News Do you think we'll ever see a world war three?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chound
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the potential for World War Three, driven by geopolitical tensions, particularly involving the US, China, and Iran. Concerns are raised about economic warfare, with the assertion that the US is already losing a form of WW3 through economic struggles and class disparities. Participants speculate on possible alliances and conflicts, suggesting a scenario where nations like Russia and China might align against the US. The conversation critiques the current socio-economic landscape, highlighting the impact of globalization and corporate power on the middle class and farmers in the US. Ultimately, the thread reflects a belief that the real conflict is economic rather than military, with significant implications for global stability.
chound
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
World War Three

Do you think we'll ever see a world war three.

If US-China relationships break due to Taiwan and US-India relationship strains due to US supplying Pakistan with arms and money and G.W.Bush makes another blunder in Iran or Middle East and anger the govts there and Relations with South America strained further due to the no. of communist governments there will there be a world war 3.

If there is world war three, who would be the major enemies and who would be their allies and would there be any neutral countries?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your thread, so you tell us - who would the sides be?

Since I consider nationalism and all the treaty B.S. that led into WWI and WWII to be obolete and irrelevant and military power is pretty unbalanced today, I don't see any possible way for there to be another world war. The closest analogy would be another Gulf-war type war, where the entire world is allied against a single rogue nation.
 
WW3 is happening now, and we the People Of The US, are losing it. This war is economic, and since the Chinese are now our bankers, along with the Japanese, and Koreans, we already lost the war. Chinese think in terms of generations, we think differently and have not the vaguest understanding of the traditional mindset there, the sense of history. We are very much latecomers to this gristmill, and our remarkable abundance, floated a world, changing from feudal to the modern societies we see today. We were cruel in that transition, very cruel, with our ignorance of the transitional state out of Monarchy, that is known as communism. Our "foreign aid", has made us few friends among the peoples of the world, who are now awakening to the realities of us, from the post-robbery stupor. Every new middle class individual has the choice of sucking up to the oppressors that made them poor before they became middle class, or helping the poor up and out of blight.

The current demonization of Socialism, as the haves get richer in the US, is a blatant ploy to promote the class and slavery system, that so characterizes life in South America. You don't have to work in a fast food chain, or a Wal Mart, to see that it is here, now. The war is on, and your Social Security is on the table, either invest in the doings of our new masters, or what?

Beware as the US farmers get stiffed, and our ability to grow and harvest food, in this nation decreases due to artificial pressures created by the attempt of foreign slave holders, to influence how we acquire every bit of food that we eat here. A nickel for oil to ship every apple, a penny a truckload to the South American picker. Billions to American corporations abroad that don't have to reveal the chemical content of over-sprayed or GMO crops, don't have to insure workers, or take care of them if they poison them in foreign fields.

So, the combatants are Energy Conglomerates, Bankers, Multinational Corporations, and their lackeys, Emerging Economic Powerhouses based on theft of national resources VS The Middle Class, and Educated Workers, Socialist Nations, Landowners, Farmers And Ranchers, Educators, Environmentalists, native residents of resource rich lands.

Neutrals are slave to low wage workers who must work and serve any system in place.

Casualties are any life form that interferes with profit taking of a multi national corporation, indigenous peoples, young people who have not yet entered any work force, and who want a life that diverges from corporate plans. Women and Children in societies that allow them no rights, whose leaders, serve the strongest aggressor, that pays with the most money, and false security for haves. All other non-human life on the planet, that has to survive in spite of the poisoning of the planetary waters, and thinning of the ozone layer. Families where both parents have to work so much, that their children are left to be programmed by corporate media and sales promotion, families who starve to death, because their societies are not concerned about them, but about high level profit taking, in exchange for resources that should be owned by all members of a nation.

As the American middle class, and farmers, and young people who would have joined the middle class from their poorer families; watch their futures thin and recede, or watch good jobs go abroad to economic systems, that accept slavery and marginal living as a means to profit; they know something has been taken, but they don't suspect that it is the spoils of WW3, but that is exactly what has happened.

Meanwhile the Defense Contractors and Current Government, have made sure that they are safe, and the utility companies, have become fortresses, go visit your gas company in any major city, they have mercenary security guards at the 10 foot high gates, and bank glass. Really who is safe in our society? The occupying army, they are out in their Humvees, their wives are safe, out shopping in their Humvees, then back to the gated community. I live in a state where the government is the biggest employer. Every government worker has full health benefits, retirement, insurance, til the day they drop.

The war has been lost or won, already, depending on which side of the chain link fence you work on.
 
Dayle Record said:
WW3 is happening now, and we the People Of The US, are losing it. This war is economic...
Precisely, and eloquently said. Interestingly this is what Bin Laden's theory is supposed to be--to let the U.S. destroy itself in this way.

