0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:...if your opponent is not tied to a particular geographic area, as is the case with 'international terrorists'. Then one has no target against which one could use wide area strategic weapons.
quote:...[Robotics] are already being increasingly used by countries such as the USA and Israel, but even groups such as Hezboula are learning to develop these tools of war.Other groups that have not yet developed [robotics] are still having to make expensive use of humans, such as suicide bombers, which perform the same task as a guided missile, but using humans because of the lack of robotic substitute.
quote:Originally posted by xethoPragmatism is, "people will always be cheaper". Robots will never become more versatile than soldiers.Espionage, snipers, landmines are supposed to reduce the loss of life. Robots will fall into that group, they're a terror weapon, and will become another black sheep of war.Nothing about military robotics R&D makes sense, the stuff you hear never adds up to "no soldier required".
quote:Weapons of mass destruction are the thought in the back of everyones mind. At what point that solution becomes acceptable, depends on who's thinking.
quote:Expensive use of humans? In one way or another, people are born "free".
quote:Japan has the edge in humanoid robotics. They could build a very compact secret army and conquer the world by surprise if they wanted.
quote:Originally posted by xethoInvading other countries that have nuclear arsenals isn't going to happen in the open, conquering one of those nations directly would be impossible without a lot of consequences.Anyway, I've been wondering how nations will still wage war without invading each other. I think the fighting will happen in the undefended parts of the world, like the Middle East, Africa, Central America, South America, later on in polar regions and oceans. Probably provoked by competition for resources and not so much for the land.
quote:Originally posted by roarerFor another substantial war to occur (as similiar to World WarOne and Two) today..there would have to be two EQUAL countries in economic, militiary,and political might which do not see eye to eye...The only countries in this category in existance today...is the USA...and the WHOLE of Europe. And under any analyses...these two are not going to war against each other. Perhaps an economic war...yes??? Years ago...it was the TWO super powers...the USA and the Soviet Union. But now with the collapse of Communism....the ONLY country with this might is the USA. North Korea.....is nowhere near that might of the USA. Should militiary action be taken against North Korea....it would not be the ONLY the USA against it....there would be, I am assuming, a United Nations action which will comprise of many nations.As to the war WITH/OR ON terrorism...it is not in reality a militiary war.....but a political one.
quote:Originally posted by roarerAS...when I compared two world ECONOMIC and MILITIARY powers I referred to the USA and the whole of Europe. Both have a CAPITALIST system.In my view that system and their political system...are INTERTWINED. They cannot be separated. You shall never see a substantial war (meaning a world war)between TWO CAPITALIST systems.China presently is a CAPITALIST system. China would be a player perhaps in starting a world war...should it revert to Communism (as previous). However I cannot see that occuring.And that is why there is world apprehension at the North Korean actions. North Korea remains Communist even today. Now should North Korea either amalgamate with the South...as similiar to Vietnam..and becomes a capitalist state.....then we can safely say that it would be all over....no more worries.
quote:Originally posted by roarerAS.....your response, as usual, was most informative and interesting. However I have one question. When you said quote "war has never been about ideology..but power" end quote...do you mean MILITIARY power..or FINANCIAL power?
quote:Originally posted by roarerWell AS....now that we said what we had to say....there is only TWO questions remaining. To remain with the topic of the post "Is WW3 inevitable"......these questions are;1) Is WW3 going to occur?and if so2) Who would be the TWO major warring countries?
quote:Originally posted by roarerWell AS..it seems that you are not assured that there would be a world war..let alone who would be the warring countries. And I am not surprised.
quote:We are discussing this issue....whilst we overlooked a very important aspect of world occurance which may have a deterrent against the commencement of a world war....that of globalisation.As far as I can understand....globalisation permits countries to INVEST in each other's financial infrastructure. I believe that every country on the planet is involved. Now as I see it.....say for example...the USA has millions of dollars of INVESTMENT in China and vice versa...I would be very much surprised that China and the USA would start a war between them....which would have the potential of destroying millions of dollars of investments in each of those countries. And so forth with other countries.Now I am not a scientist. I am not a graduate of any University....I am just a Secondary School graduate...and a Clerk by trade..if you can call it a trade.....but that is the way I see it.
quote:Originally posted by VAlibrarianClearly I do not share the convictions of many on this page regarding the nature of future disasters. WW3 seems less likely than other scenarios for serious human tough times. I do not see an obvious motive for a major power such as USA, Europe, or China to initiate a nuclear exchange. The logic of MAD still holds as far as I can tell. Possible for a second rate power such as Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea to bring it on by using a nuke and miscalculating the obvious result? Possible, but it seems that many of these nations do crave to join the nuclear club for defensive reasons- to eliminate the possibility that USA will deal with them as it dealt with Iraq.
quote:To me, however, the chance of economic turmoil, famine, mass migrations, etc., as a result of resource depletion or environmental disaster or feverish competition for decreasing resources is a possible recipe for a very tough time.
quote:The fact is that we are on course for this to happen, UNLESS we can avoid it through scientific discovery, international cooperation, etc.
quote:Okay, what if you put the two together and say, WW3 will happen when competition for scarce resources on a degraded planet combines with a miscalculation and someone hits the red button. But if that's your theory, you are saying that scarce resources and environmental factors will cause WW3.