When will WWIII be starting?

[ik911]

If countries start nuking each other, it's no longer a World War; it's an Armageddon, a World Revolution.

When looking at the histrory of the previous World Wars, interest conflicts form the base. So a world war over oil would be entirely realistic. Operation Barbarossa (1942, I believe) was over the oil in the Caucasus.

But you'd need at least two parties to call it a war. America and coalition would definitely fight for the oppressed people in these oilrich countries, but besides the local resistance (the 'oppressors'), there are no real enemies out for oil. Russia has enough problems and oil; I don't see India doing anything; China doesn't seem to need oil to gain wealth; Australia is like WTF, mate?

So, for a world war you need a conflict of interest that interests multiple countries... Something that not widely available, but essential.

[Lestat]

What is needed to make a war a World War, is that a "single" conflict is fought out over two or more continents.

WWI & II there were each time empires involved that had important possessions all over the globe (British Empire, France & colonial possessions in both wars, Russia that spans two continents, and even minor European powers had colonial possessions on other continents, and until after WWI Germany had also colonies). This linked conflicts spread over the globe into one big conflict between two groups of allies (Allied Powers & Axis Powers in WWII, Allied Powers & Central Powers in WWI)

With the fragmentation of colonial empires and disintegration of the communist block, I think that a period of global instability with a series of non-linked regional conflicts (and not necessarily between states), of varying intensity, is much more probable than a conflict between two blocks. And this can be far more deadly than a World War.

[CM]

Welcome back to World War II

As much as things change, just also remain just the same. MAD is a very effective policy when it comes to regional power issues and wars. It is not as effective on a global scale with ICBMs. You have basically a return to a zone of influence paradigm as set up after World War II, between the US, Brits and the Soviet Union.

If we go geograpgically, latin america is completely the US's ZOI, Europe basically has grudgingly taken africa under its belt, Europe also includes the CIS countries and Russia in its ZOI, the US has the middle east and everything east of Iran is seen as China's Zone of influence specifically South East Asia with their ASEAN + 3 model. Luckily China does not have a blue water navy or the US would be very very worried about their dominance in the pacific which has not been challenged since world war 2.

Now if we are to discuss the next world war it is when a country will try to extend its power in another countries ZOI. The Islamic world as stated to be the flash point for a world war is not possible. That would require a govt in the Islamic war to actively have the means and ability to attack the 4 military powers in the world. Pakistan is too strongly linked to China for it ever to be a target, secondly Pakistan would not stand for any Islamic country going anti-China. Iran has a nuclear plant being built by the Chinese and Russians so they is not a discussion matter. Russia and China will never be at war with the Islamic world because they have 50 years of history based specifically on military, intelligence, counter intelligence and economic needs

No Islamic country at present has the military means to attack the West, be it the EU, US, or Australia. Japan again will never be attacked as they have no desire for military dominance. Australia is just busy trying to hold on its power with china rising in the ASEAN region.

So you are left with the US and EU with the whole clash of civilizations theory. You make your minds on that.

As for oil. The issue is not the middle east oil anymore. Look at the location of US troops. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Turkey (since the cold war i think it was CENTO). You are looking at oil pipelines being brought down from the CIS countries. There are already two in the works for Pakistan. We have been actively persuing those while the US was in Afghanistan and the US has been giving us logistical, technical etc etc support for the project as they would be the cheif consumer of that oil.

With the US attacking Iran in another year or two, the US would have phyiscal control over the majority of the worlds oil supply. They still have troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait not to mention extreme influence over their policies. Now they have Iraq and Afghanistan (oil pipeline, there were some papers that said there could be a total of 5 coming through afghanistan) and then you have Iran.

Your next world war will occur in Asia. It will be a battle for zone of influence for certain and it will basically be a North South economic battle not an ideological one, you can already see that in Africa with Malawi, Latin America with Venezula, the middle east is a mess anyway and South Asia with an uphill battle to provide India dominance in the region with Pakistan trying to counter that. The world has given up South East Asia to China anyway. APEC is not as powerful or active as ASEAN and ASEAN + 3 is extremely powerful.

[VonDondu]

[QUOTE=Dottie]@VonDondu: I also see to two most likely candidades for committing a nuclear attack as either the US or a result of proliferation, but I don't belive that is the same as a world war.[/QUOTE]
Pardon me for being incoherent. I was trying to address several different points.

A lot of people believe that another world war is inevitable. But I don't think it will take place this decade, and I don't know who all of the players will be. But the United States will definitely be involved.

