WWs 1&2 each lasted ~5 years, how long will this one last?

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: Plantagenet

OMG never seen that vid before the guy goes down the list of countries we've bombed like a bag of chips, how did he know? Should be VIRAL!

Gosh we are so.. Doomed but I still wanna look on the bright side, ain't there one? Jesus?

Well once you take into context and know he was making a run for President and working hard to bash the GOP and the how silly the story of somebody telling him the Department sent out a memo saying we are going to invade these seven nations in the next 5 years is. I mean what would be the point of a memo like that? You could FOIA it and expose everything if it existed. Or somebody would slip a copy to the press. Making up a story to bash your political opponents is nothing new.

It's kind of prophetic then this work of John Pilger, around 2003-2004. Nothing gets away much from any Pilger report,
indeed I don't think any memo was needed in this case. No matter, all I ask is that you have a good listen.

It was mostly done through proxy fighting in small countries, but World War III ran from the time the Soviets detonated their atomic bomb until the Soviets got their butts kicked in Afghanistan. That was a long time for the world to be at war.

Now the enemy doesn't have a country, so we have a hard time declaring it a war.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

But it is, it's not a conventional war like WW1 or WW2, this is a war of proxies and this war began when the cold war began.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
Today we are far more advanced, so it could be very short,...say 10 months?

Funny, looking back at history that also seemed to be the thinking of any major combatant an the beginning of either World War. Oh we're so advanced, and our military is surely better trained and more capable than the other guys, and our guns are so accurate...

Everyone has nukes. Everyone has guns, tanks, and jets, ships, and soldiers. Lots and lots of soldiers. As far as I'm concerned everyone is pretty much even in terms of military technology - and even if they aren't, we all surely must be aware that necessity is the mother of all invention. Just look at the Brits in WW2. 'Nuff said.

And with teams so evenly matched there's no way either side will gain an entirely-decisive victory in any short amount of time. Any major global conflict between superpowers will be a long, hard, dirty slough that will surely take years. Attrition will be the name of the game, and maintaining continuous supply into the combat zones will be the defining factor for either side.

According to wiki, the definition of what constitutes a World War is:

A world war is a war involving many or most of the world's most powerful and populous countries. World wars span multiple countries on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theatres.

No further comments. I'm too busy studying that definition with a blank stare.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I can understand your blank stare, thinking of the many developed countries which have felt both the sting of extremist actions and the millions of Muslims living within their citizenry.

It certainly looks like an asymmetrical world war.

a reply to: masqua

It is asymmetrical, but does the northern hemisphere have to be involved before 'it's official"? I don't recall the N.H. being involved in WWII?

eta: I know of course we were involved, but no active fighting on our soil.

The reason so many are fleeing places like Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq is that US and European interventionist foreign policy has left these countries destabilized with no hopes of economic recovery.
This mass migration from the Middle East and beyond is a direct result of the neocon foreign policy of regime change, invasion, and pushing “democracy” at the barrel of a gun.
Assad may not be a nice guy, but the forces that have been unleashed to overthrow him seem to be much worse and far more dangerous.
No wonder people are so desperate to leave Syria.
Obama and his fellow communists will steal our country from us while we watch.
And we are likely setting ourselves up for a terrorist attack.
Dick Cheney has warned, another attack is coming which will be far deadlier than 9-11.

a reply to: Plantagenet

Lucky if it lasts 5 hours if its a full scale nuclear exchange.

Not exactly what i would call progress.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Plantagenet

Lucky if it lasts 5 hours if its a full scale on nuclear exchange.

Which country do you think is more likely to use a nuke?
eta: Anyone want to venture an opinion on this? hmmm?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Pakistan or India given there proximity and hatred for each other. Obviously just a guess, personally I dont think any nation that's nuclear capable will be that daft in this day of age, considering the implications.

We might see the use of tactical battlefield nukes through.

a reply to: andy06shake

Oh good. Thank you. Me either. I mean, I don't think anyone will do it (this go-round).

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Plantagenet

Lucky if it lasts 5 hours if its a full scale on nuclear exchange.

Which country do you think is more likely to use a nuke?
eta: Anyone want to venture an opinion on this? hmmm?

I keep reading how rumors say America will be going back to the dark ages.....electro magnetic pulse.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Our world has pretty much all ways been at war since the end of WW2. There just proxy wars on the bankers behalf.

a reply to: madenusa

Only if Trump stumbles his way in to the Whitehouse.

Then again Hillary's quite capable of taking the US down that dark path also.