If there was WW3...

[jsheph03]

If there was WW3 Who would it be between, what would they fight it with, and who would win?

 

[Fussiler1]

Short answer: nobody

Long answer: the countries that would be considered 'neutral' or just far away would have the possibility to become superpowers, like Australia. The USA and the Soviet Union would be devastated and in China the Nationalists might have taken over, depending on what time it would occur. Besides that, Germany and most of Europe would be ravaged and one big mess.

<3 SAM's

 

[Etzer]

Zombies vs. humanity ^_^
Noone would win because humanity would flee to mars and the zombies would die because they didn't get to eat anything, so they began to eat eachother.
Long story short, normal people die.

 

[Zombie]

Combined Russian/Chinese invasion of the USA, just like in the games!

We're already preparing, I'm the guy on the left.

 

[Zealon]

There will be a war, but its most likely to be political.

 

[Tyranid]

Well, if it happened after about 2 years from now and Finland would be involved, I would probably be forced to participate.

 

[xxdingo93xx]

I doubt there will be a WW3 in the near future ... maybe in 200 years when everything becomes posessed by robots or something (just like in the movie 'I, Robot' xD)

 

[jsheph03]

@Fussiler1 Smart.

@Etzer How did zombies even get into this? xD

@Zombie I say N+S Korea + China Into US if anything

@Zealon Ur so boring xD

@Tyranid Lol y Finland?

@xxdingo93xx But im saying if there was, not will there be?

 

[Ify90]

WW3 will be total disaster , most probably stronger weapons the warr will not be lead by people and by simply sending one masheen[or using some bioweapon] killing milions of people without loosing army or resource for army , and again some of the powers of the world will fight in it and all the world will perish because of 3-4 people with power and greedy intentions .

 

[Aeroblyctos]

WW3 will be total disaster , most probably stronger weapons the warr will not be lead by people and by simply sending one masheen[or using some bioweapon] killing milions of people without loosing army or resource for army , and again some of the powers of the world will fight in it and all the world will perish because of 3-4 people with power and greedy intentions .

And what would those three to four people be? Me, you and... Zombie?

 

[Crazy Cow]

Honestly, everyone would die and nobody would win. We have weapons powerful enough now to destroy countries, and half the world has them right now. After the US, Russia, China, and others are pounded to dust by nuclear weapons, anyone not hit directly (probably parts of Africa and South America) would have to survive the nuclear winter that followed, which is probably impossible.
So let's not start any wars, eh?

 

[Tyranid]

@Tyranid Lol y Finland?

Because I am from Finland and I will be attending military service. At the end we take a vow to defend Finland if it ever enters a war.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

I'm from Finland too and I have completed military service and when a war starts I'll be the first one who fly to Australia. Hurray.

 

[Zombie]

@Zombie I say N+S Korea + China Into US if anything

Lolno.

The You Ass Say is already pretty much ruled by the Chinese market and is highly dependent on the country's economy, notice how all large firms have their major factories set in China. Our commie friends don't have the slightest need to start a war at all.

North Korea may actually try something, but it'd be plunged into oblivion in a matter of days.

On a serious note, the 3th World war is only likely to materialize as a middle-east/muslim countries versus the NATO, though it's doubtful it will be called a world war unless they actually manage to step out of their borders and invade a developed country.

It's not likely that any countries with nuclear weapons will ever be shooting each other though, so a 'world war' in the literal sense, bringing a destruction on the level of the previous ones will never really materialize. Tech replaces manpower anyway, notice how all armed conflicts are 'resolved' in weeks during the modern times and insurgency causes the most major problems.

 

[Zealon]

Honestly, everyone would die and nobody would win. We have weapons powerful enough now to destroy countries, and half the world has them right now. After the US, Russia, China, and others are pounded to dust by nuclear weapons, anyone not hit directly (probably parts of Africa and South America) would have to survive the nuclear winter that followed, which is probably impossible.
So let's not start any wars, eh?

Ever heard of the Geneva convention? Even though I don't trust that every goverment will "follow the rules" its still the only thing stopping countries from doing stuff like that.

 

[jsheph03]

@Ify90 Thats more or less what it thought

@Crazy Cow Same as above

@Tyranid Thats interesting. But why would finland go into a war?

@Aeroblyctos is Finland an ally with Aus?

