WW3

a conventional world war is indeed quite possible, but the actual reason to start one must be justified to send people to die for something senseless. in our current state of affairs and technology legitimate reasons to war is oil or in the broadest sense energy resource, our technology could not replicate the degree of energy oil give us and make substitutes, sure were trying but will it be enough energy for all?

total lost of energy can potentially shut down economies, its transportation, production, even communication, nuclear energy is too few and time consuming to replace conventional domestic energy, and the majority of our vehicles operate on some oil based fuel. this problem comes from the lack of initiative of leaders and not planing for the long-run, best to prepare than assume.

i don't agree on the tangled alliance reason for the start of WW1 and WW2, every nation does it for their ambition, japan entered WW1 by contributing aid and at war's end got former-German territory in Asia, they may do it for their allies but there are always motives why they did it not for the sake of friendship but for the sake of extending once "power" least that's what i thought from taking world politics.

WW3 will happen.

Maybe not soon, and maybe not for any obvious reason we can think of right now.

But has there ever been a period without war, for 100 years?

If you define a 'world war' as a conflict involving all major powers, on a global scale, there have been some before WW1 and WW2. Eg. the Napolionic wars, or the 7-years war.

Right now the USA is by far the strongest player. They dont have an opponent of equal force to challenge them.Wich, imho, is required for a global conflict.

But that might change. China's level of technology is increasing rapidly. In another 20 years there might not be a relevant difference in military hardware anymore. And they sure have the manpower, resources and attitude to be a serious challenger for the throne.

The only power I can imagine other than China is Russia, by the definition of "world conflic" it's a conflict affecting the world or a world-wide conflict, during the last Great War countries that does not participate in the war become involved namely economically.

In modern world politics, "power" is the influence one country have towards other countries, by influence countries are not the only power in play, "non-state actors" must also be taken account, organizations like ISIS and Al-quaida minor but have "power" hidden in countries.

Starting wars on a realism standpoint is to extend and maintain "power" no matter the cost of man or material, this is to maintain the state, on China's perspective and maybe for Russia it is to maintain the integrity of the state becoming a "power" and staying that way. On Russia's case about Ukraine on a realist standpoint it is to show the world that Russia is still a "world power".

Whatever reason it must be justified and/legitimate to start a world war.

Sir McSquiggles wrote:

US takes Irans side, Russia takes Saudi's

BlackPrince2 wrote:

If you define a 'world war' as a conflict involving all major powers, on a global scale, there have been some before WW1 and WW2.

South America was not (or very little) involved in WW1 or WW2?

General outline of a World War in foreseeable future in my eyes:

most of NATO vs Russia and China and satellite states

Outbreak starts with a Phoney War in Europe with the exception of Ukraine, where both sides pump in resources and weaponry to fuel, which also happens in Middle Eastern conflicts. China and Russia has a bit of land absorption in Asia, and the 2nd Korean War breaks out

China will never side with Russia, because it's economy is based fully on American investments.

unless at some point America starts to build it's own industry.

You mean China.

China has always been pro-North Korea and pro-Russia. Eventually, it's sympathy for the enemies leads to a confrontation between the States and China, ultimately leading to cutting of ties and desire to defeat the other to force one-sided economic relations

Sounds like a really bad movie plot, but eh, it's really the only way Russia can expect an efficient victory, scorched earth tactics can work only so well against modern logistics

China would not be able to support ther economy (and therefore their amry) without American investments. Therefore, it is not in the Chinese's interest to go to war with the U.S.

pablo22510 wrote:

you mean china

no i mean America.

This is a simplified version of things

China is a producer, and America is a consumer (except for a few exceptions) if america develops a larger variety of industry, and more of it, it would no longer need china, the producer, because america is the producer.

.

China is not pro-russia. China is China.

US and europe have invested in china. That will not stop china from settings its own ncourse.

US was the producer. China is cheaper. US (or Europe for that matter) will not revert to producing its own stuff if they dont have to.

India or African countries might become major export producers in the next 20-50 years.

Any movement by the US onto North Korea gets an immediate response from China, condoning it heavily. They don't stand against them up front, but undermine them with Russia

China and Russia support NK which makes the area extremly volatile is because the two Korea is allied with varius superpowers, by the look of things the potential war will start in Asia or even start specifically in Korea, because someone can't control his ego and God-complex. It's always the little things that can get things out of hand, someone gets assassinated and prevent an investigation instead saying they will bring friends and the BOOM WW1, someone got a little emotional and BOOM WW2.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

China is a producer, and America is a consumer (except for a few exceptions) if america develops a larger variety of industry, and more of it, it would no longer need china, the producer, because america is the producer.

Operation Flashpoint?

Pablo22510 wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

China is a producer, and America is a consumer (except for a few exceptions) if america develops a larger variety of industry, and more of it, it would no longer need china, the producer, because america is the producer.

Bingo. Meaning it wouldn't need to buy its stuff from China, meaning the Chinese economy would collapse.

Wont happen. Doesnt make sense from an economic point of view.

US production cost is way higher than chinese.

And even if US would stop buying chinese product, because of political reasons, it wouldnt kill china. Not by a long shot.

BlackPrince2 wrote:

And even if US would stop buying chinese product, because of political reasons, it wouldnt kill china. Not by a long shot.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2012/01/22/china-is-175-6-dependent-on-the-u-s/