Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

WWIII / future wars


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1
Squillimy

Squillimy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 781 posts

a theme i've noticed with this website is that most people are very optimistic for the future. Don't get me wrong, i am too, but let's be real: Militarization and War are going to continue for a long time. as I don't think when the 'singularity hits' (if it does anytime soon), we're just going to drop all our weapons, dispose of all our weapons of mass destruction, and discard of the military (speaking from the USA).

 

Most likely if there is another world war,  it would be faught on the scarcity of resources; Maybe even other countries will ask the US to cut down on their resource usage and we will refuse (since i admit we do use a SHIT TON lol). But maybe the issue could be over bioterrorism, or chemical warfare. Hell, maybe even a self-replicating robot that consumes organic food to replicate, or makes it unedible to humans. All are possibilities. Our civilization as we know it could very well collapse, (and theres a good chance it might), in the near future. Obviously i don't think it'll collapse forever, but global pandemic seems to happen right after ages of peace and prosperity for rich nations. Although somewhere some country continues scientific conquest when one falls, so advancement does not stop when one nation falls

 

And what about the far future. As i said, It's not realistic for the singularity to happen and then world peace to just come up out of nowhere in my opinion. militarization of space will start, with the most advanced countries in space tech getting there first. And as we seperate farther and farther from the poorer countries, they eventually get the technology that we had years ago. Personally, I think war will continue far into when we become a space faring civilization. We may be super intelligent, but so are the other countries (or powers) of the world!.

 

I think we will definitely have issues over asteroid mining in the future since every country wants to be the richest. maybe we will fight over new earths even futher into the future, or dead worlds with a collosal amount of resources. We always say that the more advanced we get the more energy we require, yet we imagine a 'post scarcity civilization' where there's enough energy to go around in abundance for everyone when i just dont think this is the case. Poeple will demand more and more and more if there's an 'super abundant' amount of resources, we will eventually hit this limit. To be honest, Long distance Space travel might require a collosal amount of energy and resources we don't know about and that we are not happy to share with other nations. And ofcourse there will be a UN in the future, and i think they will gain power over time, but they can only do so much; you can't stop a super power from doing what they want to do.

 

What do you think?


Edited by Squillimy, 10 February 2013 - 11:37 PM.

What becomes of man when the things that man can create are greater than man itself?


#2
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,271 posts
  • LocationRome/London

Nah a WW IIII is very  unlikely. The worst we can have is some regional conflict but not wars in th scale of WWII



#3
Alric

Alric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 764 posts

I don't think there will be a huge world war again, but many small wars seem extremely likely. In fact, I would be very surprised if all wars suddenly stopped. The reason I am so optimistic however, is that the wars don't stop progress. Even during times of war our technology continues to improve and improve quickly. Even if we have a world war 3 and a major depression at the same time, it isn't likely technology will be slowed that much.


  • EpochSix likes this

#4
SG-1

SG-1

    Carpe Diem

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,051 posts
  • LocationUS

I agree, I can see individual countries going to war, but if some country like N. Korea tried to go all out world domination, almost no one would be on their side and every developed country would oppose N Korea.

 

The biggest thing we have to worry about are terrorists.  They will get more and more powerful with things like biowarefare and 3-D printed guns.


Mark your calendars

Never Yield


#5
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,271 posts
  • LocationRome/London
I agree, I can see individual countries going to war, but if some country like N. Korea tried to go all out world domination, almost no one would be on their side and every developed country would oppose N Korea.

 

The biggest thing we have to worry about are terrorists.  They will get more and more powerful with things like biowarefare and 3-D printed guns.

and about a nanotechnology war? little invisible robots entring in another country and mess around, I also believet that something similar is happening right now...I partly believe  in the chemtrails conspiracy theory.



#6
Squillimy

Squillimy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 781 posts

Well actually war seems to speed up progress, because during war you always want to keep ahead of the other nations. Remember the internet which we hold dear was created by physicists i believe for the military at first. That's why i think scientific progress won't halt for anything

 

And yea you guys might be right, as most countries of the world seem leaning towards the side of democratic type societies, practically the only way this could happen as we know it is if north korea got china and/or maybe some other countries to wage war with them. But the thing is we're looking from a viewpoint of international relations and how there are now, Not as they will be in the future. The relationship between many countries won't look like they do today in around 40 years or so and that's a fact. Who know's, we could piss china off or somebody else like we did to Cubans in the future and they may hate us and decide to cut us off. anything could happen.

 

That's why i think it could get to a point where global warming is high and resources are scarce, and being that america uses half of all the resources, someone might get the idea to take some for themselves. Or poorer countries (possibly even those with ties to richer countries) could try to get them to cooperate.

