Is World War III inevitable?

[RodeoHK]

Given world events of the last decade or so, would you say WWIII is bound to happen? If so, why? And ... when?

[Thib]

News flash; WW3 has already started.

[yoyomellow]

SuperTed is hot...

but yea, i think that war has already started.

[Cliff Notes]

News flash; WW3 has already started.

A world war is a military conflict affecting the majority of the world's countries. World wars usually span multiple continents, and are very bloody and destructive.

The term is usually used to refer to World War I (1914–1918) and World War II (1939–1945). Both wars involved some degree of participation from most of the world's existing countries, especially through the colonial empires of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, besides the United States and Russia. There has also been discussion of a so-called World War III, often used as a theoretical possibility or science fiction scenario, recently to describe the War on Terrorism, or to refer to some other actual event (e.g. the Cold War).

Other wars in earlier periods that saw conflict across the world have been considered world wars by some, including the Seven Years' War (1756–1763; Winston Churchill called it "the first world war" in his A History of the English Speaking Peoples), the French Revolutionary Wars (1792–1802) and the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815).

Since the conclusion of World War I, called the "war to end all wars", international organisations have been developed to attempt to prevent the outbreak of new wars. The League of Nations was established after World War I, and collapsed with the outbreak of World War II, after which the United Nations was formed.

Major countries aren't fighting eachother. Thus we are not in WW3.

[RodeoHK]

So how will it go down in history? When do you think it officially started. Because no-one said 'How's World War II' going in 1944 did they?

[Thib]

News flash; WW3 has already started.

A world war is a military conflict affecting the majority of the world's countries. World wars usually span multiple continents, and are very bloody and destructive.

The term is usually used to refer to World War I (1914–1918) and World War II (1939–1945). Both wars involved some degree of participation from most of the world's existing countries, especially through the colonial empires of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, besides the United States and Russia. There has also been discussion of a so-called World War III, often used as a theoretical possibility or science fiction scenario, recently to describe the War on Terrorism, or to refer to some other actual event (e.g. the Cold War).

Other wars in earlier periods that saw conflict across the world have been considered world wars by some, including the Seven Years' War (1756–1763; Winston Churchill called it "the first world war" in his A History of the English Speaking Peoples), the French Revolutionary Wars (1792–1802) and the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815).

Since the conclusion of World War I, called the "war to end all wars", international organisations have been developed to attempt to prevent the outbreak of new wars. The League of Nations was established after World War I, and collapsed with the outbreak of World War II, after which the United Nations was formed.

Major countries aren't fighting eachother. Thus we are not in WW3.

Bullshit. Stay tuned my friend. WW3 has already started.

[Cliff Notes]

The specific qualities that make up a world war are open to debate, however, the following are a reasonable set of criteria:

Alliances

Normally, there are groups of nations on each side in two alliances or distinct groups.

In the American Revolutionary War, the sides were aligned between the United States, France, Spain and the Netherlands against Great Britain and minor German States. The Great War of 1914-1918, the sides were aligned between Japan, China, Brazil, Cuba, United States, British Empire, France, Arabian Empire, Serbia, Montenegro, Luxembourg, Italy, Romania and the Russian Empire against the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia and the Ottoman Empire.

Happened on more than one continent

The Great War of 1914-1918 was fought in China, The Pacific Ocean, Arabia, Africa and the North Atlantic as well as Europe. The Seven Years War (1754-1763) was fought in India, and North America as well as Europe. The Second World War of 1939-1945 was fought first in China, and then later in Greenland, Alaska, off the coast of Argentina, and in Africa, Arabia and North America as well as Europe and the Pacific Ocean.

Great numbers of deaths

A World War is also characterized by the great number of deaths, often both military and civilian. The Second World War is an extreme example of this: lowest estimates put the death count at forty million, including many Russian or Chinese civilians, and nearly ten million killed in the Holocaust. Although earlier wars do not exhibit such great numbers, seen in the light of the world's population at the time, they were extremely destructive.

[yoyomellow]

Who is this Cliff Notes, its pretty hilarious. someone put some time into that!

[RodeoHK]

Cliff Notes is my new God.

[Thib]

I dunno who he is, but I dig him. He's a breath of fresh air.

