[Christopher Halsey]

COMMUNITY DEBATE

World War III

In Star Trek lore World War III is the name given to a period of global conflict on Earth during the 21st Century which eventually escalated into a nuclear cataclysm leaving over 600 million people dead from the immediate conflict alone. You can read more about World War III in a Federation Education article HERE.

There are already enough weapons to effectively destroy the world several times over but this hasn't stopped the development of increasingly advanced and destructive weapons. With ever diminishing resources, the threat of a new cold war with Russia, increased territorial disputes off the coast of China, North Korea's missle development, ISIS and the Middle East is World War III inevitable or have we seen the end of war on such a massive international scale?

[Allan Hood]

WWIII could easily start because wars ended in ST due to limitless resources.

We almost engaged in WWIII a few times in history already:

6–25 October 1973
The Yom Kippur War, also known as the Ramadan War, or October War, began with Arab victories. Israel successfully counterattacked. Tensions grew between the US (which supported Israel) and the Soviet Union (which sided with the Arab states). American and Soviet naval forces came close to firing upon each other. Admiral Murphy of the US reckoned the chances of the Soviet squadron attempting a first strike against his fleet at 40 percent. The Pentagon moved Defcon status from 4 to 3. The superpowers had been pushed to the brink of war, but tensions eased with the ceasefire brought in under UNSC 399.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches...-yom-kippur-wa
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...-consequences/
http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01489-X.html

ACCIDENTAL:
25 January 1995
The Norwegian rocket incident occurred when the radar signature of a Black Brant XII research rocket being jointly launched by Norwegian and US scientists from Andøya Rocket Range was mistaken for a Trident SLBM launch by the Russian Federation's Olenegorsk early warning station. In response, President Boris Yeltsin was summoned and the Cheget nuclear briefcase was activated for the first and only time. However, the high command was soon able to determine that the rocket was not entering Russian airspace, and promptly aborted plans for combat readiness and retaliation. It was retrospectively determined that, while the rocket scientists had informed thirty states including Russia about the test launch, the information had not reached Russian radar technicians.
"January 25, 1995--The Norwegian Rocket Incident". United States European Command. 23 January 2012. Archived from the original on 21 September 2012.
Hoffman, David [15 March 1998] "Cold-War Doctrines Refuse to Die". Washington Post Foreign Service.

2–11 November 1983
During Able Archer 83, a ten-day NATO exercise simulating a period of conflict escalation that culminated in a DEFCON 1 nuclear strike, some members of the Soviet Politburo and armed forces treated the events as a ruse of war concealing a genuine first strike. In response, the military prepared for a coordinated counter-attack by readying nuclear forces and placing air units stationed in the Warsaw Pact states of East Germany and Poland under high alert. However, the state of Soviet preparation for retaliation ceased upon completion of the Able Archer exercises.
Benjamin B. Fischer (2007-03-17). "A Cold War Conundrum: The 1983 Soviet War Scare". Central Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on 14 January 2009. Retrieved 2009-01-13.

[Allan Hood]

Also, a world war over genetic manipulation and human genome enhancement could be in the works today, if we consider the possible early stages.

"In the past two years, scientists have created pigs with human blood, fused rabbit eggs with human DNA and injected human stem cells to make paralyzed mice walk.

"Particularly worrisome to some scientists are the nightmare scenarios that could arise from the mixing of brain cells: What if a human mind somehow got trapped inside a sheep’s head?

"The 'idea that human neuronal cells might participate in "higher order" brain functions in a nonhuman animal, however unlikely that may be, raises concerns that need to be considered,' the academies report warned.

"As strange as his work may sound, it falls firmly within the new ethics guidelines the influential National Academies issued this past week for stem cell research."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7681252/ns...re-part-human/

[Stormy]

World War I was labeled "The war to end all wars." Well, we know that wasn't true, so there is no reason to believe World War II proved to be any more final. Of course, the traditional warfare of WWI and WWII is no more. WWIII will be a much different war, possibly even decided by technological warfare.