 

Powers have issues too, US and north korea don't like eachother, and Japan and China are having arguments right now that are escalating slowly. Also there are issues in isreal, which is being backed by the US which is a power; all going on right now.  Any sort of crisis could take an unexpected turn of events and escalate into an all out war, such as the internal collapse of one of these powers in the first place.


What becomes of man when the things that man can create are greater than man itself?


#7
Tiberius

Tiberius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

A world war 3 will take us right back to the stone age, it wont bring any progress like technological innovations and other such collateral benefits from accelerated science research and military tech development. Part of the reasons include the players in this war. The most likely world war 3 scenario is to be instigated by regional conflicts between israel and iran. A world war 3 will be so catastrophic to the western world that it will take us all 250 years back. Attacking iran which is no iraq believe me (its an actual serious military regional power) will cause Iran to close the straight of hormuz. This will prevent oil from flowing to the west and at the same time enable Iran to strike Saudi Arabia's ability to produce oil by destroying the oil platforms through their short range missiles. This would empower Iran, making it the primary and almost only exporter of oil in the middle east. This attack on the oil trade will plunge stocks in america into anarchy, with oil prices sky rocketing to almost 300 dollars a barrel.

 

Oil is everything on earth, Ahmedinejad may then decide to only sell his oil for gold, which because of the hyperinflation and the declining value of the dollar, will skyrocket oil and gold prices even further. Riots begin to spread all over the US as citizens have no access to fuel any power outages etc. America will have no import of foreign oil and the killer blow will be an economic one, where China which sides with iran and russia (should israel attack iran, and NATO chose to intervene in israel's aid) no longer wishes to let america borrow the dollar of them and decide to put pressure on america asking for immediate re-imbursement or threat to cut all supplies of money to all the resources and services monopoly that china has established in america. This would cripple any attempt by the fed to inject money to revitalize the market and plunge america into a continuous build up unemployment and bankruptcy. These are the dangers, america would never heal from this.

 

When their economy is destroyed, then according to "the art of war" a military strike is the final killer blow that will completely destroy the nation. China, India, Japan, Russia and Iran are all doing billeteral trading between themselves using their own currencies, not the dollar which adds to the devalue of the dollar. They are progressively putting the pedal to the medal on the extraction of gold (especially china) because of their resources monopoly they established in africa. They are ready to stockpile collosal amounts of gold, and keep their currency strong, such that if a war comes to be and iran closes the straight, they won't be affected like america. Remeber the price of oil went up in dollars, it went up in euros, but not in the price of gold, it stayed flat which indicates that the claim that the inflation affects the price of oil is valid. What good is a nation who cannot pay its soldiers, and their soldier's have personal battles to fight as their families are in a middle of civil war and riots. 


  • Squillimy likes this

#8
SG-1

SG-1

    Carpe Diem

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,051 posts
  • LocationUS

I thought about a scenario similar to that.  Maybe I am too much of an optimist but I was hoping that a war would not break out between two developed nations because of how globalized we have become and how devastating a war would be.  I still hope that if a war broke out between "the world vs N. Korea, Russia, China and middle eastern countries" we won't use nuclear weapons.  You can be damn sure that the main objective will not be to ill soldiers, it will be a war waged on civilians and economics.


Mark your calendars

Never Yield


#9
eacao

eacao

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 919 posts
  • LocationAustralia

I think that China has grown too quickly for its government and could pose a threat to regional areas soon. China looks as though it's ready to invade Vietnam this decade, it's already seized oil-rich islands off the coast. The recent disputes with Japan over the islands are another place for concern. China is advancing extremely rapidly and with their current government is not safe for where the world is heading. Their claim on the south china sea is a mixing pot for conflict. 

 

The obvious contender to China is the USA. China may be a larger threat than the Soviet Union ever was. The Soviets were destined to fall because of their economic system. Communism doesn't work. China utilises a capitalist market which will allow it to continue steady growth - they're not likely to whither and die. I don't believe that (as many articles might tell you) that the Chinese economy will overtake the US economy soon, they obviously cannot maintain growth of 7%+. China will probably become a democracy in about 20 years. Until then and even afterwards, they have the potential to do some real damage. If a Sino Vietnam war did spark then the US would probably become involved due to the regional threat. If China went to war with Japan, which is not entirely out of the question then it could begin a third world war 


  • Squillimy likes this

"Only take advice from people who have what you want"

"Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, 'I will try again tomorrow." - Mary Anne Radmacher

"Every time that you have to make a choice, choose in the way that will leave you with the greatest admiration for yourself - both in the instant moment, and thereafter." - Greg Swann

#10
Squillimy

Squillimy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 781 posts

You make some fine points Tiberius.But i think that a world war wouldnt exactly send us years backwards in technology, rather it'd just stop progress. I agree that it'd send us years back in everything else though, especially economically and politically. Even if 90% of the world population is wiped out, people will stilly use guns and modern technology, eventually forming small pact tramping tribes, which will eventually evolve into colonies and very shortly after that with the help of remnants of technology, simply copying technology from the remains of other technology etc. etc. it'll form into nations, and then we're right back to square one in a couple hundred years.