@Zombie I think they might use nukes. But i saw if russias involved they will launch one. Then the person who got nukes will launch one and thier allies will and so forth

@Zealon I bet that maybe the U.S. Will if obama is an idiot. If we get nuked or bombed with nuclear bombs then he better be sending in some radioactive stuff to the person who attacked us. Though i dont think the U.S. Will start a "Nuclear war". They will only continue it.

 

[Boris_Spider]

If there was WW3 Who would it be between, what would they fight it with, and who would win?

It would be between everyone [people rather than countries], be fought with everything, and perhaps a lucky few would win. The cause? Food and Water. It may start in the Middle-East, but it would quickly materialize everywhere; by materialize I mean become obvious.

Technically the planet can't sustain our current population. We're doing it through artificial means, but are approaching the point where we'll soon need some technological breakthrough, or our populations will be consolidated.

Ever heard of the Geneva convention? Even though I don't trust that every goverment will "follow the rules" its still the only thing stopping countries from doing stuff like that.

The Geneva convention is simply a government's 'promise' that it won't perform certain actions in the name of war. I'd like to think it's safe to say that we all know government 'promises' are never withheld, but rather grossly twisted and applied to the goals of the government.

It prevents nothing the countries are inclined to do.

//\\oo//\\

 

[TwistedImage]

If there was another world war, the entire fucking planet would explode, and I mean that nigh-literally.

We have nuclear/hydrogen bombs counting by the thousands per superpower. It's enough to destroy the entire planet beyond repair for the next few millions of years, effectively eradicating developed life.

 

[Zombie]

@Zombie I think they might use nukes. But i saw if russias involved they will launch one. Then the person who got nukes will launch one and thier allies will and so forth

Why would anyone do that? Currently the nukes are exactly what prevent a modern armed conflict since everyone knows how the planet would be turned to a flaming ball of mud if anyone was to launch a nuke. No one dares risking it.

Ever heard of the Geneva convention? Even though I don't trust that every goverment will "follow the rules" its still the only thing stopping countries from doing stuff like that.

There's always a way of dodging that, see nazi Germany for example, not using mustard gas but systematically initiating a genocide instead.

It's a bit hard to follow when you have the whole world shooting at you.

 

[Zealon]

Technically the planet can't sustain our current population. We're doing it through artificial means, but are approaching the point where we'll soon need some technological breakthrough, or our populations will be consolidated.

Well, actually that is a common lie. Did you know that the whole worlds human population could fit into one province of Australia; and still have 1/2 an acre of land for each person? It only seems like we are overpopulated because the goverment/media want people to believe that. Its only urban areas that are vastly populated, there are many rural areas however, that are completly blocked off to humans and are soly used for farming. If you want proof, I can even go as far as to show you a world map of "where people are not allowed"

The Geneva convention is simply a government's 'promise' that it won't perform certain actions in the name of war. I'd like to think it's safe to say that we all know government 'promises' are never withheld, but rather grossly twisted and applied to the goals of the government.

It prevents nothing the countries are inclined to do.

Here I agree with you, I did say that I still do not "trust" any goverment promise. Politicians do tend to lie, and for many countries, "war is still war and there are no rules" All I'm saying is that you must still give credit to the Geneva convention, for stopping the cruelty in Vietnam and other countries for chemical/biological warfare

There's always a way of dodging that, see nazi Germany for example, not using mustard gas but systematically initiating a genocide instead.

It's a bit hard to follow when you have the whole world shooting at you.

Yup, nazi Germany broke many many "rules" before and during WW2. The funny thing is though, that no other country did anything about it until half of Europe was invaded. They already knew about their massive army being built, which by the way broke one of the "rules" but no one did anything...

Justice was missing, and for many nations, is still missing today.

@Zombie I think they might use nukes. But i saw if russias involved they will launch one. Then the person who got nukes will launch one and thier allies will and so forth.

I agree with Zombie. I'm pretty sure no one is stupid enough to do that, and even if they were, it would have been done years ago

 

[Nuclear]

I'm from Finland too and I have completed military service and when a war starts I'll be the first one who fly to Australia. Hurray.

Lol.. I would move to north pole, close enough and surely safe..
And Finland would win, no doubt.
See proof:

 

[Lich Prince]

On a serious note, the 3th World war is only likely to materialize as a middle-east/muslim countries versus the NATO, though it's doubtful it will be called a world war unless they actually manage to step out of their borders and invade a developed country.