[RodeoHK]

I feel kind of guilty assuming he's a he.

[jethro]

Does a holy war count as a world war?

[David Patton]

Does a holy war count as a world war?

With the esence of religions being a search for peace and harmony, how could there actually be a "holy war?"

[jethro]

Does a holy war count as a world war?

With the esence of religions being a search for peace and harmony, how could there actually be a "holy war?"

How indeed.

[bustedstr8]

I tend to agree with conventional thinking: that the idea of a "World War" in the traditional sense is unlikly, with conflicts now being relegated to regional smaller scale flare-ups.

The sheer volume with which modern armies are able to slaughter large groups of people makes it highly unlikly that giant armies would mass enlarge to do battle in one place.

Sitting here thinking about it I find it more than a little ironic that the large, powerful armies we mass are the very forces that have driven our enemies undergrown and evolved their tactic to blow themselves up individually in crowds of civilians. Kinda weird: The armies that keep the country so safe, put the civilian in previously unimaginable danger.

Wow do I sound like a liberal...going back to bed.

[Mr. Rick]

would you say WWIII is bound to happen?

Yes!

Because war is part of human nature!

It will happen sooner than we'd like to think about! :?


WARRIORS, Mount up!

[David Patton]

I tend to agree with conventional thinking: that the idea of a "World War" in the traditional sense is unlikly, with conflicts now being relegated to regional smaller scale flare-ups.

The sheer volume with which modern armies are able to slaughter large groups of people makes it highly unlikly that giant armies would mass enlarge to do battle in one place.

Sitting here thinking about it I find it more than a little ironic that the large, powerful armies we mass are the very forces that have driven our enemies undergrown and evolved their tactic to blow themselves up individually in crowds of civilians. Kinda weird: The armies that keep the country so safe, put the civilian in previously unimaginable danger.

Wow do I sound like a liberal...going back to bed.

I tend to agree. Also, the thing is who is on who's side? If you currently had a global conflict involving anything right now, would the French be on the side of the rest of the EU, and if so who would care?

What would be such a war be about? Oil? Race? Trade restrictions? Food? Market share?

What would be the motive for alliance and why?

Far too complicated for a war to get started.

[MrHouse]

No. No, I don't think it'll happen. Because, as much as everyone hates each other, everyone loves themselves. Meaning nobody wants to die enough to start a World War.

And anyways, invasions are made impossible now, so forget it.

[your 15 minutes are up]

And anyways, invasions are made impossible now, so forget it.

I don't think people in Iraq will agree with you on this point. :?

[David Patton]

And anyways, invasions are made impossible now, so forget it.

I don't think people in Iraq will agree with you on this point. :?

That was a realllllllly good example.

Not only would they say that successful invasion is possible, they could give you examples twice. With CNN pictures.

[MissKiKi]

i thought WW3 has already come and gone

[MissKiKi]

i thought WW3 has already come and gone

[floyd]

I thought the Koreans were going to be the next Bad Guys for America to go after (dragging the British along for the ride, of course).

They are developing nuclear capabilities, have little regard for their own people (let alone anyone else) and want to be a world power.

Or is there not enought oil there? :wink:



*For the hard of thought, that was sarcasm.*

[efram the retarded rabbit]

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein.

[Superficial]

WWIII has alrady started.... FUCKING HELL, is anyone really that stupid.



Middle east = hotbed of political strife after the unsuspected fall of comunism. If the U.S.S.R. had contorlled the oil of the middle east it would of been far more powerful, therefore this had to be avoided at all costs. Americans implement anti-communist regimes in middle east. The process of removing these has begun, international islamic terrorism is a reaction against these regimes and the imperialism which spawned it.


The middle east resembles the Balkans circa 1914. The difference is that there is only one set of allies. The west can anhialate the middle east. As in completelely. Meca could be turned to glass in the morning, and there would be no reaction that would endanger the west.




WWIII will not happen until the american war machine becomes obsolete. Creating weapons more powerful than Hydrogn Bombs is impossible at our current level of science. The Middle east will not get to this before us. The most likely world war is the West Vs China. And nuclear war can never be considered a war that anyone can win. WWIII won't happen for at least another 50 years, when we have advanced our understanding of defence against the ultimate weapons ever developed.

