Americans see World War III as likely during their lifetime

[collegeguy]

A recent poll shows americans expect another World War during their lifetime:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050724/ap_on_re_us/world_war_ii_poll

Do you think a World War will come within your lifetime?

[The Bad Astronomer]

I thought I'd drop in as the second poster and just mention that this thread has potential to turn ugly. Let's not let it.

[collegeguy]

I thought I'd drop in as the second poster and just mention that this thread has potential to turn ugly. Let's not let it.

I don't aim to start a political discussion (although I gotta admit it may be possible). I just want to know some people's opinions.

[Cylinder]

It's according to how you define "world war." I happen to think that we are currently involved in a world war - though not one with a familiar face.

If you mean a war with large and well-defined fronts, then I would argue that those battles have been relegated to the past through technology. Massing troops is a very bad idea when facing an opponent with viable air and missile forces. I would give that a probability of 4 (unlikely), where 10 is inevitable and 0 is impossible.

If you mean a general nuclear exchange, I would count that as improbable as well - I will give it a 2 (highly unlikely). Both China and Russia well understand the concept of mutually assured destruction.

[W.F. Tomba]

"I feel like we're in a world war right now," said Susan Aser, a real estate agent from Rochester, N.Y.
I get the sense that a lot of people feel this way in the U.S., and I think it's a deeply erroneous way of looking at the present situation. Yes, the "war on terrorism" has a worldwide scope, so technically it's a "world war", but that term usually implies a scale and intensity of conflict comparable to World War II, and it bothers me to think that a lot of Americans feel that that's actually what's going on right now. A glance at the casualty figures shows that there is no comparison.

Unfortunately, and despite the sacrifice for which our nation's "WWII Generation" is rightly lauded, I think we actually have very little concept of what that war was like to most of the nations involved, on both sides. How many American cities were bombed in the Second World War?

[collegeguy]

None, most people tend to think that in a third Wold War the US would be attacked, though. I also think that how big and deadly the war would be, would depend on the enemy sides.

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

This looks more like a thread that would be on some strategy video game forum or some military airforce website.

Back in the days when Chinese were under the harsh rule of Mao they suffered like it was a dictatorship. Mao was crazy, some think he actually welcomed WW3 and he had an idea that even if half of Earth died from Nuke bombs and radioactivity, the Chinese would be first to rise from the ash and re-build the Planet in a communist or socialist image.

Russia and the Soviet Empire was always a worry for the West, it had part of Germany and people in Europe spoke of the Iron curtain. When Sputnik was launched it not only showed the USSR's scientific might and space knowledge but its also had military implications. A number of powers in Europe also have their own strong army the Dutch, British and French it was perhaps these small strong little powers and the US military might that scared Russia. Aswell as looking at what the USA might do they also had to worry about little nations like France that had their military aircraft planes, France's own special forces, and French nuclear missiles. West Germany and the British were also strong.

The USA in its young days never really had the desires of strenght, it did not have the lust of the Roman Empire, it has been more or less a reluctant Superpower but when the Japanese almost destroyed the American fleet and kamikaze the USA America showed its strenght. Since WMDs came to war there have been some bloody conflicts, Hitler was said to have a plan to atom bomb New York, the Japan Imperials were into bio and chemical experiments, and the US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

Today China is very friendly with the USA, it does great trade with the West and Europe was happy to see Chinese re-value the currency. Powell had said that relations with China are the best they have been in more than 30 plus years. As I said before on another thread like this conflicts could come from anywhere, in Asia it would be most likely where one least expects it, trouble from Religious nuts in Indonesia, Taiwan versus the Japanese over terrorial dispute and fishermen only a few weeks ago they were sending warships to greet each other thorugh the barrel of a gun, India versus Pakistan can occur they have fought three major wars in the past, former Soviet areas can be trouble, conflict in Burma/Myanmar spreading, or Japan versus Russia over history and island disputes, Sri Lanka trouble going to other areas,....trouble in Asia could come from any place.

It looks like small wars will always happen, makind is still an angry creature and battles are part of human kinds history although I hope nobody is stupid enough to start WW-III. But then again it was Albert Einstein that said...Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, ... and he wasn't too sure about the former.

[Davros]

I find it interesting that a large number of U.S. citizens genuinely believe another world war is not only possible but llikely.

The article seems to imply somewhat the the U.S. has a paranoid disposition.

I'm inclined to agree. The U.S. does have a reputation for looking at a situation and fearing the worst.
I think this poll result has a lot to do with the current terrorist threat rattling the nerves of everyday people than any real danger of global conflict.

Speaking to friends and colleagues here in the U.K. we don't really think WW III is likely to happen at all.

So my message to anyone worrying about another war is:

Chill Guys! :D

[collegeguy]

I agree with the terror threat being one of the reasons americans are so afraid. A typical feared scenario is that some major terrorist attack such as a biological or the use of nukes against the US would bring about a big reprisal that could plunge the World into a global war. If terrorists smuggled warheads or used suitcase nukes against the US, the US could attack other nations as a defense ( some people think of MAD). The use of nukes could bring international problems that could lead to a global war.

[dgruss23]

A WWII type war is unlikely to happen simply because of nuclear weapons. The countries possessing those weapons must learn to work things out diplomatically (and they know this) because as soon as conventional shots are actually fired they do in fact face terrible destruction. You can't win such a war because whichever country is on the losing end of the conventional side of the battle could simply turn to the nuclear option in a final act of desperation - so both sides end up losing.

Nuclear weapons are probably more effective at preventing a WWII type war from happening again than any written treaties that countries will sign.

The countries that do not possess nuclear weapons are simply not capable of waging a large scale war. So its not unreasonable to refer to the war on terror as WWIII. Its simply a different sort of WW because one side doesn't possess their own territory or conventional armies. But they're willing to blow up everybody elses territory to meet their goals.

