Dear Tom,

in my opinion as pointed out earlier we are already in the middle of WW3.

The main driving forces are : fanatism and intolerance (terrorism), egoism of single persons and of single states (hegemonial power) ,  money and raw materials , ....

The tools of course are besides "normal" weapons different from WW 1 and 2: Internet,

But the main driving forces are similar.

So for me your question is not "what will happen if WW3 breaks out", but how will develop the present situation with hot spots all over the planet..

May be it will run at the same or even higher  level for the next 10 to 20 years, The effect will be a dramatic environmental desease because the states will invest in weapons instead of investing in reduction of emissions. 100 times more refugees will survive coming to the north.

Peter

I think it is an incontrovertible fact that we are in the midst of the third world war. As far as a start date, well, some might say 2003 or thereabouts, with the illegal US invasion of Iraq; others still might say May, 2013, when the so-called redline was allegedly crossed by Assad and the US threatened intervention. No matter these start dates: the coming conflagration will dwarf all former conflicts, for what is coming is a direct conflict between Russia and US. In addition, there are possibly three tactical nuclear weapons that have already been used, two in Syria, one in Yemen and some even claim at least one in Ukraine. With that said, the coming conflict will go nuclear and fast. The logic is simple: Russia may have a very good military, but it is small and will not be able to sustain a full onslaught from NATO, especially, over time; hence, Russia will be forced into an existential threat, thus necessitating the use of nuclear weapons to even the playing field and in hopes of surviving. Of course, the next phase of the third world war has yet to materialize, but with Hillary Clinton threatening a No-fly zone in Syria, then I think it is almost certain the next phase will begin in fall of this year or Spring of next. 

The reasons are multifaceted, but all stem mainly from the Western world's dying gasp. The West is bankrupt, depleted of resources, overpopulated and seeks to reemploy it's populace with another major war, plus, they'll steal new markets, new resources, etc. The Bundeswehr report on Peak oil (see attachment) set out the terms for this war, control over the Middle East for oil and gas control. In addition to that, there is the so-called Yinon plan and the greater Israel project--a definite casus belli.  The creation, manipulation and implementation of terrorism by the Western countries to gain a foothold, disrupt stable target countries and to cause mass migration, which will cause upsetment in Europe (to force the Europeans into war with Russia or, at least, to cause them to be more likely to accept a war with Russia); anyway, this creation and use of terrorism is absolutely unconscionable, yet the West expresses very little conscience and even less empathy. 

Of course, the West seeks full-spectrum dominance, aka, world dominance, and the East has rejected the West's vision of the future. 

Dear Luisiana,

I have enjoyed your opinion and analysis, Good Luck!

As I said before, Syria will be the country that can trigger conflicts bettween Russia and the U.S.. They can act indirectly by supporting a contender in the civil war in Syria.

Current things on the ground are going in favor of the great Israel project controlling the "middle east". West and Russia would be exhausted with time. Being a superpower Israel would be unfollower to the west. Unfairness going on in Palestine will be on a much wider very cruel scale. The world would become intolerably very bad to live in. At this time America and Europe will get up from their deep unethical sleep, seeing their baby has become a monster against them. This will lead to a very big war. In spite of the great Israel power Europe will win this war.

Tom, I like your smile which is associated with the gentle playing with our minds. 

Wars can easily start for pseudo-reasons and chains of events that soon slide beyond anyone's control, see the case of WW1 for instance. Very few wars have valid seeds - study a few recent wars, and you realize that the "reasons" that led to war would not be seen by a court of law as valid grounds for a single murder or homicide - let alone for the butchery that ensued. Then pointless pride happens - pride that led to the objectively groundless slaughtering of a whole generation in Europe in WW1, and to the needless continuation of a number of other wars.

There are, of course, wider forces at work - described in the narrow case of Rwanda, for instance, by Jared Diamond - usually some imbalance. The backdrop to the current migrant crisis in Europe is in part the stark and probably unsustainable imbalances in the fertility rates of different regions, as well as water availability issues, and other such issues. History shows that wars can just happen, even when the protagonists are not at fault and do not seek them. The only thing we can do is try and minimize the known risks, and even at that we are, as History proves, sorely not good at.

The middle east will be the trigger point for Russia and America to wage war as I believe the cold war never really ended it merely appears lukewarm. Those in the middle with no power or influence on the world stage will merely be the meat in the sandwich the innocent or complacent by standers whose voice is not heard oil or water will be the major catalyst in this chalice or cauldron of deceit. Each will justify what they do with plausible reasoning and all will follow like lambs. This is only my thoughts as I watch all the players and the elections in America with much interest. I am not saying that this is correct merely an observation.

Possible causes of 3rd world war:

1. Arms

2. Information Technology

3. Food

4. Water

5. Resources

6. Territory

7. Diseases

8. Etc. ...

It is said that human beings are rational animals and also that each human being is a world? So world wars may begin in any moment inside of any human being? At a macro-scale, the following evolution in terminology for such big wars that began in century XX may be suggested: World Wars, Nuclear Wars, Global Village Wars, and Extraterrestrial Wars or Alien Invasion? See the Wikipedia link below about “Alien Invasion”

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news-img/maximum/12628.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_invasion

Resp. Mr. Venetianer and Prof. Eyerer,

Thankfully human beings are rational. They have witnessed the horror of World Wars during 20th Century. So I do not see any such probability for any state to initiate 3rd World War. I hope for the peace in the world. Another good thing is social networking- can be considered as a safety valve to vent out the frustration. So there is less scope to of War!

The war is possible when a great power is on decline and another potential power is about to rise. That is what has been discussed in IR. So if war breaks out in any part of the world, all the major powers should take a decision to abstain from War. That way it may not spread worldwide.

Sirs, my submission is that the trigger would be local geopolitical issues. I do not see Europe being the main theater. It would be asia, countries from present flash points of asia to india. Being from india i see a strong possibilities of a war here. Super powers will still play a proxy role only. Desired Prize to winner is resources. But will any one get it in NO. 

A possible explanation of root cause for such war is economics. Arms and oil trade dominance. Or make war some where else to help local economy grow. Reasons given for consumption of masses will be welfare. 

I feel the internet will play the game changer role. Society taking control from the so called rulers. Be ut political appointed or otherwise. Through internet.

Good question. I have a friend in the CIA.  I asked him this.  My supposition is toward the end.  

Hi Paul!  Today’s question is about international affairs.  I am a lousy engineer, all the buildings I built are crooked, all the infrastructure is lousy…I just go by the seat of my pants, and so, the septic system is backed up. I must have missed getting the pipe canted enough, the sewage is everywhere!  International affairs are like that.  The sun is not up yet, and I have a pile of work…so I will ask fast!  No one thinks about these things.  You must think more deeply than any!  So I ask:

Set up:  All concentrate where they are told, and obey by way of reflex foolishness.  They hear the idiots blather and shout, and think any change or hope is available in the farce of politics…all pure lies!  The corporations run it, and whoever is elected, will have to sing the song they are made to sing by the powers that be…it is all fake.  Distraction, like the Roman games.  Now all look to the middle east, for where the lighting will come from to light the keg, and kill us all.  It is entirely out of control.  All look to the middle east, so, it will not come from there.  Under the constitution, all intervention in foreign affairs is utterly illegal, and that policy was quite wise! Each move we make  is error, and greed determines policy.  Chalmers Johnson is correct, as was Smedley Butler.  Mayburry is right.  Our policies, are deadly lies. Under the constitution, the FED is illegal to the hilt, and obviously, that was also, very wise.  So, where will it come from? Black lightning.  I believe, as there is SILENCE about the south china sea, the meaningless outcropping of rocks there, our influence upon Japan and Australia as they interact with the will of China…here, in the south china sea, is where we will see the keg lit. 