I realize that a nuclear attack is not the same thing as a world war. But the question arises whether anyone will use nuclear weapons in the next world war, and I think they will be used by the United States for the reasons I stated. There are also other reasons why the United States would resort to nukes. As the invasion of Iraq has proven, the United States does not possess enough "conventional" military might to fight a war on a large geograhic scale over a sustained period of time. The U.S. apparently does not possess the ability to put over a million troops into action, or even if they could, the troops would not be adequately equipped. It would take millions of troops to fight a "conventional" world war, despite what Secretary Rumsfeld wishes to believe. When our military power falls short of our leaders' military ambitions, they will resort to nukes.

The reasons for World War I are still not clear to me. Old grudges, imperialism, nationalism, and retribution for an assassination all played a role. But to me, in my naivete, it looks like war for the sake of war. World War II was much different. There were real aggressors who were interested in world domination. Hitler and Germany get a bad rap, of course, but we should never forget how mean and cruel the Japanese were. You can usually expect conquering armies to rape, loot, and pillage, but it was time for the United States and Russia to put an end to Japanese expansion.

Who would the players be in the next world war, and how would it start? I see some good ideas in this message thread, but nothing conclusive. So I look at things like neocon philosophy and nationalism to see where aggression might begin. Vice President Dlck Cheney was one of the first people to suggest that since Americans as a whole are so averse to war and so unwilling to make any sort of sacrifice that doesn't include the lives of other people they don't know (that's a "sacrifice" they're always willing to make), the neocons would not be able to enact their plans for military dominance (preemptive war, regime change, a punitive foreign policy, etc.) unless America experienced a catastrophic "catalyst". The terrorist attacks of September 2001 were just such a "catalyst", and the American people were "brought on board" the neocon ship. The neocons used bogus evidence, scare tactics, and flimsy, shifting arguments to justify the invasion of Iraq, a country which has nothing to do with the terrorist attacks; so it is clear that reasons for war obviously do not need to be rational or grounded in reality. In light of recent history, I would say that reasons for war would need to be irrational and removed from reality, or else Americans wouldn't go to war.

I think that President Bush's "doctrine" that "you're either with us or against us" brings us closet to a world war. And the willingness to attack a country who never posed a threat to us brings us even closer to it. "We're angry and we want to kick some ass so give us a target, any target" is how Americans will feel when the next world war begins.

It's difficult to imagine America being attacked by a foreign power, but ironically, I think that's one reason why it's likely to happen: America takes its security for granted, so our security is actually quite lax, and we're a sitting duck. A major attack will probably not take the form of a column of tank or a barrage of missiles; it will probably be a "terrorist" attack. When America lashes out indiscriminately for vengeance (and they surely will), I foresee a domino effect. France might even become our number one enemy.

[Chimaera182]

[QUOTE=ik911]When looking at the histrory of the previous World Wars, interest conflicts form the base. So a world war over oil would be entirely realistic. Operation Barbarossa (1942, I believe) was over the oil in the Caucasus.[/QUOTE]
Not that I'm a stickler for details or anything, but Barbarossa was launched in the summer of 1941.

I honestly can't see WWIII happening in the near future anymore. WWI was just a seriously unneccessary war which could have been avoided. WWII was more or less about Germany's revenge from being humiliated by the outcome of the first WW; without Germany, Italy would never have gone to war with the European Powers over their colonies in Africa (and it's highly doubtful they would have attacked Greece alone), and Japan vs. China would have been an Asian conflict (with the Japanese not really having the gall to attack the U.S. when their entire infastructure could be brought to bear against them alone). There aren't as many great alliances as there were in the previous two world wars, and that's kind of what makes it necessary to make a war a world conflict: a country or two dragging others into the fight that spans the continents. The only two scenarios I could ever see for a third world war are a.) if Putin wants to bring back the Soviet Union and does whatever it takes to regain control over old Communist states, and the US and EU choose to resist, or b.) if the U.S. is the aggressor (which isn't too unlikely with Bush, but it isn't too likely, either). Neither case even seems to be likely to me. So unless something like the other Arab nations decide to finally step up and tell Bush to stop specifically targetting Muslim nations, and he goes ahead with the Iranian invasion anyway and the United Arab Emirates League (whatever it's called) decide to make a stand with the U.S., I don't see what could actually start a new world war.

[Chimaera182]

[QUOTE=VonDondu]The reasons for World War I are still not clear to me. Old grudges, imperialism, nationalism, and retribution for an assassination all played a role. But to me, in my naivete, it looks like war for the sake of war. World War II was much different. There were real aggressors who were interested in world domination. Hitler and Germany get a bad rap, of course, but we should never forget how mean and cruel the Japanese were. You can usually expect conquering armies to rape, loot, and pillage, but it was time for the United States and Russia to put an end to Japanese expansion.
...

