The Threat in 30 Years Time

[riksavage]

The following article was posted in the UK Guardian highlighting a study by the UK MOD in future trends, threats and concerns relating to conventional and asymmetric warfare in 30 years time. Link below

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2053020,00.html

Should all or part of the predictions become reality the future composition of a country’s armed forces will have to adapt? For one internal security will require a substantial boost to meet the growing threat posed by the radicalization of minorities motivated and supplied by external terrorist organizations. At the same time the rise of China / India, coupled with the increasing demand for dwindling resources will ultimately lead to a major confrontation some where on the planet

The current division in military organization tends to be clearly defined - land, sea and air arms fighting for there own share of the financial pie to meet future challenges. I would be interested to hear the views of others as to whether we will see a change in the set-up and organization of militaries around the globe to meet both conventional and asymmetric threats?

 

[KGB]

I'm interested in the "brain chip: bit. Currently, even the most advanced brain-machine connections that we have (unless it's some classified secret) is pretty rudimentary. They featured on CNN a robotic prosthetic arm that was "controlled directly by the brain" but as the report went on, they were apparently exaggerating. The robotic arm wasn't spliced directly to the brain nor even the peripheral nerve. They were able to splice the nerve endings onto chest muscles which then acted as the signal transducers, no mean feat, but not quite there yet.

AFAIK, the best bet for having brain chips for control or info sharing, would utilize the optic or auditory nerves. Everything you see and hear is transduced into nerve impulses which travel down the nerve before entering the brain, where the wiring gets complex. IF they manage to find a way to tap into these nerves, then interesting things can occur. As to dire
ctly stimulating the brain, its more of science fiction IMHO.

Also, assuming the technology exists, it would entail major surgery to get access these nerves.

Also, assuming that the chips got made, they'd need to transmit and recieve, so they have a potential to be tracked or traced.

Couldn't a "flashmob" be achieved with existing wireless networks?

 

[Sgt.Banes]

The following article was posted in the UK Guardian highlighting a study by the UK MOD in future trends, threats and concerns relating to conventional and asymmetric warfare in 30 years time. Link below

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2053020,00.html

Should all or part of the predictions become reality the future composition of a country’s armed forces will have to adapt? For one internal security will require a substantial boost to meet the growing threat posed by the radicalization of minorities motivated and supplied by external terrorist organizations. At the same time the rise of China / India, coupled with the increasing demand for dwindling resources will ultimately lead to a major confrontation some where on the planet

The current division in military organization tends to be clearly defined - land, sea and air arms fighting for there own share of the financial pie to meet future challenges. I would be interested to hear the views of others as to whether we will see a change in the set-up and organization of militaries around the globe to meet both conventional and asymmetric threats?

I see this theory as more and more realistic with each year. The world will indeed become involved in some sort of conflict, whether it is land or natural resources.

India will either go to war with China or Pakistan, Iran may incorporate Iraq and form a larger Iran with added resources and is able to strike either the Saudis or Israel. Russia is still at war with Chechnya, and doesn't look like it will end anytime soon. Israel will go to war again with either Hezbollah or some Palestinian organization if not Syria.

Africa will for the most part still be at war with itself, at the same time you could see the rise of more Peacekeeping operations in the region though that doesn't mean that their military operations. They more than likely will be engaging enemies.

This is just my perspective on this theory.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

There are some multimedia examples of future chaos in the world for instance Ghost in the Shell, Battlefield 2 and 2142.

 

[LancerMc]

I personally believe the largest threat in 30 years is an open war between Pakistan/China and India. A Nuclear conflict between these three nations would most likely plunge the entire world in to another Great Depression. A Nuclear exchange would also expose a significant portion of the world's population to nuclear fallout. A humanitarian crisis of biblical size would affect the entire region.

While Russian & Chechnya are still fighting their conflict, I don't believe an escalation of the conflict would turn into a major security concerns for nations not in the region.

