Predicting the Likelihood of World War 3: A Scientific Perspective

[MathematicalPhysicist]

when do you think the next world war will be?

i think somewhere/when between 2010-2013, but i don't want to gamble.

 

[Pengwuino]

March 23, 2012

 

[___]

i read somewhere that nostradamus predicted a big war from 2006-2007 A.D. which will have 75% of humans down, and a leadre will save and lead the remaining human life, s/he(i guess it was he) will choose thursday as his day.

 

[vanesch]

and a leadre will save and lead the remaining human life, s/he(i guess it was he) will choose thursday as his day.

That must be me !

 

[Anttech]

tomorrow always tomorrow

 

[JCCol]

I say some time near 2020.That date just sounds like a world war year to me but maybe i am just crazy:rofl:

 

[Just some guy]

29th August, 2035, 7:13pm GMT +03.45.568 seconds, with an uncertainty of ±2 in the last digit, caused by a chinese ambassador being swallowed by an angry hippo on an official visit to Lapland to meet Father Christmas.

 

[DaveC426913]

29th August, 2035, 7:13pm GMT +03.45.568 seconds, with an uncertainty of ±2 in the last digit, caused by a chinese ambassador being swallowed by an angry hippo on an official visit to Lapland to meet Father Christmas.

This answer is clearly nonsense: studies have shown that a hippo takes longer than 4/1000ths of a second to swallow a Chinese Ambassador.

 

[DaveC426913]

when do you think the next world war will be?
i think somewhere/when between 2010-2013, but i don't want to gamble.

Perhaps a more relevant question to ask would be "what do you think will be the cause of the next world war", since when it starts is entirely dependant on that.

 

[Just some guy]

This answer is clearly nonsense: studies have shown that a hippo takes longer than 4/1000ths of a second to swallow a Chinese Ambassador.

I don't believe I've ever heard of that paper, could you provide a reference?

 

[Lisa!]

Never! Never! But I think some day it would happen anyway!

That must be me !

The leader of ants!:tongue2:

 

[cronxeh]

I was wondering about something. If there was an individual or a group of individuals who would use propaganda and other lowtech techniques to subdue large masses into nationalism and destabilize the world peace, won't it be easier to simple assassinate each of those individuals, rather than actually wage a WW3 whereas more people would die?

I'm not just talking about Hitler-like guys going down. I'm talking about the advisers, the guys with brains and intent who want to capitalize on the weakness of mankind and see their agenda to fruition. This ought to go across the borders - in all countries. Each country should take care of their own bane because if they don't the consequences are much dire to let the plan go in effect.

We are already seeing the nearly Nazi-like syndroms in the world today. In the UK there is the BNP, in the USA there is the Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Cheney, and Lewis Libby. In Russia there is a party Eurasia and LDPR (dont let the name Liberal Democratic Party of Russia fool you) - those are ultra right almost neo-fascist parties today all over Europe and a small percentage of neo-nazis in USA

 

[Astronuc]

when do you think the next world war will be?

Not while I am alive.

 

[Lisa!]

Long live Astronuc!

 

[cronxeh]

Long live Astronuc!

and then his subsequent clones

 

[moose]

Never

Maybe between different inhabbited planets by people someday. I doubt there would be a world war on Earth though...EDIT: Really depends on what you mean by "world war"

 

[Mace Sin]

I see George Bush as the culprit in starting the next World War if one occurs.

So in the next four years.

 

[Pengwuino]

I see George Bush as the culprit in starting the next World War if one occurs.
So in the next four years.

Wanna take a bet on that?

I think it should be legal to take bets on dumb predictions like that. Aliens will visit next thursday, china will invade taiwain by the end of 06, Y2K, etc etc. Vegas would make a killing, people are stupid.

And I'm changing my prediction, i say 2020... there's something fishy about that year... too many things are promised "by 2020"... i think that must be the end of the world.

PENGUIN HAS SPOKEN!

 

[Lisa!]

and then his subsequent clones

Good people are immortal!

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Not while I am alive.

so you are planning on dying before ww3?

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Perhaps a more relevant question to ask would be "what do you think will be the cause of the next world war", since when it starts is entirely dependant on that.

isn't it obvious?
see my location, and figure it out by yourself.

 

[Pengwuino]

isn't it obvious?
see my location, and figure it out by yourself.

Well a war in the middle east wouldn't be a world war. What exactly is a world war anyhow, some would say that WW1 and WW2 weren't even world wars... not me though.

 

[Mk]

I let you guys in on my secret. Its going to be tomorrow.

 

[loseyourname]

Well a war in the middle east wouldn't be a world war. What exactly is a world war anyhow, some would say that WW1 and WW2 weren't even world wars... not me though.

It does seem a little disingenuous, or at least Eurocentric, to call WWI a 'world' war, but at least WWII took place in both hemispheres and on three continents (four if you count Pearl Harbor and Midway as part of North America).

