I'd rate India vs Pakistan or India vs China a bit higher on the "dangerous" scale. Because we might actually see nukes fly the next time.
Future Conflicts
- Thread starter CodE
- Start date
radiosilence
jints
Actually Nukes act as deterrent.I'd rate India vs Pakistan or India vs China a bit higher on the "dangerous" scale. Because we might actually see nukes fly the next time.
I actually think that every one of those conflicts are highly unlikley. Iran isn't going to attack any GCC country (not even the UAE) unless it's to hit a US military base and do you really think the GCC countries are really that willing to go to war?the most dangerous conflict is China invading Taiwan and the US military gets involved. but the possibility of this to happen is very low
the conflict which has higher possibility to occur in the near future are new Gulf war involving the US launching strikes against Iran military bases and nuclear sites and then the GCC countries get invloved if a member of the GCC is attacked by Iran
and then after that , some sort of spark (similar to the Lebanese war 2006 but this time Iran has no hand in it) initiating a new Arab-Israeli war which will end with cease-fire
that is what i expect (Not what i wish) in the future
The Arab-Israeli war thing is probably the most unlikely. The most any Arab country ever did in light of the IDF :gun other Arabs was when the defense minister of Egypt threatened to deploy the third army into the Sinai (oooo scarry:shudder ) during the Intifada. And the Arab countries aren't that willing to go to war with Israel. It would take a lot for Israel to provoke another Arab-Israeli war (as in they'd have to be really trying)
Last edited:
And who says that those weapons are not used in a new war between Pakistan and India when one side faces total defeat?Actually Nukes act as deterrent.
Decisions, especially in war, are not always rational and a conventional conflict between Pakistan and India always includes the possibility of one side going nuclear (with the other following immediately).
And when I look at the history, military spending and an ongoing conflict in Kashmir I don't think that a military conflict is that unbelievable.
It might remain a smaller border fight or it might become a full conventional war without ever going nuclear but the fact that both countries have nuclear weapons also means that they could be used.
And that war doesn't even need to be provoked by any side. In such a loaden environment simple mistakes and wrong assumptions can lead to a war which both sides don't want.
radiosilence
jints
When was the last time two nuclear weapon states directly fought a war? The answer would be never.And who says that those weapons are not used in a new war between Pakistan and India when one side faces total defeat?
Nuclear weapons was a deterrent in 2002 when both sides had over a 1 million troops on their border. Both countries having nuclear weapons has brought some stability in the region. Relations has never been better between them. I don't think these countries will go war anytime soon.Decisions, especially in war, are not always rational and a conventional conflict between Pakistan and India always includes the possibility of one side going nuclear (with the other following immediately).
It is not as if the crisises of the cold war were not serious and could not also have resulted in a hot war.
Assuming that just because we have been lucky during cold war we will not see a nuclear exchange in the future is very optimistic. It doesn't mean that the favourable result will always happen.
Assuming that just because we have been lucky during cold war we will not see a nuclear exchange in the future is very optimistic. It doesn't mean that the favourable result will always happen.
radiosilence
jints
But it didn't happen because the players knew of the consequences. We are seeing the result(2002) of having a having the nuclear deterrent in post cold war.It is not as if the crisises of the cold war were not serious and could not also have resulted in a hot war.
You are assuming we were lucky for 40 plus years, that an awful long time of being lucky.Assuming that just because we have been lucky during cold war we will not see a nuclear exchange in the future is very optimistic. It doesn't mean that the favourable result will always happen.
SaudiArabian
New Member
Iran has launched attacks against the GCC's since 1979 , its still occupying the three UAE islands and is involved seriously in terror attacks in the Kingdom particularly the one of Yanbu in 2004I actually think that every one of those conflicts are highly unlikley. Iran isn't going to attack any GCC country (not even the UAE)
yesdo you really think the GCC countries are really that willing to go to war?