[W.F. Tomba]

The countries that do not possess nuclear weapons are simply not capable of waging a large scale war. So its not unreasonable to refer to the war on terror as WWIII. Its simply a different sort of WW because one side doesn't possess their own territory or conventional armies. But They're willing to blow up everybody elses territory to meet their goals.
But they can't actually do that. They are unlikely ever to achieve the destructive capability of either side in either of the World Wars. They are beaten from the start, but being beholden to no one, they are not under any obligation to fight a winning war. They just keep on fighting for the sake of fighting, often pursuing strategies that subvert their own goals, but what do they care? God likes it if they fight, and apparently he doesn't care whether they win.

It's probably comforting to view the war on terrorism as a "World War", since we won both World Wars. But that's another wrong analogy. We won't win the war on terrorism, because it's never going to end. We'll just keep fighting it forever, or until our civilization collapses from other causes.

[dgruss23]

The countries that do not possess nuclear weapons are simply not capable of waging a large scale war. So its not unreasonable to refer to the war on terror as WWIII. Its simply a different sort of WW because one side doesn't possess their own territory or conventional armies. But They're willing to blow up everybody elses territory to meet their goals.
But they can't actually do that. They are unlikely ever to achieve the destructive capability of either side in either of the World Wars. They are beaten from the start, but being beholden to no one, they are not under any obligation to fight a winning war. They just keep on fighting for the sake of fighting, often pursuing strategies that subvert their own goals, but what do they care? God likes it if they fight, and apparently he doesn't care whether they win.

I didn't mean that they are capable of blowing up entire countries. I simply meant that they don't have any boundaries to where they will go. Many nations are potential targets. Like I said, its not a conventional world war in the sense of WWII, but it is a war of worldwide scope involving many nations.

It's probably comforting to view the war on terrorism as a "World War", since we won both World Wars. But that's another wrong analogy. We won't win the war on terrorism, because it's never going to end. We'll just keep fighting it forever, or until our civilization collapses from other causes.

Some people may call the war on terrorism a world war because it comforts them in some way. I consider it a world war, because its a worldwide conflict involving numerous nations. Its not a regional conflict affecting 2 or 3 nations. I'd imagine there could be a lot of disagreement on this. Some people may even feel that to call it a "war" is an incorrect use of terminology.

Personally, I really don't care what people call it. Times change and in my opinion it is a world war of a different nature. I doubt that we will ever see another conventional type of world war because of nuclear weapons. Disagreement with all that is going to be over subjective definitions of what constitutes "war" and "world war". You could even make a case that WWI was not truly a world war, but more of a regional conflict.

But at any rate I do think your last two sentences capture the key point people should never forget. This war with terrorists is a long haul. There will never be a treaty signed ending the hostilities because the terrorists operate as a philosophy rather than a nation. The goal is to minimize their ability to harm people.

[collegeguy]

The countries that do not possess nuclear weapons are simply not capable of waging a large scale war. So its not unreasonable to refer to the war on terror as WWIII. Its simply a different sort of WW because one side doesn't possess their own territory or conventional armies. But They're willing to blow up everybody elses territory to meet their goals.
But they can't actually do that. They are unlikely ever to achieve the destructive capability of either side in either of the World Wars. They are beaten from the start, but being beholden to no one, they are not under any obligation to fight a winning war. They just keep on fighting for the sake of fighting, often pursuing strategies that subvert their own goals, but what do they care? God likes it if they fight, and apparently he doesn't care whether they win.

It's probably comforting to view the war on terrorism as a "World War", since we won both World Wars. But that's another wrong analogy. We won't win the war on terrorism, because it's never going to end. We'll just keep fighting it forever, or until our civilization collapses from other causes.

I actually think the war on terror may end as eventually and unfairly, probably the Middle East will be held accountable for the terrorists actions. They may be invaded or destroyed. I hope it doesn't happen, but it is possible.

[dgruss23]

The countries that do not possess nuclear weapons are simply not capable of waging a large scale war. So its not unreasonable to refer to the war on terror as WWIII. Its simply a different sort of WW because one side doesn't possess their own territory or conventional armies. But They're willing to blow up everybody elses territory to meet their goals.
But they can't actually do that. They are unlikely ever to achieve the destructive capability of either side in either of the World Wars. They are beaten from the start, but being beholden to no one, they are not under any obligation to fight a winning war. They just keep on fighting for the sake of fighting, often pursuing strategies that subvert their own goals, but what do they care? God likes it if they fight, and apparently he doesn't care whether they win.

It's probably comforting to view the war on terrorism as a "World War", since we won both World Wars. But that's another wrong analogy. We won't win the war on terrorism, because it's never going to end. We'll just keep fighting it forever, or until our civilization collapses from other causes.

I actually think the war on terror may end as eventually and unfairly, probably the Middle East will be held accountable for the terrorists actions. They may be invaded or destroyed. I hope it doesn't happen, but it is possible.

Its definitely tricky because many of the Middle east nations do not have representative governments. So its hard to blame the citizens of those nations if their leaders are pushing anti-U.S./anti-democracy sentiments - including in the education of youth. What I hope happens is that the establishment of a free democracy in Iraq will help spread similar changes in other middle eastern countries without the need for additional conflict.

[kleindoofy]

I believe many groups or nations are capable, or soon will be, of launching an attack on the U.S., say by using an atomic bomb to destroy an American city. But any such attack would most probably remain an isolated event. None of the groups or nations willing to launch such an attack would be able to sustain a war effort. I doubt seriously any country presently capable of really fighting a war with the U.S. would do so.

As to what Americans believe: 60% believe we never landed on the moon and 80% can't find their own country on a world map, so is it really relevant what they believe? And what is this belief based on? Foxnews? Reruns of Rambo films on television? Jay Leno's jokes?

[The Supreme Canuck]

80% can't find their own country on a world map

Wait, that can't be right, can it?

[Cylinder]

80% can't find their own country on a world map

Wait, that can't be right, can it?

That sounds, to be blunt, made up. I bet less than 5% of Americans older than 10 couldn't find The US on a globe. My 4-year-old daughter can do that.

