Ending WW3


by juniorb0y007
Tags: ending
juniorb0y007
juniorb0y007 is offline
#1
Feb4-08, 03:05 PM
P: 2
Every day, when i get up and listen to news, I see how people are getting killed in other countries. I also see, how other countries are focusing toward Nuc-Weaopons. I just don't get all this. For what reason, world is getting into different direction ? Ending the WW2 USA had to dropped two bombs in japan. That was only way to stop the WW2 at that time.
I am just curious about how someone will stop WW3 ? Do you all think someone will come up with NEW TYPE OF BUMB?
In my point of view, i don't think there will be a way to stop WW3.

How will WW3 end?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Internet co-creator Cerf debunks 'myth' that US runs it
Astronomical forensics uncover planetary disks in Hubble archive
Solar-powered two-seat Sunseeker airplane has progress report
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#2
Feb4-08, 04:20 PM
Mentor
P: 22,010
Irrelevant question: Partly because of nuclear wepons, there won't be a WW3.
BobG
BobG is offline
#3
Feb4-08, 04:57 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
BobG's Avatar
P: 2,275
There's no reason World War III would have to involve nuclear weapons. A nuclear holocaust would only be a threat if the war were between major powers (like back in the cold war).

A world war at least as significant as World War I is a realistic possibility in the Middle East where only Israel and Pakistan are likely to currently have nuclear weapons. Having only two nuclear powers means a war in a 'safe, non-nuclear' area can spring up and eventually spread to involve militaries from other continents and also include the one or two countries possessing a means to put an end to the war whenever they feel the need to.

Even if a world war in the Middle East wound up having nuclear weapons used, it would be more on the level of the World War II rather than an all out nuclear holocaust.

While possible, I do think a world war in the Middle East would be unlikely since a nearly guaranteed disruption of oil income is a fairly significant deterrent in itself. Maybe not on the level of nuclear anihilation, but strong enough that the surrounding countries tend to pull back right at the verge of jumping in.

russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#4
Feb4-08, 11:43 PM
Mentor
P: 22,010

Ending WW3


Quote Quote by BobG View Post
There's no reason World War III would have to involve nuclear weapons. A nuclear holocaust would only be a threat if the war were between major powers (like back in the cold war).
I know I'm probably nitpicking a little, but that's kinda how I would define "world war".
A world war at least as significant as World War I is a realistic possibility in the Middle East where only Israel and Pakistan are likely to currently have nuclear weapons. Having only two nuclear powers means a war in a 'safe, non-nuclear' area can spring up and eventually spread to involve militaries from other continents and also include the one or two countries possessing a means to put an end to the war whenever they feel the need to.

Even if a world war in the Middle East wound up having nuclear weapons used, it would be more on the level of the World War II rather than an all out nuclear holocaust.

While possible, I do think a world war in the Middle East....
I'm not sure I get your categorization. "World war in the Middle East" is basically a contradiction in terms. WWI and II involved pretty much every major world power at the time. A war limited to middle-eastern countries wouldn't even come close to the amount of military might thrown around in them. Heck, if every country in the middle east went to war with Israel, it still wouldn't equal the amount of force employed in the first Gulf War, which US military policy identifies as a "large regional war".

There is a US military concept called "total war", which describes the level of commitment of the involved parties (particularly the US...). It is defined as a war effort that requires mobilization of all of the country's excess resources to aid the war effort. Ie, converting car factories into airplane factories like in WWII. A country like Pakistan has a considerable population to throw at a war effort, but it does not have anywhere near the economic power required to wage war on the scale of what the western world did in WWII.

We are not likely see major powers need to be that committed to a war anytime in the forseeable future.
Bob3141592
Bob3141592 is offline
#5
Feb4-08, 11:53 PM
P: 225
I hope you're right, Bob. I think a major flare up in the Middle East that incidentally threatened to cut off the oil supply would see an immediate response by the major powers, each interested in maintaining their own supply. The Saudi's and Iranians, etc would quickly become irrelevant pawns and pushed aside. China is becoming increasingly thirsty for oil, as is India, another nuclear power. Nobody wants to be out on the sidelines when the spigot is cut off. Imagine if China or Russia intervened in an Arab-Israeli war that went nuclear. If the international supply wasn't maintained, the other would feel awfully threatened, and it wouldn't be long at all before people got desperate. Bad things could happen.

