As some-one said to the question. "Is any-one else in the west fed up of america's war mongering?" that 'we're already in a third world war due to all the skirmishes that the major powers are involved in'. But does this constitute a world war, or a pre cursor to a world war?
With NK and USA escalating tensions, China and Russia ordering calm. USA seemingly feeling, and looking so big and powerful that it isn't interested in listening to any-one else will no doubt drag UK, and NATO into it as it won't want to lose against NK again! And this may prompt it to use more hardline tactics such as weapons of mass destruction! ...Upshot nuclear war destroys most of the world. And lets face it, these nutcases are crazy enough to do it!
Let me get this straight-------if there's a third World War, you're gonna blame America?
And not the petty thugs who occupy Palestine and North Korea?
Know the saying "It takes two to Tango"!!!
America, in this scenario would have to take its fair share, and stop trying to blame every-one and any-one else for its own greed and bullying (AKA. "Aggressiveness")
Why should any nation have to put up with war gaming, nuke testing etc. so near their borders? And don't get this wrong I'm not deliberately starting some kind of hate campaign against america. But I can't really blame the Korean leader for trying to prevent him, his nation and his allies from getting pushed around so much. Though he doesn't help his case by provoking S.Korea. Sanctions are one thing, stating war quite another.
There is a difference between the motto "Do not fire unless fired upon", (ref. Top Gun film etc.) to looking for and provoking trouble, then blaming the other side for retaliating.
I hhhope the present regime sees sense. Unfortunately, it quickly continues to be at an impasse. One of being able to improve it's power. And that of not being able to justify doing so unless it uses up the equipment, technology etc. it has first.
The real issue here is that for the sake of a few dllars more (A bit more power) countless lives will be lost in the shuffle/ -process. Amerca, as the most powerful nation. Not just in our time, but ever in the known history of mankind must therefore bear the real responsibility. -unless The North attacks (PHYSICALLY) The South K.
I hope that answers your question.
For the most part, you're right, but...
"Amerca, as the most powerful nation. Not just in our time, but ever in the known history of mankind"
...this ain't right. We've only been a nation for a little over 230 years, and not to mention we've only conquered America, Puerto Rico, and a couple islands randomly scattered about.
Compare that to Rome's 500-year reign of conquering all of Europe, most of Africa, and a good portion of the Near East. And before that, the Greeks were in power for 400 or so years. And holy crap, the ancient Chinese ruled the entire eastern hemisphere for close to 1000 years. And way before that, Sumeria lasted for over 1000 years, and they invented the notion of an empire!
We ain't even close to brushing elbows with the ancient Greeks yet, let alone the Romans or the ancient Chinese or the Sumerians.
Or even the little old UK that ruled much of the world for far longer than the USA has been in existance!
Yes. I know what you're saying, and agree on that line of thought. But I was referring to technological advances, and the vast destructiveness capabilities of a comparitive few weapons that could destroy life rather than the effort necessary by those early nations to control it.
But the USA didn't invent the atom bomb. They were just the first to use it in aggrssion.
I thought we were heading towards a possible World War III when the situation in Iraq escalated. If tensions do get worse between NK and the USA, then that'll only solidify my fears even more. Heck, at this point, I'd be more surprised if we didn't head into another World War III at some point in the near future.
I believe the climate is it leading up to that very possibility that nuclear war will be a strong possibility.
Your statement pertaining to the aggressiveness of the United States towards other countries tends to make me wonder if in fact the countries even those that we consider our friends may have become tired of our aggressiveness and in fact fearful of America.
Consider this scenario: America sees North Korea's threat of a nuclear attack serious should North Korea execute its threat on America what if at the same time those countries we considered allies also decide to converge and launch nuclear bombs at America? This would most certainly bring down America.
It all comes down to how often a nation attacks other nations. Think, as a close comparison to how your troubled nation is acting towards others. How much patience was shown to Nazi Germany before some-one said hang on a minute you're going to far!
And this came with the verbal warning about Poland. (Don't you yanks consider history anymore?) If you look, before the verbal warning their were many peaceful attempts to try to make the dictator, aggressor see the error of his ways! He took no notice and turned on those who might have been his friends (or at least not attacked him until they (The russians) too were attacked.
Your note, unfortunately is full of the same kind of paranoia that Hitler succumbed to.
Aggressiveness is bullying.