It's difficult to imagine America being attacked by a foreign power, but ironically, I think that's one reason why it's likely to happen: America takes its security for granted, so our security is actually quite lax, and we're a sitting duck. A major attack will probably not take the form of a column of tank or a barrage of missiles; it will probably be a "terrorist" attack. When America lashes out indiscriminately for vengeance (and they surely will), I foresee a domino effect. France might even become our number one enemy. [/QUOTE]
WW1 was kind of unneccessary. It was pretty much the alliances between France and Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary, and Serbia and Russia that made the conflict what it was. Serbia had an alliance with Russia where, if the Austro-Hungarian Empire attacked them, Russia would attack them. AH, aware of this very daunting obstacle but very much wanting those responsible for Ferdinand's assassination (that and just slapping down Serbia in general, I think), enlisted Germany to help them deal with Russia. So, when AH attacked Serbia, Germany attacked Russia in their part of Poland. Russia, having an alliance with France (where if Germany were to attack one, the other would attack and give Germany a war on two fronts), immediately dragged France into the conflict, and the British came in shortly thereafter. Italy came in later, hoping to earn a sizable reward for helping the Allied Powers (by getting a slice of Austria) but didn't get much; Japan managed to acquire several islands in the Pacific from Germany; Romania attacked the Austria-Hungary Empire, too, I think because they also hoped to grab some territory. And the U.S. joined the war on the pretext of preserving democracy (sounds kind of similar to something Dubya said once) or something like that. So it was basically alliances and greed that drove WW1. Does that help at all? I doubt it.

I remember while the entire fiasco was going on that day that I thought us Americans were too complacent, felt too secure, and that something like 9/11 really was only a matter of time. It's never good to become too complacent.

[Chanak]

I've pondered this issue now and then, and don't come up with any answers that stick. With the neo-cons at the helm for quite some time now, the US military apparatus has been devising some very innovative and devastating ways to kill and destroy: the aforementioned nuclear "bunker busters" being but one product of the trillions poured into military research programs. I share the grave concern about nuclear proliferation - yet was there any way it could have been prevented? It was only a matter of time before nuclear weaponry would find its way into the arsenals of nations less powerful than the US, or the former USSR. On the one hand, it's a gambit for survival on the part of smaller, less developed and vulnerable nations; on the other hand, it's the doom of our planet and the annihilation of the human race looming ever closer. How ironic, indeed, that the earth has produced the means of its own destruction in the human race. It was something that the dinosaurs over tens of millions of years were not capable of; yet, in less than 1 million years, we have the means.

The use of nuclear weaponry in military actions by the US would be an utterly disatrous move, I think, since it would open Pandora's Box. It's a box that should not be opened...only madmen would do that. Perhaps those in power are mad enough...and are willing to sacrifice the human race and this planet in their bid for dominance. Japan could not answer the atomic bombs of WWII, as they possessed none of their own. Things are different now than they were then. Now, the victim of a nuclear strike can reply in kind. If tactical nukes are utilized by the US, there's no telling what the opening of Pandora's Box will bring about. It's unthinkable.

[ik911]

When pandoras box opened, all badness escaped into the world but only hope remained. To open it was forbidden by the Gods, yet Pandora, driven by curiosity, opened it.

Perhaps, with the invention of the Nuclear Bomb, the box is opened already. All we have left is hope?

[giles337]

I've no idea, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones....

[Denethorn]

[QUOTE=ik911]
All we have left is hope? [/QUOTE]

And Superman remember

[stramoski]

History

I'm I the only one who remembers that WWIII took place in the early nineties, when Khan and his genetically engineered supermen took over.

I know I can't be the only one...

[fable]

Please don't spam up a serious thread. There are plenty of spam threads for that.

For a world war to start, I think two conditions need to be met. First, the overall balance of control between nations has to be seriously disturbed. One or several major powers must invade their neighbors and expand their bases. Second, this must cause other major powers to respond, in turn. These two conditions were met in both previous world wars, however otherwise they greatly differed.

The scenario of NK launching nuclear missiles at Japan, provoking reactions from the US, Japan, etc, is not sufficient cause to launch a nuclear war. China would abandon NK in the blink of an eye if that occurred, and the matter would immediately be brought before the UN in special session. I suspect the UN would vote to support the forced removal of the NK government, which would already be in progress, in any case. Rogue nations typically don't start world wars, unless they are very strong rogue nations in league with others of equal strength.

Three nations, as I see it, have the ability to start a world war at this time, though none has the will or interest in doing so: the US, China, and Russia. The neo-cons see war as a means to economic advantage (and political power at home). China sees war as a means to secure what it considers its traditional borders and culture. Russia sees war as a method of protection from the outside world, which threatens on all sides.

