The ancient greeks had the oracles. There was major dog-whistling going on there. There were open speeches (the forum) and theater with political content. Statues, paintings etc.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
World War III discussion
- Thread starter Creamu
- Start date
- Views 10,177
- Replies 192
- Likes 1
Yes in the literal sense. The term we are talking about in this thread is a political term. We are obviously not talking about the act of blowing a whistle for a pet dog.
A manmade object is a natural phenomenon?
Yes I suppose it could be, but then that's just leading back to politics so the term applies as-is anyway.
I think I understand what you're getting at, which is that the term shouldn't just be kept to politics because it can apply to so many other contexts, which is true. You could use it as such and nobody can tell you you're wrong for trying, because words change meanings all the time and find their way into wider applications, that much is true. However, that shift hasn't happened on a wider semantic scale yet. Maybe you could be the one to start it, who knows
WWIII will never happen, because Russia and USA are not brave enough. They are super brave only against the small, poor and weak, like Ukraine, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Georgia, Cuba, and so on.
When the enemy is big and powerful, they crap in their pants, and their shit smells like propaganda.
When the enemy is big and powerful, they crap in their pants, and their shit smells like propaganda.
Smaller countries could drag bigger ones into a World War (see WW1), esp. if they have nuclear weapons. If North Korea even tried to send a nuke to the US, the US would nuke North Korea, resulting in China and Russia joining in.
Yes
In that case the point still stands that isolating a term like this to politics is misleading.
The people that have popularised this term are aware of what I am saying, and use it with their particular framing, because it steers attention away from deeper questions to hegelian back and forth, that is easily controlled. To solve issues means taking power at least to an extend, taking power means taking control of ones own discourse/narrative. If you stay in line you playing the game of someone else, not your own.I think I understand what you're getting at, which is that the term shouldn't just be kept to politics because it can apply to so many other contexts, which is true. You could use it as such and nobody can tell you you're wrong for trying, because words change meanings all the time and find their way into wider applications, that much is true. However, that shift hasn't happened on a wider semantic scale yet. Maybe you could be the one to start it, who knows
USA and Russia from WW1 era were way different than today. Today neither Russia nor USA has the guts to face a big power. All they do are nuke tests. If a minor do something very stupid, the big power will invade, bomb or whatever, the minor's allies will warn for the last time, a dozen of times, and things will move on.
Russia will never ever conquer Poland, Lithuania or Hungary again, not because don't want it, but just don't have the guts. Same goes with USA on Cuba or Korea, and places not yet marked, like was Ukraine, are the ones subject to war and destruction.
In the end, and I hope I'm wrong, the next nuke to be used on a real attack will be from a superpower against itself (I mean civil war, extremists arising to power and other shit like that).
No.
Creamu, dude, I really don't think it's that deep. It's just a term used as a shorthand to describe something people do. That's kind of it really.
I think you nailed it!
(Unfortunately there is no fitting like/reatcion emoji.)
We are already in World War III, except instead of missiles and tanks, we are in an informational war, which is also called irregular warfare. Militaries around the world have units dedicated to this very scenario.
As long as the major powers attack each other through proxies, it is not a World War. The Vietnam war was much bloodier than the Ukraine war is today, but it was called Cold War.
Simply put unlikely. It won't be on that scale, since the entire point of NATO is if you attack NATO, your going to deal with all of NATO. Every member working together Unilaterally. It's the reason why Russia can't start a armed conflict, not even a nuclear one. Ontop of the MAD principle, NATO countries would notice them arming for an attack, and one of many united states missiles bases would just launch.
'US Carrier Group Heads Towards Taiwan Ahead Of Potential Pelosi Trip After China Warns Of 'Forceful Response'
If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) follows through on her planned trip to Taiwan, the US military will beef up security in case a 'mishap, misstep or misunderstanding' endangers her safety, AP reports.
While the trip is still an uncertainty, officials say that the military would 'increase its movement of forces and assets in the Indo-Pacific region,' though they declined to go into further detail - aside from noting that fighter jets, ships, surveillance assets and other military systems would be used 'to provide overlapping rings of protection' for her flight, and any time she spent on the ground.
[...]
Pelosi's trip comes at a time when China and the West have been engaging in risky "one-on-one" confrontations, as China has been trying to assert sweeping territorial claims over the region. "The incidents have included dangerously close fly-bys that force other pilots to swerve to avoid collisions, or harassment or obstruction of air and ship crews, including with blinding lasers or water cannon," according to the report, which adds that 'dozens' of such maneuvers have occurred in 2022 alone.
China, meanwhile, has long considered self-ruling Taiwan part of its territory, and has repeatedly raised the prospect of taking it by force. The US has maintained informal relations and defense ties with Taiwan.
The beefed up military cover comes after President Joe Biden said last week that Pelosi's trip is "not a good idea right now," and after China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian warned: "If the U.S. insists on going its own way and challenging China’s bottom line, it will surely be met with forceful responses," adding "All ensuing consequences shall be borne by the U.S."
[...]'
-ZeroHedge
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...-warns-forceful-response-over-taiwan?EdNo=250
If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) follows through on her planned trip to Taiwan, the US military will beef up security in case a 'mishap, misstep or misunderstanding' endangers her safety, AP reports.
While the trip is still an uncertainty, officials say that the military would 'increase its movement of forces and assets in the Indo-Pacific region,' though they declined to go into further detail - aside from noting that fighter jets, ships, surveillance assets and other military systems would be used 'to provide overlapping rings of protection' for her flight, and any time she spent on the ground.
[...]
Pelosi's trip comes at a time when China and the West have been engaging in risky "one-on-one" confrontations, as China has been trying to assert sweeping territorial claims over the region. "The incidents have included dangerously close fly-bys that force other pilots to swerve to avoid collisions, or harassment or obstruction of air and ship crews, including with blinding lasers or water cannon," according to the report, which adds that 'dozens' of such maneuvers have occurred in 2022 alone.
China, meanwhile, has long considered self-ruling Taiwan part of its territory, and has repeatedly raised the prospect of taking it by force. The US has maintained informal relations and defense ties with Taiwan.
The beefed up military cover comes after President Joe Biden said last week that Pelosi's trip is "not a good idea right now," and after China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian warned: "If the U.S. insists on going its own way and challenging China’s bottom line, it will surely be met with forceful responses," adding "All ensuing consequences shall be borne by the U.S."
[...]'
-ZeroHedge
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...-warns-forceful-response-over-taiwan?EdNo=250
You think I care about them? Every reduction of WW3 saber-rattling is a good thing. The world came close to it several times (e.g. in 1962 after the Cuba missiles crisis had been resolved and at the end of the Cold War). One of those times might be one too many.
If there is a 1% chance provocational manuevers could lead to WW3, then constantly repeating them equates to playing with fire. It is not China sending warships and jets close to the US.
Yeah, I still think the best course of action is the death of Putin, the war criminal.
Last I checked, the bad orange man averted World War III with China and North Korea for 4 years. Now they are both talking shit while Resident Sponge-Brain Shits-Pants eats ice cream and falls off his bike.
Drumpfs administration wasn´t any better. Bolten recently proudly spoke of regime change he had been planning (of course CNN did not ask any more question about it; it´s not like they are journalists) and Pompeo lauded Pelosi for wanting to go Taiwan (they should meet there, he wrote).
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I remember one time I downloaded like a 500MB ISO file on 56K and that literally took like 2 days -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