[collegeguy]

Most of the people think about MAD when it comes to World War. It is a common belief that an attack with a WMD in the US will cause MAD to kick in. The US would attack other nuclear nations starting a war that would wipe out all of humanity.

That's the common belief I have heard so much about. It is very similar to "On the Beach' movie.

[Cylinder]

According to Katie Couric (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010808-moon.htm) (and whodathunk I'd ever use that phrase) - a fairly recent Zogby poll says that only 7% of Americans believe the moon landings were faked. Unfortunately, the questionnaire and results are not free (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=402).

COURIC: But despite a phone call from President Nixon...an ocean splashdown, a ticker-tape parade and an appearance before a joint session of Congress and a ceremony at the White House, there are some who doubt the Apollo 11 mission ever took place. In May the polling firm Zogby International collected opinions from 1220 Americans on, among other things, whether or not the first man on the moon mission really happened. Most Americans polled, 87 percent, are certain that mankind's first visit to the moon did happen. A small percentage, seven percent, think it was all staged for TV, and four percent aren't sure what happened


According to a National Geographic poll (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/templates/answer_11_11_1.html), 89% of Americans aged 18-24 could find the United States on a world map.

[Ilya]

It's probably comforting to view the war on terrorism as a "World War", since we won both World Wars. But that's another wrong analogy. We won't win the war on terrorism, because it's never going to end. We'll just keep fighting it forever, or until our civilization collapses from other causes.
"Forever" is a VERY long time. And I think Islamic Fundamentalism will end up destroyed, not Western civilization -- although it may take more killing and MUCH more time than anyone today readily admits.

BTW, from the start I despised the term "war on terrorism". It is a mealy-mouthed euphemism designed to avoid hurting Muslim sensibilities. "War on Islamic Fundamentalism" is much more honest.

Some people may call the war on terrorism a world war because it comforts them in some way. I consider it a world war, because its a worldwide conflict involving numerous nations. Its not a regional conflict affecting 2 or 3 nations.
I agree. I think what defines a World War is the global scope of the conflict, not the body count. In that sense first true World War was between Spain and Britain (and their respective allies) in 16th Century.

[kleindoofy]

... That sounds, to be blunt, made up. ...

Granted, I was quoting from memory and I may have exaggerated ever so slightly (although I read the 60% statistic about the moon landing a while back on this very site), but I believe my point was made: popular belief and/or expectation and reality are two ends of a pole that seldom meet. :D

[MrClean]

If we could just cut down on the number of folks that think we're in 'the End of Times' I'd be happy, but now you go and throw WWIII in the mix?

Paranoia may be our national pastime, not baseball. Well, at least there's more action with Paranoia, or at least I THINK there is.

[collegeguy]

If we could just cut down on the number of folks that think we're in 'the End of Times' I'd be happy, but now you go and throw WWIII in the mix?

Paranoia may be our national pastime, not baseball. Well, at least there's more action with Paranoia, or at least I THINK there is.

Polls show many people are afraid of a World War.
The war on terror is unconventional and has many repercussions. I think it is normal that people feel afraid and insecure of it.

[CharlesEGrant]

BTW, from the start I despised the term "war on terrorism". It is a mealy-mouthed euphemism designed to avoid hurting Muslim sensibilities. "War on Islamic Fundamentalism" is much more honest.

If every Islamic fundamentlist on the planet dropped dead tomorrow we'd be struggling with the problem of terrorism:

Tamil Tigers
Christian Identity Movement
Shinning Path
Russian Organized Crime
US Organized Crime
Scillian Organized Crime
ETA
IRA
UDL
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Stern Gang
Doomsday Cults (Aum Shinrikyo)

Even in Iraq the terrorist attacks come from both Islamic fundamentalists and Baath party revanchists.

I think that what changed on 9/11 was the widespread public understanding that a small group could unleash levels of destruction previously thought to be acheivable only by a regular military. Islamic fundamentalists may have been the first to take advantage of this tactic, but I fear they won't be the last.

[Humphrey]

Why worry? There is nuthing as an average citizen you can do to prevent it except do your duty and report anything that is relevant to terrorist activities to the proper authorities and trust in them that they will do their job.

If you cannot prevent it, then do not worry about it happening.

[collegeguy]

Why worry? There is nuthing as an average citizen you can do to prevent it except do your duty and report anything that is relevant to terrorist activities to the proper authorities and trust in them that they will do their job.

If you cannot prevent it, then do not worry about it happening.

I guess you are talking about terrorist attacks. I am sure people opposing their governments going to a World War could surely do something.

[Ilya]

If every Islamic fundamentlist on the planet dropped dead tomorrow we'd be struggling with the problem of terrorism:

Tamil Tigers
Christian Identity Movement
Shinning Path
Russian Organized Crime
US Organized Crime
Scillian Organized Crime
ETA
IRA
UDL
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Stern Gang
Doomsday Cults (Aum Shinrikyo)

<skip>Baath party revanchists.

You just made my point. US is not at war with most of these groups, so it is not fighting "terrorism" in general -- part of the reason "War on Terror" is a misnomer. In fact, every group you listed fights against only one or two countries, three at most. Only Islamic Fundamentalist struggle is global in both scope and ambition. (Aum Shinrikyo's goal IS Apocalypse, but their resources are laughable compared to that goal.)

I think that what changed on 9/11 was the widespread public understanding that a small group could unleash levels of destruction previously thought to be acheivable only by a regular military. Islamic fundamentalists may have been the first to take advantage of this tactic, but I fear they won't be the last.
You are probably right, but again, most groups do not have ambitions on such global scale.

[Planetwatcher]

Albert Einstin said, he didn't know how world war three would be fought, but he was sure of how world war four will be fought. [-X With sticks and stones. #-o

[Lianachan]

I don't think the "War On Terror" counts as a war at all. Terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war, and should be thought of and dealt with accordingly. Anything else is counter-productive.

I don't think WWIII is likely to happen any time soon, as most of the big players tend to get along OK. The only potential trouble I can see in the coming years is between Japan (encouraged by the USA) China, although I do still think it's extremely unlikely.