[Tain]

I think the time of super powers going to war is over, simply because they all know that it would be unwinnable. I believe the only chance of war will be between a superpower and a lesser state.

[Solace]

I think the time of super powers going to war is over, simply because they all know that it would be unwinnable. I believe the only chance of war will be between a superpower and a lesser state.

You forget Jovek, when limited resources like Oil and other fossil fuels run dry then the likelyhood of superpowers going to war to control the last reserves increasing dramatically.

[Tain]

You forget Jovek, when limited resources like Oil and other fossil fuels run dry then the likelyhood of superpowers going to war to control the last reserves increasing dramatically.

I guess being a Canadian, we all just want to get along If more countries just sat back watched hockey and drank beer like us, the world would be a better place!

[Tain]

But should Europe get it self into another war, we'll grab our canoes again and head over to help ya out

[Silynn]

World War I was labeled "The war to end all wars." Well, we know that wasn't true, so there is no reason to believe World War II proved to be any more final. Of course, the traditional warfare of WWI and WWII is no more. WWIII will be a much different war, possibly even decided by technological warfare.

There were a lot of factors that lead to the First World War, however, the one vehicle that might have prevented it altogether was missing. A common body of nations where lines of communication and diplomacy could be achieved to advert war... the United Nations. That got put into place after World War II. Yes, the League of Nations was established after World War I, but again the seeds of World War II were already growing and festering since the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Hence, why at the end of World War II, the post-war treatment of the defeated nations was DRASTICALLY different. The defeated nations were rebuilt instead of punished. There is a major difference between punishing the leaders of a nation or it's people. Leaders you can put on trial and carry out sentence. The "People" typically have suffered already. To suffer more would just embolden them for revenge... another war to right the wrongs put them.

World War III is always a possibility and will depend on how far a nation will go to further their claim to resources, insults, or agendas. There are several potential "Flash Points" right now. In Syria, we have too many non-Syrian hands pulling the strings of the Syrian Civil War, that may spill over outside of Syria. Russia, Iran, North Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, Israel, and the United States. The South China Sea is all about resource control with major players being People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan, and the United States. The East China Sea with People's Republic of China, Japan, Taiwan, and the United States over islands (resources) and governments (Taiwan considered a rogue state by the People's Republic of China). And lastly, we can't forget about North and South Korea. The only way that issue will resolve itself is through violence. EIther a self-implosion (Military Coup) in North Korea or an invasion by either North or South. China's and the United States' involvement could draw the world into a "World War".

Thankfully, as dysfunctional as it can be, the United Nations has and can avert some of these flash points becoming a full-blown World War. The moment all diplomats and nations completely walk away from the United Nations, the chances for a World War increase dramatically.

[U.S.S. Hyperion]

Looking at humanity today, I have to say I am pessimistic. As long as you have cold headed hands at least one side of a potential conflict, it might be avoidable. But god help us, if the wrong persons are in charge.

Yet, in a way the finality of nuclear weapons has kept an - unsafe - peace between major powers for now. How fragile that peace is one can watch everyday in Ukraine.

The basic problem is that as long as there are people willing to further their interests by force of arms, as long there will be war.

The UN is as toothless as a tiger today as it was in the past. Small weak nations have an interest in something like a working UN, but large and powerful states have not.
After all, the right of the jungle/survival of the fittest is not that bad of a concept... IF you are the one on top of the foodchain. For everyone else it is a disaster, but this is sadly the state of things today. And I dont see that changing anytime soon. And if it ever happens, it will be political will of the people as coercing anyone with nuclear firepower into anything substantial generally does not work.

Speaking of nuclear weapons, the reality is that all efforts aside, more and more nations gain access to them. After all, you really cannot stop them aqquiring the necessary knowledge forever. See North Korea. And from a dictators point of view it makes sense to have nukes. After all, they are the safest way of making sure that outside intervention is decidedly limited.

Until humanity develops enough that people are not longer willing to achieve a - theoretical - better life by means of force of arms, we will have to deal with the crapsack world we live in today.

