I heard a saying, "History doesnt repeat itself, but it does rhyme..."
25 2014-01-14 by strokethekitty
So, keeping in line of this adage, i was wondering if our community can speculate on possible triggers for world war three.
World war one was (alledgedly) started because of an assassination. This fact keeps my eyes peeled on news headlines, awaiting for one to say someone was assassinated. Are there any "targets" that you can think of that would be influential enough to spark another Great War?
World war two was started when germany invaded poland. So, i keep my eyes on headlines concerning any type of invasion. Currently, there is news that china is preparing to invade an island that they believe is owned by the chinese, but the philipines have occupied for about forty years. This is in addition to the already disputed islands in the south china sea between china and japan as well as thailand and korea.
Also of note in regards to invasions, are the american invasions in the recent past and possible future (think syria or iran).
The cold war was almost ignited during the whole cuban missle crisis. The distribution and allocation of military forces almost led to world war three in the past, and in todays world, these fortifications are seen aplenty throughout all the tinderboxes of conflict.
What will spark world war three? Will it rhyme with our history? Or will this create a new haiku of causation and devastation?
25 comments
6 dmft91 2014-01-14
The situation in the middle east and Korea has had me in the thought that we are almost always on the brink. The problem nowadays is the whole mutually assured destruction thing, which sadly seems like our best bet in avoiding a world war.
3 [deleted] 2014-01-14
[deleted]
3 dmft91 2014-01-14
Yeah good is very relative in this situation.
2 strokethekitty 2014-01-14
What about the korean war? Didnt we invade then? Or was that considered something else other than an invasion? (Serious question, btw)
2 [deleted] 2014-01-14
[deleted]
2 strokethekitty 2014-01-14
Ah i see what you mean. So we didnt invade korea in the sense that it wasnt the koreans we were at war with?
(But didnt we fight them? I mean, the viet cong and stuff... I view the word invade to mean we go to their land and fight them on their land. Possibly, we have different meanings to the word?)
2 ronintetsuro 2014-01-14
However, we're seeing the House of Saud offering double-edged deals to Russia to get them to back off of Syria.
While China spends it's money all over AFRICA.
America is slowly drawing down troops from the ME. What to do with all that hardware and personnel?
The major players know the new front in the Final Resource War is AFRICA.
2 [deleted] 2014-01-14
[deleted]
2 ronintetsuro 2014-01-14
Which serves an interesting point. Russia/China could have stepped in at any time and challenged America's nationbuilding in the ME.
But now we're too depleted and invested in a war torn region where revolution is a way of life. America simply can't transition to a resource war in Africa, even if it wanted to.
So we were allowed to invest in quagmire because Americans are notorious for being blind to the long game.
1 InspectorBloor 2014-01-14
Don't forget Lithium and Poppies!
4 [deleted] 2014-01-14
[deleted]
3 strokethekitty 2014-01-14
Note-- I didnt mean to imply a thermonuclear war per se. But im open to different scenarios. Im on your side here though. I doubt an all out nuclear war will be an outcome (though i see a use of "tactical" nukes being applied strategically).
Anyhow, i do like your point of Gain. The only thing left to gain anymore is the entire world. So, i posit the gain in question would be the establishment of a one world government. The winners thereof would gain influence in the world government, while the losers become subjects to it. (Of course, all the citizens would be subjectified anyhow, no matter who wins/loses).
So, in pursuit of this direction, a world wide war could be started and utilize conventional weapons on a massive scale. But, if the end game is claim to establish the one world government, how is it to be started? What scapegoats/causes could effectively ignite this?
Or, would it be more plausible that this would be a silent war? Nondeclared and non-explosive. Maybe a financial war? Or, with everything interconnected via electronics, maybe a cyber war? But, in the case of this silent war, how would it get started, and how would it lead to a victor-established one world government?
3 [deleted] 2014-01-14
[deleted]
2 strokethekitty 2014-01-14
To quote your other comment, there is an aweful lot of treaties and slliances today, and quite a bit of nationalism too. Maybe not as much nstionalism as there was back in the day, but enough to have a similar sized "powder keg" as you put it.
Maybe its not about just one country establishing a one world government, but an alliance of nations. The strongest member would have the most influence, yet every member would have a say. I see the next great war as a war between allegences, like the allies versus the axis. The winning alliance gets to establish the world governance.
But, the threat of the loser resorting to nukes as a last chance effort probably is a good deterant, and probably the only reason why it has started yet (in the conventional sense). So you make a great point there. The only way around that thst i can speculate about is some sort of sabotage of nuclear weapons, maybe from the inside (like how obama is apparantly firing a lot of nuclear weapon commanders and stuff) or electronically. I dunno. Im just searching for possibilities to look out for.
3 Canadian_POG 2014-01-14
On one hand, I feel that "The powers that be" would prefer not to engage in another world war because it would almost certainly lead to nukes, which is certifiable suicide, or at least a great loss depending on the outcome, which would be counter productive to the "globalist" agenda.
But on the other hard, I'm not very educated on this but Syria who is allied with Iran, are in somewhat of a pact that they are binded together in any major war that involves either one, ie; Israel attacks Syria, Syria retaliates, war breaks out, Iran is supposed to join in. this pact also apparently exists between Iran, Russia & China, I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure that's how it is.
Now the problem here is that Israel is within a similar pact with the US, so you can see where I'm going with this, were it to reach a conflict of this magnitude I would consider that to be a world war.
Also, apparently there is a dispute over Taiwans independence & America might see reason to intervene, which apparently China has a plan formulated to send wave after wave of drones after the US occupation, then send in human pilots once the defences would be weakened. IMO such a conflict could have potential for escalation.