Question:  Do you agree, that our policies and those of the dominoes, the fool illegal policies of our alliances, ripe to start a war as the founders saw, all so completely illegal…here, in the south china sea, is where the poor leadership and illegal policies will meet the end.  In the south china sea, we will see the start of the end.  Do you agree? 

Hi all As discussion of question of Peter I agree that we are already in the middle of the 3rd war. As for the reason I think the most important ant reason for this war is International politics and the Terrorrism spread everywhere. The changed psychology of people around the world is really  a really fact to worry. No one is satisfied in this current   Situation.

While I agree that we currently are under siege by extremism, I am not sure that it qualifies for the definition "world war". I see a world war as being between groups of developed countries or between a coalition of developed countries and a rogue state that galvanizes many of the other countries of the world into taking sides or declaring neutrality.

That said, I think that the next world war likely will be started by a rogue nation or by terrorist sponsored by or supported by a rogue nation. If North Korea, then I worry that, for all of China's recent admonishment of their acts, when push comes to shove China will back Kim Jong-un. The other worry, with U.S./Russia relations strained, is that a terrorist organization sets off a nuclear bomb in a city and that starts WW3, if not immediately, then as the blame game escalates.

With the enormous tock of chemical and atomic weaponry we are not yet in the midst of WWIII. That said, going smack to the point, that would really entail the vanishing of human beings form the Earth.

Now, there is nbc serious problem about that. Life can recover after a while. Human beings are just one more experiment of nature.

I remain optimistic, though - about life.

We are not in a world war, but rather many small skirmishes. What would trigger a world war would have to be meddling that goes "over the top," from one of the nuclear powers primarily. By "over the top," I mean meddling from a major power, most likely somewhere in the Middle East in these times, that is so inappropriate and so brutal, that the other major powers can no longer just stand by and watch.

We have come too uncomfortably close to this to rule such an event out entirely, regrettably enough. But I think that would have to be a major ingredient. One major power's meddling going over the top.

And what would be the catalyst for such action, from that ill-advised major power? In these times, it would be terrorism by a third country.

The last two world wars happened not because of the particular triggers but because there were seen as opportunity of growth of competing powers.  A 3th world war between any two of the major nuclear powers (China,Russia,US) would basically set back human civilisation by 300 years and kill the 90% of the world population mostly indirectly.  So there is no appetite for such scenario by any of these major power.  Stock markets fluctuations and crashes are not the results of investors decisions anymore but as a results of fast investing algorithms, when humans get into the decision loop it is often after a few thousand billion has been lost.  If one major city of any one of the major nuclear power would be blown by a nuclear explosion of unknown source, that power would have to take very quick actions and in the mayhem of this process, the high alert of all military forces in the world at once and all in a state of panic, another local error could easily happen and wrongly interpreted in this mayhem and the rest would be history.   It is very unlikely that any of the main nuclear power would be the source of the first attack, but it is not unlikely that some extremist religious apocaliptic group ready may wish this total destruction to restart civilisation onto a new step.  This is typical of apocaliptic thinking.  I would suspect that with enough money and false Islamic pretense, buy it from the Pakistanis secret services ISI.

I disagree, Louis, too many chalk up the reason for wars to that ethereal thing called "mistake" or "accidental". Both first and second world wars were intended, desired and generated by the powers that be. Sure, not everyone wanted it, especially, those who knew they would lose and lose a lot. 

Nuclear war would not spell extermination of mankind, but it would spell a massive culling of the herd, moreover, this end is both desired and sought by today's elite. Global warming and climate change are the rationale behind the elites want for population reduction. There is also the reality of a monopoly, where monopolies set the demand they would like to meet, hence, what happens to any extraneous demand...it's not meet, period. Technology is set to make most of humanity totally obsolete and the elite are in a quandary as to what to do, how to get there and how to achieve it without losing everything they love.  Obama's recent visit to Hiroshima was designed to show the President that nuclear war is not what it has been touted as being for so many decades. Obama looked around and saw a vibrant city, Hiroshima is, full of people and no visible indication that a nuclear bomb was ever dropped, save the few buildings that were retained as a remembrance of that horrible event. 

As far as who will pull the trigger first...well, Russia has done everything she can do to avoid doing so, even though, every provocation has been made by the West to justify such a move. Call it a "mistake" or "accident", if that's what makes you feel better and assuages your conscious, especially, regarding the true nature of man; nonetheless, the outcome is the same and life must go on. 

I am certain that President Obama is fully aware birth defects and cancers caused by the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan in World War II that persisted for decades in that country. The normal background radiation may be the same there as it is in the rest of the world, but I do not think there are many educated people stupid enough to believe that the effects of a nuclear bomb is nice or short-term.

In defense of Louis, it is an admitted fact that the U.S. almost launch nuclear missiles accidentally a couple of times. Not only that, but there have been at least two nuclear bombs that were accidentally dropped from airplanes. In both cases they were not armed. However, there is a period of time after a severe attack in which a country is seeking answers to who committed the act. As Louis says, if another bomb went off in a very strategic location, the country might "accidentally" strike back at the wrong party rather than risk another attack.

Firstly, this case is very likely. Secondly, the trigger is human stupidity, and the scenario will be associated with the mass of human stupidity. Details do not matter. Thirdly, the indication here of these details would only increase the likelihood of what I speak.

Luisiana,

We are moving steadily and not accidentally towards higher and higher probability of an accidental scenario.  The whole process can be analysed and is not accidental at all.  If you drive a car and steadily but slowly increase the speed at some point you will loose control of the vehicle and will have an accident.  What is an accident?  The triggering final event was an accident but that such accidental event, not this particular one specifically, occur was not accidental but predictable at 100% probability.  It is the same with the increase of the nuclear arsenal, its proliferation, the miniaturazation of the bombs, the automatization of so many war process, the gigantic uncontrolable of such giant armies made of million of individuals many of them having some freedom of action and only a limited information and the imperative to act quickly.  The probability of something going wrong out of our control is steadily and slowly increasing and it is predictable that at some point if we do not stop this global trend, blow in our faces.  Exactly what will become the trigger is not predictable but the result is 100% probable if nothing is done.

I recommended looking at the cuba missile crisis.  At some point, a russian submarine was detected and the US destroyer decided to destroy it.  They did not even suspect that that submarine had nuclear weapon.  The submarine had no communication with the Russian head quarter.  The captain assumed that since the US was attacking him it was because a war had broke out and was willing to attack with its nuclear weapon but was stopped by Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov the political officer of doing so.  We speach to each other today because of the good judgement of Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov.  In 2002 Thomas Blanton, who was then director of the US National Security Archive, said that "Vasili Arkhipov saved the world". A statue of him should be erect in Washington to remember us that he saved us and that we cannot always rely on the common sense of a hero for saving us from our stupidity.

It is a psychological coping mechanism to chalk it up as an accident. It is an attempt to remove culpability from the equation and make it out to be something "unintentional". 

Case in point: Vietnam war and Gulf of Tonkin incident. Now, you can go look up the event and how it was staged, even the US military has admitted to the fact the Gulf of Tonkin was totally fake and designed to give a pretext for America's increased involvement in the Vietnam war. Okay, so, that's just one of many "accidents" that led to a war. 

Once again, if it should assuage thy conscious to believe it was all a"mistake"--then fine, be my guest. 

Another case in point: the planned extermination of 100 million Plains Indians. Done.

The bottomline is this: the reason or the why for some war is moot and irrelevant...what matters is "Who is the victor!"