This.

 

[Tyranid]

@Tyranid Thats interesting. But why would finland go into a war?

We all know every Finnish is raised from childhood to believe that Russia will someday invade Finland... even if that has little basis in reality....

*stares at Zombie*

 

[Boris_Spider]

Well, actually that is a common lie. Did you know that the whole worlds human population could fit into one province of Australia; and still have 1/2 an acre of land for each person? It only seems like we are overpopulated because the goverment/media want people to believe that. Its only urban areas that are vastly populated, there are many rural areas however, that are completly blocked off to humans and are soly used for farming. If you want proof, I can even go as far as to show you a world map of "where people are not allowed"

1) If what you say is true, and about 7 billion people can fit into one province of Australia with a 1/2 acre/person. What changes? My house in on approximately a 1/2 acre of land. We couldn't grow/raise enough food to feed ourselves. Neither could anyone else. Ignoring the fact Austrailia is a growing desert, and assuming that we could import food from the rest of the world; how would we do it without our technology? Who would raise the animals and tend the crops overseas? If you think that's unnecessary, then humanity would be starving due to exausting the ecosystem.

2) Where would the water come from? Don't say the ocean, we can't drink that and expect long life. We lack energy/resource-effective methods of turning saltwater into freshwater. Currently, the most of the world's population has access to water that's fresh enough to not kill them, but we're quickly draining it. Keep in mind that nearly all of our crops, if not all, are unable to use saltwater.

Take the US for example. The Ogallala Aquifer may be depleted in as little as 25 years.
"The regions overlying the Ogallala aquifer are some of the most productive regions for ranching livestock, and growing corn, wheat and soybeans in the United States. (They have been called the "breadbasket of America"). The success of large-scale farming in areas that do not have adequate precipitation and do not always have perennial surface water for diversion has depended heavily on pumping groundwater for irrigation"
It's responisable for maintaining much of the US agriculture and livestock, due to insufficient water available (less rain than required and few rivers/lakes nearby) What do we do after it's depleted? (Look up the US Dust Bowl of the 'Dirty Thirties', and see what caused it. If you need several hints, let me know)

Then again there are always the Great Lakes...
"The Great Lakes have approximately 22,573 cubic km of freshwater, out of 106,707 cubic km of freshwater worldwide." [About 21.2% of total freshwater]
A good sized bowl of water, but is it big enough to supply even 5% of world population? (US population)

How much water do we all use? (approximately)
"Your individual water footprint is equal to the water required to produce the goods and services consumed by you."

What is the world's water consumption rate and how is it changing?
"Freshwater withdrawals have tripled over the last 50 years. Demand for freshwater is increasing by 64 billion cubic meters a year (1 cubic meter = 1,000 liters)
The world’s population is growing by roughly 80 million people each year.
Changes in lifestyles and eating habits in recent years are requiring more water consumption per capita.
The production of biofuels has also increased sharply in recent years, with significant impact on water demand. Between 1,000 and 4,000 litres of water are needed to produce a single litre of biofuel.
Energy demand is also accelerating, with corresponding implications for water demand."

Let's say 3,394,690 billion liters of water have been consumed to date this year.
1 cubic meter = 1,000 liters
3,394,690 billion liters = 3,394,690 x 10^9 liters.
3,394,690 x 10^9 / 1,000 liters = 339,469 x 10^ 7 cubic meters = 339,469 x 10^4 cubic km.
339,469 x 10^4 cubic km / 106,707 cubic km (world freshwater supply) = 31,813.2 times freshwater used out of freshwater available.

Granted, we have means of recycling the water to keep it clean, but as we increase our usage, our ability to maintain that decreases. Now, not all of this is used as drinking water. It also consists of water used for crops/animals (food), water used for bathing, flushing toilets, cleaning (sanitation).

While water doesn't need to be as purified for crops as it does for consumption, water is host to a variety of diseases like Cholera. If you need a modern example, check out Haiti and it's water issues.

You can already see countries claiming rivers in the Mid-East, due to need of water. It's only a matter of time before people start killing each other to maintain control of it. If you've read the Dune Chronicles by Frank Herbert, albeit exagerating, you'll have an idea as to what could occur. Of course, people probably wouldn't starve, as a vast amount of food surrounds them. I suppose a little thing like cannibalism never hurt anyone.

