How do you think is the most effective way to stop war?

Do you think there will be world war 3,who do you think will involve.

gaynorvaderWW1 had similar countries in the war and chemical weapons were used

whatever chemical weapon they use back then it certainly not nuke (you know as in Nuclear Weapon like the atomic bomb call "little boy").

Replying to #21

there will be a WW3. it will happen eventually.

I hope my country doesn't involve with something like that.I'm just wanna live peacefully.

calvin_0 · #22there will be a WW3. it will happen eventually.

Yeah, just because someone will be deadly bored.
Thing is- the bigger the supply/money/oil/electricity/etc. shortage, the bigger the threat that some idiot will kill a guy just to get the before-mentioned goods.How to stop war? Since there's no stoppin' it by destroyin' all weapons and puttin' the "bad guys" in jails.......blow up the planet. Little extreme, you say? Well "War" is one of our base-programms planted in our sub-consciousnes. There's no avoiding it.

calvin_0 · #22whatever chemical weapon they use back then it certainly not nuke (you know as in Nuclear Weapon like the atomic bomb call "little boy").there will be a WW3. it will happen eventually.

While not as destructive as an atomic bomb, the short term effects of the chemical weapons used were much more horrific.

Replying to #25

On an individual level, sure. I'd say the incredible loss of life nukes can cause make them far worse.

calvin_0 · #22whatever chemical weapon they use back then it certainly not nuke (you know as in Nuclear Weapon like the atomic bomb call "little boy").

there was chlorine gas which filled your lungs with water and drowned you and then there was mustard gas which ate through your skin or if inhaled ate its way out of your lungs.land a nuke on me anyday, far less painful

tehuber1337 · #26On an individual level, sure. I'd say the incredible loss of life nukes can cause make them far worse.

Which is worse; killing ten people quickly or torturing one person to death?

Your comparison would be more accurate with fifty and fifty thousand.

Are we talking modern nuclear bombs or the atomic bombs from the late 40s?

Either. According to Wikipedia, the Hiroshima nuke killed approximately 70,000.

Replying to #31

Just immediate fatalities, or does that include the people who died years later as a result of radiation exposure?

Immediate. IIRC the current total death toll is something like 200,000+.

Well, that's...Assuming we don't cause a nuclear winter, what about biological warfare? Or even just plain ol' water shortages? The latter isn't confined in developing countries, we often have that in California -laughs-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buPRU02T0fU&feature=relatedThere is diplomacy, its also fix the "war is in man's nature", it spares million of lives, it brings honor not just for oneself but also for your country.If nations will stick to that King from the movie, then we could save lives, destruction and annihilation.We should also stop alliances, it provokes a global size war. Look at WWI and II, how did it became a global size war, this country gets attacked, because the aggravated country is in an alliance, someone will join it, then another one and so on, to be honest, the US likes war. In World War I, Germany sunk american ships, so the US should just declare with Germany, but they also declared war on German allies. Same with WWII, because Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese, why did the US declared war on Germany and Italy? Answer, alliances.

alliances are needed for economic reasons, oil for example.
if someone invaded the UK's biggest oil supplier do you think we would just let it go?

damanali · #35We should also stop alliances, it provokes a global size war. Look at WWI and II, how did it became a global size war, this country gets attacked, because the aggravated country is in an alliance, someone will join it, then another one and so on, to be honest, the US likes war. In World War I, Germany sunk american ships, so the US should just declare with Germany, but they also declared war on German allies. Same with WWII, because Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese, why did the US declared war on Germany and Italy? Answer, alliances.

If it werent for alliances in WWII, Hitler would have taken over the entire of Europe and quite possibly the world after that. Would that have been a preferable outcome?

Lets use that situation, if you permit.
For an imaginary example that UK gets its major supply of oil from ireland and only the UK and Ireland share that "economic alliance", then for some reason Germany attacked Ireland to take its oil. So UK, being a partner in that economic alliance declares war on Germany. So we have a war. UK, being a a member of "military alliance" with the US, will ask US to declare war on Germany. Then Germany,having a "military alliance" with Italy, will declare war on Ireland, UK, and US... then the same "military alliance" with other countries enter and you get WWIII, due to an incident between Ireland and Germany alone. Only UK is affected so why should other countries involve themselves on it? Its because of alliances. If these alliances would be removed, there will be no excuse to declare war on each other.But in the case of the US, any war is a good war and they would join it. even though they should join it. almost all wars the US had joined in the past and present, they were not really supposed to be involved but somehow finds a way to get on it. Like: Spanish-American War, Philippine-American War, WWI and WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf war, War on Iraq, War on Afghanistan and i think now.. a new Korean War or Iran War... and the Former is faster to become reality...

Replying to #37

if it weren't for alliances, it wouldn't come to global scale. Why would the US declare war on Germany for something Japan did on them, and base on some documents, it was even the US that forced Japan into war.Source of my last sentence:
The American Past
Conflicting Interpretations of the Great Issues
Edited by: Sidney and Gerald S. Brown
Vol. 2
Chapter XIV: The United States Enters World War II: Did the U.S. Maneuver Japan into the Attack on Pearl Harbor?

the US got involved with WWI because a german submarine sank a US passenger ship full of US citizens. that's a pretty good reason to get involved.

its not just 1 country though, we have links to many countries and we all rely on each other for food, cars, oil, televisions, etc etc you name it, we will import it. and they will import things we make too. countries rely on each other to survive in the modern world