h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think the Middle-East question might be losing steam.

However, here's a question I've been pondering for a few weeks:

Is a World War (e.g. World War II) possible in today's world?

Personally I don't believe so. I think that with the international news media and instantaneous communications, that the world is small enough to defuse situations before they get that big.

I'm not saying that regional, even massive regional, conflicts will not continue, I just don't believe the World War is viable.

And if World War III happens, I'm reminded of what Clark(?) maybe Assimov said "I don't how WW III will be fought, but I know WW IV will be fought with sticks and rocks."

Opinions sought,
Courtesy

courtesy (welcome back by the way!)--
i don't think a world war is really possible, mostly because of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the fact that most wars being waged now are internalized within a specific country, and most other countries are loathe to get involved in those sorts of things.
that said, there is always the possiblity that someone (probably a small country in the middle east--think iraq or perhaps pakistan) will attempt to start a world war by using nuclear weapons on their enemy (the kurds, india, possibly israel). of course, the problem then becomes a global issue, and something could possibly insue. of course, given our technology, the war would be short, brutal, and quite likely obliterate that country....with a very small loss of life on the side with all the technology.

but that's just my humble opinion!

[Sol: Love to get into this discussion, but I know I won't get anything done today if I do... ]

[c]

allright, UH, you'll be in it again.

So I pop up from the Metro today on my way to work and suddenly realise that I'm in the middle of a whole crowd of football fans watching the Russia Belgium match on, you've guessed it, a huge screen in exactly the same place as they were last Sunday.

Not only that, but I turn round to gawp at the screen at exactly the moment that Belgium scores a goal.

At this point I realise that I am wearing a skirt that, unless I hitch it up right round my waist, fast movement is impossible. I love this country.

However, it has to be said that they hadn't started throwing things last time I looked.

MR -

Thanks for the welcome back .... and I would like to take the time to wish you a belated birthday. Remember it's not the chronological age but the mental age that really counts.

I agree about the short brutal part. I also agree that wars will be internal, or at the most regional. With regards to atomics, I believe that if they are ever used by a non-super power, we will see something akin to the Great Convention from the Dune saga. (For those of you not into Dune, the Great Convention states that if one member uses atomics on people, then all members will obliterate the offender.)

The reason I draw a separation between super power and non-super power is that a super power has so must destruction that we will see a skewed version of MAD (mutually assured destruction.) Of course, if the super power went hog wild with atomics then we might see reprisals as stated above.

My worry is that we are at a place in our history where we have the destructive potential, yet are "young" enough as a species to not truly grasp the meaning of species survival. Until we start getting off this rock and getting our eggs out of one basket, I think we will stay at this crux.

Opinions?

Courtesy

Finally some *real* rain - but did the temperature necessarily have to drop down to +12 C (54 F)?

*looks around suspicously*

Did somewhere here send away their weather across the North Sea?

Sorry for not joining in the current discussion, but I don't think I have anything to say that hasn't already been said...

Strange Sol, no goals mentioned by the BBC, must have been disallowed or something.
Anyhoo, the BBC must read my mind on a regular basis or something; http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_2043000/2043991.stm
There is certainly no basis for a World War at the present, as there are no real two sided alliance structures at the moment. But you never know.

Well, they definitely scored. And now Russia has too!!! Woohoo! We go through (sorry, Russia is my sweepstake team: I got a hundred dollars riding on this).

The guardian is being wonderfully scathing about Russia too. Hugely entertaining...

[Amy]

My machines fault Sol, it wasn't updating properly.

And doubtless you will have just realised that Belgium have scored again. That's it. We're out. PANTS!!!

... and then they scored again. The Belgians I mean. The shame the shame!!! Well, anyway, game should be finishing about now, so I won't be bothering y'all any more

I think it's time the US stopped their meddling in the Middle East. American dollars have been poured into Israel year after year, making the Israelis able to build their arsenal of nuclear weapons, building the army that is terrorizing civilians and funding so called settlers that are nothing more than illegal occupants. If the US want something done they could pay their enormous depth to the UN instead.

{[caer csd]}

Under the Clinton administration, we were slowly (very slowly) moving in that direction. At least we were pressuring Israel to talk to the Palestinians and there was significant movement towards a peace settlement. Unfortunately Georgy Porgy took power after our election fiasco and returned US foreign policy to the pre-Clinton days. With the shift in Israeli leadership it combined to make a bad situation worse.

At least little George is getting the message that the US *has* to support a Palestinian homeland, and that position has started to make its way into his policy.

I don't think the US should pull out of any world politics. Isolationism was one of the causes of WWII after all. What we really need is a way of opening foreign policy decisions to public scrutiny, so we don't keep supporting tyrants over fledgling democracies for economic reasons, or have covert CIA operations that train terrorists to overthrow legitimate governments that are "unfriendly" towards the US.

Now I disagree that there wouldn't / couldn't be another world war. What made the other world wars (and incidently, it wasn't the *whole* world for either of them) possible? Countries ganging up together against other countries. What will happen if Pakistan and India go to war? Will Britain be obliged to support India? And the US support us? And who will be on the Pakistan side? I don't know enough about world politics to hazard a guess but I still think there is that sort of potential for many countries to go up against other countries and it wouldn't necessarily have to be Nuclear either.

Also - regarding the Great Convention (as in Dune) I don't think any agreement like that would be honoured. That or countries just won't join. For exactly the same reason that the US Gov won't join that Environmental Treaty (can't remember proper name for it), it's not in *their* (ie the government) interest even though it is in *our* (ie the human race) interest.

Also - Munchkin - the British Gov wanting to tap our electronic communications :- aren't the US planning something similar so they can track down potential terrorists? And isn't that why we have the sudden interest in the idea again over here?

No Britain will be in a quandry.

Both India and Pakistan were part of the old British Empire, until independance when they split (bloodily ) and both countries are members of the Commonwealth.

As we speak, there are reports of the US attacking Iraqi targets.