Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


World War III: Will it happen?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
27 replies to this topic

#1    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 25 February 2005 - 01:08 AM

Debate suggestion by Blue-Scorpion.

World War III has been a hot topic in recent years, with many people arguing that it is inevitable, and others saying that it could never happen.

I'm looking for 2 people to debate this issue in a 1 vs 1 formal debate. Each participant will post one introduction, five body posts and one conclusion.

Any questions, PM me.  thumbsup.gif

Edited by Lottie, 01 April 2005 - 03:15 PM.


#2    Walken

Walken

    Deus ex Machina

  • Banned
  • 10,249 posts
  • Joined:07 Dec 2004
  • Location:The Mothership

  • "I've done everything you wanted me to do; so why did you do this to me?!"

Posted 01 March 2005 - 08:53 PM

I will debate that it will happen. grin2.gif

Posted Image

Finish The Fight - November, 2007.


#3    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 01 March 2005 - 08:55 PM

Alrighty.

Walken will be debating that World War III will happen, and we are now looking for someone to debate that it will not happen.

Any questions, PM me. thumbsup.gif


#4    Lottie

Lottie

    The Nappy Ninja !!

  • Member
  • 7,516 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • "I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." - Noel Coward

Posted 08 March 2005 - 12:08 PM

Still looking for someone who believes that WWIII will NOT happen.  original.gif


#5    Lottie

Lottie

    The Nappy Ninja !!

  • Member
  • 7,516 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • "I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." - Noel Coward

Posted 17 March 2005 - 05:30 PM

...still looking for someone to oppose Walken.  original.gif  Someone, anyone?? grin2.gif


#6    sane-scotty

sane-scotty

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2005
  • Location:England

  • `the thing with million to one chances are, they pop up nine times out of ten`

Posted 18 March 2005 - 03:49 AM

QUOTE(Lottie @ Mar 17 2005, 05:30 PM)
...still looking for someone to oppose Walken.  original.gif  Someone, anyone?? grin2.gif

View Post




I will debate that WWIII  will NOT happen. it will be my first debate here  so please be patient and understanding with me if I inadvertantly break protocol

Scotty


#7    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 18 March 2005 - 03:59 AM

If you're looking for information on how the debates work, you can check out this thread which should answer all your questions. How the debates work.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to send me a PM.


So it now looks like we have our two participants, so I'll get this debate started!

Walken will be debating that WWIII will happen;
sane-scotty will be debating that it will not happen.

Again, each participant will post one introduction, five body posts and one conclusion. No flaming, and remember to state your sources.

Good luck!


#8    sane-scotty

sane-scotty

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2005
  • Location:England

  • `the thing with million to one chances are, they pop up nine times out of ten`

Posted 18 March 2005 - 05:13 AM

Thankyou Disinterested, I would politely like to invite Walken, as the senior member to make his introductory post first.


Scotty

Edited by sane-scotty, 18 March 2005 - 05:15 AM.


#9    Walken

Walken

    Deus ex Machina

  • Banned
  • 10,249 posts
  • Joined:07 Dec 2004
  • Location:The Mothership

  • "I've done everything you wanted me to do; so why did you do this to me?!"

Posted 23 March 2005 - 05:13 PM

Introduction

When we look back on history we see Wars and revoloutions not just as events, but as timelines, with major events leading towards them. We cannot possibly comprehend these until we are able to look back upon them and recognise the traits that went with them, such as the alliances of World war one, the trible entente and the Trible Alliance, or the League of Nations and the Manchurian Crisis. Though we do not realise it at the time, we stand upon a road with one inevitable end, conflict.

War starts mainly through economey troubles. When countries willingly trade with eachother, dureing periods of economic boost or standstill, in which countries grow wealthier togethor, a friendly international community emerges. However, when the economey takes a turn for the worse, almost certain to happen at least once a decade, countrys begin to put pressure on themselves and eachother, and eventually the flow of international trade is halted. Over time from that point onwards, tension will grow between nations, until finally war will emerge.

As certain that More ecconomically developed countries will have troubles with their economey, World War will happen again.

That concludes my introduction. Good Luck Scotty, this should be fun. And I also bid you a humble welcome to UM

Posted Image

Finish The Fight - November, 2007.


#10    sane-scotty

sane-scotty

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2005
  • Location:England

  • `the thing with million to one chances are, they pop up nine times out of ten`

Posted 26 March 2005 - 07:59 AM

Thankyou Walken for your kind words. I will try my upmost to make this debate as enjoyable as I can.

Ok, my introduction.

