unless you've got a pacemaker or are in an airplane). Look 'em up.

[Jazzhands]

While fear mongering it is important to mention e-bombs, or electromagnetic bombs. Way easier to make than nukes, pretty devastating if used in a crowded city. Also has the advantage of reducing human casualties (unless you've got a pacemaker or are in an airplane). Look 'em up.

Now that you mention it, the most devastating effect of an E-bomb would be bringing down the internet. Enough e-bombs used in different places and all the fiber-optic cables of the Internet would be destroyed. Imagine the fallout from the Internet shutting down. Relief efforts coordinate using the internet, including ones that only function because of the internet (freerice, for instance). That means all the starving and impoverished parts of Africa and other places would be unable to recieve food and millions of people would die from starvation even more than usual. Shares are traded online. Bringing down those sites would cause a huge stock market fallout. And probably a lot more consequences than that.

There are some countries (we all know what countries I'm talking about) that don't have internet that would still be affected by the e-bomb, but less so.

[Psy]

As for WWIII being started by nuclear arms, I'm not sure that's the most likely,

Actually the most common scenario is WWIII esculating to a full nuclear war for example one would be if NATO attacked Russian forces in the Gerogian conflict in which Russia's standing nuclear doctrine was (and still is) to launch tactical nukes at NATO forces engaging Russian forces (meaning NATO forces just had to attack Russian forces and Russia doctrine was to respond by nuking NATO forces in the threater of operation in this cause Gerogia), which could have escalated into a full scale nuclear war between Russia and NATO.



nor do I think WWIII will be on the scale that the two previous World Wars were. I don't think you'll see such a large fleet heading to Saudi Arabia the size or bigger than the one that attacked Okinawa, nor do I think you'll see two large standing armies come marching against each other, battling over this town or this city, etc. I think WWIII is more likely to be a closed continental issue. Like nations in North,Central, and South America fighting each other over the resources still here, rather than going to Europe, the Middle East, etc.

I don't think so, even now if NATO and Russia directly fought each other it would be hard to keep it limited and most likely engulf most of the Earth in war.



Plus, most nations who have nuclear arms are fairly rich and/or supported nations. Such as India and Pakistan. But of course, the issue in Pakistan is that Al Qaeda or the Taliban forces there to, will topple the government and take the nuclear arms for themselves, and shoot them off to the US, Europe, wherever. Because Pakistan does have the ability to build ICBMs, which Iran, the other worry does not.

So basically, the nations and governments now that are in charge and have nuclear capabilities probably won't be firing them off and destroying the whole world. They do have a group who says who can have nuclear weapons, or just nuclear power plants all together. This group is called: The Imperialists, and they're made up of mostly Western Nations who have nuclear arms.
The problem is a clash of imperialist interests for example the imperial intrests of Russia and China clashing with the imperial interests of NATO. That is not to say imperialism is cause a nuclear war by intent but it might get itself sucked into a nuclear war as the logic of imperialism sets competing imperialist necular powers on a collision course.

[piet11111]

All we know for certain is that such a war would be surprisingly short.
We do not have the capability to field the amount of soldiers we did in WW2 with modern weaponry and since production times for say a jet or tank are so long we would run out of them before the first replacements hit the field.

[Psy]

All we know for certain is that such a war would be surprisingly short.
We do not have the capability to field the amount of soldiers we did in WW2 with modern weaponry and since production times for say a jet or tank are so long we would run out of them before the first replacements hit the field.
Odds are the USA would eventually adopt Russian military design philosophy (of simplicity and durability) if the USA found itself in a long world war. Meaning odds are the USA eventually just copy the T-72B once the Pentagon clues in that Russia (and even China) can spit out T-72B's from their factories like the USA did with the M4 Sherman due to their short build time that Russia and China would rely more heavily on if they find themselves in a protracted war.

[Tatarin]

You're looking at it the wrong way. It'll be like computer games or movies that are remade, if nothing has happened in the last 5-10 years, they use the first one. So the next world war will be The Great War, and then we'll have a war with racists which will be called World War 2. ;)

[NGNM85]

I recently read an article regarding the theoretical possibility of "terrorists" coming into possession of nuclear arms. Unfortunately I do not have a link available. However, the basic argument of said article was this: lest we wind up causing our own nuclear demolition, all nations possessing nuclear arms should and must disarm themselves. The article also mentioned how the United States and Russia account for an unnacounted stockpile of Cold War arms.

