World War III: How it might play out (2414 hits)
Category: PoliticsLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary
Rating: 0.73 on 125 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-02-07 14:11:31 EST
Understanding the dynamics of a potential WWIII would be impossible without understanding who holds the world's nuclear arsenal and, more importantly, where the world's oil reserves lie and who controls them.
The following is a rundown of the "Nuclear Club" and how many weapons those nations are purported to possess: (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons)
Country---Warheads active/total
United States---5,735 Active---9,460 Total
Russia---7,200 Active---16,000 Total
United Kingdom---<200 Active
France---350 Active
People's Republic of China---400 Active
India---40-50 Active
Pakistan---24-48 Active
North Korea---0-10 Active
Israel---Suspected of having an extensive arsenal, but unconfirmed
Iran---?
A quicky examination of how a WWIII might align, doesn't look good. It might be safe to say that the nuclear club are those countries to really keep your eye on, because their alignment in a world war scenario is going to fall right along those of established friendships, rivalries, and trade interests. You won't see enemies becoming friends in this war.
The Allied side will essentially fall along the lines of The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council - with the exception of some of the Eastern European states and Russia - and a handful of other countries. (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO)
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Cyprus
Czech Republic
France, (even though they officially withdrew in 1966) [NUCLEAR CAPABLE]
Finland
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India [NUCLEAR CAPABLE]
Israel [NUCLEAR CAPABLE]
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
New Zealand
Poland
Portugal
Republic of Ireland
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom [NUCLEAR CAPABLE]
United States [NUCLEAR CAPABLE]
On the Axis side:
Iran [NUCLEAR CAPABLE?]
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Afghanistan
Pakistan [NUCLEAR CAPABLE]
Syria
Jordan
Lebanon
Palestine
Egypt
Morocco
Algeria
Tunisia
Sudan
Russia [NUCLEAR CAPABLE]
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Republic of Moldova
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Croatia
Republic of Macedonia
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
China [NUCLEAR CAPABLE]
North Korea [NUCLEAR CAPABLE]
Cuba
Venezuela
Brazil?
--------------------------
How the War Might Play Out
--------------------------
--Iran [NUCLEAR CAPABLE?]: Iran would effectively drag in all Muslim nations against Israel and the United States. In Saudi Arabia, despite oil trade with the west, ties to Islam will win over despite its leadership's desire to remain neutral. These factors will also draw other countries on the Arabian peninsula into the fray - Yemen, Oman, and United Arab Emirates. The people of these countries will not stand for an infidel invasion of a neighboring Muslim nation. They certainly won't cooperate by allowing military staging sites on their land. You have to remember that despite the thick economic ties with the west in these areas, in a holy war, these countries would answer to Islam first, dollars second. Of course Afghanistan, Pakistan [NUCLEAR CAPABLE], Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine would fight for Islam as well, followed by North African Islamic nations - Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Sudan, many of which would suffer deep internal struggles over the war in which the secular elite would be at odds with the Islamic uprising among its people.
--Russia [NUCLEAR CAPABLE]: They have their own oil, but lost a lot of their oil fields in the split of the Soviet Union. They don't conduct much trade with the United States, so they would have more to lose by joining us than fighting against us. Plus, they wouldn't want Iran to be subject to any post war trade embargos. Another motivating factor will be waiting and seeing what China will do. Russia would likely bring with it a host of satellite states: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Croatia
Republic of Macedonia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia... Most of these are debatable, and would depend highly on what happened within the countries themselves. Macedonia, for instance has recently become a democratic state, but relations have been strained with neighboring Greece for very ancient reasons, namely their use of Hellenic names. A good case could be made for Armenia being on the side of the allies, along with Romania and several others. Long time political tensions with Russia might take second stage to close ethnic ties in a time of world war. It would be interesting to see the outcome here in some of these states.
--China and North Korea [NUCLEAR CAPABLE]: China at first glance might consider remaining neutral due to its massive trade relations with the United States, but they won't want to fight against Iran unless they were assured they could unilaterally control it postwar. In no way would they want to get into a situation where the west had full say over the fate of Iran like we did in Japan after WWII. Plus, if the current Bush administration's policies of "you're either with us or against us" hold, China will probably just say "ok, we're against you then." Russia would soon follow suit, I feel.
--Venezuela, Brazil, and other South American countries [NUCLEAR CAPABLE?]: Countries like Venezuela who have an embedded hatred for the United States over issues of oil and trade would most certainly align themselves with the Chinese/Iranian/Russian axis. The friendly trading terms most South American countries enjoy with China is even more incentive for them to align themselves in that direction. Plus, the US-led suppression of many South American countries' most important cash crop, cocaine, could provide the proverbial straw if one is needed for countries like Colombia and Ecuador. This will have a devastating ripple effect on any overseas war effort for the United States, because the battle will be splintered into lots of different fronts. I see the Waters of the Mid-Atlantic, Pacific, and the terrain of Central America, namely the area around the Isthmus of Panama to be hotly contested in the event South America countries were to choose an axis alignment. Brazil, who is reported to have a modest nuclear weapons program, might seek to expand its nuclear independence by resisting any allied efforts in South America.
You'd have the middle eastern theatre, of course, which would include Iraq. That country would be the site of some of the most intense battles because it would initially be an allied staging area and because it's surrounded by unfriendlies. Again, countries such as Saudi Arabia would struggle to weigh their economic motivations with their religious motivations which could lead to deep internal conflicts eventually aligning them with Iran. Israel would immediately go on the offensive against Iran, Syria, and Lebanon for personal security reasons. Surgical strikes against military targets in these countries would be carried out by the alliance of Great Britain, Israel, and the United States.
Retaliations by suicide bombers, organized factions, splinter groups, and Muslim nations would follow. The scenario could vary widely depending on the nuclear capabilities of Iran, for if Iran succeeded in deploying a nuclear weapon against Israel, the ensuing domino effect would draw retribution from Israel, which could draw China in from the east. For fear of inaccess to Iranian oil, China will have little choice as a developing nation but to secure their interests there, even if that means siding with the Muslim nations. Diplomatic assurances with China by allied nations might quell their entrance, which is key.
Keep in mind, this would be the first large scale war that featured nuclear weapons on multiple sides, so who really knows how it would play out?
On the Pacific front, especially if China entered the war, North Korea would undoubtedly seize the oppotunity to attack South Korea and drive all US forces out of the country. If they succeeded, their assault would probably continue up the Alaskan island chain in an attempt to seize the vast Alaskan oil reserves. This would be done with the backing of China.
Japan would retool many of its factories for production of machinery for use in the allied defense and assault against North Korea, and would, as a result, become a target of fierce attacks from the Asian mainland. A united alliance of China, Russia, and North Korea would be unstoppable in taking over Japan, and defense of US and Allied interests in the Pacific would be in serious jeopardy.
Australia would do well to keep its forces at home in a defensive posture, because any large-scale commitment to the middle eastern conflict could result in depleted forces and a homeland vulnerable to attack from northern enemies.
Strategic ship routes such as the Panama canal, the Suez canal, the Cape of Good Hope, and the Strait of Magellan favor the allies slightly, but given the scope of the potential conflict, and the uncertainty over the nuclear weapon factor, who knows what will happen?
Anyone who enjoys chess, or Risk, or Axis and Allies knows how intriguing such speculation can be and how integral it is to the development of strategy. The complexity of the next major world war would be such that in many cases neutral countries would break out into civil war and warring countries would struggle over whether to use their nuclear arsenals in retaliation.