I've been meaning to post a new thread to this effect, that the "Rally Around The Flag" ploy has been Bush's real philosophy, and using the "war on terror" to distract the American electorate away from his outrageously poor performance domestically.

The U.S. was in a recession the summer prior to 9-11, which 9-11 then added to the problem. Bush, et al, did a good job freezing assets and capturing key terrorists, but if only the focus had remained on these things. Instead of addressing record-high unemployment, which is being addressed now by others per the many causes, such as out-sourcing of American jobs, trade deficits, raising the minimum wage versus use of cheap illegal immigrant labor, he has spent our social security money on wars, increasing the national debt to record highs, which is resulting in inflation, and soon higher interest rates.

Truly, one must ask if there is anything else that could be done to destroy our nation.

As for WWIII, the fundamentalists ("Rapture People") have their fingers crossed -- except I think they believe it will be a multi-polar war against the U.S. defending a single nation, Israel.

“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of a foreign enemy” – James Madison
 
WWIII will happen 2006 because Iran hits Israel with a nuclear weapon. Jerusalem will be destroyed among other things...This will occur when Israel attempts to strike Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities/military installations, while Iran launches a single missile into Israel.

Russia, China and Iran vs. United States, Israel and Britain. The war will last 6 years wiping out half the world's population...
sounds familiar?
 
Wow. Tough to know where to begin. A few quick but huge points:
Dayle Record said:
The current demonization of Socialism
The "demonization" is simply a reflection of the multiple failures of Marx's idea.
...as the haves get richer in the US, is a blatant ploy to promote the class and slavery system, that so characterizes life in South America.
You didn't quite finish the thought, but the implication is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I suspect you didn't put that second part on because we've had that discussion before and you know it quite simply isn't true.

But I'll give you a choice. Which would you prefer to live in:

United States:
-The rich get richer.
-The poor get richer.
-Those in between get richer
-Some poor and some in the middle become rich.
-The rich get richer faster than the poor get richer.
-Some poor in other countries are made richer by doing business with them.

Random noncapitalist country (say, the USSR):
-The rich get richer.
-The poor get poorer.
-Those in between get poorer.
-Virtually no poor or in the middle become rich.
-No poor in other countries made richer by doing business with them.

To me, the choice is easy.

Class warfare exists today in the west only in the minds of envious suburbanites.

But let's not hijack the thread...
 
Last edited:
scarecrow said:
WWIII will happen 2006 because Iran hits Israel with a nuclear weapon. Jerusalem will be destroyed among other things...This will occur when Israel attempts to strike Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities/military installations, while Iran launches a single missile into Israel.
A possible scenario. As likely as any other. However:
Russia, China and Iran vs. United States, Israel and Britain. The war will last 6 years wiping out half the world's population...
sounds familiar?
I'm not sure China and Russia would join on the side of Iran. Why would they? If Iran used a nucelar weapon, I'd think that would make them the enemy of virtually everyone in the world.
 
This thread is not personal, it is about our concepts of WW3, this is how I conceptualize it. When the fruit growers tell me that they think it is over for them, that they can't compete, and their family farms go, then I know there is a conflict so basic, as to threaten our American Way Of Life, and according to the individuals in the middle of it, it is lost to them. The war is over, the orchards haven't been bulldozed yet, so the hillsides can be converted to housing for defense workers, but it is only a half decade away. The macro can sometimes be viewed in the micro.
 
i haven't read gwynne dyer's "future: tense" but it looks interesting. i think he says that as china & India gain more influence & start to take over over the next 30-50yrs or so, the US will naturally resist & he can't see how WWIII couldn't be in there somewhere.
 
  • #10
As for the poor getting richer, I don’t know about that. I think minimum wage right now equals about $10,000/year. I would like to know how anyone could live on that, especially with current rising costs. With Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy, well right there the rich are getting richer, and as usual the middle class is taking the hit.

I don’t dispute that the U.S. is the best place to live. What I’m saying is let’s keep it that way. Let’s stop policing the world and get our own house in order. If we were to do this, we’d be less likely to have WWIII.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
SOS2008 said:
As for the poor getting richer, I don’t know about that. I think minimum wage right now equals about $10,000/year. I would like to know how anyone could live on that, especially with current rising costs. With Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy, well right there the rich are getting richer, and as usual the middle class it taking the hit.
This misconception has staying power and it seems I post the stats about once a month:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h03ar.html

The reality is that each of the 5 income brackets improves its income over any period longer than about 5 years.

And minimum wage is just that: minimum wage. The idea that its supposed to be a "living wage" is a fallacy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
russ_watters said:
...it seems I post the stats about once a month.
Being fairly new to PF, I apologize. I see there is a link to stats regarding poverty, which I'll look at closer. However, the income is meaningless without cost of living numbers.
russ_watters said:
And minimum wage is just that: minimum wage. The idea that its supposed to be a "living wage" is a fallacy.
That brings up another factor. These stats are per household. Two/multiple-income households have increased over the years. (BTW - How many do you think there are per illegal immigrant household?) In the meantime, single people trying to live on minimum wage would probably beg to differ with you about a wage fallacy.
 