//\\oo//\\

 

[Ikithe]

If there was WW3 Who would it be between, what would they fight it with, and who would win?

Russia always wins. Seriously.

And everybodie's eventually going to die unless we get off this Earth and go somewhere else.

 

[Zombie]

Yup, nazi Germany broke many many "rules" before and during WW2. The funny thing is though, that no other country did anything about it until half of Europe was invaded. They already knew about their massive army being built, which by the way broke one of the "rules" but no one did anything...

Eh, Germany building an army wasn't really a humanitarian regulation and they ignored it as well as the Anschluss, Czechoslovakia and everything Germany did until they invaded France because the European populace didn't want another world war.

It was just the stupidity of pacifism more than anything else.

We all know every Finnish is raised from childhood to believe that Russia will someday invade Finland... even if that has little basis in reality....

*stares at Zombie*

Yeah, you know that story when Russia tried invading Finland back a few years ago? I doubt they'd try it again.

Russia always wins. Seriously.

Russia? Never heard of it. They keep telling me the USA won every war on the Earth single-handedly.

 

[Boris_Spider]

Russia? Never heard of it. They keep telling me the USA won every war on the Earth single-handedly.

Define 'won.' Define 'they.'
Here:
Russia - The largest country (land-wise) which few people care about. Only noticed due to a supply of bombs that go 'really, really, big booms' great enough to wipe out the surface of the planet a few times over, and then some.
There, I helped.

Interesting, every war ever fought was done so in the last 234-235 years...

:

//\\0o//\\

 

[Zombie]

Define 'won.' Define 'they.'
Here:
Russia - The largest country (land-wise) which few people care about. Only noticed due to a supply of bombs that go 'really, really, big booms' great enough to wipe out the surface of the planet a few times over, and then some.
There, I helped.

Interesting, every war ever fought was done so in the last 234-235 years...

:

//\\0o//\\

I was being sarcastic.

 

[rcshaggy]

Would be cool if World War Three was about going into space and fighting off alien invaders. :3

Kinda like how Starcraft, Star Wars, and such etc...

 

[Boris_Spider]

I was being sarcastic.

So was I...

//\\==//\\

Would be cool if World War Three was about going into space and fighting off alien invaders. :3

Kinda like how Starcraft, Star Wars, and such etc...

If aliens invaded us, we'd all be screwed. It would be WWS [World Wide Squished], not WW III.

 

[TwistedImage]

Would be cool if World War Three was about going into space and fighting off alien invaders. :3

Kinda like how Starcraft, Star Wars, and such etc...

Yeah man, war IRL is fucking awesome.

 

[PROXY]

World war three would mostly be about resources at the earth, for example phophor, and stuff.

 

[Zombie]

World war three would mostly be about resources at the earth, for example phophor, and stuff.

Yeah, phophor among things like waer, ol, irn and other reources.

 

[RedClaw]

if there will be a world war 3 thene it will be with america vs iraq but if america sents a nuke at iraq thene rusia will sent at america and bla bla but if they send at each other nukes thene the planed will be deastroyed do you know that america rusia and all states on the world combined have at least 100000 nukes? send theme all and = planed destruction!

 

[Fussiler1]

if there will be a world war 3 thene it will be with america vs iraq but if america sents a nuke at iraq thene rusia will sent at america and bla bla but if they send at each other nukes thene the planed will be deastroyed do you know that america rusia and all states on the world combined have at least 100000 nukes? send theme all and = planed destruction!

... what? Why the hell would America launch a nuke against Iraq? An invasion would cause less deaths.

 

[Tyranid]

if there will be a world war 3 thene it will be with america vs iraq but if america sents a nuke at iraq thene rusia will sent at america and bla bla but if they send at each other nukes thene the planed will be deastroyed do you know that america rusia and all states on the world combined have at least 100000 nukes? send theme all and = planed destruction!

 

[Zombie]

if there will be a world war 3 thene it will be with america vs iraq but if america sents a nuke at iraq thene rusia will sent at america and bla bla but if they send at each other nukes thene the planed will be deastroyed do you know that america rusia and all states on the world combined have at least 100000 nukes? send theme all and = planed destruction!