But the radical neo-con view currrently operative in the US is economically braindead, and has once again shown how theory will fail when it completely divurges from reality. It couldn't muster the financial might to fund another invasion of a third world nation, even if it happened to convince the US populace that such a war was in its own best interests. China has absolutely no interest in controlling the barbarians who are beyond their borders. It will destroy the entire culture of a separate nation, Tibet, that it perceives as a part of its own land, but it won't go beyond its ancient borders. Russia would like to control its potential foes, but the latter have secured defense treaties that will prevent that--something which should have been done, in hindsight, right after WWII, instead of Churchill and an ailing Roosevelt allowing Stalin to take over whatever he wanted.

So I don't see a world war shaping up at this time. Not a conventionally fought one, at any rate.

[stramoski]

Serious

[QUOTE=Morlock]Anyone know? We need a good world war around here, and I'm getting a bit antsy.[/QUOTE]
Not to be contrary, Fable, but I think any thread that begins with this line could hardly be called serious.
But you're right, it's obviously grown far beyond its original humor.

I'd have to second your assessment of the world's situation, and say that an all out shooting war between any of the major powers is unlikely. An economic war if far more likely than a military one, and I could see that happening.

But if were going for rampant speculation, here goes:
The Israeli-Palestine conflict could spead, though, forcing others to pick sides. The U.S. would side with Israel, the Europeans would mostly side with Palestine, and Russia would side with Russia (reclaiming lost territory while heads were turned). China would probably sit out, and own the world by default after the dust settles.
They'd probably be considerate enough to let us hold elections, though, as long as they pick all the candidates.

[ch85us2001]

This is rather scary. We could just be sitting at our computers unbeknownst to us that a nuclear attack is about to vaporize us

[ik911]

Russia has a lot of problems and it's territory (and waters) are rather unclear (Source). What if Putin decides it's time for Russia to have it's borders redefined?

I think that if he decides to do something radical to Chechnya, he'll set something in motion that could ignite a WW, because the UN can't tolerate it, nor can the US. If they decide to react, they'll probably have to focus on Russia, possibly neglecting other 'smaller' conflicts. If they do tolerate it (also called 'appeasement') he might do some more radical stuff, pushing the limit further and the borders of Russia with it, perhaps, until it's that point at which the world has to react.

Could that lead to conventional warfare/ a world war?

[Fiberfar]

[QUOTE=giles337]I've no idea, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.... [/QUOTE]

So sayeth Albert Einstein....
It is suprising that people discuss which country will attack another. It seems that war has grown into the human nature.

[Dottie]

[QUOTE=ik911]Russia has a lot of problems and it's territory (and waters) are rather unclear (Source). What if Putin decides it's time for Russia to have it's borders redefined?

I think that if he decides to do something radical to Chechnya, he'll set something in motion that could ignite a WW, because the UN can't tolerate it, nor can the US. If they decide to react, they'll probably have to focus on Russia, possibly neglecting other 'smaller' conflicts. If they do tolerate it (also called 'appeasement') he might do some more radical stuff, pushing the limit further and the borders of Russia with it, perhaps, until it's that point at which the world has to react.

Could that lead to conventional warfare/ a world war?[/QUOTE]

Come on, Russia have acted horrible in Chechnya for a very long time, what on earth do you think they could do that would make anyone start a war with them?

The same is true to a lesser extent to the israel-palestine situation. None of the european nations would be willing to go to a war with Israel for that, the thought is absurd.

At the moment the european nations or USA would be extremely reluctant to engage in any military conflict if they weren't sure that the conflict would stay way of their own lands. That quite limits the possibilities for a world war.

[Ripe]

[QUOTE=ik911]Russia has a lot of problems and it's territory (and waters) are rather unclear (Source). What if Putin decides it's time for Russia to have it's borders redefined?

I think that if he decides to do something radical to Chechnya, he'll set something in motion that could ignite a WW, because the UN can't tolerate it, nor can the US. If they decide to react, they'll probably have to focus on Russia, possibly neglecting other 'smaller' conflicts. If they do tolerate it (also called 'appeasement') he might do some more radical stuff, pushing the limit further and the borders of Russia with it, perhaps, until it's that point at which the world has to react.

Could that lead to conventional warfare/ a world war?[/QUOTE]
UN and EU (US and NATO tried to do something but were stoped by UN and EU) did not react to genocide in Europe (specificaly in Bosnia and Hercegovina, more specificaly in Srebrenica), at least not after it was all over, so what made you think they would react to genocide in Chechenya or anywhere else in the world (do I need to mention Rwanda?)?

[ik911]

That's genocide... Bands of soldiers killing civilians. But what if Putin* is fed up with Chechnya after another gruesome bombing by Chechnian rebels and decides to carpetbomb the province?

*In case such an event happens, Putin probably did not issue the attack bla bla, the 'responsible' general will be locked away for good and that's about how he'll get away with it.

But that's the only scenario I can think of that is realistic enough for a big war.

[Dottie]

Ik: That has already happen. Grozny was practically reduced to rubbles in the 90's. The world didn't even impose trade sanctions.