Who Do You Think Will Be Involved In World War 3?

[Feanor]

How true. But now that we have established that there will only be losers to a greater and less degree, how do we prevent ourselves from all becoming losers?

Let us start with the forces and issues that will if they not properly addressed, led to war of a kind that would bring in more and more players and would lead eventually becoming total war. And not just miner military skirmishes over limited issues and objectives.

What drives people to war?

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is at looking where potential scenarios exist that could escalate into WW III.

Sturm the Arab Spring was met by powerful resistance to it from governments. So clearly there is resistance to change. This doesn't mean that Arab people don't want democracy. What it means is that not ALL Arab people want democracy, and those that don't want democracy happen to have means to stop or interfere with attempts to create it.

 

[rip]

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is at looking where potential scenarios exist that could escalate into WW III.

Sturm the Arab Spring was met by powerful resistance to it from governments. So clearly there is resistance to change. This doesn't mean that Arab people don't want democracy. What it means is that not ALL Arab people want democracy, and those that don't want democracy happen to have means to stop or interfere with attempts to create it.

Point number 4 is a real element that drives people and decision makers to do things that lead to violence and to things that do not lead to violence. But that doesn’t mean, nor did I mean to suggest, that resistance to change is a monolithic phenomena in certain parts of the world, especially to the alway restless young but only that it is present and one of the factors. Sometimes a political faction that is resistant to change will control or will try to gain control of a country’s political structure and as a method to stop change or to satisfy their political base with actions that may lead to war.

Remember change is always dangerous to a country’s political, economic, religious, and other power holding elites who will naturally want to keep their privileged positions for themselves. To them all change poses a risk unless it promises to strengthen their position like increasing the power of police within a police state with the use of technology while trying to keep all technology that empowers people out of their hands. Think North Korea.

When added to the natural humans tendency that we old people have to resist change (Like learning windows 7 when I started out with DOS and have had to learn several systems since just to keep up) when added to perceived (real or imagined) threats to codes of morality or the devaluation of the family it can become a powerful political force.

As to the particular potential scenarios that could lead to war and the alignments of the parities that could theoretically combine to fight it. How can you make any probable grouping without considering the four factors I have out lined that would dive countries to align themselves in such combinations to fight it?

As an example if China were to get involves in some worldwide conflict we would naturally assume that it would be driven by factors 1 & 3. And any allies that it might find would have to have goals that were compatible with China’s.

While to uses a different example from above by “STURM” the recent reaction to the ‘Arab spring' in the case of Saudi Arabia’s actions of sending in troops to the island nation of Bahrain to shore up its monarchy as actions based upon principles 2 & 4.

 

[STURM]

While to uses a different example from above by “STURM” the recent reaction to the ‘Arab spring' in the case of Saudi Arabia’s actions of sending in troops to the island nation of Bahrain to shore up its monarchy as actions based upon principles 2 & 4.

Regime survival. I can't think of anything else to describe Saudi's action in sending military and para-military troops into a neighbouring country to ensure things don't get out of hand.

 

[surpreme]

I don't see how or where this will lead to a World War III. There is only one alliance in the world and that is NATO. Can anyone name anyone that's strong enough to go against NATO? NONE! If you put it in the terms of a World War, I don't see one happening.
I do see minor conflicts that pin two or three nation against each other not to the level of a World War. US/UK fought war on four contients now that's World War. In World War II you had fighting in Africa, Asia, Europe, Pacific Ocean, and the Atantic Ocean. The US is the only one that can basically take over the whole world. (NWO) ha ha ah ha ah ha ha

 

[surpreme]

The Chinese People's Liberation Army! :gun

China is up and coming but not on that level yet. I would said this give CPLA couple more decades of fine tuning there army. But the bad news on that NATO will have up there game also. Technology!!!!!!!!!!! that what hurts Chinese People's Liberation Army.

 

[STURM]

I don't see how or where this will lead to a World War III. There is only one alliance in the world and that is NATO. Can anyone name anyone that's strong enough to go against NATO? NONE! If you put it in the terms of a World War, I don't see one happening.

