• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

Is World War 3 Soon Coming?

money as debt world war

  • Please log in to reply
228 replies to this topic

Poll: Is World War 3 soon coming? (184 member(s) have cast votes)

Is World War 3 soon coming?

  1. Yes (57 votes [31.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.84%

  2. No (122 votes [68.16%])

    Percentage of vote: 68.16%

Vote Guests cannot vote
⌛⇒ write a quiz!

#1 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Israel

Posted 25 October 2007 - 09:01 PM


What do you think?

#2 Liquidus

  • Guest
  • 446 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Earth

Posted 25 October 2007 - 09:25 PM

I vote no.

World War 3 had it's opportunity, and it was called the Cold War. While some people will suggest that we may be shifting towards Cold War v2, I doubt it will happen. History has shown us, that as civilizations move forward in advancement, war and violence decline. In that sense, it's the basis for my decision.

I won't admit that I know for certain WW3 isn't coming but if I were forced to bet, I'd say it's about 25/75 at this moment. One other thing to add, just because WW3 might not be coming anytime soon, it does not mean that wars will not happen. War will likely happen for a while longer since there is still such a massive cultural conflict amongst humans in the present.

I'm no expert, just my 2 cents ;)
  • like x 5
  • Good Point x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#3 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,355 posts
  • 68

Posted 25 October 2007 - 11:26 PM

I don't believe in any WW3 either, maybe a Cold War v2, as G Snake suggested.

If so, i think this cold war could be between the USA and China, or between the USA and the EU, although the second possiblity is narrow.
  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,132 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 26 October 2007 - 01:15 AM

Depends if it can be shown to be more profitable than lots of sustainable "small" wars.

The US administration seems to be doing all they can to ensure that biblical prophecies about the middle east come to fruition.

#5 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,875 posts
  • 642
  • Location:Lubbock, TX

Posted 26 October 2007 - 02:56 AM

I have to go with no, for sanity's sake, will deal if some major threats to society do occur, till then I support Lifeboat, True Majority, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Interfaith Outreach... and others who are trying to avert anything that will set back humanity in a serious way.
  • like x 1

#6 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:15 AM

Of course not.
  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#7 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:23 AM

World war 3 ... no, but a cold war, maybe

#8 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 October 2007 - 06:11 AM

If radical Islamists get a hold of nuclear weapons (Pakistan), maybe. I don't think there will ever be war between the EU and USA or even China and USA, their economies are too dependent on each other.
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#9 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 15,845 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 26 October 2007 - 06:44 AM

I don't think there will ever be war between the EU and USA or even China and USA, their economies are too dependent on each other.

same with USA and Russia. The main problem nowadays seems to be Islamo-fascists (the ones that want to kill all the infidels), but I don't think that will ever rise to the level of a world war.

#10 basho

  • Guest
  • 774 posts
  • 1
  • Location:oʎʞoʇ

Posted 26 October 2007 - 01:01 PM

I'm guessing WWIII may start accidentally. We've come close before: 20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War

Or maybe America will bomb Iran and things will inadvertently escalate out of control.

#11 Luna

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Israel

Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:06 PM

Umm what's the difference between world war and cold war?
  • like x 1

#12 Liquidus

  • Guest
  • 446 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Earth

Posted 26 October 2007 - 04:02 PM

Umm what's the difference between world war and cold war?


World War is a massive collection of battles/wars in different theaters with alliances. For example, WW2 involved many allied countries (UK, Canada, Australia, US, etc..) trying to stop the axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia...well for the first half). The war happened in almost all areas of Europe, northern Africa, and the Pacific.

To contrast, the cold war between the US and the former Soviety Union dragged on some 40 years, and although there was a constant risk of nuclear attack, no one ever attacked anyone, thus spawned the term 'cold' war since nothing significant was happening, although the outcome of any action could have been much more devastating than the results of WW2.

We could be heading towards another cold war, but as it is, the only two countries that have significant nuclear arsenals are the US and Russia. If Pakistan or Iran were to get a hold of a nuclear weapon system and use it on an innocent state or an allied state, that could be a bad thing. However, I guess reasonably speaking, the US could just turn the perpetrating country into a crater in a fairly short amount of time if need be (although I would not endorse it in any capacity).