 

[alexycyap]

I doubt there will be a major war between China and India. At most there may be some border skirmishes in the mountains, but massive nuclear deterrence on both sides will ensure that things do not go out of hand. Neither China or India will want to wreck their country over some mountain range. Furthermore, China's main strategic concern for the foreseeable future is in its east : N.Korea, South China Sea and Taiwan.

A major war between India and Pakistan is still possible until Pakistan's nuclear arsenal increases to a sufficient level.

India, China and Pakistan are still governed by sane people with too much to lose. I think the most danger spot is North Korea.

Alex

 

[Mouse]

Actually the world may not evolve as we think.

India may become a threat because it do not regulate its population, and its population may soon exceeded China. I do recall India annex Sikkim in 200X.

China may have a war since it have serious internal problems, and Taiwan independence movement is surely a lead to the war.

Both countries have a population of strong nationalists. So let's just hope that they never get their hold of the government.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

I personally believe the largest threat in 30 years is an open war between Pakistan/China and India. A Nuclear conflict between these three nations would most likely plunge the entire world in to another Great Depression. A Nuclear exchange would also expose a significant portion of the world's population to nuclear fallout. A humanitarian crisis of biblical size would affect the entire region.

While Russian & Chechnya are still fighting their conflict, I don't believe an escalation of the conflict would turn into a major security concerns for nations not in the region.

Well the Russian conflict with Chechnya could endanger Georgia for the most part. But that's only if Georgia supports the Russian Federation, that's the only way for there to be any insurgency in Central Asia.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

I doubt there will be a major war between China and India. At most there may be some border skirmishes in the mountains, but massive nuclear deterrence on both sides will ensure that things do not go out of hand. Neither China or India will want to wreck their country over some mountain range. Furthermore, China's main strategic concern for the foreseeable future is in its east : N.Korea, South China Sea and Taiwan.

A major war between India and Pakistan is still possible until Pakistan's nuclear arsenal increases to a sufficient level.

India, China and Pakistan are still governed by sane people with too much to lose. I think the most danger spot is North Korea.

Alex

I agree on a small part that there will more than likely be an attack on the border between these nations. But I doubt it would simply be nuclear unless absolutely needed. But a war between Pakistan and India will honestly be in my opinion a conventional war, since a nuclear war would ultimately destroy the entire region for years to come.

 

[Rich]

I agree on a small part that there will more than likely be an attack on the border between these nations. But I doubt it would simply be nuclear unless absolutely needed. But a war between Pakistan and India will honestly be in my opinion a conventional war, since a nuclear war would ultimately destroy the entire region for years to come.

In my opinion its only a matter of time before nukes are used again. Hopefully it will stop short of catastrophic but even that's not for certain. I have several points I'd like to make about Iran. First off they are a nation that doesn't have another, stronger, nation exerting pressure on them like the North Korean situation. With NK China has some influence because NK is dependant on China for its energy needs. Not just that but China/NK have a historic relationship, as well as NK being in the Chinese sphere. So naturally China has some moderating influence.

Iran has nobody it answers to or is behold-ant to. They have vast oil reserves which means they have undue influence on others, instead of the other way around. The Russians have some pull with them because they are their main weapons suppliers. But dont forget that the Russians are the main benefactors of continued instability in the region because it drives up energy prices, which helps the Russians immensely. In other words peace and prosperity in the region doesn't necessarily help the Russians.

I think the cat is out the bag and the Iranians are going to develop and test nukes. Once they do I think others in the region will too, most probably The Saudis. Once Iran can arm enough sophisticated IRBMs with nukes then a nuclear war in the region is almost a given.

Add to that China is modernizing its arsenal and will be introducing good solid fueled, mobile, IRBMs, SLBMs, and ICBMs. This will have a ripple effect of India modernizing and bringing their deterrent up to the Chinese readiness spec, which will ripple thru Pakistan causing same. Eventually all these countries will have legitimate submarine arms of their nuclear triad, either with cruise missiles or SLBMs...ect

Anyway you get the picture. The more countries, with more weapons, on a higher state of readiness, and possibly some with religious lunatics running them..?? I dont see to many reasons to be optimistic about the future and nuclear weapons. Add terrorism to the mix and I see the chances of them being used again increasing by a factor of X.