Hopefully cooler heads prevail and we are able to avert such an unthinkable scenario, but thinking ahead never hurts.
User Reviews
Submitted by Bob_Dole (user info) at 2006-02-10 01:40:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
MAD- Muturally Assured Destruction....
they fire theirs, we fire ours, we all meet up again on the other side of oblivion, glowing in the dark... real simple.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-02-09 13:58:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
this post wouldn't be complete without a pointless -2 from me
Submitted by youarewrong (user info) at 2006-02-09 08:59:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh and then China would invade Taiwan.
Submitted by youarewrong (user info) at 2006-02-09 08:56:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I doubt China would get involved. More than likely they'd just sit back and let everyone else blow the shit out of themselves. They're pretty self-sufficiant and couldn't care less about the rest of the world.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-09 07:49:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 16:13:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
So you don't think, for instance, that understanding the consequences of international alliances could give individuals an edge in how they prepare themselves, what companies they invest their retirement savings in, or how they vote in elections?
----------------------------------
To an extent, but still none of this would help you in the event of a war, or WWIII.
And it certainly won't help you if your "understanding" ignores key facts that have a large influence on how a WW will most likely play out.
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2006-02-09 06:25:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
its all about Luxembourg, Switzerland and Liechtenstein
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2006-02-09 04:49:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
WHAT ABOUT AFRICA
Submitted by The_Cyst_Master (user info) at 2006-02-09 02:32:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Eeeeewwww. I don't want France on my team!
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2006-02-08 20:49:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
KMFDM "WWIII"
BE ALL THAT U KAN B
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-02-08 18:09:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
(Razor)
This is gibberish. You completely misread China and Russia, and you completely underestimate degrees of nuclear capability.
For example, Pakistan, if they could somehow get all their nuclear weapons into the United States, could destroy a lot of our cities.
The United States could spend a small portion of its arsenal and turn the earth into an Asteroid belt.
The nuclear capabilities of the biggest powers have and will continue to be the deciding factor in international politics... that's why these nations are the "Big 5" in the UN.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 16:13:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So you don't think, for instance, that understanding the consequences of international alliances could give individuals an edge in how they prepare themselves, what companies they invest their retirement savings in, or how they vote in elections?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-08 15:24:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 15:17:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
"I am not screaming "IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD" like a lot of you seem to think. I'm not approaching this from a place of fear. I just thought it would make for an interesting discussion...and in a way, I was right."
------------------------------
ETS- a lot of times you ARE screaming that, and that you KNOW how it will happen.
But maybe it is just how i read it.
"I am of the mind that it's essential to discuss and understand these things so that in the outside event some of them occur, we'll be better prepared to deal with them and understand what's going on, but more importantly, so we can understand the possible future ramifications."
--------------------------------
I am of the mind it entertains me when I am bored. War is war and understanding it won't really help us as individuals.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 15:17:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
China will resist fighting us as long as they can make money on our consumer base. If the American economy goes to shit and we can no longer pay off our debt to the Chinese, what will stop them?
They will be like the debt collector come knocking. Then they will take whatever they feel like taking.
I love the naivete displayed on this post though from people who think there is no reason to fear practically anything.
I am not screaming "IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD" like a lot of you seem to think. I'm not approaching this from a place of fear. I just thought it would make for an interesting discussion...and in a way, I was right.
I am of the mind that it's essential to discuss and understand these things so that in the outside event some of them occur, we'll be better prepared to deal with them and understand what's going on, but more importantly, so we can understand the possible future ramifications.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-08 15:11:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-08 14:58:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
They were just practising for fun? they don't want to fight the US, but if thats whats needed to take back Taiwan, then they might.
Might, I don't really think it'll happen.
--------------------
China is not an openly aggressive nation. They don't want to take Taiwan back by force, they want it returned (They now have direct commercial flights I believe). I have no doubt they could take it back, but the loss of life would be phenomonal. Taiwan would fight, and even thought they would be swamped, just getting people onto taiwan would be a huge issue because of the huge advantage the US has on the sea (if we came to their help).
Either way it is not to china's advantage to invade. A lot of countries don't officially recognize taiwan, it isn't a threat, and it isn't going anywhere, they ahve all the time in the world. Right now china wants to keep their economy growing and to cultivate a friendly world opinion, neither of which would be helped by invading taiwan.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-08 14:58:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
They were just practising for fun? they don't want to fight the US, but if thats whats needed to take back Taiwan, then they might.
Might, I don't really think it'll happen.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2006-02-08 14:53:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
DC: China doesn't want to fight the United States, its not profitable. People can say what they want of Americans, but we don't want to fight a world war either. America lost its stomach for war somewhere in Vietnam, anyways.
You people worry too much. Every other day I hear about how the world will end.
Submitted by Vulva (user info) at 2006-02-08 14:51:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I do not fear any country that ends with the letters (an) or has both a (K) and (Z) in its name!
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-08 14:44:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Two things I should mention, Pakistan won't be americas ally for much longer if your keep 'accidentally' bombing it.
Secondly a few years ago, to coincide with a spacecraftlaucha nd the announcement of their plans for a spacestation of their very own, China conducted a full dress rehearsal of the invasion of Taiwan, including fighting off forces predicted to come to Taiwans aid, notably the USA.
Thats fucking scary. That is what will start WW3 if anything, China has a larger army and is no longer technicogically inferior, unless the US was able to muster the whole of europe and russia to its side, it'd be pretty screwed.
Actually fuck that, there are no armies worth mentinoing in Europe apart from the British and the French, and the French don't really count.
But still, China is the most powerful country in the world and it has highly advanced plans for war with the counrty that claims to be the most powerful in the world.
Thats not good.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2006-02-08 14:27:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Most estimates I've heard for Iraqi casualties during the gulf war were 100,000 killed, 300,000 wounded. American deaths...380.
Look at those numbers. That is what happens when a "modern" middle eastern military trys to fight a western country. They wanted a conventional war, they got a slaughter.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-08 14:16:27 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 13:05:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
"You don't want to venture into an argument on the subject of religion with me. You will lose.
Christianity is a religion based on turning the other cheek. It's based on forgiveness and love of one's neighbor. It's a bit difficult to try to take over the world using Christianity as a tool. That's not to say it hasn't been attempted, but true believers in the essential tenents of Christianity will not go along with that. In fact, they will die themselves before they hurt anyone else if they are TRUE believers of the fundamentals of the religion.
The 'fundamentalist' Christians cannot, by the very nature of the religion, use it as a justification to kill."
-----------------------
Really? Crusades, Inquisition, etc. KKK even now draws a lot of followers from religious right. Get over the fact that your interpretation of what real christianity means is not shared by everyone.
Just like the interpretation of exttremists is not shared by moderates, they will never wake up one day and believe that they are wrong and the extremists are right. That is what you are arguing and it is wrong, 100% without a doubt.
------------------------
"Jews...don't ask me why the Jews have chosen to stop following the tenents of their religion. I have a theory though:
There are some sects of Jews that do practice some measure of fundamentalism, but they rarely EVER carry it out completely by following the laws of Moses to the letter. If they did, they would have trouble coexisting in Western society which, because of the Roman Catholic church, has kept such activities suppressed and socially frowned upon. Understandably so. I don't see too many people willing to start stoning people in the street for adultery or homosexuality. Because that nation that allowed such things would be excluded from the United Nation, it would have sanctions imposed, and it would lose the support of predominantly Christian nations, which are among the richest financially.