KSA threatened war against israel in 2006 and sent Saud Al Faisal and Bandar bin Sultan in a quick trip to the five permanent members of the UN security council to warn them and give them messages from the King , and if KSA gets in war with israel then so does most of the Islamic countries (specially the countries which their economies , finance or security are heavily relying on KSA) including the rest of GCC's , Egypt , Pakistan , Jordan , Morroco and Yemen will be involved militarly
the Bahraini King also stated that the GCC can defend itself against any Iranian military attack
The three islands "occupied" by Iran aren't occupied it's disputed land. But if it was really occupied then Egypt would currently be "occupying" quite a bit of Sudan.Iran has launched attacks against the GCC's since 1979 , its still occupying the three UAE islands and is involved seriously in terror attacks in the Kingdom particularly the one of Yanbu in 2004
yes
KSA threatened war against israel in 2006 and sent Saud Al Faisal and Bandar bin Sultan in a quick trip to the five permanent members of the UN security council to warn them and give them messages from the King , and if KSA gets in war with israel then so does most of the Islamic countries (specially the countries which their economies , finance or security are heavily relying on KSA) including the rest of GCC's , Egypt , Pakistan , Jordan , Morroco and Yemen will be involved militarly
the Bahraini King also stated that the GCC can defend itself against any Iranian military attack
I haven't heard of any seriouse attack by Iran against a GCC country in recent times (like 10 years or less).
KSA threatening war against Israel in response to the Lebanese crisis dosen't mean they were really going to go to war, believe me. As I stated above Egypt's defence minister made hollow threats to Israel before and Egypt is in a much better position to making such threats. And if you look it up Saudi is technically at war with Israel and I don't see them at war.
If Saudi went to war with Israel the only country that will for sure participate is Pakistan (as there are Pakistani dual-key nukes, among other things, in Saudi). The rest of the GCC and Libya will financially support by by sending weapon systems and money like aircraft and tanks (to be operated by the countries at war) like they did in the past. And why would Egypt help? It's economy, finance and security do not even remotely rely on Saudi Arabia. All the FDI it gets from Gulf countries is from Kuwait and the UAE. In fact it's economy is better off not helping the KSA. Why would it risk 2.5 billion dollars in aid every year just to help a country which never helped it in the past, not to say it wouldn't help it's just to say it dosen't make much sense. But then again our militaries do hold excerises regularly (possibly directed at Israel). We held one in 2002 which Israel cited as reason why we shouldn't get the F-15E.
Again this war is sooo unlikely that it's not worth even imagining (I personally wouldn't want to imagine what would happen to us in such a war).
SaudiArabian
New Member
no they are occupied and Not disputed ! its better you read history firstThe three islands "occupied" by Iran aren't occupied it's disputed land. But if it was really occupied then Egypt would currently be "occupying" quite a bit of Sudan.
I haven't heard of any seriouse attack by Iran against a GCC country in recent times (like 10 years or less).
the islands had Arab (Sunni) residents and there was a prince on them , they were all been fired from their homes by the Imperialist Iranian Forces of the Shah and these civilians went to whats called today the UAE
i should remind you that President Qathafi planned to assassinate King Abdullah (it seems many people forget that because KSA didn't concentrate on it through media) , there's no way would be any support of any kind comming out from LibyaKSA threatening war against Israel in response to the Lebanese crisis dosen't mean they were really going to go to war, believe me. As I stated above Egypt's defence minister made hollow threats to Israel before and Egypt is in a much better position to making such threats. And if you look it up Saudi is technically at war with Israel and I don't see them at war.
If Saudi went to war with Israel the only country that will for sure participate is Pakistan (as there are Pakistani dual-key nukes, among other things, in Saudi). The rest of the GCC and Libya will financially support by by sending weapon systems and money like ..