American deaths in Iraq are roughly what? 3000? More people die from war every day, and they are not world wars, they are minor petty wars; largely in Africa, south Asia and South America. World Wars are when Colossus' capable of sustained massacre clash.

[Ranced]

Hey guys, let's all say WW3 has already started. Surely people will find us deep and intellectual through that.

:roll:

Cliff Notes guys I agree with.

[cefnbar]

I don't know when WWIII will start; but, I think we could see another war in Europe in ten to twenty years. Probably the east vs. west again but with the roles reversed. The former eastern bloc nations who have recently embraced a free market facing off with some of the nations formerly of the western bloc who have begun drifting towards socialism.

[eek]

naww... it'll be:

North American-Euro Coalition
+2 research
-1 police
free talent per base

vs.

Arabic Caliphite
-2 research
+2 probe
+2 morale
free oil refineries per base

vs.

The Asia Commonwealth
+2 industry
+1 police
free perimeter defense

[Hit Man]

i don't believe we will ever see a real world war three. at least not one that resembles the first two. can you imagine the backlash of saturation bombing of major cities like was done to london and berlin? no way will that happen and nations won't be able to afford to buy enough smart bombs to do what we did in bagdad. that's not to say that countries like iran and syria won't possibly do so with a missle. they probably will. it's just that the us, uk, france, germany and many other western countries don't have the stomach to bomb heavily civilian populated cities. the global war on terror will continue in one form or another after we are all gone. islamofascists will see to that.

[Ranced]

I'm going to play Rise of Nations.

I don't think my professor will notice me.

[Check Please]

Who needs war when we have FASHION.

[Sedrox]

I tend to agree with this: I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
...brought to you by the letters E=MC^2

[bustedstr8]

I tend to agree with this: I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
...brought to you by the letters E=MC^2


You stole that from Einstein

[L-E]

Yes.

War-mongering, incessantly-meddling US gets bored with the whole "war on terror" bit and wants to keep China in its place so backs Beijing into a corner over Taiwan. Doesn't help that some quasi-fascist neo-con freak idiot of a US president appointed a renowned advocate of Taiwanese independence, with whom North Korea has also previously refused to negotiate, as ambassador to the UN, and ended 60 years of Japanese pacifism by pressuring Japan to re-arm and become a "normal nation." Meanwhile France is saying stuff like "China and France share a common vision of the world" and China is all over South and Central America stepping on neo-con toes every chance they get. Not to mention infringing just a bit on one particular country's economic supremacy to which that country feels so entitled since it is, after all, the greatest country on earth and obviously God's favorite! Hmmm....how better to set China back a quarter or half century than by making them the evil Communist aggressor just as they are emerging as the new superpower?

Taiwan will be the trigger point--possible meltdown date: right before the Beijing Olympics. Taiwan betting that China won't sacrifice its big coming-out party in 2008. But China has already said they will do whatever is necessary to retain Taiwan, specifically mentioning the Olympics. Good old Dubya has said the US will do whatever is necessary to protect Taiwan, refusing to keep its nose the hell out of China's internal affairs despite foolishly losing all of its allies save good old Tony Blair whilst its Protestant preachers issue unofficial fatwahs against leftist South American leaders (save those already taken out by the CIA).

All of this puts the end of the world right on target with the Mayan calendar's prediction of December 21, 2012.

And people call me a pessimist.

:roll: :lol:

[Sedrox]

I tend to agree with this: I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
...brought to you by the letters E=MC^2


You stole that from Einstein

Ugh... keep reading...
"...brought to you by the letters E=MC^2"

[bustedstr8]

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein.


OK...then it was just redundant

[jjcool]

Hmmm....how better to set China back a quarter or half century than by making them the evil Communist aggressor just as they are emerging as the new superpower?


China made themselves the evil Communist aggressor. Over 1,000,000 murdered during the cultural revolution and 35,000,000 total for the 20th century. Please do not excuse the crimes of this communist regime because you don't like President Bush.

[Sedrox]

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein.


OK...then it was just redundant

You sunk my battleship... :oops:

[L-E]

Please do not excuse the crimes of this communist regime because you don't like President Bush.