Not that I think it's going to happen. But it's disturbing that the scenario isn't far less possible.
vanesch
vanesch is offline
#6
Feb5-08, 03:16 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,238
Quote Quote by juniorb0y007 View Post
EFor what reason, world is getting into different direction ? Ending the WW2 USA had to dropped two bombs in japan. That was only way to stop the WW2 at that time.
I think that is not correct actually. There wasn't any need to drop those bombs - if you want the details, read "the making of the atomic bomb" by Richard Rhodes (great reading in any case!!). In fact, Truman decided to use it, because he wanted to win from Japan before the Russians went in, and the capitulation of Germany made it entirely possible for them to go in at any moment, and they had a huge number of troops ready to go in in the north. In other words, Truman didn't want to be confronted with having to share the victory over Japan with Stalin, and the classical fire bombing air raids on Japanese cities weren't having the hoped-for effect of demoralisation of the Japanese fast enough. Also, Truman wanted to get out some geopolitical advantage of the develloped bomb, and without a demonstration, nobody would take it seriously.

So, without the bombs, Japan would have lost in any case, but 6 months or a year later, with a massive invasion by the russians. It would indeed have cost the lives of many many US and russian soldiers, Japan would have to be shared with Stalin, and no demo of the new bomb on the international theater would have been possible.
BobG
BobG is offline
#7
Feb5-08, 04:41 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
BobG's Avatar
P: 2,275
Quote Quote by vanesch View Post
I think that is not correct actually. There wasn't any need to drop those bombs - if you want the details, read "the making of the atomic bomb" by Richard Rhodes (great reading in any case!!). In fact, Truman decided to use it, because he wanted to win from Japan before the Russians went in, and the capitulation of Germany made it entirely possible for them to go in at any moment, and they had a huge number of troops ready to go in in the north. In other words, Truman didn't want to be confronted with having to share the victory over Japan with Stalin, and the classical fire bombing air raids on Japanese cities weren't having the hoped-for effect of demoralisation of the Japanese fast enough. Also, Truman wanted to get out some geopolitical advantage of the develloped bomb, and without a demonstration, nobody would take it seriously.

So, without the bombs, Japan would have lost in any case, but 6 months or a year later, with a massive invasion by the russians. It would indeed have cost the lives of many many US and russian soldiers, Japan would have to be shared with Stalin, and no demo of the new bomb on the international theater would have been possible.
That's an interesting thought. Instead of a Korean War, we could have had a Japanese War between North Japan and South Japan. We wouldn't have a Reverend Sun Myung Moon or Tongsun Park. We might not even have Nissans and Toyotas.
TVP45
TVP45 is offline
#8
Feb5-08, 04:45 PM
P: 1,130
Quote Quote by vanesch View Post
I think that is not correct actually. There wasn't any need to drop those bombs - if you want the details, read "the making of the atomic bomb" by Richard Rhodes (great reading in any case!!). In fact, Truman decided to use it, because he wanted to win from Japan before the Russians went in, and the capitulation of Germany made it entirely possible for them to go in at any moment, and they had a huge number of troops ready to go in in the north. In other words, Truman didn't want to be confronted with having to share the victory over Japan with Stalin, and the classical fire bombing air raids on Japanese cities weren't having the hoped-for effect of demoralisation of the Japanese fast enough. Also, Truman wanted to get out some geopolitical advantage of the develloped bomb, and without a demonstration, nobody would take it seriously.