  • #13
russ_watters said:
Your thread, so you tell us - who would the sides be?

Since I consider nationalism and all the treaty B.S. that led into WWI and WWII to be obolete and irrelevant and military power is pretty unbalanced today, I don't see any possible way for there to be another world war. The closest analogy would be another Gulf-war type war, where the entire world is allied against a single rogue nation.
If the currtent trends in leadership continue the rouge nation will be the US.
 
  • #14
SOS2008 said:
In the meantime, single people trying to live on minimum wage would probably beg to differ with you about a wage fallacy.

That's the point though. Minimum wage isn't meant to be lived on. It basically says, what's the absolute minimum you can pay a worker, assuming they have no experience and no skills, without considering it exploitation of that worker. It doesn't presume even a full-time job. For example, a minimum wage job is ideal for a high school student who wants to work 15 or 20 hours a week to save up some money for college or for just a little extra spending money. If someone is planning to support themself on minimum wage, they better plan on working two jobs. You can't blame the employer for not wanting to pay someone more for a job any high school student could do.

When I was a graduate student, my stipend put my income right at the poverty line, and I learned that you really can live on that income. No, it's not a luxurious lifestyle. I had no stereo, just an old boombox; I had no TV for a few years and didn't miss it a bit; I didn't eat out or get take-out much and when I did, it was a big treat; I did manage to eat healthy, balanced meals, just not a lot of pre-packaged junk; I had an old car that was just enough to get me back and forth from home to campus; I lived in an apartment over a bar, because the rent was cheap, and didn't have air-conditioning in the summer. And the public library has always been free, so there's no shortage of books to read for entertainment. Anyway, living at the poverty line requires a no-frills lifestyle, but it isn't unliveable.
 
  • #15
Moonbear said:
That's the point though. Minimum wage isn't meant to be lived on. It basically says, what's the absolute minimum you can pay a worker, assuming they have no experience and no skills, without considering it exploitation of that worker.
Now I'll have to find out when minimum wage even started in the U.S. (and curious how other countries operate in these matters.) I agree about skills = better jobs, but then the U.S. no longer has manufacturing plants and other avenues for unskilled workers to make a living as there use to be. Even for those with skills, teachers, nurses, etc., many are not paid appropriately for their education, etc. Ah, the free market of capitalism. :smile: Oooops, I think I'm I hi-jacking this thread... :-p
 
  • #16
I bet it's wacky, however it comes out. And I'll say this right now, someone with an even MORE memorable mustache than Hitler's or Stalin's will come out of it as a leader.

Maybe it'll play out 1984 style; Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia all fighting against each other for control of Africa and the Middle East, alliances shifting periodically, no side being able to win, constant warfare driving the economies of each region and the need/acceptability of totalitarian governments...
 
Last edited:
  • #17
I have to say, this is quite the interesting thread we have going here.

After reading everyone's posts...all valid in there own ways, there are some pretty intriguing opinions here.

I share the same feeling as Russ: world war 3 is unlikely. While I think Russ's reasoning is completely valid and I do agree, my feeling is we as members of this planet are too econmically dependent upon one another. If the world suddenly split in half and people couldn't get what they need because its imported from an "enemy" then the world would eb in BIG trouble. We wouldn't need conventional warfare, because a third world war would be international economic suicide.
 
  • #18
chound said:
If US-China relationships break due to Taiwan and US-India relationship strains due to US supplying Pakistan with arms and money and G.W.Bush makes another blunder in Iran or Middle East and anger the govts there and Relations with South America strained further due to the no. of communist governments there will there be a world war 3.

Do you really live in India? My girlfriend is doing a research project on the treatment of the lower castes there, and from the anthropological studies she's shown me, I have to admit that it almost sounds to me like the world would be a much better place if there were no India. No offense or anything - it's just a pure gut reaction to visceral descriptions and rather appalling statistics.

Anyway, regarding WWIII, has anyone ever read a translation of Nostrodamus' predictions for a third world war? I remember reading them as a child and they were quite fascinating. This was during the time they were supposed to take place that I read them (late 80's, early 90's). They seemed to involve a Chinese leader that traveled in some form of personal aircraft equipped with a 'rod that shot down death' (biological weapon that spread smallpox or something?) who aligned his nation against the US. The bulk of the fighting seemed to take place in the Caucasus.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
loseyourname said:
Do you really live in India? My girlfriend is doing a research project on the treatment of the lower castes there, and from the anthropological studies she's shown me, I have to admit that it almost sounds to me like the world would be a much better place if there were no India. No offense or anything - it's just a pure gut reaction to visceral descriptions and rather appalling statistics.
Just like the slavery in your USA where the blacks where treated subhuman, flogged to death, etc.
Anyway nowadays there isn't much caste considerations in the society. Only politicians use it. Maybe in some backward rural areas caste system may be there.
 