Dear Luisana,

''.what matters is "Who is the victor!"'' for these small wars, what matters for the economical and political benefits for a few financial actors and victory is really secondary.  In the case of Vietnam, the US lost the war but the financial actors got all the benefit they wanted out of it.  In Irak, they initially win but lost in the long run the war, but a few economic actors wan all they wanted out of it.  For the 3th war war, they is no of the main actors that would have a benefit, but the financial actors benefits for what is leading to it.  In the Napoleon war, the Rothschild family was financing both side and was winning finacially whohever would have wan the war.  When Napoleon lost, they had privilege information on the results of the battle, and used this information to create a collapse of the London stock markets and they bought everything they could at the lowest price and grabbing in one day 0.62% of British national income.  So they defeated everyone and became the richest family in history.

There is this big mistake in history - inasmuch as in many other social sciences, namely that big events need big causes. No way. A war begins just because it can begin, as simple as that. No great murders, no big challenges, no great agents. That is simply not true. 

Carlos,

I don't agree.  I contend that humanity from day one has been in a war.  War is constant and peace is most of the time a preparation for open war and is thus a war just ready to be trigger.   It don just happen because is can happen but because we belong to societies that work that lead to war.  War is not simply a war against other political entities but a constant social war within every entities, a constant war of relently increase of social control by the few on the many.  And this reflect in the relently manufacturing of consent which is a war of the minds.  We live in this battle field and watch war movies and play war games for entertainment and preparation of the kids.

The whole point of Vietnam war was twofold: 1) make money for the military-industrial complex (total win), 2) to distract the American people while the greatest Commie Rat in the world moved the US off the gold standard, which is something Lenin did and equally led to total economic despair.

Rothschild bank-rolled Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin, Bolsheviks, ..., you name it. 

Putin paid off the Rothschild debt and refuses to let any Rothschild family member entry into Russia.

There are four factors that may be triggering the Third World War:

Hay cuatro factores que pudieran ser desencadenantes de la Tercer Guerra Mundial:

Tom,

 To address your question: the reason will be the will of humans. Now, in retrospection, many, namely, historians, will attempt to finger the reason for the war, where most would cite economic, political, etc, reasons, which all such forces are real and part of the future historical event, i.e. nuclear conflagration. 

 Besides citing personages, economic reasons, political, etc, which many of these pathological forces are well known by any of us living today; but, there is one other reason, one that will most likely never be cited as a cause for the war, that reason is simply the existence of nuclear weapons. In other words, why spend trillions of dollars building weapons that are never used? That's absurd and they will most certainly be used, simply for the reason that so much resource, time and money has been spent on these weapons. 

Finally, there is the all important reason of ego. Ego plays into this in multiple ways:

1) Hubris of the West. They demand world dominance, demand world compliance to their whim. 

2) Fatalism. This egoistic reason is not so obvious to most, but the generation that grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation are now getting old, facing their own mortality and the wealthy are facing the prospect that THEY are in fact forgettable, worthless and will rot in the grave just the same as a peasant. This reality can cause the sickest of individuals to take on a fatalistic psychology, whose dying wish is the destruction of everything. Another way of putting it: if I can't have, then neither will you.

3) Personal ego. There are many actors on the world stage that have a personal axe to grind and will gladly dispense nuclear annihilation to make their point known. 

I would say that nuclear war would come reluctantly, generally speaking, but circumstances would swiftly drag everyone to the unthinkable. The war has raged now for some decade or more, the world economy has imploded, whole continents are desolate (e.g. Africa). Humanity is sick and begging for an end to its pain. The world seeks death, because it has no will to live any longer. All the requisite forces, causes, reasons, etc, are present and intense, hence, all that is finally needed is the spark to set it all off. Syria seems to be the lynchpin, also, Ukraine; then there is the South China sea dispute; but, these conflicts are not the reason, they are more the symptom, the real disease is that the world is desolate, tired and wrought with immorality, thus it is begging for death, for relief, for an end. 

Dear Tom:

I don't think that a WWIII is a plausible scenario. Rogue states or terrorist groups might make a devastating attack --bacteriological, chemical or nuclear--, but a "world" war implies that at least two of the major powers are in opposing sides and willing to take the risk of mutual destruction. None of those major powers would benefit of that scenario. Nor do I think that an accidental scenario is plausible. The possibility of accidents is known by the potential adversaries and no one is eager to commit suicide before checking what really happened.

Very fascinating these scenarios for this WWIII.  

Similar scenarios run in the media during the last few years from the 9/11 and much earlier.

March 29/2016: “This is how World War III starts—it will be financial” and will oppose USA and China.  http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/03/world-war-iii-starts-china-blockade/

Another scenario is Syria and USA against Russia.  Accidently, we will pass away during a nuclear storm.

The reality is that USA will have Democratic elections and a new President – and the Administration of USA needs to deal with the international community in peace and find solutions for the increasing poverty and inequalities all over the world.  

This will be a very difficult task as the system needs to accept that the period of “dollar triumphant” is over. 

PS.

“History of Money and Banking in the United States The Colonial Era to World War II_2” Ludwing von Mises Institute, MN Rothbard, 2002.

 Dear all,

Although the beginnings were small incidents, the two world wars grew up to become among the deadliest  human conflicts ever seen, indicative of how socio-political  issues of societies are extremely sensitive and chaotic and prior thoughtfulness is always imperative. The two world wars were fought between those who had the strongest military weapons and powers of the time, utilizing their full might and of course encompassing larger parts of the globe.

The contemporary super powers, not few but many, have deadliest weapons mankind ever imagined to use them, such as nuclear bombs that may bring irreversible damages, not only to the targeted areas but to larger communities on all warring sides and on the globe at a whole, which no one will venture to take such a deadly rout of no winner. No person of reason will play a game where all participants of the game will lose at the end. WWIII is a collective game of countries with  deadly super powers in which all participants will lose at the end. 

I think the premise that a nuclear war spells extermination of all life on Earth need be revisited. The Pentagon trumped up the supposed devastation of nuclear weapons during the Cold War to increase the psychological impact, both politically and philosophically. 

What many need to understand is that a nuclear war is not the END, but only the beginning. After the nuclear exchange, where each side attempts to diminish the others military ability, after which, the real war starts. It is after the nuclear dust settles that the real war starts and it is a game of who can muster resources sufficient enough to hold ground, maintain troops and industry, finally, who can deploy an invasion force sufficient to control and hold enemy ground. 

Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs were dropped to test their effects and the militarists were not very impressed at all with what they saw, in fact, incendiaries killed far more people in Japan and destroyed far more territory than ever did nuclear weapons. 

The public may not be aware of all this, but the militarists are and so are the top tier politicians, so, in the end, a nuclear war is very possible, indeed. 

P.S. If you believe the elite on your side care about you and your family...think again. The elite couldn't care less about their respective populations, in fact, they're seeking ways to diminish them.

http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/are-we-too-afraid-of-nuclear-weapons/

You (and Almost Everyone You Know) Owe Your Life to This Man.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/25/you-and-almost-everyone-you-know-owe-your-life-to-this-man/

 It’s October 1962, the height of the Cuban missile crisis, The sub is hiding in the ocean, and the Americans are dropping depth charges left and right of the hull. Inside, the sub is rocking, shaking with each new explosion. What the Americans don’t know is that this sub has a tactical nuclear torpedo on board, available to launch, and that the Russian captain is asking himself, Shall I fire? ...''

I was a 6 year old kid.  Our grade 1 teacher had told us that afternoon that today a nuclear war may happen.  I remember coming out of the school and watching the sky for the sight of airplanes. Ten kilometers from where I was , there was a NORAD airbase with american nuclear bombs for strategic american intercontinental nuclear bomber.

I think it is unlikely that a third worldwide war would break out because of the nuclear weapons. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) includes a Protocol in three parts: Part I detailing the International Monitoring System (IMS); Part II on On-Site Inspections (OSI); and Part III on Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs). There are also two Annexes to the Protocol: Annex 1 detailing the location of various Treaty monitoring assets associated with the IMS; and Annex 2 detailing the parameters for screening events.

