I'm going to try something hee I hope works. Vladvolkov and I have intered into a very insightful and deep topic which I thought should be shared. I am going to attempt to copy it from our PM's to get the ball rolling. It is not political and as it is predictatory doesn't violate the historical aspect.



My response was to predict that oil was going to be catalyst with China, due to industrialization which would cause oil crises to maginify, to go after Siberean OIL fields. US would open up Alaska to meet its needs, but would defend te Arabian penninsula that Europe (sans Great Britain) woud go after. I also threw in a lot of gooblety gook about China and Japan's military capabilites and intentions. enjoy

What mainly worries me is the nuclear aspect. If nuclear weapons can be avoided, then that makes WWIII a whole lot easier to handle, hopefully. I think its a good discussion topic though.

Well,

I see China indeed as the big threat. Though, frankly, I would not be surprised if China fell apart in a civil war. There are massive problems between the haves/have nots and also some interregional tensions. And China, to enable its economic expansion has to look in two areas: north (Siberia) and South (Indonesia).

And now come the X-factors:

What will India do? Not only do they have 1 billion inhabitants as well, but they also have their interests. even though India and Paksitan tensions grab all the headlines none of the countries in the area likes the other (Iran, India, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc).

American policies in the near future. Though already started under Clinton in some respects, the damage the Bush administration (and the neo-cons and their ilk) have done to American standing in the world can IMHO hardly be overestimated.
There is, IMHO, already a focus of Western Europe upon itself and not across the Atlantic. Even in the UK. Europe's attention is already focussed east on the continent, and perhaps in the not too far away future even south (Marocco ie).
The same there is growing agitation in Latin America, Asia and Africa against predominantly American economic imperialism, and the things that accompany it (to a lesser degree Western Europe as well). In fact this provides much of the recruitmentpool for extremist and terrorist groups like Al Quaeda.

The third X-factor, on a related note, is the near future of the Middle East. Not only in the muslim countries, but Israel as well. How much influence, in all countries involved, will extremists gain. And here I see Israeli behaviour (West Bank settlements, Jerusalem and the fence) as a serious problem. This is the one area where the US could provide a massive positive influence, but IMHO that runs against the intersests of those in power at the moment and the big shots in an economic sence.

I hate these sort of discussions.
It might seem ignorant but i always try to think that another mass scale war will not take place, but anyway, i dunno, my personel opinion when it comes to nukes is that i just dont think, when push comes to shove, the world leaders would really decide to use things that will destroy the rest of the world along with the enemy, i think if it came to that decission they just couldnt do it, be it common sence or just pure human spirit, i dont think they would condemn everything we know just to eliminate one people.
That being said, if the Theorys on nuclear warfare are correct, then Australia is ok anyways as the nuclear winter will only engulf the northern hemisphere :-) We have plenty of room in our red center too so your all welcome to seek refuge here

I read the first post and thought we might almost be able to an insightful discussion about possible scenarios of the next "War to End All Wars." I already read one post that offended me so I am going to bow out.

That's a shame really, because I had some really well thought out things to add the the discussion without trying to offend anyone.

Cheers everyone.

Play nice and remember this is a modeling website. If this thread goes downhill into the big us vs. them flame war I will lock it down.

Thanks,

Shaun

... hmm.. has anybody read tom clancy's Red Storm Rising? it's about Soviet (the story is during the cold war) forces at war with NATO. the book covers a theoretical air, ground and sea battles on western europe and the north atlantic .. okay, so it's not a world war per se, but it's a VERY realistic reading.

..my 2 cents.

Keenan;
With respect, IMHO the post you refer to does smack of political ranting. Your call.

Art

I like what has been discussed so far. I would submit that the opening stages have already began. The next world war will be one of gradual evolution. I think the major players that have been mentioned is right on the mark. It will be a war over resources and ideaology will play a smaller role. In regards to India and Pakistan, it'll develop as a opportunistic move on one or the other's part. I'm betting on Pakistan at the moment. Whether it goes nuclear remains to be seen. If it does, it'll be out of desperation by one the major players. Then again, I can't discount a state like N. Korea or perhaps another.

Very interesting topic indeed.

I assume it is my post which is considered the offending one.

If so, please let me clarify.

In general I am quite a cynical about the way politics works. IMHO most governments look after the interests of big business and pure power first and the welfare of theirs and other people second. In that sense I consider the US government not much different from the Dutch, Russian, Chinese, German, EU etc. Their methods may be different (I am not suggesting the US runs a system like the Chinese do in the Gobi-desert), their goals not.

I always try to differentiate between the US government and the American people. Where in some respects the behaviour of the US government might be representative for the (majority of the) American people it just as often if not more often is not. We, at the moment have the exact same problem in my own country. Our present administration has done whatever it liked (and looked pretty much after big business interests) and got punished for it big time during a poll about the new European constitution.

