World War 3?

[volmer]

I'm sure people are up to date with some WW3 conspiracies or prognosis.
So, here's a poll and thread about the WW3. The poll is: Who do you think will cause the 3rd World War? And lets discuss our opinion here also

[volmer]

Here comes my opinion (DO NOT READ BEFORE VOTING):
I myself believe that we will be hit by everybody at pretty much the same time. Every country with any missiles at all will fire them away. Then will follow biological and chemical warfare. Then... Nothing. We'll all be dead. If I'm not mistaking, there are enough nukes in the world to destroy the entire planet 8 times. If it was just USA and Russia in the arena or any other developed country, then they would hesitate to use nukes or any other weapons of mass destruction. But now, we have crazy asians and angry 3rd world countries in the screen. They're governments are too stupid to realize that if one country will fire a nuke, that will cause the chain reaction of every other nuke in the world being fire in response. And not only are they dumb, they don't care. They are too fond of having their JIHAD so they won't hesitate to cause annihilation, even if nobody will survive it. They will go to Allah and be happy there.

Now, please do not get my wrong, I am not a racist, I don't hate muslims or asians or africans, its just that these less developed countries are the biggest risk factors, as they are not capable of taking responsibility for their actions.


PS: Writing this extremely long and useless reply, a few times I forgot proper English grammar, so please excuse grammatical errors, as some sentences might not make sense. I read my post through in hope to find and fix some errors, but every time I read it, I lost completely any track of writing English. Now, I will go for a coffee and if I will make it back in 15 minutes with the ability to read and write so much in English, then I will make corrections.


DAMN WHY DID I WRITE SO MUCH.

Now nobody will bother to read it through, they will just look "Oh, thats a ****load of reading, I'll skip it."

[Atrus]

Volmer, you DID NOT write too much. While I don't agree with what you wrote the fact you took the time to express your thoughts is important. In fact, I pay very little attention to those who post the convenient buzz word one liner bumper sticker statements that have little meaning. They're an easy way out of serious discussion on what is the most important topic of our time.

For your prediction to occur we would have to believe that a wide variety of nationalities would be able to come together in secrecy, organize, plan, and execute what would be a security nightmare. The "chatter" between countries would sound off alarm bells in every security agency we have and it simply would not be possible to pull off. As well, while many of these nations may have usable isotopes and chemicals, they don't have the necessary delivery systems to strike from a distance.

I'm not concerned with some mass attack, what troubles me is the one country or faction with just one bomb. New York or Washington are believed to be first targets, but I submit more damage could be done to our economy and social systems by hitting a very different and not often discussed target. In fact, I don't believe I've ever heard any politician or news/media entity discuss this target location publicly - so, I'm not going to mention it here.

As for the poll I feel that we need to keep a close eye on China. Not that they will attack us, more that they are becoming our keeper. Bush is asking for $190 BILLION for the war in 2008. What most folks don't understand is that we don't have that cash on hand, we borrow from China. When the dust settles on this war we will likely owe China One TRILLION dollars.

Again, I appreciate your post and the fact you are thinking about these things. I wish more of those using the Forums and the Blog would jump in and express their views.

~A

[Triavius]

I'm feeling that it will probably be North Korea that will lead to the next global war. I go to an almost military school, and have to take some mili-science classes, and this was something that was brought up the other day, only problem is that i don't really remember the reasons why i supported this theory.

Big thing is that they have one hell of a grudge against us (well actually who doesn't these days?) with south korea and all that. If i can come up with a more sensible reason, i will promptly edit my post

[volmer]

The grudge North Korea has probably comes from what I think is fear. I think that the Koreans fear the states. Russia does. Not the people maybe, but their governments do. Koreans and russians actually think of what will happen if they rage war with the states and they don't want to see it.

