A lot of people are saying a world War Three s going to happen. What do you guys think about this? Will there truly be a world War Three?

>>1 I am guessing you are new around here,

What you have posted is not news, only make new news threads for stuff that "actually makes the news" also has to have a link to a news article to prove it happend.

If you want to talk about this topic we do have rumours thread in the news board we also have 2 other rumour threads in the personal and the random board.

/sage

It could be possible due to Donald Trump becoming president and the racist/facist/sexist claims he makes from time to time. The wall idea he proposed was the first reason that he was hated. He had bombed a country but by rumour he didnt even remember what country at the time (of course the media knew) and theres a lot of countries that refused to agree with Trumps leadership. There is a possiblity of WW3 from Americas president alone.

>>3
Lemme guess, you're a liberal American?
The ones hwo hate Trump the most are Americans. The rest of the world doesn't actually care since the US have been meddling with private matters here and there since centuries ago, so even if they do hate the US, it's a general hatred. What makes you think Trump is so special in an international context?

>>4
Actually, a lot of people have signed a petition for Trump to be banned from England.
Thanks to Trump's travel ban, a country's(i dont remember which) leader has banned American's from coming into his country.
It seems that North Korea has quickened their nuclear missile creation (though that probably would have happened anyways even if Obama was still pres.)
Justin Trudeau probably doesnt like Trump much for the decisions that he has made (but this is most likely me thinking for him.)
A lot of people from different countries don't like Trump much (as I know from many people I have met on the internet)

>>5
Doesn't that actually represent dislike for the US as a whole rather than a specific individual? (aside from the petition. Remember what happened to Justin Bieber?)
It's not like Trump is solely responsible for those travel bans (the list has existed since Obama era, if I recall. Trump just acted on it)
Besides, the ones who decide wars will be the country leaders, not plebeians.

Furthermore, it's unlikely that Western countries would go picking a fight with the US no matter how foul-mouthed the president is. As for Eastern countries, sexism and racism are basically the norms, so if they did hate Trump, it would be from his foreign policies (again, US as a whole since the congress and military would undoubtedly be involved. How much authority does the president have anyway?).

Also don't forget to sage

As far as WW3 goes I would say that the chance of it happening are highly unlikely. Well the mentioned earlier travel bans had to do with world wide outrage the issue of war is different. War if it is to come will most likely be started not because our president is being "mean" if it is to start it will be due to one of the de-facto god king dictators like Korea has. As a member of the military I can say with confidence that it's not an issue around the corner ignore what mainstream media says they just want ratings which come easier through panic. Back on the travel bans though some food for thought : If i have a jar with 100 jellybeans and 3 are laced with poison strong enough to kill you would you stick you hand in? Its better off not eating the jellybeans no matter how great they are.

Well i'm kind of war loving guy so ww3 is kind of dream coming true for me. Actually i like to be a civilian who trapped in a rain of bullets.

Hey there my other buddy(I had this name before you by the way so no confusion). And my class had been saying that Trump is goin to start a war. Well I don't want that to happen or else it will ruin my perfect life and if it does i'll go to Trump and assassinate him right when I see him. Otherwise PEACE!!

My thoughts on it is that Trump's bold and open statements will cause a lot of trouble with other countries higher ups.

I'm quite scared for WW3 but then again I'm not since I wanna see some action. If there truly was a WW3 I'd probably hide somewhere to look at what's happening and try not to get caught.

It is very unlikely that a World War 3 would happen anytime soon. Since the fall of the collapse of the superpower the USSR many things have calmed down, nonetheless, it opened doors for other problems such as terrorism. Which in my opinion you should fear more than the chances of World War 3 occurring. Recent leaders such as Donald Trump as suggested by TxYX may cause trouble but the chances of World War 3 occurring are none.

Im in Canada :) x d

Okay, first off, WW3 would most likely never get to the level of infantry warfare what with the drones and nukes and air power currently rendering most infantry into glorified "sir down and stay still" devices that can somewhat conveniently hold a building or two.

So, opinions aside, most of us would probably be fairly well off until nukes start dropping/being fired.

And at that rate it doesn't truly matter.
Short of being a South African or a Brazilian or some other country that probably wouldn't be involved or border on a country likely to Ben involved you're probably gonna be irradiated if you don't die in the initial blasts.

