My philosophy tells me that peace is something very unstable.Why is that?Well simply because in the human community there are different individuals,ideologies and opinions,especialy in the politic world. It is always a matter of time-it might be tomorrow,it might be after 1000 years but the next world war will come! What do you think about that?
never another WWII there will never be another WWII. there might be another cold war with small brush fire wars sponsered by the main countries and there might be an expansion of islam VS everybody else but thats about it. we are in effect in a world war now and will be for a number of years. i expect it will continue until there are no more countries willing or able to support the terrorists. IMHO the best hope for peace is a spread of democratic governments and capitolist economies. can anybody think of the last time 2 democratic countries went to war with each other?
I doubt I'm right about this since it is off the top of my head but maybe the "sort of" naval war(wasn't much of a war) between the US and post revolution France?
WWII certainly, The Weimar constitution was never formerly revoked, Hitler maintained power under emergency laws granted following the Reichstag fire in 1933, so Germany remained (Nominally) a democratic power.
Re: never another WWII Terrorism won't stop when no country supports it anymore. At that point the "war on terror" will go on, except that the US will have no more clear and easy targets to invade. Then it will get really nasty, as they will have to accept the fact that they can't find or eliminate the real terrorists in this method they've been using since 2001. That's really the problem when war is initially declared by a group that doesn't strictly represent a country, but rather a religious group, and even that group doesn't unanimously support them so their power base is hard to locate and cut, and their support is almost impossible to remove. This world war (which I think is a correct judgment of the situation) won't end until fundamentalism within Islam dies down, which may take a few decades, possibly longer. The best hope for peace is always stability. Democratic governments can only truly emerge in countries if these countries set them up themselves; there is of course no true democracy if it is not wanted by the people. Democracies built on war and sudden change hardly ever work; those built on developments and customs do, so these have to emerge first. Otherwise the kind of democracy you are going to get is the unstable kind that might just as quickly turn into dictatorship because of internal unrest, resentments and "Strong Men" appearing on the scene. This is what happened after WW2, as well as in large parts of the post-colonial world.
Re: never another WWII [/quote] Clearely WW1 Germany was a democratic country in 1914, as were all greater european powers(except Russia). This did not prevent them to go to war against each other.
Castlelot wrote: You are correct of course. That will teach me to post off the cuff before thinking about it. I don't agree about WW II though..Hitler was elected however he soon turned Germany into a dictatorship and he wasn't going to stand for election again so long as he lived you can be sure.
As Hitler pointed out to german industrials in 1933: "This may well have been the last elections in Germany for the coming 1000 years...."
That's why I said "Nominally" , no admittedly the practicalities of it were that Germany was a dictatorship, but it was still technically a democratic country, albeit under more or less permanent "Emergency Powers".
Re: never another WWII I assure you that time heals everything and there will be another world war!!!
hope not given todays weapons a replay of WWII would end it all. i hope we never get quite that stupid.
a war like ww2 is not possible unless there is a collapse of western society and the loss of nuclear weapons. the growth of the islamic states will continue, but they do not have the industrail muscle or technological expertise to challenge the west in an all out war scenario.. so will continue the war of terrorism. the growth of china and india i think is the possible spark for a major conflict..but in a society where economic strength is more powerful than military might both would have 2 much 2 lose. the bigest conflicts will come from the need to utilise the worlds rescources to feed and supply the ever growing population and demand for energy. and the mass migration of ppl away from tthe poorer countries to the richer ones...which is already beginning to happen.
I don't know what weapons World War Three will be fought with, but World War four will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein ...
Though of course no war could possibly be globe-spanning if the weapons technology doesn't reach beyond sticks and stones. He shouldn't have said "World War IV", he should have said "the first war after that".
How do you figure that out? A World War is simply one where nations are in conflict across the globe, hence the name. I don't see why you necessarily need advanced weaponry for that...
you'r wrong. Germany was ruled by a kaiser, Russia by a tsar, Austro-Hungary by an Emperor, United Kingdom by a King, Italy by a king and Turkey by a Sultan, only France was democratic
Britain, Italy, Austria-Hungary and Germany were constitutional monarchies. They had an elected parliament, regular elections, independent courts, free press....so they were rather democratic.
If the weapons used don't go beyond sticks and stones, do you reckon the peoples involved will have the transportation technology to cover the distances required to fight global war? Do you think they will have the communications technology to sustain allies on other continents, garrisons in far-away places, and multiple front warfare? Do you think they will have stakes in so many places in the world that a war between a few of them would mean an eventual world war through the activation of economic and political ties?
You do not need fancy logistical trains for an army fighting with sticks & stones, and living off the land...
But they're not going to get far that way, are they. A world war must include either most of the globe for a battleground or countries from all over the globe as contestants. Therefore, the fancy logistical trains and communication technology really is required for a world war. Why do you think the first true "world wars" broke out after the industrialization of Europe, and the introduction of telegraph, railroad and steamship?