From the perspective of an outsider, this present American administration has done a massive amount of damage (justified and unjustified) to the way it is perceived abroad. If this continues this might seriously shift the balance if a WW III scenario would start. Countries/regions might opt to stay out of it or even join the (an) other side where they previously would have sided with the US without any hesitation. Or they might support the US only half-heartedly.

As far as the ME goes a the first (and biggest) problem in a number of countries are the oppressive regimes. Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, much of the Central-Asian former Soviet states are just a few. And many of these regimes are supported/kept alive by the West in general and the US in particular. And most of this has to directly with the availability of (cheap) oil. And this provides a ready recruitment ground for extrmist groups such as Al Queada, maoist rebels etc. etc. In fact the present regime in Iran came forth primarily from this feeding ground (poor, oppressed, social outcasts, those feeling they are 2nd class citizens, dissaffected, etc). You can see similar porcesses in the French banlieux, you can see it in the Gaza strip and West-Bank, Britain, the Netherlands, almost everywhere. I similar story goes for other areas with other natural resources (Africa, SE-Asia).
As far as Israel goes, its policies concerning the occuppied area (wether justified or not) only add fuel to (in this case) muslim extremists. Especially the settlement policy is a massive problem. And at present it runs counter to predominantly US but also Western interests in general to force Israel to stop building and expanding settlements on the West Bank and build the fence on the green-line. And as long as this continues this will only fuel muslim extremism and in fact only sustain regimes in Iran and Syria, as it enables those regimes to focus popular resentment abroad.

Looking at Latin America and Europe (in a generalizing sense), US business and US (foreign) policy is hugely unpopular among the masses. But more often then not this does not extend to individual Americans or the American people. There are a few idiots who do, but in general they do not.

I apologize if this has become too political but I am of the opinion that these politicies and changes in them cold alter the balance decisively.

Now as far as the military aspects go:

Taiwan: Will be sacrificed, noone will defend it against China. This by the way has happened before (on a smaller scale).

ME-East. If Israel would have to face a coalition, as long as Israel would seem to be able to survive it Europe would stay out. If Israel would get into serious trouble Europe would intervene on the Israeli side, either en-bloc or some of the countries on their own. This could lead to some internal unrest with elements of the immigrant population.

Russia vs China: Europe would choose to side with Russia. There is already a slow approach between them. I would look more or less after a Tom Clancy's "Bear and Dragon" scenario, without US involvement. I rather think China would collapse as I do think we believe it to be stronger then it is (see the former Soviet Union). It would be a very bloody struggle, but I believe China would not be able to win. Both due to the quality/training of the armies, scale of the territory to be conquered and logistical issues. Depending on the situation perhaps even some of the South (East) Asian states might be involved.

If China were to strike at the US then the US could well be on its own. And there (short of nukes) the US would win due to the fact that the Pacific is in between them.

Regards,

Harm

Never mind Red Storm Rising.....there was a book I read that was actually this scenereo.....

China continues to grow and grow their production of military equipment and such that the have a shortage of oil, so their plan is to invade Siberia for the oil fields.

This is after the Cold War and the Russian war machine is but a percentage of what it once was, so they ask for help from the US, and together they push back the Chinese invasion.

I know I have the book here somewhere, but the name escapes me now. I will have to have a look!!!

Viper, it is "The Bear and the Dragon" by Tom Clancy. IIRC some of the characters of Red Storm Rising are in this book as well.

The nature of this thread leads to discussions of politics. It is politicians that start the wars.....

Dutchbird, I took no offense to your post and find that many of the points are extremely valid when discussing what might lead to yet another world war.

The optimist in me believes that the nations have learned enough to never come to the point where we will face off in a conflict as large as the one we fought 65 years ago. However, one could say that the small conflicts that are raging all around the globe right now constitute a "World War" just on a small scale.

Stuke

Yep "The Bear & the Dragon" to bad it was the last in the "Ryan" series of books......


I know

Harm, I think you write off Taiwan too easily. In a period where the US has become stead-fast in defending democratic regimes, I think Taiwan would become an important ally in a war against China. That and the fact that many more commercial goods are coming from Taiwan (it may be just me but I have been seeing a lot more of "Made in Taiwan" than "Made in China" lately). Also, the fact that many in Congress and the White House are old enough to remember the Red Scare will have many rushing to help Taiwan.

As for Japan, I think that WWII is still too fresh in their minds and they will attempt to remain neutral in the sense that they will take part in no major offensives (hey, they don't call it the Japanese Self Defense Forces for nothing ) but will allow the US to base fighters/ground forces in their country. However, if the war goes nuclear, expect the Japanese to quickly dump the US presence.

