Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News World War 3

  1. Mar 29, 2003 #1
    I have some concern that the war with Iraq could develop into a third world war. I'm sure your immediate reaction is that this is a stupid idea, but consider this scenario....

    If Iraq could even find one ally, they could feasibly extend the fighting for more several months. Already, the US has sent 200,000 troops overseas. If anymore of our forces are spent in this war, I think North Korea might be crazy enough to start pushing the border of South Korea. Let's face it, the North Korean people are being brainwashed everyday; they actually think they would have a chance at taking South Korea, and they believe it is rightly theirs. Furthermore, South Korea has a new leader who commands less respect from his people than George W. Bush, and the North Koreans know this.

    Now, it just so happens that if South Korea is ever under attack from North Korea, they have guarenteed protection from the United Nations. Let's not forget that the UN forces are essentially the US forces. Do you think the Germans, the French, the Swiss, the Italians or the Spanish would aid South Korea in time of crises? Hell NO! Possibly, the Japanese would help, but there's no guarentee of that. Anyway, if the US were to fight two wars at once, the Chinese would see this situation as the perfect opportunity for invading Taiwan.

    Everyone knows that the only way the US could ever even dream of fighting China is by sea. They have too strong of a ground army to even think about a land battle. The scariest thing of all though, is that a battle with China would be a long range battle which could easily develop into a nuclear war. Unfortuanately for us, China also has nuclear fleet... dedicated to attacking the US.

    Maybe I'm being over-cautious, but at this point, I certainly hope that the war with Iraq will end as quickly as possible.

    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 29, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 30, 2003 #2


    User Avatar

    Entropy-I don't think it's a silly concern at all. I think it's gone through most peoples mind at least several times in the last few years. However, I don't believe there is another Arabic country willing to actually jump into the fray. They may threaten to, they may allow "vonlunteers" across their borders to help Iraq, and they may sell them weapons, supplies etc..but I believe they do have more to lose by joining in then by sitting it. They are all led by somewhat self serving leadership that are not going to destroy their own security or wealth by joining in the fray.
    As far as NK is concerned, China stopped the flow of oil going into NK 4 or 5 days ago and has issues them a stern warning. China has much to lose by this area becoming unsettled and lets not forget Japan..they are not helpless and will go on the defensive if NK begins to be a threat.

    However, France, Germany, and russia with the EU may yet be a major issue. A few days ago Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, praised France and Germany for "starting a timely and good debate on European defence out of NATO" and urged other European countries to join them into finding a different path.....

    We have now the biggest creators of mega-European-mega-world catastrophes, France and Germany, historically without any brain to keep out of trouble and not generate conflicts that end up with dozens of millions of dead, getting together next month to explore ways of creating such a European defence bloc, totally out of Nato. (sort of like a western style version of the U.S.S.R vs the U.S.?)

    In order to have proper European defence without a Nato, the EU would need something like similar expenses in defensive hardware and the rest that goes with it to try to match USA capacities, or otherwise it would not be worth the effort.

    I hope that with the enlargement of Nato and of the EU the voices of France and Germany will be diluted and these dangerous supporters of wild re-arming are kept in check. IMO There's not much more dangerous than Germany and France leading another military buildup, which historically has gone straight into military misdeed and world catastrophes.

    I'm also supposing France (today the second biggest arms exporter in the world) has in mind to become the largest and have the Euro military bloc it is encouraging, fully equipped with French arms and France the big boss and hegemon of the whole business.:wink:
  4. Mar 30, 2003 #3
    I don't think you can go past Pakistan and India for the biggest powder keg in the world today. Two nuclear armed countries with populations and governments that hate each other. They have fought wars with each other already and continue to have regular military skirmishes. It's just a matter of time before they start a nuclear conflict.
  5. Mar 30, 2003 #4
    oh come on kat, the "creators of mega-European-mega-world catastrophes" are nearly all dead anyway, or damn close to it if not. but if you do want to go comparing across generations we should consider France and Germany have gone at it quite a few times and it is really hard to say who even started that one sense they basically were just Gaul at that point. not to mention England's failed attempts of moving into mainland Europe were fairly bloody and even more so were their conquests elsewhere on this globe. moreover, there was Rome, that one ranks right up there on the mega-catastrophes list for sure. even more so, one should consider the the fact that we are descend from those lines; so if you want to point the finger at people and call them 'evil' because of what their ancestors did, you do not have to look any further than ourselves. however, i do not see myself evil, and i do not think you are either kat; but i don't see why anyone else should get judged on different standards either.