[topic jump warning]

Then we have JIHADers. Those guys aren't afraid. They don't even care. They are so stuck in their belief of Allah and a paradise full of chicks that they actually want to go there. They don't value their lives or anyone else's. They want to kill and die while killing. Thats one of the reasons why I am very much against immigration from 3rd world countries. We don't know who is going to teach our children about public safety and who is going to blow us all up. They are unpredictable. It's too hard to understand their way of life, as nobody else these days is 100% religious and willing to die for his/her god. If there would begin a Jihad, we would be screwed. The enemy would be infiltrated on our own soil, in the middle our own people. The guy sitting next to you in the bus or the man that keeps your local store might be the very same person who had something to do with the twin towers. And if there would be a Jihad, we would not have anybody to attack. There isn't a Jihad Country, that we can nuke or send troops into, there isn't any Nation of Terror and Hate that we could battle. The jihad battle will be on our own soil and against our own people. This will be bad.



The WW3 topic is a pretty good one, one of my favorites. We discuss almost every time at the bar. We usually start a conversation of three and end up having 5 rather brilliant strangers sitting in our table and some spectators.

[weaver]

WW III is a myth. The concept. While I am not saying that we will never see a war like WW II again (with hundred millions dead, dozens of countries actively involved, etc).. the world is a far different place then it was then. In fact, the last time that their existed such a lopsides polarity of military forces and technology was during the height of the Roman reign.

Taking IRAQ into a proper context, one in which we all agree that trying to pacify a countries population by military force is an expensive option and one that need not be taken if our goal was not the usurping of land, then the US is in a position of unequaled and unrivaled force in the world.

Lets examine:

Economically - The US is unrivaled in GDP leverage the world over. The fact that the Chinese are surpassing the Japanese in GDP is an interesting note.. but the fact remains, the Chinese have a population 10x that of Japan. The average Chinese citizen remains dirt poor and has almost zero purchasing power beyond basic food and housing requirements. In order for a country to be 'wealthy' enough to have signifigant economic power, the citizens need to have purchasing power of convenience. The US, JAPAN, CANADA, UK, etc - all have this. The US just happens to have the 2nd highest level and the greatest population (320M) of these. We buy more, make more (high tech), and drive more economic growth then any single (or even 2 or 3 large.. ) countries combined. The US = the European Union on its best dreamiest day ever.

Politically - You will find very few more stable political powers on this planet. The every 4/8 year slog we are going through now is window dressing. It has little to no impact on the bureaucrats that REALLY run the country and keep things on an even keel day to day. Our bureaucrats are educated, well paid, minimally corrupt, and have proper guidelines on operation of our government. The risk of a Iran or China breeding discord into the citizen is laughable. However, I can paint a number of scenarios where almost every country that we consider enemy or potential enemy could be brought down from within because of a LACK of political stability.

Better to trust the devil you know then the angel you don't. People may not LIKE the US Govt.. but they know and understand us and know we aren't changing overnight.

Militarily - The US is an Island. No other nation on earth has as 'friendly' and 'stable' neighbors with so little potential military risk as the US. The US has been at peace with its borders longer then any other nation - I challenge someone to find someone else that has had a longer peace on all of its borders. Its neighbors have little military and very little economic resource to cause trouble for the US. Why does this matter? Risk aversion is something every country must consider. The US has FAR more latitude then any other country exactly because we are nearly an island unto ourselves. No one is about to 'invade' us. Even England has to be wary of its neighbors in this regard.

Naval - 12 carrier groups. Any single carrier group consists of enough firepower to take out any other single nations navy. A battle group (2 or more carriers) sitting off the coast of any nation can reach air superiority within their air space. Park 4 -5 carrier groups (assuming enemy has that much coastal real-estate) and you will have 750 combat air sorties going on.. at once. 24/7. The US navy comes and goes in every water around the world and though China is trying to develop a surface fleet to manage their own sea lanes, their is no possibility of naval parity for the foreseeable future (50+ years). Technologically, the US is unrivaled and is likely to remain so.


Air Power - - The Russian's have some nice looking aircraft coming out that, in certain areas, can certainly rival our latest combat aircraft. However, where we have ordered 420 F22's.. of which 8 come into service every month - the Russians have ordered nothing more then a prototype for each. Production items are looking for buyers outside of the Soviet Union.

The Chinese have nothing to compare with the Russians or the US.