World War 3 will be between Romania and Hungary during which Hungary reclaims rightfully the lost 'Transylvania'. : ))))

 

[Tyranid]

World War 3 will be between Romania and Hungary during which Hungary reclaims rightfully the lost 'Transylvania'. : ))))

You kidding right? There's no way Hungarian army will survive the onslaught of Romanian vampires!

 

[Darkness-4ever]

Your both wrong! The US army will come in and kick the crap of Hungaria and Romania and move Transylvania to Hollywood, where it belongs!

 

[Zealon]

Urrhhhh.. *Zealon sighs heavily* I am a very busy guy and I don't have much time to spend debating.

1) If what you say is true, and about 7 billion people can fit into one province of Australia with a 1/2 acre/person. What changes? My house in on approximately a 1/2 acre of land. We couldn't grow/raise enough food to feed ourselves. Neither could anyone else. Ignoring the fact Austrailia is a growing desert, and assuming that we could import food from the rest of the world; how would we do it without our technology? Who would raise the animals and tend the crops overseas? If you think that's unnecessary, then humanity would be starving due to exausting the ecosystem.

Now don't forget about the other 3 provinces in Australia. And people tend to live with other people, like in families. Which still leaves much of the nation, open for farming, industry, and manufacturing.

Food is not a problem, for those who have the knowledge. Me and my family live off our own land. All we have is a few vegatable plants in the garden, 3 fruit trees, a cow, 3 sheep, and 5 chickens. With this, enough food is produced to feed the whole neighbourhood, in fact there is too much food, and the cow gives too much milk. We have 10 acres, but 7 acres is not used, its just an empty grassy pasture. I'm sure our family alone could live off 1/2 an acre of land pretty easily, and again there is still the rest of Australia.

The worlds population is only 6 billion, not 7 billion

And Australia isn't a big desert, its hot and in some places quite dry. But the climate is really very similar to California, or South Africa. The soil is also very rich.

2) Where would the water come from? Don't say the ocean, we can't drink that and expect long life. We lack energy/resource-effective methods of turning saltwater into freshwater. Currently, the most of the world's population has access to water that's fresh enough to not kill them, but we're quickly draining it. Keep in mind that nearly all of our crops, if not all, are unable to use saltwater.

Take the US for example. The Ogallala Aquifer may be depleted in as little as 25 years.
"The regions overlying the Ogallala aquifer are some of the most productive regions for ranching livestock, and growing corn, wheat and soybeans in the United States. (They have been called the "breadbasket of America"). The success of large-scale farming in areas that do not have adequate precipitation and do not always have perennial surface water for diversion has depended heavily on pumping groundwater for irrigation"
It's responisable for maintaining much of the US agriculture and livestock, due to insufficient water available (less rain than required and few rivers/lakes nearby) What do we do after it's depleted? (Look up the US Dust Bowl of the 'Dirty Thirties', and see what caused it. If you need several hints, let me know)

Then again there are always the Great Lakes...
"The Great Lakes have approximately 22,573 cubic km of freshwater, out of 106,707 cubic km of freshwater worldwide." [About 21.2% of total freshwater]
A good sized bowl of water, but is it big enough to supply even 5% of world population? (US population)

How much water do we all use? (approximately)
"Your individual water footprint is equal to the water required to produce the goods and services consumed by you."

What is the world's water consumption rate and how is it changing?
"Freshwater withdrawals have tripled over the last 50 years. Demand for freshwater is increasing by 64 billion cubic meters a year (1 cubic meter = 1,000 liters)
The world’s population is growing by roughly 80 million people each year.
Changes in lifestyles and eating habits in recent years are requiring more water consumption per capita.
The production of biofuels has also increased sharply in recent years, with significant impact on water demand. Between 1,000 and 4,000 litres of water are needed to produce a single litre of biofuel.
Energy demand is also accelerating, with corresponding implications for water demand."

Let's say 3,394,690 billion liters of water have been consumed to date this year.
1 cubic meter = 1,000 liters
3,394,690 billion liters = 3,394,690 x 10^9 liters.
3,394,690 x 10^9 / 1,000 liters = 339,469 x 10^ 7 cubic meters = 339,469 x 10^4 cubic km.
339,469 x 10^4 cubic km / 106,707 cubic km (world freshwater supply) = 31,813.2 times freshwater used out of freshwater available.

Granted, we have means of recycling the water to keep it clean, but as we increase our usage, our ability to maintain that decreases. Now, not all of this is used as drinking water. It also consists of water used for crops/animals (food), water used for bathing, flushing toilets, cleaning (sanitation).