That being said, there is also a measure distrust religious Christians have of Jews and their ways. They are for the most part seen as radical and archaic. Those laws which are the basis of the Jewish faith were all revised and expanded upon in the New Testament by Jesus. Therefore, through the political power of the Roman Catholic church and the subsequent Protestant churches, the Jewish traditions and laws have been moderated within Western society."
----------------------
Hasidic Jews? Orthodox Jews? They practice different, more strict form of Judiasm and have for centuries. Once again Moderate Jews have never woken up and all of a sudden thought they were wrong and the more "extreme" jews were right.
--------------------------
"Islam is a completely different story. The underdevelopment of the nations that practice it, and the lack of an education that includes a wide scope of the world means that Islamic fundamentalism has a very real appeal and relevance for a lot of Muslims there. They see the way their religion is being moderated in the same way as Judaism in western nations, and they perceive a lack of respect for their religion and its traditions coming from these nations, so the natural tendency is to befend their belief to the death. They see that as a noble persuit - one that comes with rewards in heaven.
Just as God will reward the meek in Christianity, who are serving as n example of Christ, Allah will reward the fighters in Islam, who are serving as defenders of the one true Prophet, Mohammad."
------------------------
Fundamentalism and lack education do not always go hand in hand. And the fact remains that many Muslims do not place defending Islam to the death against infidels as the highest form of worship to Mohammad, especially if it included attacking women and children. Nothing you have said before supports your statement "What I see happening is that moderate Muslims are about to have a major identity crisis as they realize the stark contrast between their current way of life and the one their prophet apparently wanted them to lead. In short, they are NOT REAL MUSLIMS!" What makes you think they will wake up and all of the sudden and follow the exact same type of islam, seeing as that has NEVER happened in any of the middle eastern religions, seeing as it has never happened in any religion?
------------------------
"It is a mistake to think that I am 'retreating' into some pseudo-spiritual argument because I cannot maintain footing in an argument of specifics. I was merely responding to some of my reviewers' questions as to whether another world war was even possible.
The assertion that another world war is impossible because somehow technology has come too far and thus has made it too scary a proposition for countries to want to participate in is a dangerous backtrack that ironically acts to PAVE THE WAY for a possible world war.
By keeping people's heads in the sand about the possibility of a world war, we might just find that we've reduced their fears enough to usher in its happening.
Everything in this world originates in the mind. There is nothing in the external objective world than cannot be understood through an examination of the human mind and how it works. That is why I bring up what you so brazenly brush off as 'pseudo-metaphysical crap'.
Why do you think "The Art of War" is still so relevant today? It's because it deals in universals and generalities. It delves into the heart of the matter at hand and doesn't focus on specifics too much. Specifics and details crumble and die under the dust of ages. But the human truth behind them lives forever."
You criticize me for doing what's been done by greater men than me for thousands of years... Way to show your ignorance."
-----------------------------
What the fuck does your ying-yang eb and flow argument have to do with the conclusion that total war is inevatable? Nothing. I am not saying it is or isn't, but what you said has zero to do with the argument.
You are comparing the Art of war to this tripe? Fine I will go with that. The art of war deals with generalities, because it is addressing general topics. You wrote a specific post about a specific propsed scenario. Instead of responding to the FACTS that go against your scenario you bring up nonsense and half assed theories about moderate muslim inevatable swing to extremism.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 14:12:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't understand why people argue with me when they have to know by now I'm always going to be right. :P
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 14:10:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-08 13:48:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
I doubt this will ever happen, but If it does, rest assured we Brits'll help you out.
At the end, when you've pretty much won anyway.
And then in 60 years time all British people who watch too many war films willhave the ultimate trump card in any web argument.
If it wasn't for us you'd be speaking chinese.
----------------
HAHAHAHA...nice one.
What you forget is that without our shipments of supplies throughout the war you would have starved to death.
Darth: I only made the boardgame comparison to illustrate the fantasy of the exercise of projecting a future WWIII.
Again, what you're missing is that as long as we adhere to the Geneva convention of warfare, there WILL be movements of ground troops, and there WILL be conventional warfare. Saving innoncent life of non-combattants dictates we cannot just carpet bomb a country to oblivion. We have to send in troops. We can sit on Navy vessels in the Gulf or in the Indian Ocean and fire bunker busters at military targets all day long, but unless we always KNOW where those are, or unless we devise a way to always kill only combattants, there will be use for ground troops. Especially in situations where you want to SAVE the infrastructure, or SEIZE assets contained within the country without completely destroying them.
All of these points make what I said above just as plausible as your assertion that a WWIII will never come and that conventional warfare is a thing of the past. The only thing technology has changed is the definition of 'conventional'.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-08 14:07:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
FA: 1
ETS: 0
The people have spoken, in overwhelming numbers. It took me a good hour to tabulate those results.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-08 13:48:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I doubt this will ever happen, but If it does, rest assured we Brits'll help you out.
At the end, when you've pretty much won anyway.
And then in 60 years time all British people who watch too many war films willhave the ultimate trump card in any web argument.
If it wasn't for us you'd be speaking chinese.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2006-02-08 13:40:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Conventional warfare is gone. Unless you consider the war in Iraq conventional warfare, in which case you should read your text books again. There will never be mass troop movements, sudden invasions, or massive naval and air battles ever again. This isn't the 1940s.
You would have to be insane to even consider a stand up fight with a western country. Why? Technology. What went down in the gulf war is an exact example of what I'm talking about.
War isn't a board game, at all. Anyone who compares it to a game of dice rolling shouldn't be talking about the subject.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 13:39:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
BranDo: Bush has just signed his own party's political death sentence as far as I'm concerned.
The Republicans are OUT come November.
I might just have to delay my third party revolution until 2008 just to help get the GOP out of Congress.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 13:05:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-08 11:11:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 10:37:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
The thing a lot of you seem to want to underestimate is the essential yen/yang of existence. There is peace and then there is war. There is a population explosion in a time of peace, and then there is death and destruction as peace encroaches on itself and becomes too weighty for its own good and belief systems become too close for their own good. Eventually all things have a breaking point, and nature is no different...ESPECIALLY human nature.
------------------------
This right here is why you should stay from any political or scientific topic. Whenever someone counters your arguments with facts and real arguments you retreat to psuedo-spiritual babble.
What you said above has nothing to do with your theory on a potential cause of WWIII.
If I were to accept your ying/yang philosphy as having relevance in global strife (which I don't) that doesn't back up your theory. You could easily superimpose that over any conflict you imagine.
As for moderate Muslims waking up and thinking their life is a lie becasue they are not following what Mohammad intended. Why has that not happened with Christians? With Jews? They all have extreme groups that think how most people of that faith are living is a lie, and they have been around much longer than islam.
-----------------------
You don't want to venture into an argument on the subject of religion with me. You will lose.
Christianity is a religion based on turning the other cheek. It's based on forgiveness and love of one's neighbor. It's a bit difficult to try to take over the world using Christianity as a tool. That's not to say it hasn't been attempted, but true believers in the essential tenents of Christianity will not go along with that. In fact, they will die themselves before they hurt anyone else if they are TRUE believers of the fundamentals of the religion.
The 'fundamentalist' Christians cannot, by the very nature of the religion, use it as a justification to kill.
Jews...don't ask me why the Jews have chosen to stop following the tenents of their religion. I have a theory though:
There are some sects of Jews that do practice some measure of fundamentalism, but they rarely EVER carry it out completely by following the laws of Moses to the letter. If they did, they would have trouble coexisting in Western society which, because of the Roman Catholic church, has kept such activities suppressed and socially frowned upon. Understandably so. I don't see too many people willing to start stoning people in the street for adultery or homosexuality. Because that nation that allowed such things would be excluded from the United Nation, it would have sanctions imposed, and it would lose the support of predominantly Christian nations, which are among the richest financially.
