If World War III...

Everyone says water, meh I dunno...

 

World elites will do whatever they have to, to keep the lifestyle.

You might even see China and United State as allies. If thats the case it's England + Israel + United States + China.

This war wouldn't last long.

 

The only plausible way that this could happen is if someone could attack the USA (and this would be more likely from outerspace than from anywheres on Earth) in such a way that she would retalliate with all her might. In arial and missile and atomic (nuclear) weaponry, no one on Earth is close even semi-close to her potentials. Mark my words. If she wanted to, someplace like China would be gone in a few heartbeats. Her heartbeat's strong, but her love is too, so no, this won't happen.

 

That wouldn't happen. There are theories in IR called Deterrence theories. They are based on the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction). Among states that possess strategic weapons there can be no total war. There can only be small-scale conflicts and wars by proxy (Vietnam). The only way to avoid MAD would be to completely cover a state with anti-ballistic missile umbrellas, or a similar countermeasure, but even then the risk is too great. Taking into account the arsenal of the U.S, China, and Russia I'd say the chance of a world war 3 in the next 20 year is close to zero. What is much more probable, and far more dangerous, is nuclear terrorism. In that case, MAD doesn't take place, and there is no strategy against it. Conventional wars cannot stop it either.

The real war nowadays is fought by the secret services (intelligence agencies), not the army(kinda like the cold war, but the enmy is not a state). The fact that anyone was branded a terrorist during the Bush administration may have simply been a violation of the contistution and an act that reminds of military regimes, and certainly one of the worst political strategies ever conceived, but don't even think for a second that nuclear terrorism doesn't exist just because you hated the Bush Administration.

 

I agree. The major world powers are, to a certain extent, rational. Terrorists are willing to go to extremes to gain power, in a way that established governments are not.

The result of another major terrorist attack would depend on who the attackers were, where the weapons came from, and who the US president is at the time.

 

It would be over information and electricity/ power generation. The sides will be southern hemi vs. Northern hemi vs. Central and Southern America.

 

I have the entire thing written down from reports I've read after heavy investigation.

World War III....war against one of the larrgest companies in the world..
Disney. Several thousands work for Disney, but the amount of earnings this company makes yearly is unimagineable.

This upcoming 50th anniversary ( which I swear they have been running for five years now) will be the introduction of a contraption that can turn animated cartoons into living, breathing things. At first they will be friendly...befriend the people, get elected for mayor in various places, serve on the senate. But soon they will turn evil, and you will have to dress as a Disney character and join Walt's army or have your home bombed.

Disney is NOT innocent.
Join the army now and repent your animated sins...
ray2:
Unfortunately I cannot find detailed instructions on how exactly to join this army. The plans won't start until June of 2010.

 

Now that's ^ good use of Ni, be prepared.

 

WWIII could be started to help create new jobs.

...and by the way, Russia has more nukes than the US; not that it matters.

 

Christopher Lloyd has been working on the solution to this problem since 1988.

 

War is a function of fear. Specifically how much fear and how many subscribe to fear. The more people are filled with fear, the bigger the war. There are exceptions, but I'll get to that in a minute.

I think war is imminent if 100 of your neighbors (local or virtual) all agree on what they fear the most. Of course not spiders or mice, but terrorists, Japanese invasion, poverty etc. But it has to directly attack the basic instinct of survival and/or reproduction.

From my experience, only truth can dissolve fear and then thwart war.

First, of course, is the knowledge/truth seeking that determines if the fear is real or just a myth. If the fear is a myth then fear dissolves. If the myth is debunked and the fear still remains, then that's superstition like phobias in general, racism, stereotyping, etc. Ask yourself, do you fear that which you have full knowledge of?

However if the fear is real, then a different truth is needed, and that is called compassion. Before the religions were hijacked to control the masses towards a special interest, divinity was something completely different. Divinity was the human experience when you put another person above yourself or ego as some put it. When this divinity was experienced in each other, then the experience of compassion grows. This brought about the golden rule, which is found in every major Abrahamic religions today (Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Islamic etc). Ask yourself, do you fear that which you have compassion for?

There are cases when war is necessary. When all else fails, then war must be waged in order to end oppression. The worst form of oppression or tyranny is the control of an entity from a foreign power. Most of us feel tyranny everyday. Don't believe me? It's called employment. Corporations are facist in structure. Fidel Castro said this and he added that it's legal. Practically speaking, it's when upper level managers make a policy change that effects you directly. You can't do anything about it because that manager is elsewhere. The only real appeal you have is to quit. Oppression, don't you think?