While water doesn't need to be as purified for crops as it does for consumption, water is host to a variety of diseases like Cholera. If you need a modern example, check out Haiti and it's water issues.

You can already see countries claiming rivers in the Mid-East, due to need of water. It's only a matter of time before people start killing each other to maintain control of it. If you've read the Dune Chronicles by Frank Herbert, albeit exagerating, you'll have an idea as to what could occur. Of course, people probably wouldn't starve, as a vast amount of food surrounds them. I suppose a little thing like cannibalism never hurt anyone.

Water isn't a problem. Water is naturaly recycled bck into the water cycle. If I remember correctly when your body uses water, it puts a large percentage of your "water" into the toilet. From the toilet it goes into a sewerege system, or like ours, it goes into an underground tank that purifies it until its drinkable. Then it just empties it onto the lawn somewhere, where a huge percentage is recycled, etc.

The Amazon river alone generates enough fresh water to sustane the world. And yes, the ocean could be a source of water too, modern fishermen always have saltwater purifiers. Did you know that the albratross has a natural purifier? it can take a drink from the sea, and later a very salty liquid is ejected from a small hole in its nostral. It can live its whole life, drinking this way.

It seems like most greenies these days, are worried about the world flooding from the polar Ice caps melting. I completly disagree that the world is flooding, and that the world is drying up.

Water has always plentiful, and is still plentiful today; you can't look at the Sarara desert and say "oh no, the world is drying up" when you havn't even seen the rainforests of Brazil "oh no, the world will flood, there is too much rain here" My honest opinion is that people arn't draining the earth of water. Or causing the world to flood. And I'm sorry if I sounded abit mean, I'm just trying to make a point

Anyway, I guess I'll just have to let you win for now, coz I don't have the time right now to type all of my counter infomation. Like I said I'm very busy. So maybe next time Boris, it was a good argument

 

[Zombie]

You kidding right? There's no way Hungarian army will survive the onslaught of Romanian vampires!

I thought using vampires to achieve victories is more like the courtesy of Germans.

Your both wrong! The US army will come in and kick the crap of Hungaria and Romania and move Transylvania to Hollywood, where it belongs!

 

[Tyranid]

I thought using vampires to achieve victories is more like the courtesy of Germans.

No, that was just Nazi propaganda, along with the supposed invasion to Great Britain.

 

[Kala]

Japan vs. USA (Japan wins)
or
Irak vs. USA (USA wins)


Anyway, USA is in it ^^

 

[fladdermasken]

1. Not Relevant.
2. 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 US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
3. There are no winners in war, only losers.

 

[Fussiler1]

Japan vs. USA (Japan wins)
or
Irak vs. USA (USA wins)


Anyway, USA is in it ^^

Who says the USA is still a super power when WW III begins?

 

[Zombie]

1. Not Relevant.
2. I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
3. There are no winners in war, only losers.

If you're going to exercise quotations, at least name the source, really.

Japan vs. USA (Japan wins)
or
Irak vs. USA (USA wins)


Anyway, USA is in it ^^

Japan's army is actually rather small and only has rights to be employ self-defense, not to mention that the US troops from Okinawa would put them down in a blink.

Then again, Japan has literally no reason to attack the USA.

I'm also wondering why people keep bringing Iraq up. Past conflicts have proven that that country is not to be taken as a global threat and the world police puts them to their place without losing a dozen of men.

 

[fladdermasken]

If you're going to exercise quotations, at least name the source, really.

I assumed people knew that quote. And for that matter, it's not relevant whether they do know of it or not. That quote reflects what I have to say on the topic. But whatever, if it's bothering you I'll fix it.

 

[Lich Prince]

I'm also wondering why people keep bringing Iraq up. Past conflicts have proven that that country is not to be taken as a global threat and the world police puts them to their place without losing a dozen of men.

I think he meant Iran.

 

[Zombie]

I assumed people knew that quote. And for that matter, it's not relevant whether they do know of it or not. That quote reflects what I have to say on the topic. But whatever, if it's bothering you I'll fix it.

I think he meant Iran.

Sadly enough, I do not possess psionic abilities. Doing so may also bring WW3 a step closer?

 

[Boris_Spider]

Urrhhhh.. *Zealon sighs heavily* I am a very busy guy and I don't have much time to spend debating.