  • #20
SOS2008 said:
Being fairly new to PF, I apologize. I see there is a link to stats regarding poverty, which I'll look at closer. However, the income is meaningless without cost of living numbers.
The numbers are adjusted for inflation, which is the cost of living adjustment.
That brings up another factor. These stats are per household. Two/multiple-income households have increased over the years.
I'm not sure about the overall trend there - its something I've wondered about. In any case, while multiple income households have increased, so too have single parent households and the age at which people marry has increased. How does that all shake out? Dunno...
In the meantime, single people trying to live on minimum wage would probably beg to differ with you about a wage fallacy.
I'm sure anyone trying to live on minimum wage would disagree. But I would say they are in a position where their position clouds their objectivity.

The minimum wage is essentially a child labor law. It is assumed that anyone who needs to be running a household has the age/skills/experience to not be working a minimum wage job. And all that really takes is a high school education.
Integral said:
If the currtent trends in leadership continue the rouge nation will be the US.
Imo, if current trends continue, peace, freedom, and democracy will spread like a virus - its already infecting Lebanon and we didn't even touch it. Do you really think Syria would be leaving if they didn't feel the heat internationally?
 
  • #21
Democracy will start to spread. With governments all over the world changing for the better, what would be the reason for starting a thrid world war?
 
  • #22
Originally Posted by loseyourname
Do you really live in India? My girlfriend is doing a research project on the treatment of the lower castes there, and from the anthropological studies she's shown me, I have to admit that it almost sounds to me like the world would be a much better place if there were no India. No offense or anything - it's just a pure gut reaction to visceral descriptions and rather appalling statistics.


what does this havr to do with anything??
 
  • #23
"A possible scenario. As likely as any other. However:
Quote:
Russia, China and Iran vs. United States, Israel and Britain. The war will last 6 years wiping out half the world's population...
sounds familiar?

I'm not sure China and Russia would join on the side of Iran. Why would they? If Iran used a nucelar weapon, I'd think that would make them the enemy of virtually everyone in the world."

I think he's referring to the revelations in the christian bible. I am a christian myself though i don't take a literal view. I think that it might become a self fulfilling prophecy though.Some nuts might provoke or do something to cause it and say it is gods work.
There are christians in malaysia that actually believe this ****(not only in the US)
 
  • #24
I was wondering when religion was going to enter the picture.

You've got a good point Kaos. However I'm not sure that it would be the right time for a revelation as such. Mainly because the world, as corrupt and violent as it is, is trying to become a much more peaceful and calm environment. I don't think now is the time for such a revelation to take place. I too am a Christian like you. I can't see why God would want to have a third world war break out now. People are too busy trying to spread His teachings for this to be the right time.

Not to mention, there have been times before this, where people thought it was the year of the end and such. I think it was 1996 when there was a massive earthquake that was supposed to be followed by some other massive catastrophie that was supposed to start the end of the world and the return of Christ. Needless to say, people were wrong because that wasn't the earthquake mentioned in the Scripture and people blew it way out of proportion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the end will never come. Eventually it will. However I don't see this as being the right time where there are a growing number of Christians in the world who are starting to spread the gospel. I not sure this was the age where God wants to bring all these relvelations on us, because we are still growing in His name.

Anyway, enough on the Religious aspect of it. There really isn't a good reason for a third world war. It would be economical suicide as i mentioned before, because everyone's economy is too dependent on everyone else's economy. There are other reasons which Russ mentioned before as well.
 
  • #25
Dayle Record said:
WW3 is happening now, and we the People Of The US, are losing it. This war is economic, and since the Chinese are now our bankers, along with the Japanese, and Koreans, we already lost the war. Chinese think in terms of generations, we think differently and have not the vaguest understanding of the traditional mindset there, the sense of history. We are very much latecomers to this gristmill, and our remarkable abundance, floated a world, changing from feudal to the modern societies we see today. We were cruel in that transition, very cruel, with our ignorance of the transitional state out of Monarchy, that is known as communism. Our "foreign aid", has made us few friends among the peoples of the world, who are now awakening to the realities of us, from the post-robbery stupor. Every new middle class individual has the choice of sucking up to the oppressors that made them poor before they became middle class, or helping the poor up and out of blight.

The current demonization of Socialism, as the haves get richer in the US, is a blatant ploy to promote the class and slavery system, that so characterizes life in South America. You don't have to work in a fast food chain, or a Wal Mart, to see that it is here, now. The war is on, and your Social Security is on the table, either invest in the doings of our new masters, or what?

Beware as the US farmers get stiffed, and our ability to grow and harvest food, in this nation decreases due to artificial pressures created by the attempt of foreign slave holders, to influence how we acquire every bit of food that we eat here. A nickel for oil to ship every apple, a penny a truckload to the South American picker. Billions to American corporations abroad that don't have to reveal the chemical content of over-sprayed or GMO crops, don't have to insure workers, or take care of them if they poison them in foreign fields.