In short, you'll either die quickly or you'll be fine but there really won't be an in between.
Now WW4? That's gonna suck. Infantry will probably get the brunt of the horrors in that case.

>>14
WW4 is between cats and dogs.
Cats will win, btw.

>>15
Dogs are larger, stronger, smarter, and more motivated.
Cat's will try to put up a fight, then summarily fail when none of them can come up with a plan they an agree on and they all die of infighting.

>>16
You sad, delusional fool.
dogs, need ai say more? 80% of the species need to be put on a leash to stop them from pouncing on moving cars. They bark at inanimate objects expecting a reply, and wag their tails at their human masters because they're happy being slaves.
Intelligent. Sure.

>>17
Has a cat ever done anything beyond lay about and hold down the furniture?
The single most active thing they do is hunt, and very few of them do that nowadays.

Dogs are frequently used for hunting.
They also are trained for bomb disposal, medical use, and for helping soldiers in the field fight enemies.

They've already been to war.
They're smart (the fact that there are dog training competitions where little to no interaction with their handlers Is proof)

Cats have not and will never be to war.
They will fail as previously stated.
Inability to fight coupled with infighting.

>>18
Bomb disposal? Medical use? Helping soldiers? SERVING HUMANS?
Yeah, nope. Napping is the pinnacle of life.
Dogs can't operate without someone barking orders at them anyway.
Felines will just charm their human slaves to do their bidding. A blink here and a purr there, snd the cat people (way smarter than dog people, ofc) will simply decimate the entire canine population.

I've had both dogs and cats.

Seriously man.
WW4 isn't gonna last long between pissy door stops and intelligent species that have been dried and taught to fight alongside us for hundreds of thousands of generations.

And napping is inferior to working.
A nap without being worn out from working is depressing.
Therefore work, creating a satisfying nap, is therefore superior as it is how a good nap is attained.

It's like saying chicken is superior to eggs as you can have both if you have chickens.

>>19 In fact the USA did try to make cat guided missile/bombs in WW2, but the cats keep passing out when dropped from the planes with the missile/bomb, the idea was that cats don't like water so they would direct/guide them self to a boat thus blowing it up.

>>21
Kek.
We tried the same thing with pigeons and it actually worked.
Pigeons are more useful than cats I guess.

No, Media grossly overestimates the power of of North Korea.
Russia's on the verge of civil war thanks to corrupt officials.
Britain's to busy with brexit, along with most of Europe.
Africa and S.America still mostly class as LEDC's.
Australasia's to close to Britain for any collapse there.
The Middle East is still recovering from many issues that i don't care to point out for obvious reasons.
So that leaves N. America and Asia, I personally believe Donald will be thrown from office if he does anything too ludicrous and Asia isn't a worry for me as it's the last in the competition.

Hi hi :3
Eziopandas915 I agree And thanks for the real info xD

>>23
Even China is getting annoyed by our favorite man child dicktator (emphasis on dick) as evidenced by http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/rex-tillerson-north-korea-china/index.html

China is the only real threat if NK is invaded.
NK, as previously stated, has outdated equipment equipment and tactics and even if those weren't a problem for them, the fact that the war could be fought mostly by handing out guns and food to the locals would be.

Which leaves the highly annoyed big brother, China.
A world war and another Korean War are two very very different things.

>>25
Well let's hope that NK doesn't get invaded, it would be an utterly stupid move on Americas part.

>>26
Why?
If China steps aside (which, given lil Kim's recent BS with the missile test they warned them not to do) which is very likely, nobody likes them except people we're already fighting (various radical ultra-right/left/up/down/religious/atheistic groups) nobody gives a shit about an evil dicator who starves his people and executes people with AA batteries.

And as stated before (maybe not on this board?), an invasion of NK would have more food supply trucks and transport planes than actual people.

I assume that outside of some groups attempting to take power after lil Kim is quickly deposed it would be relatively blood free.

The main problem would be SK and NKs question of wether they reunite or not and what the ramifications of that would be.

You get America involved and and it won't be a low bloodshed war. As most are under the presumption that NK is a serious threat, I personally believe that the war between the two nations will be dragged on so the populous is happy as well as a previous comment pointed out that America needs war for its economy.