That being said, there is also a measure distrust religious Christians have of Jews and their ways. They are for the most part seen as radical and archaic. Those laws which are the basis of the Jewish faith were all revised and expanded upon in the New Testament by Jesus. Therefore, through the political power of the Roman Catholic church and the subsequent Protestant churches, the Jewish traditions and laws have been moderated within Western society.
Islam is a completely different story. The underdevelopment of the nations that practice it, and the lack of an education that includes a wide scope of the world means that Islamic fundamentalism has a very real appeal and relevance for a lot of Muslims there. They see the way their religion is being moderated in the same way as Judaism in western nations, and they perceive a lack of respect for their religion and its traditions coming from these nations, so the natural tendency is to befend their belief to the death. They see that as a noble persuit - one that comes with rewards in heaven.
Just as God will reward the meek in Christianity, who are serving as n example of Christ, Allah will reward the fighters in Islam, who are serving as defenders of the one true Prophet, Mohammad.
It is a mistake to think that I am 'retreating' into some pseudo-spiritual argument because I cannot maintain footing in an argument of specifics. I was merely responding to some of my reviewers' questions as to whether another world war was even possible.
The assertion that another world war is impossible because somehow technology has come too far and thus has made it too scary a proposition for countries to want to participate in is a dangerous backtrack that ironically acts to PAVE THE WAY for a possible world war.
By keeping people's heads in the sand about the possibility of a world war, we might just find that we've reduced their fears enough to usher in its happening.
Everything in this world originates in the mind. There is nothing in the external objective world than cannot be understood through an examination of the human mind and how it works. That is why I bring up what you so brazenly brush off as 'pseudo-metaphysical crap'.
Why do you think "The Art of War" is still so relevant today? It's because it deals in universals and generalities. It delves into the heart of the matter at hand and doesn't focus on specifics too much. Specifics and details crumble and die under the dust of ages. But the human truth behind them lives forever.
You criticize me for doing what's been done by greater men than me for thousands of years... Way to show your ignorance.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-02-08 11:17:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
WW3 will be started over drinking water. Who has what kind of bombs is not that big as who is believing in which kind of god\prophet\truth. Having seen the budget for 2006 for the USA makes me wonder where Georgie boy is taking you, cutting on medical and education and expanding on military and homeland security. That points towards dumber soldiers with less chances to get cured after injuries.
We are able to feed the world but unable to pull it off and that's more terrifying than all the bombs in the world.
ETS: I like your drive, don't give up on it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-08 11:11:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 10:37:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
The thing a lot of you seem to want to underestimate is the essential yen/yang of existence. There is peace and then there is war. There is a population explosion in a time of peace, and then there is death and destruction as peace encroaches on itself and becomes too weighty for its own good and belief systems become too close for their own good. Eventually all things have a breaking point, and nature is no different...ESPECIALLY human nature.
------------------------
This right here is why you should stay from any political or scientific topic. Whenever someone counters your arguments with facts and real arguments you retreat to psuedo-spiritual babble.
What you said above has nothing to do with your theory on a potential cause of WWIII.
If I were to accept your ying/yang philosphy as having relevance in global strife (which I don't) that doesn't back up your theory. You could easily superimpose that over any conflict you imagine.
As for moderate Muslims waking up and thinking their life is a lie becasue they are not following what Mohammad intended. Why has that not happened with Christians? With Jews? They all have extreme groups that think how most people of that faith are living is a lie, and they have been around much longer than islam.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 10:43:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2006-02-07 23:35:28 (#)
Ranking: -2
You fail to understand that conventional warfare no longer exists. That pretty much means a world war 3 will never happen, atleast as you imagine it.
That leaves us with nukes, which no one will ever use for reasons probably already stated or understood by everyone here.
------------------------
Conventional warfare will exist as long as the tenents of the Geneva convention are adhered to.
IT will exist so long as there is any value on innocent life.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-08 10:37:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ess-arr (user info) at 2006-02-08 09:55:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
axis and allies sweet, havent played that game in years.
---------------------
I know. Me neither. I looked on ebay yesterday for an original board game, and there seems to be some good pickins. I might have to pick one up sometime and bring it to an ubercon. We could settle all this debate business THEN!
------------
Bart, et al:
------------
The thing a lot of you seem to want to underestimate is the essential yen/yang of existence. There is peace and then there is war. There is a population explosion in a time of peace, and then there is death and destruction as peace encroaches on itself and becomes too weighty for its own good and belief systems become too close for their own good. Eventually all things have a breaking point, and nature is no different...ESPECIALLY human nature.
Bart's right about the religious fanatics. That is one of the keys to the equasion I'm setting forth here. What I see happening is that moderate Muslims are about to have a major identity crisis as they realize the stark contrast between their current way of life and the one their prophet apparently wanted them to lead. In short, they are NOT REAL MUSLIMS! All this politically correct talk about Islam being a peaceful and noble religion is complete baloney, and moderate Muslims who want the best of both worlds are like 'Christians' who go to church every Sunday just to be seen so they can make a little more money at their small town business. It's a disgrace.
Religion is dying.
Culture is being destroyed by the machinery of money.
That's the flat truth. And as any animal dies, it's going to have one last kick in it before it loses its will to fight, and its rage then will be more powerful than ever because it will have nothing left to lose. As the younger generations take over, who are sick to death of the corporate machine and the endless and pointless path it's taking us down, an uprising will occur to knock it all down.
Nature balances itself. Social systems are part of that nature, and the human mind is not immune to the rhetoric of silver-tongued men with their grandiose ideas of change. The fact is, we haven't evolved that much in 60 years...and if a Hitler can happen once, he can happen again. Difference is, this time, he will have nuclear weapons, and THIS time, the straggling front line of those Christians with any faith whatsoever will most likely call him the proverbial 'antichrist'.
For Christ's sake, there were English Muslims in the streets of London calling for the beheading of the offenders. ENGLISH! And they're like, the most cute and docile creatures known to man! ...so cuddly and innocuous! If this could happen there, it could happen anywhere!
*kidding*
It doesn't take much imagination to see where a full-scale war could easily break out over radical Islam, especially if an oil crisis reaches a boiling point.
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2006-02-08 10:10:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
As long as it does not mess up my lawn. Do you know how much time it takes to aerate and fertilize?
Submitted by ess-arr (user info) at 2006-02-08 09:55:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
axis and allies sweet, havent played that game in years.
Submitted by Agent_Smith (user info) at 2006-02-08 09:16:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:59:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, let's put this to an uber vote...
Who do you like better, uber: me or FilthyAssistant?
-------------------
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY A WORD
Submitted by phuzzygish (user info) at 2006-02-08 09:02:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Excluding Australia, have you noticed how the antipodean countries are smart enough to stay out of this, except to send reserve volunteer forces?
I did.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-08 07:57:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 17:25:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
This isn't just a matter of Iran. This has a lot to do with the recent uproar of even moderate Muslims over the cartoon thing in Europe. Demonstrations and threats inside Europe of a European 9/11 are evidence that someone in the Muslim world is building up to something - riling support.
If the Muslim world explodes with the support of its moderates, I think things will go more or less as I've predicted here.
China and the nuclear status of Iran are the main wildcards.