Stupidity, the lust for power, and the need to intimidate are a common factor in nations that possess nuclear arms. We as a people must fight against this or face fatal consequences. We are led to believe that nuclear nations truly want to use nuclear energy in pursuit of innovative and revolutionary energy as these same nations test their nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear arms in any nation is dangerous and a big slap in the face to the people. All it takes is one leader of one nation to set off a deadly war.

A very astute observation. This is why we should all support the FISSBAN treaty to end the production of these horiffic weapons. The first step towards a world without nukes is to stop making them. According to the IAEA without something like the FISSBAN treaty nuclear war is 'inevitable.' Also, terrorism experts are predicting there's at least a 50% chance of a terrorist attack using nuclear weapons in the US over the next decade. The fact that governments have these weapons is scary enough, but the possibility of such a device falling into the hands of the disciples of Islamic Jihad is perhaps even more frightening. Also, there are belligerent, or unstable governments that have these weapons, like India, Pakistan, North Korea, or Israel. Also, since the fall of the Soviet Union there are a number of former Soviet nuclear stockpiles where corruption is rife, and security is lax. The US contributes to defending these facilities, but not sufficiently, and the Bush administration, in all it's wisdom, cut resources for this endeavor. Nuclear proliferation is a problem that transcends race, class, or nationality, it is a problem of the human race. Ultimately, how we deal with this will decide the future of our species, whether or not we have one. It is really impossible to overstate the urgency of dealing with nuclear weapons.

[Magón]

Actually the most common scenario is WWIII esculating to a full nuclear war for example one would be if NATO attacked Russian forces in the Gerogian conflict in which Russia's standing nuclear doctrine was (and still is) to launch tactical nukes at NATO forces engaging Russian forces (meaning NATO forces just had to attack Russian forces and Russia doctrine was to respond by nuking NATO forces in the threater of operation in this cause Gerogia), which could have escalated into a full scale nuclear war between Russia and NATO.


I don't think so, even now if NATO and Russia directly fought each other it would be hard to keep it limited and most likely engulf most of the Earth in war.


The problem is a clash of imperialist interests for example the imperial intrests of Russia and China clashing with the imperial interests of NATO. That is not to say imperialism is cause a nuclear war by intent but it might get itself sucked into a nuclear war as the logic of imperialism sets competing imperialist necular powers on a collision course.

I had no idea we were still operating on a Cold War idea, (:rolleyes:) which telling from the news, hasn't gone away completely but still, the likely hood of what was logical for nuclear war/world destruction back then, isn't quite the same as it is now. (NATO v. Warsaw Pact) Nowadays, it's probably going to be like I said, a more continental threat to various nations, rather than the US going to Europe and fighting, or the US going to Southeast Asia, the USSR going to Afghanistan, etc. to fight wars. It'll be more localized in a sense, then people shooting nukes. And if nukes are had, it'll probably be in very particular places, rather than just firing nukes all over the place that do nothing to win anything, and basically just waste an expensive nuke.

[Psy]

I had no idea we were still operating on a Cold War idea, (:rolleyes:) which telling from the news, hasn't gone away completely but still, the likely hood of what was logical for nuclear war/world destruction back then, isn't quite the same as it is now. (NATO v. Warsaw Pact) Nowadays, it's probably going to be like I said, a more continental threat to various nations, rather than the US going to Europe and fighting, or the US going to Southeast Asia, the USSR going to Afghanistan, etc. to fight wars. It'll be more localized in a sense, then people shooting nukes. And if nukes are had, it'll probably be in very particular places, rather than just firing nukes all over the place that do nothing to win anything, and basically just waste an expensive nuke.
From the standpoint of Russia NATO is more of a threat now then during the cold war thus why it deployed tactical nuclear launchers during the Georgian conflict just encase NATO got involved.

