The Next War

[Thunderbird 0]

Isn't finding plans to figure out and solve the current rivaleries and wars a "war"? better try to solve the current ones with the hope to provide a bit of peace and quiet, even if some of these areas (Darfur...) aren't that advantageous economically and financially to the "fictionnal" involved countries, but at least, that would slightly decrease difficulties that people already encounter with poverty out there.

And that would be kind of different from the classical "Big-Nations-War" scenario. ;]

regards,

TB

[Victor_S. 0]

The days of global war are over. There will be no world war 3, that is assuming that something crazy doesn't happen and send our ass back to the stone age. Future conflicts will be between smaller states such as the conflicts in africa. I am seeing Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia having a bunch more trouble with extremist groups trying to take over Somalia's weak government. There will be much more fighting with terrorist groups in all the usual places. Much more in Africa. You won't see any major country vs country battles because the global economy has everyone tied together. Ofcourse if you listen to the hippies dooms day via global warming will turn us into something like the movie water world. I wanna be a smoker personally. They got those cool jetski things.

[Balschoiw 0]

The next war ?

US vs fractions in Iraq.

[madrussian 347]

Despite the new World Economy, I can definitely see relations between two or more major nuclear powers going sour at some point in the future.  Not incredibly likely, but it could happen.

The result, of course, would be a massive economic meltdown and essentially another Cold War era.  And then the associated proxy wars as each of the juggernauts attempt to establish dominance over the other, and impose their ideology across the globe.

Like in the Cold War past, these proxy conflicts would be fought by lesser nations, supplied, funded, and armed by the big dogs.  There may be direct combat involvement of one major player or the other, but never both at once.  As in the previous Cold War, after all nuclear war remains unthinkable.

Now, who would the players be in such a scenario?  Someone more informed in that area would certainly know better than I.  If I had to guess, I hate to admit it, but I would definitely include my own country, the USA (based on the recent and distant past).

Edit:

Of course it is in the best interest of all fellow human beings to never again see such a thing come to pass.  Let peace and freedom reign!

(Best to resolve our aggressive underpinnings through media - movies and well, games like our wonderful ArmA).

Cheers.

[Spokesperson 0]

If that ever will be the case I hope the people of those countries will rise up against their governments. Nobody is going to tolerate a nuclear conflict. I wouldn't tolerate shooting any of you fellas either, just because you're from another country.

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

-Albert Einstein

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Look, it's the USA that has lot's of money tied up in China not the other way round.

Actually thats not true. China is not only dependent on the infusion of money from the US to fund their growing military, but they have so much invested in US money that a recesion here would be a double-whammy to them.

Some interesting ideas, thank for those of you who put some thought into this.

My paper is a bit long so I will have to make a link for it. Actually i think I should provide get a compy of someone elses paper that I read which was far better than mine. Gave me a cold chill.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]Actually thats not true. China is not only dependent on the infusion of money from the US to fund their growing military, but they have so much invested in US money that a recesion here would be a double-whammy to them.

They are both dependent on each other to some extent. I would not say my statement was completely untrue. Otherwise my teacher needs to be sacked.

Did you ever think about the huge debts the US owe's to China? Not to mention the fact that Chinese companies are starting to move into African countries to get a hold on their natural resources. If they continue to grow this way it will cause problems for the West in the future.

China are holding an increasing amount of power in the world. Take Britain for example. The classic car company MG which is a real British icon was close to being completely shut down due to financial troubles. The British Chancellor of the Excehquer Gordon Brown travelled to China to convince Nanjing Motors to buy MG in order to save it.

You would need to do a hell of a lot more research into this but China's growing power and influence over the world against the West's will cause problems for us in the future. China will eventually move on Taiwan if her economy and power continue to grow and as a country of freedom and democracy the US has promised to defend it's independence. That situation is definitely a possibility.

Anyway there are some interesting idea's here. Have you decided what you are going to choose?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Quote[/b] ]China are holding an increasing amount of power in the world. Take Britain for example. The classic car company MG which is a real British icon was close to being completely shut down due to financial troubles. The British Chancellor of the Excehquer Gordon Brown travelled to China to convince Nanjing Motors to buy MG in order to save it.

You would need to do a hell of a lot more research into this but China's growing power and influence over the world against the West's will cause problems for us in the future. China will eventually move on Taiwan if her economy and power continue to grow and as a country of freedom and democracy the US has promised to defend it's independence. That situation is definitely a possibility.

Anyway there are some interesting idea's here. Have you decided what you are going to choose

Well Rover owned MG, and it was sold to a Chinease consortium.  Its more a sign of British weakness than Chinease power.  Gorden Brown was desperate for anyone to take it becuae Britian couldnt afford to prop it up with subsides.