[Jpax2003]

I think people overplay both the concern for nuclear weapons use and the unlikelihood of their use. If Stuart were here he'd probably remind us that Mutually Assured Destruction is not a policy, but a description some have proposed about the Cold War standoff between the US and the USSR/Russia. I don't think that China is a part of any MAD as their level of nuclear armament is probably too few to counter either the US or Russia. It is also probable that China has too few nukes to destroy any but the smallest countries in any militarily significant way assuming no nuclear counterforce strikes and 100% reliability and accuracy. Some here may think one-nuke one-city, but in practice it would take dozens of nukes to destroy a large city.

I think some people are worried about the PRC starting a war with the US that turns nuclear. There is no MAD between the the US and the PRC. The PRC with a dozen to a hundred nukes might be able to kill several hundred thousand to several million, however the US with several thousand nukes at it's disposal could probably kill hundreds of millions (especially with their population density along the coast).

I don't think the "war on terrorism" is a world war since it is not a war between nation states, but that could change. I think the reason why the other wars were considered world wars was because there was a combatant or combat occured on virtually every continent and every ocean or sea.

I do think that it is possible to have a world war within the next 50 years either with or without nukes. While some think that countries that trade will not attack each other, we also know that trade relations are not set in stone. In fact, some wars start because one side stops trading. The PRC may be in the same position Japan was in 80 years ago. And I think the US will do the same thing as before -- let them start it.

[Ilya]

Albert Einstin said, he didn't know how world war three would be fought, but he was sure of how world war four will be fought. [-X With sticks and stones. #-o

Einstein also said quite a few things about wars and peace which convinced me he never had a good undestanding of history. Such as "Peace can not be maintained through force". Which is a total B.S. -- few times in history peace WAS maintained, it was always through force.

[Ilya]

I don't think the "War On Terror" counts as a war at all. Terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war, and should be thought of and dealt with accordingly. Anything else is counter-productive.

One of the reasons that our nation, and indeed the world, is so divided on the so-called War on Terror (which, I remind once again, is really a war on a new form of totalitarianism wearing a religious face), is that we have major divisions over what motivates the people who make war on us.

If you're a traditional leftist, you see everything through the lens of capitalist, colonialist oppression, and suicide bombers look like stalwart and admirable fighters against The Man. To people like Michael Moore, they are simply freedom fighters, just like the Minute Men of our own revolution.

If you're a multi-culturalist, you see them as misunderstood, their culture under daily siege from an unrelenting barrage of western music, and sexual images, and women with flesh exposed to the world. It's only understandable that they would want to strike out, and even end their lives when they hear about their holy book being defiled (whether it actually happened or not).

To others, of a transnational international-law bent, their behavior is not so easily excused, but they're still just a criminal gang, a problem to be solved by international cooperation among police agencies. Whenever they commit one of these crimes, they are to be infiltrated, arrested, indicted, tried, and imprisoned (though never executed -- that's so uncivilized and... American). It might even be acceptable to infiltrate them before the crime is committed, if there's some chance that it might actually prevent one of these crimes from occurring, as long as we don't go too far, and violate their civil rights in any way.

If you're like me, you see them as I earlier described them -- as the latest totalitarian ideology, like the Nazis, and the Stalinists, and Maoists, and their spinoffs the Khmer Rouge and Shining Path, who want to make the world conform to their will, and are not only willing to murder innocents to accomplish their vile goals, but revel in doing so.

Similarly, many seemingly seek to look into the mind of a terrorist and his actions, and see what they want to see: anger at Israel, anger at the apparent impotence of the Arab world against the west, frustration at the inability to raise your children as properly Islamic in a secular West, even the desire for the reestablishment of the Caliphate.

Sadly, I agree that all of the above are motivating the bombers, and many of the people who agree with them. But if these are the grievances, they cannot be assuaged, they cannot be appeased. They are what we call in American divorce courts, "irreconcilable differences."

Yes, we could withdraw from Iraq, but they were doing this before we were in Iraq, and Egypt, last time I checked, had no troops in Iraq. Withdrawing from Iraq won't change the desire of many British Muslims to swaddle their women from head to toe, to force adolescent girls to marry old men they've never met, to call down Fatwas on homosexuals. Yielding to demands to allow Arabs to flood into Israel won't bring about peace in the Middle East. Once we've sacrificed the Iraqi people, struggling for democracy, once we've sacrificed the Jews to them, they'll only hunger for further expansion of their Caliphate. There cannot be peaceful coexistence with a people whose ultimate goal is to compel everyone to live under a single religion, one that is not just a religion but a way of life. And if that's the case, the only ultimate solution is to defeat them militarily, however long it takes, which sadly cannot be done without killing large numbers of them, because it may well prove impossible to change their minds.

[farmerjumperdon]

Lots of good stuff here, and kudos to everyone for keeping it so civil. Now let me mess it up.

Just kidding. Only wanted to chime in on the WW thing. Don't think it will happen, and don't think the people who think it already is happening have a proper perspective. On of the few things I watch is a lot of History Channel. Going into single battles with 10's or 100's of thousands of troops; and losing big percentages of them in just days. That said, what I learned most about WWII came from my dad, uncles, & their generation. Absolutely horrific stuff.

My guess is that if every citizen of Earth could somehow know what Normandy or Guadalcanal was like, I mean REALLY have it imprinted the way my dad and uncles had it imprinted - there would never again be another war.

[Moose]

My guess is that if every citizen of Earth could somehow know what Normandy or Guadalcanal was like, I mean REALLY have it imprinted the way my dad and uncles had it imprinted - there would never again be another war.

Well said.

[farmerjumperdon]

Thanks Moose. My Uncle Don landed in the 1st wave at Utah beach. His story is amazing. He ended up getting wounded, and upon returning to active duty, got reassigned to MP duty in Paris for the balance of the war.

Not to glorify war, but my favorite picture of him is a proud young man in his MP uniform standing outside a Parisian cafe looking like he just saved the world. He never bragged of anything, just told us of the horrors in these quiet little eerie conversations.

