WWIII, when?

[jaeger115]

With the recent events with North Korea trying to acquire nukes and tension in the Middle East over Iraq, and an orange light for another terrorist attack, who wants to bet that WWIII will happen in the near future?

Note: The conflict, if it occurrs, doesn't have to be nuclear.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I might be arguing semantics but isnt it kinda hard to have a WW3 without more than 1 superpower?

[Exonerate]

Its always a possibility another one will rise up. I can only hope people learned their lessons from the previous WWs.

[jaeger115]

I might be arguing semantics but isnt it kinda hard to have a WW3 without more than 1 superpower?

There's always China, with the Taiwan issue.

And isn't Iraq the Middle East's most powerful nation, apart from Israel?

[ArmorPierce]

Umm, I think Turkey is more powerful.

[jaeger115]

Umm, I think Turkey is more powerful.

What can it do? Its leader and 80% of its people are opposed to war with Iraq, anyway.

[Coyote]

Nope. It can be a gang-bang (or attempted gang-bang). And there are a number of regional powers. I think there will be a WW-III and there might be limited nuclear involvement (you didn't give that option) but it will be mostly conventional.

Behold:

US goes after Iraq. Iran starts civil war. Massive riots in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Pakistan. Paki incursions into India triggers retaliation; war erupts as Muslim fanatcis stage coup in Pakistand and prepar and Atomic Jihad.

Iraq launches chem/bio at Israel before he goes down in flames. Israel retailiates; Arab world unleashes. US jumps to help Israel, more US forces poured into region.

Turkey buttons down and refuses to participate, demands all US forces leave. Britain stands by US, other European partners balk. France openly sides with Arabic coalition citing Israeli/US 'atrocities'. NATO dissolves.

Noth Korea siezes the moment, demands US troops leave South. Massive anti-US riots in South Korea, Japan. North Korea threatens nuclear strike, US stages pre-emptive strike on N. Korean nuclear facilities. War erupts, Australia and other Asian partners withdraw all support for US and sit out what promises to be an ugly scene.

Terrorists use WMDs on US soil. US responds with tactical nuclear strike on offenders; offenders had single or limited WMD and use no more. US also uses no more. Wars continue in Western and Eastern Asia, conventional in nature. Anti-US demonstrations rampant worldwide, Canada and Mexico declare borders closed.

Brief nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. Viscious, bloody fighting at all levels, region devolves into total war of a type reminiscent of Somalia.

Latin America erupts in brutal civil wars, death squads from both sides exact toll on civilians. US deploys limited troops to prop up 'democracies' in Colombia, Peru. Re-occupies strategic Panama Canal Zone, sparking more fighting in that region. Mexican Zapatista Chiapas rebels engage in terrorism agaianst Maxican gov't, limited terrorism also erupts in Quebec.

Scenario continues until all sides are exhausted.

Wild card? China deciding that now is the time to sieze Taiwan. If that happens, US battlegroups respond and war erupts with China. All bets are off; watch the movie "On the Beach", cry, get drunk, screw your loved one one last time and die of alcohol poisoning as soon as you can.

So. Buy a ticket and a program.

[jaeger115]

Ecchhh. That was pretty realistic, Coyote. Now I'll see if I can add the "limited nukes" option.

[Baron Mordo]

Ha ha ha! And ha! Terrorism in Quebec? That's quite the Bizarro scenario. It might have been so in the 70s, but today? Nah.

[RedImperator]

One of several things must happen before we're in danger of another generalized world war:

1. A second superpower arises. This could be China, a resurgent Russia, a "United States of Europe", or some other nation (Brazil and India both come to mind, but it's hard to predict these things). The most probable, in my mind, but it will be at least two decades before China is ready, and longer for anyone else.

2. A worldwide alliance forms against the United States. Unlikely (despite the masturbatory fantasies of Islamofascists and Western left-wing fruitcakes like Noam Chomsky alike). However much John, Jacques, Ivan, Kim, and Mohommad Q. Public scream and burn flags in the streets, part of how America got into this position as a superpower to begin with was to make it worthwhile for other governments to support it. As the present geopolitical situation stands, the industrialized states that would be essential to the military viability of this alliance have far too much to lose by severing ties with America.

3. America weakens due to internal factors, destabiling the current world order. People scoff at the idea now, but people scoffed at the idea of the Roman Empire falling in 400 AD. 76 years later, it was gone (please, nobody make a post about the Byzantines, because it'll ruin the whole poetry of the idea).

[TrailerParkJawa]

I might be arguing semantics but isnt it kinda hard to have a WW3 without more than 1 superpower?

There's always China, with the Taiwan issue.

And isn't Iraq the Middle East's most powerful nation, apart from Israel?

China is close but not a super power. However, a war with China might come close if it was a ground war. But I believe any war with China would be series of running air and sea battles. Mabye some limited raids by troops from either side.

I dont see the US and China fighting. No real reason to do so, the economic fall could potentially shatter both economies.

I see a Pakistan/India conflict as possible. Both nations are in what I call the "inmature" stage of nuclear arms stewardship. They have nukes but not the experience or maturity to handle them. ( just a personal opinion )

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Nope. It can be a gang-bang (or attempted gang-bang). And there are a number of regional powers. I think there will be a WW-III and there might be limited nuclear involvement (you didn't give that option) but it will be mostly conventional.

Behold:

US goes after Iraq. Iran starts civil war. Massive riots in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Pakistan. Paki incursions into India triggers retaliation; war erupts as Muslim fanatcis stage coup in Pakistand and prepar and Atomic Jihad.

Iraq launches chem/bio at Israel before he goes down in flames. Israel retailiates; Arab world unleashes. US jumps to help Israel, more US forces poured into region.

