Before I say anything, let me make a plea: Let's please try to stay on topic and avoid debates about whether we should say or leave Iraq, or why this or that candidate/party would bring about TEOTWAWKI.

World War III: are we on the verge of the next War To End All Wars?
Looking at the current state of world affairs, it seems to me that we could be on the verge of a conflict involving most of the civilized world. The United States, along with several of her allies, is currently officially engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and our leader seems to be looking for any excuse to go into Iran and/or North Korea. The dispute with Turkey has troops from that nation ready to strike Iraq's border at any time. Muslim extremists continue to strike any nation they see as being Westernized. With the rapidly growing demand for oil in China, the stage is set for conflict between the Chinese and America, currently the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world. War in Iran would likely also involve Israel and at least a few allied nations of each country involved; and invading North Korea would likely pull China into the fray eventually.
With tensions increasing among various nations across the globe, it seems that it wouldn't take much to spark military conflict that could end up involving most of the world.

So, what are your thoughts on this matter?

I see some type of conflict as inevitable, the question is whether it will occur before or after Iran has nuclear weapons. I'd rather that confrontation occurred before they have nukes, because if they use them it's a whole new world.

No, I don't trust fanatics to not use them just because the U.S. and Soviets went so many years playing MAD and not tossing nukes at each other. We used them to end WW2, but to me that only served as justification to never use them again.

That most Americans get themselves an education, get a passport and do a bit of travelling around the world. Stop living their lives in fear because of the propaganda by the vested interest military industrial/media complex so they can keep spending away their grandchildrens inheritance.

In view of recent threads and posts, I hope this thread/post is within bounds. If it isn't, my apology in advance...

I also think that the present situation with Iran and nukes is substantially different than the U.S./Soviet MAD stand-off. The basic assumption of MAD is that both parties are "rational," that is, that they won't kill most of their own nation and people to kill the other nation. IMHO Khrushchev and his generation saw war at its worst and knew that a nuclear war would be suicidal for both sides. Thus, the MAD theory worked. My fear is that the same thinking that motivates suicide bombers and justifies killing fellow muslims (thus making them "marytrs") may not restrain what the Soviet's called "adventurism." Without that vivid memory of the WWII eastern front and the death of 1/4 to 1/3 of the local population (in then Byelorussia, now Belarus). I do worry that the threats we are hearing from Iran should be taken at face value. In reading the Jerusalem Post on-line version, it seems that Israel is taking the threat seriously and has already begun practicing long range F-16 ops (to the western Med.) They have also reported that fallout shelters are a major growth industry in Israel. I suspect that the recent raid into Syria to destroy their nuclear reactor also was a warning to Iran.

Personally, I see the period of highest risk for a US and/or Israeli preemptive strike as being after the 2008 election (win or lose for either side) and before the inauguration of the new administration.

Well put.

The North Koreans have taken themselves out of the equation with the agreement that was reached in July. Under the agreement, their reactor is to be shut down by the end of the year and rendered inoperable to the point of requiring a year to restart it. They had one nut that would probably have been sat on by their own generals if it came down to it.

REST OF POST DELETED BY ME BEFORE POSTING. I decided not to get the soap box out.

World War III started about 30 seconds after V-J day on August 15, 1945, and has been ongoing.
There has not been a 5 year period where the world has had peace in all nations.
At this time, there are "hot" (armed conflicts) all over the world:


The US has been continually in some sort of military action, somewhere on the earth, since 1945.

Just because bombs aren't dropping here does not mean that there isn't global war, it just means that the never-ending global war is on "simmer" rather than "boil" at this moment.

Straw man; I don't think you can find a 5-year period in all of recorded history where all of the nations in the world were at "peace."

-=[ Grant ]=-

That's my point. There's always been war, without end, throughout the world.

I would agree that you are correct with the timing of the start of WWIII, I would argue that it ended when the USSR died.

Of course, WWIV will be as much a sequel to WWIII/Cold War as the later was to WWII, and WWII to WWI. Old grudges, old paranoias, and the same greed.

Bah, what a depressing post.