As for me, I can't foresee one happening without some huge changes taking place in the structure of the political world. As things stand now, I just can't imagine any situation in which it would really be to any advantage for a legitimate power, and all of its allies, to wage an all-out war with another power and its allies. Unless the aggressor was the United States, or an enormous coalition of nations aligned against the United States, it wouldn't stand much chance of winning. It would be absolute suicide for someone to flat-out invade France or carry out an aerial attack on a US naval base right now. Even if all of the US armed forces were tied up in Iraq, the rest of NATO would still be able to mount much too formidable and quick of a response.

In short, I think the pattern of regional conflicts taking place outside of first-world countries is going to continue, at least into the foreseeable future. Even when someone like Britain or the US sends in forces, the conflicts don't seem to spread. Even if the fighting in Iraq managed to bleed into Syria or other neighboring countries, that wouldn't be enough to qualify as world-wide conflict.

Of course, I have to qualify this by saying that I know little to nothing about the details of international military capabilities and alliance structures outside of NATO, so hey, what do I know?

 

[Lisa!]

Sometimes I think people talk about war as they're talking about a football match or something like that. I guess it's mostly because most of people have no idea what a real war is.(I'm not blaming anyone here since I'm almost the same.) I don't want to say you shouldn't talk about these things or perhaps burst to tears when you talk about war. No, that's not my point. I just think we ought to think of what we can do in order to prevent another world war. I know that the power is in hands of a few stupid and selfish politicians who're going to sacrifice others for their own goals and people usually can't do anything. BUT I think it's worth to do our best anyway. Somehow it sounds strange to me sitting somewhere and not doing anything. Funny that the majority of people don't want to have any role in their own future.

Well a war in the middle east wouldn't be a world war. What exactly is a world war anyhow, some would say that WW1 and WW2 weren't even world wars... not me though.

Since the problems of middle east are global problems and concern all countires in the world, a war in the middle east must be a world war too.

 

[Pengwuino]

Since the problems of middle east are global problems and concern all countires in the world, a war in the middle east must be a world war too.

Not true. Only a few countries really give much of a crap and using that standard, the first Iraq war was a world war.. hell the Iraq-Iran war was a world war :P

 

[Lisa!]

Not true. Only a few countries really give much of a crap and using that standard, the first Iraq war was a world war.. hell the Iraq-Iran war was a world war :P

NOpe, you didn't get my point! Although lots of countries interfere in these wars, but I don't say they're world war. I just think that if any war'd happen in middle east in the future, it'd involve other countries as well. Note that wwII started in a very small area of the world, but then it made involved lots of other countries.
ANYWAY I'm not going to start a war here in PF because of ww3!:yuck:

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Hmmmmm... 7510?

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Well a war in the middle east wouldn't be a world war. What exactly is a world war anyhow, some would say that WW1 and WW2 weren't even world wars... not me though.

perhaps you have forgotten of usa invasion to iraq, with britain and other allies.
if that isn't considered an occasion for a world war, i really don't know what is.

 

[chound]

There's too much of interdependence between huge economies like US EU China Japan India.
China would never hit developed economies like US since they are the primary consumers of Chinese goods. It'd probably try invading Taiwan. Taiwan is a little chummy with the US I believe and Bush is probably waiting to take revenge on China for giving him a nose cut.
EU is probably too soft to fight wars.
India is India so it has no chance of fighting a war.
Japan is pacifist and they probably decided not to monkey around with bombs after they got nuked.
Only a Muslim(Oil rich areas) vs. Christian countries war would probably start at the time of Oil crisis.

 

[Pengwuino]

perhaps you have forgotten of usa invasion to iraq, with britain and other allies.
if that isn't considered an occasion for a world war, i really don't know what is.

Whoa, tell that to the leftwingers around here. Supposedly we went in alone... so i don't know what you're talking about :P

 

[vanesch]

I was wondering about something. If there was an individual or a group of individuals who would use propaganda and other lowtech techniques to subdue large masses into nationalism and destabilize the world peace, won't it be easier to simple assassinate each of those individuals, rather than actually wage a WW3 whereas more people would die?

The problem is of course that that, by itself, is a fascist technique !

However, when you say:

individual or a group of individuals who would use propaganda and other lowtech techniques to subdue large masses into nationalism and destabilize the world peace

doesn't someone in particular come to mind ? :yuck:

 

[russ_watters]

Not while I am alive.

I don't think a world war is possible in the forseeable future (50-100 years). The global geopolitical state is far too stable for one to happen.

 

[russ_watters]

perhaps you have forgotten of usa invasion to iraq, with britain and other allies.
if that isn't considered an occasion for a world war, i really don't know what is.

A world war has major world powers on both sides of the fight.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I was wondering about something. If there was an individual or a group of individuals who would use propaganda and other lowtech techniques to subdue large masses into nationalism and destabilize the world peace, won't it be easier to simple assassinate each of those individuals, rather than actually wage a WW3 whereas more people would die?

I almost forgot about this. Refer to Hassan-i-Sabbah.