Raz0rfist has talked about this occasionally, beginning years ago - WWIV will be a loosely-related series of civil wars with ideological and occasionally material support between the two sets of belligerents - establishment and revolutionary - in each country falling in line with their equivalents in other countries.
I happen to like the theory - it makes a certain degree of sense, that if the US and France, for example, had a simultaneous revolt against their ruling class, perhaps Germany, Canada, and the UK send in troops to assist in putting the revolt down, but this triggers their own revolutionaries to take advantage of the decreased security posture and start their own revolutions, and as able fighters from one country cross over into another or send materiel to their ideological counterparts the conflict becomes both localized and global.
I’ve sometimes thought about it. Like if things kicked off, I imagine sending guns and ammo to free the UK or Poland, just as was done for America back in the day.
It would be hard to sit on the sidelines while patriots tried to free themselves.
The Liberator pistols may have been a failure in WWII, but the principle is sound. When revolting against an occupying force, you only need to be well-armed enough to acquire better weaponry.
So what if, as would hypothetically be the case in Aus, seemingly (Jesus, I'm gonna be on a watchlist tomorrow), the enemy is the existing government of the country itself, and the population is largely unarmed..?
Then what do we do/how would we get even basic arms in the first place..? Or are we just totally screwed, as seems very much to increasingly be the case...
We are a bunch of islands, a long way from most of the western world, after all...
Side note: There's a book series called "Tomorrow", starting with "Tomorrow When the War Began". I read it in school. I wasn't a huge fan, but it is massively famous in Aus. Deals with a hypothetical invasion and takeover of Aus by an Asian army resembling China or Indonesia (both are our biggest threats), and the efforts by local teenagers and young people to fight back... Apparently it's quite good, overall, so that comes as a recommendation, if anyone is interested, and can tolerate an entry from the YA genre, before it become utterly shit as it is today, lol...
A seemingly-endless series of proxy battles that continues up until today, between the neoliberal world order and their puppet states and pet revolutionaries and the neomarxist world order and their puppet states and pet revolutionaries - very different from WWI and WWII on the surface... underneath, not so much.
I think (guessing) that the theory they are going for here ascribes to the "I don't know with what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones" idea...
More specifically, that is to say that it assumes WW3 will have already happened beforehand, and that the war it is talking about will come after, perhaps as a result of said WW3...
Though the difference with Raz0rfist/almond's version is that they are assuming these nation states will remain intact throughout, at least the third World War, whereas Einstein, at least apocryphally, seemed to think that it would result in them "Returning to Monke"TM...
Ever get the feeling when it kicks off it'll be a world wide event?
Raz0rfist has talked about this occasionally, beginning years ago - WWIV will be a loosely-related series of civil wars with ideological and occasionally material support between the two sets of belligerents - establishment and revolutionary - in each country falling in line with their equivalents in other countries.
I happen to like the theory - it makes a certain degree of sense, that if the US and France, for example, had a simultaneous revolt against their ruling class, perhaps Germany, Canada, and the UK send in troops to assist in putting the revolt down, but this triggers their own revolutionaries to take advantage of the decreased security posture and start their own revolutions, and as able fighters from one country cross over into another or send materiel to their ideological counterparts the conflict becomes both localized and global.
I’ve sometimes thought about it. Like if things kicked off, I imagine sending guns and ammo to free the UK or Poland, just as was done for America back in the day.
It would be hard to sit on the sidelines while patriots tried to free themselves.
The Liberator pistols may have been a failure in WWII, but the principle is sound. When revolting against an occupying force, you only need to be well-armed enough to acquire better weaponry.
So what if, as would hypothetically be the case in Aus, seemingly (Jesus, I'm gonna be on a watchlist tomorrow), the enemy is the existing government of the country itself, and the population is largely unarmed..?
Then what do we do/how would we get even basic arms in the first place..? Or are we just totally screwed, as seems very much to increasingly be the case...
We are a bunch of islands, a long way from most of the western world, after all...
Side note: There's a book series called "Tomorrow", starting with "Tomorrow When the War Began". I read it in school. I wasn't a huge fan, but it is massively famous in Aus. Deals with a hypothetical invasion and takeover of Aus by an Asian army resembling China or Indonesia (both are our biggest threats), and the efforts by local teenagers and young people to fight back... Apparently it's quite good, overall, so that comes as a recommendation, if anyone is interested, and can tolerate an entry from the YA genre, before it become utterly shit as it is today, lol...
Are we classifying the Cold War or something else as WWIII?
The Cold War is WWIII in this hypothetical.
A seemingly-endless series of proxy battles that continues up until today, between the neoliberal world order and their puppet states and pet revolutionaries and the neomarxist world order and their puppet states and pet revolutionaries - very different from WWI and WWII on the surface... underneath, not so much.
I think (guessing) that the theory they are going for here ascribes to the "I don't know with what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones" idea...
More specifically, that is to say that it assumes WW3 will have already happened beforehand, and that the war it is talking about will come after, perhaps as a result of said WW3...
Though the difference with Raz0rfist/almond's version is that they are assuming these nation states will remain intact throughout, at least the third World War, whereas Einstein, at least apocryphally, seemed to think that it would result in them "Returning to Monke"TM...