I didn't excuse anything, and whether I personally were to excuse it or not is immaterial to what I was discussing. The point is that the world for the most part no longer sees China as evil communist aggressor but as an economic powerhouse and, essentially, the 'future.' No one really cares much anymore what China has done or does to its own people because there is too much money to be made. And the stronger it gets economically, the less relevant (to world governments) all of that becomes. I was speaking specifically of potential aggression against Taiwan. A major conflict over Taiwan would be too big for that trend not to be reversed. That serves the purposes of the US in a number of ways, assuming of course that the US thinks it can win.

[your 15 minutes are up]

Hmmm....how better to set China back a quarter or half century than by making them the evil Communist aggressor just as they are emerging as the new superpower?


China made themselves the evil Communist aggressor. Over 1,000,000 murdered during the cultural revolution and 35,000,000 total for the 20th century. Please do not excuse the crimes of this communist regime because you don't like President Bush.

This man speaks the truth. Although I dislike Bush, I would always favour the USA as the world's superpower as opposed to the Chinese, who, despite their apparent move towards democracy and capitalism, still have an essentially dictatorial regime.
And they have an almost limitless supply of men for their military, given their huge population.
And they are trying to undermine the economic success of the West by producing goods with workers paid only marginally more than slave wages. This already threatens to cost thousands of Western workers jobs.

Yes, I think China is potentially the biggest threat to world peace and prosperity in this century, although hopefully there will merely be a Cold War style standoff between the USA and China as two superpowers, rather than an actual military conflict.

Oh well, hope that wasn't too controversial............ :twisted:

[efram the retarded rabbit]

For real, ww3? Either someone just finished a round of americas army or they are insane. If it every happened you would probably be dead before it even started.

[Lokimer]

Personally I don't think we will ever see another World War in the way that we know it. It is very unlikely that we will ever see to world powers going to a full scale war like we saw in WW1 and 2. Due to a great many factors but I think the main one being that most nations are so economically intwined that any war between a two big powers would be not only a disaster in terms of lives lost but it has the possibility to do irrepariable damage to the world's economy. With that said more nations have more at stake and therefore would work doubly hard to avoid such a conflict.

I do believe that if the War on International Extremism ( as the white house is calling it now ) widens any more to say Iran, Syria, North Korea, and maybe some areas/nations (read: Sudan, Congo, ect.), then what we are expierencing could later be considered WW3. But as it stands now I don't think it could be considered as such.

On the other hand war, or some sort of conflict, with China is inevitable. Remember you don't need to shoot at another nations armed forces to play war. Take the Cold War a step further and consider Cyber Warfare and Corporate Warfare, which we are seeing now with the Chinese bids on American Corporations. Especially with oil demand become more and more in China.

[UserNam3]

I think we learned our lesson during WWII or even the Cold War: Never mess with anyone who can fucking nuke the shit out of you.

[RodeoHK]

I think we learned our lesson during WWII or even the Cold War: Never mess with anyone who can fucking nuke the shit out of you.

You win.

Gold star:
http://jenn.wiked.org/random/goldstar.gif

[Domashnia]

There are basically 2 looming scenarios right now that could terminally alter the way of life as American citizens know it.

#1 The Chinese Threat: 90% of Americans are cocky and believe that we are still the #1 superpower. They also believe that the Chinese military is "weak, unorganized, and superficial" or more simply, thier government is too corrupt to wage war. However, Americans must realize that the Chinese view America as thier #1 Enemy and have building a powerful and capable military in response to thier "American Threat". They have Nuclear weapons capable of strikes here in the US and have stated that they will use them no matter the concequences. Basically, They want Taiwan and America as vowed to defend the island nation. However, China has publicly stated that they will wage war upon the US should we interfere with thier invasion of Taiwan. Now, knowing this......it should strike you as chilling that the Chinese navy has doubled thier fleet of amphibious landing craft, Launched a new deepwater battle cruiser, and have commenced large scale military manuvers with Russia since Bush said we would defend Taiwan.