I agree with Dr Judeh it is unlikely the 3rd world war to fire but the madness is a human property and what is unlikely for me and Dr Judeh can be easy decision for mad person (as we may see in the near next days).

Regards

Yes This is the most expected behavior of humans. Most of us do believe that there should not be war. As  Mikdam and Judesh has pointed out there must be protocols. But most of them are for nuclear weapons . What about the war which continuously goes not using such weapons??

Third World War is already on. Here's why

Pope Francis recently said that the "world is at war". His statement came after a wave of attacks across Europe in the past months. Regions across the globe are witnessing heightened tension, be it the standoff between India and Pakistan following the terror attack on an Army camp in Jammu and Kashmir's Uri or North Korea's repeated threats to the neighbouring South or the US.

The Iraqi forces are on the verge of reclaiming Mosul from Islamic State. Conflicts in countries like Syria, Libya refuses to die down. Has the third World War already begun?

http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/photos/third-world-war-is-already-on-heres-why/ar-AAj59Ug

The world is not at war given that a minority is fighting in practice......

Dear All,

I agree with Marcel. I propose to follow what you can see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSKJQ18ZoIA in order to maintain peace and saying no to war.

Dear All,

Another proposition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh8eb_ACLl8

Do it 30 minutes a day.This will help for each of us.

Regards to all participating in this thread.

You all are to be congratulated for the clarifying comments and opinions expressed.

As I raised the question, so far I have not commented it, mainly because I was active in debating Dr. Eyerer's question which preceded this one.

But here goes a teaser, and I ask all of you to answer the question that follows before reading the pages that are mentioned at the end.

The question is:

"Which country you see today as the greatest threat to world peace?"

Once you have answered in your mind - your choice is ONLY ONE country - read this:

http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/global_results/7/33/

and this:

http://ijr.com/2015/03/279944-country-named-biggest-threat-world-peace/

Do not cheat :-), answer first for yourself, read next.

My most sincere thanks to all for participating.

Best regards

Tom

PS: If you are wondering, my answer is NOT the one this survey found out.

Note: My thanks to all who have upvoted my participation in both debates. You are kind and generous.

We  can't predict without considering these extremely powerful tools that can shape mankind such as genetic engineering,quantum Internet ,virtual reality,robotic soldiers,battlefield drones,biochemical weapons.

I guess if there be a WW, it would not be between two countries but a group of people and the rest of the world .

I think wars are materialization of cultural divergence , and instead cultural crash, identity crash will be reason more conflicts.

water issues

Ananke, that is, Necessity. 

"Which country you see today as the greatest threat to world peace?"

Since the dropping of the atomic bomb on the people of Hiroshima, the answer is : The United State of America.    A thousand argument could be given.  I will only provide one:  Look at the ranking of country by military budget.  This is a good ranking of the threat to world peace. 1. US 596 billion$ 2. China 215 billion $ 3. Saudi Arabia 87 billion $.  Notice that the first and third worst threats in the list are military allied.  And both of them are fighting in Alep right now against Russian and his middle east allied.  

The greatest threat to world peace is the world, itself.

Bertolt Brecht : "To the Coming Generations"

“That I do gives me the right, to be stuffing myself full” and this indicates why the many scenarios of a IIIWW exists. 

"….

What sort of times are these, when

To talk about trees is almost a crime,

Because it is simultaneously silence about so many atrocities!

It is true: I do earn my living.

But believe me: that is the merest accident. Nothing

That I do gives me the right, to be stuffing myself full.

I have been spared by accident. (If my luck runs out, I'm finished.)

They say to me: eat and drink! Be happy that you have!

But how can I eat and drink, when

Every bite that I eat is ripped from the mouth of a starving man, and

My glass of water is being denied to one dying of thirst?

And yet I eat, and I drink. "

As scientists, we cannot substitute our responsibilities by the iconic Fear of a IIIWW. This is a very comfortable situation, “and yet I eat and I drink” discussing about the Fear of a plausible IIIWW when “Every bite that I eat is ripped from the mouth of a starving man”.

If there was a traditional WWIII I think it would be triggered by an accidental nuclear launch.

After 3rd WW there will be stone age and 4rh WW weapons will be stones!!!!

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”  Albert Einstein

Hello, sorry I may be deviating from the original question but...

Nobody mentioned this, but the Russians are actively participating in the attacks on rebels in Syria, and are buddy-buddies with Assad.

What are Putin's geopolitical and military intentions by this weird alliance?

and

What risks this interference constitutes to world peace?

Within the same subject, how come that the 'civilized' world is silent about the Aleppo massacre going on?

Tom, good question.

My understanding of modern warfare leads me to believe that a World War III will be the result of attacks on virtual banking. If accountability is lost in this aspect, the society that we recognize today evaporates in a matter of hours; arguably minutes. At that point, alliances fall and nations start to look inward down to a municipal level rather than a broader global perspective. Basic commodities are all of a sudden priceless. When allied nations look to the United States for aid and no one answers the phone, patience is lost rather quickly. World War becomes an actual necessity.

 Dear Michael

An excellent scenario indeed. Thank you very much for this interesting approach. 

Consider that it is absolutely feasible to happen with today's hacker technology.

Join their practitioners with terrorist groups or rogue states and Armageddon is at our doorsteps.

Scary if you think about!

Although declared war is not all the rage as it once was, there is still the nuclear threat. For some time we've had a movement to ban nukes but getting them away from the kind of leaders in the world today will take more than we've got at hand to work with. If only the UN could enforce anything! 

These two links (below) contain much to worry of.  This is a sort of masochism.  A wish.  The distinction between Russia and the US is utterly false, both appear identical.  Psychopathic and masochistic.  The sadistic overtones and apparent bluster will if pursued, lead to destruction of the race, and hence, the root wish is masochistic.  I conclude: Our respective leaders are entirely ill.  The pattern of social control is very plain: 1. A reaction is created in the public, often through false and deceptive tactics. Please note that a CIA operative has emerged to claim the ‘terror’ in the US is false flag.  http://thefreethoughtproject.com/former-cia-officer-every-single-terrorist-attack-us-false-flag-attack/  2.  Fear is thereby created in the public, and so then next, anger is reacted to answer the perceived fear and ‘threat.’  3.  The public looks to the leadership, which directs said reactive rage against a target, as was intended from the start.  (As the German Reichstag was burned in WW2).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/russia-unveils-satan-2-missile-powerful-enough-to-wipe-out-uk-fr/

http://billmoyers.com/story/the-trillion-dollar-question-the-media-have-neglected-to-ask-presidential-candidates/

Rich,

  2 + 2 = 5. Don't you know?

Ne sommes nous déjà pas dans cette situation ?

@Mme. Danan, may I ask to which situation are you referring?

Thank you

Tom

@Rick

Serious accusations Rick, but don't you think that two testimonies are barely credible sources (or samples) for the horrendous generalization that the CIA and the US Administration provoke false flag attacks?

A good question.  You may be correct, I do hope you are, but my gut says it is credible.  Here is why.   Firstly, there are many reports of the CIA leak, then there is the history of government behavior in specific and general.  There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  That was pure lies.  Then this: http://911research.wtc7.net/   That source may be dubious, but it is worth considering.  After all, the patriot act was already written, a very large document …before the event, if memory serves. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/ron-paul-%E2%80%9Cthe-patriot-act-was-written-many-many-years-before-911-and-the-attacks-simply-provided-opportunity-for-some-people-to-do-what-they-wanted-to-do%E2%80%9D.html  Biden was it (?), may have crafted much of it in the 90s, if memory serves.  Then one must remember the history of our nation’s behavior: Remember the Maine.  The Gulf of Tonkin. Remember Kimmel and Pearl Harbor…etc, etc.  This classic, is entirely telling as to our motivations: https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html   This book, one must read this, and there is another as well called Blowback:  https://www.amazon.com/Sorrows-Empire-Militarism-Republic-American/dp/0805077979  https://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Consequences-American-Empire-Project/dp/0805075593/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SCCRQYCQJ8CXARCX13SX  Those two...are totally vital.