My step-dad landed on Guadalcanal. He carried a flamethrower. He also carried a bunch of bullet scars the rest of his life. He had 3 or 4 deep lavendar colored, almost perfectly round sunken scars in his back and butt. But he never talked about the war, ever.

My other step-dad was a tail gunner in a bomber in Korea. He talked about it all the time. Maybe being above and not intimately connected with the blood of infantry-type combat made it a different kind of memory for him.

[collegeguy]

I think people overplay both the concern for nuclear weapons use and the unlikelihood of their use. If Stuart were here he'd probably remind us that Mutually Assured Destruction is not a policy, but a description some have proposed about the Cold War standoff between the US and the USSR/Russia. I don't think that China is a part of any MAD as their level of nuclear armament is probably too few to counter either the US or Russia. It is also probable that China has too few nukes to destroy any but the smallest countries in any militarily significant way assuming no nuclear counterforce strikes and 100% reliability and accuracy. Some here may think one-nuke one-city, but in practice it would take dozens of nukes to destroy a large city.

I think some people are worried about the PRC starting a war with the US that turns nuclear. There is no MAD between the the US and the PRC. The PRC with a dozen to a hundred nukes might be able to kill several hundred thousand to several million, however the US with several thousand nukes at it's disposal could probably kill hundreds of millions (especially with their population density along the coast).

I don't think the "war on terrorism" is a world war since it is not a war between nation states, but that could change. I think the reason why the other wars were considered world wars was because there was a combatant or combat occured on virtually every continent and every ocean or sea.

I do think that it is possible to have a world war within the next 50 years either with or without nukes. While some think that countries that trade will not attack each other, we also know that trade relations are not set in stone. In fact, some wars start because one side stops trading. The PRC may be in the same position Japan was in 80 years ago. And I think the US will do the same thing as before -- let them start it.

I agree with this. People, however, seem to think that a big terrorist attack, like a nuclear one, could plunge the war into a World war. I think that's more likely than nations starting a conflict like it by themselves.
Just a few days ago, Tom Tancredo, a US lawmaker, suggested that taking out holy islamic sites if the US was attacked with nuclear weapons, could be done. That could bring a terrible reaction from the middle East. It is really sad how peole can make statements like this and get away with it.

[dgavin]

We'll as I see it unless the US takes the lead and replaces 80% of oil energy within the next decade with renewable and clean energies, WW3 will be ineveitable.

At current rates of polution, and assuming no population growth at all, by 2050 the earth will have warmed enought that the bateria in forest floors will begin using more Oxygen then the forests put out. At this point in just a matter of a few years the planet will lose 1/3 of it's natural oxygen production, which is replaced by an increased CO2 production.

Global warming will then take a turn for worse, and the rate of planatary heating will about triple. Some attempt will be made at that time to build huge pollution recyclers, what will convert polutants, including CO2, and produce oxygen and other solid byproducts. It will be too little to late.

The resulting heating will cause global ecosystem failures, crop failures, and economic failures. Death tools from oxygen starvation (this has -already- begun in Japan), general starvation, and internal strife will mount. Estimates from 1 million deaths a year around 2050 to upwards of 10 million a year by 2060.

At which point countries will be starting wars not over politics, but for the only remaining aireable land that can support crops. Biologics, Chemicals, and eventually nuclear weapons will be used to try and keep lands safe, or to destroy an opponets last ecosystem resources. Nuclear weapons will also be self used by countries on own soil to prevent spread of some biologicals.

By the time this is over around 2090, probably 9/10th of humanity's population will be be gone.

By or shortly after 2100, the global warming will reach a point where the oceanic methane hydrate melts, and begins releasing, an causes a global tepurate rise of 8c degrees in only a year or less.

The planet will then be uninhabitable for humans and most other creatures.

It's a reather bleak view I know, but if contries continue on a slow conversion away from oil, this is exactly the senerio we're all heading for.

[Cylinder]

I predict that we'll still be here chugging along, listening to tomorrow's crop of pop-scientists predicting the same for 50 more years.

[Ilya]

At current rates of polution, and assuming no population growth at all, by 2050 the earth will have warmed enought that the bateria in forest floors will begin using more Oxygen then the forests put out. At this point in just a matter of a few years the planet will lose 1/3 of it's natural oxygen production, which is replaced by an increased CO2 production.

<skip>

By or shortly after 2100, the global warming will reach a point where the oceanic methane hydrate melts, and begins releasing, an causes a global tepurate rise of 8c degrees in only a year or less.

The planet will then be uninhabitable for humans and most other creatures.
You are talking about positive feedback. The problem with your reasoning is that throughout most of its history Earth was much warmer than it is now (the very existence of polar caps is an anomaly), yet the runaway effect you describe did not occur. If forest floor bacteria could do what you say, they would have done it back in Paleozoic Era -- or many times since, -- and we would not have been here.

[collegeguy]

We'll as I see it unless the US takes the lead and replaces 80% of oil energy within the next decade with renewable and clean energies, WW3 will be ineveitable.

At current rates of polution, and assuming no population growth at all, by 2050 the earth will have warmed enought that the bateria in forest floors will begin using more Oxygen then the forests put out. At this point in just a matter of a few years the planet will lose 1/3 of it's natural oxygen production, which is replaced by an increased CO2 production.

Global warming will then take a turn for worse, and the rate of planatary heating will about triple. Some attempt will be made at that time to build huge pollution recyclers, what will convert polutants, including CO2, and produce oxygen and other solid byproducts. It will be too little to late.

The resulting heating will cause global ecosystem failures, crop failures, and economic failures. Death tools from oxygen starvation (this has -already- begun in Japan), general starvation, and internal strife will mount. Estimates from 1 million deaths a year around 2050 to upwards of 10 million a year by 2060.

At which point countries will be starting wars not over politics, but for the only remaining aireable land that can support crops. Biologics, Chemicals, and eventually nuclear weapons will be used to try and keep lands safe, or to destroy an opponets last ecosystem resources. Nuclear weapons will also be self used by countries on own soil to prevent spread of some biologicals.

By the time this is over around 2090, probably 9/10th of humanity's population will be be gone.

By or shortly after 2100, the global warming will reach a point where the oceanic methane hydrate melts, and begins releasing, an causes a global tepurate rise of 8c degrees in only a year or less.

The planet will then be uninhabitable for humans and most other creatures.

It's a reather bleak view I know, but if contries continue on a slow conversion away from oil, this is exactly the senerio we're all heading for.

Could you show me the info that led you to this conclusion? You know, the source.

[dgavin]

Some Sources:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=29437

Digram plus information above and below it. Indactes that CO2 concetrations far beyound that of last 4 glacial cycles. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#M_53_

Temperature Charts http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm#temp2002
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011105/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm

Low Range and High range Forecast (Currently we are on the hight range track)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/climate.stm

Feedback Effects
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/feedback.stm

I can provide more sources if desired.

[dgavin]

Unihabitable Forecast (one of them, looking for the others i've read over the months)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

[Jpax2003]

I agree with this. People, however, seem to think that a big terrorist attack, like a nuclear one, could plunge the war into a World war. I think that's more likely than nations starting a conflict like it by themselves.
Just a few days ago, Tom Tancredo, a US lawmaker, suggested that taking out holy islamic sites if the US was attacked with nuclear weapons, could be done. That could bring a terrible reaction from the middle East. It is really sad how peole can make statements like this and get away with it.

I think it might be possible to trigger a widespread nuclear war with a terrorist nuke. However, this assumes that the terrorists wait for an opportunity to initiate it at a time and place where everyone will think it was an attack from another nation-state. For instance, if Al Qaeda were to explode a nuke in or near a city along the US pacific coast during a time of increased tensions between the US and North Korea or the China it might be mistaken for an attack by one of them. Or they could initiate a nuke near a muslim city and blame the US so that Russia might respond on their behalf, thinking it was a US strike. Perhaps a strike against Taiwan might make us respond against the PRC.

I have heard some people suggest nuking islamic holy sites as a way of "disproving" islam so that the muslims have an identity crisis and stop believing in Allah and therefore stop their jihads. It's strange what some people will imagine doing in a time of war.

[Jpax2003]

By or shortly after 2100, the global warming will reach a point where the oceanic methane hydrate melts, and begins releasing, an causes a global tepurate rise of 8c degrees in only a year or less.

The articles I have read on methane hydrate seems to indicate that the methane ices in the ocean bottom will melt when sea levels drop during an ice age, thereby causing a global warming from the point of a glacial low. After the water ice glaciers melt and the sea levels rise, the pressure increases and methane hydrate will once again accrue in the ocean depths. In other words, Methane ice may not cause global warming but may moderate it instead.

[Lianachan]

I don't think the "War On Terror" counts as a war at all. Terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war, and should be thought of and dealt with accordingly. Anything else is counter-productive.
There cannot be peaceful coexistence with a people whose ultimate goal is to compel everyone to live under a single religion, one that is not just a religion but a way of life

But it's OK if that way of life is western-style democracy? It's OK to impose that on middle-eastern nations, despite the cultural difficulties? Imposing democracy is surely a contradiction in terms?

[Davros]

I think people talking about "terrorist nukes" are giving these terrorists too much credit.
Nearly every terrorist attack either by islamic fundamentalists or otherwise has been carried out using conventional explosives - and homemade ones at that.

There's never been any evidence to suggest that terrorists even have the vaguest chace of obtaining the resources to create nukes let alone the technical knowhow or the industrial facilities.

It's easy enough to mix up some pretty potent high explosives in a small, poorly equipped lab using easily obtainable ingredients - tell me anywhere that one could pop along to and enrich some uranium to weapons grade for making nukes?

[Ilya]

There cannot be peaceful coexistence with a people whose ultimate goal is to compel everyone to live under a single religion, one that is not just a religion but a way of life
But it's OK if that way of life is western-style democracy? It's OK to impose that on middle-eastern nations, despite the cultural difficulties?

YES IT IS.

I absolutely reject the notion that "all cultures are equivalent". To paraphrase Harry Harrison, a culture is a human invention, like a fork or a computer, and some human inventions are just plain BAD. My favorite example is the Hindi elders who complained to British Governor-General of India (Wellington, IIRC) about the ban on suttee -- it was their custom, after all! Wellington's response was: "Fine, you can proceed with your custom of burning widows on their husbands' funeral pyres. We will proceed with our custom of hanging men who burn women alive." (How culturally insensitive of him!)

And modern Arab CULTURE -- the explosive mix of medieval values, oil money, and 500-years old inferiority complex, -- is incompatible with the very existence of modern world with its free exchange of ideas.

When I say "medieval values" I do not mean just brutal hereditary princes, veiled women, stoning of gays, and the practice of blood revenge. All these things are bad enough, but in various parts of the world they had been quickly abandoned with little more than economic stimuli. More important is the fact that religious leaders are also political leaders. Islam never had its equivalent of Reformation -- the separation of church and state. Consequently political power depends on the "flock" being insulated from outside ideas -- and religious authority depends on the gun. Nor is this situation likely to change itself -- Christian Reformation came as a result of Thirty-Year War, and religious authorities, both Catholic and Protestant, had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it.
Imposing democracy is surely a contradiction in terms?
Why not? It worked for Germany and Japan -- despite the chorus of 1940's claims that both countries are culturally incompatible with democracy. It worked for India, even if imposing democracy was not British Empire's goal -- with rajas' power broken and grotesque practices like suttee banned, Indians (both Hindu and Mulsims) turned out entirely capable of Western style government.

In any case, we have no choice. In a world without biological weapons and air travel, it would be possible for Western countries to isolate Middle East and wait a few centuries for the Islamic Reformation. As things stand, it's a luxury Western civilization can not afford. And that's where Iraq war comes in. Bush Administration claims that democratic Iraq will provide a model for other Arab people to emulate. The Left dismiss it as empty rhetoric, and many on the Right consider it wishful thinking. How can you "impose" democracy onto people who never knew it? Perhaps you can not. Perhaps the notion of "Reforming Arab culture by force" is quixotic at best and hubristic at worst. But it must be tried, because Arab culture will not reform by itself, and without such Reformation 21st Century will be a continuous war, mostly waged against civilians. And if such quixotic attempt is to be made, it should be made in the already most secular Arab country -- which Iraq arguably is.

[collegeguy]

Some Sources:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=29437

Digram plus information above and below it. Indactes that CO2 concetrations far beyound that of last 4 glacial cycles. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#M_53_

Temperature Charts http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm#temp2002
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011105/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3569604.stm

Low Range and High range Forecast (Currently we are on the hight range track)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/climate.stm

Feedback Effects
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/feedback.stm

I can provide more sources if desired.

This info deserves its own thread. The rise of CO2 is going to happen, but I have never seen sources discussing oxygen starvation. Could you also tell me where in Japan are people dying of it?

[CharlesEGrant]

My guess is that if every citizen of Earth could somehow know what Normandy or Guadalcanal was like, I mean REALLY have it imprinted the way my dad and uncles had it imprinted - there would never again be another war.
I hate to contradict a nice sentiment, but many veterans of Normandy and Guadalcanal went on to long and distinguished careers leading the US military through the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and were quite willing to go to war again if they thought it in the interest of their country. Hitler and much of the Wehrmacht had seen horrific combat in World War I and it didn't seemed to dissuade them from launching the conquest of Europe.

Obviously there are a lot of ways people can react to a horrific experience like the combat on the Normandy beaches or on Guadalcanal. Renouncing war is certainly one way, but in the combat veterans I've known, a more common reaction is a desire for their nation to be powerful, determined, and able to react with overwhelming force. The idea being that being powerful and prepared makes getting into a jam like Normandy or Guadalcanal less likely.

[CharlesEGrant]

You just made my point. US is not at war with most of these groups, so it is not fighting "terrorism" in general -- part of the reason "War on Terror" is a misnomer. In fact, every group you listed fights against only one or two countries, three at most. Only Islamic Fundamentalist struggle is global in both scope and ambition. (Aum Shinrikyo's goal IS Apocalypse, but their resources are laughable compared to that goal.)

Shinning Path's goals are certainly global, they just have to settle with Peru before they move on to the rest of us. They are one of the few leftovers of the previous global threat: international communism. The resources of Aum Shinrikyo didn't measure up to those of bin Laden, but they were by no means laughable. See for example Destroying the World to Save It : Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence, and the New Global Terrorism by Robert Lifton.

I think your analysis is far too simplistic. The US and Islamic fundamentalists cooperated when we had a common interest in throwing the USSR out Afghanistan. Now the US and some of the same fundamentalists are fighting in Afghanistan because they threaten US interests. Our nominal allies in that war are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which are also lead by Islamic fundamentalists. We are fighting a war in Iraq which started because the entirely secular Saddam Hussein was a threat to US interests. In Iraq there are Kurdish Islamic fundamentalists who love the US and secular Baath party loyalists who hate the US. The common thread here doesn't seem to be theology, but who finds common interests with the US and who does not.

In the seventies I watched unspeakably evil and monolithic international communism divide into "good communists" (People's Republic of China) and "bad communists" (USSR and Cuba). I do not doubt for a second that the objectives of the USSR and the US were in deadly conflict, and I'm glad the USSR is gone, but when someone tries to tell me about a new monolithic, implacable enemy, I start looking for the "realpolitik" behind the ideological hymns.

I worry that we (citizens of the US) are overreacting to the threat of terrorism. 9/11 was a catastrophe, and I know we face further catastrophe. But it seems to me that the worst Al Queida or any other terrorist organization can do pales in comparison to the threats we lived with all through the cold war. I suppose the difference is that the USSR could strike with incredible power but was very susceptible to deterrence, while terrorists have very limited striking power, but are very hard to deter.

[Jpax2003]

I worry that we (citizens of the US) are overreacting to the threat of terrorism. 9/11 was a catastrophe, and I know we face further catastrophe. But it seems to me that the worst Al Queida or any other terrorist organization can do pales in comparison to the threats we lived with all through the cold war. I suppose the difference is that the USSR could strike with incredible power but was very susceptible to deterrence, while terrorists have very limited striking power, but are very hard to deter.

I think that is the point. It's not about what they can do, but what they are willing to do. There is a line in the movie The Peacemaker that sums this up well. "It's not the man who wants ten nuclear weapons that scares me, it's the man who only wants one."

[Launch window]

I worry that we (citizens of the US) are overreacting to the threat of terrorism. 9/11 was a catastrophe, and I know we face further catastrophe. But it seems to me that the worst Al Queida or any other terrorist organization can do pales in comparison to the threats we lived with all through the cold war. I suppose the difference is that the USSR could strike with incredible power but was very susceptible to deterrence, while terrorists have very limited striking power, but are very hard to deter.

The Taliban and Al Queida plan against the Russians was a long bloddy war, keep the Jihad fighters going, terrorise the Soviets and make the war cost the Russians. As the Afghan war funded by drugs continued confidence in the Ruble-currency and the country's banking system fell, Russia reduced to a shadow of its former self but it still had a deadly Russian army and good technology, the problem was they could no longer fund it.

This is their plan with the USA aswell, as might as America is it the nation still finds it difficult to fight battles on more than 2 fronts - Afghanistan, Iraq. The mujaheddins and Al Queida want to bleed America dry, make the wars in the Middle-East cost the US economy just like they made the Soviets bankrupt. A lot of foreign people now are changing their investments the Euro strength and stability is really dollar weakness, the debts in the EU are low and European Central Bank's don't need to change policy can survive keep interest rates on hold. However Bush has to see some tough changes in social security and pension funds, the Chinese will continue to grow as the US debts increase in Iraq. US deficit is so high today that is starting the make the old USSR regimes look healthy and profitable. Taliban and Al Queida never had the knowledge of the USSR, India or Chinese military what they want is a long drawn out conflict so they can recruit more terror groups and bleed the US economy into higher and higher deficits.


There is a lot of bio-weapon and nuclear technology around on Earth. The quest should continue to make sure nations like Russia, India, China and such do not supply deadly weapons to rouge states and groups. The USA has also done questionable weapon sales but at least we know where those weapons are today. The worst thing that could happen is that Taliban and Al Queida get their hands on more deadly technology.

[collegeguy]

Thread bump.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=P2244_0_1_0

This could easily cause World War 3. I just hope mankind can survive the repercussions of this attack.

[Sigma_Orionis]

BTW, from the start I despised the term "war on terrorism". It is a mealy-mouthed euphemism designed to avoid hurting Muslim sensibilities. "War on Islamic Fundamentalism" is much more honest.

If every Islamic fundamentlist on the planet dropped dead tomorrow we'd be struggling with the problem of terrorism:

Tamil Tigers
Christian Identity Movement
Shinning Path
Russian Organized Crime
US Organized Crime
Scillian Organized Crime
ETA
IRA
UDL
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Stern Gang
Doomsday Cults (Aum Shinrikyo)

Even in Iraq the terrorist attacks come from both Islamic fundamentalists and Baath party revanchists.

I think that what changed on 9/11 was the widespread public understanding that a small group could unleash levels of destruction previously thought to be acheivable only by a regular military. Islamic fundamentalists may have been the first to take advantage of this tactic, but I fear they won't be the last.

[Pedantic Mode]Point Taken, but scratch Shining Path from your list, after its leader, Abimael Guzman was captured in 92, SP's activities have been at best sporadic, there was an attempt at retrying him due to the draconian measures taken by the Peruvian Goverment at the time to quell that movement. Fortunately he and most of his collaborators are still in prison.[/Pedantic Mode]

[Maha Vailo]

The runaway climate thingy dgavin mentioned is frightening. How likely do you folks think it would be possible (on a scale of 1 to 10)? If it did happen, how would humanity counter it?

And I've never heard a good idea from you as how to handle climate change in my story.

- Maha Vailo

[Eoanthropus Dawsoni]

The runaway climate thingy dgavin mentioned is frightening. How likely do you folks think it would be possible (on a scale of 1 to 10)?

Zero

[Maha Vailo]

The runaway climate thingy dgavin mentioned is frightening. How likely do you folks think it would be possible (on a scale of 1 to 10)?

Zero

Care to explain that?

- Maha Vailo

[Eoanthropus Dawsoni]

Our planet grows warmer and cooler. It has been doing this for quite some time and will continue to do so. I see no need for worry.

[Ilya]

The runaway climate thingy dgavin mentioned is frightening. How likely do you folks think it would be possible (on a scale of 1 to 10)?

Zero

Care to explain that?

- Maha Vailo
"Runaway climate thingy" assumes a positive feedback loop -- Earth gets warmer, which creates processes which warm the Earth still more, and the loop repeats until the oceans boil. The problem with that scenario is that current Earth climate is unusually cold -- throughout most of Earth's history it had no polar caps at all. If such positive feedback loops were possible, they would have happened long time ago (such as Paleozoic), and we would not be here to discuss it.

[Maha Vailo]

The planet undergoes changes, yes, I'm aware of that. But could you give me a more detailed explanation as to why the nightmare scenario dgavin mentioned won't happen?

ETA: Ooops, never mind, Ilya explained it a little for me.

- Maha Vailo

[collegeguy]

Our planet grows warmer and cooler. It has been doing this for quite some time and will continue to do so. I see no need for worry.

But he described that as the earth would get warmer, oxygen would start to decrease. so, he said it would be a third of what is now by 2050. People would die of oxygen starvation.

i have researched and found nothing about that. Also, wasn't the earth warmer before? the oxygen decrease did not ocurr as he described it.

[Ilya]

Sorry -- double post.

[Eoanthropus Dawsoni]

i have researched and found nothing about that. Also, wasn't the earth warmer before? the oxygen decrease did not ocurr as he described it.

1000 years ago people were growing grapes in Britian and Norway, and farming in Greenland.

[Eoanthropus Dawsoni]

And I've never heard a good idea from you as how to handle climate change in my story.


Story? I am rather new here so I not know what you are writing.

[Maha Vailo]

IIRC, weren't oxygen levels in the Paleozoic (the unusually warm period Ilya mentioned) actually higher than they are today? (I might be thinking of the mesozoic, so correct me if I'm wrong.) If this is true, then something must've balanced out the additional CO2 output of the forest bacteria dgavin mentioned. Algae in the oceans, maybe? What other feedback loops might exist that balance out things?

Climatology is a very inexact science. Try to isolate one factor, and you find that it's tethered to everything else on the planet, and a few things off it.

- Maha Vailo

[Maha Vailo]

But he described that as the earth would get warmer, oxygen would start to decrease. so, he said it would be a third of what is now by 2050. People would die of oxygen starvation.


Which is also ridiculous. If you put a bunch of creatures in a big room and gradually lowered the oxygen level, wouldn't there be some point in which oxygen levels were too low to sustain air-breathing creatures? When that point was reached, everyone would die in one fell swoop. (My father guesses it would take an hour, max, for a person to die of oxygen deprivation.) Plant life might die out too, since they need oxygen at night (when there's no sun for photosynthesis). There would be no life on this planet except for anaerobic bacteria and other things that can live without oxygen.

OF course, nothing like this has happened or will happen, because we're still here. Either bacteria don't pump out as much CO2 as these reasearchers say they do, other plants (algae? rapidly-growing plants?) take up enough CO2 to compensate, or there must be some other mechanism by which CO2 is removed from the air (sedimentation? mineralization?).

Sounds like the researchers' study is flawed. There are valid reasons why CO2 emissions should be reduced - but crap studies and nighmare scenarios aren't any of them.

- Maha (Glom, care to take the helm?) Vailo