Random Shoutbox Salvage

[The Beatles]

Well, I'm sure you've had to ridicule my logic on occasion. Just checking.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Well your logically illogical logic is only ridiculous when it illogically varies from my logical logic.

[Kraken]

dispute it then.

*sigh*

anyways, did anyone know that i like to go commando?

[Nuclear Raunch]

Besides your cousins? Hooray for Tennessee

[Gen. Volkov]

WW3 will likely temporarily ease the population burden. China will eventually have a revolution and probably fragment as well. Well, unless WW3 goes so badly that there are no more Chinese.

Well, considering that WW3 is generally agreed to be a nuclear war, I don't think it will go well for anyone.

Kraken, I have to agree with Beatles, this current conflict doesn't quite rate as a world war except in the strictest of technical definitions. But then, by that definition this is like World war 5 or 6.

[Ruddertail]

What is the definition of a world war, anyhow? Because this certainly looks like one to me. You have two sides, one of which (radical Islam/Islamists/Islamofacists/whatever you want to call them, and perhaps some allies) is apparently dedicated to conquering the other (the free world, as some non Western, or even Islamic countries, appear to be against the Islamofacists).

You have countries on every continent, except Antarctica, who are involved. You have an actual "battle ground" on 4 out of 6 populated continents. While Western countries aren't being affected in the same way they were during I & II - rationing, scrap drives, all that stuff - I would say that's more indicative of the nature of the war and the way it's fought, not with whether it's a World War or a regional, non - World War.

[The Beatles]

You've had nutcases wanting to take over the world for as long as there has been civilization. The usual definitions are:
* war: when both sides formally declare conflict
* world: numerical, about countries (>2) and theatres (>1)

If we accept this to be a world war, then the hippies started World War III against society in the 60s.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Well the war on drugs is fought in just as many continents as the war on religous extremists/terrorists/etcare we gonna try and argue that that's a world war? Spread alone is not an effective measure, if that were the case the war on drugs would be the most prolific war in history, and anyone who tries to say that WW1 or WW2 was inferior to the war on drugs has apparantly fought and lost their own personal drug war.

[Gen. Volkov]

The big factor in a world war is involvement, how involved in the war are the countries of the world. In the War on Terror, the involvement is minimal. There have been no mass mobilizations of armed forces, no formal declarations of war. (Though those might not be need any longer) The theater is essentially singular, the middle east. It just does not qualify, it doesn't even come close to the scale and scope of the actual World Wars.

[Ruddertail]

Beatles - I'm not sure about formal declaration of conflict. I'm pretty sure Al - qaeda officially declared war on America, in a verbal manner. The bombings in London and Madrid, as well as the Sept. 11 attacks themselves could probably be considered a declaration of war.

For the other side, I'd say America officially declared war under the name "war on terrorism", and the invasion of Afghanistan is probably considered a declaration of war through actions.

Theaters - N. America (9/11, foiled terror plots since, possible smaller terror plots that have succeeded.)
Europe - London, Madrid attacks.
Mid East - Iraq, Lebanon, Israel.
Asia - Afghanistan (not sure if that's part of the Mid east, or just generally Asia), and several far eastern nations, though I can't remember the exact names, and want to be sure I'm not confusing non Islam-Inspired attacks with Islam-inspired ones.
Africa - Somalia, and probably the Sudan, though that's not as a combat zone as a massacre zone.

Countries involved or countries where combat has taken place? Either way, America, England, Iraq, Afghanistan, Spain, and more, I believe.

Nuke - Drugs aren't an animate foe. That's "war" in a different sense then two armed groups, representing nation-states or people groups/ideologies, trying to destroy one another.

[Nuclear Raunch]

No mass mobilization, are you insane? Look at the coalition of the willing, all North American countries besides the US combine for almost 1,000, Australia has 800, Asia has a combined 900, Africa doesn't have any troops but they do provide us with some peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

That's 3,000 troops in barely over half the world, and yet you still say there's no mass mobilization. I mean think about it, Canada has over 30 people, that's an entire platoon, albeit a small one.

Rudder: The war on drugs is an actual war with druglords. They're even better armed than the average terrorist, however their tactics involve drawing as little attention as possible since their goal is to make money, not political statements.

[Gen. Volkov]

Rudder, the attacks in London etc. don't actually constitute combat. Why? There was only one side attacking. The other side never even had the opportunity to fight back. The only theater where actual combat is taking place is the mid-east. I count Somalia and Sudan as part of the mid-east conflict, given their extreme proximity to the Arabian Peninsula. I would say Africa was another theater of the same war only if something occured in central, southern, or Western Africa. But nothing related to the War on Islamic extremism has occurred in those area's of Africa. It's all been in one general theater. Not being biased here, the North African campaign of WW2 was also just basically part of the European Theater.

Funny Nuke, very funny.

[Ruddertail]

Volkov - I suppose you're right, that's not actual combat. However, those nations were attacked. Further, I'd assume in the aftermath, those nations did do some "fighting back" - they did their best to hunt down enemy inside their country. It's not combat, but it is conflict - two sides going at one another.

Nuke - the drug lords don't appear to share a unified purpose, nor are they (to my knowledge) attempting to destroy America. (Though they are causing considerable damage). It still ends up as more of a law enforcement operation then a warfare operation - unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, Lebanon this past summer, etc...

Oh, well. Maybe you're right - we'll have to wait until Iran gets nukes and starts using them for this to be WWIII...

[Gen. Volkov]

Volkov - I suppose you're right, that's not actual combat. However, those nations were attacked. Further, I'd assume in the aftermath, those nations did do some "fighting back" - they did their best to hunt down enemy inside their country. It's not combat, but it is conflict - two sides going at one another.

Attacked yes, but no actual combat took place during or immediately after those attacks. So while yes, the later reaction to the 9/11 attacks was going into Afghanistan, there was no actual combat between the two sides until then. Most of the hunts in the aftermath ended in arrests, I'm not sure if there ever was a shootout in those hunts.

Yes, when mass mobilizations take place and multiple theaters of major conflict arise, then it could be considered WW3. Or, alternatively, when the nukes start flying and millions die, that will also be WW3, and one of the biggest, shortest wars in history.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Oh, well. Maybe you're right - we'll have to wait until Iran gets nukes and starts using them for this to be WWIII...

Well we can prevent that by randomly attacking countries without nukes while at the same time kissing any nuke-weilding countries ass. That should provide plenty of disincentive for getting nukes.

Volkov: If your talking about the Afghanistan manhunts yes there were shootouts.