World War Three. These three simple words conjure up powerful images in our minds. Armageddon, the end of civilisation, the end of the reign of man on this world. And so it should. In a nuclear war nothing, no-one would survive. The world would be desolate, a dead, barren planet devoid of life. But what about a non nuclear global conflict I hear you ask? A massive build up of conventional arms, soldiers and tanks raging across Europe. Would this ultimately lead to nuclear conflict as one nuclear empowered nation would eventually find itself on the loosing side, its borders compromised and army decimated?

During my next five posts which will constitute the bulk of my debate and my conclusionary post I would put it to you, the reader in clear terms, the reasons why there will never be another World War, the Third World War. I will put forth the premise that no national government (of which there are fewer than you may think) capable of initiating a global `first strike` would ever do so and show to you that today`s modern armies are incapable of conducting a vast, global, prolonged conflict.  I will also endeavour to prove to yourselves that todays modern civilised governments neither have the desire, or the ability to drag their nations into another, terrible global war.

And thats my introduction over. I now pass the debate over to my esteemed opponent Walken. Good luck.

Scotty



#11    Lottie

Lottie

    The Nappy Ninja !!

  • Member
  • 7,516 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • "I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." - Noel Coward

Posted 26 March 2005 - 03:13 PM

QUOTE(Lottie @ Mar 26 2005, 10:16 AM)
G, This is a formal debate please refrain from making posts on here unless you are one of the participants. If you would like to join a debate please contact Disinterested or myself. original.gif

Many Thanks.

View Post



Maggie 13. I have deleted your message but you were well aware of the message I posted to G. Please do not post on here unless you are a participant!

Thankyou.



#12    Walken

Walken

    Deus ex Machina

  • Banned
  • 10,249 posts
  • Joined:07 Dec 2004
  • Location:The Mothership

  • "I've done everything you wanted me to do; so why did you do this to me?!"

Posted 27 March 2005 - 03:46 PM

This is gonna be painful thumbsup.gif

Main body post 1

QUOTE
In a nuclear war nothing, no-one would survive. The world would be desolate, a dead, barren planet devoid of life.


I actually feel that a nuclear was is the one type of conflict we are still capable of avoiding. With modern technologey, and modern weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear war can only end badly. In a nuclear war, nobody wins. So in a sense, we are in aggrement on this subject.

QUOTE
A massive build up of conventional arms, soldiers and tanks raging across Europe. Would this ultimately lead to nuclear conflict as one nuclear empowered nation would eventually find itself on the loosing side, its borders compromised and army decimated?


You're right, and that has caused me to rethink my stratergy.  yes.gif

As a last resort, a desperate country might take the final solution to it's enemeys, but in all liklihood, countries will have much better stratergys to avoid this. The cuban missile crisis is a clear example of this. However, we are debateing that a third world war will occur, not that a nuclear war will.

QUOTE
I will also endeavour to prove to yourselves that todays modern civilised governments neither have the desire, or the ability to drag their nations into another, terrible global war.


As mentioned earlier, the state of conflict within the international community is entirely dependent on the economey. War is, sadly, good for the economey. This is especially true of super powers. A good example of this is the USA, which has to go to war at least once evrey fifteen years or so, in order to sustain their economey. Here is a breif timeline taken from another of my threads.

USA WAR TIMELINE

USA joins WW1: 1917.

USA joins WW2: 1941.

USA enters Vietnam war: 1969.

USA forces first enter Gulf War: 1990.

USA enters Afghanistan in 9/11 aftermath:2002/3.

USA invades Iraq: 2003.

Some dates have been left out, because they are too close togethor to effect the theory.

This clearly shows a super powers intention to use war is a method to sustian it's economey. This is true, not just of the USA, but of evrey MEDC (more economically developed country).

Also borrowed from the same thread, here is evidence of an economey boost thanks to the most recent major conflict, the war against Saddam Husseins Regeim of Iraq.

As an example, Oil profits.

Sources- War causes huge boost in profits for Oil companys

This information clearly shows a rise in profit and a more powerful economey, influenced and pushed fowards by war.

The following quotes can all be found through that link.

QUOTE
Oil Giant BP makes a RECORD $3.7bn IN JUST 3 MONTHS, helped by the Iraq oil war


QUOTE
The profits of Exxon, the world's biggest oil company, TRIPLE thanks to the Iraq oil war


I beleive I have now proved that war can and is used as a means to boost the economey in times of trouble. I have then therefore, proved my theory that war is a direct effect of economic trouble within the international community.

I repeat;  As certain that More ecconomically developed countries will have troubles with their economey, World War will happen again.