#2 The slow and deliberate choke hold of a military state.For starters we're seeing Gas prices rising drasticly, taxes increasing, inflation at an alarming rate and the revocation of our constitutional rights. Such as:

The "Anti-Hate" bill (HR2662, S1145) which will restrict our rights to free speech in public, including radio and television

Individual states and counties banning certain firearms and guns all together disrupting our right to bear arms.

The patriot act which allows the government to tap your phonelines and interfere with your privacy "in the name of anti terrorism"

The extension of the armed forces' duties to include disaster relief and policing

All of this will eventually lead to an uprising from the ever growing State Militias dedicated to preserving the republic and the constitution. Don't believe me? We're seeing it already with the Minuteman Project. A group of civilian militiamen dedicated to closing our border with Mexico.




I spend alot of time researching this stuff and blog it on myspace. www.myspace.com/domashnia.

[Domashnia]

Personally I don't think we will ever see another World War in the way that we know it. It is very unlikely that we will ever see to world powers going to a full scale war like we saw in WW1 and 2. Due to a great many factors but I think the main one being that most nations are so economically intwined that any war between a two big powers would be not only a disaster in terms of lives lost but it has the possibility to do irrepariable damage to the world's economy. With that said more nations have more at stake and therefore would work doubly hard to avoid such a conflict.
.

Read this article......
________________________________

Dissident: Beijing planning nuclear war
Wei Jingsheng urges Americans to wake up to threat

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng warns of Beijing's nuclear threat (courtesy: Epoch Times)
A leading Chinese dissident warns the United States has not paid enough attention to a growing threat of nuclear war with China.

Wei Jingsheng, who spent 18 years in detention for his pro-democracy activism, told a forum at the National Press Club in Washington that China needs the distraction of a war with Taiwan to turn attention away from the people's frustration with rampant corruption and failed policies at home, reported the Epoch Times, an independent news service that focuses on China.

China expert panelists at the forum discussed the implications of the upcoming U.S. visit of Chinese leader Hu Jintao. Hu was scheduled to make his first official visit to the White House last Wednesday but President Bush canceled the visit so he could focus on responding to Hurricane Katrina.

The two are expected to meet sometime this week in conjunction with the U.N. summit, which begins Wednesday.

Wei said a number of factors are prompting Beijing to consider conventional warfare against Taiwan and even nuclear warfare against the U.S.

He pointed out a treaty with Russia, a traditional enemy, stipulates that if China invades Taiwan, Moscow will not support the U.S. in its defense of the island.

As WorldNetDaily reported, China also has conducted joint military exercises with Russia on the Shandong Peninsula, an area not far from Taiwan.

The exercises in August were to include launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles, though officials maintain the maneuvers were efforts to deal with international terrorism.

Wei said the Chinese Communist Party is considering nuclear war, because it is not afraid to sacrifice China's people.

He cited Chinese general Zhu Chenghu's recent public declaration that China would launch nuclear weapons if attacked by the U.S. and that "we … will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian," which would include Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.

The dissident warned Americans not to underestimate the irrational behavior of the communist leadership.

America's best response to prevent a coming war is to begin taking the possibility seriously, noting Chinese leaders try to appear to the world as non-threatening as they plan their next move.

Some panelists said the Communist Party fears for its future, pointing out the recent resignation of 4 million party members.

The Epoch Times said its nine-part editorial series on the party, published last November, is partly responsible for the mass resignations.

Some panelists tried to dispel the image of China as an emerging nation contributing to peace and prosperity in the world.

Dr. John Li, senior research fellow at the Association for Asian Research, said the U.S. enjoys an "equilibrium" status with China that gives Americans cheap labor while the totalitarian state gets investment dollars and the assurance of "no regime change."

But the U.S. cannot avoid the fact the Chinese have "never wavered in their belief that America is their No. 1 enemy," Li said.

The scholar believes the U.S. should distinguish its true friends from its foes and treat China as an adversary with a regime that opposes American values.

America is sleeping, dreaming images of a pleasant, peaceful China, all the panelists agreed.

Panelist Frank Gong said the Communist Party knows that if it allows political liberty and freedom of speech, its past crimes – including an estimated 80 million dead – will be exposed, and the party will face "immediate collapse."

[UserNam3]

I have no interests in wars, just peace. And a buncha slaves bringing me food.

