But as long as USA does not want WW3, there will then be no WW3. Without USA taking part in, you cannot call it WW. And I believe USA is completely capable to stop any WW3 "possibility", it all depends how you manage the hot issues in this world.

The United States is already at war. Nevertheless, the United States is threatened by Terrorist Organizations and had no choice but to wage a War Against Terrorism. (Please note that I did not intend to include Iraq in the "War against Terrorism" since it is highly debated)

Kane, I understand where you are coming from with Iraq, but whether or not it was before it is now. WWIII will not be fought between nations, so you will not see battles over open plains or on beaches. The battlefields of today are within our own cities, even though there will be no mass bombings but major battles will take place within our homes. I beg to differ that WWIII would make a good movie, I actually think that Black Hawk Down was deeper, more moving, and just better than Saving Private Ryan. WWIII is going to be a lot like Black Hawk Down, and you remember the carnage in Mogadishu, Somalia. Imagine a movie about Fallujah in twenty or thirty years, I think it would make a stunning movie. Urban combat will be just as brutal and destructive as bombings, and I have a feeling that there could be millions dead worldwide before the end. So I would not be so bold as to think that Nukes would be the only way for WWIII to be close to as destructive as the first two. Urban Combat and terrorist bombings could be just as destructive without wiping out the earth like nukes would.

there is a war going on, but it is not a world war as such
its against a couple of nations and some radical extremists. you cannot truly fight terrorism, as it is based on a thought, and ideal, and longing. you cannot beat these people by fighting them, it will only strengthen thier resolve. prehaps the best way to combat them is to educate them and try and understand them more, and stop viewing things in black and white. you educate them and teach them about the people they are attacking, in an attempt to make them see that what they are doing is not the correct path of action. a war with these people, with bullets will never succede, all you will do is create martyrs and strengthen thier resolve and the belief that what they are fighting for is right

if another war goes on.... its best to hope not another stalingrad will happen, since ive known ho wbad that battle is in urban grounds and it is very exhausting on menpower

its best to hope not another stalingrad will happen

If the opossing force is deeply entrenched within the city and is willing to hold the city at all costs, plus have additional reinforcements and supplies, there will be another "Stalingrad".

since ive known ho wbad that battle is in urban grounds and it is very exhausting on menpower

Urban warefare requires a great deal of courage to walk step by step. And plus, a dark empty city swarmed with hostiles is even more scarier than the rural scene.

I agree with Kane's last remarks, and think that if there is to be a WW3 it will be fast and deadly since a lot of new technology is available to larger countries. The enemy will sweep across country to country faster with this new Tech. and will be even worse then WW2.

I agree major battles will not be fought, If anything WW3 would most likly be a battle with Chemical and Bio Weapons also since we have major technology nopw we can hit any building almost, So i refuse to say bombing will not be used in ww3.

Lupos, as far as the movie goes, BHD was really good, I should have taken that into account. I was thinking about stuff like "Navy Seals" with Charlie Sheen.
But back to the point. Terrorist attacks are rarely as destructive as bombing done by planes. 9/11 was a rare situation where the destruction was really cataclysmic and comparable to that of a military air strike. But the majority of terrorist attacks are relatively small and aimed at psychologically playing with your opponent. As an example the movie, The Seige starring Bruce Willis. That attacks weren't very destructive, but they targeted things that would terrorize the public. But then again, fear is just as damaging as taking down a building with a laser guided bomb.

Also who is to truly say what a terrorist is, basicly a terrorist can be anyone who goes up aginast what you believe. ou cannot realy define what a terrorist is. However that is true mostly what terrorist do is small bombings in large numbers.