I hand the torch over to my honourable opponent, the wise Sane-Scotty. thumbsup.gif

Posted Image

Finish The Fight - November, 2007.


#13    sane-scotty

sane-scotty

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2005
  • Location:England

  • `the thing with million to one chances are, they pop up nine times out of ten`

Posted 28 March 2005 - 04:32 PM

Main Body Post 1

Thankyou again Walken and I must say, your first post has totally thrown my argument off track. I had intended to use my first post to put it to yourself and the readers that a Nuclear world war would be totally avoidable due to the immense destruction wrought by one. However, like you have already said, we seem to agree on this point so, if I may, I would like to put this point aside from the argument and will concentrate my efforts solely on trying to persuade the readers , and maybe yourself   original.gif  why a conventional world war would never happen.

Dear readers, WALKEN has put the point forwards that `the state of conflict within the international community is entirely dependant on the economy. War, is sadly good for the economy`, and then my esteemed opponent posts a simplified list of the recent conflicts that the USA have entered into starting from `the war to end all wars`, the First World War. Well, dear readers, WALKEN, again is correct.  Entirely correct except for one small point which  is the fly in my opponents ointment.  innocent.gif

Whilst relatively small  (and I mean no disrepect to the men and women who fought and died in these wars, I use the term `small`, relative to a great World War) conflicts such as Vietnam, Korea, the Falklands War and  the first and second Gulf Wars  boosted economies, the First World War and especially the Second World War  were solely responsible for the near Bankruptcy of many European  nations, including my own, Great Britain.

After the second world war Great Britain was finished as a world superpower. We could not, and still cannot afford to boast the worlds most powerful Navy. The size and power of a nations navy is historically a sign of a nations wealth. Only the more affluent countries could boast massive, powerful battleships such as HMS Hood or the Bismark. Similarly, in modern times, only the worlds single Superpower, the United States, can boast fleets of nuclear powered Supercarriers. Yet before the first world war, the mighty Royal Navy had ruled the world oceans unopposed since the battle of Trafalgar in 1805.  The second world war ended this and near bankrupted a once great superpower and now Great Britain, Japan and Germany have never regained the prestige and power they boasted pre world
war 1 an 2.

So, dear reader, whilst smaller conflicts can boost national economies, World Wars don`t. They have a terrible appetite which can consume millions of men, women and children and destroy entire national economies and bring poverty and hardship to all countries involved. I would like to quote from the bbc.co.uk website on the economy between the wars, titled  the Depression 1918-1939

"Following the conclusion of the First World War, the war-time coalition government, led by Prime Minister David Lloyd George, was returned to power, promising to build 'a land fit for heroes to live in'. However, after a brief spell of post-war prosperity, industrial profits and wages began to fall and demobilized soldiers found it difficult or impossible to find jobs. By the summer of 1921
there were over 2,000,000 people unemployed and strikes were on the increase. There was widespread suffering and deprivation. The Lloyd George coalition government collapsed after a series of scandals in 1922 and the country's economic crisis continued to worsen.
"

please visit here for the full report and I believe that you would agree, the First world war did NOT boost the British Economy as my honourable opponent WALKEN would have you believe. It did, in effect, have the opposite effect.

Also, on the same page there is a link on the left side to `post WWII` which I would like to draw your attention to. In this piece it clearly shows the economic diaster which happened after the second world war had ended. Here is an small excerpt.

"In spite of the reforming enthusiasm and experience of many members of prime minister Clement Attlee's cabinet, however, this was still an era of austerity, as the devastating economic impact of the war became evident."

Economic boost? Again no. Please remember dear readers, that Britain WON both wars yet her economy was left in ruins  after each one. We must then ask ourselves what the effects were on the losers?

May I also quote from a piece in the Sunday Times?

"....that new political imperative is, in turn, driving China’s trade and foreign policy in ways unimaginable even a decade ago. Stability and international co-operation, not confrontation, are now the watchwords, and its relations with America have in particular been transformed. Angus Maddison, the distinguished economic historian, predicts that China could become the world’s largest economy by 2015, thus regaining the position it held for most of human history until the
19th century. "



I must now apologise for the long post, however I have had to work very hard in response to WALKENS` excellent  first post and to put it to yourselves why I believe WALKEN is correct, yet also incorrect in his surmise of the effects war has on the economy.

I hope today to have proved to yourselves beyond doubt that yes, small conflicts will continue to be fought for political/economical means, but these will be just that, small, well defined conflicts with clear (at least to our government) aims and objectives.  However, another devastating world war would destroy not only men and women but the vast financial wealth enjoyed by all the worlds most affluent nations and this is why every nation in the civilised world would never enter into another one again.

