The entire time humans have been on this world, there has been some form of war for one reason or another. Sucks if it is in your neighborhood.

Sorry for not replying before, I've been quite busy lately.

I hope you guys are right and there isn't a big war in the near future. As I said before, it's hard to know what will happen, but I don't think the current military conflicts in the east side of the world are coincidental. The situation might not escalate into a large-scale conflict (time will tell), but I do believe it's dangerously bordering that possibility.

Interesting perspectives.

I guess to me it's a question of the "haves" and "have nots". Given the modernization of cultures the probability is high that there are extremely few untouched portions of the earth, and thus no unaffected civilizations, at least on a grand scale. There's no unexplored countries over the oceans. We're not going to encounter some native tribes thus far unknown, and also in a situation where they reside in some resource filled area of some high value. Such as discovery of the Americas and colonization of them. For instance, aren't there already exploitations of Africa and/or the Brazilian rainforest areas? People already know of the perceived worth of them. So one perspective is that there's not going to be any sudden "Look what we found! We're claiming it!", instead it would be more of what Iraq tried with Kuwait and tried to be a bully.


Therefore it's next a question of what about the crackpot countries, which is to say countries which don't fit in the mainstream world political and economic arenas well. Like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or other. The issues are where the line gets drawn in having a perspective that they're not very nice, or not very open to the world, i.e. are they crackpots. And then whether or not it would matter. North Korea is very small, not really strategic given modern airlift capabilities and shipping capabilities, but also given those capabilities, North Korea could be a very good influence on the world if things were different as to how that country interacts with the world. Not ever having been there, but in all that went on the last few years, I heard opinions that while things were bad, it was also a "who cares" attitude merely because everyone felt that the country was so small and inept that many of the world nations could very easily blow it to smithereens if so provoked.

I don't see the conflicts like in Iraq migrating to other parts of the world. I see extremists wanting to have that happen, wanting to have their situation seen, understood, and commiserated with, they want the world to see that they are right, but that's their flaw. Many, many people are never going to be classified as what the extremists consider to be true believers, in fact by design they've excluded everyone else by their narrow judgments on people and their past+current actions. And those people don't care that they don't measure up in the eyes of these extremists. The bottom line is if you go out in proactive manner and kill people, the larger majority of society is not going to appreciate that, they are very hardly ever going to sit there and go "Wow! I never thought of it that way! You are so right! And thanks for killing those random people!"

I agree that there will continue to be skirmishes, and country to country disputes, or culture to culture disputes, within borders or affecting a few nearby countries. Just not sure that it could affect world civilization as a whole, all at once in such a dramatic manner. Instead something would have to happen to the entire world civilization, or a very large percentage of it.

I recall a few, and sadly there have been more recent disasters, but .... Turkey a number of years ago, 80,000 (?) dead in an earthquake. The world helped. The tsunamis of many years ago. Again, thousands perished. The world helped. More recent disasters. The world helped and helps. Losses of airliners. The world helps.

It's easy to be cynical sitting in our chairs by the way.

Check again. Wars end recessions not begin them.

Whereas, I see "unconventional war." War that is personal. That is happening at [your] home.

War that is locationless, based on infiltration and upon using both the military and the civilian resources of the target nation against them. War that is waged, initially, "unnoticed."

Consider, for example, the 9/11 attack. Although it was spectacularly dramatic when the demolition charges went off ... three buildings vaporized and free-fell to the ground in six seconds flat ... it took months of planning to rig the buildings to "blow" right under everybody's nose. And yet, it happened. If anyone had been looking at what those "maintenance teams" had been systematically doing throughout the buildings, it never would have happened. Indeed, if anyone had had the imagination ... to consider a psychopathic attack beyond description ... then simple vigilance would have been enough. But, no one was thinking that way. Instead, they were building more aircraft-carrier battle groups.

