Will World War III be in Space?
491959
It wouldn't be a world war then, would it.
268556
no....\n\nit wont need fuel..... it is moving in the space only through the gravitional force...
269905
Of course not! Science is constantly weighing morality against the need for knowledge. Einstein once said of the development of nuclear weapons... "I do not know what weapons will be used in World War III, but I do know what weapons will be used in World War IV... STICKS and STONES!"\n\nMankind has made tremendous gains through science, But this blessing comes with a tremendous burden of responsibility.
1138930
There will not be a WW3 as the defintion of WW1 and 2 is that they were the 1st and second World Wars in the 20th Century, we are now in the 21st Century!  I don't think anything like that will happen again, the stakes are too high now with nuclear weapons.  If it did happen there would not be the same community survival spirit due to the selfishness of modern society.  I however wish we still had the grit and determination along with community spirit wichi existed during both World Wars.\n\nTo answer the question, if there were another big War like WW2 I would do what I could to survive and support my countrys efforts (unless we are the bad ones in which case to hell with survival, I'd be in the resistance!).
1139560
The next big one will start with nukes going off at the same time in Tel Aviv, NY, DC, and London. \n\nThat will be from Iran's Hamas, next will be freighters in all of the US shipping ports having nukes in lead shielded boxes in the fuel oil tanks of merchant ships. \n\nThat will effectively take the US completely out of it in the first 30mins of WW3 \n\nNow after that North Korea will take South Korea and China will take Japan and as much of Russia as possible. \n\nEurope will wisely sue for peace with China as the new World Super power. After things calm down a bit negotiations between the EU and China will take place. The former US will be divided up between the two based upon the premise that France will not nuke what is left. \n\nDuring these negotiations the EU and China will also plan a lightning take over of the middle east which will also be divided up between the two powers. \n\nWhen all is said and done there will be peace and technological progress unheard of before.
127231
I ceratinly hope so. It would mean so much to space exploration if private companies dared to venture into space. Branson have already sold alot of tickets but if anything goes wrong and somebody dies it would be the end of Virgin Galactic. And possibly Virgin and Richard Branson.
1030257
it's highly possible\nWith the presence of US and Israel there, i think the beginning of third world war will be seen soon.\nBush's politics of invasion in Iraq, Afghan reminds us to what Hitler did in the beginning of WW II\nUS-and the past Nazi germany- invaded other countries, occupied it, tried to find reason for their illegal action, and could not be stopped by world peacekeeper organization (UN now and League of Nation in 1930s)\nAnd of course, the ownership of nuclear arsenals by israel makes the situation more complicated. Israel can intervene other country by help of their deadly warheads, where no other powers in the middle east has the same weapon (in east asia, two nuclear power are in balance, so no one can intervene other)
126942
Not anytime soon, no. First, we have to send people back to the moon and then do manned missions to Mars before we can go that far into the solar system!
304349
Yes there will be a world war.The basis for starting the war are being laid by USA everyday.This country needs energy and hence it wants to control the source of energy i.e. oil .Most of the oil is in Middle East. The war will start over a cause which will not any basis as it happened in case of Iraq.The origin will be from Middle East and USA.IT will certainly happen during the tenure of Pres Bush.
750152
Neither, the only scenario or definition of a nuclear war and/or WW3 is when the superpowers are squared off into two camps.  The only thing on the radar now is regional conflicts, proxy wars, sabre rattling and brinksmanship.  \n\nWhen the US vs Russia and/or China in OPEN declarations of war, then come back and we'll talk WW3.  A nuclear war with tactical nukes make be in the cards, however, but it won't be global suicide if they're put to limited use at the Natanz hardened facility in Iran or to a response from a NorKor invasion.