 

However i hope the use of nuclear weapons would not be used in a world war, and i feel like countries would be careful not to use them, as the other country would simply retaliate and fire one back. I think that a country would only use this as a last resort, but remember that in a war there would be hightend security, so borders would be guarded to try to make sure no missiles enter US airspace in the first place. countries would do whatever it takes to make sure they have enough man power to do so.

 

As for humanity being wiped out. I dont really believe in doomsday fallout scenarious because there are those who are unaffected by great world wars. Countries like greenland, spots in northern canada, iceland, other territories, and some nations not closely affliated with the current conflict. even if modern civilization is wiped out, even the smallest most unacknowledgable of countries will reproduce and re-expand. And we are still superior to all other species, so in my opinion 'hypothetically' a group of merely a few girls and boys can re conquer the earth.

 

It's a matter of time before we discover other technologies that are more efficent and yield higher energy than fossil fuels that we can easily integrate into society, wiping out oil usage. Hopefully this happens before great war breaks out


What becomes of man when the things that man can create are greater than man itself?


#11
SG-1

SG-1

    Carpe Diem

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,051 posts
  • LocationUS

I hope that we have good anti-missile technology.  If countries can't use nukes it won't send us back hundreds of years.

 

Flying planes into a country and dropping bombs won't work anymore but now we have icbms


Mark your calendars

Never Yield


#12
Alric

Alric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 764 posts

The US only gets like 10% of it's oil from the middle east, and it gets 75% from north and south america. So that WW3 scenario wouldn't cut off US oil supplies. Worst case scenario is we say good by and leave that area to fall into chaos and we just get our oil else where like we already do.

 

The US isn't in the middle east for oil imports but to control trade in the other parts of the world.


  • eacao likes this

#13
Tiberius

Tiberius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Yes they are there to control trade in other parts of the world, but i insist most of theirwars they engaged in i.e. Lybia, Afghanistan, Iraq have not been for the moral reasons of overthrowing repressive governments etc that politicians claim, they wanted oil. They import 20 percent of their oil from middle east, not 10, with at least 14 percent being saudi arabia. If Iraq only chooses to sell oil for gold, the price off gold will skyrocket as bullion buyers will try to buy gold. Now both the fact that gold is more expensive regardless of which currency, combined with the increasing price of oil will force the federal reserve to print money out of thin air and inject it into markets, to stabilize increasing prices. This will add to the inflation, and devalue the dollar. This does many things, it decreases a country's purchasing power parity when thinking large scale, they can buy less things from other countries, and local scale families cannot afford things like food and energy, which will plunge the western world into poverty. I'm not kidding. 

 

I doubt you will be able to leave the area to fall into chaos because Iran's oil operation is a financial attack to cripple western economies. Things like the stability of the European Eunion, strenght and billateral cohesiveness between NATO countries are at stake. Iran is a lot more powerful than people think, they hold most western countries by the balls. Iranians aren't arabs. They are not what you see in the middle east. They have some of the brightest citizens, despite having religious philosophy influence their political decisions, they endorse scientific development. Their latest "stealth fighter" that has been revealed (despite technical problems) was not reverse engineered like what the chinese did with the J20, it's iranian technology. They are a first world country with little poverty and sprawling metropols like tehran which are bigger than Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston put together, and more developed than Dubai.  

 

Russia will protect Iran, and so will China. Though they cannot physically invade europe and america, they can cause a long lasting level of destruction. Sometimes the winner in a war is not who kills the others. Al Qaeda has a source of income which is drug related. They make money like a drug cartel, and yet the united states has spent trillions of dollars trying to fight them. Al Qaeda has an annual budget inferior to a 30 million and yet they force america to spend a 1,000 times more to stop them. China can suck the US economic power dry. Russia can match the ballistic missiles deployment ability of the US. Their latest work is on a nuke with a 100 megaton yield called "satan" which could incinerate and sterilise fertile land for millennia on a scale the size of Rhode Island. They also have probably 1000 more Long Range Ballistic missiles with 10 Megaton or equivalent warheads, enough to wipe out the biggest cities in America. They also have a fleet of Typhoon submarines that can launch warheads from too close. America updates its army to fight a conventional war, this style you fight with little nations like Iraq which you can effortlessly eradicate but not with a power like Iran and especially not Russia and China.  



#14
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,795 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC
I hope that we have good anti-missile technology.  If countries can't use nukes it won't send us back hundreds of years.