I do hope you are right. Please…do be right!  But I bet I am.  Hmmm…would you like a bit of psychology and neuroscience which explains why on earth…our race is this way?  I would be happy to post a pre-print…an odd paper (quite) which I wrote in a style entirely too honest.  As to the guesses at the politics and deception, well, I guess.  I have more confidence in my assessment of the psychological and historical aspects.  In truth, those are the real trigger. 

Tom,

About Syria, it is not the Russians that took the initiative to destabilize Assad but the americans with Saudis moneys and Jihadist training.  The Russians just came late in the process put and sided with local regimes resisting the americans.  Just old style cold war polarisation.  Since the fall of the berlin wall, the americans plot is to destabilize all the middle east power which are not vassal.  The Russian have always been the allies of those resisting american control in the region.  First they are themself being surrounded by Nato, and their allies are being assaulted, they have been assailed by Jihadists, and finally that can sell a lot of weapons and it is good business.  

dear Louis,

I think you are right. There is a lot of "truth" in it.

Peter

Thank you Rick and Louis for your interesting and pertinent comments.

But interestingly, the answer to my previous question (What are Putin's geopolitical and military intentions by his weird alliance with Assad?), seem to swap the good guys-bad guys equation.

I suggest to read the two articles mentioned below, one by a reputable history professor and the other by CNN (and of course this one could be biased, but I do not think so). Both are excellent and clearly explain in details what are President Putin's intentions in helping Assad to defeat the Jihadists.

After having read them, please consider some new questions:

How close will the world be to WW3 when any one of the candidates coveting the US Presidency wins?and

How will any one of them deal with the Russian Bear's danger of becoming again a major player in international politics? (said differently, could it be that we will see again the Cold War to reborn from its ashes?)

Here are the pages I mentioned above:

http://time.com/4054941/putin-russia-syria/

and

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/08/middleeast/syria-aleppo-russia-strategy/

Enjoy

Regards, and once again thanks for all who are participating in this debate.

Tom

If ever there were a time to be vigilant...that time is now.

https://southfront.org/false-flag-attack-imminent-in-syria-as-globalists-engineer-world-war-iii/

Unfortunately, I am unable to read the main thread, presumably due to technical difficulties.  The original question beginning the thread was of the possible scenario and trigger for conflict.  That question may be seen more deeply than is at first obvious.  I believe myself, and am entirely sure to my own satisfaction, that the attached essay holds the real key and fundamental answer to the question, derived at the lowest level of causality.  The geopolitical and social manifestations, are but complex second and third order derivatives of a specific, historically founded fundamental imbalance, extending across neuro-scientific, psychological and genetic intra-connectivity within the mental system.  That imbalance causes dissociation from the ethical basis endemic to human personality.  This is why the situation repeats hopelessly now, just as it has before before throughout a blood soaked human history.  I also have a basic ‘peace plan’ you may request, which spells out the stepwise progression needed to repair human misery, our ruined economics and the unending parade of deadly conflict, but, although it is ‘clever’ it will surely fail unless the basis of human pathology articulated in the essay here is addressed.

If I am correct, through adjustment to the fundamental relations between two primary affective circuit pathways responsible for identification and hence empathy, the ethical and intellectual potential of man may be revealed in a new construction of personality.  This idea is not mad and indeed, it forms the basis of the psychology which has changed the entire of my own life, and created the tender hearted intellectual who speaks here, in place of a violent reactive man, who used to hit things for a living.  After nearly 10 years of direct observation I am convinced, this is the true trigger which has in fact, caused the situation we see before us: inexplicable and hopeless as it appears.  This essay is overly direct and honest, and is written in a style different than that which is typical.  

Rich,

Interesting essay. I do think you hit the nail on the head...it is guilt, but it is also abuse, abuse is that which causes the initial wound which, in turn, is subjectivized, internalized and repressed to later erupt as violence, meanness, mendacity, etc...

A case study is a man called Carl Panzram. An American serial killer, who wrote his thoughts and feelings down--and, boy oh boy, does he ever lay it out for all to see clearly!

On the aside, I do not agree with Freud's perception of our past being regressive evermore to brutish forms, in fact, it is probably just the opposite. Take the story of Gilgamesh as an example to understand civilization. Enkidu is "tamed" or made "civilized" when he lays with the temple prostitute, worse still, the animals shun him after his sinful encounter, thus indicating his fall from grace, his corruption, his isolation from God, from nature, from himself... 

I do most certainly agree that civilization is an assortment of methods to force, coerce, abuse, steal, murder, etc, all things evil, that and that alone is civilization's intent, its unconscious goal, for it is kept secret--or so THEY think--but, all-in-all, the entire world reels under the weight of guilt. This pathology will more than likely be the end of us all!

Cheers!

Luisiana,

A fine reply, thank you sir!  As to the regressive component, I could spell that out, but it would take many words.  I was shocked to discover it. True horror.  One can see it in the progression of human law.  The 12 tables of Rome, so vile and torturous, are very civilized compared to what came before them. The 12 tables are in their penalties deeply symbolic of castration and the threat of the father, casually proclaiming how much a creditor may cut from the debtor's body: "si plus minusve secuerunt, ne fraude esto" [If they have secured more or less, let that be no crime] (Nietzsche, 1989, Portable Nietzsche, p. 64), or our own capitol punishment––both so deeply ineffective!

 As to the abuse you note, quite so!  Exactly, sir. A primary insight.  Here, this bit of despararion may bring a smile.  My...'peace plan.'  Oh... how impossible.

  http://media.wix.com/ugd/cf8614_61d1f6b07af149bbb5826bb2ef35fb60.pdf

If you are brave, you may request a novel which details the creation of muderous psychopathology in the human animal.  This reaction of course, is masked as...'patriotism.'   

Thanks for the thoughtful talk.

Rich

Dave,

Looks like you know a little of Douglas Reed's The controversy of Zion, which is an excellent overview of the origins and methods employed to herd, corral and torture the herd animal, the human. Of course, such aberrant thoughts are not relegated to the "chosen people" alone, but is universal; yet, there does seem something unique in their particular plans, methods and to how well they execute these dreams over long periods of time. 

If only the rest of us could muster the same discipline, the same degree of commitment... ... ...then, possibly, we could create a better world. 

Excuse me Luisiana but Douglas Reed was a well known virulent anti-Semite and the book you mention is an antisemitic rant similar to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

Please keep this discussion at the academic level as it was until now, with proven and documented facts and not made up conspiracy theories.

Thank you

Tom

Tom,

I'm sorry to break it to you, but the world is far more complex than just black and white. Douglas Reed's book has truths within it, even if it be not fully truthful. Some might say that Reed doesn't go far enough and leaves out very important details; nevertheless, it is a reference, like it or not, but nothing is more odious to a true intellectual than censorship.

Tom,

Thanks for the upvote... Let's keep the forum as open as possible. On the other hand, to address your fear, I find such fear irrational, for what is more natural than conspiracies! Keep in mind, Zionists are not the only game in town...there's a host of others, from East to West, from North to South. The US hegemony is quite incredible, as a historical event, in that it has been successful in cobbling together so many disparate groups. In some cases, the hegemony is in fact against their interests, yet they feel compelled to submit, if not out of fear, then for want and greed. 

What is important about Reed's book is that it explores the methods, the mechanism for control, that is, mind control, also, the ability to manipulate through deception, lie. If you are a true student of history and politics, then lying is definitely at the top of your list of things to know, be able to identify and to counter.