AFAIK the Iranians say it's disputed so even that's enough to turn it from occupied to disputed. And to give response about the Libyan thing history has shown in the past that when Arab states confronting a common enemy all their past disputes become irrelvant (at least until the war is over). A perfect example of this is when Gamal Abdul Nasser called the Jordonian king an imperialtic lakey and then right after Jordan and Egypt became allies in the war to liberate Palistine. Another example is Syria when it joined the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. And IIRC the Egyptians and Saudis even though they were "unfriendly" or cold towards each other for a very long time in the past the Saudis cut off the oil supply to the States when President Anwar asked the King to which caused the 1973 oil shock and "the of the muscle car era".no they are occupied and Not disputed ! its better you read history first
the islands had Arab (Sunni) residents and there was a prince on them , they were all been fired from their homes by the Imperialist Iranian Forces of the Shah and these civilians went to whats called today the UAE
i should remind you that President Qathafi planned to assassinate King Abdullah (it seems many people forget that because KSA didn't concentrate on it through media) , there's no way would be any support of any kind comming out from Libya
AFAIK the Iranians say it's disputed so even that's enough to turn it from occupied to disputed (by the rest of the world at least, I love the UAE much more than I do Iran just incase you were doubting my Arab nationalism). And to give response about the Libyan thing, history has shown in the past that when Arab states confronting a common enemy all their past disputes become irrelvant (at least until the war is over). A perfect example of this is when Gamal Abdul Nasser called the Jordonian king an imperialtic lakey and then right after Jordan and Egypt became allies in the war against Israel. Another example is Syria when it joined the Gulf War (which even included the US) to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. And IIRC the Egyptians and Saudis were "unfriendly" or cold towards each other for a very long time in the past yet the Saudis cut off the oil supply to the States when President Anwar asked the King to which caused the 1973 oil shock and "the end of the muscle car era" :nutkick.no they are occupied and Not disputed ! its better you read history first
the islands had Arab (Sunni) residents and there was a prince on them , they were all been fired from their homes by the Imperialist Iranian Forces of the Shah and these civilians went to whats called today the UAE
i should remind you that President Qathafi planned to assassinate King Abdullah (it seems many people forget that because KSA didn't concentrate on it through media) , there's no way would be any support of any kind comming out from Libya
That would a much more intresting conflict but would be over within a few days. But I'm not sure the Canadians (or any one for that matter) would risk war with Russia even if it's over such huge wealth.What about Russian claims for the North Pole? I´ve just read that they put their flag on the bottom of the sea. Apparently it is very rich in oil and natural gas. Could it be reason for disputes between Russia and Canada?
radiosilence
jints
The US, Norway, Denmark and Canada have disputed the Russian claims to area. Each country is entitled to control an economic zone within 200 nautical miles of its continental shelf, but the limits of the shelf are disputed. Russia is trying to extend its territorial boundary to include the Lomonosov Ridge which is believed to have about 100 billion tonnes of oil and gas. Canada and Denmark are claiming that the Lomonosov Ridge is connected to their territories. This issue will not go away anytime soon as the area is very rich in energy and everyone wants a piece of it.What about Russian claims for the North Pole? I´ve just read that they put their flag on the bottom of the sea. Apparently it is very rich in oil and natural gas. Could it be reason for disputes between Russia and Canada?
Your more than welcome to start the new thread Scorpius.people discussing about future conflicts only?not ways to prevent them?
I think (and hope) there will be some kind of agreement as to who gets what.The US, Norway, Denmark and Canada have disputed the Russian claims to area. Each country is entitled to control an economic zone within 200 nautical miles of its continental shelf, but the limits of the shelf are disputed. Russia is trying to extend its territorial boundary to include the Lomonosov Ridge which is believed to have about 100 billion tonnes of oil and gas. Canada and Denmark are claiming that the Lomonosov Ridge is connected to their territories. This issue will not go away anytime soon as the area is very rich in energy and everyone wants a piece of it.
Well, why not share? It is in international waters. Everyone would benefit from this. But the world is not such place yet.I think (and hope) there will be some kind of agreement as to who gets what.
radiosilence
jints
This dispute will end up with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea having to decide how to resolve it. Russia has taken its claim to extend its territorial boundary there.