Nonetheless there are areas in the world where the influence of the U.S. and NATO is on the decline. There are other powers emerging and shifing alliances. If history has taught us anything, its that all major powers and alliances eventually go in a state of decline and are replaced by others.

China is up and coming but not on that level yet. I would said this give CPLA couple more decades of fine tuning there army. But the bad news on that NATO will have up there game also. Technology!!!!!!!!!!! that what hurts Chinese People's Liberation Army.

China's main aim is to secure its sea lanes and have the ability to project power in its area of interests. Irrespective of how many years China will need to catch with the U.S. is irrelevent, as it is China is already a force to be reckoned with and a country to keep a close eye on. At the rate at which China is buying, reverse engineering and developing it own technologies, I wouldn't be surprised if they catch up sooner. Bear in mind that China already has more power projection capabilities and a long range strike capability than most 1st World/NATO countries.

 

[MrConservative]

One will America and other should be Pakistan

This is a single line imflamatory post that has no place on this site. Do not post single comments. Do not post anything imflamatory or your time here will be short. Read the Defencetalk rules.

 

[Jissy]

not just USA and UK....

I don't see how or where this will lead to a World War III. There is only one alliance in the world and that is NATO. Can anyone name anyone that's strong enough to go against NATO? NONE! If you put it in the terms of a World War, I don't see one happening.
I do see minor conflicts that pin two or three nation against each other not to the level of a World War. US/UK fought war on four contients now that's World War. In World War II you had fighting in Africa, Asia, Europe, Pacific Ocean, and the Atantic Ocean. The US is the only one that can basically take over the whole world. (NWO) ha ha ah ha ah ha ha

Hi Supreme, just like to point out that we were there too, Oz, and our pals the Kiwis...in fact my father fought in the Middle East, (he lied about his age, he was really underage for enlistment, at 17) then after a few years sand dune work in Tripoli and surrounds, his hard won rest was interrupted by having to then go into Papua New Guinea...he even fought alonside you Yanks, when your mob temporarily fell short of good Bombadiers in the region they were in, so he got seconded to a US unit for awhile.

Just making the point that, both WW1 and WW2 were not won by the UK and USA alone...

cheers and welcome to the community!

 

[PCShogun]

I don't see how or where this will lead to a World War III. There is only one alliance in the world and that is NATO. Can anyone name anyone that's strong enough to go against NATO? NONE! If you put it in the terms of a World War, I don't see one happening.
I do see minor conflicts that pin two or three nation against each other not to the level of a World War. US/UK fought war on four contients now that's World War. In World War II you had fighting in Africa, Asia, Europe, Pacific Ocean, and the Atantic Ocean. The US is the only one that can basically take over the whole world. (NWO) ha ha ah ha ah ha ha

True to a point, but I don't believe any single country has the ability to "Take over the world" at this time. We have also seen how two small conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has apparently stretched the United States to the limit financially. I no longer believe we have the ability to fight such a conflict, like we did in 1941. in 1940 the national debt was essentially ZERO. Today, if you look at the charts, its over 14 trillion (the debt clock says 14.833 trillion actually as of my mark). You are essentially going into World War III with 5 times more debt than the United States has had in all previous wars combined.

reference http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt.png

 

[bluejar]

India-Oz and WWIII

Sporting ties means very little and again you seem to be forgetting history, us fighting the same enemies 70 odd years ago has little to do with today,

Hence why im talking 10-20 years which by then they should (should as i know things may change) have atleast 3 aircraft carriers and the supporting ships to easily use them in waters around us.

I agree they are important issues but whether they are worth the trillions of dollars needed to fight off India or China i dont know.
...

That is part of the reason i said India originally. I have seen numerous posts by Indians on various sites saying they should attack Australia and just take out resources rather then buy them and plenty saying blatantly they should just wipe us out when the attacks on Indian students where big new's.
Obviously they are basically just big mouths on the net but if that is what some of the more educated middle and upper class think you have to wonder how many of the poorer less educated lower class who make up the vast majority of there country feelthe same when they see us living well with such a big country and small population.