So, the combatants are Energy Conglomerates, Bankers, Multinational Corporations, and their lackeys, Emerging Economic Powerhouses based on theft of national resources VS The Middle Class, and Educated Workers, Socialist Nations, Landowners, Farmers And Ranchers, Educators, Environmentalists, native residents of resource rich lands.

Neutrals are slave to low wage workers who must work and serve any system in place.

Casualties are any life form that interferes with profit taking of a multi national corporation, indigenous peoples, young people who have not yet entered any work force, and who want a life that diverges from corporate plans. Women and Children in societies that allow them no rights, whose leaders, serve the strongest aggressor, that pays with the most money, and false security for haves. All other non-human life on the planet, that has to survive in spite of the poisoning of the planetary waters, and thinning of the ozone layer. Families where both parents have to work so much, that their children are left to be programmed by corporate media and sales promotion, families who starve to death, because their societies are not concerned about them, but about high level profit taking, in exchange for resources that should be owned by all members of a nation.

As the American middle class, and farmers, and young people who would have joined the middle class from their poorer families; watch their futures thin and recede, or watch good jobs go abroad to economic systems, that accept slavery and marginal living as a means to profit; they know something has been taken, but they don't suspect that it is the spoils of WW3, but that is exactly what has happened.

Meanwhile the Defense Contractors and Current Government, have made sure that they are safe, and the utility companies, have become fortresses, go visit your gas company in any major city, they have mercenary security guards at the 10 foot high gates, and bank glass. Really who is safe in our society? The occupying army, they are out in their Humvees, their wives are safe, out shopping in their Humvees, then back to the gated community. I live in a state where the government is the biggest employer. Every government worker has full health benefits, retirement, insurance, til the day they drop.

The war has been lost or won, already, depending on which side of the chain link fence you work on.
You give mutlinational corporations too bad of a rap. I agree they are unfeeling and amoral. They pursue only one goal - make money for their stockholders. The idea of adjusting your investment strategies or buying strategies beyond just monetary criteria is just too new of an idea to have any impact yet (very soon, you should be able to simply scan the UPC code to compare a product against a list of politically acceptable products downloaded by you from the source of your choice, so the buying end, at least, may change somewhat).

Multinational corporations also have some good effects. They preserve peace and make a third world war highly unlikely. It's the old "No two countries with a McDonald's have ever fought a war against each other" syndrome. War in someone else's country is good for the defense industry, but war in countries where your factories and stores are located is never a good business decision. Whether through campaign contributions or bribery, wealth influences national leaders.

Multinational corporations are the hope for a lot of developing countries. From the US point of view, outsourcing jobs to countries with cheaper labor threatens our people's economic security, so we don't like it. From an international point of view, it provides the means to redistribute wealth from the rich countries to the poorer countries peacefully, eventually providing a more 'fair' distribution (at least from developing countries perspective). A peaceful redistribution of wealth at least heads off one doomsday scenario predicted by some critical of all the world's wealth being horded by the US and a few European countries.
 
  • #26
:bugeye: Wow that's a big post.

Bob, I agree with you. The system is corrupt. People are going to lie, cheat, and steal anyway they can to make a buck. Martha Stewart for example. She did just that with her insider trading scandle just do she could save her own butt before her stocks fell. Now she's part of the Fortune 500's Billionaires List because her stocks went up while she was in jail. Go figure.

Interesting to mention the no two countries that have a McDonald's have ever fought. I haven't heard that one in quite some time. So the big corporations aren't all bad. However they aren't all that pretty either. But hey, we're talking politics and economics, no ever said "play nice children".

The countries that are just being introduced to multinational companies are starting to do better economically. It isn't happening overnight...Rome wasn't bulit in a day. It's not all great and wonderful for the American economy, but we'll bounce back, no worries :smile:. Economics is a continuous cycle. It has its highs and lows just like every other cycle.

The outsourcing of jobs isn't the best thing for us, but it is for them in some cases. Major companies are outsourcing jobs because our labour laws are so strict and ridged the companies would rather pay to send the jobs some place else and pay the other people dirt versus complying with the labour laws stateside. Its part of why I don't buy Nike products, they outsource jobs and use child labour (which IS SO WRONG!). However Nike is your typical big business company, they in it to make a buck.

These companies are a big part of why World War III would be unlikely. These businesses are just like those who were around during the time of the revolution: When it comes time for war, are tehy willing to risk losing EVERYTHING? Back then, yeah absolutely anything for me to conduct business better. But NOW, no way! These companies are too attached to the economics sercurity they do have and it would be ludicrous for them to risk it all. There's no reason for them to, so why would they? These big companies are the big part of why there wouldn't be a third world war.
 
