user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I don't know, but hope I'm not around if either happen
I agree larry, war should be the last solution to a problem. Diplomacy is the best way to solve disagreements and tensions between nations.
Are you related to George Bush, Rogue? Ya'll gotta a specialized way of spelling and saying that nuclear word. Not complaining, mind your, just wondering.
And with regard to your ballot question, if any world war comes along it will be over within 30 minutes, and none of us will win. The insects will rule the planet.
Welcome to B&W, Rogue. Don't be too diplomatic, or they'll skin ya, boy.
Griffon007- So you believe that the future of warfare will only reside in nukes?
I personally take the view that the war started with the assassination of Ferdinand and has just continued on. Now there is the confrontation of whether the war stopped in 1989 with the fall of the wall or if it is still being continued on with our former allies the Muhadjedeen (can't spell that). I am currently thinking that WWI is still being fought in the form of middle eastern terrorists that were sponsored either by the US or the USSR.
Rogue, your question asked if we thought there would ever be a war of the magnitude of WWII. My implicit answer is that if we get to that "world" level of warfare again, there will be nuclear exchanges, and we will all lose. So, I guess I'm answering, "I hope not" to your question and pointing out the obvious conclusion if there is, only the roaches will survive.
I think there's a good chance that people around my age will experience a large scale war in the future. I still have many years ahead of me and I hope that there isnt a large scale war such as WWII, but WWIII will probably happen within my lifetime.
I hope not, but it will probably be the case or it will be nuk-u-lar war.
If you take the view that WWII ended in 1945 then WWIII happened during the period known as the cold war. There was a constant level of fighting (usually waged against citizens) and funded by the Soviet and the Americans. In the proxy wars both the US and the USSR were able to avert nuclear war through the idea of MAD (mutually assured destruction). I see no reason why there can't be a "fourth" world war and still rely on the MAD idea.
Now though there is wild cards. USSR has broken into smaller and independent republics many of which still have their nukes. But the real worry has got to be Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and maybe soon coming to a theater of war near you Iran.
The former Soviets will probably keep their cool since most of them want to join the EU.
Israel won't fire unless they have US approval AND have been fired on by someone like Iran.
India and Pakistan will follow the MAD-ness.
South Korea will have to be reigned in by the other nuke superpower China.
Iran. Cross your fingers and hope for the youth of that country to want cokes and nikes more than they want to support the mullahs.
^I meant North Korea.
"Israel won't fire unless they have US approval AND have been fired on by someone like Iran."
Wish we could sure of that Inter, but personally I'm not convinced. Israel seems overly trigger-happy re: Iran and they may take the gamble with or without the US nod.
I don't know Zig the US kept them sitting on their hands during the first Gulf War when Saddam threw those scuds at them. Of course they had the patriot missiles that we found out didn't really work.
And I don't agree that they are trigger happy. I don't have a horse in the race but it seems to me that the Israelis have been the group to show restraint. More so anyways than there neighbors who advocate their destruction.
I read not so long ago that Israel had built a mock-up of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert, and may be planning raids using the elite Shaldag commando unit in conjunction with airstrikes by F-15 jets using bunker-busting bombs to destroy underground facilities.
The report also went on to say that the attack plans had been discussed with American officials, who, it is said, provisionally gave the nod for the attack should other methods of pressure fail to halt Iran's nuclear program. And, if you think about it, this proxy method of attack would suit the Bush administration perfectly, since it would appear on the surface as if they had no hand in the decision to strike.
I'd put my trust in Israel before any Arab state.
Ariel Sharon doesn't send his own people to blow themselves up against his enemies.
No, but he doesn't hesitate to send in helicopter gunships, bulldozers and troops to flatten homes and butcher innocent kids.
Anyway, we seem to have veered off the ballot topic... sorry about that. I'll leave this ballot to those who want to discuss WWII and future wars.
But just to be clear: As regards ordinary, peace loving people, I'm not biased towards or against any one faction, religion or race: It's their respective governments I don't trust.
OK... I'm outta here. :)
" But just to be clear: As regards ordinary, peace loving people, I'm not biased towards or against any one faction, religion or race: It's their respective governments I don't trust. "
Reading your comments, and many other comments like it, attempting to disconnect Israel's government from its people wishes, makes me wonder how much trust do you really have in Israel's democracy. You should know that a vast majority of the people of Israel do support Sharon's way of fighting (and winning...) the war on terror, and the support is even greater on the matter of the Iranian threat. You should know, that the same man who "doesn't hesitate to send in helicopter gunships, bulldozers and troops to flatten homes and butcher innocent kids. " is the main reason for millions of people saved from Sadaam's nuclear program, which was stopped, by Israeli air raid, which was by than (1981) criticized by the entire world. Maybe you're wrong about his way of dealing with terror today?
About the issue of trust in Israel and its "trigger happy" nature, you should realize that in contrast to the MAD of the US and USSR, in the middle east there has been a peroid of over 40 years of One Side Assured Destruction, but it wasn't destroyed, inspite of the power being in Israel's side, and although it was attacked by all out war twice, it still never used the extreme measures. But when you look at the Arab side - you can see that they fully used their downscales unconventional advantage over the Yemenese in 1969, and Kurds in 1988, attacking those groups with chemical weapons. Now, seriousely, if they used unconventional warfare against their muslim brothers, isn't it obvious that they would've used it against Israel too, if Israel didn't have nukes? And if you really want to see examples of mass massacares of Palestinians, it's not Israel that will provide the good stuff, but their so called brothers, like the Jordanians who massacared 10000 Palestinians in September 1970, or the Lebanese in 1975-1982, and in neither of these cases it involved suicide bombing or any other violent action against the civilian population of the other country...
by Yosi on Mon May 23, 05 5:43pm
[+]
Zig I see that you DO have a horse in that race so I won't belabor the point except to say that I would totally support Israel or the US taking out Iran's nuke dreams preemptively.
you can be sure that human stupidity will always be there.
it may not happen for a long time but i think a war with massive casualties will happen one day again.
I think we've proven that we aren't willing to go very long without killing each other. Genocide seems to be the popular method now, but at some point, yeah, we'll fight a big one. And a nuclear war will have a ground troop follow up war, I think.
|
|