[the last donut of the night]

The fact that governments have these weapons is scary enough, but the possibility of such a device falling into the hands of the disciples of Islamic Jihad is perhaps even more frightening.

You sound more and more like a liberal and not a revolutionary here, falling into the old scare tactic used by governments today. If somebody does push the button on these nukes, I doubt it's gonna be "terrorists", but organized imperialist powers.

[The Douche]

Welp, glad Psy is here to bestow some more brilliant military knowledge on us.

[Wanted Man]

Welp, glad Psy is here to bestow some more brilliant military knowledge on us.

That's just symptomatic of threads like this. It's always a great opportunity for a bunch of people to talk about nuclear warfare as if they are somehow in the know. Maybe I've overlooked it, but has anyone tried the "dirty bombs could be in our ports right now" angle yet?

[AK]

Not even capitalists are that stupid to blow up all their precious private property and infrastructure all over again. It is very unlikely we will see another war on the global scale ever again. Economic interests start wars and, for the most part, the economic interests have already been secured by the relatively small number of companies that hold near-monopolies. Capitalists already have access to most foreign markets and valuable resources - another world war is unnecessary.

[Psy]

Welp, glad Psy is here to bestow some more brilliant military knowledge on us.
You do know that after the Georgian conflict Russia restated its nuclear doctrine making it clear that it will could use tactical nuclear weapons to defend its forces even against forces with no nuclear capabilities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCp9--hP08U

[RadioRaheem84]

You sound more and more like a liberal and not a revolutionary here, falling into the old scare tactic used by governments today. If somebody does push the button on these nukes, I doubt it's gonna be "terrorists", but organized imperialist powers.

Yep.

[Pavlov's House Party]

I doubt wars will be fought on such massive scales like WWII from now on, considering how deadly effective insurgency has proven to be against conventional military strategy during the latter half of the 20th century and in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. If there is another "World War", it will most likely take the form of proxy wars & state funded insurgencies rather than full out tanks rolling across central Europe like how NATO assumed it would start during the Cold War.

Nuclear weapons have become a deterant for all out war rather than an offensive weapon because most major players have them, and those who don't have friends who do.

[hobo8675309]

this iis true, though terrorists will not start world war three with a single nuke. if the country hits depression, the chinese will nuke us because we cant pay back debt. such will not be responsible for the nuclear winter, however- if the united states removes its nuclear arsenal, other advanced nations may follow, and humanity's srvival will be gaurenteed.

[Obs]

I doubt there will be a "World War III" in our lifetimes. I can't for the life of me imagine what the sides will be - the US is a given, but neither China or Russia have any reason to want to sustain any such war, and the idea of Iran or North Korea having the military capacity to challenge the US is laughable. If "terrorists" or "jihadists" (I use quotes on those because they're both such stupid, vague catch-all phrases) do manage to somehow get control of a nuke long enough to launch them, the US will crush them immediately without any kind of follow-up to it.


this iis true, though terrorists will not start world war three with a single nuke. if the country hits depression, the chinese will nuke us because we cant pay back debt. such will not be responsible for the nuclear winter, however- if the united states removes its nuclear arsenal, other advanced nations may follow, and humanity's srvival will be gaurenteed.
There are so many wrong things in this post. Are you by any chance a seventh grader?

[piet11111]

I can think of at least 2 things that would force a shuffle in the balance of powers namely the fall of the USA as a super power and the continued rise of china and its dire need for more natural resources.

When i read about the tensions between germany and france over how to bail out greece i could not help but wonder how those two would get along over something really serious (because in the scale of things greece is not such a big deal its only a small % of the EU economy)

China's economic interests are clashing even more with those of the USA and i do not see how they could be resolved in a capitalist way.

A world war is still extremely unlikely at this point but as long as there are conflicts of interests between the great powers its always a possibility.

[Delenda Carthago]

nuclears are the best hope there wont be a WWIII.