    oh and yes eNtRopY, unfortunately it is a and ever strengthening possibility at this point.
  6. Mar 30, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Iraq will find no genuine allies. While Syria and Iran will happily make our lives more difficult and exploit the situation for their own benefit, neither will suffer for Saddam's sake. For one thing, they want him gone.

  7. Mar 30, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    What a coincidence they are also amongst the
    main countries that created and formed the
    present modern civilization...
    (Fighting has its advantages...:wink:)

    Live long and prosper.
  8. Mar 30, 2003 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm not sure I believe that. The starvation rate in N Korea is extrordinarily high. I don't think people who are starving to death tend to believe what their leaders are telling them. You can't eat propaganda.
    No. N Korea has been openly threatening Japan as well. There is racial hatred between them.
    I don't see any reason why we would ever want to invade China. And they are too isolated to be a threat to anyone externally (with the exception of Korea).

    I really truly think the idea of a "world war" is finished. Iraq 1991 is the closest thing we'll ever see again. Unfortunately for Iraq, the entire world was on the other side.
  9. Mar 30, 2003 #8
    Today's technology means there wont be another World War, not in a similar vein to the first two anyway.
  10. Mar 30, 2003 #9


    User Avatar

  11. Mar 30, 2003 #10
    wow nice demonstration of sophistry.
  12. Mar 30, 2003 #11

    It may or may not be in the script. Its up to the people who decide how many people are too many people in any given area.

    "De-populate and prosper".

    I'm just waitin' for the big Kahuna Asteroid to scrape a few continents off the map. That'll calm everyone down with regards killing people.

    Our planet travels through a belt of astroids for most of the year. Some of them are very large. Large enought to end life... again... on this planet.

    I think everyone should just get along. Starting now! Y'hear?
  13. Mar 30, 2003 #12


    User Avatar

    Thanks, but I'm afraid it can't even begin to compete with your talented tergiversations.
  14. Mar 30, 2003 #13
    seriously, stuff like is not being forthright:

    when it was a prediction based on a comparision.

    when i am not the one dragging anything here, the term is a part of politics at this point wether we like it or not.

    when your post was a textbook example of persuasive writing. more so, there is the labeling of "anti-Americanism" or "anti-rightism" on people that are simply oppose this war; now if you do not consider that a double entendre, then obviously you do not know what one is.

    furthermore, did you ever take a moment to think about what you would do if you were involved with some arrangements with another party, and party acted on one of the agreement in a way that you feel is unjustified? would you think it was time to start looking elsewhere to create the arrangements that you had up until recently assumed would be upheld in good faith?

    this might would seem especially important when it comes to defense agreements, depending upon how familiar you are with the need for defense. seeing as how there are many sites all over Europe that are still in rubble from the last time war broke out there; it seems the people there today who still see it all the time might be more inclined to build a strong but benevolent defense, and be particularly heedful of those who show misanthropic tendencies. note that they are not backing out of an agreement here, but simply looking into additional arrangements.
  15. Mar 31, 2003 #14
    And you keep complaining about people having anti-US tunnel vision? Jeez, what a load of crap you are writing here. It seems to me that you have a very narrow anti-EU vision.

    Let's remember that the number of american presidents who have not been involved in warfare can be counted on one finger. Also that the total number of individuals killed by american soldiers is most likely larger then all killed by europeans in WW-II. (start counting with the 2 million people killed by two atomic bombs). So if you use generating conflicts or killing people as measure for intelligence, well, then the US is also without any brains.

