I’ve been reading all the doom and gloom about the state of our armed forces and the cuts in their funding and it got me thinking if we would ever see another proper World War in our life time – say next 70 years.

Would it really just be nations wiping each other out with nuclear weapons or would it be dogfights and trenches?

No

another proper World War in our life time – say next 70 years.

How old are you ?

Life expectancy for men in the UK is 77 btw.

How old are you ?

It covered the spread of years for a portion of STW from the young uns up to the older ones.

So back on topic.

If its left to 7 year old brats then I reckon yes, they can be right evil feckers.

I would expect there to be a few localised wars that are fought over oil/water/food/land/population movements in the near future – not quite a world war, but big.

These days the superpowers fight them by proxy.

It’s unlikely it will be nuclear.

The arms industry frowns on nuclear weapons because it does not lead to repeat business. If A nukes B, then the industry can’t sell the new improved countermeasures to B because B doesn’t exist.

No war without profit, so look where it would be profitable and you find the next war.

Has there ever been a world war? Probably not, but because there were a couple that involved us, our conceit made us believe everybody else was either for us or against us.

I think it could be argued that the world is in the midst of world war 3. World war 3 being “THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR”

If you follow the computer game industry their games suggest it will be over resources, oil the main contender at the moment. However a few are suggesting (can’t remember which) that water might be the big one to fight over.

THe nuclear war is hoefully out of the question, or it would all be over very quickly. However could an unstable state such as Iran or N. Korea start of a global war by attacking a neighbour? Would China step in to protect N. Korea in the event of them getting trigger happy?

if you look at both world wars you should notice a big reduction in arms and men before the outbreak of both wars, this reduction is more than likely one of the catalysts for the aggression to begin,

that on itself is a worrying thought,

but the world has changed, one single trident sub hidden in the worlds seas should be enough to deter most intelligent countries from launching any kind of major aggressive action,

i hate to say it but China is the biggest threat imo, but i don’t think they will ever have to resort to military action, i think the biggest,most populace and soon to be the most able superpower will need to fire a single shot to conquer the world, trade will do that,

quick learn mandarin before it’s too late, were all domed !!!!!

be

Not sure that there will be a full on world war anytime soon but big and localised (if that makes sense). Just look at the tension being raised about Iran/North Korea/China etc.

I also think that the driver will not be oil/natural resources but information/intelligence. Just look at the mess surrounding the Stuxnet virus from a few weeks back. Already allegations that it was so advanced it must’ve been government sponsored… question is which government?

We probably won’t unless some sort of a moron becomes in charge of a major nuke power. Unlikely in the US, Russia won’t do it either. China? India? Brasil? Nope, can’t see it. A small country such as North Korea would be wiped out before it could blink, they know their idea of global communism would be gone forever with them so they won’t bite, they’ll keep barking instead.
A regular trench-type of a war is unlikely in Europe, Africa is different. So, a massive war – yes, a world war – no.

Probably not, but because there were a couple that involved us, our conceit made us believe everybody else was either for us or against us.

“The Great War” was mostly a European war with bits & bobs in the mediterranean, and a bit going off between Russia & Japan, but probably not a true “world war”, although with Canada, USA, New Zealand & Australia getting involved I suppose you could say it was a World War.

WWII most definitely was a world war, not a single continent other than Antarctica was uninvolved (OK South America was largely off the map, although there was the Battle Of The River Plate in 1939), with the main protagonists divided into two camps loosely allied with each other (in the case of Germany/Japan) or very firmly allied together (USA, Canada, the British Empire/Commonwealth etc – and the USSR, fighting a common enemy if not exactly side by side with the “Western Allies”)

But to answer the OP, probably not. Not in the sense of huge armies (and navies) meeting on a series of battlefields all over the world; use of nuclear weapons is probably also highly unlikely, the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has probably seen to that

Intelligence. Explain some more on this if you can. What are we talking about?

Has there ever been a world war? Probably not, but because there were a couple that involved us, our conceit made us believe everybody else was either for us or against us.

\

Eh? Where did you learn history? Much of the fighting in World War 1 was admittedly largely focussed on Europe but it killed at least 10 million folk and was precipitated by events on a global scale – the Ottoman empire alone covered three continents!