The thought of nuclear war is very frightening, especially when people have coined phrases such as 'nuclear holocaust', if you're unaware of the implications of nuclear warfare, read up on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings after Japan attacked the US` Pearl Harbor.
  • Informative x 1

#13 A941

  • Guest
  • 1,024 posts
  • 44
  • Location:Austria

Posted 26 October 2007 - 04:22 PM

Looks like George W. Mad Bush is trying to provoke a war with iran before he has to leave the white house.
Thats very disturbing!

#14 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 26 October 2007 - 04:58 PM

Looks like George W. Mad Bush is trying to provoke a war with iran before he has to leave the white house.
Thats very disturbing!

Lets not forget that he's also agitating Russia with his new missile defense shield in Poland and the Chezk Republic.

#15 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 October 2007 - 07:54 PM

The world is getting less violent. We are more aware of violence now via communication tech and what the public will morally accept is outpacing the decline in those unaccepted activities. These are some of the reasons why our perception of violence occurrence is the opposite to the reality.

I answered no.
  • like x 1

#16 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,875 posts
  • 642
  • Location:Lubbock, TX

Posted 26 October 2007 - 08:07 PM

I think this is a good step towards further world peace: http://www.glin.gov/search.action

#17 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,355 posts
  • 68

Posted 27 October 2007 - 02:10 AM

I just hope that Bush leaves the white house as soon as possible so i can have some relief.. as long as he's president god knows what he might do.

#18 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,132 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 27 October 2007 - 03:38 PM

Didn't Russia also just claim the North pole or something crazy?

#19 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 27 October 2007 - 07:01 PM

The world is getting less violent.  We are more aware  of violence now via communication tech and what the public will morally accept is outpacing the decline in those unaccepted activities. These are some of the reasons why our perception of violence occurrence is the opposite to the reality.

I answered no.

As talked about by Steven Pinker in this Ted Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/163

I totally agree, Chris.

#20 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,132 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 31 October 2007 - 01:55 AM

That violence curve probably swings up and down though. We can't (with certaintly) predict the future and perhaps that is fortunate because instead we can help shape it.

#21 stayin_alive

  • Guest
  • 84 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 November 2007 - 04:14 AM

Steven Pinker of blank slate fame, I never did quite agree with. I'm a later born, which is probably why.

Arthur Koestler's Janus suggested that the impact of nuclear technology was so profound on the peoples of the world, that it really demanded a reseting of our clocks to 0000 for the year in which the bomb came on the scene. This was in 1978, but nevertheless.

Koestler is a true original, and a thinker who makes a real effort to integrate many different worlds of experience. In this work he is obsessed with the turning point event which is the use of nuclear weapons. As he understands it Mankind lived throughout its history with threats to individual life, but nuclear weapons have brought a new kind of collective threat, a threat that Mankind will completely destroy itself.
Koestler's concern here connects with his perception of Mankind as a kind of defective product of Evolution. He especially focuses on the conflict between our reptilian brain , our lower mammal brain and the brain of reason our neocortex. He too sees the human propensity for violent conflict as something which relates to our being controlled by the emotional lower brain. But he too singles out our propensity for 'loyalty' for collective bonding as source of violence. And his claim is that the kind of individual criminal act people often focus on when talking about the defects of Mankind, is secondary to the evils we do out of loyalty to the Collective.
Koestler in analyzing the human situation also makes an effort to supply an overall theory of the organization of reality. He speaks of a heirarchal principle in which things are organized in all realms in two directions. The Janus- like character of reality is that each thing is organized as independent and autonomous on one level, and as a part of a higher whole on another. This dual aspect character in which the ' wholes' or as he calls them 'holons ' are greater than the parts he seems as integrating all realms of experience.
Koestler writes a chapter on Humor and on the Act of Creation. He sees humor as operating by what he calls 'biassociation' which involves bringing two different frameworks into connection. He provides many examples. But I do not feel myself capable of adequately assessing his theories here , though I do have a basic feeling that ' comprehensive and all - inclusive explanations' cannot really cover the various kinds of creative activity there are.
This is an ambitious, challenging work. I must admit his pessimistic evaluation of human character and nature set me back a bit. The horrifying possibility that Disaster is the Ultimate end of us all does not warm the heart.
Again I do not feel I can properly evaluate Koestler's theories but I do appreciate his capacity to arouse interest and curiosity.
A truly outstanding work.