Its more a question of when and where then it is "if".

 

[Waylander]

Well said.

I also don't want to think about a bunch of new nuclear club members and the existing ones expanding their arsenals.

 

[Manfred]

I hope I am wrong, but I see the ultimate development of this kind of warfare is assasination.

I was thinking that this was how the war on terror would go; a war in the shadows, the methodical elimination of the leadership of Al Queada.

However, retaliation in kind is the rule in warfare, and Western leaders can't seem to function without going out to kiss the babies. That, and the fact that competant spys and trusty ommandoes are only common in Hollywood.:smoker

 

[gf0012-aust]

I hope I am wrong, but I see the ultimate development of this kind of warfare is assasination.

assassination is actually tantamount to a declaration of war.

thats why most countries - including the soviets and the americans during the halcyon days of the cold war had an agreement to not target heads of state.

in the case of Al Quaeda it opens up another wound on the articles of war - as they are not a nation state and thus are not privy to the interpretation of that agreement.

in a sense, it becomes a variation of asymetrical warfare open to employment.

after all, specwarries practice snatches for other things....

 

[Manfred]

Its also a slippery slope. What happens if assasination becomes common? World leadership devolves to syndicates, or to the most incompetant and power-hungry fools available, as is the case in Africa.

With Terrorist organizations, there always seems to be another psycopath ready to step up and have his 15 minutes. Something else is needed... I will try to have something ready by tomorow

 

[riksavage]

Should the terrorist threat continue to evolve with ever more devastating attacks being directed against Western powers grander in scale than 9/11, 7/7 and Madrid, the touchy-feely brigade will be finally shouted-down by the silent majority demanding revenge. This will result in more nations taking it out on countries that fund terrorism and supply the tools of the trade. For this reason I strongly believe it’s only a matter of time before Iran gets whacked and we start to see mission creep across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the same way we witnessed bombing campaigns in Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

Western democracy's are surprisingly resilient under pressure and have proved they can and will eventually step-up to the plate (WWI, WWII, Korea) and strike back hard. We just have not reached tipping point yet where terrorist activity has impacted upon the majority of law abiding citizens in the developed world.

 

[Chrom]

Should the terrorist threat continue to evolve with ever more devastating attacks being directed against Western powers grander in scale than 9/11, 7/7 and Madrid, the touchy-feely brigade will be finally shouted-down by the silent majority demanding revenge. This will result in more nations taking it out on countries that fund terrorism and supply the tools of the trade. For this reason I strongly believe it’s only a matter of time before Iran gets whacked and we start to see mission creep across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the same way we witnessed bombing campaigns in Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War.
.

IF Iran aquire A-Bomb, i cant see USA bombing it. IF "the terrorist threat continue to evolve " as you suggest, i foresee a pact between all major nations (West, East, Arabic, Inidia, China, etc) to stop funding terrorism. Remember, right now West support terrorist organisations what operate against Iran, Russia, and even China to much large scale (at least more money) then otherwise. West just dont call them "terrorists" - but really, they are the same peoples. Remember who is Bin-Laden? As such, world could become actually safer place than now.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

"I don't know with what World War III will be fought with but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

- Albert Einstein

 

[Sgt.Banes]

In my opinion its only a matter of time before nukes are used again. Hopefully it will stop short of catastrophic but even that's not for certain. I have several points I'd like to make about Iran. First off they are a nation that doesn't have another, stronger, nation exerting pressure on them like the North Korean situation. With NK China has some influence because NK is dependant on China for its energy needs. Not just that but China/NK have a historic relationship, as well as NK being in the Chinese sphere. So naturally China has some moderating influence.

Iran has nobody it answers to or is behold-ant to. They have vast oil reserves which means they have undue influence on others, instead of the other way around. The Russians have some pull with them because they are their main weapons suppliers. But dont forget that the Russians are the main benefactors of continued instability in the region because it drives up energy prices, which helps the Russians immensely. In other words peace and prosperity in the region doesn't necessarily help the Russians.