Hi. An Indian here. My first post. The discussion about India-Oz astonished me. Not a defence expert but considering the hypotheses of a invasion of australia by India seems to have arisen from rantings of youngsters on the net, I suppose my words maybe worth 2 cents:

1. Expats and affected relatives (of attack-victims in Oz) may be angry, but thats not representative of feelings here. Mostly concern at incompetence, then maybe indifference, eventually mollified by good work of diplomats.
2. I have read that India does eventually want a 3 carrier blue water capability, but my understanding is that it is defensive than offensive. To the west, Indian trade routes are threatened by Somali pirates and Pakistan; to the east by Moluccan pirates and China. To the South, tiny defenseless island states are easy meat for even 2-bit insurgency groups wanting a base to spread tentacles into India. Besides, India has outlying Island territories too far out of range of aircraft and too slow by navy for quick response in case of attack, which threat India percieves to be real and immediate. Both this defence and escort services will require a carrier based Navy.
3. Right now it has difficulty with even 1 carrier. Gorshkov is taking forever and too much money to refit. One carrier is apparently under construction at an Indian Shipyard.
4. The Indian perspective is moulded (at least in the informed popular domain) by reports of renewed Chinese aggression to claim Buddhist dominated territories in the north and of report of Survey activities near the Andamans. And of course the famed 'string of pearls' policy supposedly hatched to encircle India.

I certainly feel that China displays a nationalism which is far more jingoistioc; but a dichotomy does seem to exist between those who want it be a pre-eminant economic super-power and those who want that to backed by military aggressiveness (principally the PLA). One reason could be that the world's factory needs assured raw materials. So expect China to be more of a threat to Oz than India. However, while its a moot point whether you need to invade to control resources, in this age of globalization (China is already the major constomer for Oz's minerals), the tough guy makes the rules.

 

[WolfC.lupus]

I also agree with PCShogun. Even though the us has the best military hardware available, the cost of that hardware is going to have a huge financial effect. Take the german heavy tanks compared to the lighter shermans of the americans in WW2, superior but much more costly causing them to be greatly outnumbered. I think highly trained troops is way more valuable than the hardware they use.

 

[rocky.dt]

1.In fact the thread should ask: "Will there be a WW IV?" WW II has been going on for a while. In fact books on the Illuminati I have read decades back had already said the plan was to pitch WCC (Western Christian Civilization) against the Arabs and the Muslims. Israel was said to be the focal point of that conflict - which it is. In that book it has also been stated that there would be no major frontal warfare lining up nations as in I & II - but localized wars and battles would be fought here and there.

2. So I would say WW III is already been fought, MNCs are selling their newer weaponry and wanton destruction are taking place to ensure Urban Renewal. These are the goals of this WW III, not national honor, pride or historical rights.

 

[rip]

1.In fact the thread should ask: "Will there be a WW IV?" WW II has been going on for a while. In fact books on the Illuminati I have read decades back had already said the plan was to pitch WCC (Western Christian Civilization) against the Arabs and the Muslims. Israel was said to be the focal point of that conflict - which it is. In that book it has also been stated that there would be no major frontal warfare lining up nations as in I & II - but localized wars and battles would be fought here and there.

2. So I would say WW III is already been fought, MNCs are selling their newer weaponry and wanton destruction are taking place to ensure Urban Renewal. These are the goals of this WW III, not national honor, pride or historical rights.

The assumption that NATO will last indefinitely I think is an unrealistic one. NATO has almost busted up a couple of times in the past and to some points of view, no longer serves some of its biggest member’s national interest. In many ways it is a dinosaur and has far too many members with too many conflicting interests to come together on a common coherent policy. How many member participated in the recent Libya action and how many didn’t. And of those that did participate how much did they contribute and for how long? When it falls someday as all things do in time, it might not be moaned very much?

I think the brake-up of NATO will happen before any world war III scenario will transpire