>>28
Ezio, while a war economy would be good, a war economy is only a war economy if it forces us to innovate, manufacture at ridiculous levels, and in general causes fear and thus a need to work out asses off.

That works with things like, say, the spread of communism, radical terrorists who will blow up your homes (maybe a little less so) and Nazis banging down the doors of everyone on the other side of the Atlantic and probably you too soon.

a small population of shoddily brainwashed people who are near starving BUT have also demonstrated they are no real threat to anyone outside of their immediate borders will not create the economy we need as it stands now.
They would have to start a Guerilla war and perform acts of terrorism on US soil to generate that sort of response, even with all the fear mongering from the media outlets.
NK is far from the NK you see in the likes of Red Dawn and Homefront.
And best of all?
They're run by a petulant man child.
I'd be interested to see how many revolutions were attempted that were wiped from history because of lack of support in NK.

>>29
North Korea's economy is reportedly getting better (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/rex-tillerson-north-korea-china/index.html) and if the nation does become economically independent then they might be able to build a formidable army but that's going to be a good few decades and by then the landscape both economically and politically will be much different, maybe better, maybe worse.

>>30
Hence the coal embargo being a huge problem for them.
Them being completely worthless as a threat was pretty much the entire point of my posts.

A second Korean War, short of some ridiculous off the walls comic book logic would not result in WW3

>>31
I utterly agree that NK isn't a threat at this point in time.

It is more possible that a war with Russia will begin than North Korea, they just don't have the kind of materials for a World War

So you guys think there will be a world war 3? It doesn't matter who just do you guys think there will? Yes or no.

I don't think World War 3 will happen now, it's just a bunch of false hatred or whatever, it'll all end soon enough.

>>11 My other half really does exist. Anyways I am collecting proof to see if it really is goin to start. and you can find that there's a little fight goin on with Korea And Trump.

>>36 They r tryina prove whos got power by talking about chemical weapons and shit. This is just a stupid game played by kids that still fight about whos dick is bigger. Foolish.

>>36
>>37
>>35
>>34
You and everybody else saying there will/won't be a WW3.
It's not a cut and dried question of yes or no.
You see, there WILL be a WW3.
But.
It's not gonna be any time soon; nukes made damn sure of that.
As a result of everyone being in a low boiling perpetual Mexican standoff where nobody with nukes wants to launch one for fear of retaliation, nobody will actually directly enter into a shooting war against a country that has a nuclear arsenal.
Simple logic.
Now, this does not rule out proxy wars, and having said that, who says that we haven't been fighting WW3 for the past 75 or more years if you use that metric?
The commies are gaining traction?
WHOOPS, TIME FOR SOME FREEDOM!
Not that that's a bad thing really.
But moving on.
If you don't like the proxy war metric, but still find the shooting war metric to be dated, consider this.
A world war is defined as a war which has at least one belligerent on every continent including Australia but excluding the polar caps.
It would be possible to have another world war not involving the US or Russia or China at all.
For a moment let's just say that we had Australia, Canada, Monaco, Namibia, India, and Venezuela fighting eachother (I'm not forgetting a continent am I?)
That would technically constitute a world war.
Off the top of my head I don't remember if Australia has nukes (though I vaguely remember some shit about the US essentially offering rent-a-nuke programs to its allies) but this would result in a mostly conventional war, like we're used to seeing.

Now, I doubt it would stay that way for long.
But the gist of my post is that no, no WW3 scenario like most of you are thinking will happen thanks to the wonderful art of nuclear warfare and those who have nukes being absolutely shit-in-pants-mommy-wanting-blanket-hiding-too-young-to-die scared of nuclear warfare (and for good reason) and also understanding that just about any concievable armed conflict between two nuclear capable countries can and will end in a nuclear exchange.

Whew.
That was a long post.
Now, for those of you who actually tromped through that post, enjoy this little hypothetical scenario.
The Fulda Gap.
1980.
Just how damn odd do you think the entire thing would feel should something go hot?

I hope a world war 3 doesn't happen. Trump has no idea on how to run a country. look what is happening right now with everything around him. It's falling apart.

Well shit. North Korea's doing some weird stuff, but I don't think it would escalate to a war. But it's not just North Korea, were also at war with other countries so... IDK
Tchau

-KadokaShini