-------------------------
If somehow the moderate muslims go jump aboard the extremist boat (not going to happen) it would be pretty easy to nuke the shit out of the middle east. But this will never happen. Look at the history of the middle east, look at what is going on in countries in the middle east, you only see a sliver of what is going on if you look at the stuff that makes headlines in the west.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-02-08 02:52:36 (#)
Ranking: 1
Interesting, but I think your scenario is extremely flawed.
First off, the middle east is not entirely full of religious extremists. The citizens themselves are divided on who to support as can be witnessed by the fiasco in Iraq.
Second, the US would never ever ever get into any conflict that would put China on the other side. China has advanced tremendously in the last 30 years and the US wouldn't even confront them then. They're the silent superpower... the don't really try to force their will on the rest of the world, but they've been strong and independent since the dawn of civilization.
Besides, that country outnumbers the US in population four to one. Forget nuclear weapons, all they would have to do is send boats full of Chinese people to the US and they could engage every single American in a four on one fist fight.
-----------------------------------
The US wouldn't confront them on their land. As for sending boats full of chinese over here, it would never happen, the US Navy could dominate the Chinese navy in both size and technology. The US and most western Nations haven't been fighting the Chinese tooth and nail on getting any military technology because they have been concentrating on their army, not comforting if you are their neighbor, but not as worrisome if you are an ocean away.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2006-02-08 07:36:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Possibly one of the oddest and most unlikely scenarios out there. There is some funny business in here. "...the west had full say over the fate of Iran like we did in Japan after WWII." I found this particularly amusing. Haha.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-02-08 02:52:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Interesting, but I think your scenario is extremely flawed.
First off, the middle east is not entirely full of religious extremists. The citizens themselves are divided on who to support as can be witnessed by the fiasco in Iraq.
Second, the US would never ever ever get into any conflict that would put China on the other side. China has advanced tremendously in the last 30 years and the US wouldn't even confront them then. They're the silent superpower... the don't really try to force their will on the rest of the world, but they've been strong and independent since the dawn of civilization.
Besides, that country outnumbers the US in population four to one. Forget nuclear weapons, all they would have to do is send boats full of Chinese people to the US and they could engage every single American in a four on one fist fight.
If nuclear war does break out, it's going to be started by Bush or an equally psychotic religious nutcase who thinks God is calling upon them to initiate Armageddon. My guess is that there would be a massive equipment failure, the nukes would never detonate, and the nutcase in question would be violently overthrown by morning.
Submitted by GuinnessSince1759 (user info) at 2006-02-08 00:52:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Sorry...just I doubt that the former Yugoslav countries would side with the axis. I travel there a lot and they fucking hate Arabs. So I think they probably would be Allies. Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia Herzevogina...atleast...maybe not Serbia and Macedonia.
Submitted by kgbpasha (user info) at 2006-02-07 23:39:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah, if the U.S. just got smart and took over Australia, then
placed all of our forces in Indonesia and Southeast Asia...all the
while the rest of the world squabbles against each other...
Risk. This move is unstoppable. Trust me, it's money.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2006-02-07 23:35:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You fail to understand that conventional warfare no longer exists. That pretty much means a world war 3 will never happen, atleast as you imagine it.
That leaves us with nukes, which no one will ever use for reasons probably already stated or understood by everyone here.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-02-07 22:32:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:26:52 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:13:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
HIGH VOLTAGE GOT THE JOKE!
Thank god, I wasn't sure WHEN someone would.
==
Uh-huh....
--------
Dead serious. If no one picked that one up, I would have gone with a Europe/Middle East Coalition based on anti-US sentiment in Germany and France, along with the possible Socialist government movement in France, followed by Russia and South America forming a 3rd side in the fight, based on oil, when the communists in Russia overthrow the democratic government when the MidEast shuts off their oil, leaving SA as their only source.
Then you have a 3 way war, with each side aligned with one and at war with another, it could turn into a 1984 style lifestyle.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-02-07 20:45:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-07 20:35:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
===
But I was born a man and I touch myself over pictures of you frequently. Especially the ones where you have a shiny bald pate and no eyebrows.
That kind of streamlined hairlessness just screams 'easy insertion'
now, you see what youve done? Youve only gone and turned me on. You cruel heartless man-bitch.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-07 20:35:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-02-07 20:25:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
It demeans you more though love, men have touched themselves over pictures of you...ETS as well just less men and of a certain persuasion.
No man has ever touched himself over a picture of me, as far as I know.
===
But I was born a man and I touch myself over pictures of you frequently. Especially the ones where you have a shiny bald pate and no eyebrows.
That kind of streamlined hairlessness just screams 'easy insertion'
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-02-07 20:25:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-07 20:15:33 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:59:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, let's put this to an uber vote...
Who do you like better, uber: me or FilthyAssistant?
===
This demeans us both.
It demeans you more though love, men have touched themselves over pictures of you...ETS as well just less men and of a certain persuasion.
No man has ever touched himself over a picture of me, as far as I know. Saying that, Zoidberg hasnt been around much lately so you never know.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-07 20:15:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:59:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, let's put this to an uber vote...
Who do you like better, uber: me or FilthyAssistant?
===
This demeans us both.
And to even pose that question is to disregard the fact that we're ALL GOING TO DIE IN MASSIVE NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST AND I SAID IT FIRST! SO THERE! IT'S IN PRINT AND I SAID SO! HAH! IRAN! HYDROGEN POWERED CARS! APOCALYPSE! I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS BECAUSE I TOOK SOME ACID ONCE AND GOD TOLD ME I WAS THE CHOSEN ONE AND THEN WIKIPEDIA BACKED IT UP SO I MUST BE RIGHT! FEAR ME AND THE WRATH OF MY MOTHER'S BASEMENT!
....etc etc.
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-02-07 20:12:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:28:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
You know, I was thinking...
I wonder if the US and China got on opposite sides and began picking teams, which country would get picked last?
===========================
Definitely Canada.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-02-07 20:10:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Sorry ETS but FA is hotter, lives closer to me so more chance of sexage(not actually but a guy can dream...repeatedly) and crucially is a chick so she gets my vote.
If I was teh ghey, I would totally do you though...in the pooper.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:59:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, let's put this to an uber vote...
Who do you like better, uber: me or FilthyAssistant?
FilthyAssistant?
Or ETS???
FA?
or ELECTRICTOOTHSYNDROME???
f....
or
-------
|
|
|--
|
|
-------
-------
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------
|
|
|
--------
|
|
|
--------
no need to answer honestly...
...just quickly without thinking will do.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:28:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You know, I was thinking...
I wonder if the US and China got on opposite sides and began picking teams, which country would get picked last?
...and would they have a lifelong problem with that? Like, they'd have lots of social problems, and they wouldn't be able to gather the confidence in themselves to keep out invaders, and they couldn't get their GDP up over like $50, or something.
I wonder what that country would be...
My guess is Burundi. Don't know why.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:22:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:17:41 (#)
Ranking: 2
He's just being pretentious.
---------------------
I don't know if he's being retentious or not. I'm not his proctologists, but I do know he's no longer the Secretary of State.
What are you getting at here? I'm not following a word you're saying!
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:17:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:13:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Mr. Powell doesn't work for the administration anymore. I don't know how much good that would do.
====
AHahahahahahaha.
Seriously though, his name is Colin. Not Co-lin. He's just being pretentious. You're american, tell him.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:13:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:05:43 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:48:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:30:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess we better hurry up and colonize Mars then.
_________________
Right in the Jejunum.
===
Technically mars doesn't have a small intestine. You'd do better to aim for the colon.