1097048
The Outer Space Treaty, as it is known, was the second of the so-called "nonarmament" treaties; its concepts and some of its provisions were modeled on its predecessor, the Antarctic Treaty. Like that Treaty it sought to prevent "a new form of colonial competition" and the possible damage that self-seeking exploitation might cause. \n\nIn early 1957, even before the launching of Sputnik in October, developments in rocketry led the United States to propose international verification of the testing of space objects. The development of an inspection system for outer space was part of a Western proposal for partial disarmament put forward in August 1957. The Soviet Union, however, which was in the midst of testing its first ICBM and was about to orbit its first Earth satellite, did not accept these proposals. \n\nBetween 1959 and 1962 the Western powers made a series of proposals to bar the use of outer space for military purposes. Their successive plans for general and complete disarmament included provisions to ban the orbiting and stationing in outer space of weapons of mass destruction. Addressing the General Assembly on September 22, 1960, President Eisenhower proposed that the principles of the Antarctic Treaty be applied to outer space and celestial bodies. \n\nSoviet plans for general and complete disarmament between 1960 and 1962 included provisions for ensuring the peaceful use of outer space. The Soviet Union, however, would not separate outer space from other disarmament issues, nor would it agree to restrict outer space to peaceful uses unless U.S. foreign bases at which short-range and medium-range missiles were stationed were eliminated also. \n\nThe Western powers declined to accept the Soviet approach; the linkage, they held, would upset the military balance and weaken the security of the West. \n\nAfter the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Soviet Unions position changed. It ceased to link an agreement on outer space with the question of foreign bases. On September 19, 1963, Foreign Minister Gromyko told the General Assembly that the Soviet Union wished to conclude an agreement banning the orbiting of objects carrying nuclear weapons. Ambassador Stevenson stated that the United States had no intention of orbiting weapons of mass destruction, installing them on celestial bodies or stationing them in outer space. The General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on October 17, 1963, welcoming the Soviet and U.S. statements and calling upon all states to refrain from introducing weapons of mass destruction into outer space. \n\nThe United States supported the resolution, despite the absence of any provisions for verification; the capabilities of its space-tracking systems, it was estimated, were adequate for detecting launchings and devices in orbit. \n\nSeeking to sustain the momentum for arms control agreements, the United States in 1965 and 1966 pressed for a Treaty that would give further substance to the U.N. resolution. \n\nOn June 16, 1966, both the United States and the Soviet Union submitted draft treaties. The U.S. draft dealt only with celestial bodies; the Soviet draft covered the whole outer space environment. The United States accepted the Soviet position on the scope of the Treaty, and by September agreement had been reached in discussions at Geneva on most Treaty provisions. Differences on the few remaining issues -- chiefly involving access to facilities on celestial bodies, reporting on space activities, and the use of military equipment and personnel in space exploration -- were satisfactorily resolved in private consultations during the General Assembly session by December. \n\nOn the 19th of that month the General Assembly approved by acclamation a resolution commending the Treaty. It was opened for signature at Washington, London, and Moscow on January 27, 1967. On April 25 the Senate gave unanimous consent to its ratification, and the Treaty entered into force
462500
To the first poster, last time I checked Worldspace's financials were rather ugly.\n\nNow, to answer the question.  Yes, both will survive so long as they continue to spend their money wisely and continue to advance their technology.
433163
I have news for ya...we're currently in WW III!  It's most countries against a huge ruthless organization that is willing to die for their cause.  Anyone that doesn't realize we're currently in WW III lives in utopia.
713819
Star Wars III - that battle in space
319522
The tactical nukes are under the 50 kiloton ranges, some as low as .3 kilotons, used for fighting advancing armies, or small targets.  \n\nThe strategic nukes, however, will takeout whole cities and cause widespread contamination, in the 100-500 kiloton range. They've built higher kilotons, but supposedly, they've been stockpiled or disassembled.  One or two strategic nuclear detonations, or even 50 would not cause world-wide contamination, its when you get into a full nuclear exchange, between the US and Russia with 1,000s of nukes going off, is when life would be 'unlivable.'\n\nThe W.H.O. predicted in 1982 that "1.1 billion people would be killed outright in such a nuclear war, mainly in the United States, the Soviet Union, Europe, China and Japan. An additional 1.1 billion people would suffer serious injures and radiation sickness, for which medical help would be unavailable. It thus seems possible that more than 2 billion people-almost half of all the humans on Earth-would be destroyed in the immediate aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. ... would probably be enough to reduce at least the Northern Hemisphere to a state of prolonged agony and barbarism." \n\nCarl Sagan made a case that "a war in which a mere 100 megatons were exploded, less than one percent of the world arsenals, and only in low-yield airbursts over cities. ....would ignite thousands of fires, and the smoke from these fires alone would be enough to generate an epoch of cold and dark almost as severe as in the 5000 megaton case. The threshold for ...The Nuclear Winter is very low."
1032925
At this point, no one "owns" those spots.  Space is currently  governed by several UN treaties, although not all countries have signed the treaties.  The treaties list general ideas about usage, but specific laws regarding that usage are generally left up to the individual countires.\n\nTypically, law evolves where there's a need for it.  Since competition for locations in space or on the various solar system bodies (other than earth orbits) hasn't been a big issue, there's little law other than the treaties that govern what happens in space.  \n\nWhat's probably more important than any UN treaties today is the standard practice that space-going countries follow.  In this respect, it's more about a country's ability to physically enforce any particular activities.
171316
I think there will be a WWIII