Talk:WW3

Abundantly clear?

I dont understand the reasoning behind this WW3 talk. So, please, can you give at least some citations of this hypothetical WW3 and what leads to this conclusion? user:Peter, who authored the basic text, is retired, i think, so... Urban (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Me? Not sure what you are asking for. Can you give two examples what there should be a citation for? -- Sunvalley (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No one in particular. The documents listet predict WW3 for past decades and fortunately this has not happened at the time. As for COVID, a war-like situation is already reality (without bombs of course). I suspect that a the new arena for war is not nukes, but information warfare and the fight to maintain the various monopolies, including monetary monoculture. I also suspect that we are already witnessing this "war". Urban (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume we are on the verge of something bigger and looking at US wars in the past ("empire of chaos" being one aspect), and given that they have managed to get a senile person into highest office, I roughly come done to everything is possible. While there is talk about invasion of Ukraine, Sweden fortifies Gotland

“Its geographical location gives the island significant military advantages in terms of protection and control of sea traffic, the Baltic’s airspace and the ability to base military units and capabilities.”

and Denmark will likely send fighter-wing to Bornholm, which is to say there is something happening which you can observe by the movement of other NATO countries, not just the US with their 'activism' alone + munitions/gear supply for Ukraine, which will be used only in one place, the people on the receiving end all Russian passport holders now ... -- Sunvalley (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately war "solves" a lot of "problems" for power elites, especially so since 1694. So we are on the verge for quite a long time and now and then situations grow more acute. Hopefully this saber rattling does not escalate. Personally I think that the hegemonic power of the US needs to be balanced by a strong China according to the "rothschild formula" and the US overtaking the Russian military base of Crimea would offset this balance. Urban (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

... and about this Sweden thing: playing the Russian propaganda card once more? Russia is too weak, it has neither the muscle nor the ambition to attack anybody on this planet given that nuclear is not an option. I don't buy it. Urban (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Still not sure what you were asking for. If you don't acknowledge this as a possibility I can't help it. It is tense and I don't see how how it will come back to what it was before, what we see now is the continuation of cold war politics, and the current situation was started with NATO expansion. Patrick Henningsen has always good views and guests; but you probably know the things that have been said ... There may come one more cool-down, but only so long, when it is restarted on US/UK initiative. -- Sunvalley (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I kindly ask you not to confuse feelings with facts. Yes, the situation is tense. Totally agree. The US has been fighting a bloody war every 2 years. So every 2 years the situation gets tense. I also ask you not to mix up the terms worldwar and war. There is a chance that the current conflict escalates, but this does not mean a worldwar is imminent. Finally it is easier to predict local wars, than to predict worldwars. I'd say its not feasible to predict the outbreak of a worldwar, i.e. when local war(s) escalate to a worldwide scenario. Let's not displace our own fears onto innocent WS readers. Thats fearmongering and its immensly counterproductive. Urban (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I see it in a different way and until a vote is made in the matter, please do not remove stuff. What I noted is a continuation of the thought P Presland wrote initially here, with some more concrete examples for how and why. All recent and all bound to the current developing situation.

1. "So every 2 years the situation gets tense." - no, no. not like this.
2. "I also ask you not to mix up the terms worldwar and war." - not sure, am I?
3. "There is a chance that the current conflict escalates, but this does not mean a worldwar is imminent." - but to me it looks like we are well on the way to get there .. can't help it.
4. "Finally it is easier to predict local wars, than to predict worldwars. I'd say its not feasible to predict the outbreak of a worldwar, i.e. when local war(s) escalate to a worldwide scenario." - I am not predicting the final moment, just having observations and stating obvious things, for example that an assassination can start a war. did in the past.
5. "Let's not displace our own fears onto innocent WS readers. Thats fearmongering and its immensly counterproductive." - counterproductive is to exclude the possibility and not speak about it. Can you know that I write the things out of fear?

Other opinions please, I feel this leads nowhere. When wrong, I am willing to correct all of it, but right now, I don't see why. Am off to work, can answer in the coming week.

--Sunvalley (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Lack of encyclopedic style

You cannot predict the future from past events. Sunvalley put it in these words: "I come down with a higher chance for war, indeed." And yet Sunvalley bombards the reader with:

• well-founded (no citation given)
• historical evidence (which pattern does repeat itself?)
• To those schooled... (no citation given)
• inevitability (=100% chance)
• It is abundantly clear from WWII (what is clear?)
• impending tragedy for humanity (doomsday prophecy?)
• the inhuman monster (who is that?)
• wholesale nuclear destruction (doomsday prophecy)
• Armageddon

This is patronizing, thought-stopping clichés, not an encyclopedic style. So please Robin and Terje, help out here. Urban (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You did not read the history of the page? Most of that was the initial outline of the article done by Peter Presland (which of course I agree to and expanded on, as explained already). -- Sunvalley (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you M.A.D. :-) ?

For sure, a full-on surrender to thanatos is a possibility, and there is some pretty deadly technology out there, but I see no reason why a disastrous war is "inevitable", so let's mention it as a possibility, and perhaps suggest ways we might try to avoid it. I've given the page a thorough reworking, including mentioning one, a truth and reconciliation commission to help us heal the damage done. -- Robin (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)