-------------
Mr. Powell doesn't work for the administration anymore. I don't know how much good that would do.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:11:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Deconstruction (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:55:18 (#)
Ranking: 2
Has anyone ever read those "alternative history" novels? They're like books based off of changing certain events in history and writing their eventual outcome to modern day times. They're super entertaining, and reading this reminded me of how much of a queer I am by openly admitting I read alternative history novels.
--------------------
You know, I genuinely didn't know those even existed. I thought that was my idea.
Although I was pretty sure someone had thought of it before, I often like to muse about history and 'what ifs'...like 'what if' I had never been born? How much worse off would you people be?
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-07 19:05:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:48:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:30:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess we better hurry up and colonize Mars then.
_________________
Right in the Jejunum.
===
Technically mars doesn't have a small intestine. You'd do better to aim for the colon.
Submitted by Deconstruction (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:55:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Has anyone ever read those "alternative history" novels? They're like books based off of changing certain events in history and writing their eventual outcome to modern day times. They're super entertaining, and reading this reminded me of how much of a queer I am by openly admitting I read alternative history novels.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:48:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:30:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess we better hurry up and colonize Mars then.
_________________
Right in the Jejunum.
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:40:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's a long story of what would happen but the only problem is that the war would not last long enough for half of these events to occur.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:26:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:13:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
HIGH VOLTAGE GOT THE JOKE!
Thank god, I wasn't sure WHEN someone would.
==
Uh-huh....
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:13:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
HIGH VOLTAGE GOT THE JOKE!
Thank god, I wasn't sure WHEN someone would.
My point is that you can pull all SORTS of reasons and ideas out of your ass with a little thinking, and just because you think it, doesn't make it at ALL likely...
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:10:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Damn.
I clicked on this hoping to read "before the end of the week".
That said, an all-out nuclear exchange is overrated as a mechanism for apocalypse.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-02-07 18:05:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You political analyzation is based more on 1980 politics than 2006. Today's world isn't polarized into a us and them anymore, it's much more fragmented than that with regional powers much more keen to control localities, especially since the reality of conducting warfare overseas being next to impossible whe you throw in major states. The US can send ships and planes halfway around the world now because thier competing in a theater with a decided lack of military and technical power. With sattelites, and long range missles you'd be hard pressed to move large troop concentrations long distances. This answer could go on and on....
+2 for effort
Submitted by MandaPanda (user info) at 2006-02-07 17:54:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Scary.
ETS, do you have a girlfriend?
Actually, what I *really* want to know is if you're this well spoken verbally.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 17:25:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-07 17:03:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it does. But all of these things could happen tomorrow, just not exactly how you laid it out here.
---------
This isn't just a matter of Iran. This has a lot to do with the recent uproar of even moderate Muslims over the cartoon thing in Europe. Demonstrations and threats inside Europe of a European 9/11 are evidence that someone in the Muslim world is building up to something - riling support.
If the Muslim world explodes with the support of its moderates, I think things will go more or less as I've predicted here.
China and the nuclear status of Iran are the main wildcards.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-02-07 17:06:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
jgreening, that is one of the lamest, and most cracked out theories I've heard. Everytime I thought "Okay country X is going to do this because logically it has reasons A,B, and C." You went completely the other way.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-07 17:03:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:36:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:20:06 (#)
Ranking: -1
Way too much speculation.
-------------------
Predicting years into the future usually invovles a little of that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it does. But all of these things could happen tomorrow, just not exactly how you laid it out here.
Submitted by Agent_Smith (user info) at 2006-02-07 17:00:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS, do me a favor and read the entire Ender series from beginning to end, especially the last few books, which deal with what you're talking about here.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812550706/qid=1139349569/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-3970283-6832921?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Then come back and open your mouth. Granted, it is fiction, but besides being an EXCELLENT fiction series, it's so spot on it's fucking scary.`
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:54:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Russia and China on the same side?
ETS, you're smoking crack.
The most likely way they'd EVER combine is a military slaughter by one side or the other.
And I can tell you with 1.5 billion people, China won't lose the manpower war.
Besides, a more likely war starter I'd think is India/Pakistan in Kashmir. One of them will get pissed enough to nuke the other.
Let's say Pakistan does it.
Alright, now, who does the US back?
Trade parter India?
Or military partner Pakistan?
Either way, someone is getting pissed off.
Now, who does China side with?
INDIA. Why? It's a numbers game. You have 1.5 billion, and the only country who can come close to you in manpower is India.
Now, you have India and China and the US (no WAY they cut ties, besides, they go against the nuker for public support.)
Pakistan will get ALL the Muslim world behind it. Too many countries to name, really.
Now here is the turning point.
WHERE DOES RUSSIA GO?
Do they side with China and the US? I'd guess no, because, well, China and Russia will never agree on anything. Ever. No way. And do you think the anti-US sentiment in elite Russia will LESSEN when we plug our nose into Asia?
So, Russia stay NEUTRAL.
Just like WWII after the cease-fire with Germany.
Alright, so now it looks like a crushing quick war, right? US, India, China and all the satellite nations against the Islamic Coalition. No contest right?
Uh, sure. OK.
The Islamic Coalition WILL find a way to get nukes or dirty bombs into a LOT of major cities. Seriously, if their governments put their minds to it, along with the terrorist organizations and their ties into each country, it won't be THAT hard.
Also, the war would be fought on Middle Eastern/African soil. WE will be sending people and resources THERE. That's always more enpensive, and faces more homeland problems.
In the end, WWIII, if it happens, will basically fuck humankind for the rest of history due to nuclear fallout.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:53:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:51:24 (#)
Ranking: 2
cool theory. I hope nuclear war doesn't break out while I am in Russia in the summer.
===
I'll give you twenty quid if you bring me back one of those furry-eared hats.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:51:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
cool theory. I hope nuclear war doesn't break out while I am in Russia in the summer.
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:48:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I honestly don't believe that China would jump to North Korea's side. They are just entering the World Market, poised to make a killing, and highly doubt they'd step in against one of the greatest consumer markets available. No point in killing off all your customers just to save face for your retarded cousin.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:36:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:20:06 (#)
Ranking: -1
Way too much speculation.
-------------------
Predicting years into the future usually invovles a little of that.
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:36:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
War is over! (if you want it)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:30:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:24:26 (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for the effort.
But no one will be around to see how it turns out. The capacity of nuclear weapons these days are 1000+ times stronger than hiroshima. 1 or 2 go off and everyone dies. End of a pathetic story.
--------------------
I guess we better hurry up and colonize Mars then.
Submitted by seanfogy (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:28:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Saudi would NEVER take sides against the US. When it comes down to religion or money I think we all know what takes the cake, especially with these new money Arabs.
And why the emphasis on Iran? They are nothing and have nothing. What happened last time the UN went in to inspect a country for NBC weapons? Plus most of their major trade partners are allies to the US. Where would they be in a war against us?
I may be wrong here, but I don't see World War III happening in any of our lifetimes.
As my dog keeps gagging on little pieces of my new carpet.
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:24:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for the effort.
But no one will be around to see how it turns out. The capacity of nuclear weapons these days are 1000+ times stronger than hiroshima. 1 or 2 go off and everyone dies. End of a pathetic story.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:20:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Way too much speculation. You have a slight grasp on world economics and international relations, but not good enough to convince me of your theory.
Keep Tryin ETS...your conspiracies are getting better
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:11:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If shit starts to hit the fan in Iran, we may have no choice but to stay in Iraq indefinitely, or at least it would appear that way. I think we've learned our lesson in arming middle eastern factions and leaving the fighting to them.