I think the cat is out the bag and the Iranians are going to develop and test nukes. Once they do I think others in the region will too, most probably The Saudis. Once Iran can arm enough sophisticated IRBMs with nukes then a nuclear war in the region is almost a given.

Add to that China is modernizing its arsenal and will be introducing good solid fueled, mobile, IRBMs, SLBMs, and ICBMs. This will have a ripple effect of India modernizing and bringing their deterrent up to the Chinese readiness spec, which will ripple thru Pakistan causing same. Eventually all these countries will have legitimate submarine arms of their nuclear triad, either with cruise missiles or SLBMs...ect

Anyway you get the picture. The more countries, with more weapons, on a higher state of readiness, and possibly some with religious lunatics running them..?? I dont see to many reasons to be optimistic about the future and nuclear weapons. Add terrorism to the mix and I see the chances of them being used again increasing by a factor of X.

Its more a question of when and where then it is "if".

China may become an aggressor in the coming years, but as of now it has a lot to lose. If they attack Taiwan or any other Pacific nation they will lose international finances from western companies.

"Russian politics may have changed, but the lies remain the same." I believe that Russia may have changed its old Soviet doctrine from the cold war, but now they seem to be hell bent on supplying rogue regimes, or questionable governments in an effort to create proxy wars with the west (U.S. in particular). Since they know that a head on conflict with the United States is mutual suicide, they either want to keep our military involved with Arab or middle eastern conflict. Or instill China to cause a proxy conflict with the U.S.

Iran will obviously obtain the bomb since the west will not act now to get rid of the needed facilities to produce a bomb. They want this not to use on the U.S. or west, but obviously Israel and the Arab nations. If it can not obtain that Arab oil then if will destroy the facilities needed to refine and ship or contaminate it.

 

[Manfred]

One of the best responses to an insurgency was how the Phillipeans defeated the Huks, way back about 50 years ago. It was a three-part program, that involved applying policy and propaganda to, in the following order;
1) Your Army
2) the People
3) the Enemy

They started with thier own soldiers, making certain that morale was good and the men knew what they were fighting for. Sounds simple, but this is the very first thing that must be done.

Then you go to the people, and make them a pro-active part of the effort, and insure that they reap the benifits of your policy.
I remember a story about one man who went to the authorities to complain about three geurillars that had forced him to give them shelter. An official told him to give them some Cokes, and gave the civilian some poison to put in the soda. A few hours later, this smiling farmer came back with three heads and three guns, and was immediatly given a generous bounty.

The enemy is your last target. A terorist is basicaly an armed bum that "fights" one or two days a month, and spends the rest of his time in hiding, living off what he can extort from the people he is suppossed to be "liberating".
An amnesty policy might seem foolish, but consider this; if you set this man up with a home and a job, even humble ones, you will expose him to a life of safety and stability... and he will probably get a taste for it. Only the most worthless and psycotic would prefer a life on the run, but this only works if the society you are building can provide these things.


The problem in Iraq is that Al-Quada is a social club for psycopaths. We are dealing with a foriegn army of terrorists that are looking forward to a cultist's death. I am at a loss with this bunch, unless we can attack thier bases in Iran and elsewhere.

 

[steve33]

Should the terrorist threat continue to evolve with ever more devastating attacks being directed against Western powers grander in scale than 9/11, 7/7 and Madrid, the touchy-feely brigade will be finally shouted-down by the silent majority demanding revenge. This will result in more nations taking it out on countries that fund terrorism and supply the tools of the trade. For this reason I strongly believe it’s only a matter of time before Iran gets whacked and we start to see mission creep across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the same way we witnessed bombing campaigns in Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

Western democracy's are surprisingly resilient under pressure and have proved they can and will eventually step-up to the plate (WWI, WWII, Korea) and strike back hard. We just have not reached tipping point yet where terrorist activity has impacted upon the majority of law abiding citizens in the developed world.

Your so right,people in western countries still look at the problem with terrorism as Americas fight and think that if we keep our heads down they will leave us alone they don,t realize that the Al Qaeda movement hates all western countries everything about us makes them sick.