[Rusty Shackleford]

there hasnt been a war between to equally "strong" states in a long time.

say... if there was a war between germany and france(again) then you would know how the "standard" modern war is fought. fight now its just stronger states preying on smaller ones.

even when the germans in vaded the soviet union there was a huge partisan movement. there were partisan movements in all countries. but still, it took conventional armies to win the day. even today, the insurgents arent doing very much damage. it would take an army to kick the US out.

also, the only real reason the insurgencies of today are much more noticeable is because almost all combat takes place in and around cities and towns.


a modern war of such scale would look like World in Conflict. bombs fucking EVERYTHING up. shit would just get leveled.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Just want to say that i prefer Subcomandante Marcos term of WW3 as synonymous with the cold war and that we right now are living in WW4 wich is the attacks of neoliberalism and globalization.

[piet11111]

The only reason insurgency's work is because the invaders do not have the will to fight a total war and the stomach to deal with the casualty's it would make.
Nazi germany would just have gassed city's like fallujah but the USA would not be getting away with it.

Anyway what the crisis has shown us is that even in a seemingly unified EU a conflict of interest can still quickly escalate, sure nothing happened but it does illustrate that the national bourgeoisie of any country is still incapable of cooperation with other country's even when they largely share the same interests.

If something drastic happens (say something like a USSR style disintegration of the USA not likely but just to give a sense of scale) then i do not see how even the european country's could remain united when England Germany and France are scrambling to make the most out of the situation for their own benefit.

Or how long China would tolerate the USA trying to force its head in a noose like they did with Japan prior to WW2.
Clearly China will eventually have to deal with the USA as its obvious that america is very much against a strong China even if its just in south asia.

[NGNM85]

You sound more and more like a liberal and not a revolutionary here,

I'm going to let that slide for the moment...


falling into the old scare tactic used by governments today.

This is another example of a typical lack of critical thinking. Everyone should know better than to take politicians or the mainstream media at their word, however it is equally stupid to automatically disregard everything they say. You need to be able to think objectively and judge things on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, there actually is a credible threat which we should be concerned about.
Exhibit A;
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj142/chivas_11_16/TwinTowers.jpg




If somebody does push the button on these nukes, I doubt it's gonna be "terrorists", but organized imperialist powers.

Both scenarios are possible, which is why we need to get serious about nuclear weapons. However, the major world powers, while they tend to act in irresponsible ways which undermine security, seem to have a hesitancy about actually using nuclear weapons, whereas we can be completely positive that if a Jihadist group acquires nuclear weapon they will use it, immediately. At the moment, and for the foreseeable near future, it’s far more likely that if the major powers is responsible for a nuclear detonation, it will have been by accident. Further reason to get rid of these damned things once and for all.

[Rusty Shackleford]

A credible threat, yes. but who made this threat arise, and who is it directed against?

[NGNM85]

A credible threat, yes. but who made this threat arise, and who is it directed against?

It started with the Koran, or, actually, with the Torah. The growing cancer of religious extremism in the Muslim world is a complicated phenomena influenced by a number of factors, including politics, economics, history, geography, etc. Jihadist violence is often directed towards government or military targets, but just as often it's directed against innocent civilians. We really don't have to speculate about their aims because these individuals are very clear about how they feel and what they want. Al-Qaeda published a really well-organized document, fairly recently, for example, outlining their goals for the next ten years in a five-point plan, the final point being the establishment of a pan-national Whabbist caliphate in the Middle East, by any means necessary. They also define virtually everyone else, including Shiite Muslims, as 'infidels,' and therefore, legitimate targets. This is a problem, any way you slice it. There is no real possibility for compromising with this ideology.

My only point was, it should be fairly obvious that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a Jihadist group (And they are trying.) would be a very bad thing.

[RadioRaheem84]

This is another example of a typical lack of critical thinking. Everyone should know better than to take politicians or the mainstream media at their word, however it is equally stupid to automatically disregard everything they say. You need to be able to think objectively and judge things on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, there actually is a credible threat which we should be concerned about.
Exhibit A;

NGN, we do not disregard what politicians say. We pay very close attention and deconstruct what they say. All leftists do is analyze the political and economic issues of the current social order.

All you're doing is fitting your rather Hitchean-Harris world view into current events.