Dear Tom, Rick and Luise,

In the first instance I will discard the possibility of an all out World War III, since in that case the producers of weapons will lose their market; the buyers will be all gone, there will be no sponsors of terrorism. The current state of war on a limited scale suits the sponsors as well as Super Powers best as long as it is not on their territory.    

Here I would like to refer to my Paper: Living in Entropy Driven World: Socio-Physicochemical Interpretation of Extremism/Terrorism. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309159288_Living_in_Entropy_Driven_World_Socio-Physicochemical_Interpretation_of_ExtremismTerrorism)

The paper suggests sponsors of war are Countries with Corruption Perception Index, CPI (6.0 – 8.5). This group of countries has, since the end of World War II, been following the Bretton Woods Agreements and working for democratizing capitalism and mixing-in militarism. With large size of their economy, this group has been able to harness the driving force for enjoying-the-richness psyche, and have mixed-in militarism for achieving supremacy in trade and weapons. There is no serious commitment from them for changing their psyche to the sustainable process of sharing-the-resources in an attempt to break the vicious circle, which is responsible for inducing corruption/social pollution, and disfavoring virtuous circle."

Application of the principles of Socio-Physicochemical Theory to extremism/terrorism suggests that on incidence of extreme measures such as terror, the terrorized will prepare and be in readiness for defense. This action will likely be due to the realization that terror will sooner or later beget terror and hence there will be an urgent need for readjustment. Reversal of the process is generally sought by considering offence as the best defense. That however has been seen earlier to set a vicious circle in motion and instead of annihilating or even containing the impact of terrorism, it continues unabated.

The paper presents Case Examples to show how the entropy-driven governance system is systematically and also intentionally perpetuating the entropy-driven vicious circle, and is irreversibly sapping the energy and material resources of the Earth.

The Americans have, after the successful dismemberment of the USSR, turned to fulfill the unfinished agenda of the Sykes-Picot Agreement to dismember the Ottoman Empire and to make sure that there is no United Arab kingdom in the Middle East after World War I. Under the Sykes-Picot agreement, the British and the French drew new boundaries, fracturing the Middle East. The hidden agenda was to perpetuate an entropy driven status over Greater Syria and to transform the Middle East. The Americans have used the threat of terrorism as a pretext to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and to terrify Pakistan as a prelude to invade the country and have only partially been successful in their efforts to terrify Iran. The intervention by US-led coalition in March 2003 in Iraq provided huge impetus to the arms industry but their production entailed an equally huge waste of global resources; leave aside the terrible impact on the environment of the country on which the war was fought. It is not the physical environment that has been irreversibly damaged but the social fabric and the social aspect of sustainability principles that has been worse degraded. It has demonstrated its disregard for sustainability principles in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Bosnia Herzegovina and Afghanistan by almost completely destroying these Countries physically, socially and economically. The countries just named are in shambles after over a decade of skirmishes and war, but Americans have not stopped looking for greener pastures to engage in wars.

The past century has witnessed the American economy being built on war and on creating crises to perpetuate an entropy-driven state on the world at large. Sustaining an entropy-driven economy is not without cost. America has waged many wars and abandoned when it reached a no-win situation or the break-even point (point of non-sustainability) had been reached, but not before onset of economic recession.

Keeping the atomic weapons and maintaining atomic arsenals is not an economically viable proposition. The USA as well as Russia were both unable to maintain them. One of the reasons for the cold war adversaries to agree to reduction of the inventory of their arsenals was their high maintenance cost. An earlier study had estimated that the USA had to incur an expenditure of $4 trillion to maintain its superiority in atomic weapons.

American empire has attained such status that traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All its enemies, including former enemies and allies do not pose any military threat since it has become the largest arms supplier of the world. The most likely forms of threat to the USA are terrorist actions, rather than conventional warfare. American Oligarchy has accordingly been spending on arms for supporting US military activities, including interventions, throughout the world. The American citizens as well as the people of countries where American democracy has been exported are therefore living in an entropy-driven world.

All such actions by the Americans have instead of reversing the motion of the vicious circle into virtuous circle, provoked immense hatred throughout the terrorized, traumatized entropy driven world, not only because they use their might, but because of the way they use their might. They are hated by the enemies of globalization, who blame it for the terrible gap between rich and poor in the world. They are hated by millions of Arabs, because of its support for the Israeli occupation and the suffering of the Palestinian people. They are hated by multitudes of Muslims, because of what looks like its support for the Jewish domination of the Islamic shrines in Jerusalem. They are now being hated by the Muslims because their words and deeds are clear manifestation of the hidden agenda of the Sykes-Picot Agreement to dismember the Ottoman Empire.

The entropy-driven America-Pakistan relation has been mentioned in the backdrop of the Giant-Dwarf story. It has been mentioned that US carrots-and-sticks diplomacy in Pakistan has been neither principled nor consistent. Historically, if the United States has ever tilted toward Pakistan, it is partly because of its value as a front-line state in relation to the Soviet Union, the Gulf region, and China, and earlier on also as being useful in checking Indian power and ambition. The revelation by President Musharraf that former US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage had, in order to force Pakistan join the Afghan war, threatened to bomb Pakistan back to ‘the stone age’, is an example of how America treats its faithful ally. Mr. Armitage had told Pakistan’s intelligence director, “Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.” The threat forced Pakistan to cooperate with Washington after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but in return Pakistan did not even get the sympathy for its geopolitical indebtedness. In response, however, it was blamed for not doing more.

USA - Israeli – Indian nexus has been highlighted in the case examples and it has been mentioned that the interest of the troika coincides in keeping Pakistan politically and economically in turmoil or in the entropy-driven state. These three countries have identical views on keeping Pakistan at bay. They have during all these years been looking for aggrieved elements and planting them in different regions of Pakistan. It was in their interest that the conflict in Afghanistan amongst the various Mujahideen factions for example between Taliban and the North Alliance headed by Dostam and Ahmed Shah Masood should remain active - lest the Mujahideen make a U-turn and start joining Jehad in Kashmir.

The real objective of this Troika is to sap the internal energy of the adversary  to the extent of bringing the Country economically to the status of a Failed State, militarily to so weaken the Country that it capitulates without going to war and accepts hegemony of the troika in the concerned region. Pakistan has been on the verge of being on default several times but every time the IMF gets total control of its economy and monitors expenditure of every rupee; it prevents any outlays on further development of nuclear weapons and delivery system. Pakistan has succeeded militarily in breaking the barrier of dictated policies which were compromising Pakistan’s security parameters. Recent agreements with China and its all-out support to the policies of Pakistan are least to the liking of the Americans.That is why they have a passive role for Pakistan in counter-terrorism, and each time that they suffer casualties, they ask Pakistan "to do more".

The answer to "why the world is on the brink of a world-wide conflagration" is that sustainability of an entropy-driven economy is at heavy cost. America has waged many wars and abandoned when it reached a no-win situation or the break-even point (point of non-sustainability) had been reached, but not before onset of economic recession. Cost of maintaining the arsenal of atomic weapons runs into trillions. America can only maintain that arsenal by continuing with an entropy driven economy no matter what happens to the resources of the Earth. all other countries 

The Americans have provoked immense hatred throughout the terrorized, traumatized entropy driven world, not only because they use their might, but because of the way they use their might. They are now left with few alternatives, one that is being actively pursued is broadening the horizon and engaging China.

View: Living in Entropy Driven World Socio-Physicochemical Interpretation of Extremism/Terrorism, Mirza Arshad Ali Beg, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309159288_Living_in_Entropy_Driven_World_Socio-Physicochemical_Interpretation_of_ExtremismTerrorism

Research Living in Entropy Driven World Socio-Physicochemical Interpr...

the question is very precise indeed! it is not will we have a third WW, it is, in case of WW, WHERE could it be triggered from ?

