Dumb question, What constitutes a world war?

[yellowperil]

The whole world seems to be at war. How much more fighting can it handle? We must be almost there.
Maybe the terminology "world War" can no longer be used to describe what we know to be WW1 and WW2. This constant fighting is a sad and depressing thing IMO.

[dad911]

I agree with this definition: A world war is a war involving some of the world's most powerful and populous countries. World wars span multiple countries on multiple continents, with battles fought in multiple theaters.

World war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[sc_rufctr]

It may seem that way but by definition there isn't a world war on right now.
Sure there's lots of conflict on but,

A state of war in several parts of the world is actually "Normal".

I know that may sound wrong but it's always been like that. "We" really need to do better.

[ossiblue]

Double thread post. Look here:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/839247-dumb-question-what-constitutes-world-war.html

[Nostril Cheese]

An even more depressing thought is that there has never been a more peaceful time than the present.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Nostril Cheese

An even more depressing thought is that there has never been a more peaceful time than the present.

Another way to spin this is that we - as humans - have a bad habit of using personal bias (fueled by the media) to distort the reality of the world around us. It may seem like violence in the world is rampant, or it may seem like gun crimes in the US are climbing or it may seem like poverty is at all-time high levels, but none of this is true.

A good TED talk on the subject:

Hans and Ola Rosling: How not to be ignorant about the world | Talk Video | TED.com

[oldE]

Originally Posted by yellowperil

Maybe the terminology "world War" can no longer be used to describe what we know to be WW1 and WW2.

Dennis,

I'm not sure I follow your logic here.
In WW I there was fighting in Africa between English and German colonial forces and shipping was emperiled around the world by raiders and Von Spee's cruiser squadron. There were naval engagements off the South American coast as well and Japan was involved on the side of the Allies. (which led them to take over some of the German and Russian interests in China post war, leading to ...)
The second WW of course saw Africa, South East Asia Europe, Asia and all the oceans of the world involved.

Without having armed conflict in Central and South America, I don't think they could have been any more 'worldly'

The other side of it is you had almost the entire economies of the involved nations geared for war. Production of non-essential consumer goods was halted. Rationing was instituted. Travel was restricted.
The big difference now is the instantanious transmission of news.

Best
Les

[T77911S]

having 2 threads going with the same title

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by oldE

Dennis,


The other side of it is you had almost the entire economies of the involved nations geared for war. Production of non-essential consumer goods was halted. Rationing was instituted. Travel was restricted.


Best
Les

This. WW2 involved almost every nation with 100% commitment. I still have some of the ration books for tires and shoes or sugar. Imagine the difference. If you need new tires you may will have to get by with worn out used tires until you build up enough ration coupons to have the "right" to even buy tires. Now take that down to food items like flower or sugar. The US saw no real armed conflict for the citizens. There was a ground battle in Alaska and a little incident called Pearl Harbor but the vast majority of American civilians never saw any guns fired at the enemy.

Contrast that to Europe, the Pacific and parts of China and US civilians had it easy.

Right now the same conflicts over the same few religions just continue millennium after millennium.

[pavulon]

Seems to me that a World War occurs when at least 3 super powers go at it with each other in an open and declared manner.

[yellowperil]

Originally Posted by oldE

Dennis,

I'm not sure I follow your logic here.
In WW I there was fighting in Africa between English and German colonial forces and shipping was emperiled around the world by raiders and Von Spee's cruiser squadron. There were naval engagements off the South American coast as well and Japan was involved on the side of the Allies. (which led them to take over some of the German and Russian interests in China post war, leading to ...)
The second WW of course saw Africa, South East Asia Europe, Asia and all the oceans of the world involved.

Without having armed conflict in Central and South America, I don't think they could have been any more 'worldly'

The other side of it is you had almost the entire economies of the involved nations geared for war. Production of non-essential consumer goods was halted. Rationing was instituted. Travel was restricted.
The big difference now is the instantanious transmission of news.

Best
Les

Yes Les, I misspoke. I meant perhaps "world war" can't be used for what is happening NOW, as WW1 and WW2 were indeed World wars.,

[yellowperil]

Also, sorry for double posts. Don't know how that happened. Tried to delete, made it worse.