Both scenarios are possible, which is why we need to get serious about nuclear weapons. However, the major world powers, while they tend to act in irresponsible ways which undermine security, seem to have a hesitancy about actually using nuclear weapons, whereas we can be completely positive that if a Jihadist group acquires nuclear weapon they will use it, immediately. At the moment, and for the foreseeable near future, it’s far more likely that if the major powers is responsible for a nuclear detonation, it will have been by accident. Further reason to get rid of these damned things once and for all.

Most of the dangers we faced because of a nuclear attack were because the US. Any move they made was seen as a heroic act of freedom, any move an opposing power made was evil and therefore we were closer to launching the bomb.

If I am not mistaken, the US is the only major power that has detonated a bomb (twice!) on a civilian population and continues to defend it's action. Yet, you're completely positive that a Jihadist group will detonate a nuclear weapon?

Apparently, just the several sporadic attacks around the world for about less than 20-25 years from Islamic extremists seems to indicate that they are crazier and will detonate a bomb much quicker and without hesitation, over an imperial power which has subjugated the world, dropped two atom bombs, invaded a countless number of weaker nations, conducted global terrorism around the world, and economic warfare which starves hundreds of thousands?

You exhibit a classic case of a Hitch-ean worldview. That a small group of Islamic radicals are more dangerous than imperialism.

[RadioRaheem84]

It started with the Koran, or, actually, with the Torah. The growing cancer of religious extremism in the Muslim world is a complicated phenomena influenced by a number of factors, including politics, economics, history, geography, etc. Jihadist violence is often directed towards government or military targets, but just as often it's directed against innocent civilians. We really don't have to speculate about their aims because these individuals are very clear about how they feel and what they want. Al-Qaeda published a really well-organized document, fairly recently, for example, outlining their goals for the next ten years in a five-point plan, the final point being the establishment of a pan-national Whabbist caliphate in the Middle East, by any means necessary. They also define virtually everyone else, including Shiite Muslims, as 'infidels,' and therefore, legitimate targets. This is a problem, any way you slice it. There is no real possibility for compromising with this ideology.

Islamic extremism is a problem because leftist voices have been severely marginalized in the Middle East due to Cold War policy of containment. US planners admit to this much, which is why neo-cons advocated "draining the swamp". This has instead doubled recruitment into extremist groups. But either way the main problem is political. One can easily examine the situation through a material lens, analyze the class situation, without resorting to making the religion the boogeyman. Al Qaeda can talk all they want about re-creating the Caliphate, the issue still remains political not religious. Why do you think they want to restore the Caliphate? How do they analyze the political and economic situation the Middle East and the World? Religiously. Is what they say true? No. So then we must discard the notion that the problem is inherently religious. We must examine the root cause for what brought religious extremists of all stripes together. We must understand their social and material conditions.



My only point was, it should be fairly obvious that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a Jihadist group (And they are trying.) would be a very bad thing.

You seem to state the obvious but hammer the point to mere irrelevancy.

[Rusty Shackleford]

It started with the Koran, or, actually, with the Torah. The growing cancer of religious extremism in the Muslim world is a complicated phenomena influenced by a number of factors, including politics, economics, history, geography, etc. Jihadist violence is often directed towards government or military targets, but just as often it's directed against innocent civilians. We really don't have to speculate about their aims because these individuals are very clear about how they feel and what they want. Al-Qaeda published a really well-organized document, fairly recently, for example, outlining their goals for the next ten years in a five-point plan, the final point being the establishment of a pan-national Whabbist caliphate in the Middle East, by any means necessary. They also define virtually everyone else, including Shiite Muslims, as 'infidels,' and therefore, legitimate targets. This is a problem, any way you slice it. There is no real possibility for compromising with this ideology.

My only point was, it should be fairly obvious that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a Jihadist group (And they are trying.) would be a very bad thing.


You are painting the victims(the middle eastern population) as the aggressor. The source of the problem is not religion. it is imperialism. What was the response to french and british occupation after WWI? Socialism and nationalism. secular movements were strong.

the situation has changed. the us fostered islamism in the late 70s.
when the shah overthrew the democratic government of iran, the only other unused response was islamism. even then it was nationalist because it broke ties with its former imperialist puppet-masters.
Islamism was also fostered through the mujahaideen and the jihad against the soviet union. that movement just happened to stick for a long time and has since then turned against imperialism.