Of course I am not sure we would have a WW III, and for sure we are not yet within such a war ! terrorist attacks are not such type of war : terrorists attacks are the "side effects" to western world of a real inter-arabic or muslim  war .

However, it looks to me that if there would be some "hot potatoes" where inter-state wars could be triggered, three location are at stake :

The China sea, the North pole zone, some eastern "ex-soviet influenced countries" like baltic states or moldavia etc...

China sea is already a very "hot spot" Where china is organizing its zone of influence and strive to make international institutions recognize its rights upon it.

North pole zone is a very sensitive issue for Russians both for economical reasons and for strategical ones .

Baltic countries, or sub-regions as moldavia etc...and ukraine as such , are zones where Russia has never accepted to loose influence and not to rule .

These three "sensitive" sectors, are engaging "inter-etatic" tensions. Each of them will be very sensitive to any "unbalanced" situation between the various "states" engaged .

"Cyberwar" was (and is) the first step. I agree with Erik Gartzke, the author of this paper "The Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth", though I do not understand, why did he think Russians to be the first who had started the military actions in Georgia... Off-topic: the Report of Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the conflict in Georgia is in open access, and even BBC wrote on this report in Russian.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00136

http://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2009/09/090930_eu_findings_summary.shtml

http://web.archive.org/web/20140905195343/http://www.ceiig.ch/Report.html

Mirza Arshad Ali Beg:

This is an excellent answer.  Very thoughtful.  I suppose you may be correct on many points.  A TRILLION dollar cost is estimated for even more US nuclear weaponry.  The American Oligarchy is a mad juggernaut. Your estimation of the effect on foreign opinion of the US from illegal actions around the world is spot on.  I wonder just how much is coherent organized intention, or just more reflexive illegal blundering and greed?  The behavior is repeated over and over, and the consequences even for the US, never seem to be rightly considered.  The effect is horrendous. Chomsky:  “Establishment of Shiite dominance was one direct consequence of the US invasion, a victory for Iran and one element of the remarkable US defeat in Iraq. So in answer to your question, US aggression was a factor in the rise of ISIS, but there is no merit to conspiracy theories circulating in the region that hold that the US planned the rise of this extraordinary monstrosity.”

  http://www.alternet.org/world/noam-chomsky-americas-empire-chaos

The question is of a possible scenario and trigger.  These are not just physical questions, they are psychological at the root.  (Please see previous post about the neuroscience of guilt).  If you are brave you may read my war novel, written 6 years past.  I have built the situation up, from false flag attack to result: I have hoodwinked a citizen and built a psychopathic killer at war for you.  This is ‘fact’ in fiction.   You may see the process extend from the media and national character, to the unfortunate end.  Psychology work: a man is turned from one of us, into what is required to support US policies at their worst.  This is not a pleasant book, at points.   This book contains violence and drug use.  Do not read it if that is offensive to you.  I used real unconscious elements transfigured but little.  The book is written from the perspective of a teen who is fooled, and then sees. 

“So many possible scenarios and so little time before something causes it to go live. An all out nuclear war would be the shortest war in the history of wars, and yet, be the most destructive.

The military personnel responsible for actually launching a nuclear ICBM would have to be either drugged, brainwashed, or an all out sociopath. There must be an option to launch a nuclear-weapon remotely if it's not launched with-in a certain period of time. And I'm talking about seconds not minutes because even the slightest hesitation to launch could compromise our ability to retaliate if that's the scenario.

Now, if we were to conduct a preemptive strike, I would still think a human at the launch controls, even after confirming the launch-codes, would still be hesitant or simply not launch as ordered to. Of course I'm talking about a human with compassion, empathy, and a brain!! May God help us all !”

I chuckle to see it said, but most people are compelled to speak in optimistic terms. Most responses have expressed a belief that nuclear war is unlikely and, if it ever did happen, it would more than likely be due to some sort of mistake or accident. Really! So, war is rare...according to most in this forum?

Given human history, which is a long string of wars, in fact, one might say the world has constantly been at war, worse, two nuclear weapons have already been dropped and they were needlessly dropped on Japan, because the Japanese already indicated to Truman their willingness to surrender, yet he still dropped two nuclear bombs.

Human-all-too-human. The reason there will most definitely be a nuclear war, at some point in time, is for the simple reason nuclear weapons exist. Humans love destruction, love imposing pain upon others and spend sleepless nights thinking up new ways to cause pain, misery and all sorts of evil. 

Case in point: have you ever heard of the "hot poker"? You know, "I'll stick a hot poker up your ass." You've heard, right. What is that? Well, just one of the nicest little activities dreamt up by some God-fearing malcontent. It was during the Inquisition, a particularly delightful ordeal with which to put all heretics through. How does it work? Well, you put a metal poker in burning coals, let it get red hot, then you stick it up someone's ass...done. Now, besides the obvious excruciating pain of burnt flesh, especially, in such a sensitive area of the body; there was the not so obvious fun of not being able to pass excrement, yet, of course, you did anyway, which of course caused infection to take hold. It gets worse from this point on... This "ordeal" could easily last a week, maybe more. That's the joy of this world.

So, nuclear weapons... ... ...hmm, I'd say they're merciful, compared to what humans have come up with in the past. As far as using them, the likelihood: 100%. Now, when, under what perceived cause, reason, etc... ... ...cannot say, but one thing is for damn sure: man will use these weapons, period. 

 Dear all

My personal view, the world is playing the prelude to World War III. The prelude is that some countries are using trick tactics to weak or destruct some countries from their inner side. For example monetary war, information war, trade wars, disease war… all are tactics used for the prelude to World War III. Which country will be next Syria?

The recent answers have been more pessimistic.  I just bet these are closer. I actually know people who will vote for Trump.  Isn’t that amazing?  The comments about the inquisition are unpleasant, and perfect.  Read my war novel, and you will see this sort of thinking is the problem as stated.  That rot lives in each human unconscious. If the weapons have been built, they will likely be used.  There was no need to drop the bombs on Japan, yet it was done.  That is human nature.  The comment about money is correct.  This forum is far better than others on social media.  The reflex patriotism is all but absent.  A great relief to me.  My paper on empathetic dissociation just got published so I put the pre print up.  If you have not read it, I bet the answer is here. I have located the circuitry underlying empathy, and found its relation to social control.  The relation is inversely proportional.   The Einstein comment is dead on too.  The following makes use of it.  Here, my answer to our two human cancers, money and war:

http://media.wix.com/ugd/cf8614_61d1f6b07af149bbb5826bb2ef35fb60.pdf

The most dread nonsense chases me. I can not escape it.  All hate the jews.  People of the highest intelligence really believe, the jews are a sort of evil entity hanging in the aether, pocketing money and ruining the world.  Really, that is a community affair, the human community in total.  As I am not much for greed, and am compulsively honest, no one can ‘tell’ I am an evil jew!  Shhhhh.  Yes, I am the devil. Once the fact was discovered, I was asked if I could speak with my satanic jewish overlords who run the world, and stop all the horror and lying, as if I might go to a secret evil meeting, talk to the jewish devil and fix it all.  I kid you not.  Well... If that would work, I would try!  If there is a jewish cabal, I am unaware of it, and have not two pennies to my name.  My people have deeply disgraced me to behave as every other human and become tyrants once they get a piece of dirt beneath their feet.  I have decided I am no longer jewish. I am also, not American.  Poof.  There…I am now alone.  This is better.

Has human-‘kind’ ever been different?  No.

I would like to place a disturbing fact before the reader. To study the history of war, is to know with certainty that in all of recorded history top down control of the human affects has never worked. The Pax Romana from 27 B.C.E. to 180 C.E. in the Roman Empire is often put up as a good example of human peace under authority. This is a laughable joke, as the Pax Romana was maintained via blood, torture and crucifixion! No, in all of human history, top down control is a complete failure. Absolute and complete failure, without exception. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe ]

An integrated approach to sublimation must be placed in its stead.

