No, but it did end a global superpower.
I was asking about your definition of a cold vs hot war. If a nation funds/arms/trains foreign "terrorists" to fight another nation instead of using their own citizens. That's not a war?
And I don't think a potential ww3 would end the world. The first two didn't. But millions of people died and few people got filthy rich(er). Most of these modern wars seem to be rackets.
And don't you think it would be a good idea to try to prevent these wars? I don't like the "we're all gonna die anyway" argument.
communism did that.
and it's not my definition of cold vs hot war. it's a universal definition:
A
cold war is a state of conflict between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, propaganda, acts of espionage or proxy wars waged by surrogates.
A
hot war is a conflict involving actual fighting.
you keep talking about the first 2 world wars as if they are relevant to today. you understand why they didn't end the world right and why things are completely different today? and not to sound callous but the world can easily absorb tens of millions of deaths and keep it moving (your WWI and II). we won't be absorbing billions and keeping it moving though.
i don't need to prevent these wars because the fact that it's an extinction level event
IS the deterrent and why I laugh at those talking about WW3. you're theorizing about something that won't happen and if it does it won't matter.
. You hashtag my name claiming i was "lower-learning" and then negged me when I pulled your card. Typical 88, always bytch about being attacked when you are attacking others. Sound like you are from Israel. Bogart your way into this thread with trolling and now you claiming victim.