On the other hand, we can't possibly maintain the war in Iraq financially. We're overspending already. By not paying down our deficit and not solidifying ourselves on the homefront, we're weakening our own nation right now.
It's a very bad idea to remain in middle eastern conflict for much longer, but it's also a bad idea to forsake our allies and those we've already made a commitment to.
In short, the Bush administration has completely fucked us in Iraq. Saddam was a buffer to the Iranians and, as bad a leader as he might have been, was a source of stability in the region. Now all we have there is uncertainty under a weak and fledgling government that will only be percieved by some factions as a US installation.
Strategically, on paper, Iraq looked like a good idea. Besides the obvious oil security, its invasion was designed to split the Iranian crazies from the Syrian and Lebanese crazies and provide a buffer zone right between them. Its access to the Persian Gulf also serves a strategic military purpose in any future conflicts in the region.
The problem for us lies in the unforseen effect this would have on our own security at home in terms of natural disaster response and National Guard presence, and it is financially draining us.
Last I heard, the Iraq war is costing us $7 billion a month.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-02-07 16:10:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
auto +2 for Axis & Allies
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:52:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
We will not occupy Iran if we attack them. Our goal is to eliminate the nuclear threat. If we do occupy the nation, that would ust plain stupid and make Iraq look like the best thing in the world (and we shouldn't have stuck around there for as long as we have as well.) I don't understand why we don't just arm the kurds to the teeth (they LIKE us) and let the shiites take care of the rest of the sunnis (the majority of the insurgents)...even if it means killing all of the sunnis in Iraq. It shouldn't be our problem and now it is. A brutal dictator is needed in some places to maintain the peace... Look at Yugoslavia under a communist dictator.
(I think Turkey has something to do with this administration's unwillingness to hook the kurds up.)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:37:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:25:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, how's that working out in Iraq? 5-8 more years by current optimistic estimates? Now double the size of the country and make the terrain less friendly to our vehicles. THAT would end REAL quickly. You're looking at 20 or 30 years of occupation. What happened the last time a vastly superior military tried to dominate a people when the land itself presented challenges? Oh yeah....Afghanistan and the Soviets.
------------------
Don't forget Vietnam.
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:36:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm curious; how much water, batteries, dry goods, guns, hand grenades, knives, alarms, blankets, clothing, and other post-war materials have you got stored in your bomb shelter?
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:34:11 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
You sound like a five year old trying to keep up with an adult conversation
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:32:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well, I should say...they bit a hand that WAS feeding them but slapped them and told them "down, boy, down"....and instead of sitting down, it went rabid and shit. So it was then put down.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:30:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Japan bit the hand that fed them in WW II, so ETS is right in saying it happens.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:28:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Garrik: I don't claim to be an expert, but you should not underestimate much of the world's current resentment of the United States and Israel.
Right now, especially, we are percieved as a bit of a lame animal possibly ripe for the kill.
It doesn't take much to see through the political facade to the fact that we are slowly weakening and our military is overextended.
I can't speak to the motivations of countries like China and Russia and neither should you. They might be tempted to view our current troubles in Iraq as an indication of weakness. I think it would be a mistake to assume those countries wouldn't like to see the US knocked down a peg or two.
In the case of China and the US, it's rare that someone bites the hand that feeds him, but it does happen - especially in cases where one thinks that by doing so he can get at the whole stash.
Again, I'm only speculating here.
Who the hell knows what will really happen? I know this much though, something is about to.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:25:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Garrik (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:14:03 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Third, the people of Iran are largely disgruntled with their regime and would happily take an oppurtunity to overturn it, this regime was installed by the CIA when they overthrew the Shah, it is America's fault the place is such a mess anyway."
Perhaps you missed these recent elections where the people of Iran firmly shot down all moderate candidates? Iran WANTS a Muslim theocracy.
"Fifth, the military technology and sophistication of countries like Iran is dwarfed completely by the forces of NATO, if not the US alone."
Yeah, how's that working out in Iraq? 5-8 more years by current optimistic estimates? Now double the size of the country and make the terrain less friendly to our vehicles. THAT would end REAL quickly. You're looking at 20 or 30 years of occupation. What happened the last time a vastly superior military tried to dominate a people when the land itself presented challenges? Oh yeah....Afghanistan and the Soviets.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:22:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The only insane muslim nations that would jump in to their own destruction would be Syria and, perhaps, Lebanon. Egypt would love to do it, but they'll have to overthrow the government first.
Saudi Arabia is in the same situation. The royal family is not on good terms with Iran, but the people would support it if there was an overthrow.
UAE is a U.S. ally as well. They won't do a damn thing as the only outcome would be their destruction. These arab countries learned their lesson from fucking with Israel and won't do so very quickly in the near future.
The other scenarios? Some you mentioned are probably unlikely. China will only attack the USA or Japan in response to any counterattack after their taking over Taiwan. I think what is scary is that we have an agreement with Taiwan to defend them in this attack, but I don't think we would. That's scary to Taiwan, I should say. We've put ourselves in a shitty spot and won't be able to do a damn thing about it.
Japan is only going to be attacked by one nation: North Korea. If China decided to support North Korea, they would have to do something about Japan. But doing so would CERTAINLY get the U.S. involved.
A "world war" scenario is more likely to involve a few choice countries with the others being left out. Iran attacked by Israel/USA, they do all they can along with Syria to invade/destroy Israel. China invades Taiwan, the USA does nothing because it is bogged down in Afghanistan (which we'd leave in one second but takes time to do so) and Iraq. ALL of the reserve & guard would be activated, inactive reserve would be called in, and a draft initiated.
I do not know what it would take for Russia to initiate some full scale war. They would be better off laughing at the outcome of it and, perhaps, getting ready to take the USA's place in reaping the rewards after the wars take down all those involved.
I do not see a full-scale nuclear war. Pakistan and India would merely attack each other...but things haven't been very bad there lately, but they've gone to war more than a few times before they got nukes and still don't like each other.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:22:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:43:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
China and the United States are now the two main competitors on the world stage. China is in the catbird's seat to take over as the major superpower of the world as the United States continues to decline into economic recession and uncertainty over over-extended military, natural disaster, polarization of politics, and growing national debt.
If they see this as their chance to secure Iran's oil for themselves, or if they can strike up some sort of accord with Russia, why would they subject themselves to the United Nations? They have the largest standing army in the world and they have the largest population in the world.
As a tangent, humanity's main population valve, if you will, is now war. Disease isn't killing us off fast enough. A global conflict would reduce human populations back to managable levels, which is a Chinese concern as well.
----------------------------------------
Because they lose nothing by subjecting themselves to the united nations.
Which puts them in a better position globally. Letting the US get bogged down in an expensive war while chinese economy plugs away, or entering the conflict with the US? The easist way fot ehm to secure oil would be to go with the US in invading.
Chinses isn't concerned about human population, just chinese population, but that won't even enter the equation when they are deciding to enter a war or not.
Submitted by WildcatMcGee (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:16:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This makes me want to go watch Red Dawn.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:15:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:01:22 (#)
Ranking: 2
There are many flaws. One I can see is Pakistan, which is a U.S. ally. India is an ally of Russia. Next, you can't assume all arab countries will side with Iran. Saudi Arabia and Iran are HARDLY friends.
------------------
Pakistan is also highly Muslim, which, as I've stated is likely to be one of the key motivations of alliances in what is perceived to be a holy war against Israel and its allies. Pakistan could not justify a US alliance to its own people, especially in light of our recent PR missteps with that country.
I see India offering limited aid to the alliance because of its conflicts with Pakistan. (That's just my take on it.) India would be one of those countries most willing to steer clear, but again, in this type of conflict that's going to be next to impossible.
