What do you think?
#1
Posted 25 October 2007 - 09:01 PM
What do you think?
#2
Posted 25 October 2007 - 09:25 PM
World War 3 had it's opportunity, and it was called the Cold War. While some people will suggest that we may be shifting towards Cold War v2, I doubt it will happen. History has shown us, that as civilizations move forward in advancement, war and violence decline. In that sense, it's the basis for my decision.
I won't admit that I know for certain WW3 isn't coming but if I were forced to bet, I'd say it's about 25/75 at this moment. One other thing to add, just because WW3 might not be coming anytime soon, it does not mean that wars will not happen. War will likely happen for a while longer since there is still such a massive cultural conflict amongst humans in the present.
I'm no expert, just my 2 cents
#3
Posted 25 October 2007 - 11:26 PM
If so, i think this cold war could be between the USA and China, or between the USA and the EU, although the second possiblity is narrow.
sponsored ad
#4
Posted 26 October 2007 - 01:15 AM
The US administration seems to be doing all they can to ensure that biblical prophecies about the middle east come to fruition.
#5
Posted 26 October 2007 - 02:56 AM
#6
Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:15 AM
#8
Posted 26 October 2007 - 06:11 AM
#9
Posted 26 October 2007 - 06:44 AM
same with USA and Russia. The main problem nowadays seems to be Islamo-fascists (the ones that want to kill all the infidels), but I don't think that will ever rise to the level of a world war.I don't think there will ever be war between the EU and USA or even China and USA, their economies are too dependent on each other.
#10
Posted 26 October 2007 - 01:01 PM
Or maybe America will bomb Iran and things will inadvertently escalate out of control.
#11
Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:06 PM
#12
Posted 26 October 2007 - 04:02 PM
Umm what's the difference between world war and cold war?
World War is a massive collection of battles/wars in different theaters with alliances. For example, WW2 involved many allied countries (UK, Canada, Australia, US, etc..) trying to stop the axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia...well for the first half). The war happened in almost all areas of Europe, northern Africa, and the Pacific.
To contrast, the cold war between the US and the former Soviety Union dragged on some 40 years, and although there was a constant risk of nuclear attack, no one ever attacked anyone, thus spawned the term 'cold' war since nothing significant was happening, although the outcome of any action could have been much more devastating than the results of WW2.
We could be heading towards another cold war, but as it is, the only two countries that have significant nuclear arsenals are the US and Russia. If Pakistan or Iran were to get a hold of a nuclear weapon system and use it on an innocent state or an allied state, that could be a bad thing. However, I guess reasonably speaking, the US could just turn the perpetrating country into a crater in a fairly short amount of time if need be (although I would not endorse it in any capacity).
The thought of nuclear war is very frightening, especially when people have coined phrases such as 'nuclear holocaust', if you're unaware of the implications of nuclear warfare, read up on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings after Japan attacked the US` Pearl Harbor.
#13
Posted 26 October 2007 - 04:22 PM
Thats very disturbing!
#14
Posted 26 October 2007 - 04:58 PM
Lets not forget that he's also agitating Russia with his new missile defense shield in Poland and the Chezk Republic.Looks like George W. Mad Bush is trying to provoke a war with iran before he has to leave the white house.
Thats very disturbing!
#15
Posted 26 October 2007 - 07:54 PM
I answered no.
#16
Posted 26 October 2007 - 08:07 PM
#17
Posted 27 October 2007 - 02:10 AM
#18
Posted 27 October 2007 - 03:38 PM
#19
Posted 27 October 2007 - 07:01 PM
As talked about by Steven Pinker in this Ted Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/163The world is getting less violent. We are more aware of violence now via communication tech and what the public will morally accept is outpacing the decline in those unaccepted activities. These are some of the reasons why our perception of violence occurrence is the opposite to the reality.
I answered no.
I totally agree, Chris.
#20
Posted 31 October 2007 - 01:55 AM
#21
Posted 12 November 2007 - 04:14 AM
Arthur Koestler's Janus suggested that the impact of nuclear technology was so profound on the peoples of the world, that it really demanded a reseting of our clocks to 0000 for the year in which the bomb came on the scene. This was in 1978, but nevertheless.
Koestler is a true original, and a thinker who makes a real effort to integrate many different worlds of experience. In this work he is obsessed with the turning point event which is the use of nuclear weapons. As he understands it Mankind lived throughout its history with threats to individual life, but nuclear weapons have brought a new kind of collective threat, a threat that Mankind will completely destroy itself.