And whilst I am merely one man, and only speak what I see as one man, whether the nation I just happened to be born in and am considered a patriot to hopefully til I die, may have another opinion. You must ask the leaders of the nations you consider your friends themselves how much american self importance, etc. they will put up with if you/your leaders have much care to. But I suspect all are too busy with their own interests and greedy with it.
But what kind of friend says nothing at all whilst letting their friend continue to make a bigger and bigger fool of themselves.
And yes. It won't be all that long before such an aggressive attitude leads it (america) to turn on those it once called friendly!
It would appear to me that you are showing much more paranoia than I am. Your statement aggression is bullying is not completely correct. There are times when aggression can be bullying but simply being aggressive does not mean bullying-my take on Christopher Columbus was that he was aggressive and I believe because of his aggressiveness that is why he was allocated vessels to travel beyond his borders.
NASA's staff and crew usually have to work under a deadline so their approach towards solving problems generally are aggressive once again being aggressive does not necessarily mean bullying.
to correct you. 1. Concern is not necessarily paranoia. 2. Aggressiveness can be ignorance. Here's a true story about NASA. Millions of dollars, that could have gone to allieviate poverty etc. was spent on coming up with solving the problem of writing out the observations in space. Millions! To get around weightlessness etc. Now the pen is quite a novelty I will give it that. It works upsode down, under water even, you may have heard of it?
Unfortunately, besides the odd space mission etc. it is completely useless and extremely unnecessary. I will tell you why. Because when the russians came up against the same problem, some-one quite simply sai "use a pencil!"
Now, you think aggression is the solution against problems. I simply say you are mistaken. Wisdom and knowlege etc. are the key to solving problems!
http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchresul … Aggression
It may appear either appropriate and self-protective, even constructive, as in healthy self-assertiveness
In case you overlooked it which it appears to me as you have I stated that aggression could manifest itself as bullying. The above definition does not lend itself to one aspect of aggression.
Perhaps you could be a little more aggressive in understanding what I have written.
Hmmm. Are we speaking of what it is, or might be? A good thing you seem to say...
A nut case drives /flys planes into buildings. Is that aggression, or a cry for help, or 3. merely a misguided belief in some diety that hates greed?
I leave it with you!
Don't leave it with me I am unfamiliar with the religious aspects of all the various groups on the planet. My suggestion is if you want to know what the motivational aspects of people who could fly a plane into a building you need to ask them or at least the people who think like they do.
Are you alluding to the idea you understand how I think? It seems to me that kind of thinking borders on mental illness.
I don't particuarly care how you think, or how mentally ill you are for that matter either. But I do think as you seem to think aggression is OK if it is american led, but frown upon any retaliation from other countries that you, and other commentors like yourself are alluding to what transactional analysis calls "I'm OK, You're not OK." in order to help this mental illness you may be better advised to seek a qualified counsellor as I regret I am not able to help you work out your egotistical problem. Know how you think? Why would I even want to know? Why would you think I would?
I see you've dodged my original question though!
You really should stand back and read your own writing for it is obvious you are clearly trying to think for me interjecting your ideology as well as blaming me for your delusions. I would suggest you make an appointment with an institution for mental health.
Why do you think I'm trying to think for you, and why are you trying to prroject your own mental issues on others -just because they don't agree with your own. Why make your subjective comments into puny slanging matches where your words count for nothing. You are showing much immaturity by trying to turn a disagreement into a slagging match. -go on then be a slag! But don't expect any-one to take much notice beyond an odd murmur of pity for You!
A 3rd World War? The question itself is of the type: "Will the world end in 2012 because the Mayan calendar ends?"
But you say, what about Korea? Someone says Palestine? These games have been going on for years with people who want recognition but cannot get it. And they'll go on forever until the current world alignments change. But after that, the games will start anew elsewhere, just as they have for the last 1000 years.
The real issue, current, is, however, that there are too many nations with nuclear weapons to have a 3rd world war.
That is why the nations with nukes work together to keep things from getting out of hand. North Korea, even if it had a nuke, would not launch it on South Korea simply over a dignity argument. And it wouldn't do them any good, anyway. That's because the entire country would be leveled if it used nuclear arms. China and the U.S. have an agreement on that: the U.S. cannot touch N. Korea unless is uses a nuke or launches a full out war on South Koreans cities.
The U.S. had a similar agreement with the Soviet Union. It would not attack Cuba again unless Cuba got nukes.