  • #27
russ_watters said:
I'm not sure about the overall trend there - its something I've wondered about. In any case, while multiple income households have increased, so too have single parent households and the age at which people marry has increased. How does that all shake out? Dunno...?
Thanks for the info. -- Everything has changed so much since my parent's time (i.e., not so long ago). For example, we are now a service industry, and as mentioned, the day of working at the plant (sometimes generations) is no longer. Manufacturing was a way an unskilled person could support themselves and their family, and helped sustain our middle class. Aside from the minimum wage not being increased for some time now, I was thinking about young people entering the workforce without education or experience, and what their options are. You mentioned single parents too -- good point.
 
  • #28
I share Dayle's poignance when she said the war of economy is as good as lost. Those of us in Hong Kong certainly feel the monsterous crunch arising from China. The fact that our manufacturing positions decreased to 16% of what they used to be 19 years ago in real terms will give you a taste. God only knows how hard we have been trying to twist and turn and restructure ourselves to survive, even for us, a people known for flexibility.

Having said so however I shake my head every time I see all all the fear mongering BS that China the next superpower will be wiping out the rest of the world. Believe me people, honestly, cross my heart and hope to die, there is no hostile intention in hearts of the Chinese or our leaders (and certainly no ability to do so, read THE COMING COLLAPSE OF CHINA BY G. CHING if you are interested). The PRC Chinese just want the people to be a little better fed and clothed. As of now, 25 years after the open door policy, we still have 12 million peasants making about US$150 A YEAR. Can you imagine the kind of poverty we are talking about? Americans struggling along poverty line can still have chicken wings, tv, an old car, and even occassionally money for booze. Povery in China means NOTHING TO EAT! Poverty in China means the SHEER PANG OF HUNGER!

To me the way to avoid any potential conflict is for the American government to stop pushing and shoving us out of self interest and for its people to start taking responsibility of their lives, start thinking and start cutting down on their debt and mindless spending.
 
  • #29
This is going to sound stupid, but is Hong Kong part of China? I know next to nothing about the Asian culture and Countries.

Polly, its a good point that you make. Poverty in the rest of the world is sickening. Spending money here in the U.S. is a bit ridiculous because of the amount of internal and external debt. The budget calls for money we just don't have. Thats unfortuantely the way things are.

Nothing good could come out of a third world war. It would just make te world situation worse. After we got done spending all that money on munnitions and transportation and man power, we'd have to cover the cost of rebuilding which would be insanely astronomical.

There definitely is a economic war going on. Its called who can make the most green? Which is unfortunate that people revolve so much around money, their greed blinds them to what's really going on with the rest of the world. When they do see the casualties of poverty, they turn a blind eye. That is the biggest injustice of all. I heard a saying, I can't remember who from, but it goes something like this: We need not fear evil people, for they are not the worst evil. The worst evil of all is the indifference of good men. There's a little food for thought.
 
  • #30
Yeah i agree about poverty in china.I have relatives in hainan island and fujian province. However they could still steamroll their way through any asian country(if they wanted to).
Japan has no practical military to speak of and korea has big problems with the north.
THe only realistic military power thhat could stand up to them is India and i don't think they would win.

anyway polly how do u think that Tung guy performed. Seemed to be portrayed as a limp puppet of china by most publications. How true is that??

And how good is the new guy??
 
  • #31
Hong Kong is a special administrative region in China. It means that the are governed under special laws that are different form the mainland( hong kong was hand over by the british to china in 1997).Eventually it will have the same laws as in china.
 
  • #32
I agree a country with enough military power who could think about taking on China would be India. Kaos, like you I don't think they would last very long either. Then again I haven't spent much time researching military capabilities of different nations. However I don't think India is the only country in that area who has a large enough military force to take them on. Russia, though weak, has a pretty big military force the last I heard. It isn't that difficult for them to ge into China considering how vast it's borders are.

How strong are Russia's military forces these days?
 
  • #33
Kaos, thanks for giving me an update on the situation with Hong Kong. I didn't know they were handed back to China in '97. I thought it was earlier than that.

How long do you think it will take the Chinese government to change the laws of Hong Kong into the laws of Mainland China?
 
  • #34
well, russia is considered european right ?? and i was talking about asia.I Think russia will win. Warfare nowadays is a matter of missiles vs missiles and china's missile technology(ECM,range,number,launchin platforms) is definitely inferior to russian.Besides weapons technology from europe and the US are still banned from exporting to china.
 
  • #35
Russia's borders extend onto the Asian continent. I think its actually classified as a Eurasian country because of that. I'm not sure though. Siberia is definitely in Asia.

I'm not surprised that weapon and technology exportation to China is still banned. China can manufacture its own weapons. Their people are just as knowledgeable as those in the U.S. and Europe. Maybe even more.

I don't know much about China's missle technology, but how outdated (I'm not sure this is the correct word for this sentence) is China's technology compared with that of Russia.
 
