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

Ww 3

  1. Mar 14, 2005 #1
    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: Mar 14, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 14, 2005 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  4. Mar 14, 2005 #3
    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.
     
  5. Mar 14, 2005 #4

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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. :surprised

    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
     
  6. Mar 14, 2005 #5
    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?
     
  7. Mar 14, 2005 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Wow. Tough to know where to begin. A few quick but huge points:
    The "demonization" is simply a reflection of the multiple failures of Marx's idea.
    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 lets not hijack the thread...
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2005
  8. Mar 14, 2005 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A possible scenario. As likely as any other. However:
    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.
     
  9. Mar 14, 2005 #8
    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.
     
  10. Mar 14, 2005 #9
    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.
     
  11. Mar 14, 2005 #10

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: Mar 15, 2005
  12. Mar 14, 2005 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  13. Mar 14, 2005 #12

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
    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.
     
  14. Mar 14, 2005 #13

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If the currtent trends in leadership continue the rouge nation will be the US.
     
  15. Mar 14, 2005 #14

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  16. Mar 14, 2005 #15

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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... :tongue2:
     
  17. Mar 14, 2005 #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: Mar 14, 2005
  18. Mar 14, 2005 #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.
     
  19. Mar 15, 2005 #18

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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 travelled 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: Mar 15, 2005
  20. Mar 15, 2005 #19
    Just like the slavery in your USA where the blacks where treated subhuman, flogged to death, etc.
    Anyway nowadays there isnt much caste considerations in the society. Only politicians use it. Maybe in some backward rural areas caste system may be there.
     
  21. Mar 15, 2005 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The numbers are adjusted for inflation, which is the cost of living adjustment.
    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....
    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.
    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?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Ww 3
  1. World War 3 (Replies: 25)

  2. Presidential Debate #3 (Replies: 129)

Loading...