 

Flying planes into a country and dropping bombs won't work anymore but now we have icbms

 

China doesn't need to target nukes on American cities or that of other countries'. All they simply have to do is put them in a higher trajectory and denotate above North America to trigger a EMP blast that will severly cripple the infrastructure for months.

 

Of course, the United States is more than capable of returning the favor. It all takes an isolated and hidden nuclear submarine in the vast Pacific ocean to do it.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#15
SG-1

SG-1

    Carpe Diem

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,051 posts
  • LocationUS

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein (1947)"


  • Raklian likes this

Mark your calendars

Never Yield


#16
Alric

Alric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 764 posts

If you are talking about percentage of imports, than 20% is probably pretty close. However, I was speaking of total usage. In which case only about 10-12% of our oil comes from the middle east. I don't think your numbers include the fact that the US makes 40% of it's own oil, and it wouldn't be factored in if you look at just the import numbers.

 

You are correct about the gold and trade stuff. The US does want people to trade using the dollar all around the world, and that does play a major role in our policies over seas. It isn't really about us buying oil though, it is about other people using dollars to buy oil, so that we can hide the amount of dollars floating around already. Having a lot of dollars in use overseas helps us from experiencing the inflation that would otherwise be having right now.

 

I don't think any of the major countries are going to fight each other. For starters a nuclear war is going to kill everyone. No one wins in that situation, we had enough nukes to kill everyone on the face of earth 20 years ago. Secondly all the countries have huge debt problems world wide, and all our economies are connected. A serious economic war would probably cause everyone's economy to crash, not just the US.



#17
Kynareth

Kynareth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • LocationPoland
When you look at reasons why wars haave started in the past you see, these reasons are not important nowadays for developed nations and their leaders. For example, as for resources, Japan which is scarce of them is very wealthy country and it shows you dont have to have huge numbers of resources to reach prosperity and most people care about it most now. Most likely to start wars are extreme countries like Iran or NK, however sole NK is not really a threath, even if their leaders say otherwise. As for Iran, they won't use nuclear weapons , why?
imagine you're of their generals: you are very into religion, Qran, virgins in afterlife and all the stuff, but you're also intelligent or otherwise you wouldn't be a general
- we would like to cause US damage as they are no Muslims and they don t respect us
-but hmm if we attack them they will respond with even greater force
-I know, why don't we just nuke them?
-hmm... if we do so they will attack us too and probably destroy all of our nukes!
- even if they miss our atomic missiles when our warheads hit them again they will just burn our country to the ground, they collected nuclear weapons since '40s
- I don't wanna be hung after sitting for 5 years in our bunker and going out because of lack of supplies, i'm not sure Allah wants that
-nah, better to recruit some terrorists ready to spare their lives for a greater cause
- they will be cheaper and those American scums will not even know it was our idea!

If you're talking bout energy water etc, try reading Peter Diamandis "Abundance", at leastsome things areclear, lkike how we will get cheap clean water in the end of this decade
typd from a touchscreen

#18
Squillimy

Squillimy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 781 posts

while that may be true countries still fight over non-renewable resources though, along with territory, technology and other things. ofcourse wars are more rare today, but that's also because wars are more devastating today. But even after we move past oil and become say a space faring civilization, there could still very well be non renewable necessary resources in the universe. such as anti-matter deposits in the universe (as we've seen that artificially creating anti-matter is insanely expensive). Also maybe there are extremely rare resources caused by physical phenomena out in the universe that we require. Such as materials left over after supernovas, or things exposed to extreme radiation around pulsar stars, etc. it's just a thought...

 

I personally think its ignorant to say that when the singularity hits OR when we move past oil (or both), that there will be no more rare resources that we require, and that all energy that we'll ever need will be abundant. It may very well take energy from an entire star for certain astrononomical future engineering projects which would still require an enormous amount of money even by future standards, and even though there are many stars in the galaxy / universe, the distance between them could make them a rare commodity. and things like that would not be taken lightly.


Edited by Squillimy, 19 February 2013 - 08:06 PM.

  • Raklian and eacao like this

What becomes of man when the things that man can create are greater than man itself?


#19
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 415 posts

If North Korea gets toppled in the next few years considering the current situation, do you think China's reaction would be? Will it get pissed of and take it all out on the rest of the world?



#20
stuffed_leader

stuffed_leader

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • Locationprescott, AZ

Russia and china would not help Iran at all. Russia has actually had invasion plans talked about by some of the post soviet governors. China is a growing monster, but they are more on our side than you think. China is run by the SEZs which depend on the west and UN member state trade, which is why north Korea won't receive any help when it collapses soon.

 

If WW3 does happen  it will be strategic EMP blast as a nuclear deterrent, followed by decisive invasions to eliminate nuclear capability.


  • eacao and Cody930 like this

I plan on living to the omega point





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users