  • #36
WEll i don't know which country's missile system or military is more modern, but i think
russia has more experience in designing and has superior numbers in terms of launchers. AFAIK russia has a comprehensive missile launching system( nuclear submarines, mobile launchers in land and many missile silos). China's capability in that respect is lacking compared to russia. But then again, warfare isn't always that simple.

But in science and technology, china still is far behind the western world, though they are catching up

Guess we need real military guys like russ to comment
 
  • #37
Alright. Following your pattern of thought, its makes sense.

Russia began designing and testing missles for military use since the spac race in the 1960's. I'd be curious to find out how long China has been developing their munitions. Russia has always been competing with the U.S. to build better weapons, they are still playing catch up. Russia is ahead of the game when it comes down to China though. Even during the Cuban Missle Crisis in 1962, Russia was playing catch up. Now its China's turn.
 
  • #38
There's two types of ballistic missiles.

The short range missiles that never leave the atmosphere present one type of challenge. That would be similar to the SCUDS Iraq used in the first Gulf War.

Inter-continental ballistic missiles present a whole new challenge. The missiles are basically launched into an orbit that happens to intersect the Earth. There's a challenge in launching an object into outer space, plus the challenge of re-entering the atmosphere. That makes predicting where the missile lands a real challenge. Only a few countries can do it.

In general, if you can launch a satellite, you can launch a ballistic missile, but you may have no idea of where it will land - in fact, your missile may burn up during re-entry. If you can launch a manned space mission and find and recover your astronauts after a re-entry, you have the basic capability for an effective ICBM program. If you can predict exactly where your astronauts will come down and be there waiting in the general vicinity, you have a pretty precise ICBM program - in other words, you can at least hit the city you want to (these were the unwritten messages of the US-USSR space race - we're good; you should worry about making us mad).

How precise the US and USSR can get beyond that would be hard to say, since both protect the finer details of their capabilities. China's capabilities are equally uncertain, but they did complete their first successful manned space mission in the fall of 2003.
 
  • #39
Bob, if you launched an intercontinental ballistic missle and there was a possiblity of it burning up upon re-entry, then how do you aviod that or come up with a way around it before you get hit?

It would be difficult to gage the accuracy of us and Russia, but China has a lot of catching up to do. It seems like they are a few years behind on the technology. I think one of the only reasons why China might survive a third world war (unless they start something and get everyone mad at them and get pelted with nuclear missles) is merely because of their dense population. The same could be said for India. Both have over a billion people.
 
  • #40
chound said:
Just like the slavery in your USA where the blacks where treated subhuman, flogged to death, etc. Anyway nowadays there isn't much caste considerations in the society. Only politicians use it. Maybe in some backward rural areas caste system may be there.

Not according to her research. Maybe there's stuff going on that you aren't aware of. It could just be leftist propaganda. I'm always wary of anything she learns in a cultural anthropology class. Maybe she'll come on and explain to you what I'm talking about. From what I can tell, American slavery wouldn't be a good analogy, as slaveowners never systematically massacred their own slaves. A better analogy might be the treatment upon colonization and expansion of my own race, the Native Americans.
 
  • #41
Loseyourname, whose research are you talking about?

Your anology would be a better one than that of the slaves. Your right, owners did systematically kill their slaves. Which in my opinion is immoral and very wrong. Thats another topic for another thread though.
 
  • #42
loseyourname said:
Not according to her research. Maybe there's stuff going on that you aren't aware of. It could just be leftist propaganda. I'm always wary of anything she learns in a cultural anthropology class. Maybe she'll come on and explain to you what I'm talking about. From what I can tell, American slavery wouldn't be a good analogy, as slaveowners never systematically massacred their own slaves. A better analogy might be the treatment upon colonization and expansion of my own race, the Native Americans.

You seem to think everything is leftist propanganda if it disturbs your equilibrium. Flogging was a common punishment, and some overseers were content to flog "difficult" slaves to death just to remove them as future problems. Owners were accustomed to let their overseers take care of things. Many histories and memoirs cover stuff like this.
 
  • #43
selfAdjoint said:
You seem to think everything is leftist propanganda if it disturbs your equilibrium.

Why do you say that? No information about India is going to disturb my equilbrium. When I say that a lot of what she learns seems political more than scientific (which is what I mean), I'm speaking mostly of the whole cultural determinism spiel that they get. I would guess from having been here over a year and reading many posts of yours, that you would agree with me that there is scant empirical evidence for cultural determinism.

Flogging was a common punishment, and some overseers were content to flog "difficult" slaves to death just to remove them as future problems. Owners were accustomed to let their overseers take care of things. Many histories and memoirs cover stuff like this.

I'm aware of what happened to slaves. They were never massacred en masse the way she claims the Dalit are in India. To do so would have been stupid and ruinous for the slaveowners whose economic well-being depended on them. There is a difference between the killing of aberrant individuals and the regular, announced-publicly-beforehand mass murder of large groups of people. The slaughter of Native Americans is more analogous to the second case than American slavery.
 
  • #44
selfAdjoint said:
You seem to think everything is leftist propanganda if it disturbs your equilibrium.

By the way, can we please agree to not psychoanalyze each other on these forums? This is supposed to be a place to discuss ideas, not to speculate about an individual's motivation in subscribing to certain ideas. The ideas should be evaluated on their own merit. Even a fool can be correct for all the wrong reasons, and if he is correct, that should be all that matters here.
 
  • #45
How is any of that relevant to this thread about World War III?
 
  • #46
loseyourname said:
Do you really live in India? My girlfriend is doing a research project on the treatment of the lower castes there, and from the anthropological studies she's shown me, I have to admit that it almost sounds to me like the world would be a much better place if there were no India. No offense or anything - it's just a pure gut reaction to visceral descriptions and rather appalling statistics.

I get what you meant only now. You're angry that I've made USA the target nation to be destroyed in WW3. So you are just retaliating.
:rolleyes:
 
  • #47
You people in rich countries are complaining about outsourcing. But you want your huge companies, corporations to enter/export into every other country. When they do that the local producers will be affected since they can't possibly compete with your big companies.
 
  • #48
Anyway China vs. India. I don't think they would bother fighting each other except to resolve the border issue. Also China can't deploy even half of its ground force to India since the Himalayas are a natural barriers. They could come only by airforce and navy.

India is believed to have a stockpile of fissile material sufficient for fabricating several nuclear weapons and could probably assemble at least some of these weapons within a short time of deciding to do so.

India's large chemical industry produces many dual-use chemicals that could be used as precursors, and could support a chemical warfare program of considerable size.

While India possesses the infrastructure necessary to support an offensive biological warfare program, including highly qualified scientific personnel and industrial production facilities, it apparently has given priority to research and development applicable only to biological warfare defensive measures.

India has one of the more self-sufficient ballistic missile programs in the developing world. It can design and produce missiles with little foreign assistance. However, New Delhi is working to become self-sufficient in all areas of production by the end of the decade. India has two ballistic missile programs -- the Prithvi SRBM and the Agni MRBM.
The Prithvi is a single-stage, liquid-fueled missile using propulsion technology from the Soviet SA-2 surface-to-air missile, and is designed to be deployed with a payload of 1,000 kilograms to a range of 150 kilometers (or 250 kilometers with a 500-kilogram payload). The Indian Army has completed user trials with the Prithvi and started producing.
Additionally, India has had an ambitious space launch vehicle (SLV) program since the mid-1970s. The program includes three SLVs, which have payload capacities ranging from 150 to 3,000 kg. India could convert these SLVs into IRBMs or ICBMs quite easily but has shown no indications of doing so. It has already built guidance sets and warheads, key components needed to convert an SLV into a ballistic missile.

The Indian space program shares research, development, and production facilities with the ballistic missile program. Therefore, New Delhi could apply the SLV technology it has obtained from the former Soviet Union and the West to its ballistic missile programs.

In 1994, India successfully tested the two-stage Agni; the missile achieved a range of 1,000 kilometers, about half its intended range. Publicly, the Indians call the missile a "technology demonstrator," although it could be used in developing a follow-on, longer range MRBM that could reach China.

China has a mature chemical warfare capability and may well have maintained the biological warfare program it had prior to acceding to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1984. It has funded a chemical warfare program since the 1950s and has produced and weaponized a wide variety of agents. Its biological warfare program included manufacturing infectious micro-organisms and toxins. China has a wide range of delivery means available, including ballistic and cruise missiles and aircraft, and is continuing to develop systems with upgraded capabilities.

The Chinese continue to modernize their inventory of nuclear weapons systems, which now includes over a hundred warheads deployed operationally in medium range ballistic missiles (MRBMs), intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Since becoming a nuclear weapons state in 1964, Chinese officials have declared a policy of "no first use" repeatedly, and have stated that China's nuclear arsenal is for self-defense only.

Not much info could be got about China
Source: www.fas.org
 
Last edited:
  • #49
chound said:
You people in rich countries are complaining about outsourcing. But you want your huge companies, corporations to enter/export into every other country. When they do that the local producers will be affected since they can't possibly compete with your big companies.

The American public is angry about the outsourcing of American job because they're American Jobs. People can't live without a job and when they get laid off it puts extra stress on them. Since all the major corporations are shipping their operations over seas because the labour over there is cheaper there are less jobs for the people who were laid off.
 
  • #50
chound said:
I get what you meant only now. You're angry that I've made USA the target nation to be destroyed in WW3. So you are just retaliating.
:rolleyes:

Actually, I didn't even realize you had done that, but carry on with the psychoanalysis. I guess you people know me better than I know myself. I won't ask any further provocative questions.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top