Koestler's concern here connects with his perception of Mankind as a kind of defective product of Evolution. He especially focuses on the conflict between our reptilian brain , our lower mammal brain and the brain of reason our neocortex. He too sees the human propensity for violent conflict as something which relates to our being controlled by the emotional lower brain. But he too singles out our propensity for 'loyalty' for collective bonding as source of violence. And his claim is that the kind of individual criminal act people often focus on when talking about the defects of Mankind, is secondary to the evils we do out of loyalty to the Collective.
Koestler in analyzing the human situation also makes an effort to supply an overall theory of the organization of reality. He speaks of a heirarchal principle in which things are organized in all realms in two directions. The Janus- like character of reality is that each thing is organized as independent and autonomous on one level, and as a part of a higher whole on another. This dual aspect character in which the ' wholes' or as he calls them 'holons ' are greater than the parts he seems as integrating all realms of experience.
Koestler writes a chapter on Humor and on the Act of Creation. He sees humor as operating by what he calls 'biassociation' which involves bringing two different frameworks into connection. He provides many examples. But I do not feel myself capable of adequately assessing his theories here , though I do have a basic feeling that ' comprehensive and all - inclusive explanations' cannot really cover the various kinds of creative activity there are.
This is an ambitious, challenging work. I must admit his pessimistic evaluation of human character and nature set me back a bit. The horrifying possibility that Disaster is the Ultimate end of us all does not warm the heart.
Again I do not feel I can properly evaluate Koestler's theories but I do appreciate his capacity to arouse interest and curiosity.
A truly outstanding work.
#22
Posted 12 November 2007 - 08:24 AM
Anyway, perhaps the Lifeboat Foundation has enough geekiness to catalyze real anti-war strategies (as opposed to the obviously unsuccessful hippie efforts, and I'm saying that as a hippie.) A conference devoted to this exact sort of idea would be a great idea. It would also make the hopelessly ineffectual American anti-war movement wake up to transhumanist memes...
#23
Posted 12 November 2007 - 08:36 AM
I think it will start begining as soon as Turkey will be part of the European union. That will enable the Muslims to travel free in Europe, because they have easy access to Turkey, and they will start taking over Europe from the inside, and when Europe will finally realize the mistake, it will be way too late, and there will start a war in within Europe, which will lead to some sorta sick war of no where to go to but Australia - New-Zealand...
It's up to Europe basically.
-Infernity
#24
Posted 12 November 2007 - 08:43 AM
#25
Posted 12 November 2007 - 08:43 AM
In terms of actual actions, I've always wondered why cancer research activists don't do civil disobedience, and why they don't link up with anti-war activists under the above mentioned "sane world agenda". (And forget about anti-aging activists in this context- we would join in later, we haven't yet convinced the world at large of our moral force- people marching for funding for breast cancer research don't have to argue with people whether breast cancer should be cured...)
#26
Posted 12 November 2007 - 09:21 AM
No, Infernity, it's up to you.
When was I crowned, Queen of the World?
*Thank you, thank you* [lol]
-Infy
#27
Posted 12 November 2007 - 09:23 AM
I think this is a good step towards further world peace: http://www.glin.gov/search.action
How so? I'm a bit confused... Are you saying the existence of this database is a good step toward further world peace because we can use it to understand how the rule of law applies in different ways in different places and thereby see if we can figure out how to use rule of law as an instrument for global peace?
#28
Posted 12 November 2007 - 09:46 AM
No, Infernity, it's up to you.
When was I crowned, Queen of the World?
*Thank you, thank you* [lol]
-Infy
I'll vote for you!
But you know what I meant, I think... simply that you can do pretty much anything you set your mind to do. You are more intelligent than "Europe".
The world will be saved by individuals.
#29
Posted 12 November 2007 - 09:52 AM
When I was a little kid Orson Welles made me believe that WWIII would start in 1999 and last 27 years.
That's probably way too obscure a reference... I was talking about this movie, which seriously affected my psyche when I saw it at the age of seven. Luckily, I discovered The Skeptical Inquirer well before hitting adulthood.
sponsored ad
#30
Posted 14 November 2007 - 12:47 PM
No, Infernity, it's up to you.
When was I crowned, Queen of the World?
*Thank you, thank you* [lol]
-Infy
I'll vote for you!
But you know what I meant, I think... simply that you can do pretty much anything you set your mind to do. You are more intelligent than "Europe".
The world will be saved by individuals.
Individual intellectuals by the time of great Soviet Union were kicked out of power positions by Stalin because they supported Trotsky, and if they had any extreme power, they were murdered too.
-Infernity
P.S. thank you
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: money as debt, world war
Round Table Discussion →
Humanities →
Society & Politics →
U.S Military Power and Significance 2015Started by Area-1255 , 28 Dec 2014 us military, 2015 power and 8 more... |
|
|
26 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 26 guests, 0 anonymous users