Quote[/b] ]They are both dependent on each other to some extent. I would not say my statement was completely untrue. Otherwise my teacher needs to be sacked.

teachers can hold views, it dosnt mean they need to be sacked or that there true.  Some teachers just choose not to take an impartchial approach (not necisarily a bad thing at higher education, gets you questioning different points of view)

[-Snafu- 77]

Well don't take that "teacher needs to be sacked" seriously, it was just a hyperbole in order to emphasise my point. The guy really does know his stuff.

The MG motors situation I don't know all the facts but since Gordon Brown went to China himself to get the motor company to buy it. The Chinese will see this as a cause of their growing economic power, which basically it is, and their 'power' over Britain with that and the handing back of Hong Kong - the Chinese are loving it.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Ok, well made points I must admit.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Well don't take that "teacher needs to be sacked" seriously, it was just a hyperbole in order to emphasise my point. The guy really does know his stuff.

The MG motors situation I don't know all the facts but since Gordon Brown went to China himself to get the motor company to buy it. The Chinese will see this as a cause of their growing economic power, which basically it is, and their 'power' over Britain with that and the handing back of Hong Kong - the Chinese are loving it.

well one must laugh because it appears to be a bad investment, with revenue still well below profit.

[churnedfortaste 0]

Eritrean-Ethiopian war no.2, the brits find out the embassy officials being held hostage was instructed by the ethiopian government and invade and pillage teh fook out of ethiopia, and freeing the poor starving people yay happy ending

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Uhh.  Do a search on news about the "Ethiopian military", and take a look at who is providing them with intel and an unknown degree of support.

In fact update your info on Ethiopia.

Not to say that they wouldn't be a VERY good choice for one side in a African war.  That I'll put money on...hehe.  

Want to buy my bridge?

[RockIslandMarine 0]

I say US vs Iran. No one really can say how the us would respond to an attack on us soil (Iranian funded terrorist) I believe if we (us) as a people have a common enemy we will unit to stop that enemy. i can till you that after 911 if we had a contrey (like Japan in ww2) to point the finger at, there would not have been any one saying no to war. we are one of the few superpowers that you can piss off as a hole.

[RockIslandMarine 0]

BUZZARD @ Mar. 08 2007,09:10)]@ agamoth:

The U.S. went in against almost the entire world's oppinion - except for the british ally which had to follow its master by the leash... So I don't think lack of support would be an issue that would make the U.S. think twice about invading Iran if it wanted to do so...

Back on topic, one plausible conflict could be China - Russia, if China decided it would like to have any resources the russians have, and China has fitter armed forces than Russia I think... But then again, it would remain to be seen which one would be more ruthless...

I have an old PC game about that scenario, something like Force 21 i think

[Hovis 0]

Random hypothetical wars eh...

1. Turkey versus Greece. There's a lot of tension there and the Turks are a pretty mean bunch.

2. Turkey versus Kurdistan. Once the US has left Iraq Kurdistan is a sitting duck for the Turks and they want it. There has even been some friction between the Turkish military and US forces there, including the capture and eventual release of a Turkish special forces team in the country.

3. Somebody already beat me to the punch of the Ethiopia-Eritrea war, but there's a very good chance that Ethiopia and Somalia might go to war again if the Union of Islamic Courts make another bid for power against the UN backed Somali provisional government. The UIC guys are heavily connected to Al Queda types in Africa, which is why a US Spectre gunship over Somalia at the behest of the provisional Somali government had a pop at some of their people a few weeks back. Turned out the gunship annihilated a bunch of innocent people due to faulty or absent intelligence, but it at least shows that despite the Mogadishu disaster the US has not necessarily ruled out action in Somalia, even if it is by proxy.

4. Russia versus Georgia, or an escalation of the Chechnya conflict. Somebody beat me to this one too. It's very possible. Putin is a mean, mean man. Hard as nails and as ruthless as the devil's own divorce lawyer. Hell he even has people killed openly and messily in foreign countries (see the recent spate of London poisonings as a case in point). If he sees a reason to go for it Georgia and Chechnya could get hit.

5. Iran Versus the USA. I reckon we might see the USA use air strikes on Iran, but I think a US attack on the ground against Iran is completely out of the question. The military, the political capital and the will of the American people to fight dirty wars in the desert has been expended in Iraq. However the reason I say Iran versus the USA, not the other way around, is that I believe that Iran may make the first move, if it hasn't already. Not a direct attack, because if you go head to head with the US on the battlefield you get burned, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Iranian weapons, training special forces and explosives experts found their way over the practically open border. Iran and the USA are definitely close to war, so it's in Iran's best interests to assist the Iraqis in bleeding out the US military strength in that country, in much the same way as the US supported the Afghans against the Soviets and the Soviets supported the North Koreans and North Vietnamese against the USA. War by proxy with plausible deniability is the way forward.