The fight against oppression is basically the fight for human rights. To exist, to be recognized and validated, to seek happiness, etc. Just like a bully, you gotta hit them square between the eyes. Anything else just won't do.

WW3, if it ever happens, will start in fear. Basically, it's the fear of loosing power. The nations of power will start terrorizing other countries to preserve the image of power. The more desperate the image, the more violent the attacks. If this is allowed to go on for way too long, then the nations of power will terrorize everyone in a real manner (basically doing everything the Constitution prohibits). Then other nations feeling pissed off about being oppressed will retaliate and may band together. Thus WW3.

Compassion can ultimately assuage the anguish before it becomes the survival of the species. Unfortunately, truth is extremely slow when compared to a bullet. But how do you disarm a bully with a gun in your face? I don't know, but I'd start by offering coffee or tea and a conversation first before he blows my head off. The masters of crime prevention at the local police department should know best.

I think I'll stop here.

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

 

Actually, the Russians don't even know how many nukes they got. After the collapse of the USSR, due to the structure of the organization, numerous secret facilities were abandoned, and were virtually forgotten until 2003.

Wait till I get my hands on one of those thingies... hehehehe...

Oh no, sshhhi, they found me, gotta run.

 

Looking at the past few 'wars,' if there is going to be a WWIII, it is most likely that there will be no real enemy. Rather, the war will be strategic for the development of a particular society.

It is also likely that the principal aggressor will not actually be looking to conquer/rule a territory/people, but rather to eliminate obstacles to the development of the aggressor's society.

My guess is that such a war will not occur for a very long time, but that it will probably be a war intended to dissolve the notion of territorial states and territorial/provincial interests. I suspect an 'environmental' agenda will in part be a motivating factor.

So basically,

WWIII will be a war between those who want to run the entire planet as an integrated whole, governed from a whole-planet-perspective - and those who wish to maintain and defend the interests of their territorial states.

Such a war is impossible unless the United States voluntarily becomes part of a larger administrative body, such as the European Union - unless over a very long time, the U.S. lose its significance as a world power.

 

Geez, don't you folks notice anything?? It's already happened! Disney's animatronic kingdom took over and tried to destroy the universe - but those machines just went underground. And soon, soon...they're waiting for just the right moment to come online...

 

Wow, well put. I enjoyed reading this.

The power of ideas is really unrivaled. If 100 people believe *anything* and share a common purpose, they can really change the world. If 100 people all agree that they fear the same thing, I agree that is a bad sign that a war might be imminent.

I would imagine that 100 years ago, in 1909, many people thought a world war was out of the question, and then just a few years later the world erupted in war. Back then, too, the world was very globalized with lots of countries investing in other countries (back then it was with gold or British pounds, today it is with dollars).

Lenin said World War I was caused by imperialism -- companies needed more markets to dump their goods. This caused tension amongst the great powers, which led to secret alliances, which then all were activated when serbia went to war with austria.

I don't think a huge war is out of the question. War is the health of the state, and keeps companies rich and most of the society quiet and in line. This truth is the basis of Orwell's "1984."

America is a highly militarized society and we are used to constant war. As the run-up to the Iraq war showed, we are also very easily primed to become aggressive if we are properly programmed.

Taz is right that the development of nuclear weapons has made huge wars like WW1 and WW2 very dangerous. Indeed, the term "WW3" evokes images of nuclear holocaust. If anything, the next big war might involve a "war by proxy," whereby lesser/smaller powers duke it out with bigger powers supporting them.

on the other hand, I tend to think that the next 20 years will witness the breakdown of large nation states into smaller political entities. The problems of resource depletion, overpopulation, and climate change will simply be too much to bear for these large entities. Simple greed has already caused Great Depression 2.0 (which I expect will last well into 2010). People are losing faith in government all over the world. I think there will be a lot of violence in the future, but I think it will be small scale. Lots of little conflicts, and not one really big one.

but who knows!! this is all prediction, and predictions go wrong all the time.

 

Thanks


Ideas are very powerful. I'll further state that fundamentally, ideas are value. In economic terms, people are confused about what values are. dictionary has a definition but falls short when applying it to a certain context. But if you think about it long and hard, people ultimately pay for ideas.

The problems of resource depletion, overpopulation, climate change and others are all brought about because of intervention of the free market. In economics, it's ideas that make things better. gov usually halts these ideas instead of letting them flourish. We have the ideas and the ability to solve all of these problems. We don't deliver it because something is blocking the path. And it's usually fear based.