[David Patton]

Interesting senerio with China. The thing that could result in China starting a war would be if the movement toward a capatalistic society goes too fast there. If it is gradual and the leadership either adjusts to it and profits from it, or changes gradually as well and simply takes over the new, industrialized and capatalistic China, then there will be no war simply a new world economy, dominated by a stronger industrialized China in competition with the US.

If, on the other hand, the leadership in China sees their hold on power slipping and they see no way to avoid the loss of the control they currently enjoy, then they go to war, in the hope that any outcome, no matter how horrific, would be superior to their loss of power.

This would be similar to the fight to the last man philosophy that extended WWII the additional years of suffering in Europe and resulted in the bomb being dropped in Japan to avoid the additional years of struggle and loss of life in that theater of operation.

Timing and the preception of those in power will probably be the determining factors. Then again, they usually are.

[Lokimer]

@Dom; I should have phrase it other nations would work doubly hard to avoid war. Meaning nations that have alot at stake in a war between China and the US and her Allies ( Britian and Japan mainly ), like pretty much the whole world would work to prevent such a war from happening. More likely Japan and Russia would work hard to prevent this, seeing as it's in their backyard. But if I'm not mistaken France and Germany have ALOT of business interest in China. As does most of South America. I could be wrong about that though.

Granted both the US and China seem on a collision course for war I do believe that the UN and the rest of the world would try their damnedest to avoid that. Although this is most likely a decade or so away from becoming reality, but as it stand now China could not stand up to a full US onslaught. But of course the US will never be able to focus all it's reasource's like it did in WW2 due to other strategic concerns.

I think the reason that the White House is looking at a Strategic Nuclear First Strike doctrine is due to the article that Dom posted. But as time passes and China's economy become's more intertwined in the world's economy then the course towards war may deveiate enough to avoid an all out conflict.

[RodeoHK]

Question is, would the US risk the lives not only of its own citizens but those of its allies' just to stop one country from invading another (if, indeed, China nuked America for interfering?) IMHO, WWII ended with a nuclear bomb - WWWIII will start with a nuclear bomb. This cannot happen today, or so I hope.

Damn Americans and Chinese. Can't they settle it with a thumb fight?

[sillyme]

another cold war style standoff is much more likely than a world war style multicontinental conflict. let's not forget, though, that a cold war will result in as many deaths as a hot one... but they'll be further away from the great powers.

europe won't be involved; the economic security aspect to contemporary strategising (ie the benefits of being in a strong EU) is way more important to european states (incl russia) that asserting their authorities.

the real threats to global security are economic, environmental and human...

[cocktailsatthree]

'History is littered with the wars which everybody knew would never happen' -- Enoch Powell*






*No I'm not a fascist, or racist. I just think this is a good quote. Deep, like.

[Orphan_Anal]

3am or pm?

pm sounds good...

[jjcool]

'History is littered with the wars which everybody knew would never happen' -- Enoch Powell*

WWI - "The war to end all wars".

Chamberlin - "Peace in our time".

[cocktailsatthree]

3am or pm?

pm sounds good...

Time is a relative concept. Especially when you're tanked on dirty martinis.

[Orphan_Anal]

Hell yea...

[Briesias]

Not inevitable, but there may be a whole lotta brinkmanship going on.

[wally]

I've read the prophecies of John Titor. I know the truth!

[RodeoHK]

Wow, I just read up on this guy at wikipedia. Eerie. :shock:

[ronnie889]

Wow. Informative. Thanks

[cool girl]

I tend to agree with conventional thinking: that the idea of a "World War" in the traditional sense is unlikly, with conflicts now being relegated to regional smaller scale flare-ups.

The sheer volume with which modern armies are able to slaughter large groups of people makes it highly unlikly that giant armies would mass enlarge to do battle in one place.

Sitting here thinking about it I find it more than a little ironic that the large, powerful armies we mass are the very forces that have driven our enemies undergrown and evolved their tactic to blow themselves up individually in crowds of civilians. Kinda weird: The armies that keep the country so safe, put the civilian in previously unimaginable danger.

Wow do I sound like a liberal...going back to bed.

Agree totally!!! Thank goodness we will never have to witness & go thru the hell that previous generations had2.