Likewise, when we think of "World War III," we shouldn't think about "World War II" ... "the interrupted war" continuation of an equally-unsuccessful World War I ... both a product of sea power, both fought by "gigantic armies shooting at one another across an open field." We should think, instead, as a real enemy does: "who is my target, how is he vulnerable, and how can I do him terribly-wrong?"

The Internet is certainly the biggest vulnerability today, and let the record show that the juciest target-nation has out-sourced all of the non-military hardware that it uses ... almost nothing is "Made in USA," therefore the USA doesn't actually know what's inside the product on your shelf. The USA has also "out-sourced" vast amounts of its software development, either by exporting the work to the other side of the world, or by importing people for a year from the other side of the world, keeping them for a year, and sending them home (with whatever they can carry). And so, once again, the USA doesn't really know what's in the software. Data centers, too, have been removed from US soil ... taking terabytes of on-line information with them. Millions of citizens "spew" every detail of their personal lives, every day, "on line." They tap their phones to pay for things. But, they don't know what [else] is in those phones, "just as long as it works."

And no one, it seems, "sees anything particularly wrong with that." So, here's the all-important missing piece of the military equation: "your enemy, self-confidently, isn't thinking that way." Therefore, you have time. Your enemy not only does not prevent you from entering: he welcomes you (at least for a year). You also have information.

Another discovery from the documents that Ed Snowden revealed ... was just how much of the same information was available in the public domain. An "internal security" appratchik, compulsively cloaking everything "Top Secret Ultra," didn't have exclusive control of many of its "top secrets." As it turns out, no one did or does.

Silently, cunningly, without attracting attention to yourself. You are a "warrior." You are also a psychopath. You are not alone.

There's your next "World War."

I never took you for one of those people.

Depends on how badly the war damages the country's economy, how crippling the surrender terms imposed on it are, and how good the government that takes over the country after the war is.

There sure was a lot of plane footage to go with some statements made here.

The enemy statement reminded me of that quote.

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. Obviously never had a lot of enemies."

I like dugans point on recessions. Having been a soldier myself.

and

Has me grinning from ear to ear to no end. Just glad I am living/retiring on the Mexican border where no one wants to fight cuz it is too freaking hot outside. Besides. There is nothing of value in a desert. Except water. Which is not a problem in my area.

Now in a major population area. I imagine water world war 3 may become a possibility.

edit: Just a small example

http://science.time.com/2010/12/14/w...-out-of-water/

that is from 2010. Current events have caught up to that 2010 article.
Just a small country right now. But imagine things on a grander scale.
Maybe it will be over Polar owner ship also.

Wars end recessions? I guess you mean they end the recessions of the countries with huge military forces that start them and profit from the lucrative weapons and reconstruction business. However, I doubt that any country that suffer from a war inside its borders ends up in a better economic (and human) situation than when the war started.

Of course, after the war, the loser pays the price. Really, everyone pays the price except for the corporations that profit.

I think it is very short-sighted to fall prey to the overly simplistic illusion that "wars end recession". While they can in the short run that thinking totally disregards what could have been accomplished with the same effort applied in constructive ways and furthermore the continuing longterm widespread consequences of either action.

Dugan, although it's strictly-speaking "off-topic" to this particular conversation, there is pure-and-simple no other credible explanation.

A bomber hit the Empire State Building, once. The Empire State Building is still there. The gasoline burned and burned-up, then the fire went out. The debris was removed, and the smashed girders replaced. The building is still there.

Every tall building is engineered to withstand an airplane-strike. No matter how much kerosene an airliner might be carrying, it is impossible for "kerosene, in any amount" to cause what all of us actually saw: suddenly, the entire structure, top to bottom, lost all structural integrity and fell to the ground in the amount of time that it takes a brick dropped from the top of the tower to reach the bottom. In other words, there was nothing standing in the way of the highest girder's path to the street.