It started with imperialism, not the koran or the torah. the bible didnt build the roman empire. the koran isnt the source of terroism. its just a unifyer against a foreign occupier. sure theyre seeking nukes, and i dont approve. but why they are doing it is because it is the only way they can fight. asymmetrically.

the islamic radicals are fighting against occupiers. creating chaos like crazy to make the occupiers unpopular. its simple to understand. again, i dont approve or support the way they are doing it or religious fundamentalism. but it is what they are doing.


yes it would be bad. but they arent the only ones with the will to use nukes.

[nip]

The article also mentioned how the United States and Russia account for an unnacounted stockpile of Cold War arms.

Maybe they misplaced it? I do stuff like that all the time, I'm still not sure where a lot of my stuff is.

[NGNM85]

You are painting the victims(the middle eastern population) as the aggressor.

No, I'm not. Al-Qaeda and co. are aggressors, not victims. In fact, a significant percentage of Jihadists actually come from wealthy, well-educated backgrounds.


The source of the problem is not religion. it is imperialism. What was the response to french and british occupation after WWI? Socialism and nationalism. secular movements were strong.

Religion is a significant part of the problem.


the situation has changed. the us fostered islamism in the late 70s.
when the shah overthrew the democratic government of iran, the only other unused response was islamism. even then it was nationalist because it broke ties with its former imperialist puppet-masters.

While that is essentially correct that has virtually nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups. According to their extreme fundamentalist beliefs the Iranians, who are Shiites, aren't even Muslims. They are 'infidels', just like you and me.


Islamism was also fostered through the mujahaideen and the jihad against the soviet union. that movement just happened to stick for a long time and has since then turned against imperialism.

It goes back much further than that. However the US did deliberately arm, train, and organize a number of violent religious fanatics in the region with the intention of provoking the Soviets. However, this type of religious extremism was not created in the 1980's.


It started with imperialism, not the koran or the torah.

The religious fanaticism we're seeing, probably most accurately described as 'Qutbism' is a subset of Islam, which is one of the Abrahamic faiths.


the bible didnt build the roman empire.

The Roman Empire predates Christianity.


the koran isnt the source of terroism.

It's part of it. This type of terrorism is explicitly religious in it's aims and methods.


its just a unifyer against a foreign occupier.

It's much more than that.


sure theyre seeking nukes, and i dont approve. but why they are doing it is because it is the only way they can fight. asymmetrically.

the islamic radicals are fighting against occupiers. creating chaos like crazy to make the occupiers unpopular. its simple to understand. again, i dont approve or support the way they are doing it or religious fundamentalism. but it is what they are doing.

Ejecting foreign powers from Middle Eastern countries is just the beginning. There's a much bigger agenda. Also, they aren't nationalists, they define their community based on religion. Their objectives are also religious in nature.


yes it would be bad. but they arent the only ones with the will to use nukes.

There's a difference. The major world powers have been, at times, frighteningly irresponsible in their nuclear policies, but they have generally steered away from actually using them. For the United States, Russia, China, Britain, etc., the primary value of nuclear weapons is a deterrent effect. The greater risk today, and for the immediate future, regarding the nuclear stockpiles of the major powers, is accidental detonation. You might think that would be impossible but unfortunately, that's not the case. Islamic extremists, however, seek nuclear weapons specifically for the purpose of deploying them. We can be sure if Al-Qaeda or an affiliated group obtains one the first order of business will be to detonate it in a very densely populated area. Moreover, their religious extremism renders them virtually completely impossible to reason with. This is why the prospect should be so disturbing. I don't think we should have nuclear weapons, period, but I think it's safe to say that fanatical religious psychopaths especially should not be in posession of such horrible destructive weapons. That definitely does not benefit the working class, or anybody else, for that matter.

[AK]

Maybe they misplaced it? I do stuff like that all the time, I'm still not sure where a lot of my stuff is.
"I've lost thousands of nuclear warheads!"
"Did you check behind the sofa?"