In my next post I hope to persuade you all that modern day society will prevent any third world war from happening, that is of course, assuming  my honourable opponent doesnt throw another spanner in my works  grin2.gif

Thankyou for taking the time to read this and now I respectably hand over the debate to my worthy opponent WALKEN.

regards Scotty


#14    Walken

Walken

    Deus ex Machina

  • Banned
  • 10,249 posts
  • Joined:07 Dec 2004
  • Location:The Mothership

  • "I've done everything you wanted me to do; so why did you do this to me?!"

Posted 28 March 2005 - 06:09 PM

Excellent arguements, Scotty.

Main Body Post 2

QUOTE
...the First World War and especially the Second World War were solely responsible for the near Bankruptcy of many European nations, including my own, Great Britain.


Good arguement, however MEDC's have never entered a war if they beleived before hand that it would be harmful for their economey. The objective of a war, however large, is to benefit ones county. Germany entered the first world war with hopes of acheiveing an empire, like that of Britains and France's, where as France and Britain both intended to tax Germany at the end of the war, makeing a profit upon the cost of the war and crippleing Germany economiccally to avoid any future wars.

In reality, we know that the ideology could not be acheived, and that the USA prevented France from taxing Germany as much as they would have liked dureing the negotiations of the treaty of versailles. The treaty of versailles did, however, cost Germany billions. It crippled the economey, which was one of France's goals dureing the negotiations. I beleive this proves that ultimatley, the objectives of the first world war remained economic.

QUOTE
the First world war did NOT boost the British Economy as my honourable opponent WALKEN would have you believe.


True, however it did benefit britain in the other department, Influence. The end of World War one was the green light for the league of nations, comparrable to todays 'United Nations'. The league of nations was headed by France and Germany, however it's creator, the United States, chose not to join, and became Isolated from Europe, in an attempt to defend it's own economey, and to stay out of any future wars in Europe. Britain, however, still got what they wished for, and became argueably the head figure of the 'world council'. They received more power, and as a result, more influence.

QUOTE
...After the second world war Great Britain was finished as a world superpower.


True, but only because modern regulations in forigen affairs meant that Germany could not be taxed as much as at the end of the Great war. On top of this, at the time Britain did not expect the conflict to be so costly; they expected to profit on it.

QUOTE
So, dear reader, whilst smaller conflicts can boost national economies, World Wars don`t.


However the world leaders beleive they can, and it is this beleif that fuels the conflict.

QUOTE
Economic boost? Again no. Please remember dear readers, that Britain WON both wars yet her economy was left in ruins after each one.


True, but I withdraw to my last point, if the countries beleive they can benefit the economey, they will still participate. Further more, at the time when a country first enters a war, in all liklihood they would not know that it will evolve into a world war. For example, the first conflict that led to World War one was the assasination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, of Austria-Hungary. The attack was blamed on the Serbian independence group, the Black Hand. Austria Hungary then decleared War on the small and nationalistic Serbia, and began to attack their citys. At the time, neither party could have known what the conflict would evolve into.

Nationalism is also a cause of War. Nationalism, meaning a love of ones country, a pride in that country. Many nationalistic countries will long for independance, if they do not already have it. This once again brings me back to the assasination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, which was attributed to a Serbian terrorist group, the Black Hand, whose main objective was the independance of Serbia. This proves that as long as countries are nationalistic and proud, conflict is possible/probable.

QUOTE
I must now apologise for the long post, however I have had to work very hard in response to WALKENS` excellent first post and to put it to yourselves why I believe WALKEN is correct, yet also incorrect in his surmise of the effects war has on the economy.


It is quality, not quantity, however your post had both grin2.gif

That concludes my second main body post. In my next post I hope to establish more examples of conflict stemed through economic intrests, as well as nationalism and the alliance system.

Over to you, Scotty

Edited by Walken, 28 March 2005 - 08:47 PM.

Posted Image

Finish The Fight - November, 2007.


#15    sane-scotty

sane-scotty

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2005
  • Location:England

  • `the thing with million to one chances are, they pop up nine times out of ten`

Posted 29 March 2005 - 03:44 PM


Main body post 2


In my last post I endeavored to put the point forwards that no nation would enter into a world war  to boost their economy and I hopefully  clearly showed the disastrous effect that both world wars had on the british economy, a nation which, ironically,  had been victorious in both wars. However, my opponent WALKEN cleverly tried to suppose that Britain and France actually entered World War One for solely economical reasons. This supposition is incorrect. The `reparations` imposed on Germany after the war were the RESULT of the war, not the CAUSE.