On India/Pakistan: I think that if anything starts between them, it will be caused by the Pakistanis in a push for the Kashmir region. With the current "alliance" between the US and Pakistan in the War on Terror, I think Pakistan will assume that the US will side with them. However, when push comes to shove, the US will have more important things to worry about and will leave the two to "fight nicely."

On South America: I think they will remain relatively untouched if WW3 were to break out, unless the Argentinians decide to make another push for the Falklands.

On Africa: I think that in large part, WW3 may spark a large self-contained war on the continent (that is, one African country/tribe/clan fighting another without any outside forces playing a large role) where the vying groups try to control the resources of another group. However, this grab-bag affair where every player tries to snap up as much resources as possible to satisfy their own greed will not go global and the Africans will be left to clean up after themselves once the dust settles.

On Europe: I think NATO and the UN will fall apart and the European Union will choose to go into conflicts that they see fit regardless of US involvement. When the EU does choose to fight, it will most likely be with the US.

On the rest of Asia: North Korea will move on South Korea (possibly the start of the war), US will intervene on behalf of the South Koreans (once again, the Red Scare syndrome). China will become involved on behalf of the DPRK and attack US bases in South Korea and Japan. US brings in Taiwan for help in drawing away some of China's attention toward the Korean peninsula. US allies with Russia, Russia attacks China from the north. China counterattacks, pushing farther and farther into Siberia. Russian winters hit, Russians push Chinese back into China and continue to move south. US and ROK defeat DPRK and begin push into China. After that, anything could happen, especially China using the nuclear option.

Kyle

ill only add small points to this discussion, but im glad to see its remaining pretty civil.




the Argentines would have great difficulty invading the Falklands these days, there is a significant RAF presence there, and a sub is only a few days away.




Impossible. i see this sort of statement on many discussion boards. why do some people seem to think the EU wants to fight America?

you do realise that Britain is in the EU, you know Britain-arnt we supposed to be best of friends?;)

The political alliance the EU now thinks it is isnt strong enough to fight wars.

We dont like them telling us what crops to grow, let alone who to fight

regards

joe

Yes, Keenan sent me a PM to remind me of the title....have it sitting right here beside me on my night stand......

But


None of the characters from Red Storm Rising are in The Bear and the Dragon, TBatD, is a continuation of the Jack Ryanverse. Red Storm Rising was a completly different story and has no connection to the Jack Ryan set of novels.

And yes I would have to agree, its sad that, that one will be the last of the Jack Ryan series!!!!

I have greatly enjoyed reading the opinons of you guys. I've gotten a couple of PM'son the subject as well. Glad no one has crossed the line and gotten this thread locked down and erased. I studied Flashpoints many many years ago when I was in Army Intel. MOst of those we predicted have not gone off, and are still considered flashpoints Taiwan, Middle East, All the little countries that have popped up btwn Greece and Austria (Balkens?) I have to agree that the US has muddied the waters a lot in the past few years, but I don't see a war against the EU. Germany and France unitiing against but Don't think they would receive a lot of support from anybody else and Great Britain would probably break off and support US. To me the greatest flashpoints are Korea and the MIddle east. Isreal is continually keeping that area hot, but I undertand their mentality..when you get folks who's only goal is your annihalation for the past 40 years, it is hard not to fight back at every push and shove. The hotbed of religous activism will keep terrorism very active and I see more and more attempts of regime overthrow (like Iran) occuring. Big countries will intervene to protect oil. That is why I see US opeing up ALaska more to become less dependent. Also why I see SIberia as a risk from a future move by China. As to Korea, their government is just going to keep pushing until something happens, this will draw in the big players like US, China, and probably Russia into the mix. Taiwan I am not sure how this will play. I think if US kees a large fleet presence in the area China wo't push it. The little they have to gain from what it would cost probably won't be worth it. If the US backs off, then they might.

Joe (GreatBrit), I apologize for the confusion. Looking back at that statement it does seem like I was saying that the EU would fight the US. However, what I meant to say was that the EU countries would choose to fight with the US, not against it. The point I was trying to make was that while Great Britain has been and continues to be a strong ally with the United States, other nations that were shafted by this administration's policies, such as Germany and France, would probably make more guarded moves when it comes to helping the US. I know I would.
Kyle

Kyle- no worries mate

Interesting talk so far !

About a possible opposition between EU and US, I find it rather unlickely. Both sides often oppose on economical matters, and sometimes on strategy, but when it comes to survival (and a world war is a surviaval matter) they are usualy close-knit !

(thats my opinion rated at 78% probability on a Russian military expert site).... well in my humble opinion they havn't got an awfull lot right up till now,so i will reserve judgement on world war 111.
Arthur