The solution to these global problems lies in the creation and delivery of value. More generally, the creation and delivery of ideas. If you want a sample of the best ideas in the modern world, goto ted.org. The best minds in the world speak their ideas. And 3 winners every year gets to make a wish. The other best minds gets together to make that wish happen. Check it out, it's better than hot chocolate.

Ghandi stopped civil war and oppression with an idea, then delivered that idea personally. Compassion and truth was involved and he said it. "The ways of truth and love always wins. remember it always"

There's also danger in ideas becoming ideals. Fundamentally, ideas are memes. And if you recognize memes as units of information, and that they have a life of their own, then ideas have their own hero's journey/monomyth; a destiny of their own. The trouble is when the hero saves the day and sticks around. The hero turns into the tyrant if he's allowed to become the king. This is why the hero must be killed or exiled, otherwise it'll enslave the very people he saved.

Let's say when a meme is an idea, it's the hero. When the meme becomes an ideal, it becomes the tyrant, and thus enslaving the very people it saved. The lifespan of a meme has its own destiny. This is why I'm careful about institutions. Institutions are the thrones that morph the idea into the ideal. Think about the institution of marriage. Does it help or hurt people? Think about public education, does it help or hurt people?

[now going really abstract]
I look upon the world, and I see every human, and every human has ideas, and every idea is a meme. Then I attach memes to each body. Then I remove the bodies so that only memes exist in our world. memes are slow to propagate and have their own rules of reproduction and mutation. (books, movies, human perception, story telling, telephone game, internet).

If a new meme is born, it is not copied or spread in the world instantly. It takes time to propagate. When an old meme dies, another new meme must take it's place.

Death of a meme is quicker than the spread of a better meme. The gap is filled with fear.

1. 'God will protect me' meme is believed
2. Car accident killed everyone you know except you
3. 'God will protect me' meme dies.
4. Brain cannot cope, and fear sets in
5. Brain is in fear until the next meme (not necessarily better) comes about

I just pulled this from my ass, but ask yourself, is this true or truth?

In my thoughts and my readings, I've come to realize that there are 2 types of people, beyond S/N of MBTI. Those that copy memes, and those that create their own memes. Humans have a limited perception, but it is this that which gave us absolutely wonderful things and absolutely evil things.

Since memes have a life of their own, we have to be careful of which memes we carry. Some memes are there to help us. Some of them hijack our minds. There are parasitic memes in our heads that we never knew was there.

Institutions always spread and resonate memes that supports the institution. Which country is the best in the world? Our country of course. Is marriage a good idea? of course because everyone does it. Why do you drink vitawater instead of regular water? because it has electrolytes and stuff. Is education a good idea? of course! because that's what we were taught. In other words, it's indoctrination. Tricky isn't it? I find that reasoning helps best fight off parasitic memes. This is also called being self aware.

side note: in nature, there is a parasite that hijacks the ant's brain. This parasite can only live in the stomach of a sheep. So the parasite makes the ant climb to the top of the grass continuously, regardless of the ant's health in hopes to be eaten by a sheep and thus grow in the stomach. The parasite used the ant to get to its home. If the ant knew how to reason, maybe things would be different.

What can I do to stop WW3 ?
Start cleaning your head. Discover and remove the parasitic memes poised to hijack your mind. Face your fears head on and find better memes to fill its place. Hopefully, this will stave off the nuke showers.

Just my meme. Don't just accept it, question it. every question is an evaluation.

 

wtf is a 'meme'....?

 

A good explanation of a meme is at Wikipedia.

 

I see many idealists here. OOOOok.

Hmm. That's just one political ideology. I know better than to start arguing on political ideologies. Let's just say that I totally disagree and leave it at that.

In politics and especially war, ideas are used for only one reason: to convince the people. Ideas are not a part of the modern international system ever since the Treaty of Westphalia. After the rise and fall of the USSR, every theorist accepted that when planning political and international strategies there is only one approach worth mentioning. That of political realism (and if we want to be more precise, Structural Realism or Neorealism is the one primarily used today). The vary basis of this approach is simple: States have no ideology, they are rational, their primary goal is survival and to do so they pursue power in any form (primarily military power) in an anarchical international system. In order to do so, they may back up their claims with ideologies or force the people accept their strategies. Either way, ideas are addressed to those who will fight and die (the people), not to those that plan and execute political strategies. USSR used that model, and so did Nazi Germany as well as Pakistan and the U.S and every other country. War is waged when a state desires so, not when there are conflicting ideologies. (remember Henry Kissinger, and the U.S-China strategic anti-Soviet alliance).