As for WWII, it touched pretty much every part of the planet in one form or the other and saw off about 60 odd million- how much more global can you get?

Or do neither of those count?

Can’t help it:

quick learn mandarin before it’s too late, were all domed !!!!!

is that like being “Owned”?

THE GLOBAL WAR ON OF TERROR

FTFY

Knowledge/intelligence is power, simples.

You can suggest that many wars have been started over commodities: WW1 – territory? Gulf War(s) -oil? The current commodity that is freely being used is information and intelligence but exploitation of that is a powerful thing to have and it wouldn’t surprise me to seen ations come to blows over the restriction and exploitation of intelligence and information in order to become the intelligence “superpower”.

The UK is setting itself up as cyber warfighting nation and others are doing exactly the same. That Stuxnet virus gained remote control over a couple of centrifuges at a nuclear facility with surprising subtlety and it makes me wonder what else will go the same way. Many warships/armed vehicles/planes have computers and software in them so are “at risk”. If you could cripple a military/economy/nation through software, would you need physical power to reinforce your point?

Certainly there will be a war over resources at some point

Might involve the odd nuke

Populations are too big to sustain, and someones gonna run out stuff (oil)

^ So in essence the next global war could be fought via computers rather than men on the frontline.

Very Tom Clancy-esque, but sounds quite probable.

Do countries protect their undersea fibre optic cables?

I doubt there will be a truly global war involving everyone, rather smaller ‘regime changing’ occupations.
I think any such conflicts will become more ‘unmanned’ as 24hr news & battlefield reporting makes war unpalletable to the general population, and polititions alike, especially coming up to elections.
Although there is a question mark over N. Korea and to some extent Iran.
I think Isreal may play a part in a big conflict as I doubt they will tolerate any neighbours becoming beligerant and powerful; Iran making the ‘wipe Isreal of the face of the map’ comment wasn’t helpful. If Isreal knew for sure that Iran has nuclear weapons under the current regime, then they may do something pre-emptively.
But we won’t see trench wars of attrition, rather cypber-wars and battles over resources.

Depends what you mean by world war. Niall Ferguson produces a good argument to considerer entire 20th century to be one long was of sorts. War of the World.

^ So in essence the next global war could be fought via computers rather than men on the frontline.

I guess the other point is that a whole bunch of computer programmers and some cables and satellites is probably cheaper than building and maintaining a military.

Who has the resources though..

When it gets really tight and we are down to the last pieces of oil and coal …

Before someone says – and this is just my opinion – I dont think eco technologies will evolve enough (not to sustain populations of this size) … because at the end of the day .. oil and coal can be sold.. there will always be a buyer.. humans are too greedy not to try and flog it all (or use it all)

It’ll be the superpowers vying for the resources or to protect what they have, and other countries disintegrating

Stuxnet Article – Interesting Reading

Thanks for that Stuxnet mention, that is quite interesting reading.

Do countries protect their undersea fibre optic cables?

Probably not as well as they should do – if you remember India was pretty badly impacted by a multiple cable cut a few years back, losing about 80% of voice capacity – caused I think by a ship dragging it’s anchor whilst riding out a storm.

Most of the newer networks are ring-based so there is built in redundancy, but even so, they are still open to a concerted attack – the cables need to be accessible in order to repair them, which unfortunately means that they are also vulnerable.

Quirrel – Member
Stuxnet Article – Interesting Reading

Thanks for that Stuxnet mention, that is quite interesting reading.
POSTED 25 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Doesn’t make Tom Clancy appear so far off I reckon…

Doesn’t make Tom Clancy appear so far off I reckon…

Nope and more importantly there doesn’t appear to be too many of the tin-foil-hats in that link either.

if you look at both world wars you should notice a big reduction in arms and men before the outbreak of both wars, this reduction is more than likely one of the catalysts for the aggression to begin

Yes that Hitler fella was an absolute brute in terms of his arms reduction 🙄 he introduced compulsory military service, created the air force and expanded the navy,
WW1 was precedded by an arms race that no one can actualy deny. Expansionism is a far better claim – mainly because it actually occured – Any claim of arms reduction is just untrue.

Back OT probably be some resources ars – oil would be my guess. Unlikely to be nucleur due to MAD – Mutually assured Destruction.