    Which is still the reason why people in islamic countries don't accept the "they have WMD's" statement as an excuse for US-led war on Iraq: the US has the largest WMD's arsenal in the world.
    Fortunatly we Europeans have a little bit more brains than the rest so we don't even consider spending that amount of money. We are content with being able to destroy the world only once and therefore need only 1/2200 of the US budget.

    I find this, BTW, the most ironic part of this war: If all the money (say 100 billion dollar) invested in weapons (used only once), was invested in food and medicine and then distributed over africa.... Well, that's perhaps not the right way to look at it.
    It would require a brain to come up with that.

    Didn't a certain Bush only recently decide that he would restart Starwars, something which is seen by the rest of the world as starting a new period of global re-arming ? Really, I have nothing against the US, Germany, Iraq, or Oezbekistan but since a year or two if anybody dares to have an opinion different then a US president, he is immediatly convicted and put on trial. Face it: The US is the BIGGEST manufacturer of weapons (yes also of WMD's) in the entire world. You live in the only country in this world where it is allowed to make millions and millions of profit on selling these things to terror groups in other countries ( didn't the CIA invent this tactic: we give weapons--> they kill each other--> we don't have to do it our selves) or in your own country.

    Did you see "Bowling for Columbine" ?? For people who don't live in the States this movie was uncomprehensible. How on earth do you come upon the idea to give a free shotgun when you open a saving account???
    Ooh sorry! you did realise that the US was number one
    We dutch people defeated the french already 200 years ago and they are now so afraid of us that they will never try that again. And even if they do, we will teach the sorry french !!@** a second lesson ;) No seriously, this can and will never happen.
  16. Mar 31, 2003 #15
    It's too bad you didn't show some of that Dutch courage against the Serbs.
  17. Mar 31, 2003 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You live in a fantasy world Heumpje.

    The vast majority of deaths in WWII were on the German-Russian front, about 15 to 20 million, including soldiers and civilians. Of the 39 million deaths, roughly one million and certainly no more than two million were inflicted by Americans. About 10 million were civilians murdered by Germans, about 1-2 million were civilians murdered by Japanese.

    Your number of 2 million deaths for the atomic bombs is nonsense. Two million people have not lived and died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki since 1945. The total population of the two cities was 425000 people. Today they total 1.4 million. The atomic bombs killed, by the most liberal realistic estimates 120,000 people at most. This includes those killed instantly, those dying in the next few weeks of radiation poisoning, and those dying in the next 30 years of statistically anomalous causes.

  18. Mar 31, 2003 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Clarification (question): thats PER city, right? Most estimates we see are more on the 75k-100k range, but 120k is not an unreasonable estimate. Heumjpe's estimates are WAAAAAY off.
    No, I believe it was restarted under the first Bush and continued under clinton.
    Are you saying thats unusual?

    Heumjpe, that appears to be EXACTLY what you have based on your misinformed view of the facts.
  19. Mar 31, 2003 #18
    The site below has some maps giving a graphical depiction of WWII losses. Like Njorl pointed, the Russians (and also the Chinese) did most of the dying, both civilian and military.

  20. Mar 31, 2003 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No, total.

    This site, http://www.uic.com.au/nip29.htm , indicates:

    45000 immediate deaths, with 19000 aftermath deaths for Hiroshima.
    22000 immediate deaths, with 17000 aftermath deaths at Nagasaki.

    Total deaths from long-term exposure was listed at 400 as of 1975 with 550 projected total. This would be 103000-104000 deaths.

  21. Mar 31, 2003 #20
    All we want was a good fight!

    I am just going back to kyleb's comments about Englands failed attempts at moving to mainland Europe, we never wanted to move over to mainland Europe all us English ever want is a good fight and back in those days everyone was scared of us so we thought we would go over to france and germany and kick the arses. It wasnt invading just plain and simple hooliganism!
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook