Will we ever have a WW3?
413994
I'd say it already started...the pre-lude was 9/11 attack on America. Act I was the US invasion of Iraq. \n\nAct II will be a middle east conflagaration around Israel,Palestine,Syria,Iran axis. \n\nAct III - while US is busy defending Israel, North Korea will take the opportunity to invade the South and China will takeover Taiwan...leading to nuclear showdown similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. \n\nAct IV - will be the breakdown of the "system", loss in confidence of US economy, long gas lines at the pump, Constitutional rights abolished \n\nAct V - the end...who knows how it will end, but Einstein said World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones....
498735
World War One Hundred Eleven is going to be here quicker than anyone expects, I know. Ha, I know you mean WW3 (WWIII). Anyway, If it is a nuclear war, there really won't be much refuge since the radiation will spread around the globe. We will need radiation suits etc, and no one is ready for that right now. There is a book, I think it is called "On the Beach" and it is about nuclear war, it's good I remember. Anyway, there is no need to be worried. Do not worry about things that you cannot control. There is nothing you can do about it unless you plan on being a 007 and sneaking overseas and disabling their bombs, but I doubt a top-secret agent would be posting on YAHOO!
135701
Probably just after WW 2.
851538
no WW3 required, a little justice would have the same result
719860
In world war 2 Germany had already conqured most of Europe and showed no signs of stopping. If we had not saved their rears the map might look totally different now. Even if they stopped to secure Europe and recoup once finished with Europe (the smart thing to do) it was feared and likely they would push into the Americas, as I think they would have. Thus, we had to stop them or be conqured. Holocaust plays no role as it was not public knowledge until after. \n\nAlso, Pearl Harbour was a direct attack by another nations military. We were at war, like it or not. Japan also invaded Alaska and was dug in on land, something that you don't hear much about. Japan was allied with Germany although Germany told them to focus on Russia and meet in Moscow. Why a relatively tiny island would attack the US when it wasn't finished with China is absurd. WWII made us what we are and perhaps we didn't have the rep we have now and they thought they could frighten us. \n\nTerrorists are not attempting to invade or occupy America and do not come from any particular country. The goals of terrorists are uncertain at best. \n\nAlso Viet Nam changed things and created a more sensitive culture. We got to see war first hand in full color unedited by military journalists. Nam was the first war where civilian journalists were brought along and at the time everyone was excited to be on TV. The journalists went where they pleased and hopped on any chopper that had room. The blood and guts went straight to your living room at the independent news producers discretion at 5:30 each evening as famalies sat around and watched during diner. A mistake that the military will not repeat. The civilian media today is lead by the hand 'for thier own protection.' Nam also gave rise to the peace and love culture. In other ways it is a much different world today. \n(I can stop here but... some other thoughts)\n\nSometimes it seems like the terrorists just want us to leave the middle east alone. I'm curious as to what you think or are told that the terrorists agenda is. Yes they want to terrorize and kill Americans but what for. In Ireland the terrorists wanted independence from Britain, lack the ability for a military victory so, they hope to scare them into a concession. The definition of terrorist is one that attacks civillian targets in order to pressure a govt into something. What do the muslim terrorists want (not that we should give it or accept it)? Death to the infidels? Bombs every five years won't kill us all. There is a political motivation for these high profile bombings. Don't support Israel is an obvious one. Many in Iraq just want to drive us out of Iraq (seems fair). \n\nIraq seems more like a gurilla war than terrorists as well. Civillians may be harmed but the intended targets are usually military, local police, and the coalition govt. All of which are legitimate military targets so it's not terrorism. Trying to frighten us by bombings is not a good thing but not an imminent threat either. Protecting our home from terrorists is a job for police, FBI and CIA not soldiers in the middle east. I find it hard to even think of the war on terror as a war at all. It theoretically includes all terrorists not just muslim ones. They occupy no territory and don't have much unity. Remember Timothy McVay was a solo terrorist. Also certain militant Nazi groups in the mid west are classified as terrorists. \n\nThe mid east has fought for a long time and even if Iraq is stabilized our actions have not made us many friends there. Thus does not lessen terrorism but increases the number those who wish to do us harm. Although I'm just now starting to think the plan was to fix Iraq and show them how nice it can be and other nations may want it. Iraq was chosen because it's easiest and nobody really liked Saddam anyway, even there. If that's the plan it doesn't seem to be working.\n\nSomeone mentions 9/11 and Iraq. The t
1152249
World war 3 is over already.  It was called in the media as the Cold War.  There was enough shooting, although the princaples in the war never shot at one another (although they came close, ie cuban missile crisis, berlin wall circa 1963, and some others)\n\nWars don't have to be fought on the battlefield, and there is definitely a winner.  The west won that one because of their ideas of freedom and democracy (France dosn't count)\n\nAs for world war 4, we are in the midst of it now.  The enemy is different, and the fighting is different.  This is a war against that peaceful religion of Islam.  It is more dangerous than any other war because of the nature of the fighting.  These "holy warriers" are nothing but cowards willing to kill and maim innocent people (shooting children in the back as in chechnia, beheading those kidnapped in Iraq, "suicide bombings" killing whoever is nearby, and so forth)\n\nSo, world war 4 is on, and only We can win it.  We need to support our soldiers and sailors, and take the fight to the cowards who are attacking us.  Send them to those 72 virgins and let God sort them out.
587227
no!!!!!  Many nukes, and a new beginning, with slugs being the dominant species!!!  \nThe U.S. is making a lot of enemies...if WW3 ever kicked off, we'd be in the same shit as everyone else, because our poor leadership has made a mockery and an evil thing out of democracy!
757665
At any given time in history, there are numerous wars and conflicts going on. Currently there are 40+/- conflicts in the world. The only time the WORLD WAR status is attibuted to a war is when the superpowers square off on opposite sides in open declarations of war. We are far from that scenario, altho i agree the spark is there to ignite a larger conflagaration. But for now, just think regional conflicts, proxy wars, brinksmanship and disagreements between rump states.\n\nWhen the US, Russia and/or China square, then come back and we'll talk WW III. The history books haven't declared the Cold War as WWIII or the current war on terror as WWIV. You'll know when WWIII hits, that burst of EMP will be your first warning....\n\nThe start will most likely be the result of a launch on warning hair triggers of the aging Russian early warning system thinking that NATO or the US has launched against them....a computer foul up will have started WWIII.
578546
Albert is pretty much on target. President Putin has said that the collapse of Communism was the greatest tragedy of statemanship in the history of the world, and he is working overtime to create the foundation of a totalitarian state.\n\nAs for WWIII, well, there was a time that a WWII was totally unthinkable. Also, while we the world's last superpower continue to borrow and spend ourselves into Third World status, China and Europe are not just sitting by and watching. Yes, there will be a third world war. With any luck, we will all be long dead before either the first shot or the actual bill for our excess comes due!
440322
Was there a WW1? Did WW2 follow? Think about it
393049
Yes, and it will be the start of World War III
46123
We only call it World War 1 now, in retrospect.  If there had not been a World War 2, it would have made no sense to call an earlier war WW1.  Just think of video games, is there ever a game called "Something 1"?  No, because they can never be sure that there will be a second one.  We may call the first Sims "Sims 1" but only now, after Sims 2 has been released.  An exception to this is Kill Bill, in which the movie was originally intended to have multiple parts.\n\nSo WW1 was "The Great War" because it was supposed to be "The war to end all wars," they didn't think another one would ever happen.  But it did, as we know now.  \n\nOn a side note, some historians believe that the Napoleonic war was the true WW1, which would make what we call WW1 into WW2, and Hitler's war would be WW3, but really... it's just names.
143493
Yes, it is more then possible that World War III could be coming. It is not as close as you think. Muslims around the world are angry at the European Nations whos free press printed the caricatures. Many of those European Nation's have high muslim minority populations. Their Governments must decide between a free press or respect of Qu'ran law which states that Muhammad is never to be depicted. The Third World War will no doubt be religiously related with Russia and China on the side of the extreme muslims.
828077
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. \nAlbert Einstein (1879 - 1955) \n\nYou cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. \nAlbert Einstein (1879 - 1955)\n\nThe quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. \nGeorge Orwell (1903 - 1950)\n\nWar is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. \nJohn Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) \n\nWar is not its own end, except in some catastrophic slide into absolute damnation. It's peace that's wanted. Some better peace than the one you started with. \nLois McMaster Bujold\n\nIt is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it. \nRobert E. Lee (1807 - 1870)\n\nNever, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. \nSir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)
198392
I thing we are already into the World War-III which is going on slowly engulfing more and more people, more and more nation in to it. This is solwer than the other two in spark but much much more hazardous in effect.You count the death tolls, thousands of people are being killed worldwide every year and this figure is increasing every year.\nThis WW is not centralised or polarised but is decentralised and spread out having its presence in each and every nation on the globe. This war is using the worst weapon which not only kills Human but the Humanity as well. \nWe are Killing and We are Dying.....
1059584
NO IN NEAR FUTURE.\n PROBABLY COUPLE OF DECADES LATER.
14574
I think that we will have a military prescence in those two countries for many years to come.  Look at Germany and Japan. 60 years after the end of WWII and we still have forces in those two countries.