So, without the bombs, Japan would have lost in any case, but 6 months or a year later, with a massive invasion by the russians. It would indeed have cost the lives of many many US and russian soldiers, Japan would have to be shared with Stalin, and no demo of the new bomb on the international theater would have been possible.
A friend of mine, a jarhead, was sitting on a troopship when the bombs were dropped. He would have been in the first wave and they were told to expect 90% casulaties. A lifelong Republican, he always idolized Truman. It depends on your perspective.
russ_watters
russ_watters is online now
#9
Feb5-08, 08:43 PM
Mentor
P: 22,010
I think vanesch's full explanation is pretty clear and accurate. That statement you object to could be reworded as "the war could still have been won without it".
mheslep
mheslep is online now
#10
Feb5-08, 08:59 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Thanks, yes on rereading the OP I see Vanesch was responding to
Quote Quote by juniorb0y007 View Post
That was only way to stop the WW2 at that time.
and obviously the Allies had conventional means to end the war though with great cost. My above post deleted. I think the statement about Truman though is still bit over stated. Yes the Soviets were a factor. (Russians I know hate being credited with any actions of the former SU). Truman also issued the Potsdam based ultimatum for surrender, which one doesn't do if your only goal is drop the bomb and demonstrate it.
DrClapeyron
DrClapeyron is offline
#11
Feb5-08, 09:19 PM
P: 128
Why would there a war on scale with the wars between 1914-1927 and 1935-1945? What provoked the two previous wars?
Evo
Evo is offline
#12
Feb5-08, 09:26 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,967
WWI was started when the Arch Duke Francis Ferdinand was assinated in a motorcade.

WWII was due to Hitler's invasion of Poland in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles.

For more details, either find an encyclopedia or find information online.
DrClapeyron
DrClapeyron is offline
#13
Feb5-08, 10:17 PM
P: 128
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
WWI was started when the Arch Duke Francis Ferdinand was assinated in a motorcade.
That's a starting point.

WWII was due to Hitler's invasion of Poland in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles.
That's another starting point.

Economic disputes generally drive nations toward war; why then after all did the British Navy and Army follow British capitalism all over the world during the 18th and 19th century?
Evo
Evo is offline
#14
Feb5-08, 10:25 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,967
Quote Quote by DrClapeyron View Post
Economic disputes generally drive nations toward war; why then after all did the British Navy and Army follow British capitalism all over the world during the 18th and 19th century?
Uhm, perhaps because the military follow orders from the country's leader, and that British colonization was beneficial to the British?
W3pcq
W3pcq is offline
#15
Feb5-08, 10:38 PM
P: 134
I think that terrorism is the future of warfare because then there is no place to counter attack. When all countries have nukes, then terrorism will be a way of war for all nations including superpowers.

I saw a special on TV about Biowarfare. The show was mostly about a Soviet Bioengineering program aimed at creating the ultimate plagues. People now believe that the project was ended along with the S.U., but experts are still concerned about not only Russia, but China Korea etc.

Many experts put the risk of Bioterrorism above the risk of Nuclear attack, and consider it a much greater threat. A disease is easier to get into a country than a bomb. It is likely we wouldn't know who was behind such an attack, or if there even is someone behind it. This is invisible terrorism and it scares me more than any other threat facing us today.

These will be the types of problems with ending WW3. Ultimately it will be near impossible to end terrorism, especially invisible terrorism. The best bet we have at ending WW3 is to eventually unite the world not into a one world government, but into peace agreements and through gaining trust. Meanwhile overpopulation, decreases in food supply, and other issues compound the problem of world peace in the future. It seams to me that bad things in the future are going to happen and WW3 may be an ongoing invisible war that goes undetected.
DrClapeyron
DrClapeyron is offline
#16
Feb5-08, 10:53 PM
P: 128
Quote Quote by vanesch View Post
There wasn't any need to drop those bombs...Truman decided to use it, because he wanted to win from Japan...Truman wanted to get out some geopolitical advantage of the develloped bomb, and without a demonstration, nobody would take it seriously.
There are at least two needs to drop the bomb in your own argument.

Can you provide a plan the allies may have used to end the war with Japan within two weeks time before dropping the bomb?
Evo
Evo is offline
#17
Feb5-08, 10:56 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,967
Quote Quote by DrClapeyron View Post
There are at least two needs to drop the bomb in your own argument.

Can you provide a plan the allies may have used to end the war with Japan within two weeks time before dropping the bomb?
If you know your history, you know that the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering.

I suggest that you do some studying.
W3pcq
W3pcq is offline
#18
Feb5-08, 11:37 PM
P: 134
They were also on the verge of having nukes. They were almost there when the war ended.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
The never ending story....... General Discussion 5
Soprano Ending General Discussion 3
the new ending!! Astrophysics 10
The never-ending 0.999... = 1 debate General Math 3
Ending relationships General Discussion 95