World Conflict

[Lunch]

Listening to a radio debate the other day they were talking about global warming and it's effects. One of the major problems we face will apparently be the lack of fresh water. This got me thinking because I have also heard it said that, in the future, wars will be fought for water and not oil.

To my knowledge there have been just the two major conflicts that could truly be thought of as global in terms of the number of nations affected and involved: WWI; WWII. I'm interested in getting your opinions on this. Firstly, do you feel that we are now beyond the possibility of another 'global' conflict due to the inherent difference in how wars are fought today? (missile tech, powerful bombs, no trench war, etc); Secondly, if there was to be a third global war, what do you feel would be the most likely trigger? All opinions welcome.

[robinhoodnik]

I chose culture. I think that it'll be (along with religion, and politics) the spark that sets it off should it happen. People are already disconnected and angry. Being pushed on all sides socially, and financially adds to a general feeling of frustration and helplessness. Being lied to by politicians (all of them) and manipulated by the news outlets and special interest groups is yet another source of unnecessary agitation. I really do believe it'll either be a religious or civil war that is the trigger. Should it be a civil war, it'll spread due to outside influences vying for a piece of the pie. If it's religious in nature it'll probably expand from countries taking the side of the nations who have similar views banding together and commiting to war or supplying the combatants with the weapons until they are also attacked for doing so.

[Lunch]

I chose culture. I think that it'll be (along with religion, and politics) the spark that sets it off should it happen. People are already disconnected and angry. Being pushed on all sides socially, and financially adds to a general feeling of frustration and helplessness. Being lied to by politicians (all of them) and manipulated by the news outlets and special interest groups is yet another source of unnecessary agitation. I really do believe it'll either be a religious or civil war that is the trigger. Should it be a civil war, it'll spread due to outside influences vying for a piece of the pie. If it's religious in nature it'll probably expand from countries taking the side of the nations who have similar views banding together and commiting to war or supplying the combatants with the weapons until they are also attacked for doing so.

Interesting theory you have. I'm going with the water idea, though. I'd expect that, inspite of our present over-reliance on oil, it can and will be replaced by other sources of fuel/power. Water, on the other hand, is an essential to existence. Once that stuff starts running short disputes will follow.

[SFSteveG]

I chose culture. I think that it'll be (along with religion, and politics) the spark that sets it off should it happen. People are already disconnected and angry. Being pushed on all sides socially, and financially adds to a general feeling of frustration and helplessness. Being lied to by politicians (all of them) and manipulated by the news outlets and special interest groups is yet another source of unnecessary agitation. I really do believe it'll either be a religious or civil war that is the trigger. Should it be a civil war, it'll spread due to outside influences vying for a piece of the pie. If it's religious in nature it'll probably expand from countries taking the side of the nations who have similar views banding together and commiting to war or supplying the combatants with the weapons until they are also attacked for doing so.

Agreed.

[Clay Dreslough]

Well oil has clearly ALREADY caused a major conflict that is using most of the U.S.'s available troops. If all we cared about was peace and democracy, we would have sent troops into Darfur (and perhaps North Korea) instead of into Iraq.

But in terms of a GLOBAL conflict, similar in impact to WWII -- I'm voting for Megalomania with Culture a close second. When powerful humans are a$$holes to each other, it usually isn't really about resources. It's just about people being a$$holes.

Clay

[robinhoodnik]

I agree completely about the peace angle. I think that Iraq was the middle eastern country that we had the most reliable intelligence about. We knew exactly what they had and where it was. Made it easy to get a perfect strategic position in the Arabic countries. Iraq is also the most westernized of the Arabic countries on the Asian continent. That means far fewer cultural problems when Americans interact with the native Iraqi's. Saddam was also a perfect target due in large part to his decades of military dominance in the region and his being so western assured that there would be few if any real objections to us removing him from power. I think that Bush is probably not the bumbling fool or the puppet that he is made out to be in the media. Were I in his position and felt the need to have a centrally located base of operations in the middle east, I would likely have chosen Iraq too. It also sends a powerful message to the other established governments in the region when you knock off the local bully and run the country in under one month.