[Christopher Halsey]

Thanks for everyone that took part in this debate. The voting was extremely close but it seems that the majority feel that we are safe from a World War III, I think we all hope that they are correct.

Please feel free to keep posting and voting though!

[Allan Hood]

I think the time of super powers going to war is over, simply because they all know that it would be unwinnable. I believe the only chance of war will be between a superpower and a lesser state.

I see that for the time being; superpowers are just sending their pawns in, especially in the middle east. It seems the superpowers are happy to let fighting keep going in the middle east; "if they're fighting there, they won't be fighting here," but I don't agree with this logic. Eventually, the fight will come to the superpowers, as we see with 9/11 and other terrorist acts across the world.

The people we classify as terrorists classify themselves as either fighting for their freedom, God, or a revolution of some sort. I'm afraid that our labelling of "terrorists," working to delegitimize their efforts or beliefs, may be fueling their fire. Eventually, the rooks, knights and bishops will come into play.

My hope is that we'll find something that the world has in common, something similar to First Contact. Maybe an easily accessible energy source for the world that somehow dodges all our pre-established energy sources? Something we call all relate to and share that will finally unite us.

[Allan Hood]

The UN is as toothless as a tiger today as it was in the past.

Don't mistake peacefulness for toothlessness.

"The UN, after approval by the Security Council, sends peacekeepers to regions where armed conflict has recently ceased or paused to enforce the terms of peace agreements and to discourage combatants from resuming hostilities. Since the UN does not maintain its own military, peacekeeping forces are voluntarily provided by member states. These soldiers are sometimes nicknamed "Blue Helmets" for their distinctive gear."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...g_and_security

Sounds like the Federation? Is it toothless, too? The UN shouldn't be compared with a tiger; that was never its intention.

Its purpose is to "help countries torn by conflict to create the conditions for lasting peace" through "peacebuilding, peacemaking, and peace enforcement." They "monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas and assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...s_peacekeeping

Small weak nations have an interest in something like a working UN, but large and powerful states have not.

Last year's funding sources by country
US 28.57%
China 10.29%
Japan 9.68%
Germany 6.39%
France 6.31%
United Kingdom 5.80%
Russian Federation 4.01%
Italy 3.75%
Canada 2.92%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...s_peacekeeping

Though their GDP (PPP) 2017 estimate is $23.2 trillion, the Chinese only tributed half of the US, with a GDP (PPP) 2016 estimate $18.558 trillion.

I don't see too many small and weak nations tossing around that much interest...

[Venrok (Derek)]

As species, we have militarily engaged with one another ever since the Paleolithic age. The only reason the first world war happened such late into human history was the fact that we did not acknowledge or knew of the earth's geographical size and landmasses until the late 1800's. When the inhabitants of earth finally realized the scope of the world they live in, tensions easily arose and a world war started. Military leaders used feeble excuses to declare wars and the world was plunged into the Great War. After the Central Powers lost the war, Germany was pinned to blame for the war cost leading to the inflation of German currency and etc. With no effective leader to lead the German people, Hitler appeared as a voice of hope for the German people and due to the crisis was able to easily get an entire nation to support his agenda. After that we all know what happened with the Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam War, War on Terror and etc... We are ultimately driven by the lust for power and we are greedy, selfish beings. However we are still human and hence posses a great intellect. Part of that intellect is learning to realize that people may disagree with what you want, leading to escalations. Do I think there will be another "World War"? Yes. Because every nation in the world will be affected, either directly or indirectly, by a large military escalation between two or more prominent, opposing nations. However I do think that the severity of the war will be much less than we we experienced in the previous world wars. We have developed and we have learned from our mistakes, that is a part of being human.

[Asteropax]

As species, we have militarily engaged with one another ever since the Paleolithic age...
...We have developed and we have learned from our mistakes, that is a part of being human.

There will always be more wars occurring for whatever the reason is that comes up. I just hope we have learned our lesson of the ferocity of war and how much it can affect so many others.