& as for assassinations, looking at the wiki for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand;
Well my best take here would be that Yasser Arafat would have been a potential, but reversing this, like if perhaps Benjamin Netanyahu was assassinated by a member of PLO or some other affiliated group, I could see a potential for conflict there but I guess that would be grasping.
Alternatively let's look at Germany & the USSR's invasion of Poland, that is considered to be the beginning of WWII, er you said that, uh anyway yes, It would be difficult to compare this to today because nobody is really expanding so massively like Germany, Japan or other nations were, & I'm not good with current world development but again I can only think of Israel, other than that the only other example that comes to mind would in be in Africa like what's happening in Congo and that's merely a civil war. So really Israel is the best example & the only thing I could picture is if they invaded Syria, though I'm not sure if that's feasible, I don't know must about either nations military.
TL;DR Either Israel & Syria start a war, Iran/Russia & America get involved, or Israeli PM is assassinated by PLO or similar group, Or Israel all out invades Syria, Or the dispute over Taiwan gets real & America gets involved, other than that I'm not educated enough to take a stab.
[EDIT]; Lotta words.
2 Moir53 2014-01-14
Fuck it, let the bombs rain down. But seriously, I believe it will take something a lot bigger than an assassination in today's day and age, they can perfect it to look like natural causes. I think it would require someone from one of these "super power" countries to be taken out. Although entirely I'm not sure, war could break out any day... Isn't it exciting?
Edit: Kinda contradicted myself by saying it's take more than an assassination then proceeded to say that someone in one of these bigger countries would need to be taken out, but I dunno... Every thing is done in shadows now and there are so many "undeclared" wars going on.
2 [deleted] 2014-01-14
[deleted]
3 strokethekitty 2014-01-14
I agree that the assassination didnt really cause it, but to say it had nothing to do with it is a bit shortsighted in my opinion. I mean, whether or not it was a big deal (no one REALLY cared about it) it was still used as an excuse to start shooting, ergo it had alot to do with the start of the war. Even if it was just an excuse. Im looking for similar possible "excuses."
(With all due respect, Im not disagreeing with what you said, but more of how you said it. )
2 EugeneSkinner 2014-01-14
Do you believe in the God of the bible?
2 strokethekitty 2014-01-14
Not a chance. I believe there might be a creator, a God with a capitol "G", possibly. But definately not the one in the bible. Nor any organized religion really. Just my beliefs though. But whats that gotta do with my post?
3 EugeneSkinner 2014-01-14
Everything to the believer and nothing to the non.
2 strokethekitty 2014-01-14
Sorry, that doesnt help to explain why this is pertinent to this post. Unless you are implying that an ever-omnicient diety will start the war himself...
2 EugeneSkinner 2014-01-14
Is it the bible/God you take issue with or is it organized religion that hypocritically says one thing and does another, acts like a big business to bleed people of their money and lastly acts as immoral as possbwle by sexually abusing children for centuries???
2 strokethekitty 2014-01-14
Both. The organized aspect if it is full of corruption. Its the human element.
I have issues with the bible as well. Plenty of the stories contained therein originate from older belief systems, such as the pagans before the rise if christianity and the ancient sumerians, to name a few. So, to say its the word of the christian god seems a bit shorthanded to me. Not to mention the cannonization of the bible during the council of nicea, where certain books were "chosen" and others "discarded" (see the wikipedia page on the biblical apocrypha, as well as the dead sea scrolls).
Also, the ideology of it doesnt seem fitting to me. The "God" portrayed in the bible resembles more of a tangible entity rather than a deity.
I would never argue against the existence of a God, a creator of time and space and all things, as that is impossible to prove against him, as well as for him. But, the god portrayed as in the bible, quran, torah, etc.? I dont buy it, personally.
I mean no disrespect to anyones beliefs, here. These are my personal opinions on the subject.
But, again, what does this have to do with my post? Please, explain.
1 SpaktakJones 2014-01-14
Have you ever read the Bible?
2 strokethekitty 2014-01-14
I have. But hows that relevant?
(Im not trying to be a dick, im trying to get you to explain why you feel this is relevant.)
0 SpaktakJones 2014-01-14
The bible has almost a thousand years of history written in it. It follows a people from illerate wandering to empire to loss and expulsion. It's a great resource for finding out how the world works. It also explains the faults of human beings quite well. Many modern issues occurred in the bible. "There is nothing new under the sun, all is vanity," Ecclesiastes. That and study of the new testament will show you that God isn't a fan of organized religion either.
0 left_one 2014-01-14
Is this /r/proselytize ??
1 SpaktakJones 2014-01-14
Does it matter? I don't dig that whole schizophrenic separate every type of type of idea. All ideas are connected.
0 left_one 2014-01-14
I didn't say that, just pointing out that you appear to be proselytizing
kinda ironic in /r/conspiracy - but whatever
2 CrabFlab 2014-01-14
The basic issues are deeper than "invasion," or "assassination." If those events hadn't happened, the international pressure would have still ended in some sort of conflict.
So you don't need to look for invasions or whatever it is that's going on. You need to look for a party, group, or nation that would benefit from disrupting the current world order, and then figure out what is being done to either accommodate or stop this party. This is easier said than done, of course.
2 EugeneSkinner 2014-01-14
Is it the bible/God you take issue with or is it organized religion that hypocritically says one thing and does another, acts like a big business to bleed people of their money and lastly acts as immoral as possbwle by sexually abusing children for centuries???