Again, this is all just guesswork based on a lot of assumptions. I don't see Pakistan (who's alliance with the US is tenuous at best) siding against the side of Islam in a holy war scenario.
Submitted by Garrik (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:14:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
There are 52 branches of Islam, that is the reason Bahrain and Afghanistan (among others) ceded from Iran, it is unlikely they'd run to save Iran in a war.
Second, even if Iran gets nuclear capability, which all indications are it does not currently hold, it doesn't have a launching system sophisticated enough to be a serious threat outside the immediate area.
Third, the people of Iran are largely disgruntled with their regime and would happily take an oppurtunity to overturn it, this regime was installed by the CIA when they overthrew the Shah, it is America's fault the place is such a mess anyway.
Fourth, China and Russia would never start a war with the USA, China wants to be an economic power, that means it needs trade with the US, Russia wants to be a serious energy exporter, that requires peace also, and furthermore neither of their governments are stupid enough to have a nuclear stone throwing fight over a country in the middle east. Similar circumstances surround a lot of other countries.
Fifth, the military technology and sophistication of countries like Iran is dwarfed completely by the forces of NATO, if not the US alone.
Sixth, you seem to be incapable of the notion that a lot of countries just would not care or get involved if a fight started, your grasp of foreign policies and politics of the east Asian countries seems pretty poor too.
I could go on but I'm getting bored, playing Risk and reading Wikipedia doesn't make you an authority on the political and militaristic situation of the world.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:02:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i love how fast people argue on this shit.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-07 15:01:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
There are many flaws. One I can see is Pakistan, which is a U.S. ally. India is an ally of Russia. Next, you can't assume all arab countries will side with Iran. Saudi Arabia and Iran are HARDLY friends.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:59:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Jack: nice review. Thanks for chimbing in.
I have to agree with you on all your points, but just like me, there are several assumptions involved here, such as the big unknown of Iran's actual nuclear capabilities status.
The only reason other Muslim nations didn't come to the aid of Iraq the first time around was because they didn't like Saddam's regime really any more than we did. Plus, when Saddam's bombed Israel with SCUD missles, Israel did not retalitate.
We're talking about a scenario here where Israel takes the OFFENSIVE to thwart what they think are the nuclear capabilities of Iran. If Iran already has them anyway, I can envision a scenario where they might successfully draw other Muslim nations together against the allied nations.
Let's say, hypothetically, they have the bomb now and are simply waiting for attacks on their country so they can justify retaliation to the Muslim word (NOT JUST THE FANATICS). A nuclear attack on Tel Aviv, Israel would change the whole scenario of what you said there.
Iraq might no longer be maintainable in that event as Muslim nations would undoubtedly coalesce. Allied forces would be surrounded by enemy nations in Iraq. The smart thing to do would be to pull back to Israel, north to Turkey, and possibly India to conduct strategic bombing. Fighting a ground war in the middle east is insane for any army. More likely, our forces would assume a defensive posture in Israel, hunkering down to repel what would surely be an onslaught of Muslim forces, conducting air strikes from afar.
The scary part, as I pointed out, is the prospect of China backing them up. Then you've to MAJOR problems.
Submitted by RamenNoodle (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:53:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Yeah really everything is so great in the world right now, how could anything go wrong?
Submitted by Agent_Smith (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:51:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
you need a girlfriend. Or, in your case, a boyfriend.
Submitted by Garrik (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:44:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You're so wrong it isn't worth starting
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:43:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you so would never need me to get you into trouble. as far as warrantless monitoring really i'm starting to think you're probably on a few of those monitoring lists yourself.
do you need me to get you into trouble? it'd give me a new hobby.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:43:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:32:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by RamenNoodle (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:30:53 (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree with the majority of what you posted here. People do not realize that China and Russia would have more interest in siding with Iran than the "Allies".
-------------
No they have more interest in a steady flow of oil leaving Iran, that is it. If they a war brewing over it they have more to gain by joining the allies and "grabbing" a piece of Iran, or at least having a hand in its reconstruction.
---------------------------
China and the United States are now the two main competitors on the world stage. China is in the catbird's seat to take over as the major superpower of the world as the United States continues to decline into economic recession and uncertainty over over-extended military, natural disaster, polarization of politics, and growing national debt.
If they see this as their chance to secure Iran's oil for themselves, or if they can strike up some sort of accord with Russia, why would they subject themselves to the United Nations? They have the largest standing army in the world and they have the largest population in the world.
As a tangent, humanity's main population valve, if you will, is now war. Disease isn't killing us off fast enough. A global conflict would reduce human populations back to managable levels, which is a Chinese concern as well.
Submitted by simple_catalyst (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:42:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
everyone dies.
i hope i get laid again before all this goes down...
Submitted by RamenNoodle (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:39:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:32:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by RamenNoodle (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:30:53 (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree with the majority of what you posted here. People do not realize that China and Russia would have more interest in siding with Iran than the "Allies".
-------------
No they have more interest in a steady flow of oil leaving Iran, that is it. If they a war brewing over it they have more to gain by joining the allies and "grabbing" a piece of Iran, or at least having a hand in its reconstruction
-------------
But who is to say what Russia and China want for themselves? Russia may want to reform the old USSR, and China definately wants Taiwan, and probably wouldnt mind control of Japan.Therefore they would have no reason to side with the Allies. They might figure that with the combined might of the Axis forces, they could easily defeat the Allies. Then when its all said and done if they want to honor previous agreements with Iran and other ME countries they can. Or they can just go and take those countries over as well in due time. After all China and Russia would hit the jackpot with Alaska and Canadian oil.
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:39:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/50472
i stand by my assumptions in the above post regarding this matter.
i think you make some pretty grand assumptions, but it's all part of the logic exercise.
for example, don't look for a country like Moldova to be involved in this. as you admit, many of your players aren't firmly ensconced in either side.
don't look for the whole islamic world to come militarily to the defense of Iran. They didn't do it for Iraq. More likely it would be more influx of street fighters/guerillas/suicide bombers from Arab countries, just like Iraq.
Also, don't look for any move against Iran to feature a land-style invasion like Iraq. Iran is over twice the size, with much more forbidding terrain. Trust me, if the US _were_ to initiate military action against Iran, it won't be with a land invasion. It will be a strategic NON nuclear aerial bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities, probably supported by Isreali warplanes. This would of course necessitate a small special forces presence on the ground, probably US SF, British SAS and Israelis.
If Iran responded, they would go for Iraq and possibly Afghanistan, to attack western forces in those areas, since those adjoining countries are the easiest military targets. It would throw the whole region into chaos: temporarily.
Remember this, my friend: while we face our troubles against a determined, entrenched, urban insurgency, there is no military in the world that can face us on a pitched field of battle.
Any Iranian invasion of Iraq, for example, would definitely gain ground into the plains of Eastern Iraq while our ground forces tactically withdrew and consolidated. All the while, allied air forces (far superior in bombing and stand-off air to air combat) would decimate the Iranian air force and mercilessly bomb the ground units. Once our land forces were consolidated, our m1a1 abrams (way better than even the most advanced Iranian tanks) would pretty much annihilate the invasion.
ah, i can practically taste the dust again...
all
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:35:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
All you needed was 2 words: nuclear winter.
Whoever is posting with the alter must have used this command to generate it:
# etspost --nuclear --wwiii --wikipedia-facts-galore --replymode=defensive -vv -vv -vv
Let's see who the other geeks are.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-07 14:34:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0