EDIT: in b4 stating the joke wasn't funny. I know, it was fucking horrible.

[Rafiq]

World war three will most likely have occurred within twenty years.


Probably even before that.. No one on Earth will ever use Nukes though, I can promise you that.

If anyone were to use nukes it would be the USA, but I still doubt they would.

Some say the third world war has already taken place.

It is a scary world, where the only wars are invasions of nations and the enemy is not a country, but a small group of resistance fighters.

Other than that, wars between superpowers are fought through economy.

There are no more wars, just Imperialist 'police' work.

[Rusty Shackleford]

for a world war to exist, i think the main qualifier is total war. when was the last time any two nations were engaged in total war?

[Dimentio]

for a world war to exist, i think the main qualifier is total war. when was the last time any two nations were engaged in total war?

Isn't necessary. The next world war could be a combination of a series of limited wars coupled with widespread anarchy in the Battlezone.

For example, imagine if the entire Middle East was like Iraq, but with tens of thousands of small sectarian factions squabbling for power, and then the armies of the USA, Europe, Russia, China and some major muslim powers occupying parts of it and fighting one another.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Isn't necessary. The next world war could be a combination of a series of limited wars coupled with widespread anarchy in the Battlezone.

For example, imagine if the entire Middle East was like Iraq, but with tens of thousands of small sectarian factions squabbling for power, and then the armies of the USA, Europe, Russia, China and some major muslim powers occupying parts of it and fighting one another.
that sounds more like the 7 years war in the colonies than it does full blown world war.

although im going to contradict myself and say i think the 7 years war was the first world war :lol:

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Probably even before that.. No one on Earth will ever use Nukes though, I can promise you that.

If anyone were to use nukes it would be the USA, but I still doubt they would.

Some say the third world war has already taken place.

It is a scary world, where the only wars are invasions of nations and the enemy is not a country, but a small group of resistance fighters.

Other than that, wars between superpowers are fought through economy.

There are no more wars, just Imperialist 'police' work.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the U.S drop two nuclear bombs on Japan, and isn't the U.S using depleted uranium amunition in Iraq and Afganistan. It doesn't cause the massive destruction that a nuclear warhead will cause, but it'll kill people slowly from radiation poisoning, cause birth defects and make the ground where it was used uninhabitable for 4,600 years.the use of these weapons have made U.S soldiers sick, they have given birth to deformed babies,along with Iraqis.

[Rafiq]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the U.S drop two nuclear bombs on Japan, and isn't the U.S using depleted uranium amunition in Iraq and Afganistan. It doesn't cause the massive destruction that a nuclear warhead will cause, but it'll kill people slowly from radiation poisoning, cause birth defects and make the ground where it was used uninhabitable for 4,600 years.the use of these weapons have made U.S soldiers sick, they have given birth to deformed babies,along with Iraqis.


Yeah, that's why I said "If anyone were to use nukes it would be the US".

The biggest threat to world peace are the superpowers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Probably even before that.. No one on Earth will ever use Nukes though, I can promise you that.

If anyone were to use nukes it would be the USA, but I still doubt they would.

If nuclear weapons are to be used, it is likely that it would be in a regional conflict, e.g. India v Pakistan. The current world arrangement is too comfortable for most of the superpowers to rock the boat in such a fashion, and most non-state terrorists are incompetent nitwits.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the U.S drop two nuclear bombs on Japan, and isn't the U.S using depleted uranium amunition in Iraq and Afganistan. It doesn't cause the massive destruction that a nuclear warhead will cause, but it'll kill people slowly from radiation poisoning, cause birth defects and make the ground where it was used uninhabitable for 4,600 years.the use of these weapons have made U.S soldiers sick, they have given birth to deformed babies,along with Iraqis.

Depleted uranium does not cause radiation poisoning (that's why it's "depleted"), although it's still chemically toxic like all uranium isotopes. I think we should be very careful not to exaggerate stuff like this, as being proven wrong is a discrediting experience.

[Adi Shankara]

This song will explain what to do in case a nuclear attack comes, and it will tell you that YOU WILL SURVIVE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2UpM8Ci_ao

lol, got to love cold-war era panic and paranoia!