The United States maintains the worlds - only - mass transport by air system. No other military power has the capability to forward deploy sizable military units via the air. The Soviets NEVER had the capability, even at the height of the cold war. The ability to serve up food.. supplies.. troops.. tanks.. air defense.. on the 'literal' fly - quickly and ably - is a humongous military advantage.

Land Forces - - Technological advantages provide for land as they do for air.. they provide multiplier effects. Why is it that during the first Gulf War a unit of mostly light combat vehicles (bradleys, humvees, etc) were able to be surprised/ambushed by heavier and larger quantitied Iraq units.. and come out alive.. and triumphant? Technology. Any 1 of our units compared to the average military capability of any other unit in the world has a multiplier effect ranging from 3 to 30 in combat capabilities. 30,000 dead in Vietnam? Though a serious catastrophe for us, still our units were responsible for 2M dead in return. 8x multiplier. Iraq GW I? We saw 15-20x multipliers. This last go round saw us approaching 30-40x in combat effectiveness as measured by results.

It's true - we would get chomped in a land war in Asia. Russia would wear us down. The Chinese would just bleed rivers over us till we drowned. We simply wouldn't bother.

Space - The Russians are rattling sabers right now over the armament of space. They know they have lost -15- years where we send secret rocket.. after secret rocket.. into the sky laden with military gear. I live 40 miles from NASA. I see them -every- month. A good chunk are never even reported on they are so common.

The point? - Scenarios of the world uniting against us are silly. Even if they did, it would not be a push over. The US could go from enemy to enemy, taking them down quickly and breaking the morale of the remaining worlds military forces. We may not be able to take Iraq.. but if our only mission was to destroy their military and knock them back 20 years.. well we did that within 30 days.

[Bobson]

Originally Posted by volmer

DAMN WHY DID I WRITE SO MUCH.

Now nobody will bother to read it through, they will just look "Oh, thats a ****load of reading, I'll skip it."

LMAO I read your first sentence, decided it was too long (even though I'm well known for writing waaayyy too much), then I saw your last line, the bit I quoted. I went back and read your opinion. =)

My only opinion here is that it could happen one day, I suppose. I try not to give things like this a lot of thought... honestly it just unsettles me, given that my younger brother, while scoring better than me on the ASVAB, chose to enlist as an infantryman in the Marine Corps. He deploys to Iraq in early November, and I'm really scared for him (even though he says he's not worried). He's a squad leader, and he told me that every single time his Platoon deployed to Iraq since 9/11, they've lost at least one Marine, sometimes more. =\

[weaver]

I wish your brother a safe journey and happy hunting. I pray that he comes back alive, mentally well, and a better man.

I hope that Iran/US work out a security arrangement over the next 8 months that will preclude further deaths for anyone.

[volmer]

weaver, it's true, almost impossible to invade the states. But the US is the number 1 target for jihaders. I'm not talking about more planes hitting towers, I'm talking about a war where your country doesn't have an enemy nation. I'm talking about the man who drives your cab and his family going BOOM with tons of explosives in the streets.

The states are not undefeatable. You did lose in Vietnam. It's pretty sure you won't be having any battles on your own soil, which is actually a bad thing. When you are invading some country, not only will the enemy troops be fighting harder to protect their home and their loved ones, you won't be able to walk the streets the or trust any civilians, as you are automatically their enemy too.

The Iraq war is weird and I've decided that I can't be bothered to figure out exactly whats going on there. Though I'm sure I will understand it one day. I'm thinking about trying for a peace keeper mission to Afghanistan, 3-4 years later. A lot might change during this time, but I'm pretty sure I want to go there.

[weaver]

We did not 'lose' in Vietnam. We chose to stop fighting. Casualties were 15 to 1 - any place we - wanted - to defend we could. We did not have political will to continue it.

Mission objectives otherwise accomplished. Knocked a region back 30 years, through china and russia into their own quagemire there.

[Streetbum]

Originally Posted by weaver

I challenge someone to find someone else that has had a longer peace on all of its borders.

A) Switzerland
B) Australia

Those are my shots at it, correct me if Im wrong. <3

[weaver]

Check on independence date of Australia. Wasn't that long ago.

Switz? They fought a war in 1847. They were surrounded by hostile powers since then, including a very hostile Germany.