#22 kent23

  • Guest
  • 146 posts
  • 1
  • Location:University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, EEUU

Posted 12 November 2007 - 08:24 AM

When I was a little kid Orson Welles made me believe that WWIII would start in 1999 and last 27 years. 1999 was off by two years, of course, but the 27 years sounds like what's happening. Of course, it's happening in slow motion- it's somewhere between a cold war and a hot one. Whatever you call it, either people stop killing other people en masse fairly soon, or the whole world goes to hell. You can certainly debate that assertion, but I think the sanest thing to do is to seek the most general and fundamental and well-coordinated solutions we can imagine... This war must be won by the coolest and most rational and most ethical intellects. I don't have time to develop a Strategy for Engineering Negligible Mass Destruction, and 36,000,000 lives a year lost to aging will be damn hard to beat as a motivator, but soon someone will really have to bend their mind about it. Perhaps you personally.

Anyway, perhaps the Lifeboat Foundation has enough geekiness to catalyze real anti-war strategies (as opposed to the obviously unsuccessful hippie efforts, and I'm saying that as a hippie.) A conference devoted to this exact sort of idea would be a great idea. It would also make the hopelessly ineffectual American anti-war movement wake up to transhumanist memes...

#23 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 12 November 2007 - 08:36 AM

Define soon...

I think it will start begining as soon as Turkey will be part of the European union. That will enable the Muslims to travel free in Europe, because they have easy access to Turkey, and they will start taking over Europe from the inside, and when Europe will finally realize the mistake, it will be way too late, and there will start a war in within Europe, which will lead to some sorta sick war of no where to go to but Australia - New-Zealand...

It's up to Europe basically.


-Infernity

#24 kent23

  • Guest
  • 146 posts
  • 1
  • Location:University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, EEUU

Posted 12 November 2007 - 08:43 AM

No, Infernity, it's up to you.

#25 kent23

  • Guest
  • 146 posts
  • 1
  • Location:University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, EEUU

Posted 12 November 2007 - 08:43 AM

And another thing, perhaps something a little dangerous to say: imagine what would happen if all the folks in the US who march for cancer research realized how their issue is connected to the war. In a sane world, the pentagon and the NIH's budgets would be switched.

In terms of actual actions, I've always wondered why cancer research activists don't do civil disobedience, and why they don't link up with anti-war activists under the above mentioned "sane world agenda". (And forget about anti-aging activists in this context- we would join in later, we haven't yet convinced the world at large of our moral force- people marching for funding for breast cancer research don't have to argue with people whether breast cancer should be cured...)
  • like x 1

#26 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 12 November 2007 - 09:21 AM

No, Infernity, it's up to you.


When was I crowned, Queen of the World?
*Thank you, thank you* [lol]

-Infy

#27 kent23

  • Guest
  • 146 posts
  • 1
  • Location:University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, EEUU

Posted 12 November 2007 - 09:23 AM

I think this is a good step towards further world peace:  http://www.glin.gov/search.action


How so? I'm a bit confused... Are you saying the existence of this database is a good step toward further world peace because we can use it to understand how the rule of law applies in different ways in different places and thereby see if we can figure out how to use rule of law as an instrument for global peace?

#28 kent23

  • Guest
  • 146 posts
  • 1
  • Location:University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, EEUU

Posted 12 November 2007 - 09:46 AM

No, Infernity, it's up to you.


When was I crowned, Queen of the World?
*Thank you, thank you* [lol]

-Infy


I'll vote for you!

But you know what I meant, I think... simply that you can do pretty much anything you set your mind to do. You are more intelligent than "Europe".

The world will be saved by individuals.

#29 kent23

  • Guest
  • 146 posts
  • 1
  • Location:University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, EEUU

Posted 12 November 2007 - 09:52 AM

When I was a little kid Orson Welles made me believe that WWIII would start in 1999 and last 27 years.


That's probably way too obscure a reference... I was talking about this movie, which seriously affected my psyche when I saw it at the age of seven. Luckily, I discovered The Skeptical Inquirer well before hitting adulthood.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#30 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 14 November 2007 - 12:47 PM

No, Infernity, it's up to you.


When was I crowned, Queen of the World?
*Thank you, thank you* [lol]

-Infy


I'll vote for you!

But you know what I meant, I think... simply that you can do pretty much anything you set your mind to do. You are more intelligent than "Europe".

The world will be saved by individuals.


Individual intellectuals by the time of great Soviet Union were kicked out of power positions by Stalin because they supported Trotsky, and if they had any extreme power, they were murdered too.

-Infernity


P.S. thank you :)





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: money as debt, world war

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users