However, ethics are endemic to humanity! There has been a purposeful dissociation. This is the real trigger of, and answer to, the waring human problem at the lowest levels:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309566203_Super-ego_and_the_neuroscience_of_empathy_from_unconscious_wish_to_manifest_behavior--a_new_human_model?ev=prf_pub

Article Super-ego and the neuroscience of empathy: from unconscious ...

''To fill in the gap in military options between a full nuclear assault and engaging in a lopsided war, says Foreign Policy, U.S. special forces started packing miniature nuclear bombs, devices known as the B-54 Special Atomic Demoliniton Munition (SADM), which they could carry in a backpack. The plan was to build something a little smaller than the devastating bombs that had been designed after the end of the Second World War.

Adam Rawnsley and David Brown chronicle in a sprawling feature the stories of the special forces troops. “Soldiers from elite Army engineer and Special Forces units, as well as Navy SEALs and select Marines, trained to use the bombs, known as "backpack nukes," on battlefronts from Eastern Europe to Korea to Iran," they write. The troops were trained to parachute or SCUBA dive behind enemy lines with their little nukes, to using them to take out strategic installations or render vast tracts of land uninhabitable. According to Rawnsley and Brown, "These "small" weapons, many of them more powerful than the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, would have obliterated any battlefield and irradiated much of the surrounding area.”

 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/25-years-us-special-forces-carried-miniature-nukes-their-backs-180949700/?no-ist

Such a good idea? Could you imagine what will happen when one of these nuke carrier will get trapped by ennemy soldiers?  What are his options?  Hey guy, go away or I blow everybody.  Will they comply?  I don't think so.

Funny discussion indeed.

Are you serious? Do really one here believe 3d WW may start? IF so, it will ends this discussion and the planet itself. But in fact the global war starts long ago, since people start ignoring each other and the planet with all creatures they are living with.

This all will ends very soon without any Nuclear War...

Here again: so many tout the "end of the world" narrative when discussing nuclear weapons. Take a look at Berlin, Stalingrad, ..., how 'bout Damascus for a recent example. The result of four to five years of war on Damascus has been devastating. The city appears to have been hit by a nuclear weapon...and, it has. This is what I mean: the amount of energy dropped on Berlin, Stalingrad, etc, is on par with a nuclear weapon, only, it took some three to four years of conflict to distribute that energy over the target city in question. Now, in the case of nuclear weapons, one can affect the same amount of destruction in a shorter time period; hence, the utility of nuclear weapons is their expediency, but their destruction does not differ, in any meaningful way, with conventional weapons. Of course, some might remind me of the fallout, but whatever, take a look at Fukushima, that disaster has polluted the entire Pacific ocean, thus, if radioactive fallout spells certain doom for life on the planet, then, I say, we already have acheived that end.   

Joe,

I mentioned similar in an earlier posting about the unconscious desire for nuclear war. This is probably the greatest reason for any war. Obviously, if anyone thought it through, the pain, the misery, the decades to recover, plus, the insecurity, no matter how rich or insulated one might consider themselves, for when disease runs rampant, everyone is at risk. 

I am consciously against any nuclear war; yet, I am watching the West sleep walk right into such a potentiality. Blame it on the insouciance of the Western citizenry, the unconscious desire for material wealth, which is secured through conquering the lands and markets of other peoples, etc, in the end, we are moving headlong toward a total war. Much the same happened before both previous world wars. The majority of population, during those times, was deadset against a war; nevertheless, against the will fo the people, their governments coerced, tricked and simply declared war without any sympathy for public opinion.

With that said, no matter what WE say on this forum...there are forces much larger than we at play. Governments are not controlled by the people, it's an illusion, at best, and the elite have decided on another round of what they call a Jubilee. Historically, a jubilee was implemented by the Sumerian king, whereby, all debts were forgiven; but, the king had an ulterior motive, the purpose of the forgiveness was to enable gathering together large armies to go forth and conquer the wealth of another city-state. 

The West is bankrupt, both financially and politically, thus is facing imminent demise, unless it can double-down and find a payday, like conquering new markets, reinforcing the petrodollar, etc, and that is the hope of the elite. As far as us, our opinion does not matter, nor did it ever. 

If the US let special force individual walk around with nuclear nuke on their back in zone of imminent conflict and not see that it will not blow in their faces then we can conclude that they are blinded by a death wish.

Here's some facts to contrast the fear-mongering, regarding nuclear war. The Global Research article, "Nuclear Winter: Turning a Blind Eye towards Armageddon. Scientists Warn of the Existential Danger of Nuclear War…", goes through in painful detail about a scientific study that concludes of 100 nuclear warheads were exploded, the resulting nuclear winter would devastate all life on Earth.

Scary...without a doubt; but, Wikipedia lists some 520 atmospheric nuclear tests, with a total yield of around 534 MT. Now, I'll admit that these tests were conducted over a large period time, yet the world stands.

In the Global Research article, it goes over the perception of the militarists, in the Pentagon and others, where nuclear weapons do not pose a threat to humanity, but do pose a threat to a potential adversary. 

The truth may lie somewhere in between; regardless, if nuclear weapons posed that much of a threat to humanity, then why in hell have they detonated 520 of them! 

On the aside, and I cannot find the reference for this, but I found a study, done some years back now, that tested peoples around the world for toxins in their body and it was found that everyone has traces of Plutonium. Plutonium is one of the most toxic chemicals known to man and everyone in the world has been exposed to this pollutant through atmospheric nuclear tests. So, you might say, "The world has already been primed for nuclear annihilation." 

P.S. found Body Burden website. Lists all the pollutants, estimates, in the human body, on average. 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-winter-turning-a-blind-eye-towards-armageddon-scientists-warn-of-the-existential-danger-of-nuclear-war/5554221

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests#Totals_by_country

http://www.ewg.org/sites/bodyburden1/findings.php

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp143-c2.pdf

https://discardstudies.com/2013/09/16/body-burdens-biomonitoring-and-biocitizenship/

http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/PlutoniumDGHealth.pdf

Excellent answer concerning both the tactical nuclear slant, and the answer about the real dangers of nuclear contamination.  Those two bear upon each other to a degree, by which I mean there are no safe low-power ‘tactical’ nukes, as the entire ecosystem is connected, and the poison is sure to end up in all of us.  I do not want to stray from the topic, but this is somewhat relevant, and I believe potentially important.  We all seem to be concerned about health and the environment.  I found some new science.  Please request papers.  I have been in contact with the scientist. He is a math genius.  He claims his life was threatened to advance the following experiment (below) concerning nuclear waste clean up.  He has synthesized the neutron from hydrogen and an arc of current, and proven out Rutherford, who believed the neutron was a compressed hydrogen atom.  The point is, if he is right, it may be possible to end the problem of nuclear waste through stimulated decay.  He claims he was threatened to see the following through (billions are made storing and transporting nuclear waste):  From the theoretical calculations, it is hypothesized that this decay can be stimulated by bombarding the nucleus with so-called ‘resonant’ photons with an energy of 1.294 Mev. Under normal circumstances the probability of this interaction is extremely low. However, Santilli claims that there is a large resonance peak in the reaction cross-section (that is, the probability of the said interaction occurring) for incident photons with an energy of 1.294 Mev.   Someone should test it.  Send me a note for details. 

Rich,

A few references are attached for the process of hydrogen to neutrons. I doubt sincerely that any such process could handle transforming the volume of nuclear waste in existence around the world, at least, not without spending inordinate amounts of money.

There are many such processes: like cars that run on water, i.e. hydrogen. The problem is that all these "solutions" require extraordinary investments of energy to cause the desired reaction, thus rendering these processes ineffective, if not for the economics behind them.

https://www.google.com/patents/US20040017874