EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 14098 posts, RR: 61 Posted (12 years 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2150 times:
For decades, it was assumed that "World War III" would involve a massive thermonuclear exchange between the U.S. and thr U.S.S.R. along with an air and ground offensive in Europe between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries.
Since the fall of communism in Europe and the demise of the Soviet Union, that whole assumption has been effectively put to the wayside.
However, we are now deeply involved in a worldwide "war" against terrorism, which involves dozens of countries working closely as Allies, seeking out terrorist organizations that are (in some cases) backed by "rogue" governments.
Could this satisfy the definition of a "World War," however? Years from now, will this time be noted as "World War III" or simply a prolonged military action?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2121 times:
I'm pretty sure that World War III will be a nuclear holocaust of some sort, so the present military operations, while swift and deadly, are probably not World War III. Who knows though, if in the future, these operations will be seen as the beginning of World War III hostilities.
All I know is that I don't plan to be around when World War III comes.