But the third WTC building's collapse removes all doubt. This was the building in which the City of New York had placed its "command center" for dealing with terrorism or other attacks. Somebody (thought they) knew that, six hours later, this building would be full of officials trying to deal with what had just happened. And, this building suddenly did the same thing: "it collapsed into its own footprint, in the minimal number of seconds." No other building in the complex did the same. There are videos that show the building's collapse, and they look exactly like demolition of any building of similar size. The complete and instantaneous loss-of-integrity of the entire structure, which falls into its own footprint in the amount of time it takes for the girders on the topmost floor to hit the street.

In other words: demolition. Furthermore, "demolition of extraordinary technical skill." There aren't that many people or companies on Planet Earth which could have accomplished this, "period" ... let alone "right under New York City's nose." (Look up "demolition fail" on what's left of YouTube and you'll see first-hand just how many things can go wrong in a 'demo.')

So ... when you speak of "war," you need to think in terms of this kind of technical expertise and ability ... as well as the "inconceivably mass-psychopathic" willingness to do it. War is no longer the purview of armies, battleships, and aircraft carriers. And therefore, it is no longer "comfortably far away." It doesn't matter anymore if "I'm now too old to be drafted, anyway."

This sure smells like the Parable of the Broken Window.

BTW, if WW3 ever comes to past, will it be nuclear, biological warfare or other?

Why do I keep reading this forum?

Believe me, Dugan ... I wish it were "just an airplane." Because "it was just an airplane" would be a whole lot easier to take. And, to defend against. "Just make sure nobody can board an airplane carrying box-cutters, and We'll All Be Safe Now." It would "just" be an airline hijacking ... the stuff of a really-bad 70's movie.

Nevertheless, when we talk of "war" today, we must think in these terms, not the youth-wasting conflagrations of the preceding centuries. In this case, "consummate technical skill, and very-exotic explosive materials, such as is possessed by very few companies on earth," applied with diabolical and beyond-psychopathic cunning. There ought to be a very short-list of possible suspects (and Osama Bin Laden is not one of them).

And then, not to investigate anything. Instead, to cover it up, and to officially publish a cover story. Which means that the greatest public crime in American if not World history goes ... uninvestigated, and unpunished. And that "we, the people," for all the billions we're spending on machinery to strip airline passengers naked, remain unprotected.

"The Truth," however shocking or unsettling it might be, is the only thing that can provide a meaningful defense against this kind of: Warfare.

You can see the tapes yourself. WTC6 drops in exactly the same way that the Stardust Hotel did in Vegas. Nothing nearby; not the most-damaged building ... merely the only one which contained New York's "secret" anti-terrorism command center, whose "we'll protect this city" occupants should have all died in the final chapter of this hideous day, in the very act of trying to "protect this city." The upper section of WTC2 starts to tilt over as it drops (as it would, if it were "landing on something"), but then the entire structure dematerializes top-to-bottom and the section along with the entire structure thereafter drops straight down. In six seconds flat. "Ergo: suddenly, there is nothing beneath it." As did WTC1. Which by itself is proof to your own eyes that the official version is ... False. Which should scare the hell out of you.

If we were to publicly acknowledge WTC1/2 as "demolition jobs," they would be counted among the most spectacular technical achievements in this arcane field. Almost the tallest buildings on Earth, dropped into their own parking-lot. Pulled-off twice, without a hitch. Amazing.

"War" is different now. The "enemy soldiers" were probably working in New York City for months ahead of time, surrounded by people who worked in that building, yet unnoticed by all of them. Pyrotechnic materials such as are very hard to come by, were nevertheless ordered in very large quantities, and nobody noticed. (And, even though all that the airliners did was "a symbolic sword-thrust into the head of Mine Enemy," nobody seemed to notice that, either.)

Yes, "War" is very, very different now. Fifteen nuclear-powered aircraft carrier battle groups did nothing to defend against this, and never could. I see my country spending the majority, now, of its public money on "war as it used to be," for fifteen years running, while its citizenry, as individuals, are more "naked" than they have ever been. I feel like Cassandra. Very much like Cassandra.