Now don't forget about the other 3 provinces in Australia. And people tend to live with other people, like in families. Which still leaves much of the nation, open for farming, industry, and manufacturing.

Food is not a problem, for those who have the knowledge. Me and my family live off our own land. All we have is a few vegatable plants in the garden, 3 fruit trees, a cow, 3 sheep, and 5 chickens. With this, enough food is produced to feed the whole neighbourhood, in fact there is too much food, and the cow gives too much milk. We have 10 acres, but 7 acres is not used, its just an empty grassy pasture. I'm sure our family alone could live off 1/2 an acre of land pretty easily, and again there is still the rest of Australia.

The worlds population is only 6 billion, not 7 billion

And Australia isn't a big desert, its hot and in some places quite dry. But the climate is really very similar to California, or South Africa. The soil is also very rich.



Water isn't a problem. Water is naturaly recycled bck into the water cycle. If I remember correctly when your body uses water, it puts a large percentage of your "water" into the toilet. From the toilet it goes into a sewerege system, or like ours, it goes into an underground tank that purifies it until its drinkable. Then it just empties it onto the lawn somewhere, where a huge percentage is recycled, etc.

The Amazon river alone generates enough fresh water to sustane the world. And yes, the ocean could be a source of water too, modern fishermen always have saltwater purifiers. Did you know that the albratross has a natural purifier? it can take a drink from the sea, and later a very salty liquid is ejected from a small hole in its nostral. It can live its whole life, drinking this way.

It seems like most greenies these days, are worried about the world flooding from the polar Ice caps melting. I completly disagree that the world is flooding, and that the world is drying up.

Water has always plentiful, and is still plentiful today; you can't look at the Sarara desert and say "oh no, the world is drying up" when you havn't even seen the rainforests of Brazil "oh no, the world will flood, there is too much rain here" My honest opinion is that people arn't draining the earth of water. Or causing the world to flood. And I'm sorry if I sounded abit mean, I'm just trying to make a point

Anyway, I guess I'll just have to let you win for now, coz I don't have the time right now to type all of my counter infomation. Like I said I'm very busy. So maybe next time Boris, it was a good argument

Wow.

~I thought you said 1/2 an acre per person, and yet you're using 3. I assume that you have 5 other people living with you.
~You must live in a small neighborhood, where your neighbors have the same overabundance problem you do
~Australia is 1/3 desert. Deserts don't yield much for crops, or anything else for that matter. That's why they're deserts.
~"Food isn't a problem" -Tell that to the approximately 900 million people starving
~The world's population is currently estimated to be 6,877,000,000. Much closer to 7 billion.
~"Water isn't a problem"
-An adult human needs to drink at least 1.5 liters of FRESH water a day to replace fluid lost in urine, sweat, and respired air and to perform essential biochemical functions
-Livestock need FRESH water for the same reasons as us
-Crops need FRESH water to survive
-Saltwater is the quickest way to dehydrate all 3
-As cool as a salt-drinking bird is, does it help humans, livestock, or crops? --No, it doesn't. A concentrated salt excretion doesn't help us either.
-Rivers don't 'generate' water. The lakes feeding them and snow/ice melting off of mountains do. If you really want to be a smart ass, then no water is created or destroyed because it's in an endless cycle; however, note that it only benefits us while it's a liquid and nearly pure.
-The Sahara Desert isn't an indication of a drying world. At best it indicates that it's not a place you'd want to be. Desert: any area in which few forms of life can exist because of a lack of water, a permanent frost, or an absence of soil.
-Rainforests in Brazil don't indicate an impending world wide flood, just that in those places Brazil gets alot of rain. Rainforests don't provide any significant source of food for the world.
-Your 'honest opinion' is also a recognised fact. As mentioned earlier, it's called the Water Cycle for a reason.

~Your counter arguements don't prove anything, and don't counter any of the arguements presented thus far.

~WW III probably isn't starting sometime this year (we hope...), but rather when we reach the point when these issues can no longer be ignored. Obviously, today isn't that point.

~Debates aren't about 'winning.' It is possible to persuade people to pick up certain PoVs. Debates rarely persuade the participants PoVs.

~I hope your time is spent educating yourself, as you're going to live to see water and food become issues. If you don't, then you're really, really lucky.

//\\==//\\