Turkey buttons down and refuses to participate, demands all US forces leave. Britain stands by US, other European partners balk. France openly sides with Arabic coalition citing Israeli/US 'atrocities'. NATO dissolves.

Noth Korea siezes the moment, demands US troops leave South. Massive anti-US riots in South Korea, Japan. North Korea threatens nuclear strike, US stages pre-emptive strike on N. Korean nuclear facilities. War erupts, Australia and other Asian partners withdraw all support for US and sit out what promises to be an ugly scene.

Terrorists use WMDs on US soil. US responds with tactical nuclear strike on offenders; offenders had single or limited WMD and use no more. US also uses no more. Wars continue in Western and Eastern Asia, conventional in nature. Anti-US demonstrations rampant worldwide, Canada and Mexico declare borders closed.

Brief nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. Viscious, bloody fighting at all levels, region devolves into total war of a type reminiscent of Somalia.

Latin America erupts in brutal civil wars, death squads from both sides exact toll on civilians. US deploys limited troops to prop up 'democracies' in Colombia, Peru. Re-occupies strategic Panama Canal Zone, sparking more fighting in that region. Mexican Zapatista Chiapas rebels engage in terrorism agaianst Maxican gov't, limited terrorism also erupts in Quebec.

Scenario continues until all sides are exhausted.

Wild card? China deciding that now is the time to sieze Taiwan. If that happens, US battlegroups respond and war erupts with China. All bets are off; watch the movie "On the Beach", cry, get drunk, screw your loved one one last time and die of alcohol poisoning as soon as you can.

So. Buy a ticket and a program.

How can you be so sure that every single little thing will happen like that? That seems like the absolute worst-case scenario, barring nuclear annihilation. I really, truly, deeply believe that will not happen.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Hah, the poll reads 1, 2, 3, 4.

[Invader ZIm]

You cant have a World War without the French and the Germans. Historical protocal demands that they be included in the conflict somewhere.

[EmperorMing]

Seems pretty realistic to me. What Coyote posted, that is...

[Darth Yoshi]

Just more terrorist attacks. I don't believe that the rest of the world is stupid enough to risk the US actually unleashing its nuclear arsenal.

[Coyote]

I wouldn't say that everything would happen just like that, but I am just guessing. There are so many repressed hatreds out there that once the ball gets rolling, it would build. Columbian and Peruvian rebels would figure that now is the time to strike since the US would b so tied up elsewhere, any response we'd make would be minimal.

Face it, after Sep.11, a large part of the world actually felt like we'd gotten our just desserts. They don't like the idea of the tragedy, the deaths of the people, but the idea that the Top Dog got a bloody nose.

The biggest problem with American power is that we are really very inconsistent with our policies. Its the nature of our democracy-- we have a revolution every four years and the Dems come in and undo everthing the Repubs set up, or vice versa. Rebel groups that got the courage worked up for a fight under the auspices of one administrtion are left hung out to dry by the next. This schitzophrenic back-and-forth drives folks nuts.

That's why the USSR is missed by many-- they were consistent. You always knew where you stood with them. In the shitter, usually, but there was no waking up every morning wondering if the Soviet taxpayers/constituents had decided that domestic spending on midnight basketball was more important than your revolution...

[Darth Wong]

I wouldn't say that everything would happen just like that, but I am just guessing. There are so many repressed hatreds out there that once the ball gets rolling, it would build. Columbian and Peruvian rebels would figure that now is the time to strike since the US would b so tied up elsewhere, any response we'd make would be minimal.

A lot of people feel that Pakistan will suffer massive internal unrest and a possible coup in the wake of the invasion, particularly if it gets dirty.

Face it, after Sep.11, a large part of the world actually felt like we'd gotten our just desserts. They don't like the idea of the tragedy, the deaths of the people, but the idea that the Top Dog got a bloody nose.

We must try to understand that much of the rest of the world has faced war in a very personal way in this century. North America has not been invaded by any enemy country in recent memory, nor has it been bombed or occupied. There is a sense, perhaps justified, that Americans do not understand the consequences of war and that this ignorance guides their foreign policy. They would probably say the same about Canada except that we have no real power, so we're "harmless".

The biggest problem with American power is that we are really very inconsistent with our policies. Its the nature of our democracy-- we have a revolution every four years and the Dems come in and undo everthing the Repubs set up, or vice versa. Rebel groups that got the courage worked up for a fight under the auspices of one administrtion are left hung out to dry by the next. This schitzophrenic back-and-forth drives folks nuts.

It's more than that. Why did Bush Sr. hang the Iraqi rebels out to dry in Gulf War 1? American policy is guided by American self-interest, which is understandable, but people in the rest of the world tend to remember the people who get sacrificed for it.

That's why the USSR is missed by many-- they were consistent. You always knew where you stood with them. In the shitter, usually, but there was no waking up every morning wondering if the Soviet taxpayers/constituents had decided that domestic spending on midnight basketball was more important than your revolution...

I think the worldwide proliferation of American military bases is another factor. These bases are often regarded as a de facto occupying force. They are not occupiers per se, but when you're living in some foreign country and a big military base plops down just outside your town, you tend to think of it as an unwanted intrusion. If the soldiers at that base misbehave, your impression of America will be formed on that basis. And WHEN misbehaving soldiers at that base are sent back to the US rather than being tried in your own court system (eg- well-known cases of Okinawan girls raped by American soldiers who were sent home and given a slap on the wrist) because of certain agreements between the government and the US, how do you feel? You feel violated, you feel anger, and you feel that the Americans strut around your nation and shit all over your laws and customs, using their power to grant themselves immunity from the consequences. It is not hard to see how this sort of thing generates long-lived resentment.