My Take on World War Five

Whispering Death

Whispering Death

Active member
We've gone through three world wars, two hot and one cold, and we are not in the midst of the fourth world war on terror.

But what will World War V look like? Here's my take.

I do not think the U.S. will play a major roll in WWV. I think that after the breakup of the soviet union there is still a good deal of the power pie that still no one occupies. At the same time there are a lot of new up and comming powers all growing more powerful. So I think the next world war will occur when two of these newer powers begin to bump into eachother on the power pie graph. Who are these up and comming powers all trying to match the US? China, Russia, India, and some sort of EU (maybe not in its current configuration).

Why do I not think America will be directly involved? America has not grown, in my opinion, into all the power that it could have. America, to me, apears to have struck a ballance between enough power to keep the world from screwing with it but without over extending itself like imperialist England for example. So if we envision power as a finite resource, America currently has as much as it wants but there is still power out there that no one yet owns. I envision the problem will be the fight for the #2 spot in world affairs and that will be akin to world war five.
 
World war 5 might be fought between giant enterprises. We see today how many companys grows and grows. They don't seem to have a limit to what they are spending on getting bigger.
I might paint a dark future here but I belive that in the future we will fight for BIG companys not countries.

Perhaps no bigscale wars but smaller conflicts over resources and even smaller conflicts in space if we start mining asteroids and so on.
War is money and power is money gone are those days when human rights was fought over.
No the future will belong to some very big companys that will prey on the small person.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
I wouldn't call the War on Terror World War Four.
Click to expand...
My sentiments exactly...unless predictions from gladius and Doc.S start materialising...
 
I don't remember his exact words but Eisenhower had a deep mistrust of the mega defense industries. He said that in no way must we let them grow to control government policy. Maybe someone can remember reading his words and elaborate. At the time, Howard Hughs had enough influence in government that he answered to no one. Even when he was brought before a committee in Congress to testify about shady deals to get contracts. I believe he owned Nixon and who knows how many others.
I have heard the movie "The Aviator" brings out a lot of facts about Hughs' control over defense budgeting and contract awards. I can hardly wait to see it.
 
This is what Eisenhower said in his farewell address to the nation:

"The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."


A complete transcript of the farewell address can be found here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
 
Only if through indifference and apathy we allow it to be so. I have no fear that will be the case.
 
rOk said:
the_13th_redneck said:
I wouldn't call the War on Terror World War Four.
Click to expand...
My sentiments exactly...unless predictions from gladius and Doc.S start materialising...
Click to expand...

Lol. **staring up my predict-o-matic machine**

We will have relative stability for next 10 to 20 years or so since GW Bush bought us some time, after that... watch out!

Barring any major cataclisym, the USA will be force for at least next 100 years (I'm am saying this based on an article I read on the life and death of empires and powers in which most of them showed the same pattern of accension and regresion). That's why it is important for the USA to remain centrered on the path it's been taking economicaly, moraly, and socialy (we have deviated from this in the past decades slightly to the left, now are heading back to center). The further we deviate from this path the faster the doward slide goes.

So yes the USA will be a major power and player in the next World War, whether it's number III, IV or V. But that's not to say there will be other players also in the future, some of the already established and up-and-coming, others may pop up within a short time sort of like Nazi Germany did prior to WW II.
 
:D rOk well you all know what I think and I am just following my instinct. I improvise, adept and overcome with my sixth sence that is called knowledge and gut feeling. Let´s hope I am wrong. ;)

"I feel a presence I havent feelt since....."

*Nods towards gladius* :lol:

Btw:
Nice to be remembered for something important and obvious, carry on lads.... :D

Cheers:
Doc.S
:viking:
 
I think that USA will stay in power but its philosophy of New World Order will create more troubles then achievements.

USA is trying its best to control Middle East Region by initiating the process of democratization there. But challenges will grew in the shape of China, North Korea and Iran (and its collaborators).

On the other hand Europeans will try to sort out there small-scale differences and focus on united principles rather then coming under influence of Russia or USA.

But developments in Middle East region will be given more attention. Now there are different perspectives of reaction of world on a particular event triggered by USA.

But any new World War will be a very tough challenge for USA due to it being already pitted in War on Terror. As war with any of the three nations that I pointed above will be destructive for both sides in current scenario.
 
Whispering Death wrote:
But you guys don't think that a WW1-esque situation could arise between Russia, China, and India as they all become more powerfull?
Click to expand...

The eurasian chessboard is as elusive as the ancient prophecys if you ask me. You name major geostrategic players of the eurasian chessboard and as always, Russia is a big bear, as always they are very elusive to predict. China is a rather sealed country and cheers some of the Russian mystical movements. India is in my opinion a very unpredictable player, too unpredictable to make my sleep any better. But these are all questions for the future, let´s say 10-15 years *hip-shot* World war five may be triggerd by something simular to the WW1 scenario.

But it wont be kings or royaltys this time. But hey - Most recent event may be Libanon last week. - Peace today is very fragile to be honest. I am more for an outburts of civil war between different ppl in different countrys in europe. The Netherlands was an example of what kind of feelings that are supressed in this European Union. The outside, in the corridors of power, and the leftwing supporters may look nice, beneath this surface the reality is moving forward. Mass unemployment, bad (Un-humane) to optimistic integration policys and a growing dissatisfied mob of citizens that may turn against local politician to start with and then go further.

It is all in the newspapers and in the regular news if you read about the market and the big companys moving out from European countrys in favour for the cheaper eurasian development countries. When a big company gives notice about a thousend job`s there and a few hundred new unemployed ppl here, this ppl may stay calm for a while but they will soon be joined by more ppl that may have a work to go to today. This mob will strike back sooner or later, in one way or another. *hip-shot* for this events + < 5-12 years > -

Cheers:
Doc.S
:viking:
 
World War I and II were World Wars. Just look at the intensity and the level of horror on every side of that conflict.
The War on Terror might be world wide, but compared to that sort of stuff it is way, way too light. It's about as misleading as the name of the Hundred Years' war.
Also the Cold War as World War III is a huge stretch in itself. It was fought with two major wars, Korea and Vietnam, and also a bunch of smaller wars. But that was no World War. Just compare it to the scale of World War II and I.
You know what I mean about the difference?
 
the_13th_redneck said:
World War I and II were World Wars. Just look at the intensity and the level of horror on every side of that conflict.
The War on Terror might be world wide, but compared to that sort of stuff it is way, way too light. It's about as misleading as the name of the Hundred Years' war.
Also the Cold War as World War III is a huge stretch in itself. It was fought with two major wars, Korea and Vietnam, and also a bunch of smaller wars. But that was no World War. Just compare it to the scale of World War II and I.
You know what I mean about the difference?
Click to expand...

NOT THE POINT OF THE THREAD!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top