The big war I think people talk about but that will never happen is the China versus USA one. China is the reigning global superpower now, no question of that, but its power is not military. China has very little capacity for force projection, no modern carrier battlegroups and no high tech air force. But it does have money. The USA owes China an immense sum of money. That binds those two nations. The China versus Taiwan flashpoint is there, but China knows if it invades Taiwan it destroys what it wants there, the industry and the people, so it's a total waste. Japan in the region has made itself safe with an incredibly sophisticated, if short ranged, defence force and the Koreas are bound by mutually assured destruction so they won't get up to much either.

In terms of the wars I'd personally like to see, basically there are none, but I would take some small satisfaction if the UN backed an international strike force to bomb the crap out of the Sudanese airforce and any militia convoys they can find. The Darfur genocide is ongoing, nobody has done a bloody thing about it (in fact by the time the UN calls something a genocide it's usually over), hundreds of thousands are dead, millions are displaced. It'd be nice if just once the international community said, "Look Sudan, you've been using your air force to kill civilians so we're going to annihilate your air force." France did something similar when jets from the Ivory Coast attacked their soldiers, they simply blew up the entire Ivory Coast air force and said, "If you can't play nice we'll take away your toys".

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Good post Hovis.

Ok heres something I have been mulling over.

Is the potential for "World War" in the classic sense over?

I guess there are two ways to look at it.

-A small nuclear exchange between minor players causing a domino effect that leads to the big boys.

-Or a small regional conflict leading to the same effect with conventional forces.

Either way I have a hard time with a scenario that draws nations onto two pacts for the intention of war.

Sure the potential for Islamic nations vs all exists with a number of ways it could kick off. And while the opening blows would be ugly, the flash would turn to a lasting sizzle.

Sure there is the "world is running out of oil" armageddon story-line, but are there any others?

[AWDrift 0]

Utah rebels against the United States.

The U.S. declares Utah an acceptable loss and lets it be independant. Utah finds out it can not survive on it's own and moves on Canada. The news of the invasion goes unnoticed for years because the Canadian and American goverments and the media are still caught up with Anna nicole smith.

The people of Utah soon are hidden among many Canadian cities. They soon rise up and begin their attack. The Canadian people, seeing the absurdity of this situation die of laughter. Canada is renamed to nothern Utah and Alaska lives in fear.

[ozanzac 0]

Damn it..... you beat me to it.

I was going to suggest another american civil war.

[crashdome 3]

#$%^ing awesome

Only.. because if that map is accurate I am NOT in Jesusland.

In terms of what is really the next war? I bet it will be a surprise. It will take simply a bad decision and lots of dead people. That usually sparks some form of conflict... even over friends.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Damn it..... you beat me to it.

I was going to suggest another american civil war.

We can only hope?

[martinovic 0]

I don't think the military bases along the western coast would accept a split from Jesusland (US Military personel is highly religious), so i have my doubts about california joining up with the USC. And if you pit the ass acheing hippy crowd of San Fransisco against the fat and well trained and highly motivated (well religion, if nothing else, atleast it motivates) National Guard forces i think i'd put my money on Jesusland wiping the floor with the hippies, going on to annex Canada for some nice wood resource.

Even on that "optimistic" map JL controls the oil, the entire eastern coast and most of the mexicans. The USC is screwed. Also i think the USA has most of it's nukes either in Alaska or the South, South-East, with the USC only controlling the ones in the northern part of the eastern coast. Also the population of the USC is holed up in large cities like sardines, very nukable, while Jesusland's population is scattered throughout it's controlled territory, some of them living in very unnukable mobile homes.

... and call me stupid but i thought that Utah was ultra religious... with people constantly knocking on unbelievers' doors to repent, etc. O.o

[Pathy 0]

2nd Falklands War:

British Military facing ever increasing cutbacks, whilst it's stretched to the limit in Afganistan and Iraq.

Argentina still making noises about the Falklands islands. If they're going to do anything, now would be the time to strike....

[Spokesperson 0]

There's a huge difference between a military dicatorship and a western "democracy". Argentina today is not what it was yesterday. Too bad that Britain still shines US-boots.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]There's a huge difference between a military dicatorship and a western democracy. Argentina today is not what it was yesterday. Too bad that Britain still shines US-boots.

Their political system may have changed since the first Falklands conflict but that doesn't mean they still don't have 'grievances' over the Falklands. They still feel the same way about it.

From Wikipedia on Falklands Military;

Quote[/b] ]The MoD has announced that No. 1435 is converting to the Eurofighter Typhoon by the end of 2007 instead of 2009. This is in response to recent reassertions of claims of the islands by the Argentines.