WWIII: Technically, How Many Nations Would Have To Be At War

[arwalden]

before it would be considered WWIII?

Does the "world war" label apply because of the number of nations involved in conflict? Or is does it refer to how globally widespread the conflict is?

-- Allen*
(* who should have paid closer attention in history and civics classes)

[emad]

1. For some, WWIII has been ongoing since the P2 shot JFK in '63

just as he was about to bust various nazis and freed east european serious crime internees who were claiming refugee status from soviet bloc countries. The proliferation of these, and their offpring, is at the heart of most terror-type offences for the last 40 years. The heat merely got turned up when the Catholic Church realised that documents relating to its collusion in WWII atrocities named the entire infrastructure of its financiers, networks, covert operations and support systems, and could go public at any given moment.
WWIII won't end until Bush 1 and 2 are tried for treason.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Tough to say for sure until it happens...

but I would assume that it would be a war between the Great Powers, ie US, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc.

It would be the sort of war that would involve various alliances around the world, and strategic attacks on various countries not directly involved.

It would be big. And there would be no "winner."

[rasputin1952]

3. I agree here...it would be BIG...

Technically, there would not have to be a set # of countries, but some of those nations would have to have certain strategic perceptions as to how far they would be willing to go into conflict.

WW I, or more properly, The Great War, involved most of Europe, very little of Asia, Africa, none of South America, and none of The US until 1917.

WW II, on the other hand was ruly global, with only Antarctica,as a major land mass left untouched. That was determined by how far the Axis, especially the Germans and Japanese were willing to expand their sphere of influence.

Now, with nuclear devices, all bets are off....to be honest, if a 'losing' nation were to feel too threatened, the life on earth would be completely different in a matter of days. :nuke:


Whew.......way too early for this, I need more COFFEE!

:hi: :donut:

edited for very poor spelling this time in the AM

[ShaneGR]

4. all of Europe and us

would equal wwiii

[youngred]

5. It likely wouldn't be

"World Wars" were very common from the mid-1700s on, only two of them are called world wars because of the sheer size of the battles. But in their days the seven years war, the 30 years war, the american revolutionary war (which saw fighting in Europe, India and Africa, as well as Canada andthe Caribbean).

Basically the naming of wars only comes from whatever it becomes popular to call it, which is why some wars have more than one name etc.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

6. Duby hisself has been calling it the WORLD WIDE war on terror...

[Kolesar]

7. Wasn't WW1 called "the Great War" until WW2?

AKA "the war to end all wars"

The Great War and the Great Depression sure were not great.

[youngred]

9. yes

it was

[Kathy in Cambridge]

8. Off topic: I love your Judy Holiday

'Born Yesterday' is one of my favorite movies!