May I quote from the www.historylearningsite.co.uk "The causes of World War One are complicated and unlike the causes of World War Two, where the guilty party was plain to all, there is no such clarity. Germany has been blamed because she invaded Belgium in August 1914 when Britain had promised to protect Belgium"

For the full complicated causes of World War One please goto  here   and I am sure you will not see the word economy anywhere in there.  unsure.gif

Now I would like to proceed with the main topic of this post. Why Modern Society would not permit another world war.

Todays modern society is a more informed, more free thinking `intelligent` society than ever before. Human kind is always evolving and not only are we on the brink of a new era of technological breakthroughs, we have already past that brink and have took our first steps.  Gone are the dark days when we had very limited avenues of information and even less limited resources of knowledge.  We dont have to go to the cinema to watch the news or read politically motivated national news papers to be informed on world events.  Satellite technology and modern day computing along with this amazing thing called the internet  allows even the most commom person (like myself) access to nearly unlimited amounts of information and facilitates the possibility of people from vastly different nations to openly and freely exchange information and ideas without censorship. This also provides us with more than enough information for us to form our own ideas and beliefs about `life, the universe and everything`.  Even now, on this very forum, people from many different nations openly express their opinions without fear of retribution or ridicule. This very debate is a great example of that. WALKEN and myself are doing something which, even twenty years ago was impossible.

As a result, modern society is less receptive to government propaganda. We are more curious and don`t hesitate to question our leaders decisions and we have at our disposal, near unlimited amounts of information with which to form our own ideas, our own beliefs. We also have at our disposal, 24 hour news channels which provide us with unprecedented in depth news on what is happening in wars like Afghanistan and Iraq. We can see first hand, the horrors of war. We know now that its not glorious, and that yes, small, innocent, sweet  children get killed by British and American bombs.  And this makes us stop for a second, and think.

Was the war in Iraq justified?  

Just look at how much work, how much cajoling and persuasion (lies?) President Bush and Prime Minister Blair had to do to get us, the public, to back the war in Iraq.  Also look at how much work was done at the United Nations.  Gone are the days, believe me, that an American President, or a British Prime Minister can just declare war `willy nilly` on any backwater country they feel like. Gone , thankfully, are the days of `gunboat diplomacy`.

Wether you thought the war in Iraq was justified or not, it did happen, but even now Bush and Blair have to defend their actions. Every time another British or American soldier dies out there in Iraq, more questions are asked about legality of the war. Was the war legal?  There is an international law which can bring a nations leader to justice for going to war illegally. Look at the mass demonstrations around the world AGAINST the war.  And, like I have said before  dear reader. The war in Iraq was a relatively small one, a very small one conducted by two powerful nations against a very weak one were the outcome was never in doubt.  Both leaders didn't even try to pretend to us that the Iraqi people were our enemy, no, instead the war wasn`t against Iraq, it was FOR  Iraq, to get rid of a Tyrant.  Yet the politicians didn't persuade everyone. Millions were gainst the war and they made their voices heard around the world.

Now to my conclusion. If there was such an outcry against the relatively small war in Iraq, a war which we were certain to win, imagine the protests against a larger war.  If we were told today that China was now our enemy and we had to go to war with them and the Russians would we sit quietly and let it happen? Or would we form our own opinion and refuse to back it.  Britain and America are now multi racial countries.  We have Muslims and Christians living side by side. We have Pakistanis and Indians living in our country without strife. We have a huge Chinese population and we eat their food and play with the toys they make.  I know, and you know that a Chinese man isn't my enemy and that a Russian doesn't want to kill me just because I am an `imperialist`.

I was very proud of humanity when I saw the mass demonstrations against the war in Iraq all across the world. People from different countries uniting in one voice. It was amazing.  Wether they were right or wrong, it didn't matter, they all formed their own opinion and were not scared to come out and demonstrate against what they believed was an unjust war.

We are not the same people who fought the two world wars. Modern technology has freed our minds in ways we could never have imagined 60 years ago. It has helped us learn more and understand concepts  which once, were alien to us. We have soared to the moon and we build space stations in space to try to understand ourselves.  Together we dive deeper in the darkest oceans, exploring the mysteries of our world. Together we weep when jet planes are flown into sky scrapers and we mourn in unity when giant waves devastate hundreds of thousands of lives in countries many of us have never seen.  

In short dear friends, as a species, we are better than we used to be. And I believe we are not as ready to make war on ourselves as easily either.

I now pass you on to my friend WALKEN.

regards Scotty.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users