The U.S. has a current agreement with Saudi Arabia. The U.S. will protect it against any enemy as long as the Saudi keep their oil production jacked up. That agreement was reached by Reagan.
All these agreements make a world war unlikely. What would the point anyway except to kill off the human race?
Hmm. Yeh, possibly. It's startling though how many seemed to want such a thing, by the ways in which they spoke. And how nearly all respondents (americans) could not see or take responsibility for their own country's actions (aggression, nearby military activities, posturing etc.) but all put blame always on the other side.
No-one came up with an alternative way of dealing with it.
I was pleased to see on the nights news a more defensive approach / stand point seems to have been adopted... We'll see...
Who was (is) behind world wars made money and take control with that.. in this moment a spread war can be a good solution to reset the system before people shut it down.
The best way to avoid war is for the DPRK to rapidly develop its nuclear and missile technology. It needs to act to prevent itself becoming another Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. It is faced by the same sworn enemy, one who artificially divides their country and plunders the globe. The brave actions of the collective leadership of the Workers Party can provide an inspiration and guide to action for remaining anti-imperialist states.
The US aggressors have a clear choice to make. It can either remove its own arsenal from the south and thereby facilitate the demilitarization of the peninsula, or we continue with its imperialistic agenda in the region. Even if it choses the latter it will eventually be compelled to the former. As China's power grows the retention of American nuclear weaponry on the peninsula is untenable. Not because China wants to protect the DPRK, but because it is the equivalent of there being Chinese nukes positioned in Mexico - the US would not accept this, and China won't accept it for much longer. The worlds great power will not have the declining empire with its nuclear arsenal encroaching upon its borders, and this is the direction in which history is marching.
In respect of the arms race, you're right. It's a case of be a good match or be bullied. It's same in the schoolyard pretty much.
As far as SK. allowing US. troops, base/s etc. into its land. That is down to the leaders of SK. to decide. I don't think it was under US durress, so no qualm from me there. It sounds more like SK feels threatened by NK. and so went to US for help. That of course means NK looks to redress the balance.
It is a story of a world with two superpowers. And each of the smaller powers must look to which it feels most aligned to for support, protection etc. I rather have a system where either the two superpowers get along, or blow each other to the complete inhialation of both. At least then it will be interesting to see and watch the scramble for supremecy...
Anyway, back to the serious point. My original question was wondering why all the need for the posturing, hard talk, strong arm tactics etc. of the US. This has clearly wound up NK. and it's allies. Couldn't it just have been said by Bush or whoever "We're here to stay as long as SK wants us. But as long as we can all be civil, then there's no need for -this talk of escalations etc." -or words to the effect. Instead, and typically with Yanks it's all this tough talk BS. that only serves to convey the downright ignorance of the speaker. Can these people not function without a swear word in every sentence? -This seems evident from the films we (UK) get imported. (Which often would be a lot better without it!)
Aggression does not solve problems. Strong arm tactics don't make things better. Some countries in the world right now are working surreptitiously to overthrow others countries or their leaders. We can see it every day mentioned in the media.
The powder keg in political terms is heating up. It needs a good set of calming leaders and moderators to steady things. the Financial collapse of many state economies has opened opportunities for greedy organisations to profit from it.
Or one could say that the reporting of what might be an "aggressive constant" in human behavioral terms has just increased due to our greater access to news and media online now. So it looks more than it might actually be. I wasn't too happy seeing this link to the number of most and least dangerous countries in the world.
But I won't ignore the ability of the human spirit to rise above avarice ad greed.
Can their weapons reach the shores of the U.S.? And with other enemies of the U.S. don't be surprised if someone else joins in. Our country tends to make decisions and laws very slow unless it's under attack (Pearl Harbor, WTC or the conspiracies of it) or there is something substantial to gain (Iraqi oil)
by PhenomWriter 8 years ago
Please tell me it will not be, because that idea frightens me...
by Jennifer Arnett 6 years ago
Will the crisis in Ukraine escalate to World War III?
by pimentelteixeira 8 years ago
Are we closer than ever of the WW3?For the past few months we have seen countries in the Middle East rising against its leaders, and once again Western countries are involved in Middle East affairs; with the Arab League control being question day after day, and the tension rising minute after...
by Chris Mills 4 years ago
Could the war on terror ever be called World War III?The Wikipedia definition of 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." ...
by sushant143 11 months ago
If World War 3 happened what would be exact